Trickle down economics is a lie, the proof !

[Yamato]

Oil supplies will collapse causing prices to sky rocket.

Br Cornelius

How much I would bet you're also against fracking at the same time you're predicting this...

[Guest]

How much I would bet you're also against fracking at the same time you're predicting this...

I am against Fracking because of its pollution cost and its significant contribution to climate change. It is a very dangerous technology and will cause widespread damage to health and welfare, the cost simply isn't worth the rewards.

Trying to hang onto the rising bubble of fossil fuel prices is economic suicide, the emergence of Fracking is simply a reluctance to face up to that fact. If the same amount of effort had have been invested into wind farms and solar at all scales - the US would already be a long way along the path to solving its energy crisis - but in perpetuity not just for the forthcoming few decades.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

I am against Fracking because of its pollution cost and its significant contribution to climate change. It is a very dangerous technology and will cause widespread damage to health and welfare, the cost simply isn't worth the rewards.

Trying to hang onto the rising bubble of fossil fuel prices is economic suicide, the emergence of Fracking is simply a reluctance to face up to that fact. If the same amount of effort had have been invested into wind farms and solar at all scales - the US would already be a long way along the path to solving its energy crisis - but in perpetuity not just for the forthcoming few decades.

Br Cornelius

I don't think anyone disputes that fossil fuels won't last forever but fracking means oil isn't going to collapse anytime soon. As for solar, criticizing the US in particular about that doesn't make any sense.

Now let's see Ireland's solar chart so we can figure out how to play follow the leader correctly here.

[Guest]

I don't think anyone disputes that fossil fuels won't last forever but fracking means oil isn't going to collapse anytime soon. As for solar, criticizing the US in particular about that doesn't make any sense.

Now let's see Ireland's solar chart so we can figure out how to play follow the leader correctly here.

It would not be sensible for Ireland to heavily invest in solar - but growth in wind is substantial and ongoing.

Do you know how much has been invested in Fracking over the same period ? It dwarves the investment in solar and will all be redundant in a few decades.

Your comment ignores the fact that fracking is a significant environmental cost and its carbon emissions are directly comparable to the dirtiest fuel - COAL. It is not a bridge to a sustainable future - it is more of the same but with worse outcomes.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 19, 2014 by Guest

[Yamato]

Fracking and all its worse outcomes, just not the "oil is going to collapse" outcome.

Show me how much has been invested in fracking vs. solar, sure why not.

[Guest]

Fracking and all its worse outcomes, just not the "oil is going to collapse" outcome.

Show me how much has been invested in fracking vs. solar, sure why not.

Fracking will only postpone the collapse of oil as a viable fuel by a few decades, it is definitely a beast of the decline side of peak oil - only viable at crippling oil prices. A typical fracked well produces well for just a couple of years before production enters a decade long tail of low output. It has to be re-fracked, at considerable cost, to boost the production every couple of years - each with diminishing returns. All the easy target areas are already in production and each new frontier of shale will produce progressively less output for the same cash investment. Cash flow is so bad that almost all of the main players have been trying to offload their more marginal fields rather than exploit them - the returns are so poor for them. All of this is a last gasp for the oil industry who know the writing is on the wall.

However my main criticism is that Fracking makes the climate crisis worse not better and that makes it an unacceptable technology if we want to have a viable future for anyone. To not consider this aspect above short term economics is criminal.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 19, 2014 by Guest

[Yamato]

Fracking will only postpone the collapse of oil as a viable fuel by a few decades, it is definitely a beast of the decline side of peak oil - only viable at crippling oil prices. A typical fracked well produces well for just a couple of years before production enters a decade long tail of low output. It has to be re-fracked, at considerable cost, to boost the production every couple of years - each with diminishing returns. All the easy target areas are already in production and each new frontier of shale will produce progressively less output for the same cash investment. Cash flow is so bad that almost all of the main players have been trying to offload their more marginal fields rather than exploit them - the returns are so poor for them. All of this is a last gasp for the oil industry who know the writing is on the wall.

However my main criticism is that Fracking makes the climate crisis worse not better and that makes it an unacceptable technology if we want to have a viable future for anyone. To not consider this aspect above short term economics is criminal.

Br Cornelius

You forgot to show that investment in fracking dwarfs investment in solar? Are you just making stuff up?

