The Five Gas Stations theory of the world

[Wavelength]

I believe in the five gas stations theory of the world.

That's right: I believe you can reduce the world's economies today
to basically five different gas stations.

First there is the Japanese gas station.
Gas is $5 a gallon. Four men in uniforms and white
gloves, with lifetime employment contracts, wait on you. They pump
your gas. They change your oil. They wash your windows, and they
wave at you with a friendly smile as you drive away in
peace.

Second is the American gas station.
Gas costs only $1 a gallon, but you pump it yourself. You wash your
own windows. You fill your own tires. And when you drive around
the corner four homeless people try to steal your hubcaps.

Third is the Western European gas station.
Gas there also costs $5 a gallon.
There is only one man on duty. He grudgingly pumps your
gas and unsmilingly changes your oil, reminding you all the time
that his union contract says he only has to pump gas and change
oil. He doesn't do windows. He Works only thirty-five hours a week,
with ninety minutes off each day for lunch, during which time the
gas station is closed. He also has six weeks' vacation every
summer in the south of France. Across the street, his two brothers
and uncle, who have not worked in ten years because their state
unemployment insurance pays more than their last job, are playing
boccie ball.

Fourth is the developing-country gas station.
Fifteen people work there and they are all cousins. When you drive
in, no one pays any attention to you because they are all too busy
talking to each other. Gas is only 35 cents a gallon because it is
subsidized by the government, but only one of the six gas pumps
actually works. The others are broken and they are waiting for the
replacement parts to be flown in from Europe. The gas station is
rather run-down because the absentee owner lives in Zurich and
takes all the profits out of the country. The owner doesn't know that
half his employees actually sleep in the repair shop at night and
use the car wash equipment to shower.
Most of the customers at the developing-country gas station either
drive the latest-model Mercedes or a motor scooter nothing in
between. This place is alway busy, though because so many
people stop in to use the air pump to fill their bicycle tires.

Lastly there is the communist gas station.
Gas there is only 50 cents a gallon
-but there is none, because the four guys working there have
sold it all on the black market for $5 a gallon. Just one of the four
guys who is employed at the communist gas station is actually
there. The other three are working at second jobs in the
underground economy and come once a week to collect their
paychecks.

The rest of the chapter (Revolution is U.S.) is here: http://people.brandeis.edu/~cerbil/lexusgas.html

I recently stumbled upon this excerpt from Thomas Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Tree, and it reminded me of exactly why I love the book. Very interesting way to present a snapshot of the world's economies in plain-speaking terms. I guess it's slightly outdated (the book was written eight years ago and a lot has changed since), but I wanted to share this and find out what you guys think.

[Wavelength]

I'm bumping my topic this one time. I was hoping we could get a fun, interesting conversation going.

What kind of society would you like to live in? How do you think we should improve a situation like the Communist or Third World "gas stations"? Or do you even agree with his assessment at all?

If there's still no interest, I won't bump it again. :(

[Shard]

I'll bite.

The excerpt you posted doesn't do a great job of showing how the five types of gas stations are dependent on one another. I read the linked chapter and that manages to tie things a little bit better, but only insofar as it relates to the American model.

I'd agree that the unfortunate models of the Communists and Third World gas stations as presented here are only responses to the American model. Namely, if you're putting outright consumption at the cheapest prices and fastest pace as your primary goal, then somewhere in the world someone else is bearing the brunt of that consumption. I don't know that you can "fix" one model without fixing the entire system.

As you say, it's 8 years old, and it's dated by its lack of the Chinese model. The portion I read seems to be focused on "Where we're at and how we got there" rather than trying to predict where we're going or what we should attempt to change. Maybe other portions of the book delve into that deeper.

The Chinese model is ascendent, which is remarkably like the 19th century capitalist model in its pillage everything for immediate benefit mentality...but it's married to the communist philosophy of sacrifice for the sake of the state. There are numerous articles about China's rapidly degrading ecosystems, extinctions, pollution, etc. But one (http://http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_re_as/oly_beijing_water_woes) I read yesterday actually shed some light on the situation for me. An impoverished farmer was asked how he felt about all the water in his local water table being diverted into the reserves of Bejing to the south of him, forcing him to let his fields lie fallow, or grow corn instead of the traditional rice. He said it was hard, of course, but it was all for the betterment of China, and went on to exclaim how happy he was that the Olympics were coming and that China HAD to win. This is the heart of the modern Chinese state, and why it's projected by 2030 China will emerge as a super power.

