Biden creates an economic crisis--Unemployment, Inflation, risk of STAGLFATION increasing

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

15 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

The numbers have everything to do with it when people keep parroting talking points about how he put a moratorium on drilling as if that explains a doubling in gasoline prices.

 

It could also be because of global supply and demand.  That happens to be the largest determinant of the price of oil and gas and distillates.  Production doesn't just turn on and off based on spot prices.  Oil companies survived the shale boom and bust, weathered the storm of Covid, and they're sticking with their long-term plans to reign in spending and return earnings to shareholders.  This isn't new.  This has been the mandate of Wall Street and investors after watching the industry spend like drunken sailors on new acreage to the point where spot prices turned negative and ports were packed with full tankers paying obscene day rates in hopes that oil prices might get above $30 per barrel.  

 

I was on the phone with a multi-billion dollar energy infra fund the other day.  They are harvesting the rest of their legacy investments and looking toward renewables.  Their words "we realized in 2017, which was earlier than most, that legacy energy is dead".  Take from that what you will.

I’m not sure what your point is here, politically speaking. 
 

Virtually everything that crosses the desk if a president is the result of an incredibly complicated and complex intersection of economics, finance, political intrigue, power brokering, culture and other descriptor you want to put in there.  

If fairness and decency were the standard in politics, maybe everyone would take a short break, dive into all the factors that might impact today’s price at the pump, have a rational conversation about the geo-political framework, big oil, and who’s gotten wealthy as a king being a politician in the right place at the right time where energy is concerned. 
 

Sadly, fairness and decency are not on the menu here.  Exhibit I:

 

Is it really fair that the totality of Houch Dean’s political career was defined by 90 seconds of sounding like the crazy prepped neighbor down the street who purifies his own urine and was voted most likely to take on a SWAT team? Not really, though it’s up there with the funniest 90 seconds on the internet.   

 

Exhibit II:

 

 

 

Now, was Joe Biden really just trying to explain all the intricacies of the R plan for banking regulation by invoking the most painful and horrific time of our nation’s history? Does that help the narrative, the concept that R leaders want to put people back in chains?  
 

Exhibit III:  “PUTIN’S PRICE HIKE”

 

I’ll spare you the numerous clips that include the president and his advisers using their current catch phrase to alleviate American concerns about pain at the pump.  
 

At the end of the day, he’s been part of a political faction that has declared war on the legacy energy sector, and worked tirelessly to destroy it and the jobs/livelihoods of those who work in it or benefit indirectly from it. That’s no secret, and as one of the most powerful people on the planet, his words and actions matter. 
 

Given that the price of energy is the result of many, many complicated and intersecting issues, it seems completely unreasonable to suggest that Biden’s words, actions as a Senator, VP and president have zero to do with conditions we face today.    Frankly, even if he is simply the poor stooge in the captains seat at the wrong place and time, such is life.  
 

 

 

 

 

[Jauronimo]

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m not sure what your point is here, politically speaking. 
 

Virtually everything that crosses the desk if a president is the result of an incredibly complicated and complex intersection of economics, finance, political intrigue, power brokering, culture and other descriptor you want to put in there.  

If fairness and decency were the standard in politics, maybe everyone would take a short break, dive into all the factors that might impact today’s price at the pump, have a rational conversation about the geo-political framework, big oil, and who’s gotten wealthy as a king being a politician in the right place at the right time where energy is concerned. 
 

Sadly, fairness and decency are not on the menu here.  Exhibit I:

 

Is it really fair that the totality of Houch Dean’s political career was defined by 90 seconds of sounding like the crazy prepped neighbor down the street who purifies his own urine and was voted most likely to take on a SWAT team? Not really, though it’s up there with the funniest 90 seconds on the internet.   

 

Exhibit II:

 

 

 

Now, was Joe Biden really just trying to explain all the intricacies of the R plan for banking regulation by invoking the most painful and horrific time of our nation’s history? Does that help the narrative, the concept that R leaders want to put people back in chains?  
 

Exhibit III:  “PUTIN’S PRICE HIKE”

 

I’ll spare you the numerous clips that include the president and his advisers using their current catch phrase to alleviate American concerns about pain at the pump.  
 

At the end of the day, he’s been part of a political faction that has declared war on the legacy energy sector, and worked tirelessly to destroy it and the jobs/livelihoods of those who work in it or benefit indirectly from it. That’s no secret, and as one of the most powerful people on the planet, his words and actions matter. 
 

Given that the price of energy is the result of many, many complicated and intersecting issues, it seems completely unreasonable to suggest that Biden’s words, actions as a Senator, VP and president have zero to do with conditions we face today.    Frankly, even if he is simply the poor stooge in the captains seat at the wrong place and time, such is life.  
 

 

 

 

 

The point is that discussion of energy prices that go no further than Biden are asinine.  This point isn't political, its really a matter of fact.   I have never claimed that Biden has zero effect on energy prices or the economy.   I live in the energy capital of the world, by the way.  The industry is doing just fine. 

 

If you guys want to ignore the major determinants of energy prices just to take cheap shots at political opponents while patting each other on the back, have at it. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

35 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

The point is that discussion of energy prices that go no further than Biden are asinine.  This point isn't political, its really a matter of fact.   I have never claimed that Biden has zero effect on energy prices or the economy.   I live in the energy capital of the world, by the way.  The industry is doing just fine. 

 

If you guys want to ignore the major determinants of energy prices just to take cheap shots at political opponents while patting each other on the back, have at it. 

I acknowledged your point in my post, Jauronimo.  I’ll summarize again just to be clear:  “It’s complicated and goes beyond the current occupant in the White House”.  We agree, not sure how you missed that. 
 

Since this is a political board, I responded from the political perspective.  I indicated that, too.  It seems we agree that Biden, his admin and those past have, or had the ability to impact what’s happening today in a way that would have been a net positive for the American consumer.  I don’t see the harm in stating that. 
 

I don’t live in the energy capital of the world like you do.  It’s entirely possible and quite probable that I’m not all read into the happenings in the energy field beyond some tactical investments here and there.  I do live in Albany, though, which if not the Politically-Motivated-BS Capital of the world, it’s top 2 in the country.  Seems to me that when talking candidly about all the elements of the current crisis, it’s silly, petty and in poor form to suggest that including Biden’s role as part of the conversation is a “cheap shot” or that any “patting on the back” necessarily ensues.  If Biden’s policies, words and actions come back to bite him at the ballot box—and I certainly hope they do—point your finger in the right direction. 
 

Thanks for stopping by.  No sarcasm intended (now, anyway), you seem to be a very informed guy and I take what you have said for consideration. I appreciate it. 
 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

QUESTION ASKED AND ANSWERED:

 

 

● Shot: What does a Biden presidency mean for the world?

—Headline, the Financial Times, January 19th, 2021.

https://www.ft.com/content/75592d75-61ec-43f2-b435-c760db86394a

 

 

● Chaser:   An age of real wealth destruction.

—Headline, the Financial Times, yesterday.

https://www.ft.com/content/118ebb57-072e-455a-81bd-fb42a95b7a91?shareType=nongift

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PetermansRedemption]

Another beautiful day for the bear market. How are those 401k’s looking? 

[SoCal Deek]

This has now gotten beyond silly.....WHAT A MESS! 

Can we please get some people who actually know what the heck they're doing to run this country? 

[All_Pro_Bills]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

This has now gotten beyond silly.....WHAT A MESS! 

Can we please get some people who actually know what the heck they're doing to run this country? 

On top of it all the Abbott baby formula plant at Sturgis Michigan was knocked out of commission by flooding caused by major thunderstorms just 9 days after restarting production of baby formula.  Baby's just can't catch a break here.

 

So far the administrations response is to blame Putin for the storms and to enlist the support of all able-bodied menstruating "men" to produce enough breast milk to replace the plant capacity that's currently offline.  To the administration's astonishment no milk has been produced through their program to date.  MIA VP Harris has been assigned to investigate although her whereabouts are unknown and to date nobody has been able to identify the location of her hiding spot.  The suspicion of administration activists is that racism and white privilege are at work here.   

 

Truth is the first paragraph is real and the second paragraph is "fake news".  But given how completely disconnected from reality these delusional idiots are, tell me honestly it doesn't sound like something they'd do? 

[Doc]

10 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

On top of it all the Abbott baby formula plant at Sturgis Michigan was knocked out of commission by flooding caused by major thunderstorms just 9 days after restarting production of baby formula.  Baby's just can't catch a break here.

 

So far the administrations response is to blame Putin for the storms and to enlist the support of all able-bodied menstruating "men" to produce enough breast milk to replace the plant capacity that's currently offline.  To the administration's astonishment no milk has been produced through their program to date.  MIA VP Harris has been assigned to investigate although her whereabouts are unknown and to date nobody has been able to identify the location of her hiding spot.  The suspicion of administration activists is that racism and white privilege are at work here.   

 

Truth is the first paragraph is real and the second paragraph is "fake news".  But given how completely disconnected from reality these delusional idiots are, tell me honestly it doesn't sound like something they'd do? 

 

Was there a pipe bomb discovered nearby?

[Big Blitz]

Wooooooooooooooo hoooooooooooooooo!!!

 

 

LGB!!

[Precision]

MSM turning hard on Joey now.  

 

All of Joe Biden's stock market gains have evaporated

 

Stock market's fall has wiped out $3 trillion in retirement savings this year

 

Love this one.

Fox’s Doocy needles White House on stock market drop: ‘President Biden once bragged about the stock market’

[Doc]

And it's still all someone else's fault. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

16 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Was there a pipe bomb discovered nearby?

The only bomb here is a fake President sitting in a fake Oval Office and an administration in way over their heads destroying the world's largest economy. 

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The only bomb here is a fake President sitting in a fake Oval Office and an administration in way over their heads destroying the world's largest economy. 

I’ve yet to figure that one out. The taxpayers pay for a perfectly good Oval Office and yet the Biden Administration decided to go to IKEA and make up another, less oval, one. Is the real one being painted? 

Edited June 17, 2022 by SoCal Deek

[All_Pro_Bills]

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ve yet to figure that one out. The taxpayers pay for a perfectly good Oval Office and yet the Biden Administration decided to go to IKEA and make up another, less oval, one. Is the real one being painted? 

I think its because the White House Oval Office is occupied by the real President.  How much longer does this guy last?  By November we'll all look back at today and reminisce how good it was back then.  

[Doc]

47 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I think its because the White House Oval Office is occupied by the real President.  How much longer does this guy last?  By November we'll all look back at today and reminisce how good it was back then.  

 

So basically like a Brian Williams.

[Irv]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ve yet to figure that one out. The taxpayers pay for a perfectly good Oval Office and yet the Biden Administration decided to go to IKEA and make up another, less oval, one. Is the real one being painted? 

Demented Joke Biden needed a full screen teleprompter to misread from.  What a mess.  

18 hours ago, PetermansRedemption said:

Another beautiful day for the bear market. How are those 401k’s looking? 

My 401k became a 101k this week thanks to Demented Joke Biden and his buddies.  What a mess.  

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, Irv said:

My 401k became a 101k this week thanks to Demented Joke Biden and his buddies.  What a mess.  

Joe and his cast of idiots have either intentionally or just through incompetence and stupidity done almost everything possible to make matters worse.  November could see the biggest swing in the House ever.  Not to mentions State and local election impacts.  Stick a fork in Joe already.  He's well done at just 1 1/2 years of the 4 year term.  The scary thing is how bad it is already the thought of the VP taking over is even more frightening.  It will be a mess making a bigger mess.    

 

Today's Option Expiration of some $3.4T in bets could provide the fuel for a decent short squeeze rally this afternoon.  Then a holiday Monday.  But longer term we're doomed.  I don't think these clowns at the Fed have the intent or the desire to tank the economy, tank the stock markets, and tank the debt markets and the US government just to fight an inflation problem they mostly created.  Also, watch as the dollar sucks the life out of emerging market plays, Euro, Yen.  Not a lot of people are paying attention but Japan is totally broken and is sinking fast.  With Europe close behind.  And the US in the on-deck circle.    

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 6/15/2022 at 7:39 PM, All_Pro_Bills said:

If you check US DOE EIA stats you'll find daily domestic production average is down 8 percent from the 2020 inauguration week vs. the latest reported week of June 2022.  Companies are not investing as much in new capacity.  Why do that when governments tell you that your industry is being phased out by their decree?  Why not let the market decide that?  No, climate activists decide.  Because the science is settled.  One things about science is its never settled as new and sometimes contradictory and sometimes supportive information and discoveries happen by researchers and scientists   The industry, through the API, has responded to Biden's threats with a letter outlining 10 specific things the administration can do right now to assist the industry.  Doubtful they'll do any of them.  Biden is set to go begging the Saudi's for more production.  Why the same level of green house gas emissions produced by consumption of Saudi oil is somehow different if its produced through use of domestic oil production must be one of those "settled science" mysteries. 

 

So you want the free market to dictate our energy policy? What are your thoughts on fossil fuel subsidies, going back to the days of the 1950’s Federal Highway Act? And who pays for the negative externalities in your free market system?

 

So you don’t want to listen to climate activists? Do you think it is remotely reasonable or responsible to ignore over half a century’s worth of climate science research canon on the off chance that future discoveries could, in theory, come along and prove anthropogenic global warming to be wrong?

 

Why did you ignore my post in the “How much did you pay for gas and groceries today?” thread (page 15, Friday, June 10)? I do not like it when people ignore me. It makes me feel sad. << Insert Commie Kay sad face >>

 

On 6/16/2022 at 8:34 AM, SoCal Deek said:

I hear an awful lot about oil companies making record profits but a deeper dive into that generalized statement is most definitely required. Oil companies don’t make oil. They refine it into other products, like gasoline. So I’m guessing that their profit margin hasn’t changed all that much. But when the price they pay to buy crude oil goes up, their total profit does as well. The same is true for almost every industry. Again, I don’t know this for a fact, but I’d hesitate to make the blanket statements Biden likes to make. And…if Exxon makes even a 10% profit, how much impact does that really have on your price at the pump? Answer….50 cents…maximum! 

 

Um…oil and gas company profit margins ARE noticeably higher now than they were at any point in the years preceding the pandemic! Yes, I’m referring to the percentages and not the net dollars. Look it up for yourself. One can call it “price gouging”, or one can call it “businesses doing what good businesses do for their shareholders through share buybacks and dividends, in response to pandemic-related losses.” Either way, it’s a non-trivial component of the inflation.

 

It’s by no means the entire explanation of inflation, of course. I covered the multifaceted topic of inflation in the “How much did you pay for gas and groceries today?” thread (page 15, Friday, June 10). Did you read it? Oh, that’s right…you didn’t. Because you instead chose to be an irreverent d!ckhead to me. The summary, when reading between my lines, was that right-wingers have no coherent message on inflation beyond the predictable partisan whining of “Biden = high gas prices, Trump/GOP = low gas prices.”

 

The one consistent right-wing talking point, I suppose, is that Biden needs to allow more drilling permits so to increase the supply. “Drill, baby, drill” in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, national parks, backyards, etc… But what is the mechanism that will ensure the oil companies drill in these new places when they already own plenty of property on which they still have yet to drill? Or the mechanism that ensures these companies sell the new additional supply domestically and not on the international market? Are right-wingers warming up to the idea of nationalizing the energy industry?? Hmmm…

 

I’m not sure what else the GOP is proposing? Some of them may agree with the Federal Reserve raising interest rates, even though that’s going to ensure a recession and hit the working class hard. The libertarian wing of the GOP has long been clamoring for a contraction of the money supply. I assume emergency fossil fuel windfall taxes are off the GOP negotiating table because that would be socialism and socialism is evil??

 

Did I type too much again with this post?? Awww…poor baby. I should have been more sensitive to your pathetically short attention span and notoriously subpar reading comprehension. My sincere apologies, SoCal D!ck.

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, Delete_Account said:

 

So you want the free market to dictate our energy policy? What are your thoughts on fossil fuel subsidies, going back to the days of the 1950’s Federal Highway Act? And who pays for the negative externalities in your free market system?

 

So you don’t want to listen to climate activists? Do you think it is remotely reasonable or responsible to ignore over half a century’s worth of climate science research canon on the off chance that future discoveries could, in theory, come along and prove anthropogenic global warming to be wrong?

 

Why did you ignore my post in the “How much did you pay for gas and groceries today?” thread (page 15, Friday, June 10)? I do not like it when people ignore me. It makes me feel sad. << Insert Commie Kay sad face >>

 

 

Um…oil and gas company profit margins ARE noticeably higher now than they were at any point in the years preceding the pandemic! Yes, I’m referring to the percentages and not the net dollars. Look it up for yourself. One can call it “price gouging”, or one can call it “businesses doing what good businesses do for their shareholders through share buybacks and dividends, in response to pandemic-related losses.” Either way, it’s a non-trivial component of the inflation.

