I will go out on a limb: Economic prediction

[RandomGuy]

My gut has been right throughout the last couple of years in a lot of things, but I am normally hesitant to make longer range predictions, but, what the hell:

Banks, despite the most recent profits, will continue to bleed money as commercial real estate becomes the other shoe to drop. Many larger banks will require more bailouts mid to late 2009, despite the strings, and smaller banks will continue to bite the dust at a fast clip. There is a good chance that the bailouts will be turned into equity shares, and eventually sold for a profit for the taxpayer. The financial sector will be more regulated, stabilize, and come back in about 2 years.

The Fed, to fight deflation, will continue to pursue some inflationary policies, keeping the cost of oil (held in dollars) high.

The overall US economy will shrink this year, probably at a pace faster than most economists will expect. The Economist predicts -3.2% (http://www.economist.com/countries/USA/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast). My gut says more around -4.5%, because I don't think enough of them are factoring in the coming retail and commercial real estate contraction.

Gold will stay high for many of the reasons that oil will, but will drop like a lead ballon in about 2 years. I will find this highly amusing.

Stocks will likely end the year lower than they are now, probably by another, say 750 points.

At some time in the next couple of years, we will have to back off goverment deficit spending.

Republicans will wander around in the wilderness, re-discover fiscal conservatism, and pick up a few seats in congress. They will continue to drive moderates out of the party, harming their long-term viability. I see the GOP marginalized over time, unless they learn to embrace moderates more than they are doing now.

If the US stimulus includes a massive chunk of investment in energy infrastructure, both in transmission and renewables, we will do better than most think over the next 10 years.

Our debt will start catching up with us though. Taxes will have to be raised, and that load will be shared by a lot of people, not just the rich.

I think that we may have actually permanently changed in a minor cultural way. We will start saving more. This will mitigate the credit crunch at some point, because those savings will be used to pay down debt, and pad banks as people deposit actual cash. Credit will get flowing again as this happens.

Our economy will start growing again, very slowly, in late 2010.

After that our economy will stagnate for pretty much the next two decades or so, with flat to minimal growth, as energy gets more expensive, and our economy adjusts.

As energy gets more expensive, manufacturing will move back to the US slowly, because it becomes cheaper to make things here than to ship them from Asia.

I think there is a good chance that there will be a breakthrough green/renewable energy technology within about 5-10 years. This might be a game-changer. Depending on how revolutionary it is, it would have a substantial positive impact on US economic growth.

The price of a barrel of oil will reach a consistant $100 in about 7 years, and $200 in about 13.

[RandomGuy]

China will continue to grow quickly over the next 5 to 10 years, then suffer greatly when the cumulative effects of pollution, and an aging population hammers their productivity.

Russia will continue to suck ass, and decline by just about any measure.

North Korea will hang on for a while, and may eventually simply disintegrate within 20 years or so.

Iran's government will moderate somewhat, as the aging zealots of the Revolution die off.

Cuba's communist regime will survive another 10 years or so, and that country will abandon communism, and become rather wealthy in about 25 years.

I don't see the US disintegrating over 40 years as ES does.

[RandomGuy]

Africa will develop fairly well overall, and better than most would think.

[johnsmith]

So you're saying you think the economy will get a little better, taxes will go up, and oil will rise.....................




You should be a 9 news meteoroligist with bold predictions like those.

[RandomGuy]

So you're saying you think the economy will get a little better, taxes will go up, and oil will rise.....................

You should be a 9 news meteoroligist with bold predictions like those.

That was actually what I thought looking over what I wrote. Seemed a bit wishy washy to me too.

I am saying the economy will get worse than most think in the short term, then a little better/stabilize, and then stagnate over the long term.

Oil will get VERY expensive VERY fast, relative to historical trends.

[Wild Cobra]

My gut has been right throughout the last couple of years in a lot of things, but I am normally hesitant to make longer range predictions, but, what the hell:

Banks, despite the most recent profits, will continue to bleed money as commercial real estate becomes the other shoe to drop. Many larger banks will require more bailouts mid to late 2009, despite the strings, and smaller banks will continue to bite the dust at a fast clip. There is a good chance that the bailouts will be turned into equity shares, and eventually sold for a profit for the taxpayer. The financial sector will be more regulated, stabilize, and come back in about 2 years.

I agree that the failures will likely occur as described. The bailouts will cause farther harm, and I doubt taxpayers will see a profit. Corporate entities will find a way of keeping profits. Afterall, they are friends of the democrats.


The Fed, to fight deflation, will continue to pursue some inflationary policies, keeping the cost of oil (held in dollars) high.

Probably


The overall US economy will shrink this year, probably at a pace faster than most economists will expect. The Economist predicts -3.2% (http://www.economist.com/countries/USA/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast). My gut says more around -4.5%, because I don't think enough of them are factoring in the coming retail and commercial real estate contraction.

Sounds good


Gold will stay high for many of the reasons that oil will, but will drop like a lead ballon in about 2 years. I will find this highly amusing.

I agree the ballon will pop, but I give it a little longer than the above estimate. Gold value will drop when stocks become preferred again.


Stocks will likely end the year lower than they are now, probably by another, say 750 points.

I'm still stuck on them hitting as low as 6,000 for the Dow. It is looking like I'm wrong. I just have the gut feeling this administration will make a boneheaded policy that has stock owners running.


At some time in the next couple of years, we will have to back off goverment deficit spending.

No Shit, but do you really think this Marxist president and pork friendly congress will do that?


Republicans will wander around in the wilderness, re-discover fiscal conservatism, and pick up a few seats in congress. They will continue to drive moderates out of the party, harming their long-term viability. I see the GOP marginalized over time, unless they learn to embrace moderates more than they are doing now.

I've been saying similar for how long? Except I don't believe driving moderates out will harm them I think that will save them. They at least need to drive out the liberals.


If the US stimulus includes a massive chunk of investment in energy infrastructure, both in transmission and renewables, we will do better than most think over the next 10 years.

Agreed. Any stimulus money spent needs to be on infrastructure. Not social welfare.


Our debt will start catching up with us though. Taxes will have to be raised, and that load will be shared by a lot of people, not just the rich.

A sad fact, and that will be our downfall. As taxes are raised, revenue increases are only temporary. It causes a decline in free market activities, which in turn, reduce revenues to lower levels than they started. As you lose wealth to tax, the tax revenues are reduced!


I think that we may have actually permanently changed in a minor cultural way. We will start saving more. This will mitigate the credit crunch at some point, because those savings will be used to pay down debt, and pad banks as people deposit actual cash. Credit will get flowing again as this happens.

This should be promoted as a concept for people not to spend beyond their means. Debt itself is not bad, as long as it can be managed properly.


Our economy will start growing again, very slowly, in late 2010.

You're more optimistic than I. I don't see it happening that soon with the policies being implemented by this congress and president. I hope you're right about it being that soon.


After that our economy will stagnate for pretty much the next two decades or so, with flat to minimal growth, as energy gets more expensive, and our economy adjusts.

I disagree here too, unless this president destroys this great nation. Once we get over the bad times, the economy should grow at close to 8% annual, making up for prior losses over time.


As energy gets more expensive, manufacturing will move back to the US slowly, because it becomes cheaper to make things here than to ship them from Asia.

Not if corporate and income taxes rise...

remove income tax, move to a consumption based tax, and manufacturing will move back here more readily than any other means of trying to accomplish that.


I think there is a good chance that there will be a breakthrough green/renewable energy technology within about 5-10 years. This might be a game-changer. Depending on how revolutionary it is, it would have a substantial positive impact on US economic growth.