We're going to keep looking, we're going to keep drilling, we're definitely going to keep producing and we're going to keep developing renewables all the while. It's not a recipe for collapse it's the opposite. There's oil we haven't even found yet, under places we haven't even looked yet. Analysts are predicting oil prices to decline due to less global demand for it combined with the rise in alternatives to it. They're also predicting energy independence for the US in particular which will be unprecedented in modern times. For example, the International Energy Agency predicts the US will exceed Saudi Arabia as the #1 oil producer by 2015. Seventeen nuclear plants worth of solar energy in one year and that was four years ago while European countries like Germany and the UK have been fracking since the '70s. The alternatives you try to claim aren't being recognized "criminal" are growing like weeds. Ranting about the US to the exclusion of other countries is even more ignorant.

Major players in the US like First Solar are doing just fine with their numbers. $59/sh and still cheap relative to the market on an earnings basis.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=FSLR&t=2y&l=on&z=l&q=l&p=&a=&c=

[Guest]

You forgot to show that investment in fracking dwarfs investment in solar? Are you just making stuff up?

Not an easy thing to get a snappy little graph for - but I assure you I am correct. Spending on Fracking dwarves the spending on Solar over the same period.

Modern sideways fracking has not been going on since the 70's - thats a plain lie. It has been going on for less than a decade in its present form.

Every drop of oil is getting more expensive because it is progressively getting more expensive to extract from the ground. It takes thousands of well to get the same amount of oil which the Saudis can drag out of a dozen well heads - which means that American oil is some of the most expensive oil to extract in the world. Expensive oil triggered the recession and expensive oil is inhibiting the recovery. Tie your wagon to the oil caravan and your going to end up in a heap of trouble - not least of which will be the clean up and medical costs of dealing with the aftermath of having wells in Suburbia like they already have in Texas.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 19, 2014 by Guest

[Yamato]

Okay I'll just take your word for what's going on over here, and I'll tell you what's going on over there when the time comes.

[Guest]

Okay I'll just take your word for what's going on over here, and I'll tell you what's going on over there when the time comes.

I have been involved in Anti-fracking activity for some time now, and I guarantee that I know a lot more about it on both sides of the pond than yourself.

Br Cornelius

[Einsteinium]

To state point blank that so called 'trickle down economics' is making things worse is to over-simplify an INCREDIBLY complicated world economic system.

Since the 1970s there have been a lot of large scale changes in the global economy that are at least as influential as 'trickle down'. Changes such as the move towards 'globalization', the rise of China as an immense source of cheap labor, the baby boomer generation starting to retire, several economic crises and recessions, several wars, the rise of 'too big to fail', and other factors as well.

To state that the decline of the middle and lower classes is caused by 'trickle down' economic theory is like stating that over 1500 people died because the Titanic hit an iceberg. Over 1500 people died because of design flaws in the Titanic, coupled with an overly ambitious plan to make a speed record, coupled with a lack of lifeboats, coupled with hitting an iceberg. All of these flaws/mistakes led to over 1500 people dying, just like all of the flaws/mistakes/politics/environment/etc. for the economy to get where it is now.

To understand the reasons behind the decline of the middle class requires understanding all of the various factors at play, and how they all play together over time.

[Guest]

The original link demonstrates with data from over 200years that "trickle down economics" always has the same outcome - very rich people and very poor people. That has nothing to do with changes since the 1970's since the same thing happened in the mercatile age before all the factors you mentioned.

People may not like that conclusion, but that is what the data says so I think its time to get your heads round it and modify your political/economic biases.

Br Cornelius

[Space Commander Travis]

To state point blank that so called 'trickle down economics' is making things worse is to over-simplify an INCREDIBLY complicated world economic system.

Since the 1970s there have been a lot of large scale changes in the global economy that are at least as influential as 'trickle down'. Changes such as the move towards 'globalization', the rise of China as an immense source of cheap labor, the baby boomer generation starting to retire, several economic crises and recessions, several wars, the rise of 'too big to fail', and other factors as well.

To state that the decline of the middle and lower classes is caused by 'trickle down' economic theory is like stating that over 1500 people died because the Titanic hit an iceberg. Over 1500 people died because of design flaws in the Titanic, coupled with an overly ambitious plan to make a speed record, coupled with a lack of lifeboats, coupled with hitting an iceberg. All of these flaws/mistakes led to over 1500 people dying, just like all of the flaws/mistakes/politics/environment/etc. for the economy to get where it is now.

To understand the reasons behind the decline of the middle class requires understanding all of the various factors at play, and how they all play together over time.

Thank you for returning to the subject of economics, rather than an endless argument about Fracking.

[Frank Merton]

You know it would probably be on the whole a good thing if oil ran out and the price made it prohibitive. The stuff is polluting in many ways and causes no end of political trouble. But it ain't gonna happen.

[Frank Merton]

I think anyone who doesn't own securities or some other interest in businesses, and is only a worker, is going to lose out because of automation. As I made the point once before, automation has been going on continually and has been mostly beneficial because it results in lower prices, so consumers have more to spend on other things, resulting in more jobs elsewhere to replace those lost to automation.

