Seeking Alpha

Is the U.S. better off than four years ago? When it comes to energy, Duke Energy (DUK) CEO Jim...

Is the U.S. better off than four years ago? When it comes to energy, Duke Energy (DUK) CEO Jim Rogers says yes: "Are we better off in terms of efficiency? We see per-home usage of electricity declining… We [have had] two license[s] for nuclear plants issued. We have abundant supply of natural gas at low prices... [In] the various ways to generate electricity, we’re better off today."
Comments (58)
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Declining use? We're too broke to pay! We had to sell all the expensive electronics to pay the food bill! Well, not really, but it follows from the first line.
    4 Sep 2012, 12:04 PM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (1655) | Send Message
     
    Just try to permit a new high efficiency power plant in the Northeast. It will take you years and lots of bucks to get through the regulatory process. The FERC and EPA have nearly disconnected from playing any moderate role in the reliability process. Not better for most of the industry people I know.
    4 Sep 2012, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • Rousseau SC
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    Is someone brown-nosing the Administration (for better treatment)?
    4 Sep 2012, 12:23 PM Reply Like
  • Stoploss
    , contributor
    Comments (1727) | Send Message
     
    He neglected to mention the energy costs for those who can still afford to pay have gone up 25%. He also forgot to mention that all the PUC's have been given the all clear from regulators to break contracts at any time and raise rates mid contract, but not nullifying the contract for the customer, er, victims.. Yes, much better off as long as your living in a cardboard box. Im sure there will be more and more "box cities" popping up in the next few years.
    4 Sep 2012, 12:25 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (586) | Send Message
     
    Well there you have it.... we are better off, so re-elect Obama so we can be even more better off... I mean really this is great - we love unemployment at above 8% and the yo-yo effect of the stock market because no one knows what the hell is going on.

     

    Extrapolating Rogers: per home electricity use will be zero and we can be living in caves... woohoo
    4 Sep 2012, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Don't play into the hands of the envirofascists, please?
    6 Sep 2012, 10:58 AM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    Declining electrical usage is not indicative of a higher standard of living. I assume he's speaking of the utilities and not their customers.
    4 Sep 2012, 01:33 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    I've made this point before:

     

    Do you know what your computer consumed 10 years ago? Wattage wise.

     

    Or your TV. Or better yet, how any pre-2000 refrigerator, boiler or hot water heater compares to anything modern?

     

    What the average SEER rating of an a/c was 10 years ago? Or how much wattage it consumed?

     

    I'll help, since well, I am making a point and want to continue....

     

    It's less. In some cases, 50% r more less.

     

    Efficiency is a big part of declining US energy consumption.

     

    Another large part of the picture is growth in solar, in particular by corporates. Part of that was encouraged and initiated under the Bush administration and carried on under the Obama adminstration (federal, state, county and utility level tax breaks, reverse metering regulation, etc etc)

     

    I guess that doesn't necessarily prove standards of living have risen, but I'd say it doesn't indicate they've fallen either.
    4 Sep 2012, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • Rousseau SC
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    Your comment is exactly on the money Poor Texan
    4 Sep 2012, 07:48 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    Yep, more journalistic malpractice, the question should have been, "Is the U.S. consumer better off . . . ?"

     

    Or even better, "Does the U.S. consumer get more energy for it's energy dollar than it did 4 years ago?"

     

    Of course, with gasoline 2+ times higher that is a big NO!
    4 Sep 2012, 02:05 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1510) | Send Message
     
    The public fired the GOP four years ago after their policies culminated in the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. Why, in the world would, the public ever consider hiring the GOP again? It's the same leadership that blew the global economy into shreds. Never again.
    4 Sep 2012, 03:38 PM Reply Like
  • Rousseau SC
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    The Republican policies resulted in the mortgage loan crisis? Resulted in n the recession caused by the big banks who put Obama in office, who gave Chris Dodd a "Friends of Angelo" loan? It was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who kept reassuring everyone that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were rock solid, no problems at all and did not need reform. You must be joking. The Democrats held majorities in both houses of Congress and stopped Bush's attmepts to reform Freddie and Fannie and they were led by Frank and Dodd.
    Obama himself supported extending Bush';s "cut taxes on the rich" tax cut and argued that it would be " a mistake" to raise taxes during a recession. Now, he sees it better politics to "flip-flop" on the issue because he is relying on his supporters forgetting his real positions, and listening empty-headed to his political trash talk.
    4 Sep 2012, 07:57 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1510) | Send Message
     