The prospective financial gains are definitely there now to make more people wanting to develop it. I have a pretty open mind on scientific things. Unless we develop cold fusion, I don't see any cheap energy other than solar and nuclear. Improving the efficiency of solar plants would probably be the best payoff.


The price of a barrel of oil will reach a consistant $100 in about 7 years, and $200 in about 13.

Maybe. I say that is really too hard to predict. Up and down, yes. Maintaining? Too many factors to predict that one in my opinion.

[ChumpDumper]

Corporate entities will find a way of keeping profits. Afterall, they are friends of the democrats.
I just have the gut feeling this administration will make a boneheaded policy that has stock owners running.
this marxist president:lol

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Does Wild Cobra know what Marxism means?

Define the word Marxist without reference to: Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, or liberals--- yeah, I'm pushing my luck on that one

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.leninimports.com/marxbrotherscopy1.jpg

[velik_m]

Africa will develop fairly well overall, and better than most would think.

Nope, not a chance.

[Wild Cobra]

Does Wild Cobra know what Marxism means?

Define the word Marxist without reference to: Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, or liberals--- yeah, I'm pushing my luck on that one
I'm not going to take that much time. However...


Marxism

The system of thought developed by Karl Marx, his coworker Friedrich Engels, and their followers.

It's a style of socialism believing in redistribution of wealth and more. I call him a Marxist because he fits more of the traits than any past president.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

[FaithInOne]

I think New Zealand will become a major player in the next 17 years.

[Cry Havoc]

I'm not going to take that much time. However...



It's a style of socialism believing in redistribution of wealth and more. I call him a Marxist because he fits more of the traits than any past president.

AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHA.

No really, AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Woooooooooow. You would have been so much better off wikipedia'ing it and pretending to know what you're talking about. :lmao

[SnakeBoy]

It's a style of socialism believing in redistribution of wealth and more. I call him a Marxist because he fits more of the traits than any past president.

The socialist/marxist label was good rhetoric during the campaign (even though it didn't work) but it's getting old now. Can we just go back to calling him the antichrist?

[RandomGuy]

The price of a barrel of oil will reach a consistant $100 in about 7 years, and $200 in about 13.


This is a somewhat conservative guess.

I consider it quite possible that both price thresholds will be crossed sooner, but consider the time periods there to be the most probably.

[RandomGuy]

Agreed. Any stimulus money spent needs to be on infrastructure. Not social welfare.

Your problem is that you tend to undervalue human capital.

[Winehole23]

So you're saying you think the economy will get a little better, taxes will go up, and oil will rise.....................




You should be a 9 news meteoroligist with bold predictions like those.Three year crash (credit crisis begins late August 2007) with anemic recovery for decades, easy as calling the weather?

Oil prices going up is a gimme, and if it's really true that anemic recovery for decades is a forecast as easy as tomorrow's weather in Texas, we better not wait for God to help us.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm not going to take that much time. However...



It's a style of socialism believing in redistribution of wealth and more. I call him a Marxist because he fits more of the traits than any past president.

In other words your just making things up as you go along

[Winehole23]

After that our economy will stagnate for pretty much the next two decades or so, with flat to minimal growth, as energy gets more expensive, and our economy adjusts.

[DarrinS]

My two personal favorites:




China will continue to grow quickly over the next 5 to 10 years, then suffer greatly when the cumulative effects of pollution, and an aging population hammers their productivity.


Africa will develop fairly well overall, and better than most would think.



:rollin

[Viva Las Espuelas]

In other words your just making things up as you go along
hey at least he's following obama's lead.

[RandomGuy]

My two personal favorites:


China will continue to grow quickly over the next 5 to 10 years, then suffer greatly when the cumulative effects of pollution, and an aging population hammers their productivity.


Africa will develop fairly well overall, and better than most would think.
:rollin

.. and this is funny... why?

[DarrinS]

.. and this is funny... why?


The only thing that may doom China's economy is enacting climate change laws and/or loaning the US too much money.


As for Africa, I've seen nothing in my lifetime to suggest anything will change for the better.

[RandomGuy]

Three year crash (credit crisis begins late August 2007) with anemic recovery for decades, easy as calling the weather?

Oil prices going up is a gimme, and if it's really true that anemic recovery for decades is a forecast as easy as tomorrow's weather in Texas, we better not wait for God to help us.

Our economy is based on cheap oil and cheap energy.

We will eke out some efficiency gains at first, but my reading of both oil depletion, and global climate change leads me to think our best days of growth are behind us.

I don't think we will have the political will to gear up renewables while energy is relatively cheap, meaning we will have to do it much more expensively later, and that will drag growth.

One other factor that will feed into this is the aging of America. We have some rather nasty unfunded liabilities in the form of Social Security, et al.

Conservatives and special interests will continue to fight for any kind of meaningful efficiency gains in the health insurance area, so I just don't see that happening. Yet another drag on the economy.

Europe, on the other hand, is both pushing for renewables, and have comprehensive health insurance coverage. I think the big bad socialists will secure an interesting competitive advantage there. What they may lack in labor market flexibility, they will make up for somewhat with this.

[DarrinS]

Conservatives and special interests will continue to fight for any kind of meaningful efficiency gains in the health insurance area, so I just don't see that happening. Yet another drag on the economy.


The biggest drags on our economy would be cap-n-trade and socialized medicine. If anyone in congress has any common sense, both of those plans with be thrown on the scrap heap.




Europe, on the other hand, is both pushing for renewables, and have comprehensive health insurance coverage. I think the big bad socialists will secure an interesting competitive advantage there. What they may lack in labor market flexibility, they will make up for somewhat with this.


Socialized medicine and cap-trade have been wonderful success stories in Europe.

:lmao

[Winehole23]

As for Africa, I've seen nothing in my lifetime to suggest anything will change for the better.

http://blogs.netapp.com/exposed/WindowsLiveWriter/magic-8-ball-5.jpg

[RandomGuy]

The only thing that may doom China's economy is enacting climate change laws and/or loaning the US too much money.


As for Africa, I've seen nothing in my lifetime to suggest anything will change for the better.

Why does it not surprise me that yet another conservative has a viewpoint limited to media stereotypes of both China and Africa?

China has the fastest aging population on the planet, no health care system to speak of, industrial pollution on a scale that is inconceviable to most Americans, and contains most of the spots in the "most polluted cities" lists due to air quality that would choke you to tears.

I can provide a lot of links to all of this if needed.

This all points to a shrinking, unhealthy population, which is very bad for economic growth.

Africa is, economically and otherwise, about on par with Europe a couple of hundred years ago.

Considering that when the twentieth century began it was on par with Europe several thousand years ago, they are moving fairly quickly up the development scale, media bits not withstanding.

Here is a guy with actual data, and not Fox "news" reports and feel-good judgmentalism:

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen .html

[RandomGuy]

Google search for:
china aging population

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=china+aging+population&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Note that no few of these are financial/business press articles

[RandomGuy]

Google search for:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=china+industrial+pollution+&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Here is a good one (pdf):
Analysis of Environmental Efficiency in China's Regional Economies: Is China's Development Sustainable? (http://www.cerdi.org/colloque/CHINE2007/papier/YanruiWu.pdf)

[RandomGuy]

China is already home to 16 of the planet's 20 most heavily polluted cities -- a noxious byproduct of its double-digit economic growth. (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/13/world/fg-chinaair13)

Seven of 10 homes still burn coal and wood for heat, and half of Chinese men smoke -- a toxic combination of indoor pollution that raises dire questions about the fate of this industrial giant's long-term public health.
Over the next quarter-century, 83 million Chinese -- a number equaling nearly a third of the total U.S. population -- will die from lung cancer and respiratory ailments without the reduction of cigarette smoking and indoor fuel-burning, a new study by Harvard's School of Public Health warns.

