You realize, of course, that your little conspiracy makes little economic sense, right? You're asking us to believe that auto makers buried a high-mileage technology, something that would give them a massive competitive advantage, and for what? To keep friends in the oil business?

 <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

No- they have enough friends. The billions of dollars it would cost to retool their plants and re-engineer their product versus the high profit margins on SUVs and PU’s that were selling like hot cakes, because (this is the good part) they had convinced their friends in DC to give tax breaks to customers for buying these same high profit Suburban’s and Hummer’s--- economic sense ? more like a no brainer.

You should also realize that for your theory to work, every car maker on the planet has to be in on it, since none of them have rolled out this technology you're so certain isn't being used today only because Detroit didn't pursue it. That means every maker, from every nation on Earth is more concerned with being pals with others in the industry than gaining a massive, massive advantage. Hell, that means countries where gas costs $6/gal are driving cars 1/2 as efficient as they could be because <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Toyota and Renault and VW don't want to upset the world-wide auto maker botherhood.

But our global competitors are not waiting, you’ve already pointed out that Toyota has virtually lapped the field w/ hybrid, and they continue to advance and while the Japanese have bet on hybrids, in Europe they are running on  “clean-diesel” –a more fuel-efficient diesel engine which accounts for half of new car sales there—this while U.S. carmakers and lawmakers fought for the status quo-- Honda upped the fuel economy of its Civic by 5 to 10 percent in 2001 and debuted its hybrid insight--  that same year G.M. rolled out its Hummer 2, which gets 10 miles to the gallon--

Sorry, that one doesn't make sense. Perhaps the simple theory is the correct one, the technology isn't in place for the same reason that the drug companies haven't cured cancer. Or have I hit on another conspiracy theory of yours?

 <?:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

The facts are in front of you- I can’t help you if it still doesn’t make sense--
I’ve concluded that you are either a professional arguer who simply enjoys picking a fight, or you’ve got an unwavering agenda to protect all within the American system, despite blinding contrary evidence—
I’ve pointed out that this situation has festered over the tenure of both political parties, so I’m no Bush hater, and my perspective is NOT anti-American--

it simply angers me that we enrich the cultures who try to kill us, are now deployed and fighting these powers costing us $200 billion+ so far, while young American’s die or become maimed, in an effort against an enemy who have, and continue to, petro-profit from the billions we provide them-- all for the oil we’re now there to protect---this while Washington / Detroit ENCOURAGE the purchase of 10 mpg vehicles, increasing our dependency on these same terror regimes further--- you’re right it doesn’t make sense at all.

[[quote=mikebutler222]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You realize, of course, that your little conspiracy makes little economic sense, right? You're asking us to believe that auto makers buried a high-mileage technology, something that would give them a massive competitive advantage, and for what? To keep friends in the oil business?

 [/quote]

[quote=TexasRep]

No- they have enough friends. The billions of dollars it would cost to retool their plants and re-engineer their product versus the high profit margins on SUVs and PU’s that were selling like hot cakes,

[/quote]

Factories retool most every year and high mileage SUVs and PUs would sell as well or better than their low mileage counterpoints. The economic incentives work exactly the opposite of what you’ve outlined.

[quote=TexasRep]

… because (this is the good part) they had convinced their friends in DC to give tax breaks to customers for buying these same high profit Suburban’s and Hummer’s--- economic sense ? more like a no brainer.

[/quote]

Please try to be serious if you’re going to take up all this time and bandwidth. The tax breaks for SUVs (because they’re classified as light trucks, and have been for years) used in business (which worked just like the deprecation schedules used for years on heavier business vehicles) affected a tiny, tiny part of the buyers of those vehicles.

You still seem to miss the point that in order for your conspiracy theory to work the entirety of the  world’s auto makers had to be willing to forego the market advantage they’d have if they could produce this miraculous technology you claim they refuse to implement if they could deliver the very same SUVs the public clearly want(ed) (perhaps they want them no more, but they’re still not migrating to hyper-efficient minicars) with much higher fuel mileage.

 [quote=TexasRep]

But our global competitors are not waiting, you’ve already pointed out that <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Toyota has virtually lapped the field w/ hybrid,…

[/quote]

Let’s see, the very technology that you mocked in an earlier post as “not battle tested” and that you wouldn’t buy is now “virtually lapped the field”? Which is it? And how long have these vehicles been widely available now?  Three years? Was Toyota sitting on said technology all that time?

[quote=TexasRep]

Honda upped the fuel economy of its Civic by 5 to 10 percent in 2001 and debuted its hybrid insight--  that same year G.M. rolled out its Hummer 2, which gets 10 miles to the gallon—

[/quote]

And at the time, which did consumers want? BTW, was the Hummer 2 (13/13, EPA) the only car GM produced? Guess what Toyota was offering in 2001? The Landcrusier at 13/16 mpg. Honda (which has since gone even bigger with trucks and SUvs)  had the  Passport 16/20, while the Ford Explorer was available at 16/22. It sounds like they were all offering what they thought the consumer wanted to buy…

www.fueleconomy.gov

[quote=TexasRep]

The facts are in front of you-

[/quote]

And those “facts” that big oil, government interests and Detroit conspired to keep high mileage US made cars off the roads, where are they again?

 [quote=TexasRep]

I’ve concluded that you are either a professional arguer who simply enjoys picking a fight, or you’ve got an unwavering agenda to protect all within the American system, despite blinding contrary evidence—

[/quote]

And you are, no doubt something completely different. While you spend as much time on your side of this debate defending a POV that’s little more than a blanket conspiracy theory with no supporting evidence that, btw, runs contrary to the economic interests of US car makers themselves.