 

It’s by no means the entire explanation of inflation, of course. I covered the multifaceted topic of inflation in the “How much did you pay for gas and groceries today?” thread (page 15, Friday, June 10). Did you read it? Oh, that’s right…you didn’t. Because you instead chose to be an irreverent d!ckhead to me. The summary, when reading between my lines, was that right-wingers have no coherent message on inflation beyond the predictable partisan whining of “Biden = high gas prices, Trump/GOP = low gas prices.”

 

The one consistent right-wing talking point, I suppose, is that Biden needs to allow more drilling permits so to increase the supply. “Drill, baby, drill” in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, national parks, backyards, etc… But what is the mechanism that will ensure the oil companies drill in these new places when they already own plenty of property on which they still have yet to drill? Or the mechanism that ensures these companies sell the new additional supply domestically and not on the international market? Are right-wingers warming up to the idea of nationalizing the energy industry?? Hmmm…

 

I’m not sure what else the GOP is proposing? Some of them may agree with the Federal Reserve raising interest rates, even though that’s going to ensure a recession and hit the working class hard. The libertarian wing of the GOP has long been clamoring for a contraction of the money supply. I assume emergency fossil fuel windfall taxes are off the GOP negotiating table because that would be socialism and socialism is evil??

 

Did I type too much again with this post?? Awww…poor baby. I should have been more sensitive to your pathetically short attention span and notoriously subpar reading comprehension. My sincere apologies, SoCal D!ck.

 

I heard somewhere that  @SoCal Deek drives a fully tricked out Ford F450, leather seats, and when not redesigning the So Cal landscape with buildings that are environmentally chaotic and displace the  community of San Diego snapping turtle that call the area home, he eats BLT sammies while listening to conservative talk radio with the sunroof open, windows rolled down and AC on max.  

 

Now all this.  

 

I miss the days when Friday was Funday.  

 

[Albwan]

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[TSOL]

11 minutes ago, Albwan said:

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

 

Don't laugh, when I attack and verbally abuse liberals alot of them are still trying to defend Biden. There's alot of people that  actually still believe in him. 

 

As insane as that may sound. 

[Precision]

Thanks Joe!

 

New Hampshire residents warned of 'drastic increases' in electricity bills

 

MANCHESTER, N.H. —

New Hampshire officials are warning residents to prepare for higher utility bills, with electricity rates expected to rise this year and one utility proposing more than a 100% increase.

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

On 6/17/2022 at 5:08 PM, Delete_Account said:

So you want the free market to dictate our energy policGold Targets 05-07-17y? What are your thoughts on fossil fuel subsidies, going back to the days of the 1950’s Federal Highway Act? And who pays for the negative externalities in your free market system?

 

So you don’t want to listen to climate activists? Do you think it is remotely reasonable or responsible to ignore over half a century’s worth of climate science research canon on the off chance that future discoveries could, in theory, come along and prove anthropogenic global warming to be wrong?

 

Why did you ignore my post in the “How much did you pay for gas and groceries today?” thread (page 15, Friday, June 10)? I do not like it when people ignore me. It makes me feel sad. << Insert Commie Kay sad face >>

My view is based on two conclusions.  One, renewables can't replace the energy output of fossil fuels at a national scale without some drastic reduction in individual energy consumption and living standards.  The technologies have been around for decades and they're not cost effective and totally inferior when it comes to reliability and output.  Unless you're holding your breath for the promised technological improvements and breakthroughs and plan to completely eliminate the use of oil to produce materials inputs and run renewable factories, we need to look somewhere else. 

 

Two, the Earth's climate is changing and whether some or all of it is because of human activity and some or all of it is the Earth's "natural" climate system anything we "can" do likely won't have much impact.  And "save the planet"?  That to me is nonsense.  The planet will survive for at least a couple billion years longer.  Even if it takes hundreds of thousands of years to regenerate from the damage humans have caused.  I think what these climate activists don't say in polite company is their primary conclusion is there are just too many humans on the planet and eliminating a lot of them over time will produce the necessary impact.  Which conflicts with the constant and eternal growth model western economies are based on.  Another issue for another time.     

 

I'm not suggesting the the "free market" is perfect but over time its proven to be more effective than the central planning model.  And given our government's propensity to screw up pretty much screwed up everything for the past 25 years I have no faith they could plan and execute something as complex as replacing the primary energy source of the entire country.  As for tax subsidies, I could argue Solar and renewable industry isn't fundamentally different from any other industry that receives special treatment.  Federal, State, and local subsidies, tax deductions and credits exist to locate facilities and buy solar panel installations and EV's. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

                                                     

 

 

 

 

.

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 6/17/2022 at 5:23 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I miss the days when Friday was Funday.

 

Perhaps that Friday melancholy is your conscience crying out to you? You can’t just dabble in Meatless Mondays and then go back to being an awful human being to animals for the rest of the week. Your omnivore diet is exhausting you, Leh-nerd. Physically. Nutritionally. Mentally. SPIRITUALLY.

 

On 6/20/2022 at 9:34 AM, All_Pro_Bills said:

My view is based on two conclusions.  One, renewables can't replace the energy output of fossil fuels at a national scale without some drastic reduction in individual energy consumption and living standards.  The technologies have been around for decades and they're not cost effective and totally inferior when it comes to reliability and output.  Unless you're holding your breath for the promised technological improvements and breakthroughs and plan to completely eliminate the use of oil to produce materials inputs and run renewable factories, we need to look somewhere else. 

