Edmund Storms wrote:
Besides the price will naturally drop soon as the American economy
slides into depression. Why take a hit sooner than is necessary?
Besides, Bush is no longer useful in getting American aid. In this
game of poker, Bush has now lost every hand and has no idea how to
play
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
Because the oil companies are so rich and powerfull all over the
world and because an effective alternate energy source would be so
financially disruptive to every industry at first, a great effort
will be made to resist any rapid change.
In the
[Here is a message from Ed that went astray, thanks to my strange
on-line mail server.]
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
2. To discourage the development of alternative energy source.
...snip...
... suppose Ford and GM will survive? They will gone as quickly as
Data General and DEC
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/bush.mideast/index.html
http://tinyurl.com/23yc5c
I'm glad someone in the oval office is asking the important questions.
Can't you just pump some more oil out of the ground for us - for
faster, more quicker?
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
Well Steven, if you had the oil, would you agree to take less money for
your dwindling resource just because Bush asked? After all, this would
mean you would also get less selling to China, a country that now has
the money to pay your price. Or would you rather keep the price high to
make more
My, my, Ed, you're *are* the cynic, aren't you!
I'm hoping we elect a more gooder regime next November, at least a new
gang of criminals that will have the sense to avoid the temptation of
getting our country involved in additional regime changes. It would be
much safer for the world if we could
Edmund Storms wrote:
Well Steven, if you had the oil, would you agree to take less money
for your dwindling resource just because Bush asked?
No, but throughout its history, OPEC has been careful to keep the
price reasonably low, for two reasons:
1. To keep from hurting the U.S. economy,
Edmund Storms wrote:
Well Steven, if you had the oil, would you agree to take less money for
your dwindling resource just because Bush asked?
OrionWorks wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/bush.mideast/index.html
http://tinyurl.com/23yc5c
I'm glad someone in the oval office
Jed sez:
...
Besides the price will naturally drop soon as the American
economy slides into depression. Why take a hit sooner than
is necessary?
A U.S. depression is what they are trying to avoid. That's why
they would be wise to do what Bush suggests. They should also
pump the stuff and
OrionWorks wrote:
Continuing my own cynical rant I'd like to mention that the Kiplinger
Letter, a conservative think tank, recently commented on the fact that
most OPEC heads do not want their prices to skyrocket either.
This has been their policy from day one, as I said. It is common
In reply to OrionWorks's message of Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:42:34 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
Had AE research started twenty years ago
and continued unabated we probably wouldn't be having this insane
conversation now.
[snip]
I can't think of any time in the last 40 years that this sort of research hasn't
been
OrionWorks wrote:
My, my, Ed, you're *are* the cynic, aren't you!
I prefer the term realist. :-) A realist is a cynic who was proven right.
I'm hoping we elect a more gooder regime next November, at least a new
gang of criminals that will have the sense to avoid the temptation of
getting
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
Had AE research started twenty years ago
and continued unabated we probably wouldn't be having this insane
conversation now.
[snip]
I can't think of any time in the last 40 years that this sort of
research hasn't
been ongoing. It has just taken a long time to get to
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
Well Steven, if you had the oil, would you agree to take less money
for your dwindling resource just because Bush asked?
No, but throughout its history, OPEC has been careful to keep the price
reasonably low, for two reasons:
1. To keep from
[Please respond to Vortex!]
Edmund Storms wrote:
2. To discourage the development of alternative energy source.
See the book The Prize for details.
Yes, these are the arguments of the past. The question is do they still
apply.
No, they do not, because there is now a permanent, worldwide
15 matches
Mail list logo
