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: Peter O'Brien who wrote (146689)	5/20/2001 10:30:29 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 769670

</iPat, were you sympathetic to the energy companies when they were losing their shirts in 1998-1999 when energy prices collapsed? I dang sho was, and to help them out I bought untold gobs of their stocks. I am just a dang nice guy like that. Always have been.

To: Peter O'Brien who wrote (146689)	5/20/2001 11:07:07 PM
From: ThirdEye	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

There appears to be plenty of blame to go around. Signing long term contracts, as I understand it, was not granted by the original deregulation law. Asking Davis to "allow" it would have required changing the law, wouldn't it? OTOH, for Davis to overlook the possibility of prices turning on a dime and missing an opportunity to protect rate-payers by "allowing" long term contracts-if that's what happened-now looks like a colossal error. As for "gouging?" Nope.Anyway, what's a laissaez-faire capitalist doing talking about a "fair profit?" Do you want to tell me there is such a thing? No way Davis is gouging. He wasn't acting for personal gain. In fact, you could look at it as a(albeit poor) decision to let market forces work. Was it greed? Perhaps, the same greed that we now see on the part of out-of-state suppliers who are making way way more than what you probably consider a "fair profit." Question is, is it legal greed or did it slip into the illegal variety?