Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2
I have done plenty about energy issues for well nigh four decades. I have been politically active for and hold positions within my party. I have been a part of the loyal opposition and, to a smaller degree, a part of those in power.

A shift to the right will change SR business. The business climate is ripe for anything but SR at this time. While the Clinton administration may not have been the panacea that the far left desired, it did not actively attempt to dismantle SR activity and even made it palatable.

The major failing of Clinton's administration had to do with his sexual proclivities, which unfortunately wreaked havoc on other aspects of his administration.

SR companies and the SR philosophy had anything but a good go of it during Reagan/Bush the first. As I have noted before, there was an all out attack on the Carter administration's energy policy.

I am watching, first hand, the same thing happen now. Yes vigilance is needed, but vigilance failed to stop a Bush administration. It failed to put into place Gore as president.

The effective management, workable products, and effective marketing of which you write are that which makes the Wal-Marts of the world cheaper, faster, and better. But, the Wal-Marts of the world hammer unions, don't seem to care about the environment, and apparently, endorse tobacco. What the public wants right now, is cheaper energy. Wal-Mart's gas is cheaper.

Exxon's gas will be cheaper, and the concmittant "convetional" energy sources will be cheaper as well, when the tax credits move their way.

I am so sorely disappointed with the flow of politics in this country, but even more saddened by a seeming lack of understanding of the interplay between politics and economics on the part of those who should know better. If those who should know better display a lack of understanding, then it is well nigh impossible to explain these matters to others who don't know better or maybe don't even care.

As far as long term investing, absolutely, but a company needs to survive to be a viable long term investment. Halliburton will survive. As will Exxon and such, but the Ballard's of the world, will likely lose investment because the quick buck is to be made in conventional energy. If the company can't get investment it will go belly up.

Also, PG&E is demanding a rate increase, similar to what the local gas company is demanding where I live, because they claim they will be broke by February. A PG&E is far more likely to receive a bail-out than is a Ballard.

Frolix8
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement