The Euro at $1.55

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:01:14 +0100, Dusty Furtile Morrocan
wrote:

On the particular moment of Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:20:27 -0700 in
relation to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy, Hatunen
put forth:

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:24:53 -0700,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:



Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes:

Problem for whom?

Many financial organizations in Europe, and some EU governemnts,
think the euro has risen too far, too fast.

But the euro has not risen; the dollar has fallen. That's an important
distinction.

One I was also trying to make - but it fell on deaf ears.

Why is this distinction important, and how and to whom?

It's important to Americans, because a rising Euro would make one part
of the world more expensive, while a fallen dollar makes nearly
everywhere more expensive.

But equally importantly, it makes American goods cheaper to the
rest of the world, increasing American exports and creating more
jobs, etc.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:29:51 -0700,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:



Hatunen wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:24:53 -0700,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:


Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes:

Problem for whom?

Many financial organizations in Europe, and some EU governemnts,
think the euro has risen too far, too fast.
But the euro has not risen; the dollar has fallen. That's an important
distinction.
One I was also trying to make - but it fell on deaf ears.

Why is this distinction important, and how and to whom?

Perhaps as an indicator of whose economy is failing and whose flourishing?

Whose economy is flourishing when the price of its goods sold to
America increases?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:07:22 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:

http://phoenix.about.com/od/transbus/a/lightrail.htm

Looks like it's too little, too late. Unfortunately the layout of the city
has historically been dictated by the assumption that people will move about
in private vehicles; there isn't any way to build a constrained mass transit
system such as light rail that can provide even a small fraction of the same
coverage. Even buses cannot provide it. Park and Ride doesn't help unless
you have individual vehicles waiting at each end, and if you have that, much
of the advantage of the mass transit system is negated.

I know. It seems to be a case of "Don't just stand there, do
something".

Add to this the extreme climate, and it's hard to see how such a system can
ultimately succeed without a significant redesign of the metropolitan area.

A light rail system like that can't flourish unless:

1. Trains are frequent enough that a schedule is not needed.

2. Stops are accessible from points further away, either by bus
or car with Park and Ride lots. No one is going to walk to the
LRT stop in Phoenix' summer weather.



--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:03:50 +0100, Dusty Furtile Morrocan
wrote:

On the particular moment of Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:23:10 -0700 in
relation to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy, Hatunen
put forth:

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:23:34 -0700,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

It's getting to a point where they CAN'T - and it will be a definite
problem in the American Southwest, where "public transportation" is
largely non-existent!

That's silly. They'll just start buying more economical cars,
like they did during the gas crisis some decades ago.

And there's transit in the southwest. Why, Phoenix is
inaugurating its new light rail system, isn't it?

By roughly how much are they expecting car usage to drop?

Damned if I know.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 07:57:23 -0700 (PDT), Señor Castro
wrote:

On 15 Mar, 13:35, Mxsmanic wrote:
Dusty Furtile Morrocan writes:
Did you round up or down the least significant digit?

I rounded up, motivated by my natural optimism.

Of course a simple light rail system won't have any great effect, but
it seems to be a popular choice for local governments everywhere (even
here in Genova), despite that they rarely bring much benefit. It would
be much cheaper to carve bicycle lanes of various roads, and would
probably be used more. Not the bicycles would be so great in the
furnace of Phoenix in summer.

The problem of cities like Phoenix is that they just aren't laid out to favor
any form of collective transportation. Their design assumes that everyone
will have a personal vehicle. Once this assumption takes root and guides the
development of the area for more than half a century, there isn't really any
way to change it.

One compromise would be to build mass transit in specific areas and encourage
development around it, so that you might eventually have a dense city center
or residential/business district that can profit from mass transit, with no
need for cars. But Phoenix doesn't really have any area suitable for that
experiment; even downtown areas are sparsely occupied compared to other
cities, and they additionally do not have the proper mix of business and
residential space.

If fuel problems ever progress to the point that driving individual vehicles
becomes truly not feasible or perhaps even impossible, cities like Phoenix and
Los Angeles may wither and die, except for one or two core areas that will
redevelop into Manhattan-style neighborhoods.

don't they have bicycles ?

Phoenix Metro has temperatures of 115F/46C in the summer. It also
sprawls some 100km across.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:50:09 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , Dusty Furtile
Morrocan says...

Much of the USA has been built around the assumption that cars will be
available to all forever. That demand is enormous, and unless the
USA's middle classes are going to be decimated, a way will have to
found to maintain this mode of transport.

It's just a matter of finding a cheap and clean source of energy
(perhaps fusion reactors?). Then switch to electrical cars and the
problem of individual transportation is solved.

Oh. Easy, then.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Hatunen" kirjoitti
om...

But equally importantly, it makes American goods cheaper to the
rest of the world, increasing American exports and creating more
jobs, etc.

Unless European institutions insist that Americans are dumping prices of the
export goods and introduce hefty tolls at borders and ration import. This
has been a common instrument in the USA when dollar has been expensive
relative to the European currencies.

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:39:55 +0200, Markku Grönroos
wrote:


"Hatunen" kirjoitti
viestissä:8o1ot39nf2u4kkmu1jbn0uloclvhucssnh@4ax. com...

But equally importantly, it makes American goods cheaper to the
rest of the world, increasing American exports and creating more
jobs, etc.

Unless European institutions insist that Americans are dumping prices of the
export goods and introduce hefty tolls at borders and ration import. This
has been a common instrument in the USA when dollar has been expensive
relative to the European currencies.

Which has what to do with when the dollar is cheap relative to
European currencies?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Hatunen" kirjoitti
om...
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:39:55 +0200, Markku Grönroos
wrote:


"Hatunen" kirjoitti
viestissä:8o1ot39nf2u4kkmu1jbn0uloclvhucssnh@4ax .com...

But equally importantly, it makes American goods cheaper to the
rest of the world, increasing American exports and creating more
jobs, etc.

Unless European institutions insist that Americans are dumping prices of
the
export goods and introduce hefty tolls at borders and ration import. This
has been a common instrument in the USA when dollar has been expensive
relative to the European currencies.

Which has what to do with when the dollar is cheap relative to
European currencies?

Read the first sentence once again. With thought this time. You almost got
it in one.

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:01:14 +0100, Dusty Furtile Morrocan
wrote:

On the particular moment of Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:20:27 -0700 in
relation to Mary's disappointingly immaculate rumpy pumpy, Hatunen
put forth:

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:24:53 -0700,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:



Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes:

Problem for whom?

Many financial organizations in Europe, and some EU governemnts,
think the euro has risen too far, too fast.

But the euro has not risen; the dollar has fallen. That's an
important
distinction.

One I was also trying to make - but it fell on deaf ears.

Why is this distinction important, and how and to whom?

It's important to Americans, because a rising Euro would make one part
of the world more expensive, while a fallen dollar makes nearly
everywhere more expensive.

But equally importantly, it makes American goods cheaper to the
rest of the world, increasing American exports and creating more
jobs, etc.



That may well have been so until a generation or so back, but nowadays you
import everything from China. What American goods did you have in mind?
--

JohnT