Here’s the bottom line for me. Detroit’s failure’s are legendary. Their failure to produce a world class midsized family car since the early days of the Taurus (hard to even imagine these days how well that car was received and how it outsold its Honda and Toyota rivals) is particularly galling. Their head-down, not thinking to the future “leadership” has done much to bring them to where they are today. Having said that, the idea that there’s a technology that they (and the rest of the world’s car makers) have simply refused to produce until Honda and  Toyota rolled out their hybrids three or so years ago, because they wanted to protect big oil and their political friends is just nonsense. If Ford could produce an Explorer that got 50 mpg they’d be making as many as they possibly could and making record profits doing so.

It’s just a cheap shot to suggest they could have had something that’s not being used, something you can’t even name.

We could, on some other thread, explore how tenuous the “oil used in the US=profits to terrorists” (what percentage of US used oil even comes from the Middle East, much less from countries there that would seep oil profits to terrorists) logic is.

[quote=skeedaddy]You began by suggesting that we can learn a lot from Cuba and that the
quality of life is good there "contrary to popular opinion". Just because a
few Spanish or German tourists go to Cuba to sunbathe topless and score
a hooker for five bucks does not make Cuba a nice place. I felt the need
to correct your misstatements. That's all.

to let go if you are. [/quote]

My friends and their experiences do not fit the above description.  All I am saying is that in this country a lot of people rush to make broad judgments about the quality of life in third-world countries.  They make shallow assuptions (like MikeB) that they are miserable because they don't have modern cars or luxuries like us.  The bright side is that many of them have more time to pursue their interests and be with family in addition to many other benefits.  Yeah there are issues with Cubas communist trappings of course, but for the vast majority of the population, they don't feel "oppressed". 

If you recall, the original and core point to all of this is that I was commenting on how well Cuba has progressed in the areas of energy independence and utilization of alternative energy sources.  My point is that we could learn from them and perhaps Brazil on ways to approach energy independence.  The other issues of relative quality of life is sooooooo subjective that it's a waste of time to debate, because it's a matter of personal taste. 

I'm a pretty minimalist kinda guy with a passion for turning trash into treasure (one of the reasons I dig biodiesel) and finding innovative solutions to the problem of stressing our worlds limited resources.  I keep up with developments in solar power, off grid living, organic gardening, self sufficiency, alt energy etc......  I also have many friends from different countries in Central and South America including: Guatemala, Ecuador, Brazil, Mexico and Chile.  For me, I would really enjoy living in a few of the above mentioned countries (primarily guatemala and ecuador) even though their economic infrastructure is very minimal.  The people are great; waaay more ethical, honest, loyal and helpful than the avearage american.  The climate is great.  The innovation in my areas of interest in south america is at the cutting edge vs america primarily because they have less to work with and therefore have a lot of intrinsic motivation to find more efficient, less destructive ways to meet their basic needs.

So from my paradigm, the quality of life appears quite good.  I guess we can leave it at that.

[quote=dude]

  All I am saying is that in this country a lot of people rush to make broad judgments about the quality of life in third-world countries.  They make shallow assuptions (like MikeB)

[/quote]

Dude, please give it a rest. I've spent half my life outside the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US. I was born outside the US, for crying out loud. You pointed to a tropical gulag as a place with a high standard of living. You put your foot in it, and mostly because of your knee-jerk blame-America first attitude.  Equating people in Cuba being locked up for trying to exercise what most of the Western world considers basic freedoms with how the US locks up common criminals, that sort of logic.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Cuba doesn't deserve a place on the "nice standard of living" list not just because it's a nation starving, living with crumbling infrastructure and no consumer goods, but because it is little more than an island prison. So Castro provides his prisoners with fine medical care (for the third world), I’m sure the US prison system provides fine medical care too. All you’ve told me is something I already knew, dictators can make the trains run on time.

Today, while you mention it and its high standard of living there are Cubans trying to figure out how to try inner tubes together so they can escape Fidel’s worker’s paradise.

[quote=dude]If you recall, the original and core point to all of this is that I was commenting on how well Cuba has progressed in the areas of energy independence
and utilization of alternative energy sources.  My point is
that we could learn from them and perhaps Brazil on ways
to approach energy independence.[/quote]



I’ve been waiting for your response and this market looks like crap.





"The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block, between 1989
and 1991, and the addition of extra-territorial stipulations to the
U.S. blockade, threw the Cuban economy into deep crisis, resulting in
the implementation of the ‘Special Period’, a literal economy of
desperation, survival, and scarcity. Although Cuba has officially
recovered from its economic depression, increased trade with Venezuela
has been a relief.  Venezuela has become Cuba’s top trading partner,
providing oil, food, and construction materials at preferential prices.
This assistance is essential to the maintenance of Cuba’s social
system, achieved by the revolution."



This is energy independence?  Oil at half the market price? You
know, I think you are intelligent enough to consider the point I
have  presented here.  I believe I have documented myself
well. Futhermore, repeating the same point will not make a difference
in this discussion, because you have your mind made up.  Folks
reading this care as much about Cuba as they do about Haiti or Kenya.



On the other hand, highlighting Brazil’s application of ethanol from
sugar cane is a good example to make your point. I was speaking with a
surgeon from Brazil just a couple of weeks ago.  He was telling me
that by next year all new Brazilian cars will run on 100%
ethanol.  Most cars now use 25% ethanol and 75% gasoline.  To
get there, Brazil has invested over $10 billion in the project. 
Ethanol prices are half the price of refined gasoline.



I, on the other hand, prefer to use the sugarcane in my Cachaça.

