Seeking Alpha

Neil_Anderson

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Neil_Anderson's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Tesla: Mr. Musk's Wild Ride At Your Expense [View article]
    To Craig Pirrong
    Fr a conservative

    C'mon Craig, the "heads I win, tails you lose" description is the same description one would use for anyloan to anyone from anyone. Your complaint is that our wonderful government made the loan, right?

    Well, didn't we the people make some interest? Isn't that socializing the gains? Why didn't you mention that? Oh, oh, oh you've been sheltered in state supported schools so long that you can't think straight. I suppose that you would not have made the loan to Tesla in the first place, given your comments.

    Good call! Because there's obviously no social benefit other than the interest earned, the cars produced, the jobs filled, the technology advanced, the shake-up in the car industry, and the ever-more-probable possibility that we might succeed at diversifiing our energy sources. Glad we have someone like you to set us straight. Thanks Dude!

    Hey are you available to run the country?

    ======================...
    Please forgive my outburst and lack of respect. Please let me restart:

    Well, c'mon Mr. Pirrong, who else besides good ole Uncle Sam was going to make the loan back in the day when banks weren't lending? Are banks lending now?

    And whom else did Uncle Sam provide loans, bailouts and handouts to? Tesla's competitors, right? Even the Big Oil got $10 billion.

    Now I aint saying such things are good things, I just think that the people you should be raggin' at are your elected representatives.

    Tell you what, if you feel that bad about the $7,500 subsidy, I will personally reimburse you for each of the 20,000 Model S will cost the average US taxpayer. Let's see 20,000 x $7,5000 / 150,000 workers =
    $1

    Feel better?

    ======================...
    Sorry, I couldn't help it. Let me try again. Please?


    Dear Professor Pirrong, When you analyze Tesla's profits and discover that, wow, they're barely profitable on their own without subsidies, well, Um, don't you find that kinda amazing to have any profit at all on sales of just 3 or 4 thousand cars?

    Then you admit that the ZEV credit -subsidies which are keeping Tesla alive are coming out of the pockets of Ford, GM, etc..

    But then you say:
    << "I sure hope you are enjoying Mr. Musk’s Wild Ride at your expense. Your enjoyment being completely vicarious, of course, except for the paying for it part. That’s something you experience personally." >>

    Listen up Professor Doofus, you yourself said that the ZEV credits are paid by shareholders of FORD, GM, etc. And the $7,500 is paid for by the rich folk because, as you should already know, the top 20% of earners pay 80% of the taxes.

    So, why is this an issue? Are you defending the rich?

    ======================...

    << Tesla and Musk are neck deep in a relationship with Goldman-Sachs (http://bit.ly/qLHYPs), aka Government Sachs. Think that it’s just maybe possible that Goldman will deploy its notorious political heft to keep the rain of government manna going? >>
    ---> Doofus, hasn't anyone mentioned yet that TESLA's stock is up, up, up, up?? They don't need no stinkin' government money. And neither does Goldman Sacs. Good grief.
    ----> We'd all be more grateful if you had started from a position in reality and amazed us with a forecast of some sort of crash in Tesla stock ... there are plenty of reasons this could happen (technology, service, quality, competiton, etc.). but like many others here, you picked the low hanging fruit ... which was, as you might surmise, ripely rancid and worm-ridden.
    ---> You talk about crony captialism but you don;t even mention that Goldman Sacs is here today because they got $8 billion from AIG during Crisis thanks to Timothy who is one of their own. And Paulson. Good grief. Wouldn't that be a bit more interesting -- what would have happened to Tesla if Geightner had a backbone and refused to give all $8 billion to Goldman Sacs. May be Tesla would never have been founded.

    ======================...

    GO BACK TO SCHOOL, and preferably not a state-supported school.

    -Neil

    PS -- Oh, wait a minute, if you aint one of the rich folk, I aint sending you that $1. I'll just send you the average amount taken from us poor folk via subsidies for the 20,000 Tesla Model S produced this year:
    = 20 cents. Sorry dude. Please send an address and I'll send you the two dimes at the same time so you can rub 'em together.

