To: WWS who wrote (572 ) 9/23/2000 1:41:12 PM From: rajaggs Respond to of 601 WWS, that was a good article on CBS, in that it was realistic without much hype. Clinton has made a move to release oil from Strategic Oil Reserve and now we will have to see if that dampens prices by much or merely alleviates the shortage enough to get home heating oil to all those who are going to need it this winter. It has to be noted that at some time in the not-too-distant future, that oil will have to be returned to the SOR, out of a supply that is under obvious strain to cope with demand from USA, China and Japan. I notice that the comments from some OPEC ministers are already reverting to "that's enough tap turning for now" and such-like. Oil at $35 always tastes better than oil at $15. Many people have responded negatively to my ideas of taxing gasoline in the US more heavily because they feel it will hurt lower income people more and that it will slow the economy. If I still have my memory cells working, I recall that Greenspan was cheered by most when he attempted to slow the economy with higher interest rates. Why not let the economic price of oil do it for him and leave the interest rates to fall slowly back to where they were. There is no escaping the fact that lower income families will suffer more from higher heating fuel and gasoline prices but then poorer people always suffer most when prices rise because wealthier people have the money to ride out whatever goes up in price. That is an international law, or so it seems. I don't want anyone to get hurt financially by increased fuel costs but at some point in time the nations that consume the most energy, including Canada, are going to have to address supply, demand, price and self sufficiency and the sooner they start then the less pain there will be, all around. 'jaggs