The embargo isn't working...

[MrsSkywalker]

As for my personal experience, when talking to people in the US, far from everyone have a clue where in the world for instance Sweden is.

I agree with you on that. World geography isn't a big time issue over here in schools, especially public schools. Neither is world history. In the US the tendency is to teach about the US. We have so many different cultures all around us already, and are such a self sufficient country that I don't necessarily think that's it's a bad idea to focus the learning on the US. That said, I think there should be more geography/world studies courses offered at the high school level (when I was in school, now granted that was awhile ago, but we learned the sum of our global geography and foreign studies in elementary school and the last geography course was offered in 7th grade).

The truth is, though, to be successful in the US, you really don't need to learn about foreign countries. There is absolutely nothing a foreign country has that the US needs. We trade, it's often quite a bit cheaper to do that...but we could cut everyone else off and not be in any worse shape for it.

You mentioned that many Canadians have travelled to Sweden. I had an interesting discussion with the hubby just the other day about it. People in the US travel to foreign countries far less often than, say, Europeans. Whether this is due to the small land size of European nations, or the limited climates each European nation offers, I'm not sure. But here in the US, I cannot think of one climate that we don't have. We don't need to travel outside the US to go skiing, surfing, hiking, camp on a bayou, cross a dessert, freeze our asses off on a tundra.... And perhaps this factors into this country's self sufficient attitude. "If we aren't going there, why learn about it?"

Also this close minded attitude is due to the amount of work the average US citizen works in a week. Living costs, and costs a great amount. Out of everyone I know who is under the retirement age, I'd say the average is 45 hrs/week, not counting secondary jobs for extra income. My husband gets 3 weeks' vacation a year, and that's quite a bit for this country. Work is valued over play here, which has it's drawbacks, but has to definitely be factored into the grand scheme of the "Americans are stupid" attitude. It's not stupid to focus on what you will be doing for 45/week for the rest of your life. What matters to most Americans is getting the right learning for the job/career they will have in order to feed their families, buy a home, and maybe, just maybe after years of busting chops, be able to take a nice vacation to Sweden.

I'm not saying that these things are necessarily strong points for the US or anything, it's just the way it is. And, trash talk all you want about the idiots of this country...just realize that what you see on the news, in polls, etc. isn't usually the best we have to offer. It makes a much better news story to say "15% of Americans Cannot Find Sweden on a Map" than to say "85% of Americans Not Only Found Sweden on a Map, But Knew the Capitol" (ok, well that was an example...I highly doubt 85% of Americans can find Sweden and I don't even want to think about how few know the capitol. ) If the US was really so stupid, then how would it be possible to be as successful as we are?? And if the US is actually so hated, why are so many people clawing to get in??

 

[Legion]

It's a well known "fact" that 1 in 10 will agree to anything when asked in a poll, the remaining 12% were just clueless or confused, and didn't want to appear ignorant.

Hell i'd check the yes box just because i would have interpreted this as a joke.

Nutball: What statistics are you addressing?

 

[Legion]

Well Mrs the answers to your questions are quite simply!

Even if 30% of the people of the US could name Sweden and its Capital the over all "educated" populace would be larger then the "educated" populace of pretty much every european country (and most likely many of them combined). Honestly though this is nothing more than assinine extrapolation and a poor attempt at an ad hominem fallacy/ad populum fallacy. Do people really expect us to believe the more "educated" people in one area dictate how correct their political views are?

Why is the US so successful? As any "educated" european socialist graduating from socialism 103 will tell you its because of our EXPLOITING THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD!

What is the avg weight of 30cc of Soil 1 mile south of the center of Beijing on a hot summers day (avg temp of 98 f)? Don't know? You surely aren't educated!

 

[Snyder]

Concerning the poll:
You know what they say - don't believe a survey you haven't faked yourself!
Honestly - I wouldn't give too much about it.

The truth is, though, to be successful in the US, you really don't need to learn about foreign countries. There is absolutely nothing a foreign country has that the US needs. We trade, it's often quite a bit cheaper to do that...but we could cut everyone else off and not be in any worse shape for it.

