The hypocrisy of the US Republican Party

Those do seem like good ideas. Lack of government involvement is a good idea, but it's practically impossible. The government runs the Treasury, so not only control how much money is printed, but the inflation. And if a few bundles of hundreds just "happen" to fall off the back off a truck somewhere, well, the government wouldn't have to tell anyoine about it. I think that the fixed taxes for everyone are a decent idea, but what about low class families that only make, say, $20,000 a year? Take off ten cents per dollar, thats about $2,000 in tax. Thats $18,000 in money they actually make. My parents each have a job, and bring in about $50,000 a year, and that's just enough to support our family (I have one brother). Take ten cents per dollar, that's $45,000. If $50,000 is just enough to keep a roof over my families head and food on our table, then imagine what taking $5,000 off could do. And then you have the CEOs making, lets say $40,000,000 a year. 10 cents per dollar is about $4,000,000. So, subtract 4 million from 40 million. That's still 36 million dollars a year. Now you show me how that is fair, how a lower class family earns $18,000 a year and with an executive earing 36 million? That's 2000 times the salary.

@Double Bob, yes I live in England (hence my proper spelling for everything and use of petrol rather than gas - I use gas to cook, not fuel my car) ;-P

@Scarlet Transportation: "The solution to the problem of subsidies and such is to eliminate government involvement in the economy entirely."

Very bad example. A lot of infrastructural investments have what is known as a natural monopoly. Taking the British water industry as an example, most companies competed bitterly over the valuable urban business to the point where prices were so low that none of the companies could turn a significant profit, and rural communities were left with no competition & high prices due to the slim profit margins of sparsely populated regions. These multiple systems were not used to capacity (failing the prime test of capitalism - effective distribution of capital to places where it is best invested). Eventually, following a series of water-borne epidemics in the mid-19th Century (not necessarily linked to private water supplies), the government allowed municipal authorities to invest in the water & sanitation of their municipalities. They were better able to raise the capital needed for investment than the private companies.

I suspect similar issues would arise for road and rail investment - possibly even worse as few people would like to see 3 or 4 companies competing in the provision of 6-lane highways between, say, New York & Washington. If nothing else, that much tarmac is a massive blight on the landscape, not to mention the difficulty in finding routes that are acceptable to all communities on the way (who won't benefit much from the 'competition' element as intermediate large towns may not be served by more than one company anyway).

Infrastructure is best left to those who can plan a rational network. This does not stop private companies from benefiting (public-private partnerships, licensing of routes by government agencies to ensure maximal network utilisation), but the experience here in the UK is that government cannot write a semi-decent contract to ensure that private companies involved make a profit without burdening the users with excessive charges:

- Failure of Metronet in maintaining the tube in London.

- Bailout of London and Continental Railways as their build and operate contract for the UK's first high-speed line caused major financial difficulties due to over-optimistic revenue forecasts (again, capital can only be rationally invested if you assume that all parties act rationally - unfortunately, companies have a poor track-record at this as they often 'big-up' their forecasts to attract investment. Better government regulation can help mitigate this).

- Numerous problems with private bus companies in Manchester. They all compete for the same, few routes leading to ridiculous bus-congestion in Piccadilly Gardens and on a few major routes out of the city and poor service to certain neighbourhoods. One company was stripped of its license to provide bus services after it was found they had brought in many foreign workers as drivers (not a British-jobs-for-British-people issue, merely one of being able to understand road traffic signs and understand passengers - they couldn't).

Amtrack

I hope you aren't really a fan of BP, because I fully blame them for the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Personal hatred of a select few British executives aside, I think that republicans are even stupider and fucked up over here. Living in Wisconsin, I recently found myself under the despotic rule of governor Scott Walker, who campaigned by saying that he would cut a few union benefits. After being elected, he turned down 2B in federal dollars for a high speed rail from Milwaukee to Madison (Milwaukee is the largest city in the state, and has a rail line to Chicago. Madison is the capital city and where I live.), and then from Madison to Minneapolis (largest city in the state of Minnesota). After turning down two billion dollars, he then turns around and starts bitching about not having enough money in the budget. He then uses his artificial crisis to (illegaly, I might add) pass a bill into law that would remove all collective bargaining power from unions, cut pay, and cut benefits, along with making families pay more towards the pension fund. And all this after unions had already agreed to pay cuts. Can you spell "jackass"?

