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 : Heinz Blasnik- Views You Can Use -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (2605)	6/24/2003 8:29:04 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4907

it seems you are willing to consider facts as long as they are in the distant past and support your thesis of technology as Superman. Its naive to think that demand would grow at the rate that you project if price rises as you think they will. You won't have both. you didn't read me too closely if this is your characterization of my belief. obviously economic growth and oil consumption rates will affect each other--this is Exhibit A in the argument that it is physically impossible for China to displace the US as the world's biggest yuppies over the coming decades. The Earth has a finite supply of oil. Yes, it does. As does coal, kerosene, wood, natural gas and whale oil. Long before it brings civilization to its knees, people will switch to something else. Why? Because the only thing keeping us from using something else is the low price of oil. there you go again--"something else"--what it is, neither you nor anyone else seems to know, but you still know "it" is coming. the nice thing about fantasies like "something else" is that it allows us to avoid making painful decisions today to conserve energy. also, it is a mistake to think that the only cost of oil is the price per barrel. what about all the economic turmoil suffered due to oil supply disruptions and so on? add those up and the economic cost to the US economy since the 1970s is $7 trillion dollars. the annualized figure is many times higher than the oil we import. if you work those costs into a price per barrel, oil is already costing us well in excess of $50 a barrel, so logically speaking we should be making that switch to "something else" which you so helpfully point out is waiting us in the wings, and whose cue to come on stage is simply a high price point for oil. maybe "something else" is hard of hearing?