Although I agree with (or at least accept/understand) most of your points, this seems to be a fallacy to me. (What follows is my personal opinion...)
First of all, because of globalization the worldwide economies are so tightly interwoven that no country can afford to shut its own economy off against other economies.
Second: The US have quite a huge external balance of trade deficit (hope I translated Außenhandelsbilanzdefizit right... ) The figures I found with quick googling are about 440 billion US$ worth of goods the US was more importing than exporting in 2001. I've recently seen a report on CNN International that expressed concern that in a lot of "key technologies" the US is dependent on foreign companies (One I remember being e.g. optical systems for military satellites and aiming systems mainly produced in the Netherlands).
I don't think any (industrialized) country over the world can afford an isolated economy anymore. If thats good or bad - well, that's another question...

 

[Trawler]

There is absolutely nothing a foreign country has that the US needs.

OIL!

And BTW, I come from Australia, which itself has vast extremes in weather/geography etc. But for the last four years I've been living abroad and travelling the world. Why? Because I like to understand others. And that's something you'll only have an extremely limited viewpoint of if you stick within your own country.

Oh, the money is a lot better over here too.

 

[Silent_One]

It's become almost routine for members of the American press to throw dumb or leading questions at members of the Bush administration. Maybe that's one of the reasons why Secretary of State Colin Powell seemed so well prepared for the shifty question recently hurled at him by an "Iraqi" reporter.

According to the New York Post, one of Saddam's newshounds asked Powell, "Isn't it true that only 13% of young Americans can locate Iraq on a map?" "That may be true," Powell countered. "You're probably right. But unfortunately for you, all 13% are Marines."

 

[MrsSkywalker]

OIL!

Actually, we don't NEED to look to other countries for oil. We have plenty in Texas and a huge, mostly untapped supply in Alaska. The reason we choose to get it from other countries is b/c the environmentalists in this country don't want any pollution...sure, they're all for polluting someone else, just as long as they can say they opposed it here.

If the outside oil supply was cut off from the US, we would have major problems for awhile. The government would be a-ok, b/c of the federal oil reserves (military would still function, etc.). It would take awhile to get the Alaskan pipeline flowing at full speed, and it would hurt the average Joe...but we would have enough to sustain us if we drilled it from our own land.

For the record, I am all for getting our own oil from our own land. If we use it, then any pollution from the drilling of it should also rest on our shoulders. Besides, the number of jobs it would open up would be amazing.

One more thing. I agree that it is close minded to only learn about the US. I was just stating the general feelings in the educational system in America. We already have so many cultures that live in this country...our children are constantly exposed to different races, beliefs, holidays, cuisine....I don't see a burning need to have my child learn about, say, Mexico when he hangs out at his Mexican American friend's house after school. So many children in this country have these opportunities, and I'd much rather have them learn about it from people who are from the country than from some book full of statistics.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again, for whatever good it will do. There is no other country in the entire world which has as varied a population as the US. This is not debatable. And I guess if you don't live in it, there is really no way I am going to be able to get that point across.

 

[CosmoKramer]

The issue has nothing to do with geography. Nothing. At. All. I have no beeef with americans not knowing where/what Sweden is - it's a tiny tiny country.

The real issue is that those 22% actually supported the bombing of that country (unless the embargo wasn't working... ).

You'd have to be pretty stupid and also rather cold-hearted to give your active support for something like that.

 

[Trawler]

I have said it before, and I'll say it again, for whatever good it will do. There is no other country in the entire world which has as varied a population as the US. This is not debatable. And I guess if you don't live in it, there is really no way I am going to be able to get that point across.

Not debatable? :? The US is based on immigration, sure. Exactly like Australia, New Zealand, etc.

Regardless, there is a substantial difference between people of different ethnic backgrounds living in the same country (i.e. US) than people living in different countries.

And I guess i you don't travel, there is really no way I am going to be able to get that point across.

BTW, though you say the US has more than enough oil to keep the country going (which I find unlikely, though will not dispute as I don't have any facts at hand), wouldn't it be a lot more expensive to collect oil from within the US than import it from the middle east, OPEC or not?

All the first world economies are built upon the cheapness of labour from second/third world countries. Lucky us.

BTW2, a workmate just informed me of the following. Apparently the US holds 3% of the world's oil resources, yet consumes 25%. He's a clever guy so I won't question his figures, but if you do find figures that dispute this please let me know.

 

[Snyder]

Found this link concerning oil reserves:
http://www.bp.com/downloads/1087/statistical_review.pdf

If these statistics are correct, there is no way the USA can supply enough of their own oil to accomodate the demand of their economy, at least not in the long run.