    :)
    May 22 05:56 PM | 34 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Default Has Already Begun [View article]
    Clear and concise. But a little too fast on the draw to blame the Republicans. Seems to me there is plenty of blame to share.
    Oct 15 01:29 AM | 33 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Debt Issue Is Rubbish [View article]
    To Arne Alsin

    I have to disagree widely:

    << ... $16.7 trillion in debt. It's really $12 trillion ... the result of interagency loans. Agency with surplus lends to agency with deficit. >>
    -----> I've never seen anyone explain how or why the interagency loans are "an accounting fiction" ... and that's important to me because I would love to believe it.
    -----> Wikipedia reports Social Security (SS) ran surpluses for 26 years, starting in 1983, ending in 2009. In 2007, Uncle Sam owed SS a total of $2.2 trillion.
    -----> Without the annual SS surplus in each of those 26 years, Uncle Sam would have had to raise that money from somewhere else - either more borrowing or higher taxes.
    -----> So, if SS had reduced payroll taxes by $2.2 trillion during those 26 years and Uncle Sam had raised taxes by $2.2 trillion during those 26 years, then today SS would have no surplus monies, and Uncle Sam would "undeniably" owe $14.2 trillion without question, according to your $12 trillion being undisputed and adding $2.2 trillion to it. Remember, that's just SS.
    -----> Do the same thing with all the other interagency surpluses and Uncle Sam would have an "undeniable" debt of $16.7 trillion (of which you call $4.7 trillion fictional) and the agencies would have no surplus.
    -----> Finally, if the agencies had no surplus monies today (i.e., that $4.7 trillion), they would have to rely on Uncle Sam to pay the benefits that they owe to the US taxpayers. Wait a second, that's exactly where they are today, right now, because Uncle Sam does indeed have to give those agencies $4.7 trillion (and more) so they can fund those present and future benefits. Uncle Sam has to raise that money via higher taxes, or borrowing. So, the $16.7 trillion is the "real" number and your $12 trillion is the fiction.
    ------> It would be highly appreciated if you or anyone else could point out my errors and/or prove that the $4.7 trillion is indeed fictional. I'm willing to give good odds that it cannot be done. Go ahead, prove me wrong, take my money ... and watch me smile with true delight.


    << Allocate $12 trillion of debt to 314 million Americans and it's $38,000 each. >>
    -----> Think again: in any given year, there are children and elderly who really don't shoulder the debt. And about half the working populace don't earn enough money to pay much in taxes. So, take the $52,000 (not the erroneously calculated $38,000) and multiply roughly by 4 to get a more reasonable "average burden" per taxpayer.
    -----> Personal debt for credit cards, cars and house mortgages are all personal choices, but Uncle Sam thrusts a debt upon the populace as a surprise. Sure, Uncle Sam doesn't have much choice sometimes, but a bad surprise is a bad surprise that you do have to live with.
    -----> Conservatives like to keep spare powder dry. In other words, there ought to be some concern right now that since our Debt roughly doubled in 6 years and our economy is now barely performing, then if we had another Crisis or War, our economy might have grave difficulty functioning. Right now we don't seem to have much spare powder and if no one gives that "a second thought" then we could see the dual experiments in self-government and free enterprise go down as a short footnote in history. May be "the historians" are right: may be every great "empire" does eventually fall.


    << The average American has $239,000 in net assets. >>
    -----> I imagine that $239,000 is highly dependent on the stock market being quite lofty so, it's important to realize that if the manure hits the fan, the economy stumbles and wealth takes a hit. But right now, because everything is so rosy, we should have no worries, right?


    << The six-to-one asset to debt ratio ... >>
    -----> I presume you're ignoring personal debts for credit cards, cars, houses, etc.