"That's still 36 million dollars a year. Now you show me how that is fair, how a lower class family earns $18,000 a year and with an executive earing 36 million? That's 2000 times the salary."

On a similar note, I think Blue, Wild, Scarlet, Keto, and all of those other bastards who spend more time playing this game and tweaking their economies should have to start paying the rest of our monthly GC fees because I don't have the time or the desire to log in as often as they do. How much fun would they have in this game if the rest of us weren't around? Clearly this is unfair.

@DoubleBob:

Been a bit pissed off (that means angry to those of you who are of the American persuasion) by all the Brit-bashing since the Deepwater Horizon spill. So...

In 1998 British Petroleum merged with Amoco (based in Chicago, USA) and officially changed its name to BP (removing the 'British' part). It is listed on both the NYSE and FTSE (primary listing).

Its current CEO is Bob Dudley, born in Queens, New York, USA. Yes, Tony Hayward who was CEO at the time of Deepwater was British. Its current chairman is Swedish.

The Deepwater rig was built by a South Korean company leased from an American company operating under a Marshall Islands flag-of-convenience. The project was only 65% owned by BP, 25% was owned by the Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (US-owned) who are trying to get out of paying the share they are liable for.

The fail-safe device fitted to the drilling rig was made by Cameron International Corporation (based in Texas) and BP had contracted out portions of the work to Halliburton Co., Transocean Ltd. and MI Swaco (all US-based).

My point is, this was a global venture (as so many of these activities are). The money will have been invested from an even wider array of countries, so it perhaps a little unfair to label one of the companies involved as more culpable than the others. Indeed, it now seems clear that the blow-out preventer (the fail-safe device made by Texas-based Cameron International Corp.) failed. Furthermore, Obama was wrong to call it British Petroleum, it is now simply BP and his use of the old name did cause unnecessary diplomatic friction.

Yes, mistakes were made, but it is very arrogant to place them all in the lap of the British.

And another thing...! (Oh, I'm so ranty today.)

Actually, this is more in support of your point about income inequality, DoubleBob. This article deals with the societal effects of income equality (it's actually discussing the link between religion and societal problems, but the combination of the two studies at the end strips out the religion bit).

It seems (final graph) that there is a strong correlation between income inequality and societal problems (the study included 25 things like murder and suicide rates, prison population, mortality, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, marriages, deaths, alcohol consumption, poverty and unemployment). The US shows up quite badly in this, most of Europe does fairly well, as usual the UK straddles the Atlantic being neither as good as Europe, nor as bad as America.

BLAST! I got so caught up in my little ranting episode that my cup of tea has gone cold!

P.S. In case you forgot, I'm British.

Then act like one and have an ale and a pie, not a sissy cup of rosy... what are you, my grandmother?

Oh, yis. and dun maybe ay tinnie bowl out in me fottee shert and happy slap a chav while chant'n me support fe me local team!

(That was part translated by the Scouse translator at woohoo.co.uk!)

We're just like Americans. We're in-duh-viduals! (And I'm actually more of a coffee drinker anyway)

Haha, like it, a scouse reply to a cockney crafty.
Fair play to ya me ole china.

Ugh, I hate coffee. And for the record, BP is headquartered in London, and its stock is primarily listed there. There's hard evidence that BP cut corners on the safety of the Deepwater oil rig. Despite the fact that the Deepwater project wasn't fully owned by BP, 65% is still very obviously a majority hold. I'm not placing this only on the British, or on all of the British (just a select few) it was, for the most part, a British project. Hey, what does an American accent sound like to you people?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Very bad example. A lot of infrastructural investments have what is known as a natural monopoly. Taking the British water industry as an example, most companies competed bitterly over the valuable urban business to the point where prices were so low that none of the companies could turn a significant profit, and rural communities were left with no competition & high prices due to the slim profit margins of sparsely populated regions. These multiple systems were not used to capacity (failing the prime test of capitalism - effective distribution of capital to places where it is best invested). Eventually, following a series of water-borne epidemics in the mid-19th Century (not necessarily linked to private water supplies), the government allowed municipal authorities to invest in the water & sanitation of their municipalities. They were better able to raise the capital needed for investment than the private companies. <!-/Quote-!>

