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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (227951)	4/6/2005 12:02:58 AM
From: 10K a day	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573439

> I have run out of ways to convince you that reducing oil consumption is good for our economy. Here's a couple u may not have thought of: 1. Shop at Home Depot to support the War effort. 2. Buy a GM car because they own EDS who administrates part B medicare. Give me a min i'll think of a few more.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (227951)	4/6/2005 12:10:07 AM
From: 10K a day	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573439

> I have run out of ways to convince you that reducing oil consumption is good for our economy. I see mom and pop shops closing down. The streets are barren. People eating at Burger King. Going home to their 500,000 house. Cash poor. Real Estate rich. Economy is in trouble. Small guy is in BIG trouble. over 40 percent of California homes bought w/ ARMS by speculators. The guy who wins owns his property outright. Has no bills. and 1200 a year property tax. Credit tightens. Interest rates rise. Your job just went over seas. That house you bought for 600,000 is now worth 500,000 and your loan is 618,000. Do you walk away if you have to refi in 3 years. U hav no job. U can't work for the state because the state took away all health benefits to their employees and privatized their pensions so wall street could play with the money. Your dog is still happy and wants to play.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (227951)	4/6/2005 10:47:05 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573439

Well, Tim, I think I have run out of ways to convince you that reducing oil consumption is good for our economy. The issue isn't whether reducing oil consumption would be good for our economy. Reducing oil consumption, in and of itself would be good for our economy, but the steps needed to achieve it such as massive investment to replace perfectly functional cars, or other equipment and machinery with more efficient models would cost a lot of money. It might be worth it for "Bob" to buy a hybrid, and not worth it for "Jim" who has a new car, or for "Sally" who doesn't drive that much. It might make sense for "company ABC" who has old and very inefficient equipment to replace it with more efficient equipment, but it might not make sense for "company XYZ" which has equipment that doesn't have state of the art efficiency but is expensive, and is decently efficient. If the government doesn't intervene in the decision the companies and individuals involved will be more likely to make the investments that have positive real returns. If government provides huge tax breaks and subsidies, or implements penalties and charges for those who keep the old stuff than the decision won't be made in response to the real return on investment but rather according to a political policy. The issue at question is if government intervention to initiate a large change such as trying to replace almost all cars in the US with hybrids within 10 or 15 years would be good for the economy, or a good idea in general. Tim

To: RetiredNow who wrote (227951)	4/6/2005 1:32:57 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573439

April 6, 2005 Faulting U.S., Report Urges Arab Lands to Democratize By HASSAN M. FATTAH AMMAN, Jordan, April 5 - A group of Arab intellectuals have called for rapid progress toward democracy in the Arab world and contended that the United States and Israel have impeded such progress, in a report issued here Tuesday. The Arab Human Development Report was released by the United Nations Development Program after a six-month delay, during which the Bush administration sought to block it. Nevertheless, according to its authors, it appeared to contain few major changes from earlier drafts. The report warns that Arab governments may soon face the prospect of civil strife or change forced by outsiders unless swift and fundamental reforms are begun. But, in a departure from two earlier reports on Arab society in which the group focused almost exclusively on problems within the Arab world, this study says the United States and Israel have also played a part in suppressing Arab freedom. The Bush administration, in Washington, objected to that conclusion. In part, the study blames the dearth of democracy and freedom in the region on the structure of modern Arab states, which have become highly centralized, mostly offering their citizens only a small margin of freedom. Even in the region's limited democracies, the report says, societies and economies are organized in a way that prevents the emergence of an effective opposition. "The Arab development crisis has widened, deepened and grown more complex to a degree that demands the full engagement of all Arab citizens in comprehensive reform," the authors say. "Partial reforms, no matter how varied, are no longer effective or even possible." The report asserts that Arabs enjoy greater personal and economic freedom than they once did, but that they have little if any political freedom. "The freedoms of opinion, expression and organization, in particular, suffer from repression in most Arab countries," said Rima Khalaf, assistant secretary general of the development program, who led the effort that produced the report. The study is the third installment of the Human Development Report series written by prominent Arab scholars, who have taken an unsentimental eye to their world and offered the most prominent academic study of the Arab condition. The first report, published in 2002, caused a stir in the Arab world when it outlined how the region was falling behind in development; the second offered criticized an "Arab knowledge deficit" in contrast to the rest of the world. The latest installment focuses on the lack of freedom and democratization in the region. "We are hoping to deepen the debate over freedom and good governance," said Ms. Khalaf. The Bush administration had objected to language in early drafts that said Israeli control over the Palestinian territories and the American occupation of Iraq only served to impede Arab human development. The report also said that one result of the American invasion of Iraq was that "the Iraqi people have emerged from the grip of a despotic regime that violated their basic rights and freedoms, only to fall under a foreign occupation that increased human suffering." "One-tenth of Arabs live directly under foreign occupation," Ms. Khalaf told an audience on Tuesday. The Bush administration reportedly threatened to reduce financing for the development program if such language was not removed from the text. The development agency considered publishing the report through a private company, or publishing it under the names of its authors. It finally released the report under its own name, but with a disclaimer in the preface. The authors said the original language was essentially intact, although some particularly prickly terms may have been softened. They added that the controversy may have given them a degree of legitimacy among Arabs, who might have otherwise dismissed them as apologists for American views. "Ironically they saved us from the agony of defense," said Nader Fergany, lead writer of the report. "It was good to have had the fight and to have won it." In Washington, Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said that "our overall appraisal of the report is it fits in the pattern" of the two previous reports that focused on need for reforms within the region. "It's not even so much that we disagree with the problems," he said. "We tend to disagree with these sort of gratuitous statements about where they come from." nytimes.com