That doesn't seem to be working so well now; instead corporate profits go up and prices don't go down and profits are either returned to the business or paid in higher salaries to executives (wow have they gone up) or better returns to investors. Prices are stable. Increasing prices in the past were more than made up for by increasing wages; wages are now either stable or declining. This diminishes demand and the economy doesn't do as well, but the upper echelons of management are rolling in wealth.

[Guest]

You know it would probably be on the whole a good thing if oil ran out and the price made it prohibitive. The stuff is polluting in many ways and causes no end of political trouble. But it ain't gonna happen.

The increasing price will mean the market will marginalize oil for most things. The returns on renewable's will mean it displaces oil where they can. Oil will never run out but will simply become uneconomic to extract it and use it for such wasteful activities as running motor vehicles and heating houses. That is what Peak Oil tells us - not the all the oil has already gone.

This is a good article which explains in detail what is going on in oil. It starts out claiming Peak Oil is a dead concept, but as the article goes on it really just confirms that the predictions about peak oil are real and happening now. Unexploited reserves are a very different thing to actual production, and we have been discovering more and more reserves of late - but bringing them into economic production is an entirely different thing to knowing where they are;

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/10093

Br Cornelius

Edited May 20, 2014 by Guest

[Frank Merton]

The increasing price will mean the market will marginalize oil for most things. The returns on renewable's will mean it displaces oil where they can. Oil will never run out but will simply become uneconomic to extract it and use it for such wasteful activities as running motor vehicles and heating houses. That is what Peak Oil tells us - not the all the oil has already gone.

Br Cornelius

Yes I think we can figure that out. Don't be condescending. Talk about oil "running out" is just shorthand and I think you know it.

[Einsteinium]

The original link demonstrates with data from over 200years that "trickle down economics" always has the same outcome - very rich people and very poor people. That has nothing to do with changes since the 1970's since the same thing happened in the mercatile age before all the factors you mentioned.

People may not like that conclusion, but that is what the data says so I think its time to get your heads round it and modify your political/economic biases.

Br Cornelius

Did you ever stop to consider that in ANY economic system, the rich will get richer, and there will be poor people? Any and every system ever invented by mankind has led to a class of extremely wealthy politically influential individuals, and a poor class of people. The middle class sometimes exists as well, and capitalism leads to a robust and strong middle class.

There is no free lunch, and life is not fair. If you have a lot of money invested, you will get a lot of money in interest and dividends and grow your wealth increasingly more and more. This is due to the magic of compound interest. Hence- the rich get richer.

Again, you are not seeing the full picture. There is vastly more to this story than what the author with his questionable timing (releasing a book about inequality right when it is a hot issue) has put together. My last point stands, trickle down economics is only part of a much bigger story that goes back to the beginning of civilization.

[Guest]

Did you ever stop to consider that in ANY economic system, the rich will get richer, and there will be poor people? Any and every system ever invented by mankind has led to a class of extremely wealthy politically influential individuals, and a poor class of people. The middle class sometimes exists as well, and capitalism leads to a robust and strong middle class.

There is no free lunch, and life is not fair. If you have a lot of money invested, you will get a lot of money in interest and dividends and grow your wealth increasingly more and more. This is due to the magic of compound interest. Hence- the rich get richer.

Again, you are not seeing the full picture. There is vastly more to this story than what the author with his questionable timing (releasing a book about inequality right when it is a hot issue) has put together. My last point stands, trickle down economics is only part of a much bigger story that goes back to the beginning of civilization.

I did consider that so don't assume I didn't. However I make the point that some systems produce considerably more wealth disparity than others. A lightly regulated market system is the worst short of a despotic dictatorship. As for the belief that the current American system produces a "robust middle class" - it is frankly rubbish. The middle class has seen income stagnation since the 1970's and has relied on increasing debt burden to support its flatlining income. The Middle Class is the single area most in crisis at the moment as a tiny minority get projected into the wealthy elite - but the majority fall back to the level of poverty.

What I have said many times before - a degree of intervention from the state has always proven essential to prevent modern states from slipping back into Feudalism where we are all beholden to a super-rich elite who own everything and define the rules to ensure that they remain so. What you have missed is that redistribution is both the right of society and essential to maintain long term civil order. It is the belief that Market economics is the be all and end all of civilization which is grossly deluded since it runs counter to the reality of history that states have always needed to be highly interventionist to maintain social balance. The Author of the book is simply pointing out the inevitable consequences for states who neglect to rebalance society on an ongoing basis. His position is evidence based, but what you do with that information is entirely up to you.