    Don't know much about history.....
    4 Sep 2012, 09:35 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Let's start by going back to the recent "beginning". Carter signed a purported anti-redlining bill in 1979. This bill required that banks make loans, mortgage loans, to people who, by the bank's reckoning, couldn't pay them back. BO, in his practice as a lawyer successfully sued a number of banks for people in such dire circumstances and of his 180-190 co-litigants, half have gone bankrupt since he got them their loan through that action. In the 90's it got more exciting as the Clinton administration ordered Fannie Mae to buy (all?) the questionable mortgage loans from US banks... actually it took place in two tranches, the second after his re-election. So, this let his banking sponsors off the hook (and freed up a lot of bank capital to make more loans; do you see the beginning of how the housing bubble was helped by the government early on?) while putting the taxpayer on the hook - because previously Fannie and Freddie were scrupulous about backing clean and payable loans.

     

    Then, you throw into the bag various things like securitising mortgages, begun by some bright fellows who found they could buy up a lot of sub-prime loans on the cheap and bundle them with a few good ones and moving average the risk to a point where they were saleable as "investment grade". Right.

     

    There's more to it than this, but it all started back with Mr. Carter who demanded that banks make loans that weren't going to be paid - and the government kept numbers to penalise them if they didn't make enough of those loans!

     

    it took a couple of decades, a cooperative Fed, and a number of self-interested congressmen to build the housing bubble that burst with the giant profit scam of the summer of 2008; but that is another story.

     

    This, by the way, is the same Jimmy Carter that, for reasons unknown to us or anyone of normal sense, ordered the French to release one crazy bird named Khomeni from house arrest in France; whereupon he got on a plane, flew to Iran, and began all the troubles we've had there ever since. Not that the Shah was in great shape, but Carter threw him under the bus rather than help him. Hmm. is it just democrat presidents that throw our allies under the bus? the current one just threw Israel there... another discussion.

     

    So, it wasn't the Bush administration that built the housing bubble, but you have to delve a bit because the parties are not real sincere about all this transparency thing, you know?
    6 Sep 2012, 11:14 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for giving us the Fox News version nyuszika.

     

    A lot of us in the actual industry have a different opinion.
    6 Sep 2012, 12:35 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Actually, kmi, that was from memory from any source but a network during the summer and autumn of 2008, as well as memory of strange legislation in the US while we were (further) overseas. Derision is a practice best left to those who have no information, only opinions.
    6 Sep 2012, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    Yes, its pretty clear your opinion of what led to the housing bust is entirely influenced by your political angle and very bad recollection.

     

    Perhaps reading some books on what was going on would help refresh your memory and clear your mind?
    6 Sep 2012, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "A lot of us in the actual industry have a different opinion."

     

    Informed by none other than the democratic propaganda machine.

     

    The facts are easily researchable and these seem pretty clear to most who care to read them. One thing to keep in mind is that what the legislation says and what it does has always been two completely different things. While the "Community Investment Act of 1977" seems to any fair minded person as good common sense, (I mean who can complain about using the same criteria for loans regardless of race), the problem was not the intent of the act but the impact of the endless lawsuits that forced the banks to just give in and reduce the standards for minority applicants.

     

    The problem was caused by how judges allowed the act to be subverted in implementation. But guess what, lawyers created the act and they knew full well what would happen, although they dare not tell anyone. This is just another liberal socialist Democratic policy implemented poorly and it gave us the financial crash of 2008.
    7 Sep 2012, 08:43 AM Reply Like
  • Rousseau SC
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    Actually, Hendershot, you appear to know nothing about history.
    7 Sep 2012, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    One can presume that Hendershot is a product of that good, DoE created and ideologued, public education system that began deteriorating as soon as Johnson put his guilty fingers on it.
    7 Sep 2012, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    Right Neil... how many loans, loan brokers, realtors, and banks have you interacted with in the last 20 years....