Efficiency isn't the only test of capitalism. As I mentioned earlier: "However a road business would charge its rates, you can be guaranteed that it is impossible for them to charge people who didn't use the road." How do you suppose that a municipalities acquires the money to "raise the capital needed for investment" or compete with companies in a situation where "prices were so low that none of the companies could turn a significant profit"? And who do you suppose is making up the difference in "rural communities [that] were left with no competition & high prices due to the slim profit margins of sparsely populated regions"?

I'm alleging that the government is passing the costs off to people disproportionate to their use of the service. They aren't creating efficiency. They're only masking inefficiency. If people figured that it was a good idea to invest their money into water systems, private companies would have little issue coming up with the capital needed. The only thing government provides is not giving those people a choice in how they spend their money.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I suspect similar issues would arise for road and rail investment - possibly even worse as few people would like to see 3 or 4 companies competing in the provision of 6-lane highways between, say, New York & Washington. If nothing else, that much tarmac is a massive blight on the landscape, not to mention the difficulty in finding routes that are acceptable to all communities on the way (who won't benefit much from the 'competition' element as intermediate large towns may not be served by more than one company anyway). <!-/Quote-!>

The allegation that it might not look pretty is a lame argument. I will ignore it. Anyway, transportation companies that cannot operate with the power of government backing them would also not have the power of eminent domain, meaning they couldn't force anyone to sell their land if they didn't want to. Wasn't the problem with the water companies earlier that they had problems raising capital, and here you assume that 3-4 different companies could raise the capital for several 6 lane highways between the same 2 points when you also mentioned that the several water companies earlier could barely make a profit when more than one was operating in the same area? Haven't you noticed what happens when companies struggle and fail? They are bought up by more successful companies, have mergers or closures. If there is a natural monopoly, there will eventually be one company filling it.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Infrastructure is best left to those who can plan a rational network. This does not stop private companies from benefiting (public-private partnerships, licensing of routes by government agencies to ensure maximal network utilisation), but the experience here in the UK is that government cannot write a semi-decent contract to ensure that private companies involved make a profit without burdening the users with excessive charges: <!-/Quote-!>

Public-private partnerships is an invitation to corruption this was my point earlier. If the charges are not excessive but only appear so, government can only do better by passing the cost onto people disproportiate to use. If charges are actually excessive, then it would indicate that the government picked the contractor poorly and it would be better off outside the hands of government.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

- Bailout of London and Continental Railways as their build and operate contract for the UK's first high-speed line caused major financial difficulties due to over-optimistic revenue forecasts (again, capital can only be rationally invested if you assume that all parties act rationally - unfortunately, companies have a poor track-record at this as they often 'big-up' their forecasts to attract investment. Better government regulation can help mitigate this). <!-/Quote-!>

I'm sure we both agree that defrauding investors by using inaccurate data is something that should be dealt with by the courts, thus something that is under the power of government. However, there is a difference between saying something should be illegal and saying something should be regulated. Committing fraud should be punished, but imposing regulations won't reduce fraud anymore than making the commitment of fraud illegal. If we have the commitment of fraud be illegal, why do we need regulations?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

It seems (final graph) that there is a strong correlation between income inequality and societal problems (the study included 25 things like murder and suicide rates, prison population, mortality, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, marriages, deaths, alcohol consumption, poverty and unemployment). The US shows up quite badly in this, most of Europe does fairly well, as usual the UK straddles the Atlantic being neither as good as Europe, nor as bad as America.<!-/Quote-!>

Does this mean that we should hand out money to people because they might commit crimes? If I threaten to harm you, will you give me money to prevent me from harming you? Wait, isn't that the idea behind robbery?

