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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (157154)	9/17/2011 11:01:45 AM
From: miraje	28 Recommendations Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 206107

$300 to $500 oil would be the best possible thing that could happen to America What an utterly ridiculous statement. Oil at that price would crash our already feeble economy and make the depression of the 1930's look like a walk in the park by comparison. Modern civilization runs on efficient and relatively inexpensive sources of energy. Energy that works in the real world. That includes oil, coal, NG in a major way, as well as nukes and hydro powered electrical generation. To claim that opposition to political meddling attempting to force uneconomic and impractical "green solutions" to energy issues is "far right fringe politics", just goes to show how skewed is your view of the political spectrum. As for "pretending that global warming is an 'unproven theory", there are other boards on SI that deal with this political issue (and that's what it has become). This thread is not one of them..

To: GST who wrote (157154)	9/17/2011 1:42:39 PM
From: tom pope	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206107

The devil's in the detail. Tell us what costs you threw in to get to that number, without taking refuge in "for the sake of argument" evasions. We need to price oil at cost -- all costs. For the sake of argument, lets say that would be $300 to $500 per barrel.

To: GST who wrote (157154)	9/17/2011 5:48:07 PM
From: GST	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206107

Oil cost hundreds of dollars a barrel now -- the real cost. Selling below cost does nothing more than perpetuate a stagnant inefficient economy and shift the burden of paying the costs. I have no interest in subsidizing your consumption -- if you want to pay for oil and consume, then exercise your rights do it -- but don't ask me to pay for it. The idea that somebody else should pay your bills is not justified by trying to scare people into thinking that the sun shines out of your tailpipe and we are all doomed economically if we don't fork over hundreds of billions of dollars a year to support your bad habits. Price oil at cost -- it is not an unreasonable position, and it is nothing more than scare mongering to suggest that our well being rests on your wasteful consumption of a heavily subsidized product.

To: GST who wrote (157154)	9/17/2011 10:35:30 PM
From: whitepine	20 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206107

Yo, GST...forget my generosity, but *I will take you to lunch !* I'll pay my bill *and yours, too.* You wrote: Subsidizing oil and pretending that global warming is an 'unproven theory' serves to assure us that no change is needed -- just more of the same. Unfortunately, more of the same is exactly what we don't need. We need to price oil at cost -- all costs. --------- to pay for it now rather than shift the cost to future generations, and to innovate now rather than fall behind while the rest of the world moves forward. That is not being a 'leftie' etc. -- it is being able to accept the truth and consequences of the real world, to be accountable for your actions and to pay your bills instead of trying to pass them off on other people and other generations -- not running away and playing pretend -- . =========================================================== Are you over 24? I ask, because your POV reflects that which is common to 'communist/anarchist' utopians who inhabit the intellectual fairyland of undergrad rathskellers. Common to such is the penchant for using terms and concepts which have no concrete meaning or definition. FOR EXAMPLE-- What are "all costs"? How are they defined and what is their unit of measure? Since you could not tell us the precise number for a bbl of oil, I don't think you can define either your terms theoretically, or the real world the price of oil. In fact, that is why you had to arbitrarily pick 300-500 $. You have no way of defining the real world meaning of your own terms. If you can't define how costs are measured or calculated for something as simple as oil, then how can you calculate the price of an ear of corn, a ton of steel, or even a pencil or a Big Mac? Worse, your method of thought necessarily must lack rigor. You implicitly would hope that readers here would uncritically accept utopian non-sense as an organizing philosophy for not only OUR current society, but future societies as well. Excuse us for taking exception to your unfounded intellectual arrogance. Hello? If your ideas lack rigor, and can't be defined, what are we left with? An invitation to play in a Stalinist planned economy of Candy Land? [ hasbro.com ] It is common for folks who live in a Stalinist Candy Land economy to obfuscate critical thinking by asking the audience to consider there is no way to calculate the price or value of a clean sky or the howl of a wolf. My response, using your own terms: What is the real social cost of having children? What is the real social cost of poor people having children? What is the real social cost of educating poor children? What is the real social cost of providing education to poor children ...who then do not use the education to become productive social members? What is the real social cost for generations and generations of poor children who ignore homework, libraries, and prefer instead to plan for a life of 'welfare"? What is the real social cost for poor women to have 3-5-8 or more kids that they, themselves, cannot support? What is the real social cost for dealing drugs and what is a 'fair' penalty? What is the real social cost to society of producing millions of philosophy majors...while not producing enough scientists, doctors, engineers, and oil field workers? What is the real social cost of producing too many lawyers and bureaucrats? What is the real social cost to employing educational leaders that do not change the current matrix of educational production? What is the current and future cost of educators who enable silly thinking? Of allowing millions of students to borrow egregious amounts of money that they can never repay? What is the real social cost for automobiles and highways, not trains? What is the real social cost NOT to have 'right to work' in every state? What is the real social cost of unionism, both to consumers and to our mis-priced export industries? ==================== And, what is the real social cost to us for folks like you who continue to foist fantasies as plans for current and future social organization? What is the real social cost to us for continuing to debate tree-huggers who refuse to read George Reisman ( capitalism.net ) or Thomas Sowell? ============================= Lunch is over now. Call me again when you finish Reisman's work.