 

Two, the Earth's climate is changing and whether some or all of it is because of human activity and some or all of it is the Earth's "natural" climate system anything we "can" do likely won't have much impact.  And "save the planet"?  That to me is nonsense.  The planet will survive for at least a couple billion years longer.  Even if it takes hundreds of thousands of years to regenerate from the damage humans have caused.  I think what these climate activists don't say in polite company is their primary conclusion is there are just too many humans on the planet and eliminating a lot of them over time will produce the necessary impact.  Which conflicts with the constant and eternal growth model western economies are based on.  Another issue for another time.     

 

I'm not suggesting the the "free market" is perfect but over time its proven to be more effective than the central planning model.  And given our government's propensity to screw up pretty much screwed up everything for the past 25 years I have no faith they could plan and execute something as complex as replacing the primary energy source of the entire country.  As for tax subsidies, I could argue Solar and renewable industry isn't fundamentally different from any other industry that receives special treatment.  Federal, State, and local subsidies, tax deductions and credits exist to locate facilities and buy solar panel installations and EV's. 

 

I’ll address your points as you sequentially made them. Your first paragraph:

 

I suppose the key difference between us is that I don’t subscribe to your over-the-top negativity regarding battery/solar technology. I personally know many people in the materials science/engineering field and follow this subject closely. Progress within the past twenty years has been substantial and would be much greater with additional research funding and larger research efforts…a “Materials Manhattan Project,” if you will.

 

You may also be overestimating how much we would need to rely on renewables in the future. I’m speaking solely in terms of technology here and ignoring political willpower factors, but I would center our mid-century national energy infrastructure around nuclear, solar, and EV’s. Currently, we are at about 80% fossil fuel usage and 20% renewables/nuclear. 30% of our energy goes to transportation needs, while the remaining 70% goes to electric power for industrial/residential/commercial needs. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to achieve the following energy breakdown in order to reach our 2050 net zero emissions goal: 45% nuclear, 20% EV, 15% solar, 10% legacy petroleum, 5% legacy natural gas, 5% other renewables wherever optimal (wind, geothermal, etc.), 0% coal…with carbon sequestration techniques to counter legacy oil/gas usage (including reforestation efforts and indirectly through meat/dairy consumption reductions…hopefully Leh-nerd Skin-erd is still reading this post?). And yes, this would imply a forced collapse of the U.S. natural gas revolution within the next three decades because they can’t control their methane leaks (not to mention the water/air pollution and artificial earthquakes).

 

Addressing your last two paragraphs:

 

An acknowledgment of the well-established science of anthropogenic climate change is automatically an acknowledgment of mankind’s ability to effect meaningful change to the climate, even if it’s too late to stave off some of the effects. The “there’s nothing we can do” crowd are as scientifically illiterate as they are nihilistic.

 

“Saving the planet” obviously means preserving the planet for human habitability, not preserving the physical planet. Preserving ecosystems like old-growth forests and biodiversity like with megafauna are fundamental components to keeping civilization alive and thriving.

 

Overpopulation is an enormous problem that should be talked about more openly. I have no idea what the optimal global population size might be: somewhere within the wide range of 10^8 and 10^10 humans, I assume. What I do know is that fertility and GDP per capita are inversely correlated (same with fertility and education levels) for countries. It may seem counterintuitive to some of my greenie Luddite friends, but I believe that broader industrialization and increased technological dependencies will end up improving the planet’s habitability conditions.

 

I wasn’t trying to set up an ideological discussion of free markets versus central planning. The free market is a powerful engine for innovation, but it is also amoral and mostly driven by short-term profit interests. Public research funding and subsidies are essential components to a national energy plan. There are renewable energy jobs to create and international renewable energy markets to access, but free markets won’t necessarily lead to these solutions if we continue subsidizing fossil fuels like we do with the current transportation infrastructure set up as it is.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

19 minutes ago, Delete_Account said:

 

Perhaps that Friday melancholy is your conscience crying out to you? You can’t just dabble in Meatless Mondays and then go back to being an awful human being to animals for the rest of the week. Your omnivore diet is exhausting you, Leh-nerd. Physically. Nutritionally. Mentally. SPIRITUALLY.

 

I don’t know about all that, Delete Kay.  I think I’m a decent enough human being generally, though it would not take a ton of consideration to go vegetarian.  Sometimes I think of the way meat ends up on the table and….yish, gross.  Still, I push forward as of this writing, actually coming off of a sick stack of wingos after a trip to WNY last week.  
 

Besides, do plants and vegetables suffer, Delete Kay?  I wonder about that from time to time.   Do you?   I don’t know what you favor, what suits your palate, what tantalizes your tongue buds, what rings your bell (if you will).  You could be a broccoli girl, cabbage, baby spinach—heck you might be all about the humble parsnip. 
 

It just seems to me with all these veggies and letti (lettuce plural) growing in bunches, clumps and the like….what happens when chop chop snip snip?  
 

If you have a theory on this ho’d off a bit—I’m on a pretty good salad kick for lunch these days and don’t want to think too much beyond thinking about it. 

 

 

19 minutes ago, Delete_Account said:

 

 

I’ll address your points as you sequentially made them. Your first paragraph:

 

I suppose the key difference between us is that I don’t subscribe to your over-the-top negativity regarding battery/solar technology. I personally know many people in the materials science/engineering field and follow this subject closely. Progress within the past twenty years has been substantial and would be much greater with additional research funding and larger research efforts…a “Materials Manhattan Project,” if you will.