Well, think of it this way. Imagine you're being mugged. Now imagine you have three choices. The first one is to not give the robber anything, get shot, die, and still lose your money. Your second choice is to give the mugger your money, wait for him to leave, call the cops, and never hear from them again. Now your third choice is to pay a slightly higher tax, which then is pooled with other peoples taxes, and sent to the mugger when he really needs it, thus eliminating the need for him to rob you. Which sounds best to you?

"How do you suppose that a municipalities acquires the money" (a) competition when prices are low
If a situation arises where private investment isn't forthcoming and it looks likely that no improvement in services is likely from the private sector, the government should step in. Often this will mean nationalisation, or enforced monopoly. This is what much of Europe did during the '50s and '60s (and, yes, made a shocking cock-up of much of it - but following the wide-scale destruction after WW2, private funding simply wasn't available for rebuilding). Britain has since managed to sell off many of its nationalised assets, returning them to the private sector.

(b) municipal raising of capital
Government-backed entities have significantly lower borrowing costs. That's the main reason London & Continental went tits-up. The UK government ended up paying more than the construction cost of the line to cover the interest on loans that LCR was liable for. If we had just built the line as a government funded project, it would have cost us much less.

(c) rural areas/marginal profits
I don't see how any private company would consider providing half decent services here, at affordable prices. How else would you ensure national coverage (water, sanitation, roads) without government provision or subsidy? Or should everyone be forced to move to a city so that private companies could turn a profit?

"The allegation that it might not look pretty is a lame argument. I will ignore it."
I think this is probably a European/US difference, partly due to increased population density this side of the pond. You cannot route anything above ground over here without very vocal opposition on the grounds of natural beauty or nimbyism, and any route will pass through huge numbers of back-yards.

Multiple companies providing roads between 2 points
Not as unreasonable suggestion as you make out. During the 19th Century, we let private companies build our rail network. Many cities were connected by 2 or 3 routes (with 2 or 3 main stations). It eventually led to an economic crash (Railway Mania). Competition was bitter between the end-points on the lines, but stopping services for intermediate stations were often poor (lack of competition) as the companies focussed on the high-profile routes. The 'Race to the North' is an interesting example. Two routes between London & Scotland became a high-profile competition ground (it frequently made front-page news). Both companies poured money into these routes making them faster and more comfortable (often at the cost of regional services). Not only that, but the overnight services that had previously arrived between 7-8am, were accelerated until unfortunate businessmen were roused earlier and earlier. It took a serious derailment on the western route for calls for safety rather than speed to take the front seat.

Strangely, following the forced mergers of rail companies after WWI, the competition continued despite the two companies terminating in different cities 46 miles apart (Glasgow & Edinburgh). Go figure.

Anyway, back to the point. It's not unreasonable to expect multiple routes between two endpoints. Plus, if competition is supposed to help drive down prices, how could this be achieved if only one route is built? If a natural monopoly is thus achieved, what's to stop a company raising its prices and milking its customers for as much as it thinks it can get away with?

As a separate issue, how do Americans react when there are suggestions of road tolls?

"Public-private partnerships is an invitation to corruption this was my point earlier. If the charges are not excessive but only appear so, government can only do better by passing the cost onto people disproportiate to use. If charges are actually excessive, then it would indicate that the government picked the contractor poorly and it would be better off outside the hands of government."
I agree that so far there is little evidence that governments are able to write a half-decent contract. I hope experience will improve this, but still don't like it.

I disagree that this suggests the project would be better off outside the hands of government - it would be better off wholly in the hands of government. This would stop the risks of naked profiteering from a company with a natural monopoly.

I'm not sure what you mean by passing the costs onto people disproportionate to use? Are you suggesting peak-time pricing? That's going to happen under public or private provision. It doesn't make sense to build infrastructure that can easily cope with the vast numbers of people who only want to use it between 8-9am and 5-6pm. One way that this is minimised is peak fares (increased tolls on bridges and tunnels) during the rush hour. Most rail companies do it, many private bridges and tunnels here do it to. Worse still, our private railways are adjusting their definition of peak hours in order to try to shift people off the high-demand services. It's the only way they can manage demand with the limited capacity on the track and at stations.