    .
    << The facts: Debt costs us less today than it did during the Reagan years. Because of lower rates, interest on the debt costs us 1.4% of GDP versus 3% of GDP under Reagan. >>
    ------> You're crowing about a situation that appears quite temporary: QE has reduced interest rates a lot, QE cannot go on forever (because it is becoming widely recognized both inside and outside the Fed as toxic to the economy) and the Federal Debt has shorter maturities now than in Reagan's era, so it'll be re-borrowed at higher rates quite quickly
    -----> Hopefully, the economy will not falter much when QE is tapered and ended. Hopefully, the economy will improve, return to something nearly normal ... rates will probably rise, the cost of the debt will quickly rise. But, read below about a potential stumbling block as the boomers come of (old-)age.


    << By next year, the cost of our debt will be even lower, as low as it was in the 60's. Like I said, not a shred of evidence showing a strain. >>
    -----> You're still crowing about a situation that appears quite temporary: The Congressional Budget Office projects significantly increased government spending for entitlements for the aged starting in 2015, and increasing year-after-year-after-... (beyond the time horizon of the CBO projections) as the boomer retire. Increased Federal spending is expected to significantly increase the budget deficit and there probably won't be any QE to lower rates.
    -----> And what about tax rates now compared to Reagan's time? That may have a bearing on whether or not our economy is at risk. Not a shred of evidence of strain from what, QE's low rates? How can you hang your hat on that?


    << Debt cuts both ways. Everybody knows this: When things are bad, debt magnifies the bad. A shrinking economy makes debt worse. The flip side doesn't get equal billing: When things are good, debt magnifies the good. A growing economy grows faster and bigger with debt leverage. >>
    ------> Debt magnifies the good? You're jumping at conclusions as explained further below
    ------> BTW, what *really* doesn't get any billing is the risk that "too-high Debt" creates a stumbling block to the economy that prevents it from gaining enough strength to shoulder the (too-high) Debt. There is a limit to how high Debt can safely go, after all, if there were no maximum to how high the Debt can safely be, (as Paul Krugman implies when he says "No need to worry; we owe it to ourselves"), then why bother taxing the taxpayers at all, when we can just balloon the Debt to the Moon? The so-called "Maximum Safe Debt" depends mainly on the strength of the economy, but no one knows what the "safe" limit is, and it certainly should vary with economic conditions. It's like looking for a land-mine using nothing but your feet. You'll definitely know when you find it, but not before being sorry about finding it.


    << Get the picture? Debt expands the economic pie. It allows us to do much more. The average American homeowner enjoys more wealth (twice the home, same amount of capital) using a modest amount of debt leverage. >>
    ------> "Risk-taking" is what expands the economic pie, and "risk taking" is financed by both debt and equity. You're forgetting that the boost to the "economy pie" today is literally due to future spending being brought into the present. And that's creates the risk of a harder down-turn as you have indirectly alluded to.


    << Government takes advantage of debt leverage too. During the Reagan administration, for example, public debt tripled, from $900 billion to $2.8 trillion, and it led to a fabulous period of growth. As I recall, the debt guilt trip was prominent in the media even back then; we were ruining the future for our children, seniors were taking too much in the form of entitlements. With 20/20 hindsight, it's fair to say we were underleveraged before Reagan (and GDP growth was stagnant), a situation he corrected with increased debt leverage to 50% of GDP. >>
    -----> You cannot draw the conclusions you have drawn because you don't know how much better-off we might (or might not) be today if we had been more conservative in earlier eras.
    -----> Yea! Everything worked out okay ... but that's because Reaganomics, being based on "Supply-Side Economics", correctly accounted for the way people respond to incentives, not Debt alone.
    -----> By borrowing more, taxes could be reduced in the Reagan era. A lower tax rate encouraged more production. More production lead to higher profits, more investment, more hiring, lower prices, lower inflation, lower interest rates and higher tax revenues. And wasn't this at the same time when Paul Volker was literally choking the economy by contracting the money supply to kill inflationary expectations?
    -----> Attributing all the "goodness" of the Reagan years to simply "utilizing debt" is rather shallow. There's more to it than that. One of many supply-side theories is that if you can find the tax rate that the populace wants to be taxed at, that rate will maximize the economy's performance, apparently because the populace is happy. And the first step is to figure out what the Laffer Curve looks like under current conditions. There is such a thing has having too much Debt. Thankfully, we've not hit that level yet though we have a tough future ahead.