Please try to be serious if you’re going to take up all this time and bandwidth. The tax breaks for SUVs (because they’re classified as light trucks, and have been for years) used in business (which worked just like the deprecation schedules used for years on heavier business vehicles) affected a tiny, tiny part of the buyers of those vehicles. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

….and the school boy whined “oh, yeah? Well it only affected a tiny part of the overall market.” He then sticks out his tongue for effect-

You still seem to miss the point that in order for your conspiracy theory to work the entirety of the world’s auto makers had to be willing to forego the market advantage they’d have if they could produce this miraculous technology you claim they refuse to implement if they could deliver the very same SUVs the public clearly want(ed) (perhaps they want them no more, but they’re still not migrating to hyper-efficient minicars) with much higher fuel mileage.

IMO-had US carmakers/politos/big oil reps : 1. closed the “light truck” loopholes  2. imposed higher MPG and tougher emission standards and 3. assisted with tax breaks and incentives for these changes ---- in effect, had Washington taken the Monte Carlo, worst case scenario more seriously and channeled the efforts, technology and resources into achieving lighter chassis’ and more efficient motors and equipment—and Detroit carmakers continued to refine this technology over the past 20 years, we would not be considering the technology you call miraculous as anything special- or GM bonds junk.     

  Let’s see, the very technology that you mocked in an earlier post as “not battle tested” and that you wouldn’t buy is now “virtually lapped the field”? Which is it? And how long have these vehicles been widely available now?  Three years? Was <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Toyota sitting on said technology all that time?

I’m sorry, when did Toyota buy Ford, again?

And those “facts” that big oil, government interests and Detroit conspired to keep high mileage US made cars off the roads, where are they again?

Driving right next to you and parked at the gas pump-
As well as in the 2002 senate vote against the raise in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards—the national guidelines for fuel efficiency standards have not been significantly raised in more than two decades--

Detroit’s failure’s are legendary…..their head-down, not thinking to the future “leadership” has done much to bring them to where they are today. Having said that, the idea that there’s a technology that they (and the rest of the world’s car makers) have simply refused to produce until Honda and Toyota rolled out their hybrids three or so years ago, because they wanted to protect big oil and their political friends is just nonsense.

This continues to be your very wrong perception of my POV-- I have said ad nausea that they don’t need the friends- nor does anyone in the Corp world need to protect any of the reptilian Washington hacks- Detroit, not wanting to massively retool or reengineer, used the hacks to keep regulatory pressure off of them—now I’m mostly in favor of fewer reg’s, but when 69% of known oil reserves sit underneath the Arab world, Washington really needed to be far-sighted enough to mandate and encourage better gas efficiencies  - - instead they took Detroit’s money, and took a wager that Arabia would remain stable and oil would be as inelastic as you claim it to be-

When Europe and Asia recognized this vulnerability? Europe developed a voluntary agreement between European manufacturers and the European Union which promises a per-vehicle reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 25 percent between 1995 and 2008—The national standards in Japan require about a 23 percent increase in the fuel economy of gasoline-powered vehicles by 2010---only in the United States is a significant public benefit like fuel economy left to market whim--

If Ford could produce an Explorer that got 50 mpg they’d be making as many as they possibly could and making record profits doing so.

My prediction? They will produce whatever car the US customer wants at fuel efficiencies (petro/electro/hydro) which are responsible, using technology which would be considered miraculous by today’s standards, within 10 years-

It’s just a cheap shot to suggest they could have had something that’s not being used, something you can’t even name.

If you truly research it, you’d find that the technologies (metals/ fuels / hydraulics/ motors) are already available and are being experimented with, but remain 10+ years away from full implementation- in the meantime, we try to do the truly miraculous: establishing a democracy in Iraq!

We could, on some other thread, explore how tenuous the “oil used in the US=profits to terrorists” (what percentage of US used oil even comes from the Middle East, much less from countries there that would seep oil profits to terrorists) logic is.

Geez- the fungible quality you attribute to oil serves to understand the pricing mechanics of that commodity- who cares “what % of US used oil comes from the Middle East”? – if the US and other industrialized countries barter up the price of oil thru increased demand, the Middle East get richer no matter who officially purchased their oil-
The oil industry generates its own ancillary industries- the Bin Ladens were not directly involved in oil, but do their businesses benefit from the largess of oil ministries and the business generated in the building of infrastructure to support the oil biz?

going and going and going.....

Long live south of Mexico.. Just be careful of the drug lords and police. They are often one.

[quote=TexasRep] [quote=mikebutler222] Please try to be serious if you’re going to take up all this time and bandwidth. [/quote]

….and the school boy whined “oh, yeah? Well it only affected a tiny part of the overall market.” He then sticks out his tongue for effect-

[/quote]

I suppose if that’s how you take the fact that your theory, that SUV sales were influenced in some significant way by a tax break that applied only to a tiny, tiny fraction of the buyers….

[quote=mikebutler222]

You still seem to miss the point that in order for your conspiracy theory to work the entirety of the world’s auto makers had to be willing to forego the market advantage they’d have if they could produce this miraculous technology you claim they refuse to implement if they could deliver the very same SUVs the public clearly want(ed) (perhaps they want them no more, but they’re still not migrating to hyper-efficient minicars) with much higher fuel mileage.

[/quote]

[quote=TexasRep]

…..in effect, had Washington taken the Monte Carlo, worst case scenario more seriously and channeled the efforts, technology and resources into achieving lighter chassis’ and more efficient motors and equipment—and Detroit carmakers continued to refine this technology over the past 20 years, we would not be considering the technology you call miraculous as anything special- or GM bonds junk.

