"Really? It's not that mass transiy is inconsistent, inconvenient, and crowded. "

Did you know that in the 50s the nation's efficient and affordable streetcar system was bought by car companies and then dismantled so that people would buy more cars?

Strat we basically agree. Only thing is that peak oil and gas are not now where we previously though tthem to be; tar sands, fracking etc. Fossil fuel prices way up at the 200-300 level, and beyond suit these guys very well. Their only problem is how to contain renewables and they have been doing pretty well so far I think. The closure of the straits, war and all those big fat rebuilding contracts later (e.g., Haliburton), plus putting another primary producer in its place is just good business. Meanwhile anthropocentric climate change moves on, further and further towards a tipping point.

@ Thucy
Did you know that in the 50s the nation's efficient and affordable streetcar system was bought by car companies and then dismantled so that people would buy more cars?

Sydney Australia is a good example of this. Now they want their trams back, because of the congestion.

but hey, u know, just the free market at work. its like there's an invisible hand guiding us towards happiness. or wealth. or whatever. same thing amirite.

Thucky: Re the streetcar thingy:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/551/did-general-motors-destroy-the-la-mass-transit-system

Relevant quote:
"Now, you may or may not believe GM's professions of innocence concerning the holding company. But most authorities agree that trolleys bit the dust in LA and elsewhere not because of a conspiracy but because they were slow and inconvenient compared to autos, and in the long run just couldn't compete. Los Angeles is typical in this respect. It has neither the high population density nor the concentrated downtown necessary to support rail transit. The PE, which was owned by the Southern Pacific railroad, made a profit in only 8 of the 42 years it was in business under its own name. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that many PE lines in LA proper operated on city streets, and as more cars crowded those streets, service got progressively slower. (The average speed on the run to Santa Monica was only 13 MPH.)

Buses were looked on as the transit industry's salvation because they were cheaper to operate and maintain than trolleys, with no tracks or wires. In fact, the PE had begun to convert to buses in 1917, and had changed over 35 percent of its system by 1939. A state commission in the late 30s urged that busification continue, and by the early 1950s most of the tracks were gone. The last line gave up the ghost in 1961. It's too bad — some think the PE could have been the nucleus of a decent, if heavily subsidized, modern rail system— but blaming GM is like blaming the inventor of gunpowder for war."

To clarify: I totally agree that *any* corporation will do whatever it can to maximize it's profits - be that destroying competition, whining for subsidies, ect.

But just saying "ooh, evil corporations, grr!" ignores *other* causes of today's problems, and I think that's simply *insane*. Just "reducing corporate greed" isn't going to make fusion power plants pop up tomorrow.

Bitching about corporate greed is pointless. The point is to write laws so that corporations don't have the *incentive* to screw over people. If, for example, you enforce the laws against robosigning forclosure notices and fine the ever living hell out of banks, they don't do it any longer - because the consequences of screwing up outweigh the benefits of being a dick

I think that the bases of my argument does not lie in cooperate greed, but rather corrupt politicians. Are we just to accept that ''as one of those things''?

By the end of the year, we will be at war with Iran. It's already been planned.

ful - absolutely not. But just like with corporate greed, while we need to take steps to hammer corrupt politicians, just blaming issues on "corrupt politicians" doesn't necessarily solve the root cause problems.

Do politicians take money from firms, people, ect, and use that influence to write laws that benefit the people who paid them? Yup. Should we do something about that? Yes, although I'm not sure what *realistic* solutions will fly in the short term.

Will removing corporate influence from politics, even if it was possible, magically reduce the need of the US to import oil (and other things)? Nope - only a change in consumption patterns will do that, and the only thing that will change consumption patters on oil will be a) price increases and/or b) viable alternatives.

Eventually prices *will* increase on oil, as it becomes harder to extract, and at that point alternatives will be pursued with more vigor than they are today.

In other words, I'm not saying political corruption is either acceptable or something that should be ignored; I'm saying that the root of the problem isn't political corruption.

@sarg - that's a fascinating viewpoint. Care to back it up?

