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 : John Pitera's Market Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Louis V. Lambrecht who wrote (4135)	6/22/2001 10:37:25 AM
From: Moominoid	Respond to of 33421

There certainly is a lot of light at night in Belgium as seen from a plane leaving London and heading east.... but the Great Wall thing is a myth. The Great Wall is no more visible than any highway - it's narrower than most freeways. David

To: Louis V. Lambrecht who wrote (4135)	6/22/2001 11:46:49 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33421

Not trying to generalize, but merely to hit the major trends that seem to be current or future influences. Every nation is subsidized to one degree or another. It's just HOW those subsidies are used that makes a difference. And I'm certainly not against subsidization, if applied to an obvious industry where there exists major private market failure and/or government involvement can be seen as reaping long-term benefits on multiple levels. I've used the cases of TVA, where a network of flood control projects on the Tennessee river, turned an economic backwater into a economic paradise, with relatively inexpensive hydro-power. And we can also cite examples like the Autobahn, the US interstate highway system, where government infrastructure projects have created new economic opportunities. And then there is government military aircraft R&D that created the international commercial airline business and space based telecommunications industries. But when we see political interference into the economy, such as what the greens and other type enviro-wackos, try to impose, there are more repercussions than benefits, IMO. The Unabombers of the world would love to see us all living underground rather than harming a snail darter, or kangaroo mouse. So hydro's days are numbered. As you probably know, there have been major moves, begun under Clinton, to breach many of the major hydro-dams in the Pacific Northwest in order to permit Salmon to migrate upstream. I can see no less a problem creating opposition there in Europe. Btw, I thought your anecdote about Nuclear power in Belgium to be rather interesting. Imagine using all of that surplus power at night to operate massive hydrolysis plants, producing hydrogen to be utilized in fuel cell powered cars? That would be another area where I could foresee government using subsidies, or other incentives to alter the nature of their energy infrastructure. Germany's greens forcing the closure of perfectly operational nuclear facilities, to be replaced by less reliable forms of power, will be a detriment to economic growth in Europe, IMO. But it will prove to be a fantastic jobs program as thousands are hired to build and maintain these decentralized generations facilities. But it won't provide any economic benefit that isn't already realized right now with existing power facilities. Another issue that Europe faces, to a larger degree than the US, is their lack of restructuring in their private pension plans. I'm just not sure how Europe expects to maintain their tax base as their population ages and starts collecting government pensions. The US faces this problem as well, but has a better track record of importing and integrating foreign labor into our economy on a permanent basis (melting pot). Thus as folks retire, we can import labor to replace them. With France facing unfunded pension liabilities equating to 200% of their annual GDP, the printing presses will be operating overtime in gay Paris. Well, that's enough rambling for one post.... :0) Hawk