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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (25700)	2/4/2008 5:25:05 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Well... it does remind me of a guy I new once from North Dakota. He used to tell me that every year around Nov. or Dec. he would dig a snow tunnel from his house to his garage... and it stayed there until April. <GGG> (PS --- I heard that Romney had moved ahead big in the polls in CA... but that Huckabee had moved up in some of the Southern states where Willard runs very weak. Tomorrow we won't have to go by 'polls and rumors' anymore, 'cause we'll have some results to chew on.)

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (25700)	2/4/2008 5:38:31 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

<GGG> Fargo's subway and anchorage's bridge may or may not be worth an investment of gov't money, I don't know. It would seem that a cost/benefit analysis (CBA) would be the determining factor. If the problem with gov't spending on infrastructure is corruption, then it seems to me that corruption should be the subject under discussion, not the infrastructure projects? The thing that came to my mind as an example, though, was the interstate highway system. Back when the Golden Gate Bridge was proposed, was Oakland big enough to justify it? Was the Key Bridge in Baltimore justifiable given the economics of the day? The point is, they were investments that proved worthwhile. Risk is an accepted part of investing, isn't it?