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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (67273)	8/11/2005 8:56:29 PM
From: Slagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

TobagoJack Re: "oil ought to be more dear" Amen TJ. Long ago an attitude arose here in the US that all sources of energy should be made inexpensive as possible and that such a goal was an important US government policy objective. You see the beginning of this attitude with the New Deal with the TVA, power cooperatives and interstate regulations to cap energy prices. And you see the beginnings of foreign policy of the "oil politics" variety to export this concept abroad. Later we find that Reagan used the "oil weapon" against the USSR. But all this began long before there was any realization of the consequences of energy use on such a vast scale and in a world much less crowded. Higher prices will be a good thing. Slagle

To: TobagoJack who wrote (67273)	8/12/2005 1:55:39 AM
From: Taikun	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<oil ought to be more dear> Agreed, but it should be more dear for those countries that waste it by allowing a proliferation of gas guzzling vehicles in the name of consumer choice all the while not charging those consumers for the cost of waging wars to control oil. Just as the US shut out China's CNOOC in the name of 'national security' American firms will now hear that excuse when they want to get a lease in some country where anti-American sentiment is increases. And, on that note, I see the WTO has ruled in favor of Canada and against the US on the US's punitive tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber exports. The US isn't refunding the ill-gotten $5bn either. They might have to if Cheney wants the oil sands though. theglobeandmail.com But the United States said the extraordinary challenge committee ruling was inconsequential and that it had no intention of scrapping the duty on Canadian softwood that can exceed 20 per cent or refunding the $5-billion in levies collected over the past few years.