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.

Non-Tech : Alternative energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Big Bucks who wrote (2941)	4/25/2006 1:03:25 PM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16955

Yes, there are "greater good" arguements to be made for our decades long government policies of subsidizing oil. No doubt our explosive economic growth and high standard of living are tied directly into these policies. My problem really is that we should call a spade a spade. It is almost unheard of that some mainstream economist will go on TV and tell it like it is, that gasoline really should be a lot more expensive if all the free market costs were factored in. Usually they just go on about free markets and oil as if they are one in the same, when in reality they are not. I just wonder if in 2006 these greater good arguements for subsidizing the oil trade are still valid? I mean, the fact is these policies are retarding energy competitors in the market place. It's just reality that there will be winners and losers when one commodity enjoys a large subsidy. Oil wins, every other energy scheme loses. I'm not sure if we should continue this path we are on. Is engaging in war for oil a "greater good" or polluting the environment? No, and both have negative side effects. In the past we had to tollerate these side effects, but I'm not so sure if we still do, if given the chance to compete in a free market, other technologies might just replace oil.