NationStates Jolt Archive

I am taking economics and I do understand the rules of Supply and Demand the only thing is the pricing difference. However if the American Public and the International community want to reduce the cost of gasoline there are several ways of doing so. Including the nasty word called Boycott (protest) now obviously we cannot completely cut gas out of our travels but there are many ways including car pooling. Get five people in a five passenger car all heading in the same direction and split the cost of the gas, you do the math divide $3.35 (price on the eastern shore) divide it by five people. Then think about how many cars are off the road by doing such actions. I know the people who own SUV are going to hate me but oh well. If you were to take of the road 1Million SUV for two months on average how much gas do you think would be saved I have not done the math so I cannot exactly say but it would be considerable. Now this on the side of the SUV it does not just have to be the SUV everybody has to get together to do this if you want lower gas price post ideas on how to save gas. Such as Driving IN SIDE THE SPEED LIMIT, driving defensively. Let the people outside the Oil rich nations come up with ideas on how to save. On note I do know that other countries espically those in Europa have higher gas price then we do why don't we start now.

If you disagree with this please start another thread if you don't want to that's fine but please try to.

All Im saying is that it is ridiculous for Americans to complain about paying $3 a gallon for petrol, thats a measly 45p a litre, we are paying an average of about 90p a litre and over £1 in some places.

America drives up the price of oil for everyone else by not having effective constraints on oil consumption (Same goes for China, but a lot more people live there) this pushes up the price when demand is high.

If there were constraints on oil consumption and fuel efficiency guidelines, then the USA would probably not be in this mess.

The constraint is known as price. It's how you regulate supply and demand outside of the government.

As an example, look at the American car market in the '70's. Prior to the oil shocks, Detriot produced inefficent cars because gas prices were low. Japan made some ugly, unpopular cars that were very efficent. After the oil shocks, everyone realized that gas efficency was important, so they began to buy those Japanese cars, which alowed the Japanese auto makers to hire some style experts and such to make them more attractive to the American market. Detriot realized the importance of efficency, so they started to make more efficent cars. Today, they are roughly on par. All of this was achieved by the idea of price.

All Im saying is that it is ridiculous for Americans to complain about paying $3 a gallon for petrol, thats a measly 45p a litre, we are paying an average of about 90p a litre and over £1 in some places.

America drives up the price of oil for everyone else by not having effective constraints on oil consumption (Same goes for China, but a lot more people live there) this pushes up the price when demand is high.

If there were constraints on oil consumption and fuel efficiency guidelines, then the USA would probably not be in this mess.

$3 = 45p? I think not! It's about £1.70, but then I'm not too sure about converting metric to imperial...

All Im saying is that it is ridiculous for Americans to complain about paying $3 a gallon for petrol, thats a measly 45p a litre, we are paying an average of about 90p a litre and over £1 in some places.

America drives up the price of oil for everyone else by not having effective constraints on oil consumption (Same goes for China, but a lot more people live there) this pushes up the price when demand is high.

If there were constraints on oil consumption and fuel efficiency guidelines, then the USA would probably not be in this mess.
Excuse me, how far do you drive to get to work every day? I drive nearly thirty miles each way. That uses up quite a bit of gas.

There's more we as consumers can do. Just send in cars for regular tune-ups, drive the most fuel efficient car you own, and avoid excessive trips. Oh, and avoid reckless braking and accelarating, as that wastes gas.

There's more we as consumers can do. Just send in cars for regular tune-ups, drive the most fuel efficient car you own, and avoid excessive trips. Oh, and avoid reckless braking and accelarating, as that wastes gas.

I only have one. How many does the average American own?

I only have one. How many does the average American own?
I don't know. I only have one, myself. But most families by two cars for each driving parent.

I don't know. I only have one, myself. But most families by two cars for each driving parent.

Not many people own 2 cars in London. You're better off taking the tube :p

Not many people own 2 cars in London. You're better off taking the tube :p
Don't forget, London is a big city. Cars aren't really needed in cities with a plethora of mass transit and taxis. No one owns a car in New York, for example, because there is just no place to put it, and other forms of traffic are easier to take. But it's different in the suburbs. That's why Americans drive more than the more urbanized Europeans.

Not many people own 2 cars in London. You're better off taking the tube :p

Unforetunately, there are some places here that are very opposed to having decent public transit system, such as my hometown.

All Im saying is that it is ridiculous for Americans to complain about paying $3 a gallon for petrol, thats a measly 45p a litre, we are paying an average of about 90p a litre and over £1 in some places.

America drives up the price of oil for everyone else by not having effective constraints on oil consumption (Same goes for China, but a lot more people live there) this pushes up the price when demand is high.

If there were constraints on oil consumption and fuel efficiency guidelines, then the USA would probably not be in this mess.
Doesn't England have huge petrol taxes? And real public transportation?

All Im saying is that it is ridiculous for Americans to complain about paying $3 a gallon for petrol, thats a measly 45p a litre, we are paying an average of about 90p a litre and over £1 in some places.

America drives up the price of oil for everyone else by not having effective constraints on oil consumption (Same goes for China, but a lot more people live there) this pushes up the price when demand is high.

If there were constraints on oil consumption and fuel efficiency guidelines, then the USA would probably not be in this mess.

Irrelevant. Your markup is due to taxes. Ours is a combination of price gouging and (very short term) limited supply. Down my street, gasoline went up $0.70 in ONE DAY.

RE: Constraints- The average American uses the same amount of energy as he did in 1973. However, there are 60 million more Americans now.

Maybe. There would also very likely not be much of a world economy, either. You are from Britain, I take it. That's a nice place, and a major economy. It's also the size of Oregon. Europe lives in its capitals, America lives in it's suburbs.

Unforetunately, there are some places here that are very opposed to having decent public transit system, such as my hometown.
There's just one problem with that: you live in Fairbanks, a small city. And please correct me if I'm wrong, but as Fairbanks is the biggest town in Central Alaska, there is plenty of room to sprawl. Mass transit is impractical there.

There's just one problem with that: you live in Fairbanks, a small city. And please correct me if I'm wrong, but as Fairbanks is the biggest town in Central Alaska, there is plenty of room to sprawl. Mass transit is impractical there.

There is less room to sprawl than you would think. Most of the ground is horrible to build on. As it is, we have hills to the north and west, a wide river and its associated marshlands to the south, and a military base to the east. We're pretty well hemmed in. You can drive from one side of town to the other in 15 minutes. Granted, we don't have the population to support a subway, but we can do a decent bus system. We even used to have one, but it got severely strangled in the late '80's and early '90's. The current one quits at 7 pm. Those of us who work late or have night classes are forced to find alternate means of transportation. In my case, that means bicycle, even at -40 F/C at times. We could expand it, but nobody wants to.

There is less room to sprawl than you would think. Most of the ground is horrible to build on. As it is, we have hills to the north and west, a wide river and its associated marshlands to the south, and a military base to the east. We're pretty well hemmed in. You can drive from one side of town to the other in 15 minutes. Granted, we don't have the population to support a subway, but we can do a decent bus system. We even used to have one, but it got severely strangled in the late '80's and early '90's. The current one quits at 7 pm. Those of us who work late or have night classes are forced to find alternate means of transportation. In my case, that means bicycle, even at -40 F/C at times. We could expand it, but nobody wants to.
I wonder what the financing is like. Anyhow, I live in another small city, Rochester, NY. It was the smallest city ever to have its own subway system, which closed in the sixties. Shame, isn't it? The city even allows the homeless in there, and trucks food in.

