Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (332646)	4/11/2007 11:53:15 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) of 1574854

re: I don't think something like a 25% cutoff of oil supple is as likely as a major terrorist attack. Depends on the definition of "major" but I disagree. I also think a 25% oil disruption would be much worse than a terrorist attack. (And frankly a 25% reduction in oil supply would almost certainly be labeled a terrorist attack by the government). re: "-Keep the money at home instead of in the hands of our "enemies"" ------------------ Some of it goes to our enemies. Some of it goes to people fighting our enemies. Who? re: Also the alternatives are more expensive, so they consume more resources, they would not free up more resources that would be put in our hands. The up front investment would be more but the sustained cost would be the same in some cases and a lot less in other cases. re: Also American exports to the region would be reduced (but not as much as American imports from the region would be reduced) So small as to inconsequential. re: An argument can be made that it would lessen the likelihood of war, but its not a slam dunk. Even if we didn't have to import oil now, we would have probably opposed Iraq's attempted annexation of Kuwait. Opposed yes but not sent troops. No way. re: -Clean air and reduction in health costs ----------------- Not if we use more coal. Yes if we use clean coal technology and even more so if we use nuke tech. re: -Stimulate the economy with lower cost of transportation ----------------- It would likely be higher costs in transportation and elsewhere. If the alternatives where lower cost they would already be in use to a much greater degree. As said earlier the investment is more but the ongoing cost of transportation is less. And the sum of our subsidies to the oil industry dwarfs our subsidies to alternatives. Already private companies are working on alternatives... they will absorb a lot of the investment cost. This morning I put $36 worth of gasoline in my car. If I had an electric vehicle it would have cost me (WAG) <$8 to charge it to go the same distance. That's $28 I can't spend or invest elsewhere... a portion of which goes to ME countries, Venezuela and the Chavez revolution, and Russia with it's unique brand of government. What's that worth in up front cost?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next