Text 1557, 85 rader
Skriven 2006-06-03 16:55:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2003.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <P8qdnSbcn95fTRzZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <t96dnW-pHPn-WOHZnZ2dnUVZ8s6dnZ2d@bt.com>

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:kme3825diq2fpn8p6l6g1hjdqo7tgv08f7@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 04:31:40 +0000 (UTC), "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
<snip>

> And finally, there's the matter of example. This country, for better
> or worse, is enormously influential, and trends that start here have a
> way of spreading around the world.

Trends here are immediately rejected by the French. )


>
>>> But when we do -- the Europeans will play along, because they've been
>>> way ahead of us on this issue and they'll be freed of the worry that
>>> we'll gain an economic advantage over them if we save a few pennies on
>>> fuel.
>>
>>But they already have significantly higher fuel costs.  Why would a few 
>>more
>>pennies dissuade them if they're already way ahead of us?
>
> Wouldn't that make them even /more/ reluctant to spend more on fuel?

If it's a few pennies, no.
>
>>> China and India will go along if we and the Europeans make it clear
>>> that they have to if they want to keep trading with us. And they very
>>> much want to do that.
>>
>>Threats work on the Chinese?  Did I miss that memo?
>
> Well, they ended the Korean War, and have presumably kept them from
> invading Taiwan. When, apart from those examples, have we seriously
> threatened them?

In case you hadn't noticed, the Chinese have significantly increased
their military spending lately and been somewhat more aggressive in
their rhetoric towards Taiwan.  A year or so ago a Chinese general
had been reported as saying that a war with the west was almost inevitable.

Threats didn't work on Iraq, don't work on Iran and won't work on China.

Countries all over the world say one thing and do another.  Heussein
bought off countries.  N. Korea agreed to no nuclear program and
did one anyway.  Iran just decided to stop pretending.

Threats never worked against Cuba either.

>
>>> Then too, if we reduce demand for oil (and the US uses /25% of it/),
>>> we'll drive its price down, meaning that they'll be spending less on
>>> energy and fertilizer.
>>
>>I don't think  the price will go down.  The Chinese are reported to have
>>been
>>buying up oil contracts wherever it can...including rights from Cuba to
>>drill
>>offshore.  Anythiing we save they'll use.
>
> Not 25% of the world supply, I think. For a few years, anyway. In
> fact, I'm more concerned that we'd end up subsidizing them by driving
> down the price of oil below the price of alternative fuels, which are
> currently cheaper than oil but wouldn't be if oil returned to $20 a
> barrel. And both the oil companies and OPEC countries would be
> determined to out-compete alternative fuels as well -- oil company
> executives have said on at least one occasion that they would drive
> the price of oil down if ethanol became competitive, and the Saudis
> have long had a policy of keeping oil prices low enough to discourage
> competition.

We couldn't eliminate our entire 25%, and China and India could make up
the difference in what ever we saved.
                                                         
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)