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