Author: R J Adams

NBC Nightly News last night displayed the price of gasoline at the pump in a small number of countries around the world. They were all priced in American dollars.

Whenever such comparisons are made in America, the assumption is always that everyone in the world pays for their gasoline in US dollars. It holds true for American tourists, but is useless when comparing the cost to that of a Brit purchasing his gallon in London, or a Dutchman in Amsterdam.

In order to arrive at a fair correlation between the price of a quantity of gasoline in, say, London, and that of a similar quantity in New York, it is necessary to forget foreign currency exchanges altogether. An Englishman buys his gasoline with British pounds, an American with US dollars. Each is a unit of currency. The value of that currency, both to the Englishman and the American, is entirely dependent on how much of it he earns.

Average individual earnings in Britain are around 24,000 pounds per annum.^[1] The average figure for an American earner is approximately $26,000.^[2] On a unit to unit basis, the American fares fractionally better, but for our purposes the difference is negligible. Average earnings work out at roughly similar figures in both countries.

Forget foreign exchange: put simply, one British pound equals one American dollar; each is equal to one unit of currency.

NBC Nightly has a habit of making wild assertions on its programs, that never make it to their website (I wonder why?) so you’ll have to take my word that Brian Williams made a valiant effort to console his viewers by pointing out that, while they were paying around $4.00 a gallon at the pump, the poor old Brits were having to fork out $8.28 a gallon; the Dutch – $9.52, while the Russians got away with a mere – $3.06.

WRONG! This is the price disconsolate American tourists would be paying in each of these countries. It most definitely is not what the natives are spending.

It’s way, way, too much trouble to calculate the conversions in roubles and Euros, so for the purpose of this presentation we’ll stick with our comparison of US dollars and British pounds. However, it does make for a further complication. In his enthusiasm to demonstrate how well off the American public truly is, Mister Williams may or may not have taken size into account, but it’s a sad fact that US citizens get seventeen percent less for their gallon than the British, who still use the Imperial measurement of 4.55 liters, against the US 3.78 liter gallon.

Consequently, while our Englishman is filling his tank at today’s British price of 113 pence per liter, or 5.14 British pounds per Imperial gallon, at US gallon volumes that price becomes seventeen percent less, or 4.27 British pounds for the equivalent US gallon.^[3]

We’ve already determined that unit for unit the British pound and US dollar are equivalent values in their respective countries, so suddenly the British are not paying over twice the price for gasoline as their transatlantic cousins. In fact, the difference is only about six percent more, or 0.27 of our unit of currency.

Nevertheless, our American pumping his gas can still smile, knowing his gasoline is costing him less than the Englishman’s over the water.

Or, is it?

At 4.00 currency units a gallon our American is paying about 3.00 units, or 75%, for his product. The other is made up of federal and state taxes (15%) and distribution/marketing costs (10%).^[4]

Our Englishmen digs in his billfold for 4.27 currency units to pay for his equivalent amount of gasoline, of which only about 1.28 units is the cost of the product (less than half the unit currency price in the US). Distribution/marketing account for 0.38 units, and the rest – a whopping 2.61 units – goes in taxes and excise duties.^[5]

In fact, our American motorist is paying more than twice as much for his gas as the average British motorist. The Brits just pay a lot more of their taxes via the gas pump.

Whether this is a good, or bad, idea depends on one’s viewpoint. US gas tax, like its British counterpart, is supposedly used to maintain highways.

Britain has some of the best motorways in the world, in line with most of Europe. America’s highways are pot-holed, rutted, cracked, and falling to pieces. At times they can be downright dangerous. It isn’t only the roads that are in a poor state, many of the bridges and underpasses are on the verge of collapse.

I guess our Englishman can console himself with the thought that to some extent at least, he is getting what he pays for.

On this side of the pond, Americans are just pouring their hard-earned dollars into the vast, deep, pockets of their oil companies, and getting absolutely nothing back in return.

^{[1] “National Statistics Online (statistics.gov.uk) May 20th 2008}

^{[2] “Household income in the United States”, Wikipedia}

^{[3] “Fuel Price Reports”, Automobile Association UK}

^{[4] “A Primer on Gasoline Prices”, US Energy Information Administration}

^{[5] “The Price of Petrol”, Petrolprices.Com (UK)}

Filed under: A load of gas

Back in January 2008, Sparrow Chat featured an article on the new (to America) Smart Car from Mercedes Benz. This feature has received a large number of hits in recent months, due to the increasing cost of gasoline, but as yet no-one has been able to provide a concrete answer as to why the the European version fairs so much better in fuel consumption than its US counterpart, though a number of theories have been expounded.

Recently, Sparrow Chat received another comment on the subject, from Duncan in San Antonio:

“I just looked at the new Smart cars in the San Antonio showroom was appalled at the low gas mileage!! I am a Brit and lived in London where these were every where.

I seemed to remember them doing about 70 MPG in the UK – so I checked the UK Auto Car web reviews to make sure: and for the 70hp Passion it is listed as 36 MPG town (adjusted for the US gallon)and 58 MPG (adjusted for US gallon) highway.

WHAT have they done to the car here in the US???? They are only estimating a corresponding 33 MPG and 41 MPG – not much more than my Focus!

Such a great car but it will not catch on with this poor gas mileage – shame, a real shame.”

In fact, Duncan had made an error in his calculations and later corrected his figures in another comment. The incorrect figures have been replaced in the above reproduction of his comment.