     

    I'll pass on your propaganda.
    7 Sep 2012, 12:14 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "Right Neil... how many loans, loan brokers, realtors, and banks have you interacted with in the last 20 years....

     

    I'll pass on your propaganda."

     

    It is a fact that banks were forced to give loans to people whom they knew could not pay them back. Just what do you think the impact of this policy was? A more stable banking system? Good investments by banks? Come on, I really want to understand how forcing banks to loan money to people whom they knew could not pay it back was good for the economy.
    7 Sep 2012, 05:15 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Neil, the statism is so embedded in today's youth that they'll never understand how free markets are supposed to function. Life for them is not possible without their partner, the government. The criminal fact is that they don't get enough real history to even know how life was before that bogey man over your shoulder was there.
    7 Sep 2012, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "Neil, the statism is so embedded in today's youth . . ."

     

    I think the better term is ignorance. A least there is a chance that they will understand what is meant then.
    8 Sep 2012, 10:23 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1510) | Send Message
     
    Well, I'm older than that. You two should read up on securitization.
    10 Sep 2012, 04:07 PM Reply Like
  • naya
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    Same old political rhetoric, this is a banking crisis it is not going away by changing political parties. It will be solved by defaults, deflation and monetary inflation. All of which is already happening. CG
    4 Sep 2012, 04:31 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1510) | Send Message
     
    The GOP's lament. To quote the late Sam Cooke....."don't know much about history, don't know much about biology, don't know much about a science book....."
    4 Sep 2012, 05:20 PM Reply Like
  • anonymous#12
    , contributor
    Comments (552) | Send Message
     
    Hendershott, republicans believe that Jesus rode dinosaurs in his time....

     

    Republicans don't believe on science, they believe on fairy tales....
    4 Sep 2012, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • Rousseau SC
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    anonymous# 12. I'd want to be anonymous also if I wrote such inane posts
    4 Sep 2012, 07:59 PM Reply Like
  • faustius
    , contributor
    Comments (463) | Send Message
     
    Ever hear of the Creation Museum? Of course to be fair, both major parties have their fair share of people who go in for this stuff.
    http://bit.ly/RjTbRN
    5 Sep 2012, 03:38 AM Reply Like
  • detto
    , contributor
    Comments (76) | Send Message
     
    The same guys who took a budget surplus converted into a deficit, destroyed the middle class with rampant speculation in housing that was evident in 2002. Bush said in 2004 that home ownership was a right, and that we needed to incentivize it to minorities. Then this same guys turned a blind eye to the rampant leverage in Wall Street while touting the "expertise of banks".

     

    The same guys who expanded the Medicare system at a $700B cost, iniated a war in Iraq that it cost was around $1.2T, the same guys who gave the rich a tax cut worth $1T.....
    4 Sep 2012, 06:51 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (586) | Send Message
     
    But we had jobs detto - economic ups and downs are part of life, its how you deal with them ... The current administration obviously doesn't know how to deal with them.

     

    Blame the GOP if you want for all the screw ups the Dems couldn't fix. Bottom line we will be sucking wind for the next four years again if we re-elect the same feeble minded people.

     

    And we are still fighting a useless war abroad. The big difference is that we are fighting one here at home now too. Current leadership is tearing us apart - look no further than SA. We talk in terms of GOP and Dems not issues... yeah this is nirvana.
    4 Sep 2012, 08:17 PM Reply Like
  • Eighthman
    , contributor
    Comments (213) | Send Message
     
    Today, the DNC removed "God" from being mentioned in their platform, along with support for Israel. Their leader seems to be an inept guy out of nowhere, with a sketchy past and no real ability - other than giving speeches. Oddly, they refuse to acknowledge this fairly obvious fact because of some sort of affirmative-action ethic. He seems to have no plan whatever - other than racking up more national debt.. oh, and taxpayer funding of abortion (DNC latest).