[/quote]

So, once again, you’re suggesting there’s some miracle technology that had only there not been collusion on the part of “big oil”, Detroit and Washington, there would be cars making much, much higher mpg. The problem with your theory, as I’ve explained before, is that not only would this collusion have to be in the US, it would have to be everywhere there are car makers. European and Asian makers have faced extraordinarily expensive gas and have not produced this miracle technology. What’s kept them from producing 50 mpg Explorer sized vehicles?

BTW, if you think GM’s problems are that they haven’t produced a type of car that hasn’t even ever been in great demand (hyper-efficient cars) you not only don’t understand economics, you can’t read a balance sheet.

[quote=mikebutler222]

Let’s see, the very technology that you mocked in an earlier post as “not battle tested” and that you wouldn’t buy is now “virtually lapped the field”? Which is it?

[/quote]

[quote=TexasRep]

I’m sorry, when did Toyota buy Ford, again?

[/quote]

Nice try at a dodge (pun intended) but you must realize what technology licensed means. The same hybrid technology that wows you in a Toyota is in the Escape. If it was “battle tested” in the Toyota, the same applies to the Escape.

[quote=mikebutler222]

And those “facts” that big oil, government interests and Detroit conspired to keep high mileage US made cars off the roads, where are they again?

[/quote]

[quote=TexasRep]

Driving right next to you and parked at the gas pump-

[/quote]

Yeah, we’re still waiting for you to point out the high-mileage large SUV that should be in production right now in Japan or elsewhere where none of the evils you pin on the US Gov’t/big oil/Detroit conspiracy to keep you in a Hummer have an effect on emerging technologies.

[quote=mikebutler222]

. Having said that, the idea that there’s a technology that they (and the rest of the world’s car makers) have simply refused to produce until Honda and Toyota rolled out their hybrids three or so years ago, because they wanted to protect big oil and their political friends is just nonsense.

[/quote]

[quote=TexasRep]

This continues to be your very wrong perception of my POV-- I have said ad nausea that they don’t need the friends- nor does anyone in the Corp world need to protect any of the reptilian Washington hacks- Detroit, not wanting to massively retool or reengineer, used the hacks to keep regulatory pressure off of them

[/quote]

But again, your theory makes zero economic sense. Every economic incentive in the world is, and has been on Detroit to produce the highest mileage vehicles possible OF THE TYPE consumers want to buy. Car makers retool every single year, they already spend massive amounts (and often with multi-million dollar wheel barrels of taxpayer money, which undermines your “Washington hasn‘t cared“ theory as well) on increasing fuel efficiency. If they could produce a 50 mpg Explorer, they would.

Your entire case seems to be that gov’t simply failed to waive the magic wand to call for increased fuel mileage, and therefore Detroit failed to wave their magic wand which would have doubled fuel efficiency. If only you could create technology by having gov’t demand it.

[quote=mikebutler222]

If Ford could produce an Explorer that got 50 mpg they’d be making as many as they possibly could and making record profits doing so.

[/quote]

[quote=TexasRep]

My prediction? They will produce whatever car the <ST1:COUNTRY-REGIoNUS</ST1:COUNTRY-REGIoN customer wants at fuel efficiencies (petro/electro/hydro) which are responsible, using technology which would be considered miraculous by today’s standards, within 10 years-

[/quote]

I don’t doubt that. I fact, it makes my case for me. They will produce what people want, and that miracle technology simply isn’t available today. Not in Detroit, and nowhere else. That “nowhere else” demonstrates that your whole Detroit/DC/oil nexus is fiction, since the evil trio doesn’t have long enough arms to squelch technology advancement everywhere else in the world. If it could be done today, someone from somewhere would be doing it, and making a mountain of money in the mean time.

[quote=mikebutler222]

We could, on some other thread, explore how tenuous the “oil used in the US=profits to terrorists” (what percentage of US used oil even comes from the Middle East, much less from countries there that would seep oil profits to terrorists) logic is.

[/quote]

[quote=TexasRep]

Geez- the fungible quality you attribute to oil serves to understand the pricing mechanics of that commodity- who cares “what % of US used oil comes from the Middle East”?

[/quote]

Oh, great, you now understand what fungible means. All this time I’ve accepted your given that things simply don’t work that way. Now that you accept it, we can discuss how Middle East gov’ts will always be able to sell what they pull out of the ground, even if you begin riding a bike.

[quote=TexasRep]

– if the US and other industrialized countries barter up the price of oil thru increased demand,

[/quote]

Are we back to discussing the fact that oil used to move US cars amounts to only 10% of the world’s usage, and therefore a doubling of average fuel economy here (even if you could halt the increase in demand that comes from increased population and economic activity) even if you could do it tomorrow, is like pissing in the ocean as to it’s effect on demand?

[quote=TexasRep]

The oil industry generates its own ancillary industries- the Bin Ladens were not directly involved in oil, but do their businesses benefit from the largess of oil ministries and the business generated in the building of infrastructure to support the oil biz?

[/quote]

There’s only one bin Laden that we’re concerned with, of a very large, by all accounts legit, family and he’s not part of the family business…..

I love how when I say Cuba's not as bad as all of you are making it out to be and that plenty of people are happy there, I all the sudden become the "pro Cuba" guy ~rolls eyes~. 

As far as Cuba's "energy independence", I'm refferring to some of their solutions to using less energy, not claiming that they are free from any assistance or need for energy.  The point here is that they have been pretty effective at reducing their need for energy overall.  Those who are forced to make changes often come up with great solutions to problems we will all have to address.  Cuba is only one example of many countries that I could have referenced which has made more progress than we have when it comes to making infrastructural changes to reduce energy consumption.  Does that make Cuba a beacon of light in the world.....no, does it mean that we might possibly learn something about making changes in our infrastructure, maybe.

