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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Big Dog who wrote (85125)	1/23/2001 2:10:12 PM
From: Timelord	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

OT As a dual homeowner, I already subsidize the little folk quite enough through property taxes, thank you very much <gg> Alex PS. Sure hate this dead sector on days like this, glad I have all my money stuffed in my mattress... <gg>

To: Big Dog who wrote (85125)	1/23/2001 5:05:02 PM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Thinking about the long term consequences of such a plan, I bet you'd end up with lots of lowend houses with little to no insulation. After all, the marginal cost of electricity is zero. The opposite of conservation. How about having folks in CA pay for electricuty as a percentage of a value of their homes? They don't seem to mind a bit to plop down stupid money for tiny houses...why would they mind paying higher utility bills to make those casas cozy? $2 million house pay 2% or $40,000/yr $50,000 house pay 2% or $1000/yr I bet the masses would love it...and that's where the votes are. There may lie a clue- a plan that encourages conservation over the long term, allows the economy to transition gradually over time, keeps the lights on, and is palatable to the larger mass of lower middle income that form the backbone of the state's economy. Such a plan, in the hands of the right leader would resolve this issue quickly. Care to start a career in politics?