California - And by Extension the U.S. - Headed for Permanently Smaller Economy 127 comments
- Gregor Macdonald's articles on Seeking Alpha
- Visit: Gregor.us
- Gregor's Premium Newsletter
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
The June issue of Gregor.us Monthly, The Scholarship of Collapse, addresses several views of economic and systemic collapse from the works of Jared Diamond to Joseph Tainter, and then goes on to apply these views to the United States–and to its biggest state, California. Frankly, it’s not much fun to suggest that another leg down in housing is on the way. Or, that California is unlikely to see its GDP exceed its previous peak for quite some time. But without the two industries that characterized post-war growth in the US, housing and automobiles (and the financial industry that squatted on top of these) it’s hard to see how California–and the US by extension–does not become a permanently smaller economy.
Ouch. Permanently smaller economy!? Are you kidding me? The United States? Yeah, I know. The growth paradigm since WW2 is so firmly entrenched in the record (and in the psyche) that mere mention of US economic stasis seems outlandish. To suggest, as I am, that this condition will carry on for years sounds impossible. However, that is my call. I now foresee zero, net physical infrastructure or housing growth in California for at least another 5 years. If housing units go up somewhere in California, they’ll be bulldozed someplace else. If new roads or highways are erected, they’ll be discontinued or dismantled somewhere else. Without California, there will be no sustainable US GDP growth.
Peak autos is another favored theme of mine. Via the crushing blow of high energy prices, the price mechanism has tried for a second time in 30 years to send the signal that an economy run on cheap gasoline doesn’t, actually, work. Given the loathsome state of America’s presently collapsed economy, I would venture the country needs gasoline at 50 cents–right now–to return to its busy post-war arbitration of cheap transport and energy inputs, in service of earnings and output. That’s not going to happen. The reason: the United States no longer controls the price of oil via the mechanism of its own demand.
An interesting exercise when looking at previously collapsed economies and societies is to ask when a certain, initial terminus was reached, before the overshoot phase began. This could be the point, for example, when the Anasazi have denuded their local forests of wood, and have to start traveling farther afield for supply. The population will hardly be declining at this stage. In addition, the economy will be merrily carrying onward to a higher level of complexity. I call this the hidden terminus. The crossover point where resources were harder to attain, but, the techniques of the economy kept advancing (to some extent masking the underlying countertrend in resources). It now seems likely the United States reached this point in the year 2000. That’s when the ability to grow the economy, without a large acceleration in debt, appears to have crossed a threshold. From my June newsletter:
In my opinion the United States economy passed its hidden terminus with the bursting of the technology bubble in 2000. All of the power and thrust in the economy since 2000 was provided by nothing more than an expansion of credit via two, typical vehicles: War and Domestic government spending (Guns and Butter), and, artificially low interest rates provided by the central bank. This concept can be extremely difficult to accept among people working in highly innovative, highly productive areas like technology, venture capital, engineering, and other globalized product and service industries. What’s important to understand, however, is that the economy we made in the United States needs to serve 300 million people. If a good portion of that population is living off the housing and automobile economy, unsustainable at high levels, it matters little to the problem of a fundamentally unsound economy that Google, SunPower, and Honeywell are indeed doing wonderful things in technology, solar energy, and engineering. Moreover, it seems quite likely now that the expansion of credit post 2000 was in many ways a collective attempt to replace the trailing loss of our manufacturing economy. Yes, the US remains a hotbed of the best innovation but the acceleration of the financial and financial product economy was very likely an overshoot, past the hidden terminus in the structure of our system. To use a phrase that was once somewhat unfairly said about California by Gertrude Stein, we have discovered that there was no there, there in the US economy.
The United States, just like California, now sits astride massive, gargantuan post-war infrastructure that was built with cheap energy and leveraged with cheap energy, for over 50 years. Many parts of the US right now are actually experiencing something closer to a depression, and yet oil is above 60 dollars a barrel. That's a price that was considered ridiculous just 5 years ago, when even 40 dollars a barrel was viewed as unsustainable.
The United States has been in an inflationary recession since the start of the decade, which now threatens to become an inflationary depression. To make matters worse, the federal government is in the midst of one of the largest policy mistakes in US history as it has chosen to make enormous new investments in car companies, cars, biofuels, roads, and highways to the exclusion of public transport.
This is a classic, textbook example of the sunk cost effect in decision making and is a hallmark of the collapsed societies of antiquity. The choices the US makes from this point forward will likely have more of an effect on how the decline is mitigated. As I wrote in my newsletter, we do not view the post-war decline of Britain as a human tragedy, and there’s no reason to see the US decline as either shocking, or unexpected. However, it is indeed regrettable that we did not face up appropriately to the changes that unfolded, at the start of this millennium.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 127 comments:
Also, there should be a shift in investment from transportation and financial services to health and human services. How about re-training people to become nurses and using some excess housing for clinics. Oh yeah what about that Army of teachers Mr Obamasan?
Mass transport is useful and rational especially people residing in higher density cities. The fact we don't invest more on creating and maintaining them is sad. There is no reason for our mass transport to look worse than third world countries.
I agree with the author that we are looking at a smaller economy not because the US is incapable of growing and developing into the next phase of economic prosperity but because our government is dead set on trying to preserve the old structure at whatever inefficient cost it may take. We need a better health care system, a better trasportation system, more efficient fuels, and more competitive high speed communications systems (Internet especially). Asia has surpassed the US in all of these things aside from a rational replacement for gas (they don't need it as much because they have mass transportation, denser housing, and more fuel efficient cars).
We need to get on the fast track to actually being competitive rather than listening to politicians gripe about how great we are all day. We are less efficient every day government disincintivises the promising while rewarding the obsolete to remain. creative destruction is the only path to permanent prosperity. The sooner we face it the better off we will be.
To buttress the argument it should be noted that the IEA calculated recently that to provide oil even at a higher price several new Saudi Arabia's worth would need to be discovered and developed within the next few years and that that would need huge investment.
With the recession that investment is just not happening.
They therefore forecast that if growth returns there will be an oil crunch in around 2014.
This may be a bit early, as there is little likelihood of such a return to growth.
The basic point remains that any recovery will be very firmly knocked on the head by escalating oil prices as soon as it starts.
Now the caveats:
Britain's decline after WW2 is not a good analogy, as growth continued there, just at a slower rate than elsewhere.
Current problems are far more serious.
It is also a mistake to regard public transport as inherently more energy efficient.
It is fine in crowded areas in rush hour, but in low density areas which are far more common in the US than in Europe or Japan, and particularly at slack times when buses are running around almost empty, it can be very inefficient.
I suspect that most will be managing with some sort of electric trike as the recession will mean that for many proper electric cars will be unaffordable.
In a lot of rural areas in the US people will be basically stuck, and may have to club together to run a truck once a week for essentials.
Times are hard.
Essentially, it is choice between the new world and the old world, oligarchy and democracy, the smothering of the American Dream for 75 to 80% of Americans or for the renewal and restoration of the American Dream for all who really want it.
In refusing ,so far, to choose, we have indeed chosen to elevate entitlements over obligations, consumption over production, penalties over incentives and delusion over reality. We have convinced ourselves that we are exempt from the laws of economics and even of nature.
There was nothing inevitable or fated about America's great and inspiring rise over the past 100 years or even its improbable and remarkable birth. It was a result of hard choices made and ideals honored with sacrifice and perseverance.
There is nothing inevitable about America's decline and fall either. It is happening because of choices made( actively or by default) and ideals casually or wilfully dishonored.
There is certainly time yet to recall and renew what made America exceptional, great and inspiring but there is not much time. In a few years the window will close and we will not be able to count on either the kindness of strangers or our legacy to rescue us.
American elites tell the people no choices need be made since all is under (their) control and all will be well.
The first decision for the American voters, then, is to stop believing or being intimidated by the self annointed and self perpetuating elites. In that decision is also the choice between renewed freedom , prosperity and national security or a growing and irreversible serfdom.
online.wsj.com/mdc/pub...
Meanwhile, it is estimated our auto plants are around 45% operating capacity.
www.aier.org/research/...
In essence, demand is halved and production in existing plants in the US is half of what it can be. Yet we have spent obscene amounts of money to keep GM & Chrysler alive. Short run - great political move and defer the pain. Long run - take money from profitable enterprises (through taxes) and give it to unsustainable enterprises. Whichever competitive businesses we do have that could grow the economy are being attacked by a parasitic government. A similar thing may be said for the financial services sector, which is still making an unsustainable percentage of S&P500 profits. The financial sector should see its profits decline in relation to the profits of its clients (industry) as efficiencies increase.
