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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (589)	7/7/2008 2:13:17 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

I think we should do both, but I am under no illusion like you that drilling more will help us get to energy independence. Oh, I don't think that either. I just think its silly to lock up energy sources we have. And I don't get the hostility to drilling in particular. But then I don't get the hostility to nuclear either. If you were to look at a pareto chart on the problem, you'd find that drilling more is a small solution compared to what conservation and alternative energy can do to impact prices and make our country more secure. We can do it all, but I will always prefer the high impact solutions. As long as you're not for outlawing or forbidding conventional energy development (as we're doing now for some of our oil and gas, new coal and nuke plants). I'm not as optimistic about the breakthroughs you think are achievable. I think if breakthroughs are achievable, free market operators can do them better than govt. Historically, countries that act as a collective tend to survive longer as independent organized bodies. Those that act as individuals with no regard for the collective, soon find themselves with no collective. Gee, weren't Maoist China and the USSR collectivist countries? Didn't they have national plans for every sector of their economies? Why didn't it work so good for them? Why wasn't Mao's Great Leap Forward a success? Did they just not have the right guys at top? I think you all should think this over some more. It's the same for companies. If the leaders are good, then they have strategies, visions, and they execute on those to the benefit of the company. If they don't have good leaders that pull together collecgtive strategies, then those businesses eventually fail. Governments are no different. I think governments are inherently different. Companies have competition. Governments have a monopoly on their home territory. Companies can't tax people. Governments can. Companies can't force people to use their goods and services. Governments can. We elect leaders to lead on the biggest issues of the day, not to sit them out and hope that American individualism will win the day. That is a recipe for disaster, as we have seen from the last 8 years in this country. We've had a free market in this country a lot longer than 8 years. And its worked better than collectivist government driven economies imo.