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 (373560)	3/10/2008 9:34:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572942

Right now, we don't include the cost of all the wars we wage in defense of our ability to secure oil supplies. The wars have a lot of complex reasons behind them, it wouldn't be reasonable to allocate 100% percent of the cost as a subsidy for oil. If access to oil was the only concern we could have kept buying oil from Saddam. Also even if oil was the only reason, it wouldn't be a subsidy any more than police forces arresting and deterring criminals is a subsidy for the rest of the economy, or the building of roads in a city is a subsidy for that cities commerce. And then of course we aren't always at war, and strictly in dollar terms the benefit to our economy from the oil is far greater than the dollar cost of the oil plus the dollar cost of Iraq. If we add those costs in, then alternative fuels are a heck of a lot cheaper than oil No they aren't. since alternatives don't get nearly the same amount of subsidies. They get much higher subsidies. And just as with oil, you have to consider the externalities as well. Growing corn for alcohol has all sorts of costs that aren't included in the fuel price, or even in the fuel price plus the subsidies.