Lane_Olafson

Total Rating:
0 / 0

4 Comments

    • Fri Aug 1st 16:52 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Don't Bet Against Chinese Demand Growth Just Yet
      Eric - I think the article will be subscription protected, but I can tell you that it was in the January 3rd issue of the Economist this year, and the article was called "An Old Chinese Myth". the article pointed out that exports fell peak to trough in 2000-01 by 35% while the effect on overall growth was about 1%, and it also defined China's "true export share" at around 10% of overall GDP.

      KenK - I sent seekingalpha a note about the incorrect symbol. They put in the symbols, i didn't have anything to do with that.
      View article »
    • Sun Apr 13th 10:19 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Arch Coal Highlights Its Sector's Potential
      I'd be interested in knowing how the longer term supply / demand for coal line up. Is coal going to be in deficit for 1 year, 2 years, more?
      View article »
    • Mon Mar 24th 22:37 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Agriculture: A Tale of Human Development
      raman and real grit - I personally think POT is going to go much higher. It is the largest position I have by far. I plan to write-up POT on seekingalpha shortly, because the mis-pricing in the stock, IMO, is ridiculous. Earnings estimates of POT have consistently been based on potash prices that do not reflect the current and future supply / demand. The absolute lack of supply, and the virtual inelasticity of demand make the analyst estimates of $300/t potash unrealistic, just as it was unrealistic last summer when analysts were telling us all that POT was expensive but using $150/t potash to justify the claim.
      View article »
    • Mon Mar 17th 21:39 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The New Pillars of Inflation
      Eric hart – the only reason I didn’t mention oil stocks is because I don’t own any at the moment. I did make a point of putting Suncor (SU) on the list of ‘relevant stocks.

      FinHatch – I appreciate the comment but don’t think this argument is very similar to the Club of Rome argument at all.

      First of all, I am suggesting that population is going to be one of the shortages, not that population growth is going to cause shortages.

      Second, this is not a Malthusian argument. I would recommend reading my last article to understand what I believe is occurring today in the developing world. The process of economic development that is taking place in China, India, and elsewhere is sustainable, and it is bringing a middle class lifestyle to billions of people who, up until recently, had been living at levels only marginally above subsistence. This means unprecedented demand for metal, oil and higher protein foods. And that will continue to put upward pressure on the available resources. I have no doubt there will be new technology and substitution. There will have to be, because the prices of raw materials brought on by this degree of development will require it.

      Finally, I would point out that the Club of Rome made a speculation about what might happen. This argument is based on what IS happening, right now.
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»