Br Cornelius

Edited May 21, 2014 by Guest

[Yamato]

Thank you for returning to the subject of economics, rather than an endless argument about Fracking.

And the Titanic, an even poorer analogy to the economy than energy policy, which sank due to optical illusions, not the poor construction, nor the speed, nor the drunk captain, nor the sleeping watchmen, nor the rest of the myths and conspiracies.

[Einsteinium]

I did consider that so don't assume I didn't. However I make the point that some systems produce considerably more wealth disparity than others. A lightly regulated market system is the worst short of a despotic dictatorship. As for the belief that the current American system produces a "robust middle class" - it is frankly rubbish. The middle class has seen income stagnation since the 1970's and has relied on increasing debt burden to support its flatlining income. The Middle Class is the single area most in crisis at the moment as a tiny minority get projected into the wealthy elite - but the majority fall back to the level of poverty.

What I have said many times before - a degree of intervention from the state has always proven essential to prevent modern states from slipping back into Feudalism where we are all beholden to a super-rich elite who own everything and define the rules to ensure that they remain so. What you have missed is that redistribution is both the right of society and essential to maintain long term civil order. It is the belief that Market economics is the be all and end all of civilization which is grossly deluded since it runs counter to the reality of history that states have always needed to be highly interventionist to maintain social balance. The Author of the book is simply pointing out the inevitable consequences for states who neglect to rebalance society on an ongoing basis. His position is evidence based, but what you do with that information is entirely up to you.

Br Cornelius

I do agree that there must be a balance. However, the system that has raised the majority of its citizens out of poverty better than any other system is capitalism. Capitalism must be regulated so as to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a few, but over-regulation causes problems just as under-regulation does, and giving government too much power is no different than giving the rich/corporations too much power. Redistributionism in my opinion is NOT the way to equalize the balance of power, simply just too much room for corruption. The best way is to not allow any business to grow too big and become a monopoly, and encourage entrepreneurship and regulate in a way that incentivizes businesses to invest money back into their workers. We need equal opportunity, not equal sharing of wealth. We need incentive to work hard, remove tax breaks for dividends and capital gains and give those tax breaks to the people who actually work hard for their money. Communism does not work that has been proven time and time again. Socialism is a bit better, but does not create the technological innovation and entrepreneurship that capitalism does.

If you want jobs and opportunity to have a better life, then capitalism is for you. But it comes with risks, it means you have to be responsible for yourself, it means that along with the opportunity to succeed, comes the opportunity to fail.

[Yamato]

In capitalism, the power to do something comes from capital. Do you have the money to do it? This isn't good enough for Br. He needs another entity with even more power and even more money to say it's okay first. Even then it's not okay as example after example have shown, yet he still defers to the same wet blanket of trust for the untrustworthy anyway.

[F3SS]

Redistribution is not necessary to the survival of the middle class. Job availability is. I am and have been middle class all my life and I never once needed to take on debt to survive. What I have done is taken on plenty of debt for my wants and desires. All debts have been made from choice and not necessity. I understand life is circumstantial to each individual but it is a false statement to claim that the middle class can't get by without succumbing to massive debt that will throw us into poverty. I'll bet that 9/10 times those with massive debt and sorrow are there for the same reasons I am. We buy cars and frivolous material items that we really don't need. I enjoy those things and try to not take on more than I can handle but sometimes impulse gets me to do otherwise. I bought a house. A house is not necessary for survival. It's nice and all but there are cheap apartments abound if we're being frugal by necessity. Society owes me no debt for my choices. The middle class and many of those below enjoy having lots of things they don't need. I just don't see how someone can portray American capitalism as such an injust travesty. A fairly regulated capitalist market is the best system the civilized world has ever known. The poor here are well off compared to many many other places.

[Space Commander Travis]

the trouble with Capitalism is that, in its unrestrained form, it's actually anti-free market and freedom of choice, isn't it. What it's all about is the biggest companies becoming dominant and swallowing up or driving competitors out of business. The natural result is a monopoly, and no one's really better off, are they (apart from the shareholders). I think the best system would be a free market but with some way of preventing monopolies and dominant positions from emerging.

[Yamato]

the trouble with Capitalism is that, in its unrestrained form, it's actually anti-free market and freedom of choice, isn't it. What it's all about is the biggest companies becoming dominant and swallowing up or driving competitors out of business. The natural result is a monopoly, and no one's really better off, are they (apart from the shareholders). I think the best system would be a free market but with some way of preventing monopolies and dominant positions from emerging.

Preventing dominant positions won't be an exercise in freedom. It would be punitive to both demand and success.