There's just one problem with that: you live in Fairbanks, a small city. And please correct me if I'm wrong, but as Fairbanks is the biggest town in Central Alaska, there is plenty of room to sprawl. Mass transit is impractical there.
Okay, but take a much larger city like Kansas City. The entire metro area relies on pretty much one bus system (known as The Metro), and pretty much EVERYBODY on the Kansas side of the metro area gets screwed over on that. The money that was supposed to go into developing a mass transit system? All the football lovin' Republicans who have the kind of jobs to cover their endless fuel supply to their inefficient SUVs voted that they'd rather have a new sports complex. Downtown. So now we're paying bi-state tax for something that roughly 1/6th of the city will care about, that only effects the Missouri side in income, and really never will pay itself off.

It's not just a matter of having a big enough city. First you need to convince the people in power that mass transit is at all worthwhile, and when their asses depend on the taxes they'd be missing out on if they went with practicalities, it's a crappy situation.

I'd go back to NYC if cost of living wouldn't make up for loss of gas costs :rolleyes:

I wonder what the financing is like. Anyhow, I live in another small city, Rochester, NY. It was the smallest city ever to have its own subway system, which closed in the sixties. Shame, isn't it? The city even allows the homeless in there, and trucks food in.

The financing is the problem. I know a lady who works for them. She says that the biggest issue is buying more buses. As it is, they are stretched to the limit. Yet nobody wants to invest the money improve it.

The financing is the problem. I know a lady who works for them. She says that the biggest issue is buying more buses. As it is, they are stretched to the limit. Yet nobody wants to invest the money improve it.
Well, I'm just sorry, but when it comes to mass transit, buses are nothing great. They are prone to traffic, always late, and you can never find a good driver. If they were serious about mass transit and wanted to do it on the cheap, why not cable cars? They need a revival in mass transit. They're light, cheap, and can be built with little added infrastructure. And the driver must be extremely stupid to drive them wrong, as they are on rails.

I hate to always be the pessimist, but mass transit doesnt work so well for any city smaller than Philadelphia. Bigger, thats fine - look at LA, NYC, Boston.

But it's gotten too much to be the "American way" to drive your own car from your domicile to places of work, stores, etc. It almost seems that most of us americans dont really care about conserving gas. The chap above has a darn good point - it's not the whole world that's in flux, it's the US. Caused, in my opinion, by moronic executives in the oil businesses that made prices artificially low during the inflation of the 90s. Then, suddenly, everything skyrockets.


The worst part - the oil prices you see on the telly ($70 and whatnot) isn't the barrel of oil youre buying at the pump today, tomorrow, or next week. No, these are NEXT MONTH'S oil futures!!

Seriously, the whole system needs an overhaul. It's just that nobody has the guts, responsibility, or money to do it!

I hate to always be the pessimist, but mass transit doesnt work so well for any city smaller than Philadelphia. Bigger, thats fine - look at LA, NYC, Boston.

But it's gotten too much to be the "American way" to drive your own car from your domicile to places of work, stores, etc. It almost seems that most of us americans dont really care about conserving gas. The chap above has a darn good point - it's not the whole world that's in flux, it's the US. Caused, in my opinion, by moronic executives in the oil businesses that made prices artificially low during the inflation of the 90s. Then, suddenly, everything skyrockets.


The worst part - the oil prices you see on the telly ($70 and whatnot) isn't the barrel of oil youre buying at the pump today, tomorrow, or next week. No, these are NEXT MONTH'S oil futures!!

Seriously, the whole system needs an overhaul. It's just that nobody has the guts, responsibility, or money to do it!
You know why that is, though, don't you? The US is a big, sprawling country, where most of the cities are not really cities, but lumps that spread from the center and gradually thin. Besides, they are far in between, too. It's the American way because it was determined by our geography. Much of the developed world, like NE Asia and Europe, is much more dense, and mass transit is far more feasible. Besides, don't forget that mass transit would never exist if the commutter did not agree to do some walking from a station to his dwelling/work/etc. Of course, this is the 21st century. I expect the line between mass transit and private transit to blur.

You know why that is, though, don't you? The US is a big, sprawling country, where most of the cities are not really cities, but lumps that spread from the center and gradually thin. Besides, they are far in between, too. It's the American way because it was determined by our geography. Much of the developed world, like NE Asia and Europe, is much more dense, and mass transit is far more feasible. Besides, don't forget that mass transit would never exist if the commutter did not agree to do some walking from a station to his dwelling/work/etc. Of course, this is the 21st century. I expect the line between mass transit and private transit to blur.

Europe and Asia also have better mass transit because their cities are older with narrower streets, where ours are much newer and designed with cars in mind. You can even see the difference between the older American cities, like Boston and Philly, and the newer ones out west.

Take the bus, ride a train, ride your bike.

Contact your city officials to pressure them to increase
public transit in general.

The only way we're ever going to get a decent passenger train
system across the country is if the public transit in towns
are good first. Also, no national passenger train system
in the world runs soley on ticket sales.
Why can't we pool our money together and get this done?
We can call it our tax dollars.
Sure beats war for oil. I mean in 1991 that is...

10 TOP TIPS FOR FUEL EFFICIENT DRIVING (http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/fuellabel/costs.html)

1. Minimise your vehicle use
Plan to do a number of errands in one trip rather than several trips and save both time and fuel. Try to avoid short vehicle trips by walking or cycling, this will save over a quarter of a kilogram of greenhouse gas emissions per kilometre of vehicle driving it replaces. Also avoid peak-hour traffic whenever possible.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Drive in high gear
The engine runs most efficiently between around 1,500 and 2,500 rpm (lower in diesels). To maintain these low revs you should change up through the gears as soon as practical and before the revs reach 2500 rpm.


Automatic transmissions will shift up more quickly and smoothly if you ease back slightly on the accelerator once the car gathers momentum.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Drive smoothly - avoid unnecessary acceleration
Drive at a good distance from the car in front so you can anticipate and travel with the flow of traffic. This avoids unnecessary acceleration and frequent repetitive braking that ends up wasting fuel. It's also far safer.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Minimise fuel wasted in idling
Minimise fuel wasted in idling by stopping the engine whenever your car is stopped or held up for an extended period of time. By having the engine switched off, even for a short period, you will save more fuel than is lost from the burst of fuel involved in restarting the engine. The net increased wear and tear from this practice is negligible.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Speed kills economy
High speeds result in high fuel consumption. At 110 km/h your car uses up to 25 per cent more fuel than it would cruising at 90 km/h.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Minimise aerodynamic drag
Additional parts on the exterior of a vehicle such as roof racks and spoilers, or having the window open, increases air resistance and fuel consumption, in some cases by over 20%.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Look after your vehicle's tyres
Inflate your vehicle's tyres to the highest pressure recommended by the manufacture and make sure your wheels are properly aligned. Looking after your tyres will not only reduce your fuel consumption it will also extend tyre life and improve handling.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Use air conditioning sparingly
Air conditioners can use about 10 per cent extra fuel when operating. However, at speeds of over 80 km/h, use of air conditioning is better for fuel consumption than an open window.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Travel light
The more a vehicle carries, the more fuel it uses; an extra 50 kg of weight can increase your fuel bill by 2 per cent.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Service your vehicle regularly
Keep your vehicle well tuned and reduce greenhouse gases by up to 5 per cent.


This thread is a great idea and it is good for the environment as well. Keep on posting ideas. :)

You know why that is, though, don't you? The US is a big, sprawling country, where most of the cities are not really cities, but lumps that spread from the center and gradually thin. Besides, they are far in between, too. It's the American way because it was determined by our geography. Much of the developed world, like NE Asia and Europe, is much more dense, and mass transit is far more feasible. Besides, don't forget that mass transit would never exist if the commutter did not agree to do some walking from a station to his dwelling/work/etc. Of course, this is the 21st century. I expect the line between mass transit and private transit to blur.

