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 : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (7189)	5/27/2004 6:05:32 PM
From: benwood	Respond to of 116555

I still disagree... why subsidize oil when non-taxation of the masses can and will produce something more efficient? The subsidy will simply displace something cheaper and/or a better alterative (bus, monorail, bicycle, solar, wind, etc.) -- why else would it need the subsidy? If oil sand development needs a subsidy, let the market do it via price escalation. It would become profitable at some point -- $50 - $100/barrel or whatever -- and if it's still a good idea, then people will pay for it. Chances are that the pain along the way will cause a free market to come up with better solutions, including cheaper extraction methods and much better alternatives. Subsidizing now will simply guarantee that the extraction methods will be less optimal and that the myriad alteratives out there will be less likely to be used and/or further developed. The sooner oil/NG consumption declines, the better (for lots of reasons).