If our government today existed in the 1860's, the transcontinental railroad would have been stopped to preserve the covered wagon manufacturers...
Our opportunity lies in the information technology we have and a younger generation supposedly alienated from the mass interests which have become so blatantly parasitic (look at the debts!). Whether there remains enough work ethic and whether there is enough functional knowhow that can emerge from a dysfunctional system that, for example, spends the most on education with some of the poorest results, to change to a prosperous, sustainable future, is the question.
Unfortunately it makes me question the following comment from 353732
"There is nothing inevitable about America's decline and fall either"
It seems to be part of the logic of declining civilizations, where the author touched both on the Anasazi and British examples (and many others could be cited), that once the emperor is revealed without his clothes, nobody seems to be able to see him fully clothed in all of his splendor again
I also agree with this author's statements regarding zero net growth in homebuilding, although I would not take that to mean zero homebuilding. I've been considering a business plan for a real-estate interest but it won't be for larger homes-we're going to build Chicago style bungalows-between 700 and 800 square feet, everything on a single floor, and with 36" doorways to facilitate wheelchair access-good for aging empty-nesters who want to simplify their lives.
No increase in GDP?? Do you really know what that would mean for unemployment, the ability of the US to finance it's debts (or stop it's debts growing exponentially), assert military strength, prevent social unrest........? If this really were to happen over an extended period, there is even a chance that the USA would not be able to support itself and would disolve in to the Separate States of America. Fortunately, I think that you might be over stating your case, but I agree with your basic arguement.
The real problem that the US faces is that many of the solutions to these problems run counter to our culture. For example, US energy efficiency is pathetic compared to the rest of the world, but from where we currently stand, the improvements that are needed would make "the American way of life" inviable. Meanwhile, we have invented ways of passing our costs on to foreign countries and future genertations, through big debts, environmental degradation etc. It is a very brave (and short lived) politician who tries to get the US to change it's culture.
But the hope lies in something else that US culture is famous for: innovation. We need innovation now in areas like energy and water and we need it bad. It is either that..............or a seriously painful future.
Instead, cut the corporate tax rate by 50% for two years and eliminate all capital gains taxes for the same period. We must jump-start innovation and investment.
It would appear to me that the lessons and message of M. Friedman is more relevant today than ever. Maybe President Obama or his "economic" advisors should take note as well.
Actually in a way, it could - by cutting the size of government by 50% and getting the frak out of the way of progress, but that ain't gonna happen.
I taught international trade once, and although I taught it brilliantly I wasn't impressed by a great deal of it. But it has occured to me that a huge, underpopulated, fantastically rich Russia, working with A US that with a little luck should be able to regain its technological luster, is just what the doctor ordered for both of these countries.
Impossible. You don't understand what you're talking about.
"...a huge, underpopulated, fantastically rich Russia..."
???
The curve continues to form the right hand side of an upwards opening parabola. The curve is now very steep and looks like a standard market blowoff pattern. In the political sense dealing with this is currently impossible. As with any market this price (in terms of credit increase) cannot go to infinity. One suspects that the current incredible rate of increase in debt generation (governmental debt, to be sure) will not prove to be rapid enough to keep GDP from falling; that is, it is no longer possible, no matter what is done, to increase debt rapidly enough to create the perception of economic growth.
As Mr. MacDonald puts it, "I call this the hidden terminus. The crossover point where resources were harder to attain, but, the techniques of the economy kept advancing (to some extent masking the underlying countertrend in resources). It now seems likely the United States reached this point in the year 2000."
Looking at the new credit divided by new GDP ratio over time, I think that the year 2000 is too late a date. 1964 is more like it because 1964 is where one first sees a permanent conscious negative real interest rate Fed and Treasury policy. Except for the Volker era a negative real interest rate policy has been the rule.
The public investments in public transportation are not being excluded by the Obama Administration. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood just announced yesterday the extension of the planned high-speed rails in California to be extended to Las Vegas. It will be known as the Desert Express. Secretary LaHood was in Portland several days ago. He was part of a ceremony unveiling the new streetcars to service Downtown Portland. The streetcars were built in a Portland suburb.
There is plenty of funding made available for public transportation in this year's stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This should not be at the legitimate expense of maintaining and improving our highways.
On Jul 07 09:03 AM dixie wrote:
> Discard the present costly "stimulus" focused on the public sector.
>
>
> Instead, cut the corporate tax rate by 50% for two years and eliminate
> all capital gains taxes for the same period. We must jump-start
> innovation and investment.
Americans depend on government programs, but refuse to pay for them... We bomb the hell out of countries that thumb their nose at us, and say we are doing it for humanitarian reasons... We elect leaders that illegally tap our phones, but cheer their rhetoric about freedom...
With our lazy brand of intellectualism, it is no surprise that we can’t figure out three-dimensional problems like economics. This is the pain we so justly deserve.
"The public investments in public transportation are not being excluded by the Obama Administration. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood just announced yesterday the extension of the planned high-speed rails in California to be extended to Las Vegas"
High speed rail to Las Vegas- this is agreat example of the extremely poor choices we have made over the years, choices like Viet nam, the Hummer, fast food, supersize it, and the expectation that the governement will take care of us.
Rather we need to downsize bigtime, and get leaner and meaner. It will be painful to all, especially to those who are "fat". For example, Las Vegas really shouldn't be much more than a 20000 person truck stop/ solar energy service depot. And the world would be better for it. Leave now if you havn't already.
There's nothing here that a massive build-out of nuclear-powered energy generating capacity cannot significantly solve.
Cheap energy, indeed, is a critical component of any thriving economy. Cheap energy abounds! It is only the will to harness it that is lacking.
(Of course, doing so will require making finance a slave and not a master. An environment encouraging capital-intensive investment is required. We would all do better to understand how the original work of Alexander Hamilton offers insight into purposeful, stability-enhancing, productive investment, valuing this over the "anything goes" mentality of Adam Smith's adherents.)
On Jul 07 08:37 AM Tony Petroski wrote:
> Surely there are a few Anasazi who made it through to modern days
> and even ended up in California. In that case, the story continues.
On Jul 07 11:18 AM baldskits wrote:
> Corporations do not pay any taxes now!
If you have been following the thought process of those who claim that not enough revenues are being devoted to public transit, you will see that they are simply tring to allocate such funding at the expense of some other funding. That is what the author is hinting at in his next-to-last paragraph.
It is my choice whether or not I leave. Are you with the government or something?
On Jul 07 11:29 AM isaac the terrible wrote:
> To Valley Boy-
> "The public investments in public transportation are not being excluded
> by the Obama Administration. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of
> Nevada and U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood just announced
> yesterday the extension of the planned high-speed rails in California
> to be extended to Las Vegas"
>
> High speed rail to Las Vegas- this is agreat example of the extremely
> poor choices we have made over the years, choices like Viet nam,
> the Hummer, fast food, supersize it, and the expectation that the
> governement will take care of us.
>
> Rather we need to downsize bigtime, and get leaner and meaner. It
> will be painful to all, especially to those who are "fat". For example,
> Las Vegas really shouldn't be much more than a 20000 person truck
> stop/ solar energy service depot. And the world would be better for
> it. Leave now if you havn't already.
Yes, the big-picture numbers do not lie. The "terminus point" regarding U.S. debt has already been reached - and exceeded.
What the author does NOT include in his analysis is that once beyond this "tipping point" of indebtedness, this implies national default as an eventual outcome - and likely sooner than later.
America indeed enter an inflationary recession in 2000. This changed into a deflationary depression beginning the fourth quarter of 2006.
No I'm not with the gov. Just offering a suggestion. I think LV will die a slow death, and so I think it would be in the interest of those living there to migrate early. No malice intended.
if we continue doing that, we won't have to worry about economic growth. as there won't be any.
and income growth is the only way to have real sustainable growth. some thing we have forgotten
and
On Jul 07 06:00 AM User 353732 wrote:
> Soon the American voters(not the people as a whole) will be forced
> to make a choice they have , so far, refused to make: a permanently
> larger and corrupt Govt and a shackled economy that produces far
> below its potential or a much smaller , more transparent and reformed
> Govt and a regenerated economy that produces wealth and income at
> a rate noticeably higher than population growth.
> Essentially, it is choice between the new world and the old world,
> oligarchy and democracy, the smothering of the American Dream
> for 75 to 80% of Americans or for the renewal and restoration of
> the American Dream for all who really want it.
> In refusing ,so far, to choose, we have indeed chosen to elevate
> entitlements over obligations, consumption over production, penalties
> over incentives and delusion over reality. We have convinced ourselves
> that we are exempt from the laws of economics and even of nature.
