KØHB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote


I would like to see some leadership realizing that driving single digit
fuel millage SUV's is an unpatriotic act, that building under insulated
McMansions that take immense amounts of energy to heat is an unpatriotic
act.


Naaaah. Those who drive the SUVs are being bitten in the wallet.

Sure. But they are also using up a critical strategic resource, contributing
to the imbalance of trade, and other things like that. Some patriots.



Patriotic? Unpatriotic?

Don't look now, but economics pretty much went global about 50 years ago.
"Patriotism" has didly-squat to do with it.

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

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

Look at the big picture. While it is always nice to have both the jet
and the soccer mom accommodated, since many of the people we import oil
from are not the closest allies, the day will come when we have to choose.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"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 finished
goods. Coffee. Rubber. Titanium. Tin. Wolfram. Textiles. Clothing. And,
yes, even oil.

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



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


I could ask a corresponding patronizing question about any of the other goods I
mentioned.

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

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


Look at the big picture.

I do.

73, de Hans, K0HB

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

wrote


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

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

Which part is a "not good" idea? Why?

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.

Whic part is a "not good" idea? Why?

.... 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.

I can still ride a train from New York to Chicago. I'd rather fly. (I doubt
the " 90% trolley line" story is true.)

73, de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

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

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

Which part is a "not good" idea? Why?

When we become too dependent on imports of things that are not easily
replaced, so that disruptions in the import process cause major
upheavals in our economy.

When the importing causes us to transfer large amounts of hard currency
to people who may then use it against us.

Example: The USA imported large amounts of oil from Iraq back in the
1980s. Which gave the dictator of that country the ability to buy lots
of weapons and build up a large military. Said dictator then used said
military to invade and devastate a neighboring country from which we
also imported large amounts of oil. A war was then fought to stop the
dictator's expansion.

Said dictator also perpetrated a long string of human rights violations
against his own people and his neighbors.

Was it a good idea for the USA to import oil from that country back in
the 1980s?

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.

Whic part is a "not good" idea? Why?

When the exporting causes us to empower people who may then use our
exports against us.

The example of the USA exporting raw materials and finished goods to
Japan in the 1930s is one example.

Another is how the USA supported extremists in Afghanistan during the
1980s because they opposed the existing regime, which was closely
allied to the Soviet Union. Those extremists were called "freedom
fighters" at the time. But when the Soviets left and the existing
regime fell, the "freedom fighters" established a regime that was even
more repressive (by our standards, anyway). That regime made the
country a training ground for extremists who went on to attack the USA.


Was it a good idea for the USA to export technology, training and
weapons to Afghanistan back in the 1980s?

.... 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.

I can still ride a train from New York to Chicago.

But you need a car for shorter trips. And that's not the point, anyway.

The point is that there was once an extensive system of trolley and
interurban lines in the USA, much of which is long gone. At its peak in
1915, there were more than 15,000 miles of such lines in the USA.

I'd rather fly. (I doubt
the " 90% trolley line" story is true.)

It's true. The trip was made in 1909 by J.S. Moulton of New York City.
It is documented in "Railway Quarterly", winter issue, 1982.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
KØHB wrote:

wrote


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

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

Which part is a "not good" idea? Why?


When we become too dependent on imports of things that are not easily
replaced, so that disruptions in the import process cause major
upheavals in our economy.

When the importing causes us to transfer large amounts of hard currency
to people who may then use it against us.

We'd be hard pressed to come up with sufficient quantities of titanium
ore. We have some in Arkansas but major suppliers are Switzerland,
Brazil and some parts of Africa Sierra Leone is a major exporter of rutile.

While some chromium is mined in the U.S., it'd be tough for us to have
much of it without giving money to the Russians, Indians or the South
Africans. They have the world's largest supplies.

When our sources for such minerals are depleted, we can obtain them by
either 1) buying them or 2) taking them.

Dave K8MN

KØHB wrote:
wrote



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


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


Which part is a "not good" idea? Why?


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.


Whic part is a "not good" idea? Why?

The part where the countries we import from may become our enemies.
Hopefully in the next war, our enemies will sell us the gas, our
uniforms, and if we wait long enough, they might build our tanks and
planes for us! ;^)


- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB 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 finished
goods. Coffee. Rubber. Titanium. Tin. Wolfram. Textiles. Clothing. And,
yes, even oil.

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



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



I could ask a corresponding patronizing question about any of the other goods I
mentioned.

Beats answering the question, eh?


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

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


Look at the big picture.


I do.


Feerd not. I'm talking about national defense, and you're talking about
the Japanese importing lumber. If you equate what I'm talking about with
that, well, have at it! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -