NumbersGuy's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/3034/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/174710-a123-systems-looks-headed-back-to-ipo-price?source=feed#comment-773444 773444 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:22:12 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/165026-is-there-really-a-global-cabal-aiming-to-dump-the-dollar?source=feed#comment-706145 706145
They don't just dump the dollar, but the oil countries can slowly wean themselves (probably they're driving it as much as the Chinese) and Chinese can still use all their dollars to buy oil in the medium term as well. ]]> Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:10:57 -0400
They don't just dump the dollar, but the oil countries can slowly wean themselves (probably they're driving it as much as the Chinese) and Chinese can still use all their dollars to buy oil in the medium term as well. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/163141-the-energy-efficiency-paradox?source=feed#comment-689209 689209
I don't have the hard data in front of me, but California has had hard efficiency standards for 30 years. The argument that they haven't decreased energy use is solid, but the energy per capita use is much lower in California than the rest of the US and they have, as a result, avoided building power plants they would otherwise have needed. ]]> Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:48:13 -0400
I don't have the hard data in front of me, but California has had hard efficiency standards for 30 years. The argument that they haven't decreased energy use is solid, but the energy per capita use is much lower in California than the rest of the US and they have, as a result, avoided building power plants they would otherwise have needed. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145929-obama-s-energy-bill-a-recipe-for-economic-destruction?source=feed#comment-566808 566808
In any event, there is a cost to the energy bill. I'm not going to deny that. But I'm not going to deny climate change science either. There is a clear risk of potentially catastrophic problems that society as a whole will face if we don't start to grapple with these issues. The Energy Bill is an attempt to start doing that. (If you're going to tell me that it's all a "hoax" then we can stop here. There's way more than enough objective scientific data to make it clear that a real quantifiable risk exists.)

On another note, blaming California's budget crisis on its energy policies doesn't fly. Blame it on a combination of a polarized legislative process and fiscal irresponsibilty. Energy costs, while higher in CA certainly, have little, if anything to do, with the State's fiscal crisis.

CA uses energy more efficiently than any state in the country. Higher costs have resulted in more efficiency and, on the down side, the loss of some energy intensive industries. But their early move into alternative energy has created an industry and a lot of investment in new businesses. Overall, I would argue it's a positive.

Yes, the Energy Bill will result in some "Economic Destruction", but have we forgotten Schumpeter? Creative Destruction is necessary in any vibrant economy. WM pushes the energy sector in a direction that it must eventually pursue, unless you are OK with the increasingly clear risk of a major shift in global climate. We can follow the rest of the world or we can try to take the lead (a little late for that frankly). It will be disruptive and costly to some, but an economic opportunity for others.

The US has always been blessed with an open economy that manages through these painful transitions relatively quickly, thanks to reasonable levels of labor mobility and capital markets that have been fairly adept at redirecting capital to new opportunities. Hopefully those strengths will help us through this next transition...]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:50:44 -0400
In any event, there is a cost to the energy bill. I'm not going to deny that. But I'm not going to deny climate change science either. There is a clear risk of potentially catastrophic problems that society as a whole will face if we don't start to grapple with these issues. The Energy Bill is an attempt to start doing that. (If you're going to tell me that it's all a "hoax" then we can stop here. There's way more than enough objective scientific data to make it clear that a real quantifiable risk exists.)

On another note, blaming California's budget crisis on its energy policies doesn't fly. Blame it on a combination of a polarized legislative process and fiscal irresponsibilty. Energy costs, while higher in CA certainly, have little, if anything to do, with the State's fiscal crisis.

CA uses energy more efficiently than any state in the country. Higher costs have resulted in more efficiency and, on the down side, the loss of some energy intensive industries. But their early move into alternative energy has created an industry and a lot of investment in new businesses. Overall, I would argue it's a positive.

Yes, the Energy Bill will result in some "Economic Destruction", but have we forgotten Schumpeter? Creative Destruction is necessary in any vibrant economy. WM pushes the energy sector in a direction that it must eventually pursue, unless you are OK with the increasingly clear risk of a major shift in global climate. We can follow the rest of the world or we can try to take the lead (a little late for that frankly). It will be disruptive and costly to some, but an economic opportunity for others.

The US has always been blessed with an open economy that manages through these painful transitions relatively quickly, thanks to reasonable levels of labor mobility and capital markets that have been fairly adept at redirecting capital to new opportunities. Hopefully those strengths will help us through this next transition...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/135265-california-more-than-just-economic-problems-plus-some-potential-solutions?source=feed#comment-490168 490168
I saw some data in a presentation a few weeks back about applications in the state for renewable energy installations. Now it was only applications and clearly not all of the projects that are applied for will ever get built. But in total, it looked like all those applications amounted to a very significant percentage of total peak load energy. I thought it was near 50%. I'd love to see that data again and hope you can find it and incorporate it into some of your future work. ]]> Tue, 05 May 2009 10:36:07 -0400
I saw some data in a presentation a few weeks back about applications in the state for renewable energy installations. Now it was only applications and clearly not all of the projects that are applied for will ever get built. But in total, it looked like all those applications amounted to a very significant percentage of total peak load energy. I thought it was near 50%. I'd love to see that data again and hope you can find it and incorporate it into some of your future work. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106332-the-pickens-plan-changes-its-strategy?source=feed#comment-307754 307754 Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:55:18 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/101058-oil-bull-market-on-hold-demand-should-keep-growing?source=feed#comment-287696 287696 Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:40:28 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/99808-latin-american-selloff-offers-investment-bargains?source=feed#comment-282790 282790 Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:11:59 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/96166-marc-andreessen-on-financial-crises-no-ipos-and-obama?source=feed#comment-258807 258807
A little preventative medicine (some sane market regulation) could have gone a long way to preventing a major illness later on. ]]> Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:27:12 -0400
A little preventative medicine (some sane market regulation) could have gone a long way to preventing a major illness later on. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/79461-is-the-peak-oil-theory-valid?source=feed#comment-176732 176732
I've heard a lot of arguments against the Peak Oil theory - and your argument that there are reserves out that we're not touching isn't totally unreasonable, though you don't address the increased cost of getting to those reserves. I believe we could get at them, but probably not fast enough to make up for the dropping supply from other sources. (OK maybe if we had started earlier...)