"In many places in rural China, the roads are good, people now have cellphones and electricity, but residents are still cooking and heating with the same fuel they have used for centuries," said Majid Ezzati, an associate professor of international health and senior author of the study. "And as a result, people are dying."

In an article published this month in the Lancet medical journal, the Harvard team also concludes that programs to reduce smoking and household use of coal and biomass fuels such as wood for cooking and heating could significantly reduce the deaths.

The question, researchers say, is whether the Chinese government has the political willpower to enact sound public health policy.

"This analysis shows that smoking and fuel use, which affects hundreds of millions of people in China, will be a defining feature of future health in that country," said Hsien-Ho Lin, a graduate student in the department of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health and the lead author of the study.

Ezzati said he was working a few years ago in central China when his team noticed the high number of deaths, which residents did not seem to attribute to their household habits.

"People may know when they are in the house and it's very smoky . . . that it's making them cough -- their chest may hurt and their eyes burn. They talk about symptoms and discomfort," he said.

"They know there is something that's not good from their living conditions. But neither in China nor in other parts of the world do these people say: 'This is making me die early.' "

[DarrinS]

Strangely enough, we have to go begging China for more money and we give tons of money to Africa.

[DarrinS]

RandomGuy,

We get it -- China is very polluted -- so is India. So what?

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy,

We get it -- China is very polluted -- so is India. So what?

I know this is hard for your anti-environementalist mind to get around, but pollution destroys ecnomic growth.

Environmatal laws are good for the economy.

No environmental laws = unhealthy population.

Unhealthy population = unproductive population.

[DarrinS]

I know this is hard for your anti-environementalist mind to get around, but pollution destroys ecnomic growth.

Environmatal laws are good for the economy.

No environmental laws = unhealthy population.

Unhealthy population = unproductive population.



We are a lot healthier than the WWII generation, but I'd argue that we are not as productive (ahem -- Spurstalk).


EDIT> For the record, I'm not anti-environmental -- just pro-human.

[RandomGuy]

The only thing that may doom China's economy is enacting climate change laws

http://www.hastingsmuseum.org/exhibitions/kaexhibit/kaexhibit-ban.jpg

... and that is why you fail, padawan.

[DarrinS]

And yet, for some strange reason, China and India both said no to limiting CO2 emmissions. I wonder why? If, as you say, it would be so great for their economies.

[RandomGuy]

We are a lot healthier than the WWII generation, but I'd argue that we are not as productive (ahem -- Spurstalk).


EDIT> For the record, I'm not anti-environmental -- just pro-human.

A lot of people who style themselves conservatives like to believe this about themselves.

Environemental laws and their enforcement are generally good for the economy, and produce a more efficient allocation of capital.

[Ignignokt]

A lot of people who style themselves conservatives like to believe this about themselves.

Environemental laws and their enforcement are generally good for the economy, and produce a more efficient allocation of capital.

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao: lmao hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahah ahalololololololololololololololololololololololol olololololololololololololololol!

[DarrinS]

A lot of people who style themselves conservatives like to believe this about themselves.

Environemental laws and their enforcement are generally good for the economy, and produce a more efficient allocation of capital.


What is your basis for saying this?

[RandomGuy]

And yet, for some strange reason, China and India both said no to limiting CO2 emmissions. I wonder why? If, as you say, it would be so great for their economies.

More feel-good conservativism in a lame attempt to poke a whole in an economic argument.

Countries do things all the time that aren't in their collective best interests.

Pollution control is good for the economy. You claim not to be "anti-environmentalist" but you can't seem to grasp this basic concept.

Your knee-jerk reactions belie your claims that you aren't anti-environmentalist.

[RandomGuy]

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao: lmao hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahah ahalololololololololololololololololololololololol olololololololololololololololol!

:wgaf:

[RandomGuy]

What is your basis for saying this?

I've gone through this explanation many times on this message board.

Stretch yourself, abandon your preconceived notions, and YOU try to make the case, just as a devil's advocate thing. It is quite possible.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I've gone through this explanation many times on this message board.

Stretch yourself, abandon your preconceived notions, and YOU try to make the case, just as a devil's advocate thing. It is quite possible.

Conservatives know everything haven't you heard?

[DarrinS]

Conservatives know everything haven't you heard?


I didn't "go out on a limb" and make all kinds of crazy prediction.


One thing I am pretty sure of: Obamacare and tax-n-trade won't be signed into law and that will be a huge victory for the American people.

[Ignignokt]

I've gone through this explanation many times on this message board.

Stretch yourself, abandon your preconceived notions, and YOU try to make the case, just as a devil's advocate thing. It is quite possible.

Maybe you can convince us with a "Modern World" comic strip.

[RandomGuy]

Maybe you can convince us with a "Modern World" comic strip.

Maybe you can prove I'm wrong with smiley and an "lol". :lmao

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/awayfromme.jpg

[RandomGuy]

I didn't "go out on a limb" and make all kinds of crazy prediction.


One thing I am pretty sure of: Obamacare and tax-n-trade won't be signed into law and that will be a huge victory for the American people.

You didn't even try.

Name one way in which a pollution control law might benefit the economy.

Just one.

[Ignignokt]

Cap n trade is such a good buisiness idea, every buisiness decided to implement it on it's own.

[Ignignokt]

You didn't even try.

Name one way in which a pollution control law might benefit the economy.

Just one.

on a local level, aesthetically heavy industry can drive away prospective yuppies in a town. THere are many other's but in general more green regulation hurts rather than helps buisiness.

[RandomGuy]

on a local level, aesthetically heavy industry can drive away prospective yuppies in a town. THere are many other's but in general more green regulation hurts rather than helps buisiness.

Tell you what.

I'll drill a water well slanted down at an angle, and aim for directly underneath any refinery in the US.

You and your family can then drink all the unfiltered water from that water table for 20 years.

Then tell me how economically productive you collectively were as a unit at the end of that 20 years.

[RandomGuy]

on a local level, aesthetically heavy industry can drive away prospective yuppies in a town. THere are many other's but in general more green regulation hurts rather than helps buisiness.

Because as we all know, a leather tanning factory with a revenue of $2,000,000 per year dumping unrestrictedly into a large river, won't kill off a $2,000,000,000 fishing and tourism industry, and cause every water utility on that river to have to pay a few hundred million dollars a year in extra treament to provide drinkable water.

I mean that would just be economic suicide to force that tanning factory to actually clean up its emissions.

[Ignignokt]

Tell you what.

I'll drill a water well slanted down at an angle, and aim for directly underneath any refinery in the US.

You and your family can then drink all the unfiltered water from that water table for 20 years.

Then tell me how economically productive you collectively were as a unit at the end of that 20 years.

Oh shit!

That scenario is the be all end all! I'm totally convinced all those buisinesses not going green earlier were all dittoheads, it's such a homerun idea!

doof.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/images/11-3-52.jpg

Because allowing rivers to become so polluted that they catch on fire is great for the economy.

[Ignignokt]

Because as we all know, a leather tanning factory with a revenue of $2,000,000 per year dumping unrestrictedly into a large river, won't kill off a $2,000,000,000 fishing and tourism industry, and cause every water utility on that river to have to pay a few hundred million dollars a year in extra treament to provide drinkable water.

