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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (127784)	3/30/2004 9:20:26 AM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Baby booms have tremendous impacts on societies. They often force change.. But they can also provide a human resource pool for totalitarian governments and megalomanic leaders with aggressive aspirations towards their neighbors. And that's what I'm hoping we are able to avoid by sending a message to various autocratic and corrupt governments that it's time for progress and modernization. Why do I feel like I have to make a thoughtful comment about this? Nah... I'll keep it simple: -- Well said, Hawk!

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (127784)	3/30/2004 2:45:15 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I haven't once seen a Hamas leader carry out a suicide bombing. They send their foolish underlings while the leaders go home to their families. Isn't that the truth, Hawk! Maybe some of the "blame America first crowd" could convince some of the terror groups to get their leaders to go see the 72 virgins ASAP.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (127784)	3/30/2004 3:08:33 PM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"You can't hide from the problem Zeuspaul. Even if we reduce our reliance upon oil, the rest of the world, and the global economy, is as dependent upon it as a newborn baby is to its mother's bosum. And if the alternative you propose is to depend on more expensive alternative fuels, you have to ask yourself exactly how you're going to implement that change to full scale production/distribution, as well as the potential economic impact it will have. We have to use the cheapest form of energy available in order to remain economically competitive." You argue against your self here. If the price of oil rises for everyone then there is no change in competition for all oil dependent products. So the conclusion is that non-oil energy sources, if economically competitive with oil or predicted to be so, are a way to become more competitive.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (127784)	3/30/2004 9:35:32 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I propose we reduce our dependence on the ME. Short term there is no easy fix. I see.... just ignore them and they'll go away, right? I am arguing the long term and you are arguing the short term. There is a definite short term problem. I am not proposing a solution to the short term problem. However I do not see any evidence that the existing big stick approaches are working. I don't buy the concept that increased attacks are an indication that our policies are working. Would decreased attacks mean they are not working? In the short term if you ignore them they won't go away and if you attack them they won't go away. I don't support sending eighteen year olds to die if we do not address the long term problem. Our eighteen year olds have to die because we have failed to secure our nation as a nation relatively free from foreign controls We should not sentence the sons and daughters of the eighteen year olds to the same fate. And if the alternative you propose is to depend on more expensive alternative fuels, you have to ask yourself exactly how you're going to implement that change to full scale production/distribution, as well as the potential economic impact it will have. We have to use the cheapest form of energy available in order to remain economically competitive. No. The alternate I propose is cheaper and cleaner energy. Listen.. I have little problem with reducing our dependence on Mid-East oil. But oil is a fungible commodity, as is most energy commodities. So exactly how will you avoid being impacted without the rest of the world being impacted? You can't hide from the problem Zeuspaul. Even if we reduce our reliance upon oil, the rest of the world, and the global economy, is as dependent upon it as a newborn baby is to its mother's bosum. Hear ye Hawkmoon. $100 billion would have been better spent on R&D and incentives for the development of solar cells. It could be argued the $100 billion is an oil subsidy. How much do you think we spend on photovoltaics? ask yourself exactly how you're going to implement that change to full scale production/distribution, as well as the potential economic impact it will have. We have to use the cheapest form of energy available in order to remain economically competitive. The electric infrastructure already exists. The hydrogen infrastructure will take time. We need a decade or two. We have already wasted several decades. Do you propose our past failures should be the basis for going forward? As to the global implications. The US has the resources to make it happen. The results would be far reaching. Just as the Internet benefits peoples of other nations including those in repressive regimes...solar cells will too. Cheaper energy would make us more competitive. We are not there yet but it is a reachable goal. We would be there today if we had committed the resources. Don't underestimate the power of America to implement technology. Solar cells are low tech. It is not the kind of technology that is easily controlled by an authoritarian government. They aren't easily controlled (taxed) by our government either...one reason they have not advanced as far as they should have. Where is the incentive to produce free energy?...market forces at work. More and cheaper energy for all equals a higher standard of living for all. Give those in need a higher standard of living...they will have more to lose...they will want to protect what they have....less terrorism....in the long term. Do what you must in the short term. It could have been better...these ideas are not new. Don't forget about the sons and daughters of our eighteen year olds. Just like many others...we send someone else to die for us. Zeuspaul