SI
SI
discoversearch

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: neolib who wrote (273198)2/10/2006 11:50:15 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575421
 
re: That piece by Friedman was good except for one point: $60/barrel oil also has positives. Price is the best mechanism for getting us off oil. If the price retreats to $30 barrel, as Friedman seems to hope, we have a much worse problem IMO.

Not if we institute other tax incentives for efficiency and tax penalties for inefficiency. If we had a true "War for energy efficiency" then not only would the price of energy go down, but we would save by using less. It would be like a tax cut, and stimulate the economy. (Every car getting double the mileage PLUS half the price per gallon is A LOT of new discretionary dollars!).

Tax and give efficiency incentives for the devices that use energy...

John



To: neolib who wrote (273198)2/10/2006 8:17:33 PM
From: RetiredNow  Respond to of 1575421
 
That's true, but if oil stays at the high price then it enriches the bad regimes. A better solution is to get oil down to $20, but have our gov't tax the shit out of gas so that consumers still have the incentive to get off the oil. Then use those tax revenues to help develop the conservation techniques we need to permanently stay off the oil.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News