     

    Lewis Black said it best: The Republicans are the party of bad ideas and the Democrats are the party of no ideas.
    4 Sep 2012, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1510) | Send Message
     
    God should be part of a party's platform?
    4 Sep 2012, 09:58 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3529) | Send Message
     
    In God we Trust? Or Obama?
    4 Sep 2012, 11:46 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    I am absolutely not a religious person, never have been, but given a choice between people that generally want to do good (i.e. are religious) and democrats that want nothing but absolute power, free sex, free money and free groceries, I would chose those with religious beliefs any day. The downside risk is nothing compared to the non-religious don't believe in anything except self crowd.
    5 Sep 2012, 09:47 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1510) | Send Message
     
    You should read some Ayn Rand, the Guru of the GOP. Objectivism, the only reality is what you percieve and the only proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self interest. John Galt et al. The don't believe in anything except self crowd.
    5 Sep 2012, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (586) | Send Message
     
    Doesn't make sense Hender... Conservatives give away alot more money than Libs every single day of every year. Look at tax returns.

     

    The democratic party says they are together but in reality they all very similar to repubs - made of people that want the best for them and their families. Dems get their wealth from government / unions, Repubs get their wealth from the private sector.
    5 Sep 2012, 01:07 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1510) | Send Message
     
    Charitable contributions by political persuasion isn't something I could verify. As far as where the party members get their income, your assertion seems too simplistic, and again not something I could verify, but old Republicans collect social security and utilize Medicare just as old Democrats. Most unions do support the Democrats although the Republicans routinely court the labor vote, sometimes successfully. Law enforcement agencies often support Republican candidates at the local level and they are paid by the public sector. The real world isn't as simple as the theoretical. Personally, I think Rand was mistaken. I have the same problem with the Chicago school of economics that assumes everyone always acts solely in their own best economic interest.
    5 Sep 2012, 04:19 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Umm, it is the "science" of economics that believes the people act in their own economic interest, not the Chicago School, per se. Read Econ 101, please.
    6 Sep 2012, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1510) | Send Message
     
    Rational or behavioral economics? What is or what should be?
    6 Sep 2012, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    No, Hendershot, Keynesian or Austrian is the actual choice these days... and since Keynes was the darling of the Third Reish, those who don't appreciate the totalitarian approach to fascist economics (yes, it is an economic, not political condition, though misused by most everyone, particularly democrats) tend to prefer free markets and the Austrian school; free markets being largely a thing of the past in most centrally planned western countries. Got that?

     

    Sorry, I shouldn't be derisive; but your stumbling bum act is similarly annoying, particularly as your writing habits betrays your lack of knowledge to be that which is more indicative of political kool-aid than education.
    7 Sep 2012, 12:10 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1510) | Send Message
     
    Sorry, fascist economics isn't a theory I'm familiar with. Free markets exist where?
    9 Sep 2012, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Is this an intentional dumb act or are you really that poorly educated? Sorry, to not understand the actual meaning of fascism is beyond... beyond... well, it speaks well perhaps to the state of public education in the US these days. Sorry. I have not the time to run a second level econ course here.
    10 Sep 2012, 08:59 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1510) | Send Message
     
    Facism I understand. it's a nationalist ideology, it's not an economic model. Certainly not an ideology openly discussed or pursued. Was this a thread about economics or something else?
    10 Sep 2012, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Wrong. As I said, you don't know what you're writing about, only the indoctrination you got in school. I'm sorry you are not better educated. Get off the media and try real books.
    11 Sep 2012, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "Facism I understand. it's a nationalist ideology, it's not an economic model. "

     

    Not sure you do, since you misspelled the word "Fascism". If you can't spell it, how can you understand it?

