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: Noel de Leon who wrote (175462)	11/23/2005 4:03:21 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes.. the growth in China and India is definitely a factor in the price of oil, as it is in the price of concrete (China was reported to be consuming 30% of global consumption of concrete). But where higher demand is met with decreased, or stagnant, supply, the price is going to rise until it economically debilitates global growth. There is NO REASON that Iraqis should not have the opportunity to take advantage of selling their natural resources to fuel this economic growth. And they people should have an accountable government that is tasked with ensuring the profits from those sales are distributed to the benefit of the people. And that pretty much sums up the stance of US policy, as I've been exposed to it. To ensure that Iraq is able to enter into a MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL trade relationship that is NOT controlled by, or spent toward, militaristic or totalitarian agendas. France and Russia, ALSO, wished to expand Iraq's oil production. However, they were willing to subvert the benefit of the Iraqi people, as a whole, by permitting a corrupt and totalitarian regime to determine who benefitted from those profits. Al Qai'da ALSO wishes to expand Iraq's oil production, WHEN IT BENEFITS THEIR CAUSE. And they certainly would be willing to turn it off, in order to hold the global economy hostage. As for alternative fuels, I'm all for it. I'm a big hydrogen fan.. But I also recognize that oil, ounce for ounce, delivers more energy than these other fuels, outside of Nuclear. Solar? Huge manufacturing infrastructure required to create a system that only delivers peak power for a few hours per day (high noon), and none at all for 1/2 of that day.. That's not very economical. Wind? Sure.. if they can be located in areas where wind is nearly constant. However, they are expensive and generally require complete replacement within 10-20 years from what I've read. Wave? Definitely has major potential!! Take it up with the Enviromental Wackos who don't want to place sea-life at risk from turbine blades. Biogas.. Sure.. where it's economic feasible.. why not? Nuclear? Definitely.. We're going to HAVE TO HAVE MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS to convert water into Hydrogen. It's essentialy converting one form of energy into another (electricity) and ultimately into another (hydrogen). And it could have a side benefit for some desert urban areas of increasing the amount of moisture and humidity in those areas.. Uh oh.. talk to those enviromental wackos again.. ;0) And while limiting car use in condenses population areas makes sense, the US is a big country. And so is China.. and Russia.. Hell, my father used to drive 150 miles a day back and forth from work.. Try telling him that he couldn't use his Chevy Silverado for work... Figure the odds.. Cars mean convenience, and often economic efficiency because people can provide their labor services to a greater geographical area. Believe me.. if mass transit makes economic and logistical sense, it will be used. Unfortunately, it seldom fulfills either goal. Hawk