But drop your first argument - that's just ludicrous. ]]> Fri, 30 May 2008 11:19:06 -0400
I've heard a lot of arguments against the Peak Oil theory - and your argument that there are reserves out that we're not touching isn't totally unreasonable, though you don't address the increased cost of getting to those reserves. I believe we could get at them, but probably not fast enough to make up for the dropping supply from other sources. (OK maybe if we had started earlier...)

But drop your first argument - that's just ludicrous. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/76456-food-and-fuel-brazil-breaks-new-records?source=feed#comment-164784 164784
To do a full economic analysis of that problem, we would first need to determine how much rain forest is being destroyed to make room for new crops. Then you have to determine how much carbon is lost, net, as a result of that deforestation and, assuming you believe the market cost of carbon, factor that into the analysis.

Many would argue (with some reason at this point) that the carbon market doesn't really reflect the reality of the climate change problem. In that case you can at least assess whether biofuels are helping alleviate or are making worst that problem.

But, in the end, I guess that's a separate question and doesn't really effect the fuels or food debate. ]]> Fri, 09 May 2008 10:17:24 -0400
To do a full economic analysis of that problem, we would first need to determine how much rain forest is being destroyed to make room for new crops. Then you have to determine how much carbon is lost, net, as a result of that deforestation and, assuming you believe the market cost of carbon, factor that into the analysis.

Many would argue (with some reason at this point) that the carbon market doesn't really reflect the reality of the climate change problem. In that case you can at least assess whether biofuels are helping alleviate or are making worst that problem.

But, in the end, I guess that's a separate question and doesn't really effect the fuels or food debate. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/74051-china-clean-energy-halts-biodiesel-production?source=feed#comment-156436 156436 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:59:59 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/72524-why-bush-doesn-t-like-cap-and-trade?source=feed#comment-152207 152207
I could also talk about Peak Oil and point out that we need to wean our economy from oil for that reason. But that could lead to a counter productive argument as well.

So let's ust look at oil prices as they are today. Are they jumping because the dollar has risen or because Peak Oil is upon us and demand for oil continues to grow from Asia and other developing areas? Probably it's all three of those things and it doesn't matter really, because the prices are what they are.

So what are we going to do about it? We need to use energy more efficiently or the economy will be brought to its knees. How do we make that happen? A Cap and Trade System or an Energy Tax seem to be the two ideas on the table right now. We need to do that to remain competitive regardless of what you think about climate change or peak oil. That's a fact on the ground that we must deal with.

I prefer a tax as it's more "efficient" but that might not be politically feasible. So cap and trade is likely part of our future. Either works for me because it incentivizes people and businesses to use energy more efficiently which saves money and makes us more competitive. And that's a good thing, right? No matter what you think of the politics?]]> Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:54:45 -0400
I could also talk about Peak Oil and point out that we need to wean our economy from oil for that reason. But that could lead to a counter productive argument as well.

So let's ust look at oil prices as they are today. Are they jumping because the dollar has risen or because Peak Oil is upon us and demand for oil continues to grow from Asia and other developing areas? Probably it's all three of those things and it doesn't matter really, because the prices are what they are.

So what are we going to do about it? We need to use energy more efficiently or the economy will be brought to its knees. How do we make that happen? A Cap and Trade System or an Energy Tax seem to be the two ideas on the table right now. We need to do that to remain competitive regardless of what you think about climate change or peak oil. That's a fact on the ground that we must deal with.

I prefer a tax as it's more "efficient" but that might not be politically feasible. So cap and trade is likely part of our future. Either works for me because it incentivizes people and businesses to use energy more efficiently which saves money and makes us more competitive. And that's a good thing, right? No matter what you think of the politics?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/72432-telecom-argentina-may-benefit-from-mature-cellular-market?source=feed#comment-151747 151747 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:40:10 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/71802-it-s-now-official-ethanol-is-a-scam?source=feed#comment-148153 148153
(I guess the problem to a large extent is that we have Sunilsixpack and Xaiosixpack competing with Joe for hamburgers, but that's another point.)
]]> Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:42:42 -0400
(I guess the problem to a large extent is that we have Sunilsixpack and Xaiosixpack competing with Joe for hamburgers, but that's another point.)
]]>