Whatever...... I tire of having ineffective discussions because it's difficult to articulate the tone of my point in this format.  Frankly, I have a hard time explaining a nuanced view to those who see everything as black or white, here or there, with us or against us.  I don't fit into boxes very easily and get irritated by people trying to cram me in the "communist sympathizer", "softie liberal" or whatever camp.  Based on my values and beliefs, I can't be easily described as a Republican or Democrat, although you could definitley say that I value a lot of issues that could be associated with a "conservative" platform. 

Other than that I don't really care much about any "proof" that can be posted here about how bad Cuba sucks and that everyone there wants to leave (theres probably just as much proof that contradicts the prior assesment).  I'll take the first hand, unbiased reporting from my friends as an accurate enough sample of the sentiment of the people there.  They travelled quite extensively and talked with a lot of folks. 

Even though, I admit I could be wrong.............just speaking from my experience that's all.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

  All I am saying is that in this country a lot of people rush to make broad judgments about the quality of life in third-world countries.  They make shallow assuptions (like MikeB)

[/quote]

Dude, please give it a rest. I've spent half my life outside the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US. I was born outside the US, for crying out loud. You pointed to a tropical gulag as a place with a high standard of living. You put your foot in it, and mostly because of your knee-jerk blame-America first attitude.  Equating people in Cuba being locked up for trying to exercise what most of the Western world considers basic freedoms with how the US locks up common criminals, that sort of logic.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Cuba doesn't deserve a place on the "nice standard of living" list not just because it's a nation starving, living with crumbling infrastructure and no consumer goods, but because it is little more than an island prison. So Castro provides his prisoners with fine medical care (for the third world), I’m sure the US prison system provides fine medical care too. All you’ve told me is something I already knew, dictators can make the trains run on time.

Today, while you mention it and its high standard of living there are Cubans trying to figure out how to try inner tubes together so they can escape Fidel’s worker’s paradise.

[/quote]

Yeah Mike, being a military brat from Germany (or wherever your dad was posted) is comparable to living in a third world country.

You were right there swimming in the fecal matter infested ditch with all the poor underprivleged third world babies, sh*tting themselves and crying from their misery .   From that experience you have a first hand expertise on just how miserable these third world citizens are ~rolls eyes~. 

Look, if conditions are soooooo bad in Cuba/South America then why are US suicide rates higher?  There is not one South American country where suicide rates are as high as the US.  Maybe it's a narrow example, but still it is one measurement that can be used to indicate a general hope about the future in the minds of a given countries' citizens.

As far as innovation y'all should check out Gaviotas.........This is one of the most inspiring stories of success that I have ever come across, essentially these guys have created an oasis in Colombia... they have solved a lot of problems in some of the harshest political and ecological conditions imaginable.  I highly recommend the book Gaviotas for those who would like to get a glimpse of the kinds of solutions that are possible.

[quote=mikebutler222]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02 /26/AR2006022601265.html

Last week I appeared on a radio show with an author named John Perkins. This man is a frothing conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense, and yet his book, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," is a runaway bestseller. So now, out of concern for thousands of sufferers across this great nation, I offer up a Perkins antidote. If you see someone reading him, I want you to be prudent, approach cautiously and wait until the victim's fevers cool. Then administer these arguments.

[/quote]

This guy obviously hasn't read the book (or didn't put much effort into it).  Although some of what he's reffering to is in the book he adds a lot of exagerrated dramatic BS (makes for good editorials).  John Perkins was a CFO for a major energy consulting firm in the 70's (name escapes me currently) that was of the likes of Brown and Root.  He also invented new formulas for doing growth estimates that were pioneering and well recognized in his day.  In addition he is and was a well respected energy consultant.  This is not some wacko peddling conspiracy theories.  This is a wealthy, well respected man who has a lot to loose.  Nice try Mike......Editorials are a great rebuttal........totally objective and accurate .

Look Mike, if you think our government doesn't do this kind of crap...what do you call the Iran Contra affair?  The CIA was supervising acts of sabotage and terrorism in Nicaragua, involvement with drug money in addition to a long list of dirty secrets that good 'ol Ollie North shredded. 

If that had never been revealed you'd say anyone who believed that the Iran Contra Affair went on was "conspiracy theorist". 

MikeB, you probably don't believe anything unless Rush Limbaugh signs off on it, and what is Rush Limbaugh?  A fat, obnoxious, hypocrittical drug addict.

[quote=dude]

Look, if conditions are soooooo bad in Cuba/South

America then why are US suicide rates higher? There is not one South

American country where suicide rates are as high as the US.

[quote=dude]

This guy obviously hasn't read the book

[/quote]

He read it, and along with many other people saw it as bogus....

[quote=dude]

[quote=dude]

  John Perkins was a CFO for a major energy consulting firm in the 70's

[/quote]

The firm was called Chas. T. Main, and he wasn't the CFO.

[quote=dude]

In addition he is and was a well respected energy consultant. 

[/quote]

So he says, and like most things in his book, it goes completely unsupported.

[quote=dude]

 This is not some wacko peddling conspiracy theories. 

[/quote]

That's exactly what he is. BTW, he's a "9/11 was an inside job" guy...

[quote=dude]

This is a wealthy, well respected man who has a lot to loose. 

[/quote]

He's got nothing to "loose", he's retired...

[quote=dude]

Look Mike, if you think our government doesn't do this kind of crap...what do you call the Iran Contra affair? 

