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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (324150)	2/1/2007 4:06:37 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1575887

if the gov comes up with something that's cost more and is no good the people won't buy it. That's what I mean about the market will decide. I'll buy my gas from the same guy who sells me dope.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (324150)	2/1/2007 5:03:58 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575887

Did the market decide whether or not the U.S. was the first to land on the moon? That isn't even vaguely similar to the idea of oil independence. Its the type of thing that governments can do rather well, extract resources, and use them to finance a big project. You could also use examples like the Manhattan project, or building a new nuclear aircraft carrier. I'm assuming by "oil independence" you mean we don't import any oil, rather than we don't use any oil. "Oil independence" that isn't just a disastrous ban on or massive tariff against imported oil, isn't an isolated project but something that has to deal with vast sections of the economy. You can discover how to build a nuclear bomb, or put an astronaut on the moon without having to change the way ordinary Americans do things, and without having to restructure major industries. To the extent you have oil independence without having cheaper, or at least equal cost, domestic energy sources, you handicap the US against other countries by making American companies use more expensive energy. As for the environment - Oil independence, does not equal "no use of fossil fuels. We would still use American oil, and we might use more coal (which is worse for the environment) than we do today our economy would no longer be subject to oil shocks Not really true as long as we are still using oil. Domestic producers will want the world price for the oil they produce. And even if we stop using oil, if other countries are still using it an increase in the price will effect us. If by "oil independence" you mean we don't use any oil, then its even a more expensive and less realistic idea except perhaps in the long term (over multiple generations, not over the next presidential term or two).