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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: slacker711 who wrote (155527)	1/23/2006 2:49:32 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793750

I just dont see how our 5 decade effort to keep the ME stable has ever shown up in the price of oil. A case can be made that we would have ended up the same if we had stayed out of ME politics. I see the money we have spent there as a defense expense during the cold war. Plus a defense of Israel.

To: slacker711 who wrote (155527)	1/24/2006 7:56:33 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793750

but do you really believe that the cost of oil captures all of the various external costs? Maybe not. I see that as a complex question. But I have little reason to think that counter-intervention to try and increase the cost by an amount that supposedly represents the externalities of the oil market would make things better even if the estimate was accurate, and I have little reason to think the estimate would be accurate. Markets are not perfect, but just pointing out an imperfection in markets is not a sufficient argument to say government intervention is justified. Government intervention is also imperfect, often more so than the markets even in areas where markets do have obvious flaws. Tim