But american people at some point chose to live that way...you wanted your house with the white picket fence and large gardens to play in...you chose it, it was/is your ideal. To live that way you need a car...it's of your own making.

Not many people own 2 cars in London. You're better off taking the tube :p

But you get blown up by terrorists.

But you get blown up by terrorists.

Yeah, I've been blown up by terrorists everyday for the last 19 years :rolleyes:

Gas prices don't behave exactly as a normal Supply and Demand curve might dictate. For example, when I price of a commodity is high, it should lower the demand. Gas prices are high, but people still need it. It's like raising a price on food or water, people are still going to buy it, but they might resort to other generic foods or other means. Gas is a specific type of commodity, I forget what the exact economic term is, but it doesn't behave like other commodities. While car pooling would lower the demand and raise the supply, thusly lowering the price, it would have to be on quite a massive scale to make any real dents in the overall price. Public transportation is another route, yet gas is still used. Walking, but it is almost impossible to walk to work in America when most live 30-50 miles away from there jobs. Same goes for biking. There will always be a high demand for oil. Only buy dramatically increasing the supply would a significant change in gas prices occur. The fact the US and Argentina (I think) are releasing some of their reserves to stimulate the market due to Katrina, will have an impact, but I doubt it will be back down to $1.95/gal or less. Overall, we all need to find alternative resources and means of transportation. I think people are doing that, finally, but don't fool ourselves by thinking $1.95/gal or $.50/L is just around the corner.

But american people at some point chose to live that way...you wanted your house with the white picket fence and large gardens to play in...you chose it, it was/is your ideal. To live that way you need a car...it's of your own making.

While I agree with you to a certain extent, this doesn't apply in every case. It can work in quite the opposite way. People move to live in downtown cities, but the jobs then move to the suburbs or exburbs, which are 30-50 miles away. Also, consider the cost of living expenses. That is where it really hurts. Now I know America is the "richest country on earth", but we all don't have enough money to live in Chicago, LA, or New York. The US is so large that there are still, respectively, undeveloped parts of the country. In China, the East Coast is where the major cities are concentrated, yet they have this massive western frontier that is quite undeveloped. It's simply impracticle to walk or bike in the US, except if you can manage to live in the major cities and find a job.

Unforetunately, there are some places here that are very opposed to having decent public transit system, such as my hometown.

I know what you mean! I am born and raised in Detroit, Michigan; The "Motor City". Here nasty politics have kept a decent mass transportation system away. The bus system is a joke, and please don't even mention the People Mover; that's an even bigger joke.

I live 30 miles away from my work, and if I want or need to go anywhere, a car is the only way to do it around here. I don't even remotely make enough money to live in the city where I work (Southfield, MI), much less live on my own. In an economy where a good paying job is $10/hr, the gas prices hurt the bottom line that much more.

Here a car is not a luxury; it is a necessity to survive. This is why we're crying so much about this. Fortunately, I had the sense of mind a few years back to purchase a Honda Civic that with a few uncostly modifcations gets me about 45 mpg city Nevertheless, the cost of gas is starting to dig into money needed for bills.

What does everyone on here get for petrol kilometre-age? (Ok so gas milage sounds better).

In an average week (where most of my driving is for work, stop, start and going around tight suburban hillside streets) I get about 10km to the litre.

I don't actually know if that's any good or not.

You could always ask Bush to invade a middle eastern nation to procure more oil reserves, he certainly has experiance at it :D

You could always ask Bush to invade a middle eastern nation to procure more oil reserves, he certainly has experiance at it :D

Wow. How witty. No one's ever posted that before. :headbang:

Wow. How witty. No one's ever posted that before. :headbang:

Just couldn't resist the temptation.

Incidentally, american PETROL prices are considrably in deficit of those in Britain, no american is compelled to pay £1 ($1.50) per gallon are they?

Just couldn't resist the temptation.

Incidentally, american PETROL prices are considrably in deficit of those in Britain, no american is compelled to pay £1 ($1.50) per gallon are they?

They'd love to pay that.


It's $1.50 per litre that they probably wouldn't like to pay.

Just couldn't resist the temptation.

Incidentally, american PETROL prices are considrably in deficit of those in Britain, no american is compelled to pay £1 ($1.50) per gallon are they?

I paid $2.93/gal two days ago... $1.50 a gallon? Haven't seen that price in a long time. (This is in New Haven, Connecticut).

They'd love to pay that.


It's $1.50 per litre that they probably wouldn't like to pay.

Not to be pedantic, but its considerbaly cheaper in France, and they don't extract it for free..... :rolleyes:

They'd love to pay that.


It's $1.50 per litre that they probably wouldn't like to pay.

A litre is about a quart, or 1/4th of a gallon. That would make $6/gal.

That's already happened in Stockbridge, Georgia.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0901KatrinaGasPrices01-ON.html

I hope the bastard gets heavily fined and a month in jail.

I paid $3.49 per gallon for low grade just yesterday. Yikes - multiply that times 17 gallons - the capacity of my gas tank. Ouch! I will use about 20 gallons of gas on Tuesday for work as I have to drive a total of 5 hours (at about 70-75 miles per hour) round trip. - Can't exactly ride a bike that far - or I would.

I enjoy all your suggestions on what I should do so that YOU can have more gas. Blow me.

I drive over the speed limit. My wife has an SUV and I have a sports car. I can afford gas at $5-10 a gallon and if you can't - walk. :p

Folks from across the pond are complaining because our gas prices are usually way below their prices. That's because - like so much else - you tax it to death. Go right ahead, that's just more for me!

If you want to save money so much and you're willing to tell ME how to live my life so there will be more for others, then consider this...

You can turn off your computer and quit coming to forums and games like this to save energy.

Oh what? You don't wanna do that? Why not? Oh, I can't tell you what to do or how to live your life?

Then shut up your bitchin at me.

:mad:

You could always ask Bush to invade a middle eastern nation to procure more oil reserves, he certainly has experiance at it :D

Do you really believe that? Are you just dumb? Or are you just trying to fool dumb people who aren't intelligent enough to think logically?

Personally, that's exactly what I think we SHOULD do. Obviously the international community is not letting us claim Iraqi (or Kuwaiti - remember when we liberated them, but didn't steal their oil afterwards back in the early 90's?) oil as our own. But I think we should.

Our politicians are crappy poker players. They have a great hand, but they are still afraid of the bluster and bluff of other players with lesser hands - and we are playing with most of the cards showing.

In Kuwait, we should have sent them a bill afterwards. It should have said, "Kuwait will supply us the following amount of oil for this fixed price for this many years as repayment for the expense of coming over and saving you from Saddam Hussein. Failure to repay in this manner will result in a foreclosure..."

Iraq is even more drastic. We should get a percentage of all the oil for free until the debt is repaid.

Only an idiot or a liar would believe/say that we invaded them for oil. We obviously aren't getting oil from them, are we genius?

:headbang:

What does everyone on here get for petrol kilometre-age? (Ok so gas milage sounds better).

In an average week (where most of my driving is for work, stop, start and going around tight suburban hillside streets) I get about 10km to the litre.

I don't actually know if that's any good or not.

That's about 23.5 mile per gallon. Better than what I usually get.

My wife has an SUV and it gets around 16-17 mpg.

I have a 2002 Corvette Z06 and it gets 17 mpg around town, if I drive responsibly.

It has a very tall overdrive though, and on the interstate, I can get close to 28 mpg (12km/litre).