 

You may also be overestimating how much we would need to rely on renewables in the future. I’m speaking solely in terms of technology here and ignoring political willpower factors, but I would center our mid-century national energy infrastructure around nuclear, solar, and EV’s. Currently, we are at about 80% fossil fuel usage and 20% renewables/nuclear. 30% of our energy goes to transportation needs, while the remaining 70% goes to electric power for industrial/residential/commercial needs. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to achieve the following energy breakdown in order to reach our 2050 net zero emissions goal: 45% nuclear, 20% EV, 15% solar, 10% legacy petroleum, 5% legacy natural gas, 5% other renewables wherever optimal (wind, geothermal, etc.), 0% coal…with carbon sequestration techniques to counter legacy oil/gas usage (including reforestation efforts and indirectly through meat/dairy consumption reductions…hopefully Leh-nerd Skin-erd is still reading this post?). And yes, this would imply a forced collapse of the U.S. natural gas revolution within the next three decades because they can’t control their methane leaks (not to mention the water/air pollution and artificial earthquakes).

I’m still here, Delete Kay, and after reading this, I think you’re definitely into parsnips.  

 

19 minutes ago, Delete_Account said:

 

Addressing your last two paragraphs:

 

An acknowledgment of the well-established science of anthropogenic climate change is automatically an acknowledgment of mankind’s ability to effect meaningful change to the climate, even if it’s too late to stave off some of the effects. The “there’s nothing we can do” crowd are as scientifically illiterate as they are nihilistic.

 

“Saving the planet” obviously means preserving the planet for human habitability, not preserving the physical planet. Preserving ecosystems like old-growth forests and biodiversity like with megafauna are fundamental components to keeping civilization alive and thriving.

 

Overpopulation is an enormous problem that should be talked about more openly. I have no idea what the optimal global population size might be: somewhere within the wide range of 10^8 and 10^10 humans, I assume. What I do know is that fertility and GDP per capita are inversely correlated (same with fertility and education levels) for countries. It may seem counterintuitive to some of my greenie Luddite friends, but I believe that broader industrialization and increased technological dependencies will end up improving the planet’s habitability conditions.

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, Delete_Account said:

 

I wasn’t trying to set up an ideological discussion of free markets versus central planning. The free market is a powerful engine for innovation, but it is also amoral and mostly driven by short-term profit interests. Public research funding and subsidies are essential components to a national energy plan. There are renewable energy jobs to create and international renewable energy markets to access, but free markets won’t necessarily lead to these solutions if we continue subsidizing fossil fuels like we do with the current transportation infrastructure set up as it is.

You have parsnips written all over you.  Parsnips and Brussel Sprouts. 

[reddogblitz]

On 6/16/2022 at 9:28 AM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Is it really fair that the totality of Houch Dean’s political career was defined by 90 seconds of sounding like the crazy prepped neighbor down the street who purifies his own urine and was voted most likely to take on a SWAT team? Not really, though it’s up there with the funniest 90 seconds on the internet.   

 

This still grates on me to this day.  The Democrat party punched him in the shorts on this one. He got excited, so what? Then the very next day it was all over everywhere (CNN, MSNBC, NBC CBS, ABC) etc . That he was a raving lunatic and he was done. Then Wasserman and Hillary did another punch to the shorts with Bernie in 2016.  For all their talk about open and free elections and the will of the people blah blah blah, they sure don't practice what they preach.  And that does not even include Raskin and Jayapal trying to throw out votes in January 2017.

On 6/16/2022 at 12:05 PM, PetermansRedemption said:

Another beautiful day for the bear market. How are those 401k’s looking? 

 

Mine is looking good cuz I didn't sell anything.  Market will come back and in the meantime I'm buying low which is  a good thing to do in the stock market.

[All_Pro_Bills]

10 hours ago, Delete_Account said:

I’ll address your points as you sequentially made them. Your first paragraph:

 

I suppose the key difference between us is that I don’t subscribe to your over-the-top negativity regarding battery/solar technology. I personally know many people in the materials science/engineering field and follow this subject closely. Progress within the past twenty years has been substantial and would be much greater with additional research funding and larger research efforts…a “Materials Manhattan Project,” if you will.

 

You may also be overestimating how much we would need to rely on renewables in the future. I’m speaking solely in terms of technology here and ignoring political willpower factors, but I would center our mid-century national energy infrastructure around nuclear, solar, and EV’s. Currently, we are at about 80% fossil fuel usage and 20% renewables/nuclear. 30% of our energy goes to transportation needs, while the remaining 70% goes to electric power for industrial/residential/commercial needs. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to achieve the following energy breakdown in order to reach our 2050 net zero emissions goal: 45% nuclear, 20% EV, 15% solar, 10% legacy petroleum, 5% legacy natural gas, 5% other renewables wherever optimal (wind, geothermal, etc.), 0% coal…with carbon sequestration techniques to counter legacy oil/gas usage (including reforestation efforts and indirectly through meat/dairy consumption reductions…hopefully Leh-nerd Skin-erd is still reading this post?). And yes, this would imply a forced collapse of the U.S. natural gas revolution within the next three decades because they can’t control their methane leaks (not to mention the water/air pollution and artificial earthquakes).

 

Addressing your last two paragraphs:

 

An acknowledgment of the well-established science of anthropogenic climate change is automatically an acknowledgment of mankind’s ability to effect meaningful change to the climate, even if it’s too late to stave off some of the effects. The “there’s nothing we can do” crowd are as scientifically illiterate as they are nihilistic.

 

“Saving the planet” obviously means preserving the planet for human habitability, not preserving the physical planet. Preserving ecosystems like old-growth forests and biodiversity like with megafauna are fundamental components to keeping civilization alive and thriving.

 

Overpopulation is an enormous problem that should be talked about more openly. I have no idea what the optimal global population size might be: somewhere within the wide range of 10^8 and 10^10 humans, I assume. What I do know is that fertility and GDP per capita are inversely correlated (same with fertility and education levels) for countries. It may seem counterintuitive to some of my greenie Luddite friends, but I believe that broader industrialization and increased technological dependencies will end up improving the planet’s habitability conditions.

