> "China used as much concrete in just three years as United States in one century"
He wants you to think he's comparing the last 100 years. In reality he's comparing two different time periods because U.S. acceleration ruins the wow factor.
> "Chinese now consume more Guccis and Bulgaris and Louis Vuittons than the rest of the world combined."
He wants you to think Chinese consumers have a lot of buying power. They don't. They just happen to like those specific brands. Even Japan spends more than the U.S. on those specific brands, with half the population.
> He wants you to think he's comparing the last 100 years. In reality he's comparing two different time periods because U.S. acceleration ruins the wow factor.
That's an amazingly pedantic and petulant response to what appeared like a perfectly valid comparison. The US economy became the world's largest one some time in the 1920's, which means at least 70 of the 100 years in the 20th century was when the US was the world's largest economy and growing. What's wrong in comparing that to just 3 years of China's growth, a country which is still a smaller economy than the US mind you? That's still wow factor enough for a lot of people, especially non-Americans I guess.
> He wants you to think Chinese consumers have a lot of buying power. They don't. They just happen to like those specific brands.
I'm surprised you think China isn't a major luxury market. Across product categories from handbags to watches to cars, China is absolutely the #1 focus market for most brands. In fact measured by nationality, the Chinese are the world's largest luxury consumers and also the fastest growing. [1]
It's not pedantic or petulant. The infographic is misleading, though not dramatically so.
It looks suspicious to compare the US until the year 2000 and China only starting in 2011. There's a gap of a decade. If you assume that US use is likely increasing (a decent assumption), then the statistic could be misleading.
It turns out that the US has used about a gigaton in just the last decade. That's a bit more than twice as fast as its average during the 20th century.
During the past 3 years, China used cement about 29 times faster than the US. If you aren't careful, you might think the infographic suggests that number is 48x.
China has a lot of people and a lot of catching up to do. Even the misleading number isn't that surprising to me. It turns out concrete lasts a while, and US usage has been spread over a century. In the long run, the integral matters more than today's derivative.
>> He wants you to think he's comparing the last 100 years. In reality he's comparing two different time periods because U.S. acceleration ruins the wow factor.
> That's an amazingly pedantic and petulant response to what appeared like a perfectly valid comparison. The US economy became the world's largest one some time in the 1920's, which means at least 70 of the 100 years in the 20th century was when the US was the world's largest economy and growing
According to [1], in 1900 the US had a population of ~76M, China ~496M. And according to [2] the US reached 200M in 1967, 300 2006. In In 2012 China is estimated to have a population of ~1351M, the US: ~318M in 2014.
So lets say the numbers are for 200M people * 100 ~ 20000 "M person years" for the US, and 1300M * 3 ~ 3900 "M person years" for China. So that's 6.6/3.9 "megatons/M person-years" ~ 1.7 for China and 4.5/20 "megatons/M person-years" ~ 0.225 for the US. Now I'm not sure how the original article uses the sources[3], but being conservative, it lists production numbers for US cement in 1997 and 2001 as 75 mega ton and 85 mt respectively. Now, if we take 80 * 3 * 33 we get 7.4 gt, rather more than the 4.5 gt number -- so it would appear most of the US cement was produced in later years, and so multiplying by 100 years might not be correct (and 200 M might be too low wrt population).
All in all, I'd say they're interesting numbers, but rather meaningless without more data.
The Chinese luxury market is insane and has been popping for the past ~10 years. It's not just LV (and child companies) but across the board, with Richemont and others doing quite well. LV just happens to be very good at a) encouraging mobility in its staff so that the "experience" is consistent b) grabbing a great spot of real estate and building monstrous stores in which you could fit an Apple store or ten and c) selling product that advertises the financial status of its owner.
I'm sure you could run a similar metric with Rolex or other "conspicuous consumption" brands.
And no, it's not the poor kids sewing Nikes who are buying the top kit. The average purchasing power is very low.
Another market that's exploded in the Far East is scotch whisky. Scottish producers are struggling to keep up with demand in markets like China, Japan and Taiwan.
If you look at the link syncerr posted elsewhere in the thread* it's still pretty much just as mindboggling, because for 2011, 2012, and the 2013 estimated value, China used 29.6 times as much cement as the US did in those three years. That's about 90 years of US worth even using current consumption, so the wow factor isn't ruined for me.