Okay, I know this is a dead thread, but I've been ignoring the forum because the last time I was a "simmer" I ended up spending most of my time on the boards rather than watching my empire and enterprise.
But I have some down time while I wait for the month to change over so I popped over and saw this.
First off, I agree that it is insane to subsidize ANY private enterprise. And Democrats (TARP, GM buyout, etc.) are just as guilty as Republicans in that regard.
Do you know why the commodities market has two different types of sugar contracts, sugar 11 and world sugar? Because Dem. Senator Inoue decades ago convinced the Senate to make it illegal for any company in the USA to use sugar in their products unless they bought it in the US. Of course his state, Hawaii, just happened to be the largest cane producer in the country. The result was most companies switched to corn syrup as a sweetener because US sugar was roughly twice as expensive as world sugar.
'Nuff with that. Double Bob, you pee and moan about your Governor turning down two billion from the Fed for high speed rail, then crying about budget.
Since you're young I'll be patient here. If this were Europe or Great Britain high speed rail would be a decent idea. Rail travel over there is the best way to get around most of the time. I didn't have, or need, a car the two years I lived in Germany, and whenever I visit Great Britain I always buy a Britrail pass, because you can use it on the buses also.
BUT, here in America, how many people ride trains? Subways sure, driving in places like NY city is next to impossible, but to go from place to place Americans are addicted to cars.
More important, that 2 bil wasn't just gimme money,it was dedicated to developing a high speed rail system only. A rail system that after it was built would be up to your state to subsidize.
SKANDAR, just out of curiosity, what part of Great Britain are you from? I've spent time in all the kingdoms, and can't really pick a favorite. The best cider I ever drank was in Edinburgh, Wales is decent (if you can get through their accent), the Midlands are good for a relaxing vacation, and London (until the last couple years anyway) was always worth a couple days. I have to question your statement about "sensible euro petrol" prices. Last time I went across the pond the price of a liter was not a whole lot less than we pay for a gallon.
I have to side with you on the "blame Britain for the Gulf". A large part of the blame rests squarely on the US government's shoulders. They spent WAY too much time screwing around trying to figure out what to do (something this administration does very well). I had an engineer friend who went down during the first week to volunteer his services in whatever way they could be used, and the local government told him they couldn't even allow people out on the beaches to clean things up without Federal approval! And the "Fed" was too busy playing golf and shooting baskets to worry about a little oil spill.
Back to double Bob for my last shot. I'm not trying to pick on you, honest. You're obviously intelligent, and you have strong convictions. I'm always willing to have an honest debate with those I disagree with. Your statement about the mugger is, in my opinion, off the mark. Sociopaths are sociopaths. If you start handing them "free" money it will NOT stop their activities. They do the robbery thing (the majority of the time) because they are bullies on a power trip. My solution is to use the second amendment of the US Constitution on them. Saves my money.
The median income in the US is somewhere around 30,000 a year, so I think your family is doing pretty good on 50. Your parents deserve it, they paid a lot of dues to get to where they are, but it's a bit disingenuous to say you're barely putting food on the table.
Okay, I'm done. Back to the game.

Steady on! It's only been 'dead' 3 days. Doubt it's had its last rites read to it yet.

@rep, nice to have an extra voice in the debate. I'm originally from, and currently resident in the North West having moved back up here from London.

"I agree that it is insane to subsidize ANY private enterprise."
Actually, I don't think it's insane to subsidise ANY enterprise. I don't think it's sane to subsidise Big Oil companies who don't need it. Nor do I think that companies who are struggling should always be subsidised. It only makes sense (to me) when there are important skills or technologies that could do with being preserved.

Example: Rolls Royce Aero Engines. Development of its RB211 engine proved more difficult and expensive than expected and the company went into receivership. As one of the few remaining aero engine manufacturers in the UK, the government nationalised it. Once its finances were sorted and after some restructuring, Thatcher privatised it and the company has been incredibly successful since. It's main income is now from service contracts: Power by the Hour. It gets constant telemetry from its engines & can often meet a plane at an airport to fix a developing problem before the crew are even aware of it.

I accept that all too often, nationalisations happen for political reasons and end up as economic disasters (& Rolls Royce is a rare exception), but they make a lot of sense where infrastructure is concerned - think of the economic consequences of a privatised London Underground or NY Subway going bust.

