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 : BuSab -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (4554)	8/8/2010 6:05:21 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Respond to of 23934

I believe in the free market. However the free market did not bring us to this point and so it will be difficult to unwind the government influences. Oil has a hidden subsidy in military expense that we pay with our taxes. Without our military in the mideast, oil prices would be much higher Nuclear is potentially too expensive for private enterprise to fund alone. And then there is the defense considerations. I believe that nuclear power plants need security beyond what private enterprise is able to provide. I believe that there is a finite amount of oil on this planet. Just as I believe there is a finite amount of coal on the planet. I believe that oil has the potential to be produced much more quickly than coal. But I don't know if it is on a meaningful time scale for our purposes. I also believe that world oil reserves are probably greater than current estimates. However, I believe that the mideast oil reserve estimates are probably pretty accurate. At what point does the federal government's obligation to strategic defense justify intervention in the market? If we don't have fuel for our military, we cannot defend ourselves. I like to view our domestic oil reserves as our strategic defense oil reserves. And the world's oil supply is our peacetime reserve. Realistically we cannot shut off the domestic supply completely. If we did this it would take too long to turn back on in a time of emergency. Like you, I believe that higher prices in oil will provide the incentive we need to bring other sources online. Oil shale is an obvious source and can keep us running for many many years. And we need to help take the risk out of developing the alternate energy sources through tax relief to those doing it as grusum suggested. I think that one of the flaws in free market thinking is similar to how pacifists think. Pacifism works as long as everyone is a pacifist. Throw one predator into the mix and the pacifists don't have a chance. It's hard to have free market competition with countries like Japan or China when they have tariffs and are subsidizing their markets. I like the idea of a preferred free market, but with the willingness to require reciprocity in the international markets. "If you put tariffs and regulations on our goods and services, we will apply the same to yours". It works for immigration laws too. I object to the subsidy of wind and solar power. But we can't ignore the subsidy of nuclear and oil at the same time. And yes, china will go nuclear. And we will have to as well. But then again, uranium is also a finite resource. When do we reach peak uranium?...or at least reach our maximum mining capacity. We don't have a whole bunch of it in the US....Canada and Australia have a bunch though.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (4554)	8/9/2010 9:36:43 AM
From: dvdw©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23934

Because Peak Oil is a contrivance, its architects will function to the self interest built into the contrivance. Peak oil is a socialist/oligarchic agenda for further public extortion, not surprisingly, it is hand n glove with global warming, as two sides of the same coin. Governments mostly socialists, who have routinely nationalized oil as thier main source of revenue for arms, ammo, and other nefarious projects all extrapolated to oligarchic malfeasance.. Peak oil is a myth, its foundations are a lie, based on the idea that oil and fossils are related, they are not, and never were..correlation and causality extrapolated by compartmentalists enabled the misinformation about oils origins to be extrapolated onto populations by education and repetition....in other times this was sanctioned as sophistry. Because this foundational lie is what it is, the amount of oil which can be recovered at depth remains unknowable. The argument pro or con about oil is just malfeasance of bought and paid for extrapolated self interest.