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: Ichy Smith who wrote (199499)	8/26/2006 1:33:40 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 281500

Rat makes a trio

To: Ichy Smith who wrote (199499)	8/26/2006 2:05:32 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Ah a man after my own heart..... I don't think my opinion is all that rare. In fact, I think you'd see almost unanimous agreement by most Americans. The question is HOW we go about doing it. And should it be market based, or legislatively implemente (CAFE standards.. subsidies and/or higher gas taxes.. etc). I'm a believer in market based alternatives, because without a demand by consumers for alternatives, there won't be the necessary impetus on private corporations to meet this demand. And any fuel we convert to MUST BE competitive with fossil fuels, or we're going to find ourselves at a economic disadvantage to the rest of the world that will likely continue their use of fossil fuels. Furthermore, there's a problem with geo-political influence that reliance upon Mid-East oil creates. If we're independent of Mid-East oil, then our influence there is less. Because foreign oil purchases are, in essence, a form of foreign assistance. They have a resource and instead of just giving them money, we purchase their product, oil. Thus, if we stop purchasing their oil, we lose some of our leverage in the region. Rather than the current "threat" of moving to alternative fuels, actually doing so then relegates the Mid-East (and the ongoing religious fanaticism) to the backwaters of US foreign policy. But that won't make the religious fanaticism just "disappear".. It will still exist and we'll be less inclined to be involved in creating the changes and reforms that are necessary for the militant ideology to be neutralized and eliminated as a global threat. We'll just say "it's not worth it" and we don't need to be involved. And conversely, those nations that still are purchasing oil, such as China, will have increasing say in the region, since they have a vested interest in obtaining those resources. And I'm not sure if we want to see an overt increase in Chinese presence in the region at the moment, until it's clear that they won't use it as a tool to advance their economic and political agenda OVER the democratic nations. Also, the oil markets which consist of tremendous amounts of money flowing back and forth, rely upon the US dollar for denominating their exchanges. If we no long are participants in the oil markets, then who's currency will become the new standard as the global reserve currency? Maybe my concerns are overblown, but right now we have a complex and subtle "dance" going on with the countries in the region. But if we're not buying their oil, they'll feel more inclined to avoid reforming their governments as they deal more and more with countries like China who really don't much concern with pushing for democratic reform. So while I advocate reduction of dependence on Mid-East oil to the point where it no longer threatens our economy, I also recognize that there will be some potentially unfavorable geo-political repercussions. Hawk