But consider this... my wife and I are both less than 5 miles (8 kilometres) from where we work and less than one mile from convenient grocery shopping.

So we can drastically reduce our driving at any time with very little hardship. Sometimes my wife will go a month (I think the conversion is still four weeks in the metric system ;) ) without filling up. I usually manage at least two weeks. I could drive a HUMMER and still be ok...

20 gallon limit per customer per day would help in a big way.

If my city had the awesome mass transit systems in place in most of the UK and Europe, I'd be happy to give up my car (we have 1 only). Unfortunately, I live approximately 15miles from the nearest bus stop and hundreds of miles from the nearest passenger train station. I would appreciate not being criticised for owning a car under the circumstances. :)

Hawkintom']I enjoy all your suggestions on what I should do so that YOU can have more gas. Blow me.

I drive over the speed limit. My wife has an SUV and I have a sports car. I can afford gas at $5-10 a gallon and if you can't - walk. :p

Folks from across the pond are complaining because our gas prices are usually way below their prices. That's because - like so much else - you tax it to death. Go right ahead, that's just more for me!

If you want to save money so much and you're willing to tell ME how to live my life so there will be more for others, then consider this...

You can turn off your computer and quit coming to forums and games like this to save energy.

Oh what? You don't wanna do that? Why not? Oh, I can't tell you what to do or how to live your life?

Then shut up your bitchin at me.

:mad:

they were just suggestions for the people who are trying to conserve...so stop flaming

Hawkintom']Do you really believe that? Are you just dumb? Or are you just trying to fool dumb people who aren't intelligent enough to think logically?

Personally, that's exactly what I think we SHOULD do. Obviously the international community is not letting us claim Iraqi (or Kuwaiti - remember when we liberated them, but didn't steal their oil afterwards back in the early 90's?) oil as our own. But I think we should.

Our politicians are crappy poker players. They have a great hand, but they are still afraid of the bluster and bluff of other players with lesser hands - and we are playing with most of the cards showing.

In Kuwait, we should have sent them a bill afterwards. It should have said, "Kuwait will supply us the following amount of oil for this fixed price for this many years as repayment for the expense of coming over and saving you from Saddam Hussein. Failure to repay in this manner will result in a foreclosure..."

Iraq is even more drastic. We should get a percentage of all the oil for free until the debt is repaid.

Only an idiot or a liar would believe/say that we invaded them for oil. We obviously aren't getting oil from them, are we genius?

:headbang:

Incidentally, what do you percieve as the "debt" owed to you by Iraq and Kuwait, and why do you consider the United States of America as worthy of the tribute of others? Can I infer from your post that you consider the international community unjustified in interdicting the withdrawal of Iraqi oil.

The majority of Iraqi's despise American presence in their nation, you ought not percieve their sentiments as anything else, and I can assure you that the Iraq that Saddam ran was bereft of active Islamic cells. Granted, his regime was oppressive, deplorable and discriminatory, yet it was devoid of daily suicide bombings, car bombings and ethnic conflicts. In contrast, Iraqi nationals are now slain in their multitudes daily by opposing Islamic sects, slain as "collateral" casualties in American military actions, and fearful of the light of day. A dubious improvement I am sure one will concur.

Furthermore, I will assume from the inane jingoism of your post that you consider yourself a patriotic and dutiful american, and yet you allude to a right to extort oil from nations whom you aid, whether they seek "aid" or not. Such a premise is inherently imperialistic, and in direct contravention of the intrinsic principal of the United States of America; liberty from imperialistic influence. One is accordingly compelled to the conclusion that you are indeed an imperialist at heart, who percieves the world as in your debt, I assure you we are not, and who considers all other nations inferior to his, I assure you we are not. It is you and you alone who discern any justification for your sentiments, and it is individuals such as yourself who engender the intensification of anti-western sentiments, who would inadvertantly slay millions and plunge countless nations into anarchy to serve their own, risable ends.

Hawkintom']I enjoy all your suggestions on what I should do so that YOU can have more gas. Blow me.

I drive over the speed limit. My wife has an SUV and I have a sports car. I can afford gas at $5-10 a gallon and if you can't - walk. :p

Folks from across the pond are complaining because our gas prices are usually way below their prices. That's because - like so much else - you tax it to death. Go right ahead, that's just more for me!

If you want to save money so much and you're willing to tell ME how to live my life so there will be more for others, then consider this...

You can turn off your computer and quit coming to forums and games like this to save energy.

Oh what? You don't wanna do that? Why not? Oh, I can't tell you what to do or how to live your life?

Then shut up your bitchin at me.

:mad:

Firstly, the "pond" is the Atlantic ocean, secondly, "bitchin", a deplorable, derisive and simplistic term for thise bereft of eloguence, concludes with a g.

Furthermore, we "folks over the pond" happen to hail from cultures and nations responsible for such concepts as democracy, philosophy, academia, sports, music, art and discussion. And yet when we consider the contribution of the great America to the world; fast food, a parody of the english language, mass televison to satiate the ignorant masses, and rap music, we observe a culture that revolves around ostentatious behaviour, the conveyance of one's wealth and status not through one's conduct and eloquence, but through one's material possessions. Finally, if you have a "sports" car, which I sincerely doubt adheres to the strict definitive list of sports cars, and a wife, would you not profess to be a tad too advanced in years to riposting vrbally with a sixteen year old?

*bump*

While I agree with you to a certain extent, this doesn't apply in every case. It can work in quite the opposite way. People move to live in downtown cities, but the jobs then move to the suburbs or exburbs, which are 30-50 miles away. Also, consider the cost of living expenses. That is where it really hurts. Now I know America is the "richest country on earth", but we all don't have enough money to live in Chicago, LA, or New York. The US is so large that there are still, respectively, undeveloped parts of the country. In China, the East Coast is where the major cities are concentrated, yet they have this massive western frontier that is quite undeveloped. It's simply impracticle to walk or bike in the US, except if you can manage to live in the major cities and find a job.

I agree, but take a city like Munich. 1.3 million people....I walked across a few weeks back, took me about 2 hours. Could you do that with an city in America of equal population.

As I also understand it a lot of down town areas are wastelands (Detroit, DC)...surely letting people live there in appartment buildings has got to help.

We are doing the same thing in Brtian, now, every large city is turing it's urban wastelands into nice areas to live. Yes the prices are high but more and more homes are being built there meaning people acutally walk to work...how cool is that. I did it for a year and I never felt as free. :)

I'm living in New Zealand currently (I'm an American though) on the South Island. There is only 4.5m people here, 1m of which live on the South Island. The public transportation system is better on the North Island for obvious reasons. I live about 2-3 hours away from Dunedin and they have bus services that go all throughout the South Island for rather resonable fares ($30-$50 NZD ($23-$40 USD) one way for a 250km trip). Of course, this summer will probably hurt the economy, but we'll see.

I plan on going to the University (or Uni) and I have a place lined up that's about 2.5km walk from Uni. My rent would be $580 NZD (<$400 USD) a month, I don't know if that includes anything else (any Kiwi's on here tell me what you think). I'll be next to the Pacific, so it stays rather cool in the summer (30* C or 80* F, better than those Missouri summers). Winter is usually cold, windy, and wet -- the way a winter should be.

This would be next to impossible to find such a location back in St. Louis without paying a small fortune. It's just more practical in a country like this. To be fair, I always tried to move closer to work or school. It never worked out that way though. I would be 10 miles from school and 2 miles from work or visa versa. That's doing well for most people. I hated having to have a car, still do, but it is a neccessity. One thing I don't like, is that in the US, we all feel that we have to have our OWN car (taking a loan out of course). When I flew over here, I was sitting next to a Kiwi lady who spent time in LA. She was amazed to see car after car with just one person in it. I agree. My friends and I always tried to "car pool" if we went out anywhere. I'd drive one day, they'd drive the next. I'd buy lunch, they'd buy the next. A symbiotic relationship of poor college kids. Our adult counterparts could take a hint from us.

Ianarabia, to answer your questions. Living in a city of 1.3m people and walking across it in 2 hours is quite possible. You must understand another thing. Americans are all about go, go, go. Taking 2 hours to get somewhere is impractical and a waste of time when you can do the same thing in 30min or an hour in a car or other means of public transport. Second, the Federal government would probably care less about building some apartments. That's left to the local and State governments. Of which, they'd rebuild some apartments if they were of historical importance, Section 8 housing (poor people's homes), or as to simply rebuild the city to make it look nice for tourists. Those are a few options. The State government really wouldn't rebuild apartments for the average American, per se. It just depends, but it's really left to the local and the State governments to decide (maybe in some instances the Federal government has some jurisdiction). Make sense?

I know!!!

KICK OUT BUSH!!! :D

>_>
<_<

*Holds up flame shield*

I know!!!

KICK OUT BUSH!!! :D

Wouldn't work. This problem first started to show itself in 2000, before Bush took office. In fact, it was one of the things that helped push the economy towards its recession in 2001.

I'm living in New Zealand currently (I'm an American though) on the South Island. There is only 4.5m people here, 1m of which live on the South Island. The public transportation system is better on the North Island for obvious reasons. I live about 2-3 hours away from Dunedin and they have bus services that go all throughout the South Island for rather resonable fares ($30-$50 NZD ($23-$40 USD) one way for a 250km trip). Of course, this summer will probably hurt the economy, but we'll see.

I plan on going to the University (or Uni) and I have a place lined up that's about 2.5km walk from Uni. My rent would be $580 NZD (<$400 USD) a month, I don't know if that includes anything else (any Kiwi's on here tell me what you think). I'll be next to the Pacific, so it stays rather cool in the summer (30* C or 80* F, better than those Missouri summers). Winter is usually cold, windy, and wet -- the way a winter should be.

This would be next to impossible to find such a location back in St. Louis without paying a small fortune. It's just more practical in a country like this. To be fair, I always tried to move closer to work or school. It never worked out that way though. I would be 10 miles from school and 2 miles from work or visa versa. That's doing well for most people. I hated having to have a car, still do, but it is a neccessity. One thing I don't like, is that in the US, we all feel that we have to have our OWN car (taking a loan out of course). When I flew over here, I was sitting next to a Kiwi lady who spent time in LA. She was amazed to see car after car with just one person in it. I agree. My friends and I always tried to "car pool" if we went out anywhere. I'd drive one day, they'd drive the next. I'd buy lunch, they'd buy the next. A symbiotic relationship of poor college kids. Our adult counterparts could take a hint from us.


You can walk anywhere if you're going to uni in dunners. Walking from the Gardies pub into town on a friday is probably the furtherest you'll have to walk during the week :)

Aquilapus When did we get the 4.5mil :confused:

Hah if we were buying gas at American rates we would be paying $5.40 per gallon

$3 = 45p? I think not! It's about £1.70, but then I'm not too sure about converting metric to imperial...

Current Exchange rates have £1 = $1.84

Almost two dollars to the pound :)

Firstly, the "pond" is the Atlantic ocean, secondly, "bitchin", a deplorable, derisive and simplistic term for thise bereft of eloguence, concludes with a g.

Furthermore, we "folks over the pond" happen to hail from cultures and nations responsible for such concepts as democracy, philosophy, academia, sports, music, art and discussion. And yet when we consider the contribution of the great America to the world; fast food, a parody of the english language, mass televison to satiate the ignorant masses, and rap music, we observe a culture that revolves around ostentatious behaviour, the conveyance of one's wealth and status not through one's conduct and eloquence, but through one's material possessions. Finally, if you have a "sports" car, which I sincerely doubt adheres to the strict definitive list of sports cars, and a wife, would you not profess to be a tad too advanced in years to riposting vrbally with a sixteen year old?

Europe is older than the United States. (Duh.) Concepts that pre-date the existence of the USA, such as democracy, philosophy, academia, sports, music, art, and discussion, obviously couldn't have started in the USA. The United States of America was, however, founded on these concepts. You're quite ignorant of American history to assert that the US hasn't made any significant or meaningful contributions to the rest of the world. Let me see what I can think of off the top of my head.

Let's start with the first successful colonial revolution--the American Revolution-- that inspired the Haitian and French revolutions and various other colonial revolutions around the world up until the 20th century. There's also the written constitution, a concept Americans really pioneered. It's an absolute necessity for any budding democracy these days. Americans arguably created the modern democracy. Concepts like separation of powers, checks and balances, separation of church and state, the elimination of monarchy and aristocracy, the written constitution, the office of president, federalism, republicanism - these aren't all unique or original to the American system, but certainly gained unprecedented popularity due to America's successes with these institutions. I won't even mention the thousands upon thousands of American inventions that revolutionized technology and human interaction. I also don't need to mention the United States' unparalleled industrial, economic, technological, medical and military might, do I? I could also throw in the United States' contributions to Europe during WWI and WWII. I'm not so arrogant as to say the US single-handedly won the wars for Europe, but I know our effort was absolutely critical. And just for fun: American literature, art, music (rock and roll, jazz, blues, on and on), philosophy, universities, athletics, scientific research, and charities.

See, you're referencing a very narrow, superficial, and widely inaccurate stereotype of American culture. "You Yanks and your rap music and fast cars!" Come on, are you even being serious? I don't know if I should be offended or just laugh at you. I might as well say, "You Europeans and your tiny cars, techno music and clubbing at Ibiza!" Hell, if you're going to point out the shallowest aspects of my culture, I might as well point out the shallowest aspects of yours. I also don't appreciate your arrogant, elitist, and borderline-aristocratic tone. Did you really just call Americans the "ignorant masses"? You find it classless and "ostentatious" to display one's wealth? Sorry, your royal highness, for offending your sensibilities. *bows* I have a suggestion: turn off Jerry Springer and read an American history book. You'll gain a lot more insight into my "ostentatious" culture that way. Maybe it'll humble you a bit. I know that my country isn't perfect. I'm realistic about its triumphs and its flaws, as well as Europe's triumphs and flaws, but I wouldn't dare disparage your entire culture based on a few misguided stereotypes. I recognize Europe's vast contribution to the world and my own country's history and institutions. I also recognize my country's contribution to Europe and the rest of the world.

Wouldn't work. This problem first started to show itself in 2000, before Bush took office. In fact, it was one of the things that helped push the economy towards its recession in 2001.

Erm... I hate to interject fact into your Bush-hating, but the recession *did* begin a full 6 months before the 2000 election.

Erm... I hate to interject fact into your Bush-hating, but the recession *did* begin a full 6 months before the 2000 election.


Well said!
And it's been downhill ever since.
12.7% of the population was living in poverty last year. This number has been steadily increasing since 2001.

So what's the government doing anyway that's so much more important than caring for their own citizens?

Europe is older than the United States. (Duh.) Concepts that pre-date the existence of the USA, such as democracy, philosophy, academia, sports, music, art, and discussion, obviously couldn't have started in the USA. The United States of America was, however, founded on these concepts. You're quite ignorant of American history to assert that the US hasn't made any significant or meaningful contributions to the rest of the world. Let me see what I can think of off the top of my head.

