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.

Strategies & Market Trends : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Follies who wrote (59638)	10/1/2000 3:52:41 PM
From: Sea Otter	Respond to of 99985

Dale_sinor - thanks. I give you major credit for backing your statements with facts. A rarity! However, as you might have noticed, fossil fuel taxes have not been raised. The current prices are driven by market shortages and the money flows directly to OPEC. Of course, you know this. Gore has indeed pushed fossil fuel taxes. The money from THIS would flow to energy research leading to energy independence. That's the outcome Gore has advocated. So we have two different scenarios. The one being played out now is not the one Gore proposed. All we're doing now is making a bunch of Arabs richer - just because we don't have any alternatives. Eventually we run out of fossil fuel. Eventually we have to move to renewable sources. Everyone acknowledges this, even Bush. Who is going to take leadership and manage a long-range (and probably unpopular) plan to get us there? Bush's plan, as near as I can tell, is just to do more domestic drilling. I'm not against that, if done environmentally sound, but the numbers don't add up. Any increase in domestic production is a drop in the bucket against inexorable long-range trends. So we've got to get more aggressive with this problem, eventually. And so far I've only seen that kind of leadership from Gore.