Who would have ever thought that a POTUS today could outdo Jimmy Carter!
INFLATION--FED's cutting rates again...
- Thread starter Chop
- Start date
"You see Joe, if you tank the economy when you have high inflation, that will take people's minds off the inflation... Then if you bungle some foreign policy situation, that may take their minds off both the lousy economy and the high inflation. This playbook goes way back, Son."
"All" is a strong word. I don't think anybody wants to eliminate all fossil fuel energy production. However, there has definitely been a goal on the Left (even if we exclude West Mall people like you and Switzer who look Left here but would look like center-Right in Europe) to suppress existing energy infrastructure, because doing so accellerates the economic viability of green energy by making the cost of existing energy sources more expensive.
For example, the "Energiewende" plan in Germany is in full swing, and it's the transition that the Left celebrates. They're phasing out nuclear energy and making major efforts to prevent oil and natural gas exploration in their country, and all of it is designed to make renewables (especially wind and solar power) the cornerstone of their energy supply. On the surface, it's not a bad aspirational goal. It's a terrific goal. The problem is what they're willing to force to make that happen on the timeframe they seek and the refusal to consider some of the downsides and alternatives.
Are wind and solar really ready to make up for nuclear and fossil fuels? Of course not. If they were, Germany wouldn't have to resort to lignite coal of all things and a crapload of imported fossil fuels from Russia just to keep the lights on. The very fact that they have to do this should be a red flag. They should be tapping the brakes on this stuff, especially the nuclear energy phaseout. Getting rid of nuclear power right now is insane.
Here's the other thing that's not talked about enough. This **** is massively expensive - not just for governments but for consumers. I've posted my electric bill from Germany before. It would absolutely crush any middle class family and many upper middle class families they had to run central AC.
I'm also a bit skeptical of the wind/solar viability not just for the obvious problem of storing power to use when it's not sunny or windy but the land supply. Germany is absolutely covered in wind turbines and solar panels. They're everywhere, and it's kinda hard to imagine them taking that a whole lot further.
What I'd much rather see is governments and businesses invest in research of alternative energy sources especially nuclear fusion projects like this. Wind and solar have their place, but it's hard to see them as the cornerstone of energy production. Most of all, there's a time to phase out existing energy sources, but you don't do it before the alternative sources are truly ready to step in. When lightbulbs started coming into existence, we didn't ban or rig the price of candles to get people to buy lightbulbs. We shouldn't be doing it with current energy sources.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
If AOC and her ilk had their way the US would go the way of Germany. Fortunately more rational people, including the Biden Admin apparently, know that's not feasible nor prudent. Keep in mind that our energy production imports/exports are even under the Biden Admin. They have sold more drilling licenses so the inferences that they've closed shop to oil isn't support by the facts. Where the oil can be extracted from has shifted to protect national parks / protected lands.
Truthfully, we could throw caution to the wind and focus solely on as cheap as energy as possible. We'd screw the environment but boy would that cheap gas/electricity feel good. It would also be mortgaging the future of our children/grandchildren. Haven't we done that enough already with Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs? The least we can do is limit how much we **** over the planet to go along with the extreme debt load we'll leave them.
Higher energy prices to help nascent technologies like Wind/Solar. Then again, we still subsidize oil exploration to this day so the investments in these new technologies are offset by subsidies if you truly care about a level playing field. Of course, it's a gentle balance between higher energy prices and starving the economy and hitting the lower wage classes the most. What's is fair to develop these new technologies while carrying higher costs? Not sure anyone knows other than the current prices, especially with the recent spikes, we should all agree are treading in dangerous territory.
You know and I know that price at the pump is complicated. US supply will increase through natural market forces when the cost of global oil goes up. There is lots of speculation in the price that drive up the cost. Even before Russia invaded the simple threat that they might drove up the cost. The perception that the Biden Admin is "hostile" to fossil fuels industry is enough to drive up the cost. Environmental regulations add to the cost at the pump although insignificantly compared to other causes like the global price of crude (58% of the cost at the pump).
I do think Nuclear needs to be part of our future and not just because my eldest son will be joining that field upon graduation with his Chemical Eng degree shortly. Simply put, nothing should be off the table. Yes, we should be dialing back our use of Coal and other fossil fuels over time. "Drill baby drill" everywhere cannot be our mantra if we ever hope to extricate ourselves on the addiction of these dirtier energy sources.
California’s high fuel prices are partly because of taxes as well as regulatory programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Together, they added about $1.27 to the cost of a gallon of gas last month, according to a calculation by the Western States Petroleum Association.
