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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (138681)	4/16/2001 3:33:19 AM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

I was wrong about refinery plants. Apologies. biz.yahoo.com Bush isn't going to build them because he can't and no one wants to build them, they're too expensive and too filthy for anyone's backyard. They also take five years to build. The problem is not too little drilling (so forget ANWAR), it's that there's nowhere to refine the stuff anyway. Mainly because nobody wantsone of these stinkers in their backyard, not even Republicans. The key is obviously to make a big push for alternative fuels, and fast, so that in 20 years we can get off oil altogether. But we'll still be reliant on oil for a long time so in the meantime conservation, driving less and increased efficiency in all machines are the keys. Unfortunately, Bush won't push either of these crucial steps. So we'll have to wait four years to begin or let the states do the smart work. Looks like the price will remain fairly high even without the recent gouging on top of it so maybe I'll buy an oil stock. But instead of offering tax incentives for drilling they ought to offering them for alternative fuel development, big-time. As well as efficiency and conservation. Or all of the above. Why not? It's our money either way.

To: American Spirit who wrote (138681)	4/16/2001 4:38:28 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 769667

AS, If they're such bad posts why are you all posting back to me. Because you post a lot, and eventually, I was trying to find out what you are saying. I ignore bad posts. Believe it or not, after reading the first 3 of your post today, that were totally content free, full of emotional BS, I did just that. But for some reason (Bug in SI, or some distraction caused me not to press submit on the "ignore" screen) I somehow came across 4th post of yours, to which I replied. After which I didn't want to place you on ignore, because you you might write back. I've had 87 messages today and only respond to a third of them at the most. You posted a lot more than 1/3 of 87 (= 29) posts, which were of low quality, rather than say 1 to 10 good ones, worth reading. Do your own DD if you don't believe me. I don't ask for or need your responses. You keep posting half baked ideas. I didn't even asked you for facts. All I was asking for was a well argued post that represents your point of view (rather than 80 posts of half paragraph gibberish). We could get to facts later, when I have some idea what you are saying. That article says it all and it's 100% factual so far as I could see. If you want to refute it, go ahead and try. What article are you talking about. There was no link to any article in any of our exchanges. And remember, gas prices never went up until Clinton was leaving office and it was clear Bush would be the nominee. Crude oil reached $26.50, almost one month before it was clear that Bush would win the nomination. We never had these problems under Clinton. Did we? March 5, 2000 is well before January 20, 2001 in my calendar. Are you saying that the prices went from the low of $7.00 in 1999 to over $30 in 2000, and it was all because of a guy not even nominated, and a long shot to win the presidency, and there was no involvement of the president at the time? Now the prices are around $20. How does this, again support your conspiracy theory? And there were never any power shortages. That also became before Bush became president. You may have some luck arguing that the energy problems that we are facing are the result of the Clinton administration being AWOL on the issue, but I wouldn't be too quick to agree, because there are 2 forces much stronger than US president when it comes to setting oil prices: markets and OPEC cartel. What changed was de-regulation and Bush coming into power. California didn't suddenly start using more power. I am willing to turn a blind eye on this clearly uninformed comment. I guess you are tired after all that typing and retyping of the same stuff you just slipped here. Anyway, I'm sure it's no coincidence. They're capable of organized thinking, to put it mildly. OPEC is a cartel and so are they. All in the family. If you can't understand that you're naive. Oil prices can be manipulated easily and gouging occurs all over the place all the time. Why did they sell us oil for $7 in $1999? Were they gauging back then? If you look at the historical prices for say last 30 years, all you can say that there was a lot of fluctuation, with general decline in prices. But over this period of time, there was a great increase in consumption, meaning increased demand, that the suppliers were able to meet, while generally lowering prices. Since oil is a commodity with finite supply, this is somewhat counterintuitive. It is rational IMO to expect the declines in oil prices to reverse, and for the prices to go up. It finally happened in 1999 and 2000, as the world economy begun to overheat. As demand started to exceed supply, the constant struggle between the markets and OPEC, is starting to favor OPEC. Joe PS: Why is it that some people are so willing to depart a high probability rational explanations for facts in favor of far out incredibly long shot conspiracy theories?