I mean that would just be economic suicide to force that tanning factory to actually clean up its emissions.

So what does that have to do with Carbon emmisions?

[Ignignokt]

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/images/11-3-52.jpg

Because allowing rivers to become so polluted that they catch on fire is great for the economy.

because killing baby seals is good for teen abstinence.

[DarrinS]

Stringent environmental regulation has done wonders for California's economy.

[RandomGuy]

So what does that have to do with Carbon emmisions?

Emissions in this case would be the emissions of toxic materials into the river that kill fish, and caused the clean up expense.

While the word "emission" generally used in english, means gaseous emissions, it also encompasses any type of physical expulsion of matter, such as liquid being dumped into a river.

[DarrinS]

Emissions in this case would be the emissions of toxic materials into the river that kill fish, and caused the clean up expense.

Do try to keep up.



I'm for limiting this kind of pollution.


What I'm against is taxing a trace gas that is necessary for all life on the Earth.

[2centsworth]

two things I'm reminded of when I read this thread.

1. The political forum is a huge waste of time

2. 2cents is the greatest financial mind ever to grace spurstalk


I'll check back in and try to help you poor souls in a couple of months.

[byrontx]

I enjoyed RandonGuy's bold predictions but they seemed strictly economic without calculating potential political upheavals such as what may be occurring in Iran (+). Conversely to Iran where the youth are agitating for democratic progression, aging populations in Arab countries will most likely will dampen the fires of radical Islam. More stability in the Mid-East may offset to some degree the rising cost of oil and move countries' and organizations' investments away from military hardware to civilian goods and infrastructure.

As RandonGuy noted, on macroeconomic scale better environmental practices promotes efficiency. Being able to dump pollutants so that someone downstream goes bankrupt fighting cancer doesn't prosper society. Sick people are not a foundation for economic health.

Also to be factored in are technological advancements. Developing fusion/fission hybrid reactors (http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/26/fusion-fission-reactor-technology-breakthroughs-fusion.html), plama-based waste recycling (http://www.recoveredenergy.com/) and other advancements are not pie-in-the-sky; in fact, I hope that some stimulus funds go in this direction if there is a second go-round.

I think that the greatest days for our country are ahead of us and I am glad that we have someone with a brain as our President. Hopefully, we will never have another Bush-type.

[DarkReign]

Cap+Trade != Environmental Protection

[doobs]

Environemental laws and their enforcement are generally good for the economy, and produce a more efficient allocation of capital.

Go on . . .

[SnakeBoy]

Cap+Trade != Environmental Protection

Blasphemy!

[Wild Cobra]

What is really ridiculous is that it would take more than 7000 years at our current CO2 release rates to increase the atmosphere by 100 ppm.

We have not cause the increased CO2. The equilibrium between the ocean and atmosphere has been changing. As the ocean warms from global warming, it releases more CO2 than it absorbs.

the equilibrium is about 49:1. The ocean contains something like 39,100 giga-tons of carbon. The atmosphere now about 798 for 383 ppm. For every 8 giga tons we expel, if the balance was static, it would take 50 years at 8 gTons for the atmosphere to increase by 8, or about 4 ppm. At that rate, it would take 1250 years to raise the atmosphere 100 ppm. However, if the ocean warms by 1 degree average, it expels about 4% of it's Carbon into the atmosphere as CO2. 4% of 39100 is 1564 gigatons, or about 750 ppm. It would only take between a 0.1 C to 0.2 C increase in ocean temperature to see the 100+ ppm increase we have since the 1700's.

Temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

[sabar]

Emissions in this case would be the emissions of toxic materials into the river that kill fish, and caused the clean up expense.

While the word "emission" generally used in english, means gaseous emissions, it also encompasses any type of physical expulsion of matter, such as liquid being dumped into a river.

Things to consider.

The free market regulates pollution to some extent, but not as much as environmentalists want. Why?

Government places restrictions on polluting to the point where the industry can become economically inferior to traditionally expensive alternatives. Consider things like subsidizing energy, the inefficiency of wind power and nuclear power in terms of cost per megawatt (before government taxes/regulation/subsidies).

The reason is that the producer doesn't bear the cost of the externalities they create. The perfect free market can never solve this unless the producers are benevolent and all internalize the cost. The problem is that government intervention is implied, but I think industry gets hit too hard. Taxes/regulations/fines/laws/subsidies all add up at the local/state/national level quickly. This makes us less efficient as we use more capital to produce the same amount of energy. It is not clear that this money equates to the cost of the pollution, and I don't trust that government would properly predict those costs without a large overrun.

My economic prediction: China will take advantage and gladly be the main polluter to close the gap (if any is left) between them and the United States. Pure industrial output can outpace the cost of pollution as the industrial revolution showed. It's a lot like sprinting in a race; you go all out and when you pass up the other guys and win, you can burn-out and recover. The effects of pollution take years to manifest. By the time China burns all their coal for pennies on the dollar, they will be far ahead.

It is important to think of environmentalism as a kind of free-rider problem. It only takes one country to harm the effects of widespread adoption of some policy. The entire world could vote to ban burning of coal, but as long as one country is importing it on the cheap and burning it, what does it really mean? Sure, the throughput of pollution is lowered by a large amount, but all the coal is getting used up either way. On a geological timescale, what is the difference between burning off all fossil fuels within 40 years or within 3000? None. Power requirements won't go down either. Every year people use more electricity, and population growth is exponential.

[RandomGuy]

Socialized medicine and cap-trade have been wonderful success stories in Europe.

:lmao

Reducing carbon emissions by reducing carbon-based "fossil" fuels will seem remarkably prescient when they are several steps ahead of us in converting their economies and we are having to play catch up.

They will be insulated from the run-ups in the prices of oil/coal/gas because their energy sources and economic patterns will have already shifted, making their industry more competitive, all things held equal.

Europeans are, by a large measure, satisfied with their health care, and that health care costs less than it does in the US.

The single largest cause of personal bankruptcy in the US is due to medical bills. You don't think that produces some inefficiency and drags on the economy?

Meh. "socialised medicine" is not the bugaboo for a lot of people that it used to be.

[RandomGuy]

Pure industrial output can outpace the cost of pollution as the industrial revolution showed.

"can" being the operative word.

The problem with using the past to predict the future is that subtle changes in starting conditions can have huge impacts ending conditions.

I have always been a firm believer in the value of human capital as an underestimated driver of economic growth.

The industrial revolution accompanied a massive increase in population as farming methods improved at the same time.

China does not have that demographic pattern. As noted before it has the most rapidly aging population on the planet.

Further, the pace of growth, overall larger population, and consequently more dense population means to me that the analogy does not hold especially well.

Simply put, our ability as a species to pollute, and the impact of that pollution on the overall population because that population is more densely concentrated in polluted areas is FAR greater than it was during the west's industrial revolution.

I think the costs of Chinese pollution will outpace their economic development for this reason.

[RandomGuy]

Temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

Your opinion. Duly noted and given the weight it deserves.

[LnGrrrR]

The only true fix to the Free Rider problem is convincing the free rider to pay up, either through shame, fear, appeals to their better self, or some other method.

[101A]

Europeans are, by a large measure, satisfied with their health care..

So are Americans.

[SnakeBoy]

I pay $187/month for my Blue Cross/Blue Shield policy, that covers my wife and I. I'm satisfied.

[RandomGuy]

Americans [are by and large satisfied with their health care].

