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 (1036)	7/28/2008 12:56:48 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 86352

As for the subsidies or tax deductions like intangible drilling ... it would result in shutting down some marginal production, so I'd be against it at a time of high prices. But the oil and gas industry would do find w/o these. $13B, assuming the number is accurate, is not so much in the huge oil and gas industry. We are already subsidizing alternative energy big time. More subsidies might simply produce more uneconomic boondoggles like corn-based ethanol. Not sure thats wise. As for not keeping the shipping lanes open, no, that would be a terrible idea that I'd oppose. Unless you'd like a world depression. There is more involved in world trade than oil. And more than oil involved in us being involved in the ME and keeping the worlds shipping lanes open. Shutting down world trade and triggering a world depression out of antiwar spite is a lousy idea. the oil industry is so highly subsidized that it is utterly ludicrous for you and others to say that oil is independent of the government and can stand on its own in the market. Nothing could be further from the truth. No, that isn't right. The $13B you cite isn't big in an industry as large as the oil and gas industry. Its not vital. The claim that most of our defense industry is an oil subsidy is just wrong too.