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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (32459)	1/20/2010 1:55:05 PM
From: axial	Respond to of 46821

Jeff Rubin, Frank. canadianbusiness.com "In any case I'd like to see him debate Thomas Friedman of Flat World fame. That would make for an interesting matchup, don't you think?" Interesting, yes, but IMO, for a different reason than most people would suspect. With the heated dialogues encountered on SI, I've discovered that most people have no idea how energy affected the 20th century. They simply can't imagine anything but cheap, abundant energy, and have no idea that its existence was a historical deviation, not a norm. It's true that when (or if) we reach the oft-mentioned New Equilibrium, we'll re-approach enough for all - but that future imagines huge changes to population, energy usage and everything in between. --- As we've discussed, energy has metaconceptual translations; money and food are energy, expressed differently. The Rubin/Friedman debate might founder where it often does here an SI: on the implicit (but mistaken) assumption that the abundance we've known in our lifetimes is the norm: forever. I'm not sure Friedman understands that's not true, though Rubin certainly does. Jim