    << What ratio of debt to GDP optimizes economic growth? >>
    ------> The optimal level of Debt depends on a large number of factors, but the answer starts with figuring out what the Laffer Curve looks like under current economic conditions.


    << In the wake of World War II, our debt zoomed to 120% of GDP. How did we get the ratio back in balance? Economic growth. The economy doubled in just ten years. >>
    -----> The post war boom was an economic miracle that surprised the Keynesian economists who had the ear of most politicians. Economic "growth" occurred after the removal of war-time price controls. Anything that doubles in 10 years is growing at an average annual rate of 7.2%. There was a lot of euphoria and rebuildng to do. Sure the Debt went up to 120% of GDP, but that really proves nothing because the debt incurred during WWII was a "do or die" situation. Oh, perhaps we're always in a "do or die" situation


    << History shows we get lousy economic growth when we don't take advantage of debt leverage. Debt as a percent of GDP averaged 35% during the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations, and growth was poor.>>
    -----> Again, you are forgetting that there was something very wrong with the mix of monetary and fiscal policies under Nixon, Ford and Carter which was advocated by the rampant Keynesianism of the day. Loose monetary policy was supposed to lead to lower interest rates and more investment, more consumption and growth, while tight fiscal policy (high marginal rates) was supposed to prevent inflation: we were supposed to have a boom with little or no inflation. Yet, no one could explain why the exact opposite (no growth and high inflation, i.e. stag-flation) resulted instead. The answer was provided by Robert Mundell, who explained that high taxes discouraged production. Less production led to both lower profits and fewer goods being chased by more money (inflation), less investment, less hiring, less tax revenues, etc etc.
    -----> So it's just plain wrong to conclude that the "low Debt to GDP" of the Nixon, Ford and Carter years was to blame for lackluster economic performance. The low level of Debt might have been a great benefit, offsetting a bit of the backward policy mix successfully promoted by elitist Keynesian economists.
    Oct 14 12:48 AM | 16 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Tesla Had To Repay Its DOE Loan [View article]
    I'm a Musketeer, but I see value in John Peterson's work.

    There's no reason to fault John for sounding a warning, especially when he clearly explains why he is alarmed.

    What he says is hard to hear for some ears, and though it may not be the "death-knell" of TSLA, it is more-often-not-not simply irrefutable. (I have tried unsuccesssfully to refute him more than once.)

    He's doing all TSLA investors a favor. Each of his articles remind me that there is hugely positive public setiment about EVs (which is surely much to John's consternation).

    And that leads to the surprise that no other EV company has tapped into that extremely favorable public sentiment. Seems obvious that a publicly-traded competitor would benefit the EV industry ... and hurt TSLA's high-flying stock price.

    Surely, Tesla will have a competitor someday.

    Surely, he who laughs last, laughs best.
    Sep 1 09:26 PM | 15 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Motors' Full Analysis 2.0 [View article]
    To Logical Thought

    Who ever is trying to force you to buy a Tesla is despicable, no one should ever be forced to buy a car, whether it is an EV or an ICE.

    Kudos to you for standing up for your rights.

    (In other words, for those who do not recognize sarcasm:
    Logical Thought, what are you griping about? No body is forcing you to buy an EV and yet you're trying to kill that alternative for all others.)
    Jul 3 11:35 AM | 15 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 2 Most Powerful Forces Pushing The Stock Market Higher [View article]
    To Bobbobwhite

    "The common man gets nearly nothing from a rising stock market provided by these two actions. QE...the closest thing to a free gov't loan possible, and massive and purposeful company stock buybacks that mostly benefit insider stockholders with opulently generous options."

