Notes from a very small island

I wonder how the US senate and citizenry would react to the rest of the world deciding that from now on they will only trade with countries that respect the right of a producer/seller to set the prices of their goods - in other words ceasing to sell anything to the US.

From:

Reading Churchill's memoirs of WW2, there's a bit where he and Roosevelt were discussing war aims in 1941. The US wanted to put in a bit about making sure that all countries have free and unrestricted access to trade across the globe. Churchill's response was that the UK was all for it, and had been for a long time: the problem with world trade was all the protectionist tariffs the US kept setting up to limit how much other people could sell to them...

From:

You inspired me to look up jaywalking, but I still don't understand it.

From:

I seriously doubt the legislation will go into effect. Either it won't make it to Bush's desk, or he will veto it. But Congress has to at least show that they are trying to do something about the rising cost of gasoline. It's sickening to see the record profts the oil companies are posting -- and then have to pay through the nose for a gallon of gas. (And yes, I know full well that we pay less for gas than most countries, but the fact remains that we are paying more than we are accustomed to, regardless of what the base cost was.)

Don't forget, Congress is now controlled by the Democrats. They are doing their best to show how different they are from Bush and his policies. This way they can say to the American people, "Well, at least we tried to do something..."

As for jaywalking, I'm surprised to learn that it was legal in the UK. Basically it's crossing a street at a point where there isn't a crosswalk, or in a manner that is reckless and endangers you or anyone else.

From:

*Snigger* Oh deary me, what is it about the US governing classes?

From:

"Don't forget, Congress is now controlled by the Democrats. They are doing their best to show how different they are from Bush and his policies."

Yes, but they picked a bloody stupid way to try, if you'll pardon the language. They're making Bush look reasonable.

At least Bush bothers to invade a place before subjecting it to US jurisdiction. NOPEC just assumes that US writ runs everywhere.

From:

I guess I just must be an ignorant American then, because frankly I don't see what's so wrong and "so dumb it hurts" about this legislation. It hasn't got a prayer's chance of actually going into effect, and anyway why shouldn't countries want to stop a cartel like OPEC from jacking up gasoline prices all the time for their own benefit?

NOPEC just assumes that US writ runs everywhere.

Where do you get this? Even if for some reason this law actually went into effect, and some lawyer did indeed sue OPEC, I doubt the case would ever actually make it to court (more likely it would be thrown out, or appealed for the next 1000 years). And then even if it did make it to a judge and jury, and the law was enforced and the judge said, "OPEC what you're doing is illegal"...how does that effect how OPEC and other countries do business? The way I read that article you linked to, the legislation would only effect the US and OPEC's relationship.

So I honestly don't see what all the fuss and anger is about.

From:

You don't find it a bit - embarrassing - that your local legislature is making laws to govern somewhere that it just doesn't govern? You don't think that seems a bit, well, clueless?

From here the flavour of it is as if a legislature was considering ruling the sky to be green, or coal to be a nutritious snack, only with an added element of lack of finess and tact that I can't think of a parallel for just now.

It just seems so - buffoonish. But in a scary way, like a man with a big gun who has decided to dress in a chicken suit and communicate only by clucking *but is still carrying the gun*...

From:

What is a 'crosswalk'?

From:

A zebra crossing. :-)

From:

It's not our local legislature...it's Congress, who passes federal laws.

I guess if I thought the legislation had any chance at all of becoming law, I might be more concerned. But I read that article and I just had to laugh because of how absurd the idea is - although I do agree with the basic principle behind it: that something should be done about the cartels and their greed.

So I just don't see why everyone is getting so worked up about it, is all.

From:

Well yes - I was making the point that, from a UK perspective, Congress IS your local legislature. It's local to the USA, and has no powers outside!

From:

Blooming 'eck. I'd have to walk MILES to get to a zebra crossing!

Surely it's possible to cross roads without one? What happens if you get stuck on the inside of a square of roads: do you have to use a bicycle to escape?

From:

*thinks*

I bet this is how flying US superheros evolved...

From:

Jaywalking is one of those things like actually coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. No ever does it...unless you happen to be around a cop! :-)

From:

Ultimately, I think this bill is simple Democrat point-scoring. They know Bush has ties to the oil industry, and by proposing this legislation, they force him to veto what appears to Joe Six-Pack to be a perfectly sensible way to curtail the power of certain foreign governments who operate at the expense of the consumer by distorting the market.

And OPEC does operate as a cartel.

And its aim is to control production to benefit the oil producing nations.

And although it is headquartered in Vienna, and the public face is seemingly nice allied countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, most of its member nations are really nasty regimes like Venezuela, Libya, Angola, Indonesia etc.

But yes, it is a bit absurd for the government of one country to try to legislate against an international organisation. Having said that, it is naive to say that the US government has no powers outside of the US. Foreign companies listed on Wall Street or NASDAQ for example have to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. As do the accountancy firms that audit them. As do the people who work for those accountancy firms. Like me. If I do something in this country that is not a crime in this country, but is in the US, I can now be extradited to stand trial in the US. This is what you get when you get failed lawyers to run the country.

From:

The fuss is that Congress is purporting to pass a law that says sovereign states are bound by the unilateral decisions of the US government. That is entirely contrary to international law, and so is of course ineffective - but the very fact that passing the law suggests that Congress is ignorant of that makes them look silly. As Bunn says, it's like that old (and, IIRC, spurious) chestnut about some local government somewhere defining Pi as 3 - you just can't do it, and you look silly trying.

Apart from anything else, even if it could be done it would effectively mean that the US would have the sole right to set oil prices, or at least to set a cap on them, as anyone selling above the US-approved price would be committing an offence. That is not acceptable in a global market.

From:

Oh, and re-reading my previous comment I may have come across a bit harshly. Sorry :-(

From:

purplecat

Things like this remind me so much of what I learned about Britain under Palmerston when I did history O' level (which admitedly suggests a rather simplistic understanding of what was going on).

Mind you, I don't think Palmerston ever tried to legislate on a local level against other nationalities. His response IIRC was simply to send the Royal Navy to bombard some convenient ports. But it is salutary to remember that when in a position of world dominance Britain behaved in much the same way (and that we are not so far chronologicaly from such a time).

From:

purplecat

I've always been fascinated by the jaywalking thing. On one level its a matter of whether by default, in the case of an accident, you believe it to be the drivers' fault for not keeping a good look-out or the pedestrian's for not taking care.

On another level its an instance of Nanny- Stateing and you can agree or disagree with it to the extent you believe it is the State's responsibility to prevent idiots behaving like idiots (even if it has the side-effect of making life difficult for perfectly sensible people who can manage to cross the road without getting killed thank you very much!).

From:

Oh absolutely. It's purely the distribution of power at the time that gives it the scary element. If the USA had tried to make a law of this sort in, say, 1850, it would merely have been amusing, in the way that it would be if the Welsh Assembly decided to legislate similarly today.

From:

The US government isn't necessarily the only one to try something. This idea isn't all that different from the EU trying to force Apple to allow iPod users easy access to non-Apple download services. In both cases, consumer interests are being championed.

From:

You also have to add a bit of historical and economic context to this. In the early part of the 20th century, American politicians seem to have been obsessed with reducing the monopolistic power of big business. It is fair to say that both political parties have distrusted big business (while seeking funding from the same businesses). And the most high-profile 'anti-trust' case was against an oil 'cartel'. In this case, it was a single company, Standard Oil, accused of abusing its market position. Standard Oil was broken into regional companies (Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Chevron, Arco, Conoco etc).

From:

If I do something in this country that is not a crime in this country, but is in the US, I can now be extradited to stand trial in the US. This is what you get when you get failed lawyers to run the country.

Is this how the US got those bods from NatWest into a texan cort?

From:

Yes, precisely.

From:

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Pi is 3 in The Bible.

From:

skordh.livejournal.com

I think magpie walking is the equivalent British passtime.

From:

Can the Blair memorial be him swinging in the breeze please?

From: