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 : The California Energy Crisis - Information & Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: miraje who wrote (914)	8/22/2001 2:02:00 AM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1715

size and fuel efficiency of vehicles should be determined by consumer choice in the market place. Oil is a limited resource and it is essential to the economic well being of the nation. Water is also a limited essential resource. Are you of the opinion that government should play no role in the distribution of water? Should the market place be the vehicle for the distribution of water? Assume a small town with a mountain fed reservoir with adequate capacity for a town of 1000 residents. Joe wins the lottery and builds a pool. The local government finds the reservoir to be falling and it raises water rates to decrease demand. Half the town residents cut back water consumption due to the increase in price. Joe can afford the water and doesn't change his water habits. Then Joe builds a water fall because he likes the sound of running water. The town raises water rates again. Some residents have to move out of town because they can no longer afford the rates. Should Joe be allowed to use as much water as he wants as long as he can afford it? Should government control the use of limited resources essential to the well being of the nation? Zeuspaul

To: miraje who wrote (914)	8/22/2001 1:02:31 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 1715

Hi James, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. As far as allowing the market to control the fate of fuel economy in the US, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I find that in general, the propensity of the public is to put their collective head in the sand regarding the finite nature of the resources of the planet, and the collective pollution that ensues from everyone acting out their own fantasies regarding image and the right to consume. BTW, what's ludicrous about my analogy of SUVs and MIRVs? Both serve security needs, allaying fear of the unknown, and/or a presumed enemy. Both are aggressive and irrational response to the actual conditions pertaining. And both are gonna create some monumental junk piles before they are recycled. And did I mention they're both exceptionally profitable for the manufacturers? A sentence to make a libertarian shudder. The epitome of nanny statist mentality. Whatever vehicle anyone chooses to drive is no one elses business, unless said vehicle is in an unsafe condition, to the extent of endangering others on the road. As one who was recently nearly run off a narrow gravel road, and substatially frightened, while bicyling in a county park by a very aggresive driver in a Chevy Suburban, I can relate to what you are suggesting here. Note that I haven't suggested we legislate jerks out of existence, just some of their more obnoxious ways and means. BTW, I'm in agreement with you regarding the sensibility of an autobahn type system, with no unreasonable limits on speed. I was quite disappointed that the State of Oregon, where I live, failed to raise the speed limit on rural freeways to 70 MPH this legislative session. Having heard all the arguments for and against this, it certainly seems "cranky" for the State to continue the 65 MPH standard. Cheers, Ray :)