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: Bearcatbob who wrote (967)	9/9/2001 11:56:04 AM
From: portage	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1715

If only we would let markets work, we could get on with those transporter beams and do away with those messy airplanes.......damn commies.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (967)	9/10/2001 8:59:54 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1715

Personally - fusion or something else will make energy cheap and abundant as long as it is needed. That is - if markets are allowed to work. The development of fusion has nothing to do with markets. The fusion scientists keep asking for more subsidies AKA handouts. Markets don't make fusion and markets don't make rain no matter how hard you wish. Fusion shows a lot of promise but it won't be here when oil production peaks. Where is all of this cheap energy you are promising? If we had it today our economy wouldn't be in a nose dive. If we had twice the energy at half the cost it would be a step in the right direction. Don't underestimate the contribution cheap energy makes to our economy. Forget the tax incentives and Greenspan's interest rate reductions...cheap energy drives the nation. That $600 check I got from the feds and all the hype that came with it is a pittance compared to my energy bills. If you want to know why Clinton could do it and Bush can't....other than the IQ thing:) look at the price of energy. (I supported Bush and I didn't support Clinton). Zeuspaul