Sorry, but when I first moved to the UK in 1982, the pound was around $1.95. Prices have gone up everywhere over the past 25 yrs but the pound is now about where it was in 1982.

"in that case the U.S. deficit is at record levels so i guess we would not qualify"

Except it isn't enforced, so it doesn't matter. Both Italy and Germany have routinely failed to meet the criteria.

And our deficit is still only about 4%, or 1% point higher than the criteria. We could easily do what Italy did - chop it for one year to meet the entrance criteria and then forget about it.

"Just got back from Italy. SmartCars are everywhere, and the buses and trains are full of average, middle-class people, not just poor people as the cliche goes in the US for riding the bus. There's no reason that can't happen in the United States."

Actually, there is a reason. It is population density. Italy has a population density of 193 people per square km. The UK is 246. Belgium is 341. Holland is 392. The US has 31. The whole of the EU has a population density of 112. So the EU has a population density roughly 4x that in the US. It is unfair to compare Europe to the US as the transit systems are designed to meet the needs of two totally different demographies.

It just isn't efficient to have mass transit systems (they are called MASS transit for a reason) cover lightly populated areas - try relying on mass transit in rural Sweden, for instance. Indeed, densely populated cities in the US (Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Philly, DC) have comprehensive public transit systems used by many. So, while I understand the sentiment of your post, I don't think it practical.

"not just poor people as the cliche goes in the US for riding the bus."

"Indeed, densely populated cities in the US (Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Philly, DC) have comprehensive public transit systems used by many."

As an example - lots of well heeled people in the uptown 5th/Madison Avenue buses in New York City. Many expensively dressed, highly educated people in these buses. Sometimes you feel like you're in a first class transatlantic flight.

"We obviously don't import as much, relatively, from China - because there are lots of cheaper-wage economies a great deal nearer (Bangladesh, for example, whose major products we import duty free, but the US - to its everlasting shame, and if my country behaved as abominably, I'd burn my passport- slaps duties of up to 26% onto the products of one of the world's poorest countries)."

Holy Moley, here's Flanner, as usual spouting utter BS about things he knows NOTHING about! Flanner, do you think this country doesn't import cheap goods from Bangladesh and the Phillipines and Sri Lanka? Hell, I have an entire CLOSET FULL of clothing made in Bangladesh, that come from the leading chain stores in the country, LIKE the Gap, Banana Republic, and a zillion other American clothing stores (which I notice, are ALL OVER Regent Street and beyond in your country-anymore, I could be walking down anywhere USA as to go to London these days, there are so many US based chain stores, from Walmart, to TJ Maxx, to Borders to Foot Locker, to Au Bon Pain (a Boston based company, btw) every US food, petrol, and clothing store are ALL OVER over your country, and I can assure you, within all those US based companies in YOUR country, Bangladesh is well represented in the multitude of "poorest countries" that this country does trade with!

Sheesh! I COULD go off here about what this type of Brit post is REALLY all about, but it should be obvious.....(smile)

The German manufacturing sector is quite untouched by the currency rate. First, a consequent part of Germany's exports are to Europe/the Euro Zone. Second, a lot of German products are high-quality goods machinery that simply aren't produced elsewhere, and the elasticity of their demand is very low.

"...drive our marvelous cars..."

Gardyloo, you had me up to that point.

Sometime in the 50s, a proposal was broached; city travel would be by electric cars and intercity travel by gasoline or diesel vehicles. Obviously, it got no where. At the same time, the point system came into being. It was a result of a commercial trucker's experience. The early industrial worker lived within walking distance of his/her business place. All of this may return when the oil runs out. In fifty years there will be no private cars. Future generations will castigate their ancestors for wasting a valuable raw materials; oil and gas! How many miles of travel potential does a quart/liter water bottle represent or cost? Instead of FF miles how about trading plastic bottles and bags for mileage?

"Future generations will castigate their ancestors for wasting a valuable raw materials; oil and gas!"