>
> There was nothing inevitable or fated about America's great and inspiring
> rise over the past 100 years or even its improbable and remarkable
> birth. It was a result of hard choices made and ideals honored with
> sacrifice and perseverance.
> There is nothing inevitable about America's decline and fall either.
> It is happening because of choices made( actively or by default)
> and ideals casually or wilfully dishonored.
> There is certainly time yet to recall and renew what made America
> exceptional, great and inspiring but there is not much time. In a
> few years the window will close and we will not be able to count
> on either the kindness of strangers or our legacy to rescue us.<br/>
>
> American elites tell the people no choices need be made since all
> is under (their) control and all will be well.
> The first decision for the American voters, then, is to stop believing
> or being intimidated by the self annointed and self perpetuating
> elites. In that decision is also the choice between renewed freedom
> , prosperity and national security or a growing and irreversible
> serfdom.
Does anybody know the energy in/energy out ratio for current technology nuclear over its life-cycle? These plants take 5-10 years and billions of dollars to build and their fuel is increasingly difficult to produce as with most commodities (we've already produced all the cheap easy commodities). I would be surprised if nuclear generates better than a 2:1 energy increase, and it may be closer to 1:1 or even negative.
I think it is already clear that it takes more total energy input to produce corn-based ethanol than you get by burning it so this is a net energy loss technology. Tarsands oil requires 1 barrel energy in for 3 barrels energy out so it is still energy cost effective. In the beginning of the Pennsylvania oil discovery you got 100 barrels out for every 1 barrel energy input. We are definitely scraping up harder to produce oil, as peak oil says.
I'm just curious about the energy equation for nuclear and would appreciate hearing from someone who knows about this.
No job = no insurance = virtually no "health care" only emergency care.
Michigan led the country into the recession (thanks "global" economy, thanks off shoring, thanks government) and even our health care sector is shedding jobs now.
Once the "plan" comes down from DC, watch it spread as small providers (and their employees) are outsourced, or out and out gifted to the largest campaign contributors/graft writers.
On Jul 07 04:28 AM Wizler wrote:
> Great article! Agreed that there needs to be a major re-set, globally.
> US growth based on sovereign (chinese) debt is not a sustainable
> model. I would argue that the global trade model is currently broken
> since it largely relied on US consumers debt spending. The sooner
> US and other governments realize this and act. The sooner we can
> get back to growth.
>
> Also, there should be a shift in investment from transportation and
> financial services to health and human services. How about re-training
> people to become nurses and using some excess housing for clinics.
> Oh yeah what about that Army of teachers Mr Obamasan?
On the other hand, if tax rates are lowered, it allows corporations to cut prices and become more competitive on a global basis, hire more workers etc etc.
Lower taxes = more economic activity.
On Jul 07 12:12 PM robert.b.ferguson wrote:
> Please clarify your comment regarding base corporate rate and small
> buisiness rate taxation.
What America has to do is to get back to basics – ECON101- Save -> Invest -> Produce -> Consume. We currently are simply in the Borrow and Consume mode – that is totally unfeasible. Out sourcing of jobs and manufacturing has been a disaster for middle class- wages have stagnated. People were appeased with cheap Walmart goods and asset/housing bubble – that is all over now. People will demand better jobs and wages – they are nowhere to be found – that will cause the trouble.
Fed has tried everything – cheap money - 0% funds rate, easy money – accepting dodgy collateral, free money- bailouts. But after all the bullets, canons, bazookas, helicopters, missiles – there is nothing else left – time to fold the tent and get used to a normal life style – no more oversized homes or SUVs.
VAT may start low to get it enacted; but will ramp up rapidly to increase cost of goods (and possibly services) throughout society. VAT revenue must be large enough to convince foreign treasury investors (China and Japan) that US is serious about paying down debt.
That will suck more out of economic growth, increase national cost of living, reduce the savings rate, and prevent many Americans from owning a home, as they cannot make a payment nor save enough for a down payment. That will reduce housing demand and the driver of higher home prices.
Unemployment will be permanently higher. US business profits and growth will be flat. The value of a college education, especially considering the cost, will be seriously questioned, as good jobs won't be there for graduates.
Liberal democrats will push for even more socialism to solve the problems created by socialism.
There is nothing positive in America's future unless you are a socialist.
and the results of these tax cuts has been underwhelming as usual!
On Jul 07 09:03 AM dixie wrote:
> Discard the present costly "stimulus" focused on the public sector.
>
>
> Instead, cut the corporate tax rate by 50% for two years and eliminate
> all capital gains taxes for the same period. We must jump-start
> innovation and investment.
and we got
nothing but a credit blown economy from it
and how is that working for us now?
On Jul 07 01:18 PM kohalakid wrote:
> I think the point he was making is that corporations are effectively
> just tax collectors for government. An increase in corporate tax
> rates doesn't mean less profit for the corporations. It means they
> increase their prices to compensate, and become less competitive
> on a global basis.
> On the other hand, if tax rates are lowered, it allows corporations
> to cut prices and become more competitive on a global basis, hire
> more workers etc etc.
>
> Lower taxes = more economic activity.
we had the lowest job growth in a long time. we will have less than we had in 1999 soon.
we had the lowest incomes in decades. we will soon back to 1990 levels.
people are already (and have been for a while now) challenging the rational for higher education. ROI on it has been negative for some time as the jobs you get with it, tend to be easily sent else where.
and that doesn't include the seeming national thought that its not worth it anyh way
On Jul 07 01:34 PM Chancer wrote:
> With a reduction in growth rates, comes reduction in tax revenue
> to pay for massive debt. That requires either increased tax rates,
> but not enough rich people to pay the highest rates; therefore, new
> taxes, as in VAT.
>
> VAT may start low to get it enacted; but will ramp up rapidly to
> increase cost of goods (and possibly services) throughout society.
> VAT revenue must be large enough to convince foreign treasury investors
> (China and Japan) that US is serious about paying down debt.
>
> That will suck more out of economic growth, increase national cost
> of living, reduce the savings rate, and prevent many Americans from
> owning a home, as they cannot make a payment nor save enough for
> a down payment. That will reduce housing demand and the driver of
> higher home prices.
>
> Unemployment will be permanently higher. US business profits and
> growth will be flat. The value of a college education, especially
> considering the cost, will be seriously questioned, as good jobs
> won't be there for graduates.
>
> Liberal democrats will push for even more socialism to solve the
> problems created by socialism.
>
> There is nothing positive in America's future unless you are a socialist.
The Desert Express certainly seems like a waste. Efforts are currently being made to expand the rest of Interstate 15 to six lanes between Primm and Barstow, located between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, especially for the truckers. That should suffice.
There are also plans to build a reliever airport adjacent to the expanded Interstate 15 in Ivanpah Valley south of Las Vegas.
On Jul 07 12:55 PM isaac the terrible wrote:
> To valley boy-
> No I'm not with the gov. Just offering a suggestion. I think LV will
> die a slow death, and so I think it would be in the interest of those
> living there to migrate early. No malice intended.
On Jul 07 01:02 PM derryl wrote:
> RiskAverseA wrote, "There's nothing here that a massive build-out
> of nuclear-powered energy generating capacity cannot significantly
> solve."
>
> Does anybody know the energy in/energy out ratio for current technology
> nuclear over its life-cycle? These plants take 5-10 years and billions
> of dollars to build and their fuel is increasingly difficult to produce
> as with most commodities (we've already produced all the cheap easy
> commodities). I would be surprised if nuclear generates better than
> a 2:1 energy increase, and it may be closer to 1:1 or even negative.
>
>
> I think it is already clear that it takes more total energy input
> to produce corn-based ethanol than you get by burning it so this
> is a net energy loss technology. Tarsands oil requires 1 barrel energy
> in for 3 barrels energy out so it is still energy cost effective.
> In the beginning of the Pennsylvania oil discovery you got 100 barrels
> out for every 1 barrel energy input. We are definitely scraping up
> harder to produce oil, as peak oil says.
>
> I'm just curious about the energy equation for nuclear and would
> appreciate hearing from someone who knows about this.
On Jul 07 01:55 PM dw57 wrote:
> oddly enough the current stimulus that has been done so far is all
> TAX CUTS! there has been little else done as of yet.
> and the results of these tax cuts has been underwhelming as usual!
>
We owe much to the American form of capitalism as a unique creation, for it was established as a republic and not as commonly thought, a democracy. Though both draw on democratic principles, a republic tends far less to be centrally governed, whereas a democracy certainly may be.
