K=D8HB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote

I'm not talking about overall economics, Hans. I'm talking about the US
importing a large percentage of its oil needs.

We import a large percentage of a lot of stuff, both raw material and fin=
ished
goods. Coffee. Rubber. Titanium. Tin. Wolfram. Textiles. Clothing.=
And,
yes, even oil.

Yup. Some of that isn't a good idea.

We also export to other countries a large percentage of their needs. Food
(wheat/soy/corn/meat/dairy products). Lumber. Technology. Education.
Medicine.

And again - some of that isn't a good idea.

Example:

During the 1930s, the USA exported all sorts of things to Japan, both
raw materials and manufactured goods. Like oil and vacuum tubes,
neither
of which Japan could produce in large quantities on their own. US
industry
liked the hard currency that Japan paid with.

It was obvious early on that much of those exports were being used to
build up Japan's military, and *not* for defense of Japan. But by the
time the USA acted to stop it, Japan had become a serious adversary.

If you had to choose between fuel for some Escalade luvvin momma, and t=
he fuel
for say our military to train with, who would ya choose?

I could ask a corresponding patronizing question about any of the other g=
oods I
mentioned.

The point is that individuals here don't make that choice about oil any m=
ore
than a citizen of Japan makes that choice about lumber when they want to =
build a
new home.

Oh yes they do!

Individuals here have at least some control over how much oil they use.
They have some control in the short term (how much they drive, how they
drive, how they set their thermostats), more control in the longer term
(what car they drive, how efficient their homes are) and still more in
the very long term (alternative energy sources, alternative
technologies).

If the cost of oil goes too high, then Escalades will fall from favor
and be replaced by and Vegas and Pintos. If the price of lumber gets too=
high,
Japanese homes will be built from compressed rice straw or some other mat=
erial.

Sure. But that's not the only factor.

Has nothing to do with patriotism. Has to do with simple economics.

Long-term outlook. Sustainable technologies. Political and social
ramifications of "economic" decisions.

Lots more than simple economics.

Look at the big picture.

I do.

One thing I hear from folks who have been to Europe and Japan is how
great their
transit systems are. How they make it possible for most people to live
without
a car, or with only one car per family, because it's easy, safe and
cheap to go places by transit.

Some say the US isn't like those countries in that our population is
more spread out and the whole country is bigger. Which is true in some
cases. But consider this:

- Before WW2, much of the USA was crisscrossed by electric trolley and
interurban lines. Many small towns had frequent, inexpensive, fast
trolley service, which usually interconnected with other lines. These
systems were so extensive that about 100 years ago, a traveler
documented a trip from New York City to Chicago that used trolley lines
for more than 90% of the distance.

- The Los Angeles area used to have the Pacific Electric system, which
was systematically dismantled after WW2 by a conglomerate of oil,
rubber and automakers. Now LA has the "Blue Line", which was predicted
to be a failure, because 'Los Angelenos won't get out of their cars',
yet it has been well-used since the day it opened.

- In Europe and Japan, transit isn't expected to make a profit or even
pay its own way. It is systematically subsidized by taxes on motor
fuels. Typical subsidy is about 50% of *operating* costs. For capital
costs, consider that the Paris Metro has been almost constantly
expanded since its opening over 100 years ago. =20

73 de Jim, N2EY