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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (613158)	5/26/2011 2:36:26 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578510

Ron Paul would cause a global economic crash By Brent Budowsky - 05/25/11 01:53 PM ET I will give Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) the respect of treating him as a serious candidate for the presidency. Paul is the chairman of an important monetary policy committee in the House and potential president. If his views expressed in The Hill and elsewhere calling for rejection of any debt-ceiling increase were the policy of any president or either house of Congress, he would cause a stock- and bond-market crash and possibly a global depression. A U.S. default would mean the destruction of the good faith and credit of the most important economic nation in the world, with indescribably catastrophic consequences. Under Paul's position, there would be only two ways to avoid a default. The first would be the largest and most gigantic tax increase in world history. The second would be the most radical and extreme budget cuts in American history. Either would be imposed in a matter of days, when almost 16 percent of the nation is in search of jobs, when the world economy remains vulnerable and weak. I like and respect Ron Paul. I have always tried to be fair to him, more so than most mainstream columnists. But his view that the debt ceiling should not be increased is way off in economic outer space. If he were president and pursued this policy, he would cause a global economic crash. thehill.com

To: TimF who wrote (613158)	5/26/2011 10:05:32 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578510

"After a time when lower supply would make oil more valuable it might become less valuable as alternatives start to take over, also you have to consider time value of money considerations, future higher prices have to be discounted, and there is the issue of lag, we can't just decide to allow drilling and suddenly get oil." That's the greed part of your argument..... "So you think the rarer and more valuable some important resource is the more you should put it forever off limits? That doesn't make much sense." I don't think anyone said forever, but squandering a valuable resource is foolish especially when you don't have a viable alternative to completely pick up the requirements. So sorry that your oil companies might not suck up every dollar available if they drained the earth completely but at some point in time you must take in consideration the effect on mankind. A smart business man, if he had a valuable commodity, might sensibly ration his resources and raise prices so as to eliminate the losses from reduced volume sales. He would then be able to extend the life of his commodity...