    What you seem to be complaining about are two separate things:

    1.) the slow recovery. Do you have a better plan than what the Fed and Congress have tried to implement? Unfortunately, we all have the right to complain about what the Banksters did to the economy, not just you.

    2.) the pampered executives of major companies. If you want to speak out against that, you ought to become a stockholder, otherwise it's not your business.

    The inequitable distribution of wealth and income has been discussed since the 1750's, and today most of us realize that there will always be poor people, and there will always be unfairness, but all of us are living much better than our forefathers did 100 years ago.
    Jun 10 01:06 PM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Tesla Is Grossly Overvalued, Even If Everything Goes Terrifically [View article]
    To Logical Thought

    " ... he actually borrowed $150 million from Goldman collateralized by his existing TSLA shares, used $100 million of THAT money to buy the shares and then actually took $50 million in cash OUT of the last offering."

    Well, you have to wonder if at least one of the parties (Goldman Sacs) had a $150 million worth of faith in the shares collateralized.

    And that leads one to wonder if Goldman has any further recourse beyond the collaterized shares.

    And that leads one to wonder if there is anything left beyond the collaterized shares.

    Musk is going to be the world's first Tr-Trillionaire ... or the world's first broke billionaire. Heck, at this rate he might even hit both of those titles.
    Jul 14 07:25 AM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Can Tesla Reach 500,000 In Vehicle Sales Or Is Dougherty & Co. Overly Optimistic? [View article]
    To Odysseus

    << no company wants to cannibalize their own business >>

    The only thing worse than cannibalizing your own business
    is watching someone else do it.
    Jul 31 06:46 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
    To Randy Carlson

    "A movable kWh is worth twice as much as a kWh tied to a wall plug."

    I wish I had said that. Forgive me for taking the liberty of piling on your insights with the following:

    The issue of "embedded energy" has been around for decades. It's nothing new, just an worn-out rant that the sky is falling. Has anyone ever calculated energy embedded in each gasoline-engine?

    Admittedly, environmentalists do have a point that the embedded energy (embedded in all fuels, batteries, motors and engines) is an important issue in environmentalism. But any economist will tell you that even though our markets are distorted with subsidies of various forms, the "invisible hand of the market" is still the best way to allocate scarce resources, whether it be energy or materials. The market considers all costs of battery production (including environmental costs of pollution). The embedded energy in each battery is just one of many costs. The invisible hand of the market may not be perfect, but it is the best mechanism we have ever had.

    In other words -
    You have to break a few eggs (sacrifice a low value asset, such as oil or coal energy),
    .... to make an omelette (a high value asset, such as a battery providing mobility to electric-energy)

    Furthermore -
    A gallon of gasoline has about 36.11 kWh of energy and US consumers gladly pay $3.50 per gallon (which is roughly 9.6 cents / kWh), even though 80% of the gasoline is wasted in the engine.

    Therefore -
    Many US consumers are willing to consider using grid energy (which costs about 10 cents / kWh) in a battery&motor system that wastes only about 10%, even though the battery is so expensive and capacity is so small.

    Conclusion -
    Most of us are aware batteries do have certain weaknesses, limits or drawbacks, but this issue of embedded cost is not a good argument against batteries. At least, not yet.
    Mar 11 03:31 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How To Survive A Secular Stagnation [View article]
    To Jescamillo

    You're berating the man who is usually the smartest guy in any room, any where.

    Your solution sounds good on paper - confident, aggressive and simple. What could possibly go wrong? Well, grabbing the world's oil and lowering it's price has obvious consequences rendering it foolhardy. Putin will quickly see the folly of your proposal, and realize it's myriad opportunities.

    Reduce the price of Oil, and soon enough world Oil demand will increase and the consumption rate will surpass the production rate, resulting in shortages. Putin might even be a buyer of cheap oil, even if Putin is sitting on a mountain of Oil.

    When shortages occur he'll have three choices:
    1.) Sell some oil & gas to alleviate bottlenecks and become a world "Hero"
    2.) Gas up his Army and Air-Force, and take over Europe.
    3.) Both of the above

    Wars will be fought with petroleum fuel far into the future when the highly credible threat of "mutually assured annihiliation" shields Putin from any nuclear response. Putin is more like Napolean, than he is Sadam Hussein.

