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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AllansAlias who wrote (25815)	10/9/2000 10:11:49 AM
From: Perspective	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

$74 sounds nice for RMBS - then give me a little bounce. I'll arm the Millennium Falcon and we'll punch a few more holes in the Death Star. Then it's time to go to $7.40. BC

To: AllansAlias who wrote (25815)	10/9/2000 11:06:12 AM
From: Perspective	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Now don't rile Riechers! <g> A lot of timber gets cut around here, but there are also lots of nicely preserved areas. We need a balance between both. I've seen a few things floating on this thread about political orientations, so I thought I'd mention my own. Hopefully it won't cost me anyone's respect in the process. Accoring to most classical interpretations, I am libertarian. I generally have a laissez faire attitude. I want to be free to my own economic and social pursuits, and I don't care what anyone else thinks about it. Pursue whatever ideology you want, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. And don't get pissed off when I pursue my interests. I find the "liberal" and "conservative" positions more problematic. Why would someone who wants the government out of their economic life want the government involved in their social lives? Seems inconsistent. And if you favor government involvement in economic behavior, why do you draw the line at social controls? Maybe it comes down to class warfare: the "haves" want to make sure the "have-nots" stay orderly, and the "have-nots" want to vote themselves as many assets from the "haves" as they can? You'll notice I said that I generally have a laissez faire attitude. This is where most of the avid Libertarians will probably vomit. I believe there are certain things that the market fails to do well. For starters, the market ascribes an economic value to things based upon what they can be made into, but gives them no intrinsic value as a raw asset, whether fixed or renewable. For instance, the price of oil is determined largely by the cost to pump it from the ground and transport it to its destination. It has very little intrinsic value ascribed to it in the ground, only value from the perspective of its potential end products. Consider for a moment what would happen in the marketplace if you had oil and a second alternative for fuel. Oil is non-renewable, assume the second alternative is renewable (ethanol?). The second alternative is marginally more expensive to produce. As a result, our present market mechanisms push people to use oil. When the oil gets scarce enough that the daily production begins to lag daily demand, the prices will finally rise. It might be hastened a little by speculation of the dropoff in supply, but the market does a poor job of discounting the future; it only discounts the present consensus (everyone reading this thread by now should recognize that markets are NOT efficient). But the market will consume all of the marginally cheaper resource first, without regard for renewability. Certain things about oil are very nice, and very difficult to get around. It has extremely high energy densities, which makes it particularly nice for air travel. While cars would suffer very few penalties for using lower energy density fuels, jets would suffer dramatically. Yet society will consume all the oil for the ground transportation because it is marginally less expensive. Over the long haul, it will be a more expensive total solution, as air travel prices would skyrocket as the raw material for jet fuel becomes scarce. It comes from the basic problem that a raw natural resource is not ascribed any intrinsic value, and whatever value it is given comes from the value as raw material for other products without regard for renewability. Here's the timber tie-in. Timber standing on public grounds is not given any intrinsic value. Riechers, if you have data to refute this, please educate me, but: from what little knowledge of our forestry policies that I have, the proceeds from timber harvests don't even pay the costs to the public. The forestry service should be a revenue generator for the US government. Timber takes time to renew, and its value as a "crop" should reflect that. When it comes to tradeoffs like building a house from wood or steel, this value should be considered, and it presently is not. Most of our Earth is metallic, and metals are incredibly recyclable. Granted that's energy intensive, but if you could give an inherent value to the energy sources for the steel and the standing timber, you might get a different market response. So - how the hell do you do that? I don't know. So much for ideology. It would take a global authority that levied taxes on raw material depletion, and that would be a huge quagmire. I can just imagine the huge political mess that would degenerate into. Countries with nonrenewable resources looking for reductions on their taxes, countries with renewable solutions trying to have the depletion taxes increased. Do I think it would cure all ills? No. But do I think it could be better than the present solution? Definitely maybe. OK, rant away... <g> BC