As an unrelated point, considering what things were like in most of the US in 1900, it's rather startling that the overall usage in that century in the US still seems to line up pretty closely with the current US's pace. There must've been several years of much-higher-than-current consumption (probably even than the peak in 2005, I'd guess). Would be very interesting to see a 100-year breakdown for the US.
>> "Chinese now consume more Guccis and Bulgaris and Louis Vuittons than the rest of the world combined."
> He wants you to think Chinese consumers have a lot of buying power. They don't. They just happen to like those specific brands. Even Japan spends more than the U.S. on those specific brands, with half the population.
I read somewhere (now forgotten where) that the U.S. is notoriously disinterested in premium/luxury brands.
That is why Apple charges ~170 USD more for the base iPad Air in Denmark than it does in the US (3699 DKR ~= 671 USD; 499 USD in US); some places, people are simply willing to pay more for a premium/luxury product. Same goes for the debate over Adobe product pricing in Australia (it was cheaper to fly to the US, buy Photoshop and fly back, than it was buying it locally).
While I have no idea about how China works in this regard, the US is clearly the outsider when it comes to comparing luxury goods consumption.
Does the 3699DKR price include Denmark's 25% VAT? Prices in the USA are quoted before sales tax. In Europe, advertised consumer prices generally include VAT.
Also, I think you meant 'uninterested' (not interested) rather than 'disinterested' (free of bias).
There is also a passage about the difference in weight of aluminum cans saving the equivalent of aluminum used in 3400 Boeing 747s, but when we hear this I think we instinctively think of the total weight of 3400 jets rather than just the aluminum in those jets. I thought that was pretty deceptive.
So... you're saying that the effective reduction in jet-equivalent weight means that you're no longer swayed by the argument?
Given that the maximum, fully loaded take-off weight of a 747 is 400 tonnes and the aluminium makes up 200 tonnes of that, this means that even with the worst revised numbers, you're still 'saving' 1700 jets.
Are you saying that the magical number from which your opinion on the subject changes is somewhere between 1700 and 3400? Because if not, you really haven't got much call to classify it as 'pretty deceptive'.
It's not an on/off switch. Still, he's fudging numbers and images to bolster his point when, by your very point, he has no real need to. It's distasteful.
I don't think that's misleading, because I don't know many people who instinctively, as you say, have any idea what the true total weight of 3400 jets is, or of anything else that uses massive amounts of aluminum. I think the illustration is used precisely because we have so little experience with such large values.
I think I agree it's not misleading, just not informative nor helpful. A bit like saying that my car weights as much as 10 average elephants' bones combined. Is it a lot or not so much ? who knows.
Well, maybe. But when you picture in your mind's eye the weight of a soft drink can, do you do it as an empty can or as a full one? I generally think of cans as full, not as empty.
It's just a qualitative comparison dressed up as a quantitative one. I don't think it's all that misleading - it's just "Wow! That's a lot of aluminium!"
When we imagine the 747 in our minds, I suspect that most of us picture it fully loaded with the engines, electronics, hydraulics, seats, etc since that is what we have experience being inside and "feeling" the weight as it accelerates and decelerates.
I'm not sure what fraction of the total weight the aluminum accounts for, but the phrasing I believe is intentionally misleading.
But since the topic of the post was aluminium usage, I think the 3400 planes number is exactly spot-on. Nobody cares how much a complete Boeing weights, because that's not the topic.
also, weight per can in 2010 (12g) is displayed higher then the weight per can in 1980 (19g)? but at this point I don't even think I can trust the can weights... is that really from Bill Gates? Very deceiving article...
They are pictured on a set of scales. A heavy can will depress the scales more and be lower.
People seem to be trying to go out of their way to read deception into Gates' article. Can't we accept it as slightly fuzzy figures, just like all real world figures are?
The car I drive to work is made of around 2,600 pounds of steel, 800 pounds of plastic, and 400 pounds of light metal alloys. The trip from my house to the office is roughly four miles long, all surface streets, which means I travel over some 15,000 tons of concrete each morning.
The 4 mile trip in the article would be about 12 minutes by bicycle (once you get fit). It would be less than an hour simply walking briskly.
It's difficult to understand why people drive such tiny distances. I ride close to 20 miles each way to work and it's still much faster than driving and slightly faster than the train. I also get less sweaty than people using the trains due to sensible clothing. It also means I don't need to use the gym and can eat what I want (I burn about 3500 kcal/day)
An hour's walk each way = 2 hours out of your day commuting. For a workaholic billionaire with a prediliction for charity, that's quite a waste of time.
