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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (69803)	6/28/2008 5:14:05 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Marcos, it's funny how politicians have invented the dopey carbon trading scheme. All they needed to do was introduce a carbon tax, with countervailing tax cuts on things, such as cyberspace, which don't produce CO2, so that the tax system is neutral. They could even just tax imported carbon, which would cut funding for Saudi Arabian and other Islamic jihadists. There wouldn't be any need for international environmental conventions at 5 star hotels, with thousands of politicians and "environmentalists" [snigger] spending umpty $millions and burning megalitres of fuel to hang out in exotic locations, chasing hot women and eating sumptuous food at public expense. They could all just stay home and get something useful to do. I can see that they would NOT like my suggestion but would prefer to have their polluting meetings and have a lot of fun while they fail to solve the problem [not that there is a problem to solve]. If a country didn't want to do that, and just burned loads of carbon, that would be their problem as they'd have to tax other production which would make their countries less competitive other than in the oily things. If the USA had introduced such a tax quarter of a century ago when I first proposed it to my boss [Nelson Cull] in BP Oil, then all sorts of alternatives would have been developed and the USA would lead the world on fuel economy. He thought the idea was not good as it would cut our sales and profits by cutting consumption of oil. I thought we could invest in such things if we proposed the tax and were leading on the changes. BP Solar did in fact lead on photovoltaics. If oil goes to $1000 a barrel, it'll be no skin off my nose. In fact, it'll make the roads clear so I can travel unimpeded by people who can't drive effectively. Bring it on. It's funny that the $140 a barrel is going to Saudi jihadists and not to technological inventors of superconductor levitation and photo-electronic control systems for transport. When oil was cheap, the USA could have jacked it up to $140 a barrel, with countervailing tax cuts on Qualcomm, Microsoft, Oracle, Sun, Google, Yahoo!, IDEC, and all the rest to compensate. The USA would now be leading the world instead of in dire financial straits staring down the barrel of economic destruction, with petrodollars gushing into the coffers of Saudi, Iraqi and Iranian jihadists; still dependent on oil, with nowhere to go, Toyota cleaning up with the Prius while GM goes down the gurgler with SUVs. Mqurice