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 (8682)	5/29/2009 5:10:08 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 86356

We actually don't get more energy for less money that way, We get a lot more energy for the money that way. Its not just the common perception its reality. The reality is that we spend trillions in securing our energy supply and fighting oil related wars, Even if you do add these costs, they probably would not be enough to make your case, but the more important point is that its silly to add these costs. 1 - The general cost of keeping the peace and keeping trade open is not normally considered subsidy to those who trade. The fact that we catch, try, and arrest bank robbers is not looked at as a subsidy to banks. 2 - Alternative energy sources often require materials, parts, or whole finished devices from other nations. If your importing materials for solar panels, then protecting the freedom of the seas is as relevant to solar as it is to oil. 3 - We would still be spending hundreds of billions (or over the years trillions) of dollars on defense.