Similarly with riding, it's not just the ride. A car is easy if you've got a parking spot at both ends. Hop in, hop out. Commuting by biking (usually) requires you to change clothing, which really should be included in your commute time.
And some people just enjoy driving, like some people enjoy walking or riding. I haven't met the person who likes being crammed into a sweaty train-crowd yet, though :)
4 miles is 12 minutes if you can sustain 20 mph door-to-door. If Bill's commute brings him into contact with traffic lights or urban traffic, he won't be able to do that.
I commute about five miles by bike in London, and it takes me about 25 minutes. There are maybe 5 minutes of full-speed travel in that time, and about 20 of filtering and waiting.
> It's difficult to understand why people drive such tiny distances.
I agree with a general point about benefits of non-carbon-producing transportation.
I don't want to judge any particular person, however; I simply don't know and it's not my business. Maybe Gates has a lot to carry; maybe he has bad knees; maybe his personal security is an issue; maybe he has allergies this season. Maybe he's simply uncoordinated. Also (and I doubt this applies to Gates), I've lived in places where cars are too dangerous to bicyclers to ride regularly, either because of the drivers, the rules, the lack of bike lanes, etc.
Bill Gates is 58 years old. "Once you get fit" takes on a whole new meaning once you pass 40 -- it gets a lot harder and you run into musculoskeletal and joint problems that seldom affect folks who haven't hit middle age yet.
Cycling's probably not a big deal if the area you live is flat as a pancake, like the Netherlands, but Seattle is anything but flat.
(I speak from 49 years of life experience. Exercise means swimming for me: getting myself run over or requiring titanium knees are not on my to-do list for the next decade.)
That's true in some places, but Seattle weather is very good for biking. It's pretty similar weather to Copenhagen and Amsterdam, where everyone bikes. Two "plus" factors that the three cities share are: it rarely gets particularly hot or cold, and the rain mostly comes in the form of drizzle rather than cataclysmic thunderstorms.
If he's in say, Redmond or Issaquah (especially the latter), where some of the MS campuses are, biking every day all year becomes less viable. There's no way I would ever bike to work in Issaquah even if it was a reasonable distance, because you spend too much of the year getting pounded by rain/snow in cold temperatures, or subject to high winds.
I do agree about Seattle proper, though.
EDIT: For reference, Gates' home is in Medina, WA, near Redmond. It appears to lie pretty close to Lake Washington, so the weather is PROBABLY relatively similar to Seattle, but it might be more unpredictable since it lies further inland...
My personal anecdote will disagree with this:
I bike 6x2 miles to work and back every day whether it is +25C or -25C (snow, rain etc.). Median value is probably +10C.
I really really loathe the days when I have to take the car.
Also I am over 40 and only started biking when I was over 35 and quit smoking. I just figured, this was easier than joining a gym. Traffic in my city is not bike friendly either.
On the other hand I do not see myself running this distance daily, that would kill my knees so quick.
Do you perhaps live somewhere fairly arid? Even so, I think it's still all about location.
25C is regarded as very pleasant weather here in the southeast US - a nice early spring or late autumn day. :) Humidity is generally in the 80%-90% range when the weather is warm, and from mid spring to mid fall the temperature is generally ranges from 30-35C and sometimes gets up to even 40C.
In that kind of weather even a brisk walk will leave you drenched in sweat and you wear out very quickly because your body can't cool down, since evaporative cooling doesn't work. The temperature alone isn't bad at all - I've spent time in SoCal when it was ~100F - it's the humidity that gets you. Nobody bikes to work here - you'll sometimes see bicyclists on the road but for recreational purposes. I think it would be a fine thing in winter, but my commute is 35 miles of open highway.
So I end up going to the gym and doing a lot of yardwork. I'd like to include something like biking to work in my routine, but it's just not practical for me right now.
Yes, I thought that there was a big assumption in the fourth paragraph of the OA, just under the video.
"Think of the amazing increase in quality of life that we saw in the United States and other rich countries in the past 100 years. We want most of that miracle to take place for all of humanity over the next 50 years." (my emphasis)
I'm wondering if other countries will separate the quality from the quantity a bit better than the currently rich countries have?
I think the idea is more to emphasize the relative rate of development in China in recent times (as opposed to the specifics of the comparison being terribly interesting).
> Smil introduces a surprising and counterintuitive idea he calls relative dematerialization. As innovation lets us make a given product more efficiently, with fewer materials or energy, prices go down and consumption goes up.
