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: TimF who wrote (228152)	4/7/2005 12:24:32 PM
From: 10K a day	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573696

>The main downside is that there is a real cost to reduce our oil use by 25%. It's not going to happen. Asia, India, South America. Oil consumption is NOT going to go down. If u go to the philipines and ride in the back of one of those public jeeps. they blow the diesel fumes right in your face. after a while u look kind of jaundice whether u want to or not. Kind of what the WH is doing to u right now.

To: TimF who wrote (228152)	4/7/2005 12:37:38 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573696

re: Taxes can have a very minimal social engineering aspect and its usually better that way. I suppose they could in the abstract, but they don't. Cigarettes, liquor, gambling... taxes to support schools, taxes if you own property, higher taxes if you make more money... I could go on and on. It's all social engineering. re: The main downside is that there is a real cost to reduce our oil use by 25%. And real benefits, that I mentioned in my last post: Presumably gas purchases would go down, feeding new money into the economy. Also, with reduced demand, the commodity price of oil should go down, compounding the effect. I think I read that oil represents ~25% of our trade deficit, so reduced consumption helps in that regard. re: If it was simple and obviously cost effective for the individual consumers of oil, than it would have already happened. There are a lot of vested interests in the status quo. I think if almost anyone but Bush were in the WH, this would be a top priority, not only for the economy but for the "war on terror". re: The secondary downside is that the government becomes even more involved in controlling the economy. The further we go down that path the worse the long run results will be. Yeah. But on balance, this issue is so important to the US economy and our security, the government needs to lead. John

To: TimF who wrote (228152)	4/7/2005 4:54:31 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573696

The main downside is that there is a real cost to reduce our oil use by 25%. If it was simple and obviously cost effective for the individual consumers of oil, than it would have already happened. You make it sound so simple....so logical. The oil industry does not want us to wean ourselves from oil. We have an oil president. Why would he implement conservation measures that would lessen our dependency on foreign oil? In any case, its too late. If the current worse case oil scenarios play out, we are going to get slammed.......big time. And watch how the American public whines. ted