"Last time I went across the pond the price of a liter was not a whole lot less than we pay for a gallon."
Seems overpriced here, doesn't it? Don't forget though that construction and maintenance in the US is supposed to be paid for out of 'user fees' (i.e., petrol taxes) and I believe there are now issues with a lack of funding for even basic maintenance in some areas. Our higher taxes are also supposed to price in some of the environmental damage as Europe, generally, doesn't have its head in the sand over global warming.

Right, now for an heretical admission. High Speed rail doesn't make a whole lot of sense outside of Japan, and perhaps BosWash. They are possibly the only places where population density, and a string of large population centres in a convenient line would enable a system to pay for itself both in terms of operating costs and construction.

However, I am still pro-HSR, particularly in the UK as our motorway network is congested and the upgrade of the West Coast Mainline (supposed to deliver 140mph running in 9 years at a cost of £2bn by private company Network Rail, actually took 12 years, cost over £8bn, still only allows 125mph running, and bankrupted Network Rail - private sector efficiencies, my arse). Adding a high-speed line (which is forecast to be profitable regarding operating costs, if not construction) would free up capacity on the WCML for more commuter and freight trains. This would hopefully result in some modal shift from the motorway network.

Another aspect that I think encourages the construction of high speed rail, is the shift from air travel (again, partly on environmental grounds). Personally, I find it much more pleasant travelling city centre to city centre on a fast train with more legroom and better air quality than flying between two out-of-town airports and a lengthy metro ride or expensive taxi journey at each end. There are now no flights between Paris and Brussels thanks to the high speed Thalys link and fewer flights now between London and Eurostar destinations. Not to mention the fact that, despite its 5 airports, some business leaders in the City want to expand airport capacity around London. I suspect this will be impossible politically - the opposition to extra runways, terminal capacity and flights over suburbia would be much higher than opposition to provision of high speed rail.

Once again, I have written far too much. But I think it important to discuss the whole capitalist-social democracy/private-public division. I think Brits get a wider exposure to both sides as our government tends to flip-flop between the American-style free-market and European social democracy. I don't think we get the balance right (and I don't think flipping almost between the extremes is helpful), but I'd rather have this than either extreme.

Until my next rant...

@rep: You ever try to take the bus from Madison to Chicago? And then a plane to Minneapolis, so that you can FINALLY catch your flight to San Fransisco? It's f**king insanity. A high speed rail to Minneapolis would not only be much more efficient for things like that, it would also be better for Madison-Milwaukee. The line already exists for Milwaukee-Chicago. And I know that the money would only be able to be spent on a high-speed rail, and that the state would have to pay for it, but maybe that would convince the governor to actually increase taxes on everybody, not just the lower and middle classes. Further, the eventual end to the high-speed rail would actually have connected most of the Midwest, improviing tourism, business revenues, and allowing businesses to receive supplies much quicker. on to the Gulf: I'm not saying everything was Britains fault. I'm not saying that they should have been (completely) responsible for the clean up. I'm just saying, they cut corners on the project that lead to a massive ecological disaster. The U.S. government did take too long to decide how they should respond, and that's our fault. But, had it not been for the Deepwater rig and BPs cost-cutting, safety-cutting measures, the government wouldn't have had to decide that in the first place.

DoubleBob (I like that name, by the way),
I can understand where you're coming from. Never been in Madison, only place I've ever been in in Wisconsin is the Dells. I used to live in the pig and corn state south of you. I also know what the insanity is in taking buses.
I guess I'm just skeptical about anything the government gets their fingers in, except maybe the military (and they screw that up too paying 500 bucks for a hammer!). Someone mentioned Amtrak earlier in the thread. The Fed took over the Penn Central railroad 40+ years ago to keep it from going bankrupt. "Just until they can get back on their feet". They're still pumping huge bucks into it every year.
An Amtrak story for you. My freshman year at Michigan State University we were not allowed to have cars on campus. I lived in Pennsylvania, ten hour drive by car (14 by bus). I decided it would be a lot more comfortable to take the train instead of the bus on my way back from break. Are you ready for this? First I had to take one train from my home to Philly. Change, take train to DC. Change, train to Pittsburgh. Change, to Chicago. Change, to Detroit. Detroit to East Lansing. Total travel time? 26 hours! I took the bus. And Europeans wonder what our dislike of trains is all about.