About 40 percent of that cost comes from the state’s gasoline tax. California taxes fuel at 51.1 cents per gallon.
So regulation makes up for at least 13% of the cost. The hidden cost is how regulations hinder the actual exploration for oil, which lowers the supply, which raises the price of that oil. Therefore, regulation has a huge impact on the price of gasoline via less oil being extracted. It goes without saying that to stop extracting oil not only raises the price of gasoline via supply and demand, but significantly places your country in "no win" national security situations when the thugs of the world control your country's energy needs. How about OPEC acting as a cartel? Russia controlling much of Europe's energy? The U.S. being forced to beg Iran and Venezuela for oil? What does that cost us? We have to ignore the values that made this country great just to try and reduce the suffering of hundreds of millions of people that are spending more on gas than they ever imagined.
.......................................
Published Feb. 20, 2022Updated Feb. 22, 2022
WASHINGTON — The Biden administration is indefinitely freezing decisions about new federal oil and gas drilling as part of a legal brawl with Republican-led states that could significantly impact President Biden’s plans to tackle climate change.
The move, which came Saturday, was a response to a recent federal ruling that blocked the way the Biden administration was calculating the real cost of climate change, a figure that guides a range of government decisions, from pollution regulation to whether to permit new oil, gas or coal extraction on public lands and in federal waters.
How's the climate now?
Two things. First, since you brought up AOC, the Green New Deal is much more radical and expansive than the Energiewende. Second, the Green New Deal at least in principle has 104 cosponsors. It's more than just AOC and the Squad. It's about 47 percent of the caucus. It's not unreasonable to suspect something like the Energiewende could command a significantly bigger percentage.
They may know that, but with such a big piece of their caucus on board with something that goes much further, the Administration has to placate them to a point. He can't afford not to. Obviously, there's plenty of rhetoric, but there's policy as well. Obviously, @iatrogenic has brought up the indefinite freeze. However, this all started with a pretty aggressive Executive Order. Is he an AOC-style freak show on fossil fuels? No, but he's definitely not their ally.
Not closed shop but made the process harder and more expensive and threatened to go further? Yes.
There's a balance between doing this and disregarding the impact of going wildly in the other direction.
Yes, we have done it enough with entitlements and far more blatantly and far less speculatively than we have with anything related to fossil fuels. I wish Democrats would wake up on that rather than crapping their pants anytime someone talks about reform.
But I think you also have to keep other matters in mind. For starters, this is largely a Western ambition. To the extent that fossil fuels are hurting the environment, the developing world doesn't care. They're going to burn fossil fuel as much as they want, and until China and India reverse course on that, nobody's saving anything.
Second, if we unilaterally cut our own energy supplies too early, that doesn't even help, because we're still burning fossil fuels. For example, when Germany imports Russian oil and gas rather than burning their own or using their nuclear power, that's not helping. In fact, it's counterproductive and gives tremendous power to a dangerous regime.
I don't think you have to have higher energy prices to help nascent technologies. I think we can invest in them without rocking the boat so much on oil and gas exploration. The problem is that much of the environmental Left buys into an alarmist timeframe. To them, it's not enough to help those technologies. You have to punish the others to make the nascent technologies widespread quicker.
Yes, it is complicated. The Administration can make an impact, but it's not massive.
I guess it depends on what "Drill baby drill" means. If it means totally ignoring the environmental and national security implications of fossil fuels, then that's not a good policy. However, if it means allowing fossil fuel exploration development to go unhindered while also funding research for better alternatives, then that's a good policy.
I was going to say it but you beat me to it.
We knew it was going to happen. QE... printing money... buying the positive metrics that Obama and his idiot followers hailed as evidence of his economic stewardship. Liberalism would be a joke if it wasn't so destructive to our social culture, economic strength and foreign policy. There is nothing good about them unless you are an emotional over-wrought human being in dire need of justification for your lot in life.
Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
The House Speaker has spoken.
As far as stealing your wealth—that depends. If your wealth consists primarily of assets that are appreciating faster than the general inflation rate, then you’re being enriched in real economic terms.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
True. But any money in the bank or your wallet is being stolen. The dollars you get paid to work are being stolen. The asset prices are inflation too and not everyone can invest to keep ahead of the wave. Also, at some point it crashes and the asset price gains go away.
AC
2,500+ Posts
I get paid in Bitcoin. When I do get paid in dollars I convert all that I can to Bitcoin. Although it is volatile, inflation has not impacted me. I just have to be willing to weather volatility. It’s a trade off. I never really worry about volatility. I have to get yields, so I move out the risk curve and it works. Bitcoin averages 200% ROI going back to 2009. I play the odds.
