In his article ”US consumerism is good for Africa” (January 17), Charles Krakoff ludicrously asserts that in the United States waste goes into the trash can because ”there is no one to give it to. Just about everyone in the US has enough to eat and no one wants to wear hand-me-downs.”
Really?
America’s Second Harvest, the nation’s largest organisation of emergency food providers, serves an estimated 23,3-million different people yearly and about seven million different people receive assistance in any given week. Yes, Charles, in your country, seven million people a week have to go to food shelters. By the way, your federal government only funds about 6% of food for pantries, 5% of kitchens and 1% of shelters. The rest are provided by faith-based agencies or non-profit organisations. If these did not exist, I am sure the workings of the market and ”US consumerism” would look after them. Or perhaps not.
In this wonderful land, where ”no one wants to wear hand-me-downs”, 35-million poor persons (including 14-million children) eke out an existence. That’s about 13% of your population. Yes, sure, better than in Africa. But then Africans do not write embarrassing articles for newspapers crowing about how great the continent is, where no one goes hungry and the streets are paved with gold. The fact that the poverty rate for African-Americans is more than 26% and ”only” 25,6% of Hispanics are below the poverty line, compared to the 8,2% of whites, needs no further comment.
Krakoff writes that ”many if not most Americans recycle their waste”. Again, that is not true. The US generates more waste year by year, growing from 247-million tons of non-hazardous waste in 1990, to 409-million tons in 2001. This is according to Biocycle magazine, an industry publication. Although 32% of municipal waste is reported to be recycled (so clearly, ”most Americans” do not recycle their waste), this is not the end of the story.
Firstly, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that municipal waste was only 2% of all waste generated, and secondly, the total amount of waste generated, recycled or disposed of is not actually known in full because the EPA has never collected or bothered to confirm that data, which is actually in violation of federal requirements. Anyway, industries that are the antithesis of recycling, such as mining and logging, received 15 federal tax and spending subsidies totaling $13-billion from 1992 to 1997, despite the fact that for every one job waste disposal creates, recycling creates five to 10 jobs. But then, the recycling industry in the US does not have the bribery — sorry, ”lobbying” — potential to influence politicians.
Setting aside the lamentable level of recycling in the US, Krakoff ”forgets” to mention the 43-billion kilograms of food, or more than a quarter of the 160-billion kilograms of edible food available for human consumption in the US, which is wasted by food retailers, consumers and food service establishments (according to a 1997 study by the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service). I suppose to ”an American investment and trade consultant” this immoral wastage of food in a world of hunger and poverty is mere ”market imperfection”. Or something.
Finally, Krakoff foolishly witters on about China (and tries to link China’s growth record with American consumerism). I wouldn’t have done that if I were he. Celebrating the fact that about 18% of the Chinese populations are now obese is not, I imagine, a convincing advert for the wonders of American-style consumerism. But setting that aside, let’s examine the facts.
While it is true that poverty has declined substantially in China over the past decade or so, I don’t know where Krakoff gets his figure of 4,6% below the poverty line: even his CIA’s annual fact book lists the population living below the poverty line in China at 10% — more than double what Krakoff claims! And note, he does not mention inequality. In fact, a recent report by Wang Shaoguang (Chinese University of Hong Kong), Hu Angang (Tsinghua University) and Ding Yuanzhu (Peking University) has said that China is facing a gloomy future as it deals with the world’s largest economic restructuring, lay-offs, a rising disparity between urban and rural incomes, and huge losses caused by corruption and ecological destruction.
The report points out that the Gini Coefficient in China, taking into account tax evasion, corruption and other illegal income, has now reached 0,5 (the danger level is 0,4). In fact, a national survey has concluded that about 200-million people are not happy with the status quo and of these, 32-million to 36-million people — about 8% of urban residents — are ”extremely unhappy”. Hardly an endorsement for Krakoff’s value systems.
Besides, China grew at first by reforming its agricultural sector and then by advancing a major industrialisation project with financing mainly drawn from its internal savings. China has not even liberalised its capital account and is certainly not following any wonderful Krakoff-endorsed model (although the downside of adopting certain aspects of Americana — consumerism and eradicating social safety nets — clearly warms the heart of Charles).
Krakoff’s article is useful as it demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of American-style consumerism and the so-called free market. It also confirms what Athelé Wills wrote about crass ignorance and the head-in-the-sand mentality of some Americans (” A world gone crazy”, January 10). It is a pity that your paper does not print more articles from serious and informed Americans rather than the likes of Krakoff. Otherwise, we might end up with rather skewed ideas about our cousins across the Atlantic.
Dr Ian Taylor is a lecturer in the department of political and administrative studies at the University of Botswana
Related:
US consumerism is good for Africa 17 January 2003
A world gone crazy”, 10 January 2003