It can be seen that around town the UK model is only slightly more economical (3 mpg more) than the US version. On the highway, however, the difference is dramatic. The UK car manages 17 mpg more than the US car.

This is a stunning difference for which, at this moment in time, there is still no satisfactory explanation.

Would anyone else out there care to comment?

Isn’t it time the importers of this vehicle set the record straight once and for all? Perhaps someone from the Penske Automotive Group the sole distributer of Smart cars in the USA, through its subsidiary, SmartUSA, would care to contact Sparrow Chat with the answer so many people are interested to hear?

Filed under: US not so Smart

George W Bush recently told the Israeli Knesset (and the rest of the world) that those who wanted to talk diplomacy with Iran were out to appease the terrorists:

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’

We have an obligation to call this what it is—the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Bush is wrong on so many counts one wonders how his speech writers get away with it. If ever a statement caused the US president to look foolish in the eyes of the world, then this was the one to do it.

Historically, diplomacy fails when nations turn to war against each other. No war has ever been won against terrorism – and God knows, enough nations have tried and failed. Conflicts of ideology can only be resolved through diplomacy, once each side gives up banging its own militaristic head against the solid stone wall of combat.

Bush’s analogy of the war on terror and Hitler’s invasion of Poland, is a pointless correlation. The former is an ideological struggle; the latter a power-struggle over lands and national control, similar to the war in Iraq.

Inter-national wars usually resolve themselves by one side winning over the other in a relatively short period of time. Ideological struggles grind on monotonously for decades, until each side has had enough and can be persuaded to sit down and talk it out.

The conflict in Northern Ireland was a good example of the latter; the ongoing feud between the Tamil Tigers and Sri Lankan government forces is another. It could be argued both were struggles over land, but neither was/is a war between nations, and it was/is a conflict of ideologies that has continuously fueled both conflicts.

The British found it impossible to resolve the Irish troubles militarily, despite the conflict being confined to a relatively small island. How much more difficult then for the United States to win the ‘war on terrorism’, spread as it is around the whole globe?

If ever there was a case for diplomacy, surely it is here.

Bush’s other glaring error, though politically motivated to raise the testosterone levels of the Israeli Knesset, is his reference to Iran as a ‘terrorist state’. While many terrorists originate from Middle Eastern countries and wage their ideological struggle against the West, there is another power-struggle in the region that bears more appraisal with the Nazi efforts at European domination in the 1930’s-40’s. This is the battle for control of the Middle East.

It’s a war fought on a number of fronts, but is predominantly between the United States/Israel, and Iran/Syria. It’s a war over land and national control. The heart of the conflict lies presently in Iraq, but the real power to be tamed by America/Israel is Iran. An American victory in Iraq will be enormously advantageous in achieving this goal. It will allow the US to consolidate its military position in the heart of the Middle East, right on the Iranian/Syrian borders, and geographically splitting those nations apart.

Contrary to US aggression, Iran has made no militaristic moves to control the area. Even if the threat of weapons-grade plutonium for a bomb becomes reality, given one atomic power (Israel) already in the region, Iran’s demand for a defensive requirement is perfectly logical.

The Bush administration’s forced argument that Iran is supplying “terrorists” in Iraq with weapons and killing American soldiers – thereby becoming terrorists themselves – is pure propaganda. Iran is acting perfectly correctly, given the threat to itself if the US ever manages to subdue Iraqi resistance sufficient to control the country.

Iran does not have the military power to confront America head on (though it’s military is vastly superior to that of Saddam’s) so wages a war of resistance with its neighbor against a joint enemy.

Bush’s concern, and that of his Jewish masters in Washington, is that future diplomatic relations with Iran might well bear fruit, lessen American power in the region, and thus put more pressure on Israel to curb its further expansion into the Palestinian territories.

It was to bolster the US/Israeli alliance and provide a grand display of unity to the Arab world, that was the true reason for Bush’s visit to the Jewish state this week. Any suggestion of encouraging a non-existent peace process was merely decoration for the American public.

It’s becoming much harder to differentiate between terrorists in the 21st century. Al Qaeda continues to terrorize with suicide bombings and assassinations; Israel regularly flattens Palestinian towns and villages, murdering innocent women and children and terrorizing the inhabitants; America bombs civilians in Iraq, uses drones to assassinate those it considers ‘fair targets’ with no recourse to justice, tortures, imprisons without trial, and shows so little concern for slaughtered innocents it labels them simply as ‘collateral damage’.

Western nations, once proud of their honorable status, have sunk to the level of those they label ‘terrorists’, and by so doing have become terror states themselves. Between them, George W Bush, Tony Blair, and Ehud Olmert have taken an ideological struggle and elevated it to a world war status, where military might becomes the only relevant factor and accommodation of, and respect for, other’s beliefs no longer holds relevance.

There is only one solution to the threat of Islamic terrorism, and that is to return the Middle East to its rightful owners – the Arabs – and pressurize Israel to return the land it captured in 1967, so the Palestinians can form their own state. To do so would require America to give up its empire-building crusade throughout the region and adopt a much stronger stance against Israeli aggression.

This will never occur until the vast influence of AIPAC on US political life is curbed. The Jewish lobby-group is purported to have 100,000 members, or less than 0.04% of the US population, yet it probably holds more sway over events in the Middle East than any other body and controls much of political decision-making in Washington, both by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

In short, America has been hijacked by fanatical Israel supporters using the threat of “antisemitism” as a weapon to manipulate US political leaders of all parties.

“Lord, if someone could only have talked to George W Bush, all this might have been avoided.”

Filed under: Bush’s war