Let's start with the first successful colonial revolution--the American Revolution-- that inspired the Haitian and French revolutions and various other colonial revolutions around the world up until the 20th century. There's also the written constitution, a concept Americans really pioneered. It's an absolute necessity for any budding democracy these days. Americans arguably created the modern democracy. Concepts like separation of powers, checks and balances, separation of church and state, the elimination of monarchy and aristocracy, the written constitution, the office of president, federalism, republicanism - these aren't all unique or original to the American system, but certainly gained unprecedented popularity due to America's successes with these institutions. I won't even mention the thousands upon thousands of American inventions that revolutionized technology and human interaction. I also don't need to mention the United States' unparalleled industrial, economic, technological, medical and military might, do I? I could also throw in the United States' contributions to Europe during WWI and WWII. I'm not so arrogant as to say the US single-handedly won the wars for Europe, but I know our effort was absolutely critical. And just for fun: American literature, art, music (rock and roll, jazz, blues, on and on), philosophy, universities, athletics, scientific research, and charities.

See, you're referencing a very narrow, superficial, and widely inaccurate stereotype of American culture. "You Yanks and your rap music and fast cars!" Come on, are you even being serious? I don't know if I should be offended or just laugh at you. I might as well say, "You Europeans and your tiny cars, techno music and clubbing at Ibiza!" Hell, if you're going to point out the shallowest aspects of my culture, I might as well point out the shallowest aspects of yours. I also don't appreciate your arrogant, elitist, and borderline-aristocratic tone. Did you really just call Americans the "ignorant masses"? You find it classless and "ostentatious" to display one's wealth? Sorry, your royal highness, for offending your sensibilities. *bows* I have a suggestion: turn off Jerry Springer and read an American history book. You'll gain a lot more insight into my "ostentatious" culture that way. Maybe it'll humble you a bit. I know that my country isn't perfect. I'm realistic about its triumphs and its flaws, as well as Europe's triumphs and flaws, but I wouldn't dare disparage your entire culture based on a few misguided stereotypes. I recognize Europe's vast contribution to the world and my own country's history and institutions. I also recognize my country's contribution to Europe and the rest of the world.

However if the gentleman would care to observe the post I quote and that facilitates the above, the individual therin does indeed exemplify the ostentatious flaunting of wealth to ensure one's insecurites are hidden, that I allude to. Furthermore, my "border-line aristocratic tone" is not for you to appreciate, its the resultant of an academic education in the classics, and its an entirely objective opinion that the dissolution of the monarchy, and according aristocracy, is a beneficient act. Whereas you contrive to have George Bush as a head of state, who is loathed and derided by the majority of the civilized world, we possess a constitutional monarchy, and I can assure you, most British people would rather swear allegiance to the Queen than Tony Blair.

Moreover, American cultue, beyond its academics, is renowned for being ignorant and indoctrinated with satiatory, intellectually numbing television, as, I regret to announce, is the majority of the British people. You allude to your involvement in the world wars as indicative of your benevolence, and yet how many American citizens recollect that the revolutionary war, a farcical affair at best, was won principally by virtue of French involvement, wherin British supplies and reinforcements were harried and negated by French naval forces. However, I seem to recollect that France is a "faggot" country since they refused to collude in the invasion of Iraq, and yet you percieve us as ungrateful. Freedom fries indeed.

Well said!
And it's been downhill ever since.
12.7% of the population was living in poverty last year. This number has been steadily increasing since 2001.

So what's the government doing anyway that's so much more important than caring for their own citizens?

At a guess oppressing Iraqi citizens, or preparing to invade Iran....

At a guess oppressing Iraqi citizens, or preparing to invade Iran....

Ahem. The poster I replied to stated that the 2000 elections were a major cause of the recession. This is patently false, as the recession began somewhere around March of 2000.

You tacking on bullshit like an invasion of Iran that only exists in your mind, or alleged Iraqi oppression is absurd.

It's like my claiming that because you began masturbating feverishly a year ago that God has punished you with feeble reasoning skills. It's false, it's misleading, and it is bullshit.

Ahem. The poster I replied to stated that the 2000 elections were a major cause of the recession. This is patently false, as the recession began somewhere around March of 2000.

You tacking on bullshit like an invasion of Iran that only exists in your mind, or alleged Iraqi oppression is absurd.

It's like my claiming that because you began masturbating feverishly a year ago that God has punished you with feeble reasoning skills. It's false, it's misleading, and it is bullshit.

It is rather, since my reasoning is impeccable, as is my factual knowledge. Furthermore, I assure that within four years, Iran will have been invaded, and American conduct in Iraq is hardly an advertisement for western culture. But od course, they aren't being oppressed at all, Abu Ghraib anyone?

At a guess oppressing Iraqi citizens, or preparing to invade Iran....

With the enormous beurocratic apparatus that is the US government, they should have more than enough resources to lift the one eight still struggling to survive in "the greatest democracy in the world" - while still waging a war no one wants for the reasons no one really understands.

It is evident USA is one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to organising themselves. Soon a well known fact.

The problem, I say we can all agree on, are the close ties between the state and companies. Halliburton's been awarded with a contract to clear up three military bases in Mississippi. Not only is the military obviously incapable of doing this by themselves, but the contract goes to Halliburton - of all the companies in the US!
Too much money, too little compassion. Vote Nader and surprise us die hard US-bashers on the other side of the pond.

Well said!
And it's been downhill ever since.
12.7% of the population was living in poverty last year. This number has been steadily increasing since 2001.

So what's the government doing anyway that's so much more important than caring for their own citizens?

Thanks.

True. A terrorist attack that destroys a major planetary financial center (with most of the talent that worked there) is going to do that. Especially when it happens during a recession and halts trading on Wall Street for a week.

What makes you think that the government can do anything?
Even the WPA and work projects of the 1920s & 30s didn't do much against poverty.

The US has had a cold for 5 years now that invovles offshoring jobs, unfair trade and monetary practices by China, and rising energy prices (and yes, boys and girls, that would have happened without a war in Iraq: China & India are consuming more. Simple math.) And no one in the government has the stomach to do much about the Chinese problem. (Thus why I say it can't do anything.)

What would you have the government do? Slap too many laws on China, and prices go up in stores and Chinese diplomacy (the kind we need to keep North Korea from becoming a hot conflict) goes up in smoke...

It is rather, since my reasoning is impeccable, as is my factual knowledge. Furthermore, I assure that within four years, Iran will have been invaded, and American conduct in Iraq is hardly an advertisement for western culture. But od course, they aren't being oppressed at all, Abu Ghraib anyone?

4 years? You call that factual knowledge?
* Bush is out of office then. Why do you assume President X will invade Iran?
* Heck, why would Bush, given the current commitments we already have in Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq, none of which are going away any time soon??

Name me one conflict that the combatants have had sparkling "advertisements for culture". :headbang: Given the situation, I'm amazed the Iraq is going so well. I fully expected another Somalia to happen.

OMG! We humiliated some arrested people!! The US is SOOOO evil!! :rolleyes:
(How about the oppression of decapitating hostages with swords? Or the oppressions of gassing Kurds? Or the oppression of Abu Ghraib by the previous owner?!?)

snip


Ahem. To get back on topic, I believe Snopes.com has an excellent article on why boycotting gas doesn't work, however well-intentioned. The rest of the suggestions are handy if you can make use of them. My husband and I each have a car, and we try to always use the one with the best mileage when we go anywhere. I have a 2000 Toyota Echo and it gets great mileage. My husband has a 1995 4Runner and it gets okay mileage. He and a co-worker usually carpool to work, so he's not spending as much on it, but he's now only 6 miles away from work. We used to have to work 40 miles away from home, but luckily our area has inter-city express buses. Our counties also just started light rail so I bet more people are taking it now. Also, I know the Seattle bus system is using Biodiesel which is cool.