To bring this back around to globalization...the author, again from the brief excerpt I read, characterizes globalization and Americanization as being two sides of the same coin. Historically, I wouldn't argue against that case. But just because there's an American face on one side of that coin today, doesn't mean there won't be a Chinese face on it tomorrow.

[Wavelength]

I'll bite.

The excerpt you posted doesn't do a great job of showing how the five types of gas stations are dependent on one another. I read the linked chapter and that manages to tie things a little bit better, but only insofar as it relates to the American model.

I'd agree that the unfortunate models of the Communists and Third World gas stations as presented here are only responses to the American model. Namely, if you're putting outright consumption at the cheapest prices and fastest pace as your primary goal, then somewhere in the world someone else is bearing the brunt of that consumption. I don't know that you can "fix" one model without fixing the entire system.

As you say, it's 8 years old, and it's dated by its lack of the Chinese model. The portion I read seems to be focused on "Where we're at and how we got there" rather than trying to predict where we're going or what we should attempt to change. Maybe other portions of the book delve into that deeper.

The Chinese model is ascendent, which is remarkably like the 19th century capitalist model in its pillage everything for immediate benefit mentality...but it's married to the communist philosophy of sacrifice for the sake of the state. There are numerous articles about China's rapidly degrading ecosystems, extinctions, pollution, etc. But one (http://http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_re_as/oly_beijing_water_woes) I read yesterday actually shed some light on the situation for me. An impoverished farmer was asked how he felt about all the water in his local water table being diverted into the reserves of Bejing to the south of him, forcing him to let his fields lie fallow, or grow corn instead of the traditional rice. He said it was hard, of course, but it was all for the betterment of China, and went on to exclaim how happy he was that the Olympics were coming and that China HAD to win. This is the heart of the modern Chinese state, and why it's projected by 2030 China will emerge as a super power.

To bring this back around to globalization...the author, again from the brief excerpt I read, characterizes globalization and Americanization as being two sides of the same coin. Historically, I wouldn't argue against that case. But just because there's an American face on one side of that coin today, doesn't mean there won't be a Chinese face on it tomorrow.

Well, you definitely bring up some good points. Friedman was very high on the US back when he wrote Lexus, and thought its systems were the best way forward into the age of Globalization. (He does talk a lot more about global financial and labor markets, the power of consumers, the clash between culture and globalization, the social safety nets that need to be set up in developing economies, and the way forward--it's not just how we got here.) His latest book, The World Is Flat, talked a lot more about India and China, and the benefits and challenges they will present for the world.

His tone in that book regarding the US is a lot less starry-eyed, and warns that if we don't focus on education, technology, and cooperation, we are going to lose our cushy standard of life. He also seems to like China a lot, calling their government (and I'm simplifying his words a lot) an efficient bureacracy and their people hardworking.

Now, I don't know as much about China as I'd like to, so everything I'm about to say is based more on opinion than any actual know-how, but from everything I've ever seen or read about it, it's a "Mad Max" scenario, as Terr might say. People are destroying the natural environment, and sometimes taking advantage of other people, in order to get ahead economically. "To get rich is glorious," they say. And family and friends (and yes, the good of their nation, too) are very important to Chinese people in general, but the economic environment means that people have to work like dogs and live in the consumer culture. As a reward, a lot of people are joining the middle class, but it comes at some dire costs. There are pros and cons to it.

Like you said, it's the same thing the US and parts of the Western World went through in the early 1900s, and to some extent Japan in the 1960s. And the world can't handle 2.5 billion people (China, India, and other SE Asian developing countries) going through that at the same time. But America is going to need to take some technological and legal leadership, "teach by example" so to speak, rather than just pointing at China and complaining that "they pollute even more than we do."

I think if China were a gas station, gas would be 75 cents a gallon--except for those who have "connections" and could get it for 25 cents. Ninety people would be working there each afternoon, all working for 25 cents an hour, installing more gas pumps to meet the insatiable demand. They hope they don't get injured on the job, because they have no worker's compensation and they need to be healthy for their night job. Sometimes the gasoline lines burst, making the surrounding area a wasteland--but they're never fixed because it's cheaper to just build a new line. Middle class consumers arrive in their $3,000 cars, which are beat up by the country's rickety roads, before pulling out and dropping their children off at a fine school.

Hehe, I guess I got a bit carried away. Anyhow, pretty much everything you said, Shard, is a really good point, and the article was particularly interesting (There's an extra HTTP in the link that you need to take out to get it to work correctly). If you can find the video "China Rising," I think that would present some views that would complement that farmer's opinion. India has its own problems, but on a macro scale I think it's worth considering in the same basket as China. Thanks for posting, and I hope we get to see many more intelligent viewpoints in this thread.