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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Man on the moon who wrote (128142)	6/27/2008 8:16:51 AM
From: gregor_us	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 306849

Well, there was no mistaking your dismissive attitude in your response to my original post, which centered on the effect a multi-year price rise in gasoline would have, on Southern California. (A huge geographical area largely built-out on the premise of the automobile, after WW2.) Subject 51347 What would have been more constructive was a well written counter-argument. Give the enclosed link a read, and see if you can come up with a solid rebuttal. As an investor and trader in Energy since 2002, I have constantly sought out bearish cases, in opposition to my view. A person in my position actually is in dire need of an opposing point of view that is of high quality. Amazingly, there have virtually been none--in all that time--in the energy area, and in particular, global oil. All the brainpower, and the most well developed research remains on the bullish side. It's amazing how consistently vacuous, caustic, and dismissive the bearish arguments on oil have been. Lots of attitude. But no facts. No data. Give the below a read, and tell me what you think. Gregor ____________________________________________________________ Getting Off the Road: Adjusting to $7 per Gallon Gas in America (see page 4) research.cibcwm.com