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 (251721)	9/17/2005 5:27:20 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1583625

2 - More efficient use of energy means less money is spent on energy. However more is spent on the efficiency, and we aren't going to get a 60% reduction in imported oil just from increasing efficiency. But we will get a reduction and the money spent on efficiency will be spent in the US and not in Saudi Arabia.

To: TimF who wrote (251721)	9/17/2005 9:04:04 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583625

re: The war on energy would certainly be more effective against terrorism than our current war on terror. *** Not certain, not even likely. Not likely, certain. Our withdrawal from the ME would make null the terrorist threat. re: 1. A strong reduction in our horrendous and dangerous trade imbalance. * 1 - Possibly true, although we wouldn't stop using that much oil unless it costs a lot more. Making oil cost more would hurt the competiveness of our products. You don't tax oil, you tax devices that use oil inefficiently, and reward devices that use oir efficiently. A guzzler tax and a smart car credit. In-cent efficient devices, lower consumption, improve the trade deficit. Simple. re: 2. More efficient use of energy pumps money back into the economy similar to a tax cut. ** 2 - More efficient use of energy means less money is spent on energy. However more is spent on the efficiency, and we aren't going to get a 60% reduction in imported oil just from increasing efficiency. Not if it's technology agnostic. We've got plenty of standard combustion cars that get over 30 mpg; in the early 80's they were making standard cars that got close to 50 mpg. And those were the cheapest cars on the road. we can easily get a 60% reduction, if we focus on the problem. re: 3. Lower consumption will lower energy prices, another "tax cut" for the economy. * 3 - If prices are lower we will increase consumption not decrease it. Not if we tax devices on their efficiency. re: 4. We reduce our economic and subsequent political dependence on our "enemies". ** 4 - This is mostly true, but it can be exaggerated. Even if we do manage to cut oil imports by 60% the Middle East will still be a strategically important region to the US. Yeah, about as strategically important as Madagascar. re: 5. New technology businesses with high paying jobs creating new solutions, with potential export opportunities. * 5 - Lots of things create new jobs. The problem is you would be destroying other jobs in the process. OK... new technology jobs for what? re: 6. Reduced pollution. *** 6 - Probably true. If we are importing less oil we might burn more coal, but its not like you can shovel some coal in to your cars tank. You can derive fuel from coal, but the process is expensive. What are you talking about? Increase oil efficiency is going to create more demand for "coal". How? We've been through this on another thread. I can't fathom why you would be against efficiency, in anything, much less in oil consumption. Except that you love to argue about anything and everything. You look stupid. There are so many benefits to reducing our oil consumption. It's the most important thing our government could do RIGHT NOW. John