[/quote]

A great scheme to funnel profits from weapon sales to freedom fighters in Nicaragua, which, btw, forced the Sandinista communists to hold an election, which they lost.

[quote=dude]

MikeB, you probably don't believe anything unless Rush Limbaugh signs off on it, and what is Rush Limbaugh?  A fat, obnoxious, hypocrittical drug addict.

[/quote]

So very, well, "dude". He brings up a guy never mentioned by anyone else, while defending a crackpot conspiracy guy he can't even describe ("He was the CFO")  accurately..... 

[quote=dude]

I The point here is that they have been pretty effective at reducing their need for energy overall. 

[/quote]

When you have a top down command economy that's barely got a pulse, your energy needs are low to begin with.

[quote=dude]  I don't fit into boxes very easily ..

[/quote]

ROFLMAO....

and get irritated by people trying to cram me in the "communist sympathizer", "softie liberal" or whatever camp.  Based on my values and beliefs, I can't be easily described as a Republican or Democrat, although you could definitley say that I value a lot of issues that could be associated with a "conservative" platform. 

Other than that I don't really care much about any "proof" that can be posted here about how bad Cuba sucks and that everyone there wants to leave (theres probably just as much proof that contradicts the prior assesment). 

[quote=dude]I'll take the first hand, unbiased reporting from my friends as an accurate...

[/quote]

I guess they've never seen a boat lift out of Cuba. Must have missed that during their travels....

[quote=dude]

Even though, I admit I could be wrong.............just speaking from my experience that's all.

[/quote]

Your experience? When were you in Cuba? Should I believe you or the thousands of boat people? Should I believe you or the people in Cuban prisons for the awful sin of opening up an non-gov't approved library?

Dude, my friend, you're a perfect example of WFB's defintion of a liberal. "A mind so open it can never seize on any facts".

A great scheme to funnel profits from weapon sales to freedom fighters in Nicaragua, which, btw, forced the Sandinista communists to hold an election, which they lost.

Yeah a great ILLEGAL scheme that you or I never would have heard of had the right conditions not existed (and therefore could have been fodder for your demonized "conspiracy theorists").  CIA involved in drugs, assasinations and meddling in other countries affairs......GREAT SCHEME mikeB.  Oh and don't forget selling arms to Iran (you left that one out).  You have no moral fibre MikeB if you think this is the kind of thing our government should be engaging in.  This is the kind of crap that creates animosity around the world.  As far as John Perkins' claims, if you read the book you'd see that his claims are not too far from things like the Iran Contra affair.  Nothing in the book was as wild as the "911 inside job" crap.  If he believes that, I'm unaware of it and frankly, given his alleged experiences I can see why he might believe that (although I don't). 

Although I don't completely agree with his world view and conclusions, I'll post some of John Perkin's comments. 

Now, I normally wouldn't buy into this stuff, but as I've said before I know alot of people who have lived /are living in Ecuador (one of them lived with the indigenous Kichua indians referenced in the text below).  Before I read the book they described the same kinds of conditions and results from Ecuador's 'infrastructure loans'. 

You must understand that the area he mentions below is in an area that is considered the most biodiverse area on the planet.  The local indigenous natives have an understanding of over 200 different plants that have beneficial medical uses (my friend was cured from leishmaniasis which is a very serious disease by a kichua 'shaman', his friend several weeks prior had to go to leave the country and be treated for several months in the US for the same disease).  While my friend lived there (4 years) he was responsible for documenting the biodiversity of Ecuadorian rainforests and was present when they discovered over 315 distinct species of tree in one Hectare (a world record)...... to give you an idea of the significance of this, in the Oregon rainforests (the most biodiverse area in the US) you might find 15 to 20 different species of tree in a Hectare.  My friend described miracluous medicines and knowledge that has been preserved through millenia and the influence of major oil companies is threatening the way of life and environment that allows these people to preserve their knowledge, which could greatly benefit mankind.  In addition, these are the kinds of places that many scientist believe hold the keys to finding cures for Cancer and many other chronic illnesses.  I am passionate about protecting these places and people.  Anyway, I thought I'd give you some background as to why I believe a good amount of John Perkins claims in his book.  He makes some conclusions that I don't jive with, but I believe his claims that he was involved 'entraping' these countries by using deceptive overly optomistic projections of growth to validate the need for loans that would be bigger than they could ultimately payoff, therefore allowing US companies to extract resource concessions etc.... 

When I read a book that verify's what I hear from those I love and trust, I tend to give it a little more weight than otherwise.

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

Quito, Ecuador’s capital, stretches across a volcanic valley high in the Andes, at an altitude of nine thousand feet. Residents of this city, which was founded long before Columbus arrived in the Americas, are accustomed to seeing snow on the surrounding peaks, despite the fact that they live just a few miles south of the Equator.

The city of Shell, a frontier outpost and military base hacked out of Ecuador’s Amazon jungle to service the oil company whose name it bears, is nearly eight thousand feet lower than Quito. A steaming city, it is inhabited mostly by soldiers, oil workers, and the indigenous people from the Shuar and Kichwa tribes who work for them as prostitutes and laborers.

To journey from one city to the other, you must travel a road that is both tortuous and breathtaking. Local people will tell you that during the trip you experience all four seasons in a single day.

Although I have driven this road many times, I never tire of the spectacular scenery. Sheer cliffs punctuated by cascading waterfalls and brilliant bromeliads, rise up one side. On the other side, the earth drops abruptly into a deep abyss where the Pastaza River, a headwater of the Amazon, snakes its way down the Andes. The Pastaza carries water from the glaciers of Cotopaxi, one of the world’s highest active volcanoes, and a deity in the time of the Incas, to the Atlantic Ocean more than three thousand miles away.

