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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (78400)	7/27/2006 3:00:24 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 81568

I'm not sure that there is a major active policy to enforce the status quo, but certainly Bush isn't for pushing any short or short to mid term, major change in the status quo. I generally don't think that governments should try to enforce a major change in markets, but I don't find arguing for such a change to be unreasonable in the same sense as arguments that the oil price is determined by some conspiracy between Bush and Exxon-Mobil. If on the balance you think that the argument for a government intervention to decrease the use of oil are strong enough that we should have such a policy, the best way to do it would probably be with higher taxes on oil and/or refined oil products. You increase the cost and let the market respond over time. I'm not actually supporting this plan, but I'd go for it if the only other choice was more interventionist.