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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (46537)	10/15/2010 10:04:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Its a rather small cost compared to the cost of oil, or per barrel or per energy produced by the oil. Its a rather small subsidy as a percentage of the cost, if its considered a subsidy at all (which it should be). Thats even if you accept your "multiple billions" claim (which is questionable as a per year cost, and remains "a rather small cost" if your talking over many years, in the context of the amount spent on the actual oil, or the amount it would take to replace it with alternatives. In fact "small" would not be going far enough, in that context its tiny. (And the actual subsidies, rather than your fanciful additions to them go beyond tiny to "pretty insignificant", if you don't subtract the special taxes on oil products, and "significantly negative" if you consider how the government imposes more costs on oil and its refined products than it subsidizes them.