Proof?

Does this include the tens of millions without health insurance or drug coverage?

[RandomGuy]

I pay $187/month for my Blue Cross/Blue Shield policy, that covers my wife and I. I'm satisfied.

The policy costs more than $187/month. What is your employer's share?

[Extra Stout]

Prediction:

RandomGuy will continue reading Calculated Risk.

[Wild Cobra]

Your opinion. Duly noted and given the weight it deserves.
You should study some chemistry and the basic geosciences, and look at the facts. Only studying climatology isn't enough. That's just a glorified weatherman.

[LnGrrrR]

My health care is free.

Go military!

[RandomGuy]

Prediction:

RandomGuy will continue reading Calculated Risk.

Hmmm, I think I have heard of this before, but never really read it.

I assume you are talking about:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/

Other than a few financial advice columns in Yahoo finance, I don't really read other people's blogs at all. My reading habits tend to be more along the lines of the Economist, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and anything on Yahoo business section, that includes a propensity for the Christian Science Monitor.

Oddly enough, I have been thinking about starting my own blog, but probably don't have time to make it worth a shit.

[RandomGuy]

You should study some chemistry and the basic geosciences, and look at the facts. Only studying climatology isn't enough. That's just a glorified weatherman.

You should learn how to think critically and devote yourself to being more intellectually honest.

Being smart involves being able to understand the relationships between events, finding and questioning hidden assumptions, and so on.

By that metric, you are not smart. I envision your ability to analyse information a bit like a high-performance sports car engine poorly installed in a rusty worn-out 1972 Dodge Rambler.

You have an ability to learn facts, but virtually no ability to use those facts in objective, meaningful analysis, or to synthesize that information and draw appropriate conclusions from the given data. Your high-performance engine is completely hobbled by an inadequate transmission and rusted suspension.

Your intellect is hobbled by confirmation bias and the inability to think critically.

I say this with no sense of hostility. You are what you are. Perhaps someday you will learn how to evaluate hidden assumptions, but I will not hold my breath.

[Wild Cobra]

You should learn how to think critically and devote yourself to being more intellectually honest.

Being smart involves being able to understand the relationships between events, finding and questioning hidden assumptions, and so on.

By that metric, you are not smart. I envision your ability to analyse information a bit like a high-performance sports car engine poorly installed in a rusty worn-out 1972 Dodge Rambler.

You have an ability to learn facts, but virtually no ability to use those facts in objective, meaningful analysis, or to synthesize that information and draw appropriate conclusions from the given data. Your high-performance engine is completely hobbled by an inadequate transmission and rusted suspension.

Your intellect is hobbled by confirmation bias and the inability to think critically.

I say this with no sense of hostility. You are what you are. Perhaps someday you will learn how to evaluate hidden assumptions, but I will not hold my breath.
Wow...

I'm sure that means allot coming from you...

LOL... LOL...

You haven't a clue of my analytic abilities when I put them to use. You throw around phrases like confirmation bias when you don't know squat about the geosciences to make your point. You believe in peer review on subjects like this when the process is thoroughly corrupted in this field. You believe the propaganda of others for that reason. I have shown very good scientific facts related to solar radiation, CO2 solubility vs. temperature, the ability of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and more. Until you understand the things I do, you are a utter fool to make the above statements.

[DarkReign]

allot

How much is my share?

[Wild Cobra]

How much is my share?
I'm not sure what you mean, but at least I respect your opinion. I have lost respect of Random's, and just blow him off most the time anymore.

[LnGrrrR]

Until you understand the things I do, you are a utter fool to make the above statements.

This is the perfect sentence to encapsulate the way WC thinks.

If you think the way I do, ie. you agree with my view of the facts, you are correct and to be lauded.

If you differ on what the facts say, or their interpretation, then you are wrong and an utter fool to even comment.

[Wild Cobra]

This is the perfect sentence to encapsulate the way WC thinks.

If you think the way I do, ie. you agree with my view of the facts, you are correct and to be lauded.

If you differ on what the facts say, or their interpretation, then you are wrong and an utter fool to even comment.
OK, I stated that wrong. In the case of Global Warming, real scientific facts are necessary to understand before being able to make an assessment. That is what I meant.

Random relys on peer reviewed works, which by the hostile political nature in the global warming subject, is absolutely corrupted.

Your interpretation that I meant one needs to think like me is an incorrect assumption. People like him are an absolute waste of time to deal with because they don't have the scientific understanding to debate the subject. My words and concepts are gibberish to him, then he comes back by quoting other peoples work.

[LnGrrrR]

OK, I stated that wrong. In the case of Global Warming, real scientific facts are necessary to understand before being able to make an assessment. That is what I meant.

Random relys on peer reviewed works, which by the hostile political nature in the global warming subject, is absolutely corrupted.

Your interpretation that I meant one needs to think like me is an incorrect assumption. People like him are an absolute waste of time to deal with because they don't have the scientific understanding to debate the subject. My words and concepts are gibberish to him, then he comes back by quoting other peoples work.

Be empathetic for a moment WC.

Obviously, not everyone can be an expert in everything, can they?

So, if he reads peer-reviewed articles from 90% of the scientific community, but they disagree with you, who is he to believe? If he doesn't have the training to determine what those facts are saying, why should he inherently trust you over what the majority of the scientific community believes?

(Btw, that is my opinion of things. I'm ambivalent towards global warming, and am willing to trust the majority of scientists because I don't care to do the research needed to prove them wrong.)

[RandomGuy]

Wow...

I'm sure that means allot coming from you...

LOL... LOL...

You haven't a clue of my analytic abilities when I put them to use. You throw around phrases like confirmation bias when you don't know squat about the geosciences to make your point. You believe in peer review on subjects like this when the process is thoroughly corrupted in this field. You believe the propaganda of others for that reason. I have shown very good scientific facts related to solar radiation, CO2 solubility vs. temperature, the ability of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and more. Until you understand the things I do, you are a utter fool to make the above statements.

Think what you will to feel better about yourself. It is not my concern.

I do not have to have a degree in physics to see the way your acquit yourself here on a variety of topics I *do* know about.

Sloppy leaps of conclusion, an inability to honestly admit when you may have made a mistake, a lack of reading comprehension, constant logical fallacies, and simple intellectual dishonesty, all paints a pretty comprehensive picture of the way you approach things.

Given the above, I have very good reason to believe that you approach topics that you are educated on with the same poor analysis skills, and that allows me to assign your opinion on such matters little weight, without having to spend years learning chemistry. You could very well be right, but along the same lines, I could very well win the lottery tomorrow.

Again, I say this rather dispassionately. You are what you are.

Perhaps you will be motivated one day to actively acquire the critical thinking skills you so obviously lack. I would guess you are not there yet emotionally.

[DarkReign]

I'm not sure what you mean, but at least I respect your opinion. I have lost respect of Random's, and just blow him off most the time anymore.

Honestly, it was a stupid comment from me. I wasnt trying to critique for something as frivolous as a spelling/grammar error.

Allot = a portion or share of something The company shall allot Mr.CEO with such-n-such compensation of the total Board revenue pool.

a lot = more than is needed (you dont need a sentence).

Like I said, stupid comment.

[Winehole23]

It is a sign of scientific maturity to make the argument for the other side and then to refute it. Neither RG nor WC does this, ergo, neither one makes the strongest case for his own side, but instead asserts his own argument more or less dogmatically, and disparages the other for differing.