 

I wasn’t trying to set up an ideological discussion of free markets versus central planning. The free market is a powerful engine for innovation, but it is also amoral and mostly driven by short-term profit interests. Public research funding and subsidies are essential components to a national energy plan. There are renewable energy jobs to create and international renewable energy markets to access, but free markets won’t necessarily lead to these solutions if we continue subsidizing fossil fuels like we do with the current transportation infrastructure set up as it is.

Great response and ideas. I think there are places we agree and disagree.  I don't see my view as being overly negative but rather skeptical.  For one I want details and some answers to critical questions.  I'll just leave it at that and write down a few ideas for thought.

 

My read of the general consensus on the "Green" plan is we're going to unplug from the oil economy and plug into the renewable economy without missing a beat.  A seamless and relatively pain free transition.  I think that's a linear view of things but a review of human history reveals a more cyclical perspective on the advancement of human civilization.  One step back, two steps forward if you will.  My expectation is the transition period will be a time of great hardship and radical changes in lifestyle which people are not prepared to face.  I drive down the street and see a sign on a neighbors lawn saying "Climate Action Now!" and I see a 4K sq ft home with 5 BR's, a 3 car garage with 5 vehicles in the driveway including 2 big gas guzzling SUV's plus a gas heated built-in pool and I ask myself if these people really have any comprehension of what they're asking for and are they prepared or willing to make any changes or sacrifices.  

 

I expect the transition will require some major changes in several things.  Our living arrangements with the land and nature for one.  Among other things, this means an end to 5 acre suburban 4K sq ft mega-homes on the fringes of wilderness and farm areas.  It might mean commerce and business arrangements on a more localized scale.  It means better use of land, for forests, for wildlife, for farming, and denser developments and maybe an end to the ex-urbs.  Before the early 1950's and the introduction of the federal highway system and the automobile to the masses the suburbs really didn't exist.   

 

Another main theme is the replacement of the ICE vehicle fleet with an EV fleet.  My thinking is we also need to consider options that will eliminate the need for all these cars.  (see above).

 

All this requires a lot of material inputs.  Where is all of that coming from?  All resources are finite and generally with the mining industry most of the cheap and easy stuff is out of the ground already.  So costs are high, energy needs are high, grades are relatively low, and resources can be remote or in hostile areas or jurisdictions.  Not the optimal scenario.  It seems obvious the administration and environmentalists are going to block any big new domestic mining operations.  Is somebody going to steamroll the movement and push it through?  And then there's litigation and regulations.  Are materials coming from China?  The sole source of many rare earth metals.  All signs point to a deteriorating relationship so I have my doubts.  What about other countries?  Lithium for example.  There are sources in places where there is just as much resistance to mining as there is domestically.  Where water is a scarce commodity.  What if they don't want to ruin their local environment in order to provide Americans the pleasure of driving their EV's?  Are we going to war with these countries?  Force them to produce the metal by some other means?  

 

My final point is the build out of the new system isn't the only cost and challenge.  There's maintenance and repair expenses and resources.  All those batteries need periodic replacement.  And solar and wind are weather dependent.  How much back up and redundancy is needed?  Where are the engineering plans and write ups containing anything like detailed specs and requirements?  Right now all this stuff is at the idea level, there's no proof of concept or demonstration projects at scale to show it works, and the plan just lacks detail.  If there was some national effort lead by researcher and electrical, civil, nuclear engineers and scientists from places like MIT in partnership with Federal research labs I'd feel much better about the prospects going forward.  Without these details and a working prototype energy self-sufficient working community to prove out the idea I just see most of it as a dangerous fantasy.    

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

HEY !, remember that 16 cents savings the Biden administration crowed about last July 4th ??

 

 

 

[US Egg]

Joe’s really showing Russia now! He’s banning importing their gold.

 

There’s nothing he can’t drive prices up on in the U.S. Or the world.

[Big Blitz]

This headline would be much different if a certain other party was in the WH - in fact its the Fed's fault.  And it's because the job Market is too hot!  That's why job cuts are coming.  

 

You get all that?

 

 

So presented as if these developments are just a normal part of life now:

 

 

 

Job cuts are rolling in. Here's who is feeling the most pain so far

 

The dominos are starting to fall in the U.S. economy that Joe Biden isn't responsible for.

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1108109505/job-cuts-layoffs-economy-recession

 

 

Some riding spin in there

[All_Pro_Bills]

Unemployment claims reported on 6.30.22 for previous week at 231K.  Trend is higher.   

[B-Man]

 

 

Joe Biden says Americans will suffer high gas prices for ‘as long as it takes’ to defeat ‘Russia, Russia, Russia,’ whose fault everything is 

 

Also

 

 

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2022/06/30/joe-biden-says-americans-will-suffer-high-gas-prices-for-as-long-as-it-takes-to-defeat-russia-russia-russia-whose-fault-everything-is-video/

 

 

[Doc]

What happened to the 80s calling?

[All_Pro_Bills]

Atlanta Fed downgrades Q122 GDP to -1.6% along with releasing Q222 GDP forecast to -1.0%.  Two consecutive quarters of negative growth is the standard criteria for a recession.  Q3 starts tomorrow.   

[Irv]

I love the new demented angle Joke Biden is being told to take now by whoever is running the Executive Branch:    "Yes.  Inflation is bad but it's not as bad as every other country".  Like everyone is suffering solely due to Putin.  No Joke. If you weren't such a feeble wimp and you didn't listen to morons in the Squad, there wouldn't be a war and we'd still be energy independent.  But you ***** that up.   What an idiot.  What a mess. 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Irv

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 6/24/2022 at 8:08 AM, All_Pro_Bills said:

Great response and ideas. I think there are places we agree and disagree.  I don't see my view as being overly negative but rather skeptical.  For one I want details and some answers to critical questions.  I'll just leave it at that and write down a few ideas for thought.