In 2003, I left Quito in a Subaru Outback and headed for Shell on a mission that was like no other I had ever accepted. I was hoping to end a war I had helped create. As is the case with so many things we EHMs must take responsibility for, it is a war that is virtually unknown anywhere outside the country where it is fought. I was on my way to meet with the Shuar, the Kichwa, and their neighbors, the Achuar, Zaparos, the Shiwiars—tribes determined to prevent our oil companies from destroying their homes, families, and lands, even if it means they must die in the process. This is a war that for them is about the survival of their children and cultures, while for us it is about power, money, and natural resources. It is one part of the struggle for world domination and the dream of a few greedy men—global empire.

That is what we EHMs do best: we build a global empire. We are an elite group of men and women who utilize international financial organizations to foment conditions that make other nations subservient to the corporatocracy that runs our biggest corporations, our government, and our banks. Like our counterparts in the Mafia, we provide favors. These take the form of loans to develop infrastructure—electric generating plants, highways, ports, airports, or industrial parks. One condition of such loans is that engineering and construction companies from our own country must build all these projects. In essence, most of the money never leaves the United States; it is simply transferred from banking offices in Washington to engineering offices in New York, Houston, or San Francisco.

Despite the fact that the money is returned almost immediately to corporations that are members of the corporatocracy (the creditors), the recipient country is required to pay it all back, principal plus interest. If an EHM is completely successful, the loans are so large that the debtor is forced to default on its payments after a few years. When this happens, like the Mafia, we demand our pound of flesh, which often includes one or more of the following: control over United Nations votes, the installations of military bases, or access to precious resources, like oil or the Panama Canal. Of course, the debtor still owes us the money—and another country is added to our global empire.

Driving from Quito toward Shell on this sunny day in 2003, I thought back thirty-five years to the first time I arrived in this part of the world. I had read that although Ecuador is only about the size of Nevada, it has more than thirty active volcanoes, over 15 percent of the world’s bird species, and thousands of as-yet unclassified plants, and that it is a land of diverse cultures where nearly as many people speak ancient indigenous languages as speak Spanish. I found it to be fascinating and certainly exotic; yet, the words that kept coming to mind back then were pure, untouched, and innocent.

Much has changed in thirty-five years.

At the time of my first visit in 1968, Texaco had only just discovered petroleum in Ecuador’s Amazon region. Today, oil accounts for nearly half the country’s exports. A trans-Andean pipeline, built shortly after my first visit has since leaked over a half million barrels of oil into the fragile rain forest—more than twice the amount spilled by the Exxon Valdez. Today, a new $1.3 billion, 300-mile pipeline constructed by an EHM-organized consortium promises to make Ecuador one of the world’s top ten suppliers of oil to the United States. Vast areas of rain forest have fallen, macaws and jaguars have all but vanished, three Ecuadorian indigenous cultures have been driven to the verge of collapse, and pristine rivers have been transformed into flaming cesspools.

During this same period, the indigenous cultures began fighting back. As one result, on May 7, 2003, a group of American lawyers representing more than thirty thousand indigenous Ecuadorian people filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Chevron Texaco Corp. The suit asserts that between 1971 and 1992 the oil giant dumped into open holes and rivers over four million gallons per day of toxic wastewater, contaminated with oil, heavy metals, and carcinogens, and that the company left behind nearly 350 uncovered waste pits that continue to kill both people and animals.

Outside the window of my Outback, great clouds of mist rolled in from the forests and up the Pastaza’s canyons. Sweat soaked my shirt and my stomach began to churn, but not just from the intense tropical heat and the serpentine twists in the road. Knowing the part I had played in destroying this beautiful country was once again taking its toll. Because of me and my fellow EHMs, Ecuador is in far worse shape today than before we introduced her to the miracles of modern economics, banking, and engineering. Since 1970—during this period known euphemistically as the oil Boom—the official poverty level grew from 50 to 70 percent, under- or unemployment increased from 15 to 70 percent, and public debt increased from $240 million to $16 billion. Meanwhile, the share of national resources allocated to the poorest segments of the population declined from 20 to 6 percent.

Unfortunately, Ecuador is not the exception. Nearly every country we EHMs have brought under the global empire’s umbrella has suffered a similar fate.

The Subaru slowed as it meandered through the streets of the beautiful resort town of Baños, famous for the hot baths created by underground volcanic rivers that flow from the highly active Mount Tungurahgua. Children ran along beside us, waving and trying to sell us gum and cookies. Then we left Baños behind. The spectacular scenery ended abruptly. The Subaru sped out of paradise and into a modern vision of Dante's Inferno.

A gigantic monster reared up from the river, a mammoth gray wall. Its dripping concrete was totally out of place, completely unnatural and incompatible with the landscape. Of course, seeing it there should not have surprised me. I knew all along that it would be waiting in ambush. I had encountered it many times before and in the past had praised it as a symbol of EHM accomplishments. Even so, it made my skin crawl.

That hideous, incongruous wall is a dam that blocks the rushing Pastaza River, diverts its waters through huge tunnels bored into the mountain, and converts their energy to electricity. This is the 156-megawatt Agoyan Hydroelectric Project. It fuels the industries that make a handful of Ecuadorian families wealthy, and it has been the source of untold suffering for the farmers and indigenous people who live along the river. This hydroelectric plant is just one of many projects developed through my efforts and those of other EHMs. Such projects are the reason Ecuador is now a member of the global empire, and also the reason why the Shuar, the Kichwa, and their neighbors have declared war on our oil companies.