Our economy was clearly founded upon and intended to remain strong principally in the political and economic sovereignty of individual states. This design is embodied in the constitution and is deliberate. It was sought so as to limit the powers of any newly proposed federal government, the very concept of which was not esteemed by many in the early confederation of states which was formed soon after the Revolutionary War.
The founding fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which tended to specifically mean a direct democracy. James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it grew larger and would combat faction by its very structure.
This fact is seen in the many statements of the founders and in a revealing fact about the Federal Convention of 1787-78. A full quarter of the 74 delegates chose not to accept election or attend the debates of the convention. And of those 55 who did attend, no more than half showed up at any one time, clearly due to their doubts and suspicions of centralized governments. Many frequently voiced their feelings that a federal government was not to be trusted at all.
We have moved a long way backwards since the founders composed our constitution and reluctantly provided a few limited powers in carefully chosen words to a new federal government for the union. We must not forget that our country was and still is a constitutional republic. It is called the United States (of America) and it retains this name for good reason..
On Jul 07 04:28 AM Wizler wrote:
> Great article! Agreed that there needs to be a major re-set, globally.
> US growth based on sovereign (chinese) debt is not a sustainable
> model. I would argue that the global trade model is currently broken
> since it largely relied on US consumers debt spending. The sooner
> US and other governments realize this and act. The sooner we can
> get back to growth.
>
> Also, there should be a shift in investment from transportation and
> financial services to health and human services. How about re-training
> people to become nurses and using some excess housing for clinics.
> Oh yeah what about that Army of teachers Mr Obamasan?
Given the aging demographics and the overconsumption by those that will likely now underconsume, low or no growth for years to come is not inlikely.
Generational Dynamics should also be considered. The newer generations will naturally want to be different and are therefore likely to live much more frugal, and hopefully more meaningful lives.
While building a nuclear power plant is expensive they last a long time after construction. Oyster Creek in New Jersey has been in operation for 40 years and recently had its license renewed for another 20 years.
Uranium is a pretty common element in the Earth's crust. About the same as tin or zinc. Known uranium ore is estimated to be at a 200 year supply level which is more than most other economically important minerals. Due to these reserve levels there has not been much exploration over the past 20 years; it is likely that resuming exploration will cause a quick increase in known reserves. Costs are not expected to rise significantly until these deposits run out and less concentrated ore has to be used.
There is a LOT of less concentrated ore; a factor of 300 increase in reserves is likely if extraction of ore 10 times less concentrated is used.
www.scientificamerican...
The right now mining of uranium ore has a NEG factor of 100-500 depending on the deposit.
On Jul 07 01:02 PM derryl wrote:
> RiskAverseA wrote, "There's nothing here that a massive build-out
> of nuclear-powered energy generating capacity cannot significantly
> solve."
>
> Does anybody know the energy in/energy out ratio for current technology
> nuclear over its life-cycle? These plants take 5-10 years and billions
> of dollars to build and their fuel is increasingly difficult to produce
> as with most commodities (we've already produced all the cheap easy
> commodities). I would be surprised if nuclear generates better than
> a 2:1 energy increase, and it may be closer to 1:1 or even negative.
>
>
> I think it is already clear that it takes more total energy input
> to produce corn-based ethanol than you get by burning it so this
> is a net energy loss technology. Tarsands oil requires 1 barrel
> energy in for 3 barrels energy out so it is still energy cost effective.
> In the beginning of the Pennsylvania oil discovery you got 100 barrels
> out for every 1 barrel energy input. We are definitely scraping
> up harder to produce oil, as peak oil says.
>
> I'm just curious about the energy equation for nuclear and would
> appreciate hearing from someone who knows about this.
> Now the US is going to have to learn to live rationally.
Yes, just like back in the Great Depression; we were trough, gapput, down and out....
And just like then we will come back, once the government gets out of our way and quits trying to solve all of our problems.
America will be the greatest country on earth for a long time to come if we just get back to our roots of liberty, freedom and justice for all.
Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama, Mr. Geithner, Mr. Bernanke, Mr. Frank, Mr. Dodd, please get out of our way and we will rebuild this country faster than you can imagine.
However I think that demographics isn't as favorable a factor as you might think. Retirees will soon realize that being dead and bankrupt is no different from being dead and solvent and will not feel constrained in their borrowing.
The gen x cohort that echos the baby boom is the second largest generation in the history of the US, and is just entering their prime consumer years.
And of course the final driving factor behind consume until the economy drops, modern marketing and advertising is becoming more sophisticated with time. Today's young adults are well brain-washed by modern media.
On Jul 07 02:45 PM Fred Voetsch wrote:
> Good call.
>
> Given the aging demographics and the overconsumption by those that
> will likely now underconsume, low or no growth for years to come
> is not inlikely.
>
> Generational Dynamics should also be considered. The newer generations
> will naturally want to be different and are therefore likely to live
> much more frugal, and hopefully more meaningful lives.
On Jul 07 02:54 PM bricki wrote:
> The Net Energy Gain (seekingalpha.com/symbo...) factor for
> conventional nuclear is about 16. For oil it is about 5. For corn
> ethanol it is 0 or negative.
>
> While building a nuclear power plant is expensive they last a long
> time after construction. Oyster Creek in New Jersey has been in operation
> for 40 years and recently had its license renewed for another 20
> years.
>
> Uranium is a pretty common element in the Earth's crust. About the
> same as tin or zinc. Known uranium ore is estimated to be at a 200
> year supply level which is more than most other economically important
> minerals. Due to these reserve levels there has not been much exploration
> over the past 20 years; it is likely that resuming exploration will
> cause a quick increase in known reserves. Costs are not expected
> to rise significantly until these deposits run out and less concentrated
> ore has to be used.
>
> There is a LOT of less concentrated ore; a factor of 300 increase
> in reserves is likely if extraction of ore 10 times less concentrated
> is used.
>
> www.scientificamerican...
>
>
> The right now mining of uranium ore has a NEG factor of 100-500 depending
> on the deposit.
>
> On Jul 07 01:02 PM derryl wrote:
As for "Drilling off shore and in ANWR", great! so what do you when they their used up, like the North Sea which took less than 30 years to Peak! Your children may be very glad you did not drill those area's, its going to very difficult to replace all the uses of oil in the next 30 years, you should leave some for the next generation. I am sure when oil goes back over $100 they will drill anyway and it will ease the pain but its not a long term solution.
Saudis are not stupid, they know the faster you drill the more valuable their Oil becomes.
Hhhmmm..... what else does 1964 coincide with? Any guesses? The birth of the "Great Society" perhaps? The being of the modern nanny state in America?
Look at any of the nanny states in the EU. Once a choice was made to wander down the road of socialism, public spending exploded, private productivity dropped, and ever-growing debt has been the rule of the day. All of the socialist economies have large debt to GDP ratios, and those ratios have consistantly increased over time. Admittedly, the USA has been slow to join the party, but even here one can observe the pertinent trends leading back to the 60's when the American public began to turn to the nanny state as the solution to its problems. Without the Volcker years, the USA would have already run over the cliff. Unfortunately, Volcker has been the exception. With Bernanke (and maybe Summers?) at the wheel, we are shifting into overdrive as we rocket past the 'bridge out ahead' signs.
On Jul 07 10:43 AM Yohei wrote:
As Mr. MacDonald puts it, "I call this the hidden terminus. The crossover point where resources were harder to attain, but, the techniques of the economy kept advancing (to some extent masking the underlying countertrend in resources). It now seems likely the United States reached this point in the year 2000."
Looking at the new credit divided by new GDP ratio over time, I think that the year 2000 is too late a date. 1964 is more like it because 1964 is where one first sees a permanent conscious negative real interest rate Fed and Treasury policy. Except for the Volker era a negative real interest rate policy has been the rule.
On Jul 07 02:34 PM Marky61 wrote:
> Good article, but I have to take issue with something reader Moon
> Kil Woong said. He wishes for smaller government, but in the same
> breath wants to see more mass transit. Is the private sector going
> to build urban transit? Not a chance. There's no money in it for
> them. It takes a public authority to run a complex urban system.
> All the free market people want it to be 1920 again, but we can never
> go back. The world is only going to get more crowded and more complicated
> - which means more public bodies and government intervention. Get
> used to it. You have to adapt to the environment.
On Jul 07 06:00 AM User 353732 wrote:
> Soon the American voters(not the people as a whole) will be forced
> to make a choice they have , so far, refused to make: a permanently
> larger and corrupt Govt and a shackled economy that produces far
> below its potential or a much smaller , more transparent and reformed
> Govt and a regenerated economy that produces wealth and income at
> a rate noticeably higher than population growth.