 

My read of the general consensus on the "Green" plan is we're going to unplug from the oil economy and plug into the renewable economy without missing a beat.  A seamless and relatively pain free transition.  I think that's a linear view of things but a review of human history reveals a more cyclical perspective on the advancement of human civilization.  One step back, two steps forward if you will.  My expectation is the transition period will be a time of great hardship and radical changes in lifestyle which people are not prepared to face.  I drive down the street and see a sign on a neighbors lawn saying "Climate Action Now!" and I see a 4K sq ft home with 5 BR's, a 3 car garage with 5 vehicles in the driveway including 2 big gas guzzling SUV's plus a gas heated built-in pool and I ask myself if these people really have any comprehension of what they're asking for and are they prepared or willing to make any changes or sacrifices.  

 

I expect the transition will require some major changes in several things.  Our living arrangements with the land and nature for one.  Among other things, this means an end to 5 acre suburban 4K sq ft mega-homes on the fringes of wilderness and farm areas.  It might mean commerce and business arrangements on a more localized scale.  It means better use of land, for forests, for wildlife, for farming, and denser developments and maybe an end to the ex-urbs.  Before the early 1950's and the introduction of the federal highway system and the automobile to the masses the suburbs really didn't exist.   

 

Another main theme is the replacement of the ICE vehicle fleet with an EV fleet.  My thinking is we also need to consider options that will eliminate the need for all these cars.  (see above).

 

All this requires a lot of material inputs.  Where is all of that coming from?  All resources are finite and generally with the mining industry most of the cheap and easy stuff is out of the ground already.  So costs are high, energy needs are high, grades are relatively low, and resources can be remote or in hostile areas or jurisdictions.  Not the optimal scenario.  It seems obvious the administration and environmentalists are going to block any big new domestic mining operations.  Is somebody going to steamroll the movement and push it through?  And then there's litigation and regulations.  Are materials coming from China?  The sole source of many rare earth metals.  All signs point to a deteriorating relationship so I have my doubts.  What about other countries?  Lithium for example.  There are sources in places where there is just as much resistance to mining as there is domestically.  Where water is a scarce commodity.  What if they don't want to ruin their local environment in order to provide Americans the pleasure of driving their EV's?  Are we going to war with these countries?  Force them to produce the metal by some other means?  

 

My final point is the build out of the new system isn't the only cost and challenge.  There's maintenance and repair expenses and resources.  All those batteries need periodic replacement.  And solar and wind are weather dependent.  How much back up and redundancy is needed?  Where are the engineering plans and write ups containing anything like detailed specs and requirements?  Right now all this stuff is at the idea level, there's no proof of concept or demonstration projects at scale to show it works, and the plan just lacks detail.  If there was some national effort lead by researcher and electrical, civil, nuclear engineers and scientists from places like MIT in partnership with Federal research labs I'd feel much better about the prospects going forward.  Without these details and a working prototype energy self-sufficient working community to prove out the idea I just see most of it as a dangerous fantasy.   

 

Okay, so I think we’re on the same wavelength for much of this topic! Where we continue to differ is on our optimism levels for renewable materials. FWIW: my educational and professional background is in biomedical engineering, I have numerous friends in the materials science/engineering field, and my dad’s own educational and professional background is in solid-state physics.

 

A lot of my optimism is based on the reality that, as a civilization, we have barely scratched the surface (pardon the pun, I guess…?) in our understanding of photovoltaic cells beyond the silicon-based semiconductors or of rechargeable battery materials beyond the lithium-ion cells with polymer electrolytes. Furthermore, scientists working in the nanotech subfield are at the early stages of learning how to construct “designer materials,” i.e. materials not normally found in nature. When you build materials atom-by-atom and layer-by-layer, you can manipulate atom/molecule types and lattice spacings so that you meet and surpass various engineering specs. This gives us many more material options beyond what Mother Earth may give us in her mine deposits!

 

I mentioned the need for a “Materials Manhattan Project” in the 21st century. This research infrastructure already exists all over the country, mostly in academia but also at select DOE+DOD government labs and a few private industry labs. However, the research activity is not happening at nearly the extent commensurate with the climate urgency. It would be useful to have a centralized, top-down, umbrella organizational structure that would oversee all of the disparate materials research, set overarching goals, establish benchmarks for monitoring progress and for quality control, allocate funding, and handle all of the communication to the public as well as to the politicians.

[Big Blitz]

Inflation means people are spending less, which may be putting a recession on fast track, Democrats not to blame

 

 

Adjusted for inflation, May consumer spending fell 0.4%, which was worse than economists’ mean forecast for a 0.3% decline. Further, April spending was revised sharply lower to up 0.3% from up 0.7%.  

 

Couple that with the huge downward revision on Wednesday in consumer spending in the first-quarter gross domestic product report to 1.8%, from the reported 3.1% increase, and economists fear a recession is closing in faster than expected. 

 

Consumers, especially lower-income ones, are increasingly squeezed 

 

A Morning Consult survey on Thursday showed the share of adults who said they had money left over after paying monthly expenses declined to less than 52% in May. That's down 8 points from a year ago and the lowest level since tracking began in September 2020. 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2022/06/30/recession-near-consumer-spending-declines/7782691001/

 

 

CIA Plant Sect of Transportation Pete Buttedge:

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Doc]

He said the quiet part out loud. Get what you can in while you can…