[RandomGuy]

It is a sign of scientific maturity to make the argument for the other side and then to refute it. Neither RG nor WC does this, ergo, neither one makes the strongest case for his own side, but instead asserts his own argument more or less dogmatically, and disparages the other for differing.

Not quite.

I don't make the case or assert the Global Warming Theory.

I acknowledge it as a distinct possibility, as there seems to be some fair scientific evidence to support the assertion that CO2 emissions are harmfully altering the overall global climate.

I also fully admit that this is far from a certainty, and could quite possibly turn out to be wrong.

That is not the kind of statement that fits the definition of "dogmatic".

What I *do* assert is that it is fairly reasonable to mitigate the known risks of global warming, as the worst case scenario is Very Bad. Not only that I think the long-term economic benefits of lowering carbon emissions outweigh the costs.


What WC will assert is that, without the slightest doubt, there is no such thing as man-made global warming and we are affecting the overall global climate to only a miniscule degree, with no possible harm done from all of mans emissions of CO2 and other green-house gasses. He has admitted, that I have seen, a vanishingly small chance that he is wrong about this.

He also believes, with no evidence or reasoned argument that I have EVER seen, that lowering carbon emissions will cause an economic catastrophe. The only support that has EVER been provided to support this is ONE obsolete, flawed, decade old economic study, and WC didn't actually give me that, so presumedly he hasn't even read it.

I don't fault WC for holding a differing opinion. I fault him for shitty logic, proven intellectual dishonsty, and a lack of any critical thinking skills.

This assessment is independent of any disagreement of opinion.

[Winehole23]

This assessment is independent of any disagreement of opinion.I asserted this argumentatively. I grant you're correct about this.

But there is a personal thing too. Eh?

I've had moments where I deleted my comment to WC and went private with it. Sometimes a post is really too cutting and personally directed to post it for everybody to see.

IMHO.

[Winehole23]

I don't fault WC for holding a differing opinion. I fault him for shitty logic, proven intellectual dishonsty, and a lack of any critical thinking skills.WC emphasizes it well enough in his own posts IMO, but I substantially agree .

For me all this is in the category of gnomic poetry. Sumer is Icumen In.


The sky is blue;

the grass is green.

A big buck stands

in the clearing

and farts.

[Wild Cobra]

WC emphasizes it well enough in his own posts IMO, but I substantially agree .

Well, if you understood the sciences I have explained, and followed my logic, you would see I am being honest. Not intellectually dishonest.

You know the basics of how a greenhouse works? Light enters the inside. Heat is produced and infrared is now scattered. Glass is reflective to infrared radiation, so it traps it inside. Although not exactly the same, that is why CO2, Methane, Water Vapor, etc. is called a greenhouse gas. They trap heat.

Now if you take the greenhouse, and use thicker glass, it doesn't help any. The thinner glass is just as effective of a mirror to IR as the thicker glass. Compare that to having a mirror that is made of 1/8" glass. You decide to replace it with a mirror made of 3/16" glass. Do you notice any difference in the quality of the reflection? Is your reflection 50% better? It is similar to greenhouse gasses. Once you have so much, adding more, even substantially more, makes no remarkable increase in the ability to trap heat. The first 100 ppm or so effectively trapped most the heat that can be trapped. Now it does make some difference, but very minimal.

[Winehole23]

I'll cede to your own limited mastery of science for the purpose of *demonstrations* in the thread. It surely exceeds my own, maestro. :tu

I do reserve the right to disagree with your conclusions, according to the ineluctable elaborations of my own ignorant mind.

Please forgive me in advance should I do so too frequently at times. :toast

In this case I am too ignorant to be persuadable by *either side*. I'm a popcorn eater on AGW.

[LnGrrrR]

I'll cede to your own limited mastery of science for the purpose of *demonstrations* in the thread. It surely exceeds my own, maestro. :tu

I do reserve the right to disagree with your conclusions, according to the ineluctable elaborations of my own ignorant mind.

Please forgive me in advance should I do so too frequently at times. :toast

In this case I am too ignorant to be persuadable by *either side*. I'm a popcorn eater on AGW.

Pretty much where I stand. I don't know enough to know, so I just side with the majority.

[Winehole23]

You cede to the *reputable* consensus of science, as it were?

[LnGrrrR]

You cede to the *reputable* consensus of science, as it were?

Yup.

I figure, if every scientist is reputable, then we should trust the majority's word.

If every scientist is irreputable, then they're all just as likely to be believed or disbelieved, so might as well side with the majority.

And if it's a mixed bag, how am I to tell the difference without formal education in those fields anyways?

Hence my decision.

[Extra Stout]

I would be glib
and say that tomorrow
will either be better
or worse
or the same
but I cannot
because whether it is better
or worse
or the same
depends on what you define as good
or bad
and I don't think we can even agree anymore that there is a definition.

[Winehole23]

but I cannot
because whether it is better
or worse
or the same
depends on what you define as good
or bad
and I don't think we can even agree anymore that there is a definition.Only pomo airheads come to a full stop here. There is still puny internetz contention....phony forensics...talking to people while you're drunk...or wasting time at work...

[101A]

..talking to people while you're drunk...or wasting time at work...

Or Both!

:toast

[ElNono]

Or Both!

:toast

I'll drink to that... :toast

[Winehole23]

http://content5.videojug.com/e9/e91e0c80-10d7-6654-893a-ff0008c889b8/how-to-make-a-rosita-cocktail.jpg

[RandomGuy]

My gut has been right throughout the last couple of years in a lot of things, but I am normally hesitant to make longer range predictions, but, what the hell:

Banks, despite the most recent profits, will continue to bleed money as commercial real estate becomes the other shoe to drop. Many larger banks will require more bailouts mid to late 2009, despite the strings, and smaller banks will continue to bite the dust at a fast clip. There is a good chance that the bailouts will be turned into equity shares, and eventually sold for a profit for the taxpayer. The financial sector will be more regulated, stabilize, and come back in about 2 years.

The Fed, to fight deflation, will continue to pursue some inflationary policies, keeping the cost of oil (held in dollars) high.

The overall US economy will shrink this year, probably at a pace faster than most economists will expect. The Economist predicts -3.2% (http://www.economist.com/countries/USA/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast). My gut says more around -4.5%, because I don't think enough of them are factoring in the coming retail and commercial real estate contraction.

Gold will stay high for many of the reasons that oil will, but will drop like a lead ballon in about 2 years. I will find this highly amusing.

Stocks will likely end the year lower than they are now, probably by another, say 750 points.

At some time in the next couple of years, we will have to back off goverment deficit spending.

Republicans will wander around in the wilderness, re-discover fiscal conservatism, and pick up a few seats in congress. They will continue to drive moderates out of the party, harming their long-term viability. I see the GOP marginalized over time, unless they learn to embrace moderates more than they are doing now.

If the US stimulus includes a massive chunk of investment in energy infrastructure, both in transmission and renewables, we will do better than most think over the next 10 years.

Our debt will start catching up with us though. Taxes will have to be raised, and that load will be shared by a lot of people, not just the rich.

I think that we may have actually permanently changed in a minor cultural way. We will start saving more. This will mitigate the credit crunch at some point, because those savings will be used to pay down debt, and pad banks as people deposit actual cash. Credit will get flowing again as this happens.

Our economy will start growing again, very slowly, in late 2010.

After that our economy will stagnate for pretty much the next two decades or so, with flat to minimal growth, as energy gets more expensive, and our economy adjusts.

As energy gets more expensive, manufacturing will move back to the US slowly, because it becomes cheaper to make things here than to ship them from Asia.