     

    More importantly, Fascism implies a specific economic approach so it is clear to everyone what a Fascist economy is or strives to be. Nitpicking won't change the meaning.
    11 Sep 2012, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • Cliff Hilton
    , contributor
    Comments (1495) | Send Message
     
    Politics? Giving two presidents all the credit for the economy. Two parties credit for the economy. The rich the credit for the economy. The banks. Do something about your economy. There are a lot of people around the world "doing" something about their economy. You will not elect a better economy. You will have to do it yourself. There is none among us that can lead us around this mess. Let go though it...
    My home is 50% bigger than in 1978, my electric bill is more than 70% less. No president lowered my electric bill, you did. I did. Lets keep doing better and things will get better.
    4 Sep 2012, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (586) | Send Message
     
    wait wait - I was told I didn't build that.... sorry Cliff it just slipped.
    4 Sep 2012, 08:44 PM Reply Like
  • Rousseau SC
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    Exhibit # 1: Obama actually bragged that the USA used less imported oil. He forgot to mention that this was the result of tanking the economy.
    7 Sep 2012, 08:53 AM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Hey, his plan worked! Therefore, his plan was to extend the recession, make a stable 8% plus official unemployment (unofficial over 20%) rate, kill small businesses and the middle class and create a far more permanent underclass that was more former working people than state-subsidy sucking dependants. Hey! His plan worked! What you have is what he wanted to happen, just as the Fed and FDR worked their darndest to extend and expand the depression in the 30's; he's been successful. If you understand, he's telling the American public that they are getting what he planned for them. But nobody is actually listening and connecting the dots, as trained to let it wash over them on their plush sofas as they are. Too bad that so few people are actually listening.
    7 Sep 2012, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1510) | Send Message
     
    "Too bad so few people are actually listening" possibly because you are spewing nonsense.
    10 Sep 2012, 03:41 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Keep sucking tat Kool-Aid... you'll find, though, that it has not the nutritional requirements you may need in the camps.
    11 Sep 2012, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1510) | Send Message
     
    Camps?
    11 Sep 2012, 09:35 PM Reply Like
  • Rousseau SC
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    Why were tax cuts bad when Obama campaigned for President in 2008, good when Obama was President and wanted to extend them, and bad when his economic policyes have failed and he is again campaigning?
    9 Sep 2012, 05:19 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3992) | Send Message
     
    Long term memory fails for folks pretty readily but I'll explain why they happened to be 'good' when Obama wanted to extend them:

     

    After a couple of stimulus programs first under Bush then under Obama, there was a lot of intransigence is Congress/Senate, including from so-called 'Blue Dog' Democrats (who fancied themselves fiscal conservatives) in committing to a further round of stimulus even though it was pretty widely agreed on both sides of the aisle that it would likely be needed.

     

    With the Republicans digging in to get concessions from what was clearly a weak White House unable to get its own party members on board, Obama was unable to push any stimulus through.

     

    In the end he resorted to extending the tax cuts in lieu of stimulus, since that was pretty much his only option.

     

    The world today mostly agrees that stimulus and growth is the better option having watched and watching Europ'es efforts at austerity and debt reduction crash in flames, and it could be argued that the pro-growth stimulus programs under Bush/Obama are the reason the US isn't in as dire a predicament as much of Europe is.

     

    I'll also add that the election campaign for Obama started as an anti-war referendum on Bush junior and only ended up discussing the economy in the last 1-2 months before the actual votes were cast. At the time it was widely agreed that the tax cuts and the wars were bleeding the country dry even though the full effect hadn't hit.
    9 Sep 2012, 08:33 PM Reply Like
  • nyuszika45
    , contributor
    Comments (633) | Send Message
     
    Ah, another Kool-Aid button pusher... when I said nothing about tax cuts; merely that the current state of the economy and employment (>20%) reflects exactly what he meant when BO said that his plan worked, that's all. It is the implication of that bravado statement which people seem to be missing and no one seems to catch in that this mess, and it is still a mess, IS the result of his plan. This is the outcome he had in mind: four years of a gradually increasing economic morass with no end in sight, just like his hero, FDR, who pulled off an even longer "recession". If BO gets re-elected, I can't imagine where the next plateau, rather, bottomless pit might be when he completes his next success.
    10 Sep 2012, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • Rousseau SC
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    It appears that Obama's fiscal policy depends upon whether he is acting as President or acting as candidate.
    10 Sep 2012, 09:12 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|