There's an old saying that "just about everyone is a liberal in their 20s, and when they get to their 50s most people are conservative." Lot of truth in that. Younger folks tend to be idealistic, by the time you hit middle age you've been bit in the ass a couple times too many.
Anyway, good luck to you. If I spend much time on the boards I'm sure we'll find some other things to argue about!

And I'm glad I'm on LU; I won't have to look over my shoulder for the BBJBS nooooks!

To Skandar:
Should have answered you first, but wasn't paying attention.
Your example of Rolls was excellent. Where issues of national security are involved you are "spot on" as we say in the colonies. Rolls produces engines for the RAF, am I right?

When you say the Northwest would that be Scotland?

Jeez, I'm all over the map here! Funny you mention Japan. As a boy my family spent 5 years there (the dark ages of 1965-70)and I rode a lot of Bullet trains. So I'm a fan of HSR too. It's just a shame that the US, who rivaled Britain's rail system throughout the 1800s and the first half of last century, should have given it up. Not just passenger service either. It boggles the mind how much more freight can be put on a train as opposed to trucking it. If there were a reasonable train system here we could get a lot of diesel guzzling, traffic clogging "lorries" off the highway. Not to mention the decreased pollution.
My area has had quite a bit of success with what they term "light rail". Sort of an above ground subway. It's made going to Baltimore or DC a lot more convenient. Maybe we'll all work something out.

Going to "sort of" take issue with you regarding global warming. I won't dispute the basic fact of warmer temps, what I do dispute is the cause. I categorically disagree that humankind is responsible for a large degree of it. I don't know if I still have it to get a link for you, but an MIT professor made some very good points in a paper he wrote about the issue.

And once more showing my age: back in the late 1960s/early 1970s the hue and cry was that mankind was driving the world into a new ice age with all their polluting.

In reality,scientists have only been ACCURATELY studying the temperature for the past couple of decades. Before that the locations of the thermometers changed (proven fact that temps in city are warmer than country) and other assorted nonscientific methods were used.

I wholeheartedly agree as to the much more pleasant atmosphere in a train as opposed to a plane. Unless it's Paddington at rush hour!

You remind me very much of a Brit I talked to 3 years ago when I was here. He was a nuclear physicist (I think. I know he was a scientist.)and he and I had some great discussions.

And I will close this segment by saying something that will probably have me ducking for cover: The world could really use Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan right about now. You didn't mess with either country back then, and the world seemed a safer place.

Until next time.

@Rep:

According to wikipedia, Rolls aero engine clients include 500 airlines, over 100 armed forces totalling over 50,000 engines in service! Yep, you're right, it does include the RAF on our Tornadoes, Eurofighters (via the Eurojet consortium) and recent versions of the Harrier (until withdrawal from service last March).

Sorry for the confusion of my exact whereabouts - I forget that non-Brits can be confused by the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England, often using them all interchangeably. By The North-West, I mean North-West England (I live between Liverpool and Manchester).

Also, re: freight by rail, the US rail freight network is far better developed than here in Europe. Not to mention the massive energy efficiencies the companies have managed in 29 years (104% increase in efficiency based on ton-miles per gallon). Not sure whether that means they were horrendously inefficient 30 years ago, but if the car industry had managed the same pace of improvements, a 2-ton SUV would be able to make 240mpg instead of 15mpg.

I have generally given up on the idea of debating anthropic climate change on here - I get the impression there is too much anti-climate change rhetoric in the US media. Let me just say that it doesn't predict warmer temps for everyone, some areas may cool slightly. It does predict more extreme weather though (snowstorms, heatwaves, tornadoes, etc.). Plus the first Pacific islands have had to be evacuated due to rising sea levels. Not because they are now permanently under water, but because they are covered by tides more often which has led to salty soil and disaster for the subsistence farmers who used to live there.