This is called Jevons Paradox; or at least it used to be. Economists have a good handle on this idea now so we don't call it a paradox anymore.
> After reviewing the trends, Smil introduces a surprising and counterintuitive idea he calls relative dematerialization. As innovation lets us make a given product more efficiently, with fewer materials or energy, prices go down and consumption goes up.
Looks like Gates isn't very familiar with the ideas of Buckminster Fuller then. Bucky identified ephemeralization as a key technological trend over 70 years ago. [1]
[1] R. Buckminster Fuller, Nine Chains to the Moon, Anchor Books [1938] 1971 pp. 252–59.
Thank you for the link. However, at least in the wikipedia article, it seems to be more a discussion of fuel use (the original observation was about coal) rather than material use. Fuels are used up; materials used to build things can be recycled. From my recollection of Buckminster's discussion of ephemeralization, he restricted it to only material use. And Gates' discussion in the article is again only about material use.
I think it's quite conceivable that a world with a stable population could rely almost entirely on recycling of at least some materials. In Brazil, they already recycle 98% of aluminium can production.
The construction/real estate bubble in China is not long for this world. China might have used a lot of a commodity/product, but we should be careful in believing that is an equivalent 1:1 economic comparison.
I'm shocked that Bill Gates drinks 3-4 Diet Cokes a day. Probably harder for me to understand than seeing educated people smoke (since, at least with smoking, there's a chemical dependency at play)
6.64% of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation portfolio is held in Coca-Cola (NYSE:KO) shares. [1]
48.61% of the portfolio is held in Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE:BRK.B) which allocates 14.62% of its holdings to Coca-Cola. [2]
"Bill Gates' Cascade Investment has disclosed a significant position in Coca-Cola FEMSA, S.A.B. de C.V. (ADR) (NYSE:KOF). According to a newly amended filing with the SEC, Cascade Investment holds a total of some 25.79 million series L shares of the company, equal to 5.3% of the outstanding stock. Mr. Gates, via Cascade and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust is deemed to own around 88.01 million shares, or 17.7% of the class. In an earlier filing, Mr. Gates' position in Coca-Cola FEMSA amassed 87.84 million shares, or 19.2% of the outstanding stock." [3]
Interesting that it holds BRK.B shares rather than BRK.A shares. Is this because the foundation assessed that they would move the market less when buying BRK.B instead of BRK.A?
The principle difference between BRK.A and BRK.B is voting rights. If you don't intend to exercise your voting rights (or don't need to -- if Bill Gates has a concern about how Berkshire Hathaway is being run, you don't think he can just call Warren Buffett up and have a chat?) why would you pay the premium for voting shares?
Why, because aspartame is a \gasp\chemical? Yes, please disregard the numerous studies that all find aspartame to be completely safe for human consumption. Gates probably drinks Diet Coke for the same reason that many educated people do: they're actually able to read and understand primary sources. Aspartame conspiracy theorists are just as woefully uninformed as anti-vaxxers.
What you're saying is that you can tell a police officer that you're innocent 50 times, but if you say that you're guilty even once, it's that one that counts. Cops do that because people make conscious effort to look innocent.
However, Nature is not out to deceive you. Nature is not saying to itself, "I'm going to make diet soft drinks look better than they really are".
All scientific studies, whether giving positive or negative results, must count.
> I'm shocked that Bill Gates drinks 3-4 Diet Cokes a day.
Why? The caffeine, or the fact that it's Coke and not coffee or tea (or ...)?
> at least with smoking, there's a chemical dependency at play
Diet Coke still contains caffeine (~50mg/can), which is generally considered to also cause physical dependence and withdrawal effects on abrupt cessation[1].
Granted, nicotine withdrawal is a lot worse, but serious caffeine fiends won't have a fun time of it for a few days, and it can be disruptive for several weeks.
I wasn't thinking about caffeine (but if that's the issue, tea or coffee seem like good alternative). I was thinking about the health issues its linked to (kidney problems, type 2 diabetes, dental issues, ...)
You can decide for yourself whether it's poison, but it's definitely the reason many people regard diet sodas as such.
EDIT, I guess this should have gone on parent. At any rate, latch, I had the exact same reaction. And this is a man with resources. (Indeed, maybe he drinks some secret power soda and just used Diet Coke to give it a plebian air. Maybe such details are even handled by his blogging software.)