However if the gentleman would care to observe the post I quote and that facilitates the above, the individual therin does indeed exemplify the ostentatious flaunting of wealth to ensure one's insecurites are hidden, that I allude to. Furthermore, my "border-line aristocratic tone" is not for you to appreciate, its the resultant of an academic education in the classics, and its an entirely objective opinion that the dissolution of the monarchy, and according aristocracy, is a beneficient act. Whereas you contrive to have George Bush as a head of state, who is loathed and derided by the majority of the civilized world, we possess a constitutional monarchy, and I can assure you, most British people would rather swear allegiance to the Queen than Tony Blair.

Moreover, American cultue, beyond its academics, is renowned for being ignorant and indoctrinated with satiatory, intellectually numbing television, as, I regret to announce, is the majority of the British people. You allude to your involvement in the world wars as indicative of your benevolence, and yet how many American citizens recollect that the revolutionary war, a farcical affair at best, was won principally by virtue of French involvement, wherin British supplies and reinforcements were harried and negated by French naval forces. However, I seem to recollect that France is a "faggot" country since they refused to collude in the invasion of Iraq, and yet you percieve us as ungrateful. Freedom fries indeed.

I'm also educated in the classics and yet I'm not a pompous ass who snubs her nose at the ignorant, unwashed masses. The Queen of England is absolutely worthless. She's inbred and lives off the public dole. In the United States, we'd expect to find her kind living in a trailer park in Arkansas. I'm not particularly impressed that her ancestors in the twelfth century happened to wage a few successful wars and conquer foreign lands. I'm more interested in what Queen Elizabeth herself contributes to the government over which she presides. Other than tourism revenue, I cannot see one single purpose for her continued existence as monarch. Monarchy and aristocracy - what worthless and backward institutions. Also, I don't swear allegiance to anyone but myself. I can't get my head around your mentality. Monarchy and aristocracy promote the ridiculous idea that some people are intrinsically better than others from birth and that this notion should be codified in law. And, of course, inherent superiority comes with a few perks like land and titles.

Oh, Americans are renowned for being ignorant. Wow, that's some fool-proof evidence you've got there. Well, if everybody says it, then it must be true. I don't know about most Americans, but I'm well aware of France's contribution to the American Revolution. Of course, France helped the American colonists before its own degenerate revolution in 1789 that culminated in the reign of a dictator and four failed republics. (France is on number five. Let's hope this one lasts.) The French contributed most at the end of the American Revolution - the southern front. The American colonists had much success driving the British out of the New England and the mid-Atlantic states before the arrival of the French, although France did send some supplies covertly.

I don't see Europe as ungrateful, though. I'm just angry that Europeans are so goddamn arrogant when they presume to know anything about my country's history or culture. Shout your continent's achievements from your slate-tiled rooftop for all I care, but when you attack my country's achievements and character out of ignorance, I tend to get a little angry.

Ahem. To get back on topic, I believe Snopes.com has an excellent article on why boycotting gas doesn't work, however well-intentioned. The rest of the suggestions are handy if you can make use of them. My husband and I each have a car, and we try to always use the one with the best mileage when we go anywhere. I have a 2000 Toyota Echo and it gets great mileage. My husband has a 1995 4Runner and it gets okay mileage. He and a co-worker usually carpool to work, so he's not spending as much on it, but he's now only 6 miles away from work. We used to have to work 40 miles away from home, but luckily our area has inter-city express buses. Our counties also just started light rail so I bet more people are taking it now. Also, I know the Seattle bus system is using Biodiesel which is cool.

Nice! New York City has a plan to get all taxis to become hybrids, starting this fall: (I imagine it'll take a couple of years to get all the cabs done, tho.)

http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_208065606.html
Jul 27, 2005 6:52 am US/Eastern
(1010 WINS) NEW YORK Hybrid taxi cabs - using both electric and gasoline engines - could be on the road by this fall in New York City.

The city's taxi and limousine commission has approved the idea of using hybrid taxis - pending hearings in September. The hybrid cars use half the gasoline of the traditional cabs - but would offer less leg room in the back seat.

I'm not a politician. But I know what my country does in a recession: it builds things! Roads, railway lines (that no one wants), bridges, airports.. genius. Generates jobs for years to come.

..while the US government increases military spending, NASA's budget, and bans stem cell research.

Ah well. I am of the opinion that the state is ultimately responsible for caring for its population when they can't provide for themselves.

I'm beginning to wonder where the UK is headed as well, with a right wing party in charge.

Happy to report that the price of gas has dropped 15 cents here in North Canton. It's quite a relief, and beyond that, this is the first time I've seen such a drop on a Saturday (I haven't been out yet today, so I'm running with yesterday's numbers.)

I'm not a politician. But I know what my country does in a recession: it builds things! Roads, railway lines (that no one wants), bridges, airports.. genius. Generates jobs for years to come.

..while the US government increases military spending, NASA's budget, and bans stem cell research.

Ah well. I am of the opinion that the state is ultimately responsible for caring for its population when they can't provide for themselves.

I'm beginning to wonder where the UK is headed as well, with a right wing party in charge.

huh? In the 2006 budget, NASA has a $16.5 billlion budget, up 2% from 2005. That's not a big deal... barely keeps up with inflation. Certainly not with the cost of rocket fuel.

On the other hand, the Dept. of Education has a budget of $56 billion (a 1% decrease from 2005, but still over three times the size of NASA.)

I'm also educated in the classics and yet I'm not a pompous ass who snubs her nose at the ignorant, unwashed masses. The Queen of England is absolutely worthless. She's inbred and lives off the public dole. In the United States, we'd expect to find her kind living in a trailer park in Arkansas. I'm not particularly impressed that her ancestors in the twelfth century happened to wage a few successful wars and conquer foreign lands. I'm more interested in what Queen Elizabeth herself contributes to the government over which she presides. Other than tourism revenue, I cannot see one single purpose for her continued existence as monarch. Monarchy and aristocracy - what worthless and backward institutions. Also, I don't swear allegiance to anyone but myself. I can't get my head around your mentality. Monarchy and aristocracy promote the ridiculous idea that some people are intrinsically better than others from birth and that this notion should be codified in law. And, of course, inherent superiority comes with a few perks like land and titles.

Oh, Americans are renowned for being ignorant. Wow, that's some fool-proof evidence you've got there. Well, if everybody says it, then it must be true. I don't know about most Americans, but I'm well aware of France's contribution to the American Revolution. Of course, France helped the American colonists before its own degenerate revolution in 1789 that culminated in the reign of a dictator and four failed republics. (France is on number five. Let's hope this one lasts.) The French contributed most at the end of the American Revolution - the southern front. The American colonists had much success driving the British out of the New England and the mid-Atlantic states before the arrival of the French, although France did send some supplies covertly.

I don't see Europe as ungrateful, though. I'm just angry that Europeans are so goddamn arrogant when they presume to know anything about my country's history or culture. Shout your continent's achievements from your slate-tiled rooftop for all I care, but when you attack my country's achievements and character out of ignorance, I tend to get a little angry.

His, my dear fellow, I'm a MAN, masculine etc.

And to be frank, I find very little erroneous as to an aristocracy or Monarchy, they are inevitabilities within a European society, and never lay claim to an inherent superiority, only the benefits their birth entitles them to. I am aware that within a nation that is bereft of sufficent history to engender any aristocracy, the very premise is somewhat alien, however, they are an inherent constituent of Britsih society, as is the monarchy, and I fail to percieve any rational reason as to why we ought to enact their abolishment. Furthermore, the Queen and the monarchy by extension are considerably more beneficient than George Bush, whose contribution to world politics is an intense anti-american sentiment that pervades the majority of the world.