Or they will find alternatives and not even notice or care.

What I'm wondering is if the US is predominately a service economy now - not a manufacturing economy - then why the low dollar?

the point made about reducing the amount of US debt held by foriegners is interesting.

I personally think Greenspan's bubble approach to economics has worn thin and the world is decoupeling from the dollar

the big question is whether there comes a point where I won't go to Europe because the way I prefer to travel is too expensive (not enough bang for my anemic buck) - and the answer is yes. I'm not going to stay in some bare bones hotel and eat my meals on a bench in a park (I do a variation of that in NYC)

having just got back from Bali (which was wonderful but I missed the urbanity of the Italian villages, small cities and the cool weather) - I enjoyed myself without having to majorly pinch pennies - it's a vacation, right? I am beginning to make plans for Italy in May 08 but will just have to see. Quito, Ecuador looks interesting also....

<i>&quot;...drive our marvelous cars...&quot;

Gardyloo, you had me up to that point.</i>

Huh? Wuh? They aren't?

(Did you get the part about our &quot;well-seasoned&quot; airline fleets?)

It seems that the best &quot;investment&quot; that I have made over the years turns out to be my stash of leftover Euros from previous trips.

basingstoke, I'm with you! I just calculated the rate of return on my leftover euros, and I am quite happy. . .

Evidently the discovery of American owned chains on British high streets has elicited a rather excitable response from Girlspytravel. It is, indeed, yet one more reason to castigate the perfidious Brits - for as any true patriot knows a foreign owned company is a slight unto the nation in which it operates. And if Britain is so decadent as to allow the operation of these US enterprises then, well, doesn’t that just prove US superiority (and by extension, her very own) over those pathetic denizens of that god-forsaken and benighted island nation.

My, my… if only I’d realised so much could be read into the global reach of some US retailers!

On the other hand, some people in Britain like shopping in these stores, in sufficient numbers to make them profitable for their operators back home in Preoria. And some of those operators in Preoria like doing business in the UK because, well, “they’re kinda like us, don’tcha know” – similar legal system, similar language, similar retail culture etc etc.

Girlspytravel:- please don’t forget the medicine bottle is by your bed. Calm down!

Dr D. :)

travelgourmet: <i>&quot;Just got back from Italy. SmartCars are everywhere, and the buses and trains are full of average, middle-class people, not just poor people as the cliche goes in the US for riding the bus. There's no reason that can't happen in the United States.&quot;

Actually, there is a reason. It is population density. Italy has a population density of 193 people per square km. The UK is 246. Belgium is 341. Holland is 392. The US has 31. The whole of the EU has a population density of 112. So the EU has a population density roughly 4x that in the US. It is unfair to compare Europe to the US as the transit systems are designed to meet the needs of two totally different demographies.</i>

Population density is a misleading number because the US has huge open spaces that bring the density down. A majority of Americans travel within urban areas where better mass transit and small cars make sense. There's absolutely no reason an Italian-style system couldn't become popular (again) in regions of the US.


Trains don't make sense anymore to travel between, say, New York and Los Angeles, but they make great sense in more densely populated regions of the country like the Northeast, areas where cities are only a few hours apart. Commuter trains are still widely used in the Northeast but not so much in the rest of the country. In the Pacific Northwest there are few regional train options; I can take Amtrak to Seattle but the trains are slow and unreliable due to issues with track ownership, and going south to Eugene or Salem by Amtrak is like 1X a day at poor times, not really feasible. Lots of people would use a regular train between Portland and Salem (the capitol) in the way they do between New York and Washington.

O my.

There are two things everyone in the world thinks they can do: one is to be the manager of a sports team and the other is to be the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

One wonders if Alan Greenspan and/or his successor read the Fodors' messageboard for tips.....

