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: TimF who wrote (147684)	10/12/2004 9:34:39 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Respond to of 281500

I'm aware that the difference is tax; "subsidizing" the good life on cheap energy is more of a slogan, what I mean by this is that our "good life" depends on the availability of (relatively) cheap energy. Cut off the flow, or make it (relatively) expensive, and its easy to tip an energy dependent economy into recession, or worse, depending on the severity and duration of the change. My point in illustrating the UK prices was to shock, really. Other jurisdictions are already accustomed to such prices, however we are not. Our wide open spaces have bred the vehicle dependency which is quite unlike many urban areas in other parts of the world. A doubling of price would have a profound impact. Such a doubling is unlikely to come from taxation, not in the short run at least. Perhaps one day taxation will be used to fund conversions on a mass scale, who knows. In the near term an energy shock seems much more likely to come from terrorism, weather, accidental interuption, or perhaps a well timed combination of all three, with a back drop of increasing demand from China and the developing world. They'll all want the fruits of an energy driven economy too, after all.