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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. - Off-topic postings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GVTucker who wrote (191)	9/11/2008 11:08:18 AM
From: Eric	Respond to of 230

In a perfect world I would agree with you... Let the markets decide! But the decisions our country makes in the next few years will be extremely critical to our future and our children's future. The farm lobby has a stranglehold on our politicians. That should have evaporated in the late forties but it still exists to the detriment of all of us especially the third world. When I debate the subject of ethanol with some of my friends and ask them a very specific question "How efficient are plants at converting solar energy?" they just stare at me. If you asked all 535 of our legislators in the Federal government probably only one person I know would be able to answer.

To: GVTucker who wrote (191)	9/11/2008 6:11:42 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 230

Well, I agree on some of your points. Subsidies aren't bad if they are structured correctly, though. For example, the problem with the ethanol mandate and subsidy is that they have targeted a specific technology and mandated it. They chose the wrong technology and now we are all suffering for it. The best subsidies are those where they apply broad subsidies to an industry and let the industry and free market decide which is the best solution for the problem. So I'm for subsidies for end users who purchase vehicles that get high gas mileage or use electricity as their energy source. I'm for increasing CAFE standards to 50 mpg within 10 years. Things like that. There are many different solutions to increased gas mileage. That is why choosing just one of those solution, ethanol, should not be something the government decides. The free market is better at deciding that. However, the free market needs policy stability. So if we decide we're going to subsidize the alternative energy industry, then for heck's sake, let's put one in place for 10-20 years. Not this renew every year B.S. That doesn't do any good. It just creates havoc in the industry. But keep in mind, that the government is in neck deep on subsidizing oil. So we can't have a discussion on letting the market decide the right solution until you bring the subsidies between those industries into parity. Get rid of those oil subsidies and force the oil companies to pay for their own security abroad to secure their oil supplies and we'll see just how much oil and gas will cost in this country.

To: GVTucker who wrote (191)	9/11/2008 11:49:42 PM
From: Archie Meeties	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 230

This is a useful way to look at things - level the playing field. It's probably something coal and petroleum don't want to do, however, because alternates would displace them rapidly if the playing field were truly leveled. How? Because currently external costs are not realized. For example, let's say you have a choice of 2 sources of electricity, one is cheap, the other expensive. The cheapest source also happens to cause an increase in respiratory illness in cities downwind, divert water supplies from other uses, increase mercury contamination of river and streams (making local ones unfishable), the list goes on. In contrast, the most expensive doesn't do these things, but likely has a minor, one time impact impact from mining the materials its made of. Currently, the more expensive option will never be built, because the health costs are considered "external". Long term, the health costs of the cheaper source will eventually make it the more expensive source, but that's medicaids problem, not the cost of the power company. Secondly, if you want to level the playing field, you're going to need to start thinking about stuff like; subsidies for road freight hauling vs. rail (highways are heavily subsidized, rails are not), the use of military power (1 trillion could go a long way to creating energy independenc) to ensure stable supplies of one particular type of energy, and of course just plain tax breaks (like the manufacturing tax exception for oil companies) that currently exist. You'll also need to look at how cities favor just one form of transportation (cars), and make using other things dangerous or just impossible. It's a complicated puzzle, but if you were to truly level the playing field, we'd be well on our way towards saying goodbye to petroleum and coal forever. Quick stats: 24,000 people a year die prematurely because of pollution from coal-fired power plants. And every year 38,000 heart attacks, and an additional 550,000 asthma attacks result from power plant pollution. This per American Lung Association "people living in the most polluted U.S. cities could lose between 1.8 and 3.1 years because of exposure to chronic air pollution." "Published data from the American Cancer Society cohort suggested that long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution at levels that occur in North America is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular mortality by 12 percent for every 10 micrometers of particulate matter within 1 cubic meter of air. Ischemic heart diseases (e.g., heart attacks) account for the largest portion of this increased mortality rate. Other causes, such as heart failure and fatal arrythmias, also increased" More here if you're interested. americanheart.org