Because of EHM projects, Ecuador is awash in foreign debt and must devote an inordinate share of its national budget to paying this off, instead of using its capital to help the millions of its citizens officially classified as dangerously impoverished. The only way Ecuador can buy down its foreign obligations is by selling its rain forests to the oil companies. Indeed, one of the reasons the EHMs set their sights on Ecuador in the first place was because the sea of oil beneath its Amazon region is believed to rival the oil fields of the Middle East. The global empire demands its pound of flesh in the form of oil concessions.

These demands became especially urgent after September 11, 2001, when Washington feared that Middle Eastern supplies might cease. On top of that, Venezuela, our third-largest oil supplier, had elected a populist president, Hugo Chavez, who took a strong stand against what he referred to as U.S. imperialism; he threatened to cut off oil sales to the United States. The EHMs had failed in Iraq and Venezuela. But we had succeeded in Ecuador; now we would milk it for all it is worth.

Ecuador is typical of countries around the world that EHMs have brought into the economic-political fold. For every $100 of crude taken out of the Ecuadorian rain forests, the oil companies receive $75. Of the remaining $25, three quarters must go to paying off the foreign debt. Most of the remainder covers military and other government expenses— which leaves about $2.50 for health, education, and programs aimed at helping the poor. Thus, out of every $100 worth of oil torn from the Amazon, less than $3 goes to the people who need the money most, whose lives have been so adversely impacted by the dams, the drilling, and the pipelines, and who are dying from lack of edible food and drinkable water.

Every one of those people—millions in Ecuador, billions around the planet—is a potential terrorist. Not because they believe in communism or the tenets of anarchism, nor because they are intrinsically evil, but simply because they are desperate. Looking at this dam, I wondered—as I have so often in so many places around the world—when these people would take action, like the Americans against England in the 1770s or Latin Americans against Spain in the early 1800s.

The subtlety of this modern empire-building puts the Roman centurions, the Spanish conquistadors, and the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century European colonial powers to shame. We EHMs are crafty; we learned from history. Today we do not carry swords. We do not wear armor or clothes that set us apart. In countries like Ecuador, Nigeria, and Indonesia, we dress like local schoolteachers and shop owners. In Washington and Paris, we look like government bureaucrats and bankers. We appear humble, normal. We visit project sites and stroll through impoverished villages. We profess altruism, talk with local papers about the wonderful humanitarian things we are doing. We cover the conference tables of government committees with our spreadsheets and financial projections, and we lecture at the Harvard Business School about the miracles of macroeconomics. We are on the record, in the open. Or so we portray ourselves, and so are we accepted. It is how the system works. We seldom resort to anything illegal because the system itself is built on subterfuge, and the system is by definition legitimate.

However—and this is a very large caveat—if we fail, an even more sinister breed steps in, ones we EHMs refer to as the jackals, men who trace their heritage directly to those earlier empires. The jackals are always there, lurking in the shadows. When they emerge, heads of state are overthrown or die in violent “accidents.” And if by chance the jackals fail, as they failed in Afghanistan and Iraq, then the old models resurface. When the jackals fail, young Americans are sent in to kill and die.

As I passed the monster, that hulking mammoth wall of gray concrete rising from the river, I was very conscious of the sweat that soaked my clothes and the tightening of my intestines. I headed on down into the jungle to meet with the indigenous people who are determined to fight to the last man in order to stop this empire I helped create, and I was overwhelmed with feelings guilt.

How, I asked myself, did a nice kid from rural New Hampshire ever get into such a dirty business?

MikeB said:

The firm was called Chas. T. Main, and he wasn't the CFO.

Reply:

Sorry, he was the Cheif Econonmist with 50 people working for him.

Mike.....you are a major ingnoramus.  You're all head and no heart brother. 

Finally to summarize the claims that I believe in the book here is a summarry from John Perkins:

Well, the company I worked for was a company named Chas. T. Main in Boston, Massachusetts. We were about 2,000 employees, and I became its chief economist. I ended up having fifty people working for me. But my real job was deal-making. It was giving loans to other countries, huge loans, much bigger than they could possibly repay. One of the conditions of the loan–let's say a $1 billion to a country like Indonesia or Ecuador–and this country would then have to give ninety percent of that loan back to a U.S. company, or U.S. companies, to build the infrastructure–a Halliburton or a Bechtel. These were big ones. Those companies would then go in and build an electrical system or ports or highways, and these would basically serve just a few of the very wealthiest families in those countries. The poor people in those countries would be stuck ultimately with this amazing debt that they couldn’t possibly repay. A country today like Ecuador owes over fifty percent of its national budget just to pay down its debt. And it really can’t do it. So, we literally have them over a barrel. So, when we want more oil, we go to Ecuador and say, “Look, you're not able to repay your debts, therefore give our oil companies your Amazon rain forest, which are filled with oil.” And today we're going in and destroying Amazonian rain forests, forcing Ecuador to give them to us because they’ve accumulated all this debt. So we make this big loan, most of it comes back to the United States, the country is left with the debt plus lots of interest, and they basically become our servants, our slaves. It's an empire. There's no two ways about it. It’s a huge empire. It's been extremely successful.

http://www.countercurrents.org/us-perkins111104.htm

Here's a link with an interview.  Note that he says that 911 is the result of the kinds of things he's done, not that it was an inside job.  I think you are inaccurate on this MikeB.

I'm done with this issue.  Peace.

To clarify, 911 was the result of pissing off a lot of poor people.

Then again I wouldn’t put it past you or the media you read to exaggerate and mischaraterize to make your point.