I think there is a good chance that there will be a breakthrough green/renewable energy technology within about 5-10 years. This might be a game-changer. Depending on how revolutionary it is, it would have a substantial positive impact on US economic growth.

The price of a barrel of oil will reach a consistant $100 in about 7 years, and $200 in about 13.

A year later we are still stagnated. Mostly due to the lack of consumer spending and lack of corporate investment.

I still see the economy stagnated a year from now. I think people will continue to reduce spending relative to income and start saving more, partly out of necessity. A lot of people have taken some major hits to their credit scores, and will not be given credit, even if they wanted it. That will force savings for needed purchases.

A real societal shift.

Note:
This is pretty much independent of what the government does or doesn't do.

Don't expect changing the party in control of congress to make a difference in that.

I think the big bad bailouts, and the stimulus, both acted to prevent the larger contraction that I predicted. Good to be wrong on that.

Do not expect the US economy to start growing any time soon. I would say that stagnation for a decade or more is the most likely scenario. Elect Republicans, elect Democrats, elect who ever, it won't make much of a difference, although I view the Dems as being more responsible fiscal conservatives, i.e. tax and spend, as opposed to borrow and spend.

[RandomGuy]

There is a good chance that the bailouts will be turned into equity shares, and eventually sold for a profit for the taxpayer. The financial sector will be more regulated, stabilize, and come back in about 2 years.

Got at least the first part right.

The current foreclosure snafu (bad paperwork forcing banks to halt foreclosures) will keep the losses at the big banks going for a while. That and it will likely drive up their costs, as they have to actually work with people.

Seems like the strategic foreclosures on expensive homes is continuing. Contrary to popular belief, strategic foreclosures are being driven by relatively wealthy people walking away. Gee thanks, assholes.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh shit. I can't believe I missed WC's gas=glass screed.

[boutons_deux]

"The financial sector will be more regulated"

Really?

As with health care, the legislation is passed for financial sectors, but the rule-writing is being lobbied violently, and the Repugs promise to undo/defund all of it.

Could Republicans gut parts of Wall St reform law?



Republicans are targeting specific provisions of the reforms, such as funding for the new consumer watchdog.

Three senior Republican senators -- Richard Shelby, Lamar Alexander and Judd Gregg (who is retiring) -- told Reuters last month that making changes to the law will be a top priority after the congressional election on November 2.

John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, has sharply criticized Dodd-Frank and said he wants to repeal it.

"Banks are trying to move ahead of the regulations so they can shape the regulations themselves,"

Early next year, the Fed must write rules for implementing three key parts of Dodd-Frank:

-- the Volcker rule limiting proprietary trading by banks

-- a rule limiting banks' ability to count trust-preferred securities as Tier One capital

-- new limits on debit card transaction fees.

http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE6953NN20101006

=======

Blankfein/Goldman is quoted as saying money can flow anywhere and regulations won't stop him. He'll just move his money to wherever self-dealing, insider dealing, gambling, wild speculation, pump-and-dump trading, etc, are not forbidden.

[RandomGuy]

"The financial sector will be more regulated"

Really?

As with health care, the legislation is passed for financial sectors, but the rule-writing is being lobbied violently, and the Repugs promise to undo/defund all of it.

Could Republicans gut parts of Wall St reform law?



Republicans are targeting specific provisions of the reforms, such as funding for the new consumer watchdog.

Three senior Republican senators -- Richard Shelby, Lamar Alexander and Judd Gregg (who is retiring) -- told Reuters last month that making changes to the law will be a top priority after the congressional election on November 2.

John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, has sharply criticized Dodd-Frank and said he wants to repeal it.

"Banks are trying to move ahead of the regulations so they can shape the regulations themselves,"

Early next year, the Fed must write rules for implementing three key parts of Dodd-Frank:

-- the Volcker rule limiting proprietary trading by banks

-- a rule limiting banks' ability to count trust-preferred securities as Tier One capital

-- new limits on debit card transaction fees.

http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE6953NN20101006

=======

Blankfein/Goldman is quoted as saying money can flow anywhere and regulations won't stop him. He'll just move his money to wherever self-dealing, insider dealing, gambling, wild speculation, pump-and-dump trading, etc, are not forbidden.

I thought the regulation would be a bit more strict than the weak sauce that was served up.

Guess we haven't really learned our lesson about letting the financial sector "innovate".

Fuck. :bang

We did not electe enough Democrats to really enact enough reform to be meaningful. We got instead, a lot of Republicans falling all over themselves to be seen as "business friendly".

[CosmicCowboy]

I thought the regulation would be a bit more strict than the weak sauce that was served up.

Guess we haven't really learned our lesson about letting the financial sector "innovate".

Fuck. :bang

We did not electe enough Democrats to really enact enough reform to be meaningful. We got instead, a lot of Republicans falling all over themselves to be seen as "business friendly".

your naivete in blaming everything on Republicans is amusing. Goldman Sachs OWNS the Obama administration.

[RandomGuy]

your naivete in blaming everything on Republicans is amusing. Goldman Sachs OWNS the Obama administration.

In case you didn't notice, the executive branch doesn't write the laws.

[Parker2112]

In case you didn't notice, the executive branch doesn't write the laws.

The OP prediction essentially says things stay the same. Hate to break it to you, but as boomers exit the system things are NOT going to stay the same.

[Nbadan]

I wouldn't make any predictions about the future of the economy until after the mid-terms....the last thing the economy needs is more tax cuts, but if the GOP wins control of the House that's exactly what they will propose to make Dems and Obama look bad........the Dem Senate won't go for that...they are already biting at the bit to let the Bush tax cuts, which has created net deficit job growth and record deficits, expire...

[RandomGuy]

The OP prediction essentially says things stay the same. Hate to break it to you, but as boomers exit the system things are NOT going to stay the same.

Hmm.

I predicted that our economy will stagnate, as opposed to historical growth patterns.

I said our debt will catch up to us, and that we will have to change to pay it off.

I also predicted a long-term waning of the GOP. I think that will make the right wing in this country more militant, as they feel more disenfranchised, probably leading to more anti-government terrorism, ala Oklahoma city bombings.

I also predicted that manufacturing will slowly start coming back.

I think the way we get energy will markedly change in 20-40 years.

Not sure if that is "essentially the same" or not. I don't see any drastic changes, no. There is some leeway for some revolutionary technology to be something of a game changer, but that doesn't take any real insight to say.

[RandomGuy]

I wouldn't make any predictions about the future of the economy until after the mid-terms....the last thing the economy needs is more tax cuts, but if the GOP wins control of the House that's exactly what they will propose to make Dems and Obama look bad........the Dem Senate won't go for that...they are already biting at the bit to let the Bush tax cuts, which has created net deficit job growth and record deficits, expire...

Much of what takes place in the economy won't be much affected by those cuts, and wasn't in the first place.

I really do hope the GOP gets control of everything. Because I think things will be shitty for a good while. I would prefer the GOP gets the blame for that, so we can finally discard their shitty policies as proven failures.

[Winehole23]

I really do hope the GOP gets control of everything. Because I think things will be shitty for a good while. I would prefer the GOP gets the blame for that, so we can finally discard their shitty policies as proven failures.WC has been saying something very like this lately, only it goes the other way around.

[Wild Cobra]

Why doesn't trickle-down work?

Consider this. If I have a taxable income of $60k after my deductions, then a marginal rate change from 25% to 28% has more than a $1,800 change in my net take home pay, for what I then put into the economy. This money produces real jobs rather than government jobs. Now the 3% isn't directly applicable. The first part of the tax will increase from 10% to 15%, some stay at 15%, some go from 15% to 25%, and the remainder goes from 25% to 28%. In the end, I will definitely pay more than $1,800 more in 2011 when the tax cuts expire.