 

[Trawler]

Interesting stuff. Well presented too. I like the map detailing trade movements.

 

[Legion]

Not debatable? The US is based on immigration, sure. Exactly like Australia, New Zealand, etc.

I press you to look up the population statistics

Regardless, there is a substantial difference between people of different ethnic backgrounds living in the same country (i.e. US) than people living in different countries.

Well what a bold and unprovable statement . What are you criteria for judging differences? Are you going to count political refugees and religious pilgrims too?

BTW, though you say the US has more than enough oil to keep the country going (which I find unlikely, though will not dispute as I don't have any facts at hand), wouldn't it be a lot more expensive to collect oil from within the US than import it from the middle east, OPEC or not?

You have to count the legislation trying to prevent us from "tamporing with nature" ...the nature that is the artic tundra of alaska...Building more oil rigs, getting by red tape, etc may be more time consuming and ultimately more expensive than importing.

All the first world economies are built upon the cheapness of labour from second/third world countries. Lucky us. I had a nice article around that had some oil experts talking about some of this in response to the absurd claims of "oil for blood" protestors that i will try and find for you.

BTW2, a workmate just informed me of the following. Apparently the US holds 3% of the world's oil resources, yet consumes 25%. He's a clever guy so I won't question his figures, but if you do find figures that dispute this please let me know.

I have heard these accuasations before. Though the figures may be true to the extent of their use (how accurate can the US oil resources be when he haven't fully explored them )? What i mean to say is these figures appear to be based on how much oil is extracted and refined for use and not reflecting on how much we actually have on our lands (or in if you prefer). Obviously the US doesn't consume 25% of the oil per year or in 4 years it would most likely be all consumed . What is wrong with this? The oil has been extracted and is on the open market for sale! Why can't the US purchase 25% of it?

It is also possible who ever started spreading this is deliberately misleading people as to what the numbers mean. He could easily be comparing apples to oranges.

Most countries can't support their oil consumption without importing. Something wrong with this? Many countries can't even support their food consumption without importing US food grants.

 

[Trawler]

Regardless, there is a substantial difference between people of different ethnic backgrounds living in the same country (i.e. US) than people living in different countries.

Well what a bold and unprovable statement . What are you criteria for judging differences? Are you going to count political refugees and religious pilgrims too?

At the end of the day, travelling to foreign lands has opened up my mind to opinions not put forth from my own cultural diverse upbringing. So of course it's unprovable, it's my opinion.

What I've discovered is that one's country of domicile plays a huge role in one's opinion, especially after the first generation.

What i mean to say is these figures appear to be based on how much oil is extracted and refined for use and not reflecting on how much we actually have on our lands (or in if you prefer).

Read the document Snyder linked. It has all the information you're after.

Obviously the US doesn't consume 25% of the oil per year or in 4 years it would most likely be all consumed . What is wrong with this? The oil has been extracted and is on the open market for sale! Why can't the US purchase 25% of it?

The US produces 10% of the world's oil. The US consumes 25% of the world's oil production. The US has oil reserves of 3% of the world's total.

All in that linked doc.

Most countries can't support their oil consumption without importing. Something wrong with this? Many countries can't even support their food consumption without importing US food grants.

Nothing wrong with that (though the US really ought to cut back on it's fossil fuel useage, as should Australia and other offenders).

The reason I brought up these figures was to counter the claims by MrsSkywalker that the US could produce all the oil it needs if it had to. Turns out that was incorrect.

 

[Legion]

At the end of the day, travelling to foreign lands has opened up my mind to opinions not put forth from my own cultural diverse upbringing. So of course it's unprovable, it's my opinion.

You were trying to counter Mrs' comments with opinion?

What I've discovered is that one's country of domicile plays a huge role in one's opinion, especially after the first generation.

this is opinion again not fact.

The US produces 10% of the world's oil. The US consumes 25% of the world's oil production. The US has oil reserves of 3% of the world's total.

That accussation really needed to addressed. Again nothing wrong with these figures at all.

Nothing wrong with that (though the US really ought to cut back on it's fossil fuel useage, as should Australia and other offenders).

Why? Do you think that by the time we are about to run out we won't have an alternative? Lol think of it this way the more we use the supply the more likely we might be to come up with an alternative as a part of the ever growing industry .