I can't really. Well, I can but I can't if that makes sense. It has already been planned though, all of it.

With respect, Sarg, I could make the following statements with the same 'evidence':

"By the end of the year, we will be at war with North Korea. It's already been planned."
"By the end of the year, we will announce we've received communication from an alien civilization. It's already been planned."
"By the end of the year, we will turn over control of the North American Union to the UN, and everyone who disagrees will head to the camps. It's already been planned."

Stating "I know because I heard from a friend of a friend of a friend" is the same logic my uncle uses when he forwards me chain letters

Stating "I have first hand knowledge" is something else, but then you're an idiot for violating whatever non disclosure agreements are built into your security clearance

@ strat. I disagree completely with you on corrupt politicians. They lie at the root of this problem as well as others. The things is that the alternative options were and will be increasingly viable.
Two examples - why pump all that money into next to useless (at least in the UK) p.v. and not solar water heating? Why take the funding away from wave power, just when it looked as though it would work big time (ref supplied if interested). Is this just madness or is there another malevolent force at work?

These were political decisions and rooted in corruption.

Strat, that's fine for you to think that. I don't really care what you say. I was just saying that you should direct your debate in terms of what will happen.

Here is the ''social science'' side of the scuppering of wave power:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/beech/spp/2002/00000029/00000001/art00003

and here is the rather neat original invention for anyone more interested in things from an engineering viewpoint:

http://www.mech.ed.ac.uk/research/wavepower/0-Archive/EWPP%20archive/1974%20Wave%20Power.pdf

On my phone, so will respond later, ful

@Sarg - the only evidencd you've given is, 'effectively "I know somwthing
you don't knooooow".? I submit that is insufficient reason to shift the debate

Ful, before I respond, can I request your definition of "corruption", pleass? I want to make sure we're discussing the same thing, and I fear we may not be.


Also, keep in mind I have only a vauge idea of how things work in the UK, so it's quite possible you are 100% correct in how thinga work there and I simply lack the data.

To follow up to Sarg: I am not stating the chances for military action again Iran are 0%, I am stating I don't see them anywhere near 100%

we are not going to war with iran unless they do something stupid like close the strait. The public would not accept it.

Even then I doubt we'd go to war in the classical sense, more of a Gulf of Sidra '86 blow-the-snot-out-of-stuff-threatening-you-but-leave-everything-else-alone thingy

"Social science", and no matter what happens, Fulham always has to behave like a boor.

"But just saying "ooh, evil corporations, grr!" ignores *other* causes of today's problems, and I think that's simply *insane*. Just "reducing corporate greed" isn't going to make fusion power plants pop up tomorrow."

Maybe not but it will help a lot, and with a million other things too will it help.

I agree that the way to accomplish this is by re-incentivizing things, which you can do by changing laws. Therefore it appears we do not disagree.

Example: carbon tax.

I love the idea of a carbon tax. So do many economists. The oil industry would tolerate it.

Politicians are unwilling to invest the political capital necessary to sell it to the voters

Carbon tax is good but lose the carbon credit selling. Sorry, but corporate polluters should be stopped, not able to buy their way out of it. I do, however, like the credits for forestry efforts.

oh my god, if the US did some military exercises off the coast of florida would anyone expect it to make international news?

Normally, no.

If they did it off the Florida coast near Cuba after making threatening noises, yes

This wasn't analogous to exercises off Florida. This would be like the United States threatening to shut down the Panama Canal or Turkey closing the Bosporus. The Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway. All states have a right to use it, and Iran cannot close it legally. If they had done this Iran would have been 100% in the wrong and the United States would have been justified in using its navy to reopen the strait. Keeping the sealanes open and protecting freedom of navigation is probably the best thing America does for the world, and we shouldn't take it for granted. Thank God nothing happened, since escalation would be almost inevitable after the naval clash.

Didn't realize how bad Iran is hurting from these sanctions, the rial is plummeting, there are runs on banks, and even China has lowered the amount of oil they are taking to force a discount due to iran's weakened negotiating stance. Could actually mean the end of the Nuclear program... or a naval war.