Finally, prepare to duck! THATCHER! I admit, we needed to bash our unions as they did bring the country to a standstill in the 70s, but her continued electoral success was more due to an incompetent opposition than good policies. She decimated many mining communities without putting anything in place to help the families who had lost their livelihoods in her quest for the Service Economy (which left us dangerously exposed to the recent financial crisis, more so than we would have been if we still 'made stuff'). And for all her economic liberalism, she was a social conservative which gets her a black mark in my book.

Skandar,
My mistake for not catching the English distinction. If you meant the Northern section of the island you would have SAID Scotland! Blame it on fatigue.
On my first visit to the UK my girlfriend and I were in Edinburgh to see the castle and I said to someone standing nearby "we don't have castles in the US like you guys do in England."
Fortunately I was fast in those days and outran all the people who came after me!
Learned some new cuss words too.

Re: the climate change. As I said, it does seem clear that the Earth is in a warming trend. But the science of climatology is relatively new, and accurate records from the past are hard to come by. So whether this is simply a cyclical phenomenon or set off by humans is where the debate lies. It has to be stated that the proponents did not do themselves any favors in the way they have handled the debate.

I'm sorry about the effect that Mrs. Thatcher had on the internal workings in the UK. The outflow of manufacturing jobs here in the states has been crippling also. We could probably have a nice debate whether the losses are due to greedy employers or needless overregulation.

I saw Mrs. Thatcher speak way back and was favorably impressed. My idea when I said we could use her and Reagan now was more tuned to the international arena. The two of them were a team that very few countries or terrorist organizations were willing to confront, and none of us had to lose any personal freedoms to counteract the threats. Whether in the Falklands or Libya, mess with one you mess with both. They were two strong international leaders at the same point in history.

Our current President is an international embarassment. But I'll stop there on that topic.

I don't know much about your newly elected PM. Is he doing any good?

I knew I'd find something to go back and forth with you! Social conservatives=bad. Feel like going into more depth on that? Fair warning: I'm a very strong fiscal conservative, the social side depends on the issue. I'm also strong on limiting government, which is why your original post intrigued me. The govt. subsidizing companies whose profits set records year after year infuriates me!

You've taught me some things I wasn't aware of about Thatcher, I appreciate it.

Now back to our regularly scheduled (pronounced shedualled) progamming.

@ Skandar: there are no reasons to bash unions at any time. they're extremely important. As part of the new Wisconsin budget bill, with collective bargaining gone, there will effectively BE no unions. My mother, as an employee of the state, will have to pay more for health insurance. My brother, father, mother and I all have pre-existing conditions, sometimes several. This calculates to a much larger amount of money spent. It will also increase the amount employees will have to pay to their pensions, cut medicare, and cut badgercare. It will take money from the public education system, of which I am still a part of. To top it all off, in addition to the extra money paid to pensions/for health insurance, there are going to be large pay cuts. the governor refused to negotiate with unions, that's practically a quote. And he refused to get rid of the collective bargaining part of the bill even after unions agreed to pay cuts. He also made sure the bill excluded firemen and police officers, even after they insisted on equal treatment in the bill. And now for the real icing on the cake, he had it passed illegally. And he didn't graduate college. Just saying.

Skandar,
Forgot to respond to the capitalism/socialism bit.
From my studies and experience, pure forms of either are negative.

Pure socialism basically is just communism by another name. Pure capitalism is too open to abuse such as the UK of Charles Dickens' time and the railroad "robber barons" here in America.

The key of course is to find some sort of balanced approach which provides a viable social safety net without disincentavizing people to work.

One of the factors in the demise of the USSR was the fact that people were pretty much guaranteed a job and a subsistence level existance regardless of productivity.

Crop yields fell dramatically in the years of communism, leading the USSR to import wheat to feed their population.

It's not well known, but the Pilgrims who came to America started out with a communist system. Everything was communal, there was no private ownership. Didn't take long to toss that in the trash.

So where would you place the line? As you mentioned, Britain seems to flow one way, then back the other. And yet you always seem to muddle through. (That last sentence is a paraphrase of a quote from one of your countrie's WWII heroes.)

Gotta go, I think I heard doublebob give the nuclear attack go ahead!