Again the oil has been extracted. Do you think purchasing it makes it go to waste?

The reason I brought up these figures was to counter the claims by MrsSkywalker that the US could produce all the oil it needs if it had to. Turns out that was incorrect.

Wait, no, thats not what your comments say at all. The US produces 10% of all available oil each year that doesn't speak of its capacity to produce the 25% quantity.

 

[Legion]

This is why i am damn bothered by these vague terms Trawler.

What is the context of consumption? Is the article stating consumption means the oil is purchased and used or just purchased? If the later then i would question what percent of that oil is being used and how much is being stored (the 25%). Furthermore how much of the "world's oil" (another vague term) is being produced by the US that is being directly consumed by the US? If 10% of the "world's oil" was being directly used by the US then only 15% is really imported by necessity.

 

[MrsSkywalker]

Alaska has an approximate land area of 570,400 square miles. Considering that Alaska only produces 13% of this nation's current oil output, having wells on less than 0.1% of their land, imagine how much oil they could produce if we tapped into the rest of the state. And that is only one state!

While it's true that we may have 3% of the world's oil reserve, "oil reserves" are already taken out of the ground (in fact, I believe it is the military alone who has these reserves), at least minimally processed, and put into barrels. This is not an indicator of any untapped crude that sits in the ground. There is actually no way to tell how much oil is in the ground. However, common sense would indicate that if 570 square miles can produce 13% of the country's oil output, then the potential oil in the other 570,000 square miles is quite substantial.

 

[RussSchultz]

While it's true that we may have 3% of the world's oil reserve, "oil reserves" are already taken out of the ground (in fact, I believe it is the military alone who has these reserves), at least minimally processed, and put into barrels.

No. The term oil reserves refers to known/estimated oil that could be readily extracted using todays methods.

You're thinking about the strategic oil reserves, which is oil that has been purchased and is stored in giant salt domes that dot the gulf coast.

The US does extract quite a bit of oil from Texas, and Louisiana, the gulf of mexico, and Alaska, but it is no where near the quality (Louisiana oil, for example, is very high in sulfer) of other oil sources. From what I've heard, the estimated Alaskan oil reserve exploited by drilling in ANWR would only provide the US 2% of their annual needs.

The US is definately (currently) dependant on foreign oil. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

 

[Legion]

Russ can you provide us with more information and a more indepth background.


France[-----|---X-]USA
Should France be removed from NATO NO[--------x-]YES

 

[MrsSkywalker]

From what I've heard, the estimated Alaskan oil reserve exploited by drilling in ANWR would only provide the US 2% of their annual needs.

Since the US currently produces 12% of the world's oil supply, with the majority of the Alaskan oil fields not being drilled at the moment, I find that figure a little hard to believe.

The fact is, there is really no way to tell how much is where, unless you drill around until there is nothing left. In the early 60's, environmentalists were screaming that the world's oil supply would be depleted by the early 80's. In the early 80's, they changed their opinion, claiming that the oil supply would be depleted by 2000. The best we can do is guess.

It would be a huge expense to the US to have to rely on 0nly ourselves for the necessary oil, and I agree that it would not be a permanant solution...but I think things are getting away from oil as it is. Look at all of the auto companies...all the major ones (in the US, and I believe all of the Japanese companies, though I am not sure...they weren't all at the Detroit auto show ) have hybrid vehicles in their new line ups. My point was, even though it would come at great expense, I fully believe we could do it, at least until an alternative presented itself.

Hey, and if push came to shove, we could just buy Mexico

CosmoKramer:

The real issue is that those 22% actually supported the bombing of that country (unless the embargo wasn't working... ).

You'd have to be pretty stupid and also rather cold-hearted to give your active support for something like that.

Lighten up. To be honest, if I was asked if Sweden should be bombed in a poll, I wouldn't take it seriously enough to give an honest answer. We over here have a sense of humor about such idiotic things. You have to take a stupid poll with a major grain of salt. As I said before, polls are useless, especially ones that ask retarded questions. It doesn't mean that 22% of Americans are stupid and cold-hearted.

 

[Legion]

Personally i would rather see some figures from some one experienced in the industry.





The Sickening Chirac: The Great Moral Leader of France
http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/35-16595.asp

France working to promote anti-americanism and economic idiocy
http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/35-16587.asp