Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hassell Anderson who wrote (81376)	9/24/2000 6:02:41 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Part of what you say about futures contracts might be true, if we had sufficient market power and endurance from a supply side. We don't. This should be just a blip, solely for Clinton/Gore's short-term political gain and at our long-term energy expense, and setting bad policy precedent for dealing with the problem. If we do have the market power you suggest, this policy of releasing the oil should discourage future exploration and production, only adding to the problem. It might happen anyway. What large, long-term investments do you make that are dependent upon fickle government decisions (other than QCOM <g>?). Our venerable Energy Secretary's bs about not trying to affect prices, but just avoiding shortages, is just that. jmho BTW, isn't our energy secretary in the news a lot, lately, trying to justify and explain away really stupid government actions and inactions about, inter alia, lost nuclear bomb secrets, misplaced hard drives, wrongfully-accused employees, high summer gas prices, high winter heating oil prices, release of precious strategic assets (strategic petroleum reserve), etc., for Clinton/Gore's political gain?