WASHINGTON - The House is set to approve an energy bill that would open an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling and provide billions of dollars in benefits to energy industries, but critics say it does little to reduce the nation's thirst for oil.
The House bill would make it easier to build liquefied natural gas import terminals, even if states or local communities oppose the project, and require refiners to use 5 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol a year in gasoline, a third more than what was produced last year.
"Even WWII was essentially about resources, both japan and germany were limited by their lack of domestic resources and needed other sources in order to continue growing and prospering."
You've hit on a little known point on WWII. While all of us remember 'Pearl Harbor' very well, very few realize that the Japanese attacked both Singapore and Manila on the exact same day. The Japanese were already hard up for both rubber and oil and this was the start of their push to get control of those needed resources.
Sorry to interject, hence the 'OT'.
Where do you draw the line between geo-political factors that affect our stocks and geo-political factors that are grist for a political mill? I suggest that anytime you are trying to convince someone that a particular policy is good or bad you are too far astray from the purpose of these stock boards. Now if you are asserting that a particular policy that is in effect is going to affect a stock's price, that is another matter. I agree let's stick to stock-talk and avoid party-talk.
Please, force yourself...let it go. I don't know who is on which side of this debate and I don't care. I'm betting most feel the same way.
You are not going to get anyone on a stock board to change their political or religious opinions, no matter your intelligence or reasoning.
It's hard enough to get them to change their opinion on stocks. And you usually do that with information that is related directly to the stock in question.
Hundreds of other boards out there already cluttered with political bantering. Sure they'll be happy to include a few more posters who really could care less about making money in the market.
Go in peace...or stay and help us get rich.
First off i'm sorry to continue this discussion, but i can't let this go.
Boxcar, aparetnly you didn't search very hard. Although no wars (other than gulf war 1 where sadam ivaded kuwit for it's OIL) were fought over oil specifically, virtually all wars fough over the course of history have been fought over RESOURCES. Even WWII was essentially about resources, both japan and germany were limited by their lack of domestic resources and needed other sources in order to continue growing and prospering. It was not the only reason, but an important one that is largely ignored. Also, oil has only been an important resource for a few decades, but had it always been as important and scarce as it is today, I'm sure there would have been plenty of wars over oil. Anyone who believes that oil was not at least a factor (not necessarily the entire reason or even the most important) why we invaded iraq instead of any of the other "Axis of Evil" contries needs to open their eyes.
Stephen Leeb in his book, The Oil Factor, says that if the oil producers started pricing oil in Euros or gold, instead of dollars, that it would raise the price of oil to the U.S. even more and cause even more inflation and economic trouble.