> Essentially, it is choice between the new world and the old world,
> oligarchy and democracy, the smothering of the American Dream for
> 75 to 80% of Americans or for the renewal and restoration of the
> American Dream for all who really want it.
> In refusing ,so far, to choose, we have indeed chosen to elevate
> entitlements over obligations, consumption over production, penalties
> over incentives and delusion over reality. We have convinced ourselves
> that we are exempt from the laws of economics and even of nature.
>
> There was nothing inevitable or fated about America's great and inspiring
> rise over the past 100 years or even its improbable and remarkable
> birth. It was a result of hard choices made and ideals honored with
> sacrifice and perseverance.
> There is nothing inevitable about America's decline and fall either.
> It is happening because of choices made( actively or by default)
> and ideals casually or wilfully dishonored.
> There is certainly time yet to recall and renew what made America
> exceptional, great and inspiring but there is not much time. In a
> few years the window will close and we will not be able to count
> on either the kindness of strangers or our legacy to rescue us.<br/>
>
> American elites tell the people no choices need be made since all
> is under (their) control and all will be well.
> The first decision for the American voters, then, is to stop believing
> or being intimidated by the self annointed and self perpetuating
> elites. In that decision is also the choice between renewed freedom
> , prosperity and national security or a growing and irreversible
> serfdom.
Here locally, Portland Oregon had private bus service up until the 60's I believe. It worked just fine. No government involvement. No subsidies. People got what they paid for. Then the local country governments started a competing 'metro' authority and destroyed the private service using their control of the utility regulations. The private services were prevented from raising rates to reflect actual cost until they went bankrupt. At the same time, the 'metro' service survived on tax subsidies and still runs at a substantial loss to this day.
BTW, the Portland metro area plows a huge amount of state and federal transportation money into mass transit every year. But the bulk is wasted on bike lanes and shiny, but generally empty, light rail cars at the expense of highways (more utilized) and bus service (more efficient). Local spending has nothing to do with traffic studies, and everything to do with pay-off and graft.
On Jul 07 02:34 PM Marky61 wrote:
> Good article, but I have to take issue with something reader Moon
> Kil Woong said. He wishes for smaller government, but in the same
> breath wants to see more mass transit. Is the private sector going
> to build urban transit? Not a chance. There's no money in it for
> them. It takes a public authority to run a complex urban system.
> All the free market people want it to be 1920 again, but we can never
> go back. The world is only going to get more crowded and more complicated
> - which means more public bodies and government intervention. Get
> used to it. You have to adapt to the environment.
On Jul 07 03:15 PM robert.b.ferguson wrote:
> Where does telling my mother what medicines
> and/or proceedures she can have fit into that?
On Jul 07 03:10 PM William Davison wrote:
> Re robert.b.fe...: "Wind power is not viable unless oil is aproaching
> $200 a barrel" that is not right. The figures I have seen in the
> past would suggest no more $100 a barrel would be needed to make
> Wind viable and that is without a smart grid.
>
> As for "Drilling off shore and in ANWR", great! so what do you when
> they their used up, like the North Sea which took less than 30 years
> to Peak! Your children may be very glad you did not drill those area's,
> its going to very difficult to replace all the uses of oil in the
> next 30 years, you should leave some for the next generation. I am
> sure when oil goes back over $100 they will drill anyway and it will
> ease the pain but its not a long term solution.
>
> Saudis are not stupid, they know the faster you drill the more valuable
> their Oil becomes.
On Jul 07 03:29 PM User 357705 wrote:
> Its the for profit insurance companies telling your mother what she
> can and cannot do medically.
On Jul 07 03:37 PM robert.b.ferguson wrote:
> Did you see the Obama town hall campaign event?
On Jul 07 10:25 AM The Aft Deck wrote:
> The US Economy will be different, but it may not be smaller, it may
> change direction. What the White House doing is slowing the people's
> ability to rebuild by taxing them into a hole. But, they will rebuild.
On Jul 07 03:15 PM robert.b.ferguson wrote:
> There is a major difference between Federal and other government
> agencies. Federal government should not be in the business of supplying
> bus routs in podunk name your state. Podunk and name your state have
> that responsibility and the responsibility for financing it. Federal
> government is reaching way to far into our lives and wallets. Federal
> government has three functions: Provide for the common defense including
> border security, setting minimum standards for the national educational
> corricula and establishing as best they can an international climate
> condusive to economic growth. Where does telling my mother what medicines
> and/or proceedures she can have fit into that?
On Jul 07 03:49 PM User 357705 wrote:
> No.
On the ideological side, do we really need to destroy every spot on the map in an endless lust for oil? Aren't we a rich enough country to draw a line and leave some of this beautiful country in a pristine state? Once the oil is pumped, the dollars frittered away, we are left with a huge mess. It's not worth it.
On Jul 07 03:30 PM robert.b.ferguson wrote:
> See thepickensplan.org he is a major wind advocate with a large wind
> farm in TX and I used his numbers. As for petrolium distilates and
> the multiplicity of things we use it for most of it can be done with
> biomass oils derived from cattle rendering among other sources. Fossile
> fuels are definitely finite and replacing them is essential we just
> aren't there yet and refusing to use them on ideological grounds
> is folly. No other nation on the planet will slit thier own throat
> for a green ideal. For everything there is a time.
On Jul 07 11:18 AM baldskits wrote:
> Corporations do not pay any taxes now!
On Jul 07 04:22 PM robert.b.ferguson wrote:
> Too bad. President Obama gave alot of insight by questions he obfusticated
> on and the answers to others. One answer and this is not exact was
> that perhaps it would be better for granny just to keep taking pain
> killers instead of getting hip replacement surgery. Fortunately my
> mother has a good insurance plan and cash left to her by my father.
> She is 78 and suffers from alzhiemers but she still got hip replacement
> instead of a steady diet of pain killers. While incapacitated she
> is not expendable and I don't want a government beaurocrat to tell
> me she is.
Light rail? Build more of it. Fast. When gas hits $5+ / gallon people will be begging for the train. Minneapolis, which built their light rail system earlier, saw the same thing last year when gas was peaking.
Bike and light rail commuting options - exactly the kind of things I want to see a progressive, forward thinking region to promote. And I'm willing to pay for them.
On Jul 07 03:28 PM WS1835 wrote:
> Actually, the private sector is the only way to run an efficient
> and cost-effective mass transit system. The private sector has done
> so in the past and can do so now, IF the government stops crowding
> it out. Just look at what happened over the last three years in Santiago
> Chile. Predominantly private system of mass transit prior to government
> stepping in to make it more "fair and accessible". Once government
> got in, rates went up, ridership went down, accessiblity is more
> limited, and the few parts that are still working are being overworked
> due to improper demand balancing.
>
> Here locally, Portland Oregon had private bus service up until the
> 60's I believe. It worked just fine. No government involvement. No
> subsidies. People got what they paid for. Then the local country
> governments started a competing 'metro' authority and destroyed the
> private service using their control of the utility regulations. The
> private services were prevented from raising rates to reflect actual
> cost until they went bankrupt. At the same time, the 'metro' service
> survived on tax subsidies and still runs at a substantial loss to
> this day.
>
> BTW, the Portland metro area plows a huge amount of state and federal
> transportation money into mass transit every year. But the bulk is
> wasted on bike lanes and shiny, but generally empty, light rail cars
> at the expense of highways (more utilized) and bus service (more
> efficient). Local spending has nothing to do with traffic studies,
> and everything to do with pay-off and graft.
On Jul 07 12:40 PM Jeff Nielson wrote:
> Superb article, and many insightful comments. I believe I detect
> the influence of a couple of my own favorite commentators/analysts
> in the author's writing, notably John Williams and Chris Martenson.
>
>
> Yes, the big-picture numbers do not lie. The "terminus point" regarding
> U.S. debt has already been reached - and exceeded.
>
> What the author does NOT include in his analysis is that once beyond
> this "tipping point" of indebtedness, this implies national default
> as an eventual outcome - and likely sooner than later.
On Jul 07 04:16 PM Pstoneki wrote:
> Which of your taxes have gone up due the new administration? Can
> you be specific with your statement?
On Jul 07 03:02 PM bricki wrote:
> I too hope future generations reject the mad materialism of the past
> few decades.
>
> However I think that demographics isn't as favorable a factor as
> you might think. Retirees will soon realize that being dead and bankrupt
> is no different from being dead and solvent and will not feel constrained
> in their borrowing.
>
> The gen x cohort that echos the baby boom is the second largest generation
> in the history of the US, and is just entering their prime consumer
> years.
