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.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (27676)	8/6/2008 4:36:28 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

"Mexico and Canada would have lost out on money we spent for oil, and other energy, while the US would have paid a ton of money on a relatively unrealistic idea, and would have continued to pay more for energy for many years." Mexico may have needed the money; Canada didn't. Most of the money went to multinationals, not the people of Canada. That's a fact. Profits found their way back to the parent corporations. Also a fact. The rest is opinion; from the standpoint of American interests, perhaps your view is correct. Many Americans have argued for years that changes in energy policy, including acquisition and use, would be long-term beneficial for the US. You're saying they were wrong. France's response to the '73 oil embargo was massive electrification, and standardized nuclear power generation which now satisfies 80% of electrical demand. Did the French pay a price that was beyond America's means? Was that price excessive, and the economic effect ultimately detrimental? To follow your reasoning, the French were short-term and long-term wrong. Maybe so, but they won't be freezing in January because people can't pay spiralling heating oil costs. They're assured of reliable power at reasonable and predictable cost. Big mistake. Jim