I don't believe the US economy is or can be self-sustaining. Perhaps we are a bit less dependent on external factors than some others, but we do have our points of dependency as Walter has noted. Our last experiment with economic isolationism after WWI was good for no one, inside or outside the USA.
Oil is a problem - 40% of the world's petroleum transfers pass through the Straits of Hormuz out of the Persian Gulf every day. Increasingly this supply goes to consumers in Asia, Japan and, notably China. All importing nations have an interest in the stability of governments in the Gulf Region. It will be interesting to observe the future actions of Japan and China with respect to their growing dependency on this region.
The chief problems facing the world today arise from the lack of political and economic development in the Moslem World and in Africa. It is truly unfortunate that Europe and the United States, following the successful conclusion of the Cold War cannot find a mutually acceptable way to deal with these problems. The principal European powers have evidently decided that unchallenged U.S. power is a greater problem and have organized their strategies around that principle. This seems to me to be most unwise and unfortunate - a triumph of envy and pride over common sense.
For the US the trick is to reduce our vulnerability to external shocks, whether economic or political, and find a way to force Europe to bear a share of the cost while we deal with these central issues.
georgeob, I don't think any of us even suggested that the US is or should be self-sustaining. The world economy will only become more interrelated rather than separate in the future. The supply and consumption of oil will be our main energy source for many decades to come, and it's up to the developed countries to invest in R&D to find alternate energy sources. Nobody can argue with your third paragraph concerning the lack of political and economic development in the Moslem and African countries. I doubt very much that the Europeans will exert much energy or resource towards the cost of helping those countries as they struggle to develop their own union.
Cicerone, I agree with you. The U.S. sorely needs to deploy an energy strategy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Democrats believe the route to this outcome is through government limits on vehicle design (ban SUV's and the like) and through tax breaks for solar & wind power and other like fantasies. The right answer is more nuclear power for electrical generation; new facilities for importing LNG (there is ample supply of gas); and new technologies for exploitation of our enormous reserves of high quality coal. One can extract a number of combustible gases from coal including hydrogen, methane and more complex molecules - all of which could be used in clean engines or fuel cells.. The problem is finding environmentally safe & efficient methods of handling the residues. This is a difficult technological challenge, but one more likely to yield a solution than others being advocated by environmentalists.
Meanwhile we still do have the means to make the Europeans bear some of the economic costs of dealing with the key issues before us all, and we should pursue them vigorously. Right now a weak dollar is the right remedy.
georgeob1 wrote: The U.S. sorely needs to deploy an energy strategy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
From
press release:
"A bipartisan group of top energy experts from industry, government, labor, academia, and environmental and consumer groups today released a consensus strategy, more than two years in the making, to address major long-term U.S. energy challenges. The report...contains detailed policy recommendations for addressing oil security, climate change, natural gas supply, the future of nuclear energy, and other long-term challenges, and is backed by more than 30 original research studies."
Full report:
Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Address America's Energy Challenges (PDF; 2.29 MB)
Walter, Good link. Thanks for sharing. It pretty much explains what needs to be done, but it'll rely a great deal on how our government follows it's recommendations. I doubt very much Bush is even interested.
Walter,
How do you always find this stuff so fast?
Intersting report - I just read the introduction; bios of the panel members; and their final recommendations. The rest is 148 pages.
Most interesting to me was the fact that their recommendations are almost identical to those of the Energy Strategy developed three years ago by Vice president Cheny and his panel of advisors. Apparently the democrats are willing to accept the truth as long as it doesn't come from the mouths of their political opponents.
georgeob1 wrote:Walter,
How do you always find this stuff so fast?
Just look at my signature line
C'mon, now Walter - admit it - show 'em your toolbar :wink:
This is the 'heavy' dough of the cake that is not visible to most observers of what is happening in Turkey's bid to join the EU. With the way France is treating Muslims in their country, it'll be an interesting dynamic to watch how Turkey's population will react to France after membership.
Eh, Turkey is still on the way trying to become a member - it won't happen before in a couple of years.
And why are you pointing especially at France? France is (more) pro-Turkey than e.g. the German conservatives (besides others), who are strictly against it.
That will be the beginning of the end, if turkey gets into the EU.
Turkey will join the EU and then dissolve the union? I'm sorry, that just doesn't make sense.
I didn't say dissolve the union. I just think they will bring more a lot more problems than benefits.
Restricting membership is one thing, but restricting religious' habit is another - especially when directed only at Muslims - or what is perceived to be directed only at Muslims.
Not just because of religious beliefs. Economic, political and geographical. Their economy is second or third world, they have potential for extremist government and they are not even really part of europe. Istanbul is, but the rest of it isn't.