>
> And of course the final driving factor behind consume until the economy
> drops, modern marketing and advertising is becoming more sophisticated
> with time. Today's young adults are well brain-washed by modern media.
>
>
> On Jul 07 02:45 PM Fred Voetsch wrote:
On Jul 07 04:08 PM DONE_SONZ wrote:
> In a fiat monetary system, there is no restrain on the amount of
> money that can be created. This allows unlimited credit creation.
> Initially, a rapid growth in the availability of credit is often
> mistaken for economic growth, as spending and business profits grow
> and frequently there is a rapid growth in equity prices. In the long
> run, however, the economy tends to suffer much more by the following
> contraction than it gained from the expansion in credit. This expansion
> in credit can be seen in the Debt/GDP ratio.
"WE must do this... or WE should have done that... WE should change our plans... WE should promote this or that energy plan..."
Everyone is enamored of central planning. Even putative advocates of free markets use the collective WE to promote what always turn out to be coercive government policies, which inevitably cater to special interests and make the problems worse.
I think I will take whatever actions I can to convince people to start pushing for the abolition of coercive government. All other solutions merely shift the burdens from one group to another. Only a fool could fail to see that as government has grown progressively larger the problems have grown along with it. There is a solution suggested in this fact. "We" have nothing to lose but our chains.
"WE must do this... or WE should have done that... WE should change our plans... WE should promote this or that energy plan..."
Everyone is enamored of central planning. Even putative advocates of free markets use the collective WE to promote what always turn out to be coercive government policies, which inevitably cater to special interests and make the problems worse.
I think I will take whatever actions I can to convince people to start pushing for the abolition of coercive government. All other solutions merely shift the burdens from one group to another. Only a fool could fail to see that as government has grown progressively larger the problems have grown along with it. There is a solution suggested in this fact. "We" have nothing to lose but our chains.
On Jul 07 04:25 PM Pstoneki wrote:
> I am confused by the 'Drill Baby, Drill' folks who seem to think
> that the miniscule amount of oil the US has that has not been drilled
> will at all ease oil prices, especially on the short term. I keep
> hearing that they think that injecting the oil into our local, national
> market will have an impact on prices. I don't believe it will because
> no matter what it is still a global oil market and the prices are
> set at that level. If their argument was directed at oil security
> it would be more valid. Only up to a point, however. We just don't
> have enough economically available oil to make much of a difference.
>
>
> On the ideological side, do we really need to destroy every spot
> on the map in an endless lust for oil? Aren't we a rich enough country
> to draw a line and leave some of this beautiful country in a pristine
> state? Once the oil is pumped, the dollars frittered away, we are
> left with a huge mess. It's not worth it.
On Jul 07 05:19 PM robert.b.ferguson wrote:
> Pstoneki: Greetings. Perhaps I can enlighten you. First our reserves
> of quality crude are at least as large as those controled by the
> Saudis. We also have supplements like huge coal and natural gas reserves.
> However they are still fossile fules finite and dirty. We wouldn't
> control prices by local consumption but by puting it on the world
> market or pulling it from the world market as necessary. IE.. when
> the OPEC cartell cuts production to raise the price or punish us
> (remember the embargo in the 70s) we put more on the market and stabilize
> the price. Much as releasing crude from the strategic reserve has
> been done in the past on a larger scale. Blunt force to be sure but
> effective nonetheless. That could be translated into leverage over
> thier economies as well seeing as thiers is pretty much a one trick
> poney. We now have the technology to drill cleanly and eficiently
> avoiding the huge mess you speak of. Many people used the same arguments
> to forstall contruction of the first Alaska pipeline and the Virginia
> pipeline but things worked out. The wildlife returned when the construction
> crews left and don't seem to mind. I'm all for developing alternatives
> as quickly as possible and own shares in several green energy companies.
> However I'm not in favor of cutting off our nose to spite our face.
> If the government wants to subsidize clean enrgy instead of fossile
> fuel I'm all for that too. I just think that the market can better
> determine what fuels are most eficient and alocate resources better
> than ideologs in washington. Artificial attempts to change our behavior
> like the cap and trade climate bill will do tremedous damage to our
> nation at all levels. That is why I call it the knee cap our trade
> tax initiative because it will drive our current energy jobs abroad
> and make doing business more expensive. By the way I don't currently
> own any fossile fuel shares to uncertain. I'm also not in favor of
> having utility companies controlling my home appliences with a "smart
> grid" I can do that myself and I'm paying the bill. Get the government
> out of busines to the extent that they can be left out. Sensible
> regulation with sound financial rationale is necessary and desirable
> social engineering is not.
I am not sold on Big Oil's ability to cleanly drill in wilderness areas. Sure - some of the animals return. A caribou here, a moose there, and an occasional musk ox does not make it no impact. There were a lot more animals before the drilling, pumping, leaking, noise, vibrations, blocked migration routes, workers with rifles and haul road trucks, etc. While I supported the Prudhoe Bay development, and still do, I don't support expanding any production outside the oil reserve. ANWR is sacred and not worth trading for a paltry sum of money that is quickly frittered away.
On Jul 07 05:19 PM robert.b.ferguson wrote:
> Pstoneki: Greetings. Perhaps I can enlighten you. First our reserves
> of quality crude are at least as large as those controled by the
> Saudis. We also have supplements like huge coal and natural gas reserves.
> However they are still fossile fules finite and dirty. We wouldn't
> control prices by local consumption but by puting it on the world
> market or pulling it from the world market as necessary. IE.. when
> the OPEC cartell cuts production to raise the price or punish us
> (remember the embargo in the 70s) we put more on the market and stabilize
> the price. Much as releasing crude from the strategic reserve has
> been done in the past on a larger scale. Blunt force to be sure but
> effective nonetheless. That could be translated into leverage over
> thier economies as well seeing as thiers is pretty much a one trick
> poney. We now have the technology to drill cleanly and eficiently
> avoiding the huge mess you speak of. Many people used the same arguments
> to forstall contruction of the first Alaska pipeline and the Virginia
> pipeline but things worked out. The wildlife returned when the construction
> crews left and don't seem to mind. I'm all for developing alternatives
> as quickly as possible and own shares in several green energy companies.
> However I'm not in favor of cutting off our nose to spite our face.
> If the government wants to subsidize clean enrgy instead of fossile
> fuel I'm all for that too. I just think that the market can better
> determine what fuels are most eficient and alocate resources better
> than ideologs in washington. Artificial attempts to change our behavior
> like the cap and trade climate bill will do tremedous damage to our
> nation at all levels. That is why I call it the knee cap our trade
> tax initiative because it will drive our current energy jobs abroad
> and make doing business more expensive. By the way I don't currently
> own any fossile fuel shares to uncertain. I'm also not in favor of
> having utility companies controlling my home appliences with a "smart
> grid" I can do that myself and I'm paying the bill. Get the government
> out of busines to the extent that they can be left out. Sensible
> regulation with sound financial rationale is necessary and desirable
> social engineering is not.
Unfortunately this has turned into a foobar due to some ill-advised actions by the current administration.
www.world-nuclear-news...
/WR_Bill_to_liquidate_...
On Jul 07 03:09 PM User 357705 wrote:
> Just one teeny tiny little problem with nuclear power. The waste
> is very deadly and has a half life of 25000 years. The cost of removing,
> transporting and especially storing this waste cannot be calculated
> and is borne by the taxpayer not the for profit energy company.<br/>
www.theonion.com/conte...
On Jul 07 05:54 PM bricki wrote:
> All operating US nuclear plants contribute to a decommissioning /
> waste disposal trust fund. This fund is currently running a $30 billion
> surplus, waiting for the US to approve a disposal site that will
> house both military and commercial high level nuclear waste.
>
> Unfortunately this has turned into a foobar due to some ill-advised
> actions by the current administration.
>
> www.world-nuclear-news...
>
> /WR_Bill_to_liquidate_...
On Jul 07 04:31 PM User 357705 wrote:
> With single payer health care she'd have been able to keep all the
> money from your father. She'd have gotten first class health care
> and a business bureaucrat wouldn't have had to give her permission.
>
On Jul 07 06:19 PM robert.b.ferguson wrote:
> What are you modeling this on? Can you name a single country with
> government single payer health care that does not have a rationing
> body to go with it? Can you name one where it even works in the best
> interests of all it's citizens?
