SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sea Otter who wrote (473298)2/21/2012 6:08:58 PM
From: Maurice Winn3 Recommendations  Respond to of 793916
 
Please stop attributing things to me that I did not write. I didn't write that you favoured ethanol. I quoted you, here again for ease of reference: < . < Encourage and fund alternatives (much like we've encouraged and funded oil exploration, through tax credits, subsidies etc), encourage R&D, and gradually encourage marketable alternatives. I'm about as hard core market-based as a gal can get ... > > Then I pointed out some shovel-ready opm alt-energy projects including ethanol which have taken $billions, as examples of why governments should NOT get involved with investment in such things. Please apologize for making things up.

You didn't mention CO2 but it was the elephant in the room which I pointed out. Without the CO2 shroud waving your alt-energy projects won't get you any shovel-ready opm.

You should have been able to understand my points: < And your point was? > To labour the point, shovel-ready opm and your comment above were the point. I explained why your idea, as stated above and in your post from which I got that, is bung. Governments should NOT be doing what you wrote they should do. Which, you can see in that quote above from you. My point was that your idea of "encouraging and funding alternatives, etc...." is a really bad idea. I gave examples. And pointed out that you wanting shovel-ready opm is NOT something that a hard-core market-based gal would want. You wanting Big Government to fund alt-energy is commie.

Free market people, including gals, prefer that Obama play golf, not bother flying around in Air Force One and not opening new Solyndra or other alt-energy efforts. Free market people want voluntary financing by people who put up their OWN money, not opm. If you can trick people into giving you money to invest in your alt-energy ideas, that's up to them. It's fashionable to invest in alt-energy and to believe the CO2 mantra, so you can probably con loads of people into handing over loot. But you should not be seeking government money. Maybe not enough people are believing the CO2/alt-energy story now that the planet is preparing to freeze up [and did so this winter in Europe...brrr... with many dead from cold].

Not at all - I just pointed out how you are wrong: <As for the rest of your post, it's just more of the same from you. Irrelevant to the topic and just an excuse so you can argue ceaselessly > The topic was exactly what you posted - opm for alt-energy to save the world from CO2 and OPEC and middle east mayhem. I explained that there is loads of methane and Athabasca tar right there in North America. So there's no need for silly alt-energy ideas.

Would that job have something to do with getting people to give you money for alt-energy? <However I (unlike you, apparently) have a job and have no further time to engage with you now. In fact, your quota is up for this year. > You are right, I have not had a job for many years [having been highly successful in investments]. I last had a "real" job briefly in the early 1990s. But I do have plenty to do and had better go and do it. If my next "big thing" is as successful as my CDMA, you will hear about it. And use it.

Mqurice