I'm not so sure. I'm certainly not an expert, but I have a private theory that the very sweetness of artificial sweeteners influences insulin release via some mechanism. Whether by "crying wolf" and promoting insulin resistance, or by some other means, I suspect there's some kind of message at play - "lots of sugar coming, blood, get ready!" - which then has a deleterious effect even when there's no actual sugar involved.
Well, it's not very scientific, but I've arrived at this theory by a couple of observations. One in myself - I used to be a huge diet coke junkie, up to 10 cans a day sometimes, and I found it impossible to lose weight, plus I noticed that I got that "after sugar" feeling somehow from the drink. When I cut it out, plus everything else artificially sweet (I was barely consuming any sugar), my weight loss issues disappeared and I just felt .. much better.
The other side of my anecdotal data comes from observing the same thing in friends. I know a few people who have gone pretty heavily low carb to lose weight, and I note a seeming correlation between success and cutting out sweet foods/drinks, no matter if they have sugar or not. OK, it's not exactly a double blind large-scale test, but nonetheless.
I'm not the only one I know who thinks this either. A couple of the PTs at my gym have noticed the same thing, and advise their clients to cut everything sweet from their diet, fake sugar or not. And Tim Ferriss advises a maximum of one diet drink a day.
So yeah, if you ask me (or the people above) - stay away from diet soft drinks and anything else sweet. I can't point to any large-scale studies, but over the years I've become pretty convinced there's something there.
The reason you can't point to any large scale studies is because all of them found aspartame to be harmless, not induce an insulin response, etc (i.e the complete opposite of your theory).
Diet coke hates are in the same category as anti-vacs campaigners... They don't believe in science.
"Data from large, epidemiologic studies support the existence of an association between artificially-sweetened beverage consumption and weight gain in children."
One thing to keep in mind is that studies of diet and nutrition are always very hazy and go back and forth constantly. Human lifespans are long and diets are complex, so it's difficult to say whether or not any one thing is "harmless." Saturated fats were thought to be a major cause of heart disease for a long time, but now that's apparently no longer true.
I don't think comparing anti-diet soda drinkers and antivaxers is really a fair comparison. Soda and artificial sweeteners aren't in any way beneficial for anybody; vaccines save countless lives.
Well, if artificial sweeteners caused a reduced (or zero) insulin response (which science says they do), and thus lowered the risk of obesity, then a (tenuous, though real) causal link can be made between saving lives, and artificial sweeteners, no?
The parent linked to a study demonstrating a link between aspartame and obesity. Did you even look at it before you wrote your facetious little reply? If you do, you'll notice it says the opposite of what you seem to think it does.
And stop invoking the word "science" like it's an infallible deity whispering in your (and only your) ear. Science is a process and IMO the result is not in on this one yet.
Okay, I get it, you are upset that I implied you were an anti-vaccer.
I'm sorry for being facetious too: No smiling, serious business here.
> Science is a process and IMO the result is not in on this one yet.
On aspartame it's well and truly in. That's my point. If I haven't provided enough references, just google[0] it and read ALL the science. It's been studied to death and back again.
I hate to say it, but now you're the one being a dick. :(
It's not a link (causation), it's an association (correlation). Which should be more than obvious, fat people drink diet coke precisely because they are fat, it makes no sense to prefer that wretched taste if you are not weight-conscious.
There is a lot of variation in how people taste artificial sweeteners.
In my informal surveys, some people think Diet Coke tastes sweeter than regular Coke, and some people think regular Coke tastes sweeter. In general, people seem to prefer the one that tastes less sweet.
That was a needlessly hostile and insulting response. I'm merely pointing out some personal experiences, and made appropriate qualifications to that effect.
And your blanket dismissal is doubtful anyway. Here's a study clearly indicating correlation between aspartame and insulin response: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/30/7/e59.full Cephalic-phase insulin release is a known phenomenon and could obviously be triggered by expectation of a diet drink.
Being skeptical of mainstream nutritional "science" (barely worthy of the name, IMO, and which has led to an unprecedented obesity epidemic) is in no way comparable to "anti-vaxxers". And frankly, if I noticed a very strong correlation between people I knew who'd been vaccinated and then all suddenly became autistic, I'd be asking questions too, and would be right to do so, and that spirit of skeptical enquiry is the very essence of science.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be that hostile, and I seem to have continued that in my other responses. Apoligises to all.
There is a lot of mis-information around artificial sweeteners, I think it just triggers my "Frustrated with the internet" nerve or something.
I agree, be skeptical, question, don't take things at face value. But, I'd add: be informed, look up where we are at in current day research. Diabetic research is huge, it isn't generally something to be skeptical of, there are people who's lives are saved, preserved, made better because of that research.