I enquire moreover as to the contributions of the USA towards the arts, and am met with a distinct sparcity of presence. The principal American play that is lauded is "Death of a Salesman" by Miller, ours is an innumerate number of Shakespeare plays. Have you nthing comparable to Chaucer, Newton, Milton or the remander of our recognised contrubutors? I answer myself, no. Yours is an inherently introspective, isolatinist nation, yuor artistic works are generally for perusal within America, whilst your principla export to the world at large is fast food.

You must understand another thing. Americans are all about go, go, go. Taking 2 hours to get somewhere is impractical and a waste of time when you can do the same thing in 30min or an hour in a car or other means of public transport.

Ah, has anyone here considered/heard of the idea of "EFFECTIVE SPEED" that is : Effective Speed

The average speed of a vehicle after hidden time costs are considered”
What is the formula for “Speed”?
“Speed = distance divided by time”

distance is the total kilometres traveled,
time is the total time devoted to the mode of transport (including the time spent at work to earn the money to pay all the costs created by the particular mode of transport)

“The typical American male devotes more than 1,600 hours a year to his car. He sits in it while it goes and while it stands idling. He parks it and searches for it. He earns the money to put down on it and to meet the monthly instalments. He works to pay for petrol, tolls, insurance, taxes and tickets. He spends four of his sixteen waking hours on the road or gathering his resources for it” (Illich, 1974, 18-19)
“The model American puts in 1,600 hours to get 7,500 miles: less than five miles per hour” (Illich, 1974, 19)

Ivan Illich (1974) suggested that beyond a certain speed it is increasingly difficult to increase average speeds
“… Beyond a critical speed, no one can save time without forcing another to lose it” (page 30)

Now evidently, these aren't new ideas, but are ones which urban planners and general populations do not consider.

heres some references, yes, Paul Tranter was my lecturer for a course called Transport Geography, so I am a bit biased, but i encourage you to read it.
Illich, I. (1974) Energy and Equity, London: Harper and Row.

Tranter, P. J. (2004) Effective Speeds: Car Costs are Slowing Us Down, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Available on the www: at http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/tdm/publications/pubs/effectivespeeds.pdf,

His, my dear fellow, I'm a MAN, masculine etc.

And to be frank, I find very little erroneous as to an aristocracy or Monarchy, they are inevitabilities within a European society, and never lay claim to an inherent superiority, only the benefits their birth entitles them to. I am aware that within a nation that is bereft of sufficent history to engender any aristocracy, the very premise is somewhat alien, however, they are an inherent constituent of Britsih society, as is the monarchy, and I fail to percieve any rational reason as to why we ought to enact their abolishment. Furthermore, the Queen and the monarchy by extension are considerably more beneficient than George Bush, whose contribution to world politics is an intense anti-american sentiment that pervades the majority of the world.

I enquire moreover as to the contributions of the USA towards the arts, and am met with a distinct sparcity of presence. The principal American play that is lauded is "Death of a Salesman" by Miller, ours is an innumerate number of Shakespeare plays. Have you nthing comparable to Chaucer, Newton, Milton or the remander of our recognised contrubutors? I answer myself, no. Yours is an inherently introspective, isolatinist nation, yuor artistic works are generally for perusal within America, whilst your principla export to the world at large is fast food.

Yes, I'm a female, f-e-m-a-l-e, which is why I used a feminine pronoun. "I'm not a pompous ass who snubs her nose at the ignorant, unwashed masses."

Aristocracy arises from the preposterous notion that some individuals are inherently superior from birth. If you don't believe that's true, then why do you tolerate the existence of aristocracy and monarchy? They're not inevitabilities - they're leftovers from the Middle Ages. Europe has reformed politically and socially in so many ways. Why hold onto such an archaic and worthless institution that encourages inequality of opportunity?

George Bush is a politician. Queen Elizabeth is a figurehead. When you're a figurehead whose biggest scandal is the divorce *gasp* of your eldest son and heir to throne, you're not exactly the most controversial person. I don't expect people around the world to like George Bush as much as they like Queen Elizabeth. George Bush has to make tough and unpopular decisions; Queen Elizabeth has to decide what crown to wear to her next [insert bullshit ceremony here].

American authors and poets: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Emily Dickinson, TS Eliot, Samuel Clemens, Tennessee Williams, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Edgar Allen Poe, Henry David Thoreau, Herman Melville, Walt Whitman, Louisa May Alcott, Henry James, Ernest Hemingway...

I don't have time to list them all, but you get the idea. And if you're asking me to compete with Shakespeare or Newton, I can't. England's older than the United States, so obviously the early pioneers of the arts and literature will be from Europe. I can't compete with freaking pioneers. That's like asking you to compare Charles Dickens to Homer and Virgil. Unless you're a biased hack, you have to admit that's an impressive list of names. If you've never heard of them, your education has done you a disservice.

Yes, I'm a female, f-e-m-a-l-e, which is why I used a feminine pronoun. "I'm not a pompous ass who snubs her nose at the ignorant, unwashed masses."

Aristocracy arises from the preposterous notion that some individuals are inherently superior from birth. If you don't believe that's true, then why do you tolerate the existence of aristocracy and monarchy? They're not inevitabilities - they're leftovers from the Middle Ages. Europe has reformed politically and socially in so many ways. Why hold onto such an archaic and worthless institution that encourages inequality of opportunity?

George Bush is a politician. Queen Elizabeth is a figurehead. When you're a figurehead whose biggest scandal is the divorce *gasp* of your eldest son and heir to throne, you're not exactly the most controversial person. I don't expect people around the world to like George Bush as much as they like Queen Elizabeth. George Bush has to make tough and unpopular decisions; Queen Elizabeth has to decide what crown to wear to her next [insert bullshit ceremony here].

American authors and poets: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Emily Dickinson, TS Eliot, Samuel Clemens, Tennessee Williams, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Edgar Allen Poe, Henry David Thoreau, Herman Melville, Walt Whitman, Louisa May Alcott, Henry James, Ernest Hemingway...

I don't have time to list them all, but you get the idea. And if you're asking me to compete with Shakespeare or Newton, I can't. England's older than the United States, so obviously the early pioneers of the arts and literature will be from Europe. I can't compete with freaking pioneers. That's like asking you to compare Charles Dickens to Homer and Virgil. Unless you're a biased hack, you have to admit that's an impressive list of names. If you've never heard of them, your education has done you a disservice.

How would you propose to abolish the aristocracy whithin the Europena nations without implementing an inherently socialist and economically inadvisable policy? The most part of the Britsih populace harbour no objections to the aristocracy, and the monarchy endures since it is quintessentially British, Britain is inconceivable bereft of the monarchy. Furthermore, some individuals are bron inherently superior to others, since genetics would imply that some individuals are intrinsically more talented in all areas than others.

George Bush is, moreover, irrefutably both the American head of state and figurehead, he is the embodiment of America and its policies. The very role of president in conrast to a prime minister is that of the head of state and national figurehead, Bush is recognised as the supreme arbiter of the USA, he assumes supreme responsibility for the conduct of the USA. George Bush does indeed make "tough and unpopular" decisions, an ugly analogy incidentally, he merely elects to pursue the erroneous course for the most part.

To conclude, how you have the temerity to criticise my education I cannot comprehend. The education I have recieved is impeccable and laudable, implicit of the manner in which true academia ought to be pursued, and the fact I fail to know of a myriad of introspective, jingoistic poets would imply imply the depth of European literatue to be analysed.