To this I add my own amateur armchair chairman opinion: credit crisis and mortgage-backed securities. Sorry, Gardyloo, I don't think it's over yet. When Citybank fires its CEO, when Morgan Stanley and AIG only just announced mega-billion losses even in excess of what analysts predicted, when GM loses money not because people are buying cars but because they ain't, does anyone seriously think this has anything, whatsoever, to do with a failure to install mass transit in Back-of-Beyond, North America? Or because of a vice to 'consume too much' (definition of consuming too much: when anyone buys stuff not produced by oneself or one's constituents. Also known as: My region's products and services are useful and necessary, it's only everyone else's that are waste.....)

&quot;the other is to be the chairman of the Federal Reserve.'

and most don't even have the basic knowledge of economics 101.

&quot;Population density is a misleading number because the US has huge open spaces that bring the density down. A majority of Americans travel within urban areas where better mass transit and small cars make sense...

...Commuter trains are still widely used in the Northeast but not so much in the rest of the country. In the Pacific Northwest there are few regional train options....Lots of people would use a regular train between Portland and Salem (the capitol) in the way they do between New York and Washington.&quot;

I really don't get your point. I specifically mentioned that those areas with population densities approaching European levels are well-served by public transit.

The Pacific Northwest is just not at the same level of population density as much of Europe. Portland, for example, has a population density of around 1,700 people per km. Nancy, France - hardly a buzzing metropolis - has a population density about 4x that. And Salem, Oregon? It has a population of, what 300k people in the metro area? And what % of those commute to Portland every day? Or vice versa? Exactly how would you fill hourly or bi-hourly minute trains? And can you really attract riders with only hourly service? Any way you slice it, I will guarantee you are running a lot of empty trains. Heck, even in a place like Boston, the commuter trains largely run empty at night. But they have to be run, or else no one will take them during rush hour, lest a last-minute delay mean they are 40 miles from home.

And how much would you have to spend to provide transit systems within those cities that are robust enough so that you can get where you need to go once you get there? It is fine to get me from downtown to downtown, but the vast majority of the passengers don't need to go to the tran station.

These are the problems that every public transit system in the US deals with. And it is why US public transit systems, on average, recover less than 40% of their costs from fares/ridership. The New York City system is among the most &quot;profitable&quot; in the world and struggles to recover more than 60% of its costs.

I don't see anyway to address such structural issues in a genuinely efficient way.

travelgourmet, I think you are missing the idea of &quot;if you build it, they will come,&quot; especially with gas prices only poised to go higher in coming years. People would learn to use a train from, say, Salem to Portland, a connection between the state capitol and the state's largest city. You don't have to run trains every ten minutes, but once a day is not really practical or usable.

Building a mass transit system is a chicken and egg thing. You have to build it first and encourage ridership. In Portland, the light rail system was partly designed to direct new growth around light rail stations. You want people making living decisions based on proximity to mass transit, but they can't do that if the transit system doesn't exist.

And sure, it's going to cost a lot of money to invest heavily in mass transit systems nationwide. The US government spends hundreds of billions per year on other things like the military; surely we have money to invest in more efficient, practical mass transit systems that will pay off in 20 years when we've hit peak oil and the price of gasoline is $20/gallon. Waiting til then to start building mass transit will make it that much more expensive.

The train issues takes us farther afield from the original topic, but I guess it is related - so let me add to it.

In Texas, people often wish there were trains to and from Houston, DFW, Austin, and San Antonio. The problem becomes what do you do once you arrive in one of these cities via train? There is no reliable, universial mass transit in these cities that generally have multiple business districts. If I live north of Houston, for example, I would have to drive to Houston, hop on the train, take it to Austin, hop in a taxi, go to one office to meet with a client, hop in another taxi, go to another office for a deposition, hop in a taxi to go back to the train station, take the train back to Houston, and drive back to my home. It is much faster and easier fro me to get in my car at home and drive to Austin. Until that changes, mass transite will not work in places west and south of the DC-Boston corridor.