    Do not underestimate President Vladimir Putin.
    Also, do not underestimate Lawrence J. Kramer.
    Aug 28 07:04 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: The Short Of The Decade? [View article]
    To cparmerlee

    << I don't know. Doesn't look "exponential" to me. >>
    << Do yo understand what the word "Exponential" means? >>

    No ma'am, you're the one who misunderstands the definition of "exponential"

    If sales double in 9 years, is that exponential?
    Yup, and it's a 8% average growth rate per year.

    If sales double in 8 years, is that exponential?
    Yup, and it's a 9% average growth rate per year.

    << And even with that imaginary forecast, that is only a doubling of revenues, not exponential growth. >>
    --> IF sales doubled every week, that would be exponential growth.
    --> IF sales doubled every 100 years, that would be exponential growth.

    << It most certainly does not mean a slowing of sales, which is what you have if sales reach $3 Bn in 2014. >>
    --> No ma'am, that's clearly NOT a slowing of sales, that's simply the slowing of a growth rate that you ought to be bashing as unsustainable.
    --> and you ought to be bashing it as evidence that the Model S has reached the point of "market saturation." Did you miss that?

    2011 - $204M (actual)
    2012 - $413M (actual) = 102% increase over previous year
    2013 - $2,000M (actual) = 384% increase over previous year
    2014 - $3,000M (forecasted) = 50% increase over previous year

    --> No one promised increases in sales to be smooth and predictable.
    --> No one promised Tesla would maintain this high level of Model S sales.
    --> That's why new model X and 3 are being planned. Tesla is still in it's "proof of concept" stage -- proving that people will accept all the headaches inherent in an electric car (hopefully because the advantages outweigh the headaches for many drivers, but certainly not all) and recommend one to their friends.

    Finding fault inthe accounting, operations or personnel of any company and advertising it, is a service to all investors. But running any company, or starting a new company will always be a risky venture, and it's not fair to increase that risk by promulgating faulty logic or half-truths, especially when doing so benefits a put or short position.
    Aug 20 06:26 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Residential PV Solar More Trouble Than It's Worth? [View article]
    To John Petersen

    The highest voltage current is used to send electricty long distances, like from one grid to another, to minimize heat loss. Power generation stations are distributed throughout the grid, they are not centrally located as you seemto think.

    Power surges are always possible, even without tiny producers like the excess electricity produced by a residential PV system.

    A power surge due to a felled tree (knocking-out a subdivision which automatically sends huge amounts of power to neighboring subdivisions) is a much bigger risk than one due to excess electricity from a couple PV homeowners in that subdivision.

    You seem to think that PV systems "blink on and off" all at the same time. But they don't, not unless you're talking about a sunset, and evena sunset takes about an hour to "roll" through a time zone, which is roughly how big a grid is.

    Yes, PV systems are intermittent, yes they can produce problems for the grid operators, but you're over-selling the problem because there are larger risks to the system from other more exotic factors, such as high winds, and thunder-storms.

    PV systems create a miniscule amount of excess power. To be significant, you need to add together lots of miniscule producers, and that takes a lot of geographic area.

    Yes, it is unadulterated, but no, its not nonsense.
    Jun 27 02:58 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • In Summary, The Tesla Model S Is A Dirty Car [View article]
    To Nathan Weiss

    << Guys, its easy. If the Model S pollutes more than other ICE vehicles and you are charging it with a solar panel, if you stop using your Model S and buy a more efficient ICE, allowing your solar power to be sold to the grid - offsetting electricity production elsewhere, you cut your total CO2 emissions. I can run through the math if you need... >>

    FIRST: FAULTY LOGIC
    Your logic is clearly circular. You have assumed that which you think you have proven. You start with the assumption that Model S is a high-polluter, then you conclude that by buying a Prius you've cut your CO2. Well, umm, that's because of your assumption. You have proved nothing.