On Jul 07 05:42 PM Pstoneki wrote:
> I'd like to see the numbers on this reserves. Are they for discovered
> or anticipated oil reserves? Based on my on-the-ground experience
> in Alaska, Utah, Wyoming, and Ohio, if there was actually oil in
> the ground the oil companies would be fighting to drill for it. They
> do not seem to be fighting for much. In fact, in Alaska they are
> letting thier leases go vacant rather than acting on them because
> their anticipated reserves (test wells) did not bear out as actual
> oil. The Prudhoe Bay fields are also decreasing in production.<br/>
>
> I am not sold on Big Oil's ability to cleanly drill in wilderness
> areas. Sure - some of the animals return. A caribou here, a moose
> there, and an occasional musk ox does not make it no impact. There
> were a lot more animals before the drilling, pumping, leaking, noise,
> vibrations, blocked migration routes, workers with rifles and haul
> road trucks, etc. While I supported the Prudhoe Bay development,
> and still do, I don't support expanding any production outside the
> oil reserve. ANWR is sacred and not worth trading for a paltry sum
> of money that is quickly frittered away.
On Jul 07 06:27 PM User 357705 wrote:
> One? Only one? France. I can name others. The names of those countries
> probably won't make you as angry.
* "The first socialist country in world" Soviet Union has collapsed and disappear. The new Russia has moved from a central-planning to somewhat free-market economy.
* 30-35 years ago, Communist China was a terribly backward and impoverished 3rd-world country without any future. Communist China also has moved from a central-planning to free-market economy. Now, communist China is an economic superpower. Their success came from abandoning socialist dogma, hard work, saving, investing, and free-market economy.
* At the same time, the USA moved from the most prosperous and richest country in world with a free-market economy to the greatest world debtor with somewhat central planning economy. The history did not teach the USA nothing with the FED trying to play "a central-planning agency." As a result, the USA economy is in shambles with American standards of living going down incredibly fast.
These are the facts. American political and economic elite has lost sense of reality. It is intellectually bankrupt and terribly corrupt. The present American reality is almost identical to the Soviet Union situation just prior to its collapse.
Well, the USA will not disappear but it will be a very much different country with a new Constitution.
On Jul 07 05:38 PM User 357705 wrote:
> So, you're in favor of the gov't manipulating the commodities markets?
> Oh, so you really are in favor of gov't interference in the markets
> and therefore business! Very interesting!
On Jul 07 06:42 PM nmelendez wrote:
> Just buy China and India.
On Jul 07 06:38 PM robert.b.ferguson wrote:
> I stated in a previous post that one Federal government function
> is to create an international environment condusive to economic growth
> as best they can and another is providing for the common defense.
> Keeping our energy supplies cheap and available is consistant with
> those items don't you think?.
Have you been to a Dr or clinic or hospital in France? Thailand? China? Try Bumrungrad Hospital in Bangkok once and you'll never go to a hospital in US again.
On Jul 07 06:33 PM robert.b.ferguson wrote:
> I'm not angry at all. Is that why rich french people come to the
> U.S. for specialized cancer treatments?
For example, I agree with your assertion on housing in CA, but you don't give any reason other than a gut feel for why this is so. Also, your assertion about a "requirement" for $.50 gas is just silly. I'm young enough that I haven't seen $.50 gas in my entire lifetime, and our economy has managed unprecedented growth since 1980.
"Permanently smaller" is also useless without any type of quantification. Are you talking about zero growth? 1% GDP declines for eternity? 10%? I think there is merit in the points you're trying to make, but they just sound silly without more insight into HOW you got from point A to B.
UK, Canada, France, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, on and on and on.
The US is, as far as I can tell, the only major industrialized nation with health care run by insurance companies and drug manufacturers.
On Jul 07 06:33 PM robert.b.ferguson wrote:
> I'm not angry at all. Is that why rich french people come to the
> U.S. for specialized cancer treatments?
On Jul 07 06:00 AM User 353732 wrote:
> Soon the American voters(not the people as a whole) will be forced
> to make a choice they have , so far, refused to make: a permanently
> larger and corrupt Govt and a shackled economy that produces far
> below its potential or a much smaller , more transparent and reformed
> Govt and a regenerated economy that produces wealth and income at
> a rate noticeably higher than population growth.
> Essentially, it is choice between the new world and the old world,
> oligarchy and democracy, the smothering of the American Dream for
> 75 to 80% of Americans or for the renewal and restoration of the
> American Dream for all who really want it.
> In refusing ,so far, to choose, we have indeed chosen to elevate
> entitlements over obligations, consumption over production, penalties
> over incentives and delusion over reality. We have convinced ourselves
> that we are exempt from the laws of economics and even of nature.
>
> There was nothing inevitable or fated about America's great and inspiring
> rise over the past 100 years or even its improbable and remarkable
> birth. It was a result of hard choices made and ideals honored with
> sacrifice and perseverance.
> There is nothing inevitable about America's decline and fall either.
> It is happening because of choices made( actively or by default)
> and ideals casually or wilfully dishonored.
> There is certainly time yet to recall and renew what made America
> exceptional, great and inspiring but there is not much time. In a
> few years the window will close and we will not be able to count
> on either the kindness of strangers or our legacy to rescue us.<br/>
>
> American elites tell the people no choices need be made since all
> is under (their) control and all will be well.
> The first decision for the American voters, then, is to stop believing
> or being intimidated by the self annointed and self perpetuating
> elites. In that decision is also the choice between renewed freedom
> , prosperity and national security or a growing and irreversible
> serfdom.
On Jul 07 06:00 AM User 353732 wrote:
> Soon the American voters(not the people as a whole) will be forced
> to make a choice they have , so far, refused to make: a permanently
> larger and corrupt Govt and a shackled economy that produces far
> below its potential or a much smaller , more transparent and reformed
> Govt and a regenerated economy that produces wealth and income at
> a rate noticeably higher than population growth.
> Essentially, it is choice between the new world and the old world,
> oligarchy and democracy, the smothering of the American Dream for
> 75 to 80% of Americans or for the renewal and restoration of the
> American Dream for all who really want it.
> In refusing ,so far, to choose, we have indeed chosen to elevate
> entitlements over obligations, consumption over production, penalties
> over incentives and delusion over reality. We have convinced ourselves
> that we are exempt from the laws of economics and even of nature.
>
> There was nothing inevitable or fated about America's great and inspiring
> rise over the past 100 years or even its improbable and remarkable
> birth. It was a result of hard choices made and ideals honored with
> sacrifice and perseverance.
> There is nothing inevitable about America's decline and fall either.
> It is happening because of choices made( actively or by default)
> and ideals casually or wilfully dishonored.
> There is certainly time yet to recall and renew what made America
> exceptional, great and inspiring but there is not much time. In a
> few years the window will close and we will not be able to count
> on either the kindness of strangers or our legacy to rescue us.<br/>
>
> American elites tell the people no choices need be made since all
> is under (their) control and all will be well.
> The first decision for the American voters, then, is to stop believing
> or being intimidated by the self annointed and self perpetuating
> elites. In that decision is also the choice between renewed freedom
> , prosperity and national security or a growing and irreversible
> serfdom.
My statement that several new Saudi Arabia's worth of oil would need to be discovered and developed to maintain supplies at current levels even if at much higher prices, and that the needed investment just is not happening is not my contention, but that of the IEA.
Very expensive and scarce oil shortly is now built in.
Another correspondent wrote:
'Just one teeny tiny little problem with nuclear power. The waste is very deadly and has a half life of 25000 years. The cost of removing, transporting and especially storing this waste cannot be calculated and is borne by the taxpayer not the for profit energy company.'
Nuclear technology does not need to be static, in fact the type of light water reactors that ended up being built were chosen mainly because they are good at producing weapon's grade materials, not because they were very good at producing energy.
With appropriate designs the 'waste' from current reactors and the weapons program can be used as valuable fuel.
In addition plentiful thorium can be used, and burnt 100-300 times as efficiently as in current reactors.
This is not a distant vision like fusion, but is based on an actual demonstrator reactor which ran in the US in the late 60's at Oak Ridge.
Here is more information on this technology:
www.energyfromthorium.com/
- China has a $7T economy with 1.1B people ($6K/pp)
- US has a $10T economy with 0.3B people ($33K/pp)
- As the world globalizes, the distinctions between living in US and China erode.
- Now ask yourself what happens if the world globalizes and everyone makes the same average salary? (Possibly, a "fair and just" result!)
- Well, together we have a $17T economy with 1.4B people. ($12K/pp)
- Which means Chinese incomes will double, but US incomes will come down by 65%.
- Which means, the US economy will drop from $10T to $3.6T
Will the world *really* average out? Not anytime soon; the US has a decided natural resource, human resource and infrastructure advantage. And the world economy will grow over time as the Chinese make investments. But seen in this context, a prediction of "zero-growth" in the United States must be considered highly optimistic!
