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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (3269)	10/20/2006 5:50:41 PM
From: cirrus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Agreed... I would prefer to let the market find a solution, but getting off foreign oil is a political and national security issue - not an economic issue. However, I think the economic benefits would also be significant. Personally, I'd pay substantially more in taxes to force a fundamental change in our energy base from oil to hydrogen just for the pleasure of telling the ayatollahs and Chavez to kiss our collective ass. We spend, what, $400 billion on defense annually? Spend $200 billion to change from oil to hydrogen and we could let the Chinese and Japanese worry about the politics of the Persian Gulf - or offer to sell them hydrogen technology. Any attempt to make the change in less than decades would be a very very bad idea. "Fast tracking" the change leads to massive costs, and likely massive wastes as one solution is quickly imposed by government fiat rather than letting the market find the most efficient solution.