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: TimF who wrote (373558)	3/10/2008 9:13:18 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572928

Also the alternative fuels delivering the same amount of energy would have costs a lot more than $440bil. It depends on how you calculate that cost. Right now, we don't include the cost of all the wars we wage in defense of our ability to secure oil supplies. That is essentially a huge government subsidy of oil prices. If we add those costs in, then alternative fuels are a heck of a lot cheaper than oil, since alternatives don't get nearly the same amount of subsidies.

To: TimF who wrote (373558)	3/11/2008 7:47:09 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572928

you don't provide any argument for the idea that Brazil's stockmarket went up BECAUSE they are oil independent. It didnt hurt. Its a cost, not a tax. Domestic oil is also a cost. Parsing words again. It costs our ecnomy on every level... every product or service requires the movement of goods or people. You raise that cost, especially with imported product, where the gross profits go overseas, and you "tax" the US economy. <>Some of that $440bil was spent in the US. Spent? It was invested mostly to benefit their country, some was was invested in other countries, some was invested in the US. They are spending our dollars to buy our companies to collect our profits. Also the alternative fuels delivering the same amount of energy would have costs a lot more than $440bil. The investment, 6 years ago, would have brought us a lot closer to oil efficiency and relative independence. Instead of $440Billion going 'boom' in Iraq we would have been on our way to a national energy policy. But the only government spending that Tim likes is war/occupation.