Nice! The highest inflation rate in the last century and the largest budget deficit in the history of the world isn't enough so let's create some more.
Democrats Unveil Plan for New Quarterly Stimulus Checks (msn.com)
Democrats Unveil Plan for New Quarterly Stimulus Checks (msn.com)
Musburger1
2,500+ Posts
If food and delivery shortages get worse, we'll get a combination of inflation and deflation.
1. As food prices rise as a result of low yields (lack of fertilizer), and delivery (halted exports from key exporting countries), people will begin spending less on non-food items (travel, leisure, furniture, etc.) because their money will be used on food.
2. The lack of spending elsewhere could lead to job losses as businesses are forced to downsize. This means more unemployment and less wage income. A recession.
3. Asset prices that have ballooned (housing, stocks, bonds) will fall (deflation).
So many people will see the value of their assets shrink, income fall, but food prices rise.
Of course, this is all the plan of Putin. Nothing to do with the Federal Reserve or lavish money printing and huge deficit spending for 20 years.
1. As food prices rise as a result of low yields (lack of fertilizer), and delivery (halted exports from key exporting countries), people will begin spending less on non-food items (travel, leisure, furniture, etc.) because their money will be used on food.
2. The lack of spending elsewhere could lead to job losses as businesses are forced to downsize. This means more unemployment and less wage income. A recession.
3. Asset prices that have ballooned (housing, stocks, bonds) will fall (deflation).
So many people will see the value of their assets shrink, income fall, but food prices rise.
Of course, this is all the plan of Putin. Nothing to do with the Federal Reserve or lavish money printing and huge deficit spending for 20 years.
AC
2,500+ Posts
But, but, inflation is transitory. That must mean so are the high gas prices. It's just a phase! And that $40 billion relief bill is all going to the poor Ukrainian people, none of it is a boondoggle, right? Look just get your 4th booster shot from Pfizer, and everything will be A OK, right?
Deflation, isn't that just letting the air out of those mansions those rich people have, so poor people can have more? That right, isn't it?
Fed slowly, but steadily, nudges the interest rates up.
Meanwhile, work on the supply side--especially energy (permit and incentivize new wells, pipelines, tax breaks, refining), and allow more imports of all sorts of products (which creates a separate set of problems--but inflation is the big ticket item now). Fix the ports problems, and streamline imports from Asia to Mexico to USA. Permit logging in more national forest areas, and open small, discreet patches of the mighty Tongass to logging.
How about Burma/Myanmar... are they still on the no-trade list of rogue nations? Time to make a new friend. They've got rice, gas, oil, lumber, and precious minerals.
Meanwhile, work on the supply side--especially energy (permit and incentivize new wells, pipelines, tax breaks, refining), and allow more imports of all sorts of products (which creates a separate set of problems--but inflation is the big ticket item now). Fix the ports problems, and streamline imports from Asia to Mexico to USA. Permit logging in more national forest areas, and open small, discreet patches of the mighty Tongass to logging.
How about Burma/Myanmar... are they still on the no-trade list of rogue nations? Time to make a new friend. They've got rice, gas, oil, lumber, and precious minerals.
Last edited:
Dude, you still cannot import the women wholesale...How about Burma/Myanmar... are they still on the no-trade list of rogue nations? Time to make a new friend. They've got rice, gas, oil, lumber, and precious minerals.
I read Shell pulled out of a partnership with Burma due to political issues, so not happening. Sold their share to PTT of Thailand, so they can at least develop it.Fed slowly, but steadily, nudges the interest rates up.
Meanwhile, work on the supply side--especially energy (permit and incentivize new wells, pipelines, tax breaks, refining), and allow more imports of all sorts of products (which creates a separate set of problems--but inflation is the big ticket item now). Fix the ports problems, and streamline imports from Asia to Mexico to USA. Permit logging in more national forest areas, and open small, discreet patches of the mighty Tongass to logging.
How about Burma/Myanmar... are they still on the no-trade list of rogue nations? Time to make a new friend. They've got rice, gas, oil, lumber, and precious minerals.
Yeah, and Thailand is a friendly. As long as someone develops it, the oil will hit the world market and most likely end up in E. Asian refineries anyway. But every barrel expected to hit the world market is a little push down on the price.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-GATORS *
Sat, Nov 9 • 11:00 AM on ABC/ESPN+/SECN
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Senate Leader vote
- Started by BrntOrngStmpeDe
- Replies: 10
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