We have heard from the Gloom Brigade many times before-- when I was in college, everyone was reading the Club of Rome's report "The Limits to Growth" (1972). They made all the predictions you make, and and forty years later, they're still wrong.
Have we passed "peak autos"? I certainly hope so. We're also past "peak horse and carriages", "peak muskets", and "peak schooners".
The US economy is adjusting. Our problems today have today with the remarkable productive power of our economy: When in history has a nation collapsed because it produced too much food and too much housing?
clear Waste.
On Jul 08 05:59 AM Davewmart wrote:
> A reply to a couple of the points made in this very long thread:
>
> My statement that several new Saudi Arabia's worth of oil would need
> to be discovered and developed to maintain supplies at current levels
> even if at much higher prices, and that the needed investment just
> is not happening is not my contention, but that of the IEA.
> Very expensive and scarce oil shortly is now built in.
>
> Another correspondent wrote:
> 'Just one teeny tiny little problem with nuclear power. The waste
> is very deadly and has a half life of 25000 years. The cost of removing,
> transporting and especially storing this waste cannot be calculated
> and is borne by the taxpayer not the for profit energy company.'
>
>
> Nuclear technology does not need to be static, in fact the type of
> light water reactors that ended up being built were chosen mainly
> because they are good at producing weapon's grade materials, not
> because they were very good at producing energy.
> With appropriate designs the 'waste' from current reactors and the
> weapons program can be used as valuable fuel.
> In addition plentiful thorium can be used, and burnt 100-300 times
> as efficiently as in current reactors.
> This is not a distant vision like fusion, but is based on an actual
> demonstrator reactor which ran in the US in the late 60's at Oak
> Ridge.
> Here is more information on this technology:
> www.energyfromthorium.com/
On Jul 07 11:46 PM upgrayed wrote:
> What's our obsession with growth about anyway. Why not say we've
> hit a comfortable living standard, lets just sustain it. In that
> context we can hit our individual goals through aggressive savings
> rather than unrealistic, bubble driven stock market and real estate
> returns.
On Jul 07 05:03 AM Moon Kil Woong wrote:
> Government often misallocate resources and bet on technologies and
> ideas that at the time seem rational but wind up being obsolete by
> the time they are applied. That is why it is best for the government
> to take the back seat and let the free market determine what is most
> rational and expedient. While we finance biofuels it is possible
> that a hydrogen economy overtakes them. While we praise corn based
> ethanol which increases scarity in food and is not competitive with
> oil it is possible that seweed or other biolfuels are much better.
>
>
> Mass transport is useful and rational especially people residing
> in higher density cities. The fact we don't invest more on creating
> and maintaining them is sad. There is no reason for our mass transport
> to look worse than third world countries.
>
> I agree with the author that we are looking at a smaller economy
> not because the US is incapable of growing and developing into the
> next phase of economic prosperity but because our government is dead
> set on trying to preserve the old structure at whatever inefficient
> cost it may take. We need a better health care system, a better trasportation
> system, more efficient fuels, and more competitive high speed communications
> systems (Internet especially). Asia has surpassed the US in all of
> these things aside from a rational replacement for gas (they don't
> need it as much because they have mass transportation, denser housing,
> and more fuel efficient cars).
>
> We need to get on the fast track to actually being competitive rather
> than listening to politicians gripe about how great we are all day.
> We are less efficient every day government disincintivises the promising
> while rewarding the obsolete to remain. creative destruction is the
> only path to permanent prosperity. The sooner we face it the better
> off we will be.
"It’s a scene not uncommon throughout California, as residential construction grinds to a halt under the dual weight of the credit crunch and the housing crisis: a rusty chain the only barrier between the community and a half-built structure in Hollywood; a bare dirt lot in Pasadena; old stoves amid the trash at the site in Oakland.
Nearly 250 residential developments with a combined total of 9,389 houses and condominiums have been halted in California, according to research firm Hanley Wood Market Intelligence. The units, worth close to $3.5 billion, were in various stages of development."
It is truly heartbreaking. Lawmakers should take aggressive steps to stop further damage to the state's economy.
Read more www.housingnewslive.co...
www.housingnewslive.co...
Further, I sense that you fail to appreciate a good pool hustle when you see one, to say nothing of how much you underestimate the people The United States. You sound as if you may have been one of the learned commentators who wrote articles in the late 1980’s embodying a line of reasoning that went “Will Japan Accomplish Economically What They Failed Militarily?” Once Japan had all of their money (and their watch) in the game, we pulled out our three-piece custom-made pool cue and ran the table. They fell down into the dirt, and have not gotten up since. We let them do us wrong once, and helped them get up afterwards. We Learn. Perhaps you advised emperor Hirohito that bombing Pearl Harbor was a safe proposition. Surely you participated in informed dialogues informing us what a terrible threat he Soviet Union was. Maybe you joined Jimmy Carter in the late 70’s, put on a sweater, and told us to go quietly into the dark. Was it you who advised King George that the foolish colonist could be quickly put down. You sir, have been wrong for over two hundred years, and you still are.
We are in a world economic war. An economic war is fought very much like a pool hustle: Look stupid, look inept, until all of the money is on the table. We are neither. An economic war is a war of wits, and to paraphrase Gordon Liddy “In war of wits, our opponents are not even armed.”
On Jul 07 10:43 AM Yohei wrote:
> The exponentially increasing trend of the ratio of increase in debt
> divided by the increase in GDP has been in place for a long time.
> This exponential curve expressed as dollars of debt divided by dollars
> of increased GDP has been in place since the 1950's
>
> The curve continues to form the right hand side of an upwards opening
> parabola. The curve is now very steep and looks like a standard market
> blowoff pattern. In the political sense dealing with this is currently
> impossible. As with any market this price (in terms of credit increase)
> cannot go to infinity. One suspects that the current incredible rate
> of increase in debt generation (governmental debt, to be sure) will
> not prove to be rapid enough to keep GDP from falling; that is, it
> is no longer possible, no matter what is done, to increase debt rapidly
> enough to create the perception of economic growth.
>
> As Mr. MacDonald puts it, "I call this the hidden terminus. The crossover
> point where resources were harder to attain, but, the techniques
> of the economy kept advancing (to some extent masking the underlying
> countertrend in resources). It now seems likely the United States
> reached this point in the year 2000."
>
> Looking at the new credit divided by new GDP ratio over time, I think
> that the year 2000 is too late a date. 1964 is more like it because
> 1964 is where one first sees a permanent conscious negative real
> interest rate Fed and Treasury policy. Except for the Volker era
> a negative real interest rate policy has been the rule.
On Jul 07 03:09 PM User 357705 wrote:
> Just one teeny tiny little problem with nuclear power. The waste
> is very deadly and has a half life of 25000 years. The cost of removing,
> transporting and especially storing this waste cannot be calculated
> and is borne by the taxpayer not the for profit energy company.<br/>
IT and new energy such as solar and wind is where it's at. Conservation of energy too. Improve busing mass transit (and parking facilities at busing terminals) in the suburbs, which is pathetic in most cases here out West.
On Jul 07 09:03 AM dixie wrote:
> Discard the present costly "stimulus" focused on the public sector.
>
>
> Instead, cut the corporate tax rate by 50% for two years and eliminate
> all capital gains taxes for the same period. We must jump-start
> innovation and investment.
On Jul 07 06:33 PM robert.b.ferguson wrote:
> I'm not angry at all. Is that why rich french people come to the
> U.S. for specialized cancer treatments?
The internet has accelerated a leveling of the global standard of living.
BRIC goes up, the West goes down.
On Jul 08 08:22 AM Boston BizGuy wrote:
> You can come to a similar conclusion by a different path:
> - China has a $7T economy with 1.1B people ($6K/pp)
> - US has a $10T economy with 0.3B people ($33K/pp)
> - As the world globalizes, the distinctions between living in US
> and China erode.
> - Now ask yourself what happens if the world globalizes and everyone
> makes the same average salary? (Possibly, a "fair and just" result!)
>
> - Well, together we have a $17T economy with 1.4B people. ($12K/pp)
>
> - Which means Chinese incomes will double, but US incomes will come
> down by 65%.
> - Which means, the US economy will drop from $10T to $3.6T
>
> Will the world *really* average out? Not anytime soon; the US has
> a decided natural resource, human resource and infrastructure advantage.
> And the world economy will grow over time as the Chinese make investments.
> But seen in this context, a prediction of "zero-growth" in the United
> States must be considered highly optimistic!
>
>
>
>
On Jul 07 04:56 PM User 357705 wrote:
> Er, it wasn't the gov't who thought they were the smartest it was
> the banksters.