    Let me try again, just to be clear: You assumed the Model S is the high polluter, and then (wow) concluded that the Prius is the lower-polluter. gee, that was easy, just like you said ... and you didn't even need to meniton the clean solar power that you've given to the grid. Wait aminute, shouldn't that be to the EV owner's benefit?

    Now let's talk more about that solar-power issue

    SECOND: PROFIT FORGONE
    If you sell your solar power to the grid, you should only get the wholesale price. (You might get more if local laws so specify, but that's not true in every market, and is surely just a temporary feature.) And of course, you'll lose a bit in transmission.

    If you use the solar power to charge your Tesla, there's less transmission loss, and you can pay (or save) yourself the retail price of the electricity by putting it into your car (or a cheap & efficient storage battery made by Axion).

    So, the solar panel produces power which is absolutely clean, right? And you advise what? To sell at wholesale (to the grid) rather than sell at retail (to yourself)? Ae you saying that the grid has a better use for the clean power than the EV owner does?


    THIRD: MORE FAULTY LOGIC
    The CO2 issue begs the question "What assumptions you are starting with?" If you are basing "the math" on the marginal grid CO2 per kWh, then you're making a mistake -- probably because you have been mislead.

    If you care to read the analysis published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, you will find they disagree with you, probably due to the fact that they (correctly) based their math on the averge grid pollutants rather than the marginal.

    Can you refute their analysis yourself, or do you rely on a link to an instablog of the half-truths and faulty logic promulgated by someone here at SA who has ignored many who pointed out his shortsightedness? If it is the latter, then I would say this:

    His logic is faulty as it suffers from a violation of ceteris paribus, the most common mistake made in any economic analysis ... a rookie mistake.

    If it is the former, then please forgive my insolence and educate this fool.
    May 13 04:08 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Today's Jobs Report And The Cult Of Central Banking: Counting Angels On The Head Of A Pin While Main Street Flounders [View article]
    To Macro Investor

    << Clear proof we must sell everything right now, Neil >>
    -->What good would that do?

    << and that Austerians are right. Europe has to balance budgets and raise interest rates right now. >>
    --> No Sir, I'd say that Lord Keynes is the one who has been proven right. Lord Keynes always insisted on paying off the deficit-spending during the ensuing boom. He never advocated what "Modern Keynesians" advocate in his name, which is that the size of the Federal Debt doesn't matter because we owe it to ourselves. (And if that logic were airtight, why bother taxing anyone at all, ever?)
    --> You could just as (il)logically apply that specious logic to credit card debt and all other consumer borrowings, like this: "The size of the credit card debt doesn't matter because we owe it to ourselves." Funny how easily even noble laureates can forget the basics.
    --> If Keynes' disciples (who became the Modern Keynesians) had listened to his advice about paying off the deficit-spending in the ensuing boom, we'd have had a whole lot less Federal Debt years ago, no one would have opposed incurring more Debt, and we'd presumably be enjoying another boom right now, and paying off the deficit-spending.
    --> Some people are concerned that the Federal Debt was too high years ago, and other people (like Dr. Krugman) think "the size of the Federal Debt doesn't matter". But those people who think "the size of the Federal Debt doesn't matter" have never articulated any logical argument for why it doesn't matter now, nor "how big" is "too big" for the US economy.
    --> That's a pretty important argument, because it could have convinced a lot of naysayers to say yes (to more deficit spending) years ago, and lift expectations of market particpants at the same time. So, where's the logic?

    What do you think? Do you believe the size of the Debt doesn't matter, and if so, why?
    Sep 8 12:23 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • State Of Innovation In The Auto Industry And The Allure Of Tesla [View article]
    To Siddharth Dalal

    I'm surprised you didn't mention what it means for Tesla to be "disruptive", you know, creating new ways for car manufacturers to compete against one another, and thereby heating up competition and innovation, possibly to a point never seen before in the industry
    Sep 30 04:38 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
1,603 Comments
1,109 Likes