> There is a lot of mis-information around artificial sweeteners
Sure is. And perhaps you're contributing to it. You sure haven't produced any evidence that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
> it just triggers my "Frustrated with the internet"
Well, your belligerent responses to people's polite, reasonable comments kind of trigger that in me. Let's not be part of the problem...
> look up where we are at in current day research
There have been two studies linked to supporting the claims made by myself and others. You haven't posted anything. Take your own advice!
> Diabetic research is huge, it isn't generally something to be skeptical of
And yet we're living in an unprecedented, worldwide obesity epidemic. Someone is obviously very wrong about something. It's my personal belief that in 50 years we'll be looking back on current nutritional "science" the same way we look back on "healthy cigarettes" in the 60s. We'll get it right eventually, but we sure haven't yet.
If a person is able to make good decisions even when as is the case here the peer-reviewed science points strongly in neither direction, he will be able to win more often at life than someone that must rely on peer-reviewed science.
I avoid all artificial sweeteners (and Stevia) for essentially the same reasons as grandparent BTW.
But even if one pays attention only to peer-reviewed studies, one will make bad decisions if one misinterprets them. Your dismissal of the author of grandparent as someone who doesn't "believe in science" suggests to me that you do not know how correctly to interpret the peer-reviewed studies here (which again I believe do not point strongly in either direction). (For most questions people have about diet and health, the peer-reviewed studies, when interpreted correctly, do not point strongly in any one direction.)
In particular, studies showing that aspartame does not induce an insulin response are not particularly strong evidence against grandparent's assertion that with all of the artificial sweeteners, <<there's some kind of message at play - "lots of sugar coming, blood, get ready!">> For something as central to the metabolism of living things as the common dietary sugars, there will be hundreds of molecules besides insulin involved.
It would take many many paragraphs to explain the case against artificial sweeteners in enough detail for there to be any hope of your following the explanation. I do not want to write those paragraphs. I'm just briefly adding my support to what I consider an illuminating and well-written comment (grandparent).
> For something as central to the metabolism of living things as the common dietary sugars, there will be hundreds of molecules besides insulin involved.
See, you sound exactly like an anti-vacser... Insulin is the "Lots of sugar coming, blood, get ready" response. There isn't hundreds of other molecules involved... there is insulin. Do you see type I diabetics injecting anything else into themselves?
Please, take many paragraphs and explain, because your vague bullshit ridden comment, is far from convincing.
I really need to do some digging, see if there are any relevant studies... see, I don't think I have met anyone with any particular issues, who drinks soda in moderation.
It's silly, or at least naive, to be shocked by an educated person who smokes, or abuses alcohol, or abuses hard drugs, or is overweight, or doesn't get enough sleep, or does any number of other unhealthy practices. Being educated has very little to do with any of those things.
Because, to the best of my knowledge, there's no good that comes from it. It may not be as harmful as smoking, but it's still linked to a number of health issues. 4 seems excessive.
There's no good that comes from just about any drink, aside from water.
Too much milk can give you kidney stones. Too much fruit juice gives you cavities. Too much coffee stains your teeth and gives you, what was it, high blood pressure? On and on.
Actually not so much - water is all about osmotic pressure. Coffee and tea are full of soluble compounds and even salts and the like already, so they won't be as bad.
If anything you're more likely to get messed up from the diuretic effects.
to the best of my knowledge, there's no good that comes from it
I'm drinking my second Diet Coke (with Splenda®) of the day right now. I find it to be a nice way to get a continual, low-dose of caffeine. More importantly, the flavor and fizz is very refreshing and has good mouth-feel.
Not everything "good" is measured by some objective health metric. And the "bad" about Diet Coke likely pales in comparison to the countless other "bad" factors in people's lives.
Totally. The Interstate Highway Act alone was just one of the huge projects using tons and tons and tons of concrete in the US - part of why the figure's so mindboggling, really.
Yeah I think the point is that the majority of urbanization in the US occurred in the 20th century, whereas China has only very recently been doing so.
He wants you to think he's comparing the last 100 years. In reality he's comparing two different time periods because U.S. acceleration ruins the wow factor.
> "Chinese now consume more Guccis and Bulgaris and Louis Vuittons than the rest of the world combined."
He wants you to think Chinese consumers have a lot of buying power. They don't. They just happen to like those specific brands. Even Japan spends more than the U.S. on those specific brands, with half the population.