Tell me that this, multiplied by others in America doesn't make a difference. Tell me that the larger changes in a richer person's spending ability doesn't play a difference in what they buy in this economy.

Why do liberals thing that a person's money belongs to the government, and the government allows us to keep some of it?

Why the attitude "they don't need that much?" Who's the selfish one here?

It may not be measurable in real economic differences because of the complexities, but if you taxes everyone all but what they needed to live by, there would be no economy. The slope that progresses in economic power as more people have more money doesn't magically flatten out.

[Wild Cobra]

WC has been saying something very like this lately, only it goes the other way around.
Except I want the RINO's weeded out too.

[RandomGuy]

Tell me that the larger changes in a richer person's spending ability doesn't play a difference in what they buy in this economy.


The larger changes in richer people's spending abilities don't play a difference in what they buy in this economy.

[RandomGuy]

Why the attitude "they don't need that much?" Who's the selfish one here?


When you choose to participate, then you gain all the benefits and pay all the costs.

If I were to benefit most from a system, would I have an ethical or moral responsibility to support that system?

[Wild Cobra]

The larger changes in richer people's spending abilities don't play a difference in what they buy in this economy.
I get it.

You audited everyone's spending.

OK...

I get it now...

[Wild Cobra]

When you choose to participate, then you gain all the benefits and pay all the costs.

If I were to benefit most from a system, would I have an ethical or moral responsibility to support that system?
I don't disagree with paying taxes. I disagree with the idea that other people have the right to my money through the tax system rather than doing for themselves, and want to keep a system that lets them not fight hard for work.

You get more of what ever you reward and less of what you penalize.

The war ion poverty just creates more people on poverty, because poverty actually pays decent.

The war on the rich simply makes them shelter their money, move their residency, etc. We end up with less rich tax payers. Not more.

[RandomGuy]

I don't disagree with paying taxes. I disagree with the idea that other people have the right to my money through the tax system rather than doing for themselves, and want to keep a system that lets them not fight hard for work.

You get more of what ever you reward and less of what you penalize.

The war ion poverty just creates more people on poverty, because poverty actually pays decent.

The war on the rich simply makes them shelter their money, move their residency, etc. We end up with less rich tax payers. Not more.

Then how do you explain the fact that countries with more generous social safety nets tend to have less "sticky" poverty? (more upward social mobility)

[RandomGuy]

I get it.

You audited everyone's spending.

OK...

I get it now...

I was just doing what you asked.

You said:

"Tell me that the larger changes in a richer person's spending ability doesn't play a difference in what they buy in this economy."

I'm not kidding and don't call me Shirley.

Sorry, it was an attempt at literal humor.

[Wild Cobra]

I was just doing what you asked.

You said:

"Tell me that the larger changes in a richer person's spending ability doesn't play a difference in what they buy in this economy."

I'm not kidding and don't call me Shirley.

Sorry, it was an attempt at literal humor.
OK, I'm slow on such things, especially when not person to person seeing a persons face, or hearing the tone of their voice.

[RandomGuy]

OK, I'm slow on such things, especially when not person to person seeing a persons face, or hearing the tone of their voice.

Pshaw, we all have that problem occasionally. Don't sweat it. :toast

[RandomGuy]

Gold will stay high for many of the reasons that oil will, but will drop like a lead ballon in about 2 years. I will find this highly amusing.

My time is just about up.

I think the Chinese, having little to invest their money in, have propped up the price. With their inflation, they may sustain gold for a while more.

Gold has actually pretty thin overall demand, and that can be fickle.

I guess we will get to see.

[Wild Cobra]

My time is just about up.

I think the Chinese, having little to invest their money in, have propped up the price. With their inflation, they may sustain gold for a while more.

Gold has actually pretty thin overall demand, and that can be fickle.

I guess we will get to see.
It not only changes with our own economic fears, but that or others. It is a world commodity. If I had reliable insight a few years ago, I would have bought some. Now that it's as high as it is, no thanks. This bubble can pop any time. The losers are the ones buying late. I think it's too late now.

[hater]

As for Africa, I've seen nothing in my lifetime to suggest anything will change for the better.

Fail. It's already happening, getting rid of dictators and waking up to democracy.

[Wild Cobra]

I see gold is down today in trading...

[RandomGuy]

The price of a barrel of oil will reach a consistant $100 in about 7 years, and $200 in about 13.

Ok, that turned out to be wrong.

It seems to be at a consistant $100/bbl in 2011, not 2016. Have to do a bit of digging to isolate the effects of currency valuation on that though.

Given that China is now importing more oil than the US (based on BP's statements), and that looks to be accelerating as well, I would guess the $200 bbl mark will be crossed before the decade is out.

[RandomGuy]

The only thing that may doom China's economy is enacting climate change laws and/or loaning the US too much money.


As for Africa, I've seen nothing in my lifetime to suggest anything will change for the better.

Don't let actual data get in your way.

Watch a few of these lectures.
http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling.html


Africa's well-being has gone from stone age, to that of being where Europe was in the 1800's.

[Agloco]

Ok, that turned out to be wrong.

It seems to be at a consistant $100/bbl in 2011, not 2016. Have to do a bit of digging to isolate the effects of currency valuation on that though.

Given that China is now importing more oil than the US (based on BP's statements), and that looks to be accelerating as well, I would guess the $200 bbl mark will be crossed before the decade is out.

I heard that it's due to speculation mainly? Supposedly the market is made up predominantly of speculators right now.

A lot of the things you predicted are happening. Pretty good stuff. :toast

Just hope my investment portfolio doesn't evaporate before I get my hands on it.

[RandomGuy]

I heard that it's due to speculation mainly? Supposedly the market is made up predominantly of speculators right now.

A lot of the things you predicted are happening. Pretty good stuff. :toast

Just hope my investment portfolio doesn't evaporate before I get my hands on it.

Less speculation than real underlying supply/demand problems from what I understand. Read up on the concept "peak oil" for more information, but ignore the hand-wavy hysteria surrounding the topic. If you like I can do a quick work up of good data and PM it to ya.

Speculation is creeping in there though. Even the people whose jobs are watching the oil markets seem to be divided as to the ultimate extent of the market distortion.

If it is speculation, then you can expect some real price volatility, and if it collapses, it will be pretty dramatic.

[boutons_deux]

Fabricated fear of inflation is much worse than current inflation. The bond market isn't worried, and those hawks know what to watch.

Consumer spending is down for first time in a year.

Consumer confidence is below where is was a year ago.

50K jobs last month (at beginning of summer) vs 200+ jobs/month earlier this year.

Stock market down for 6 straight weeks.

A double-dip looks as credible as not.

And DC is doing "fuck all" about the economy or jobs, except the Repugs will certainly "fuck all" of us if they force the US to default in 6 weeks.

[boutons_deux]

http://247wallst.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/zcqw_1ewbkkxmydmfjella.gif?w=589&h=384

A sharp deterioration in the jobs outlook and six straight weeks of Wall Street declines sent Americans’ confidence in the U.S. economy plunging to an average of -35 during the week ending June 12 — a decline of nine percentage points from two weeks ago, and six points worse than it was in the same week a year ago. Economic confidence is now approaching a 2011 weekly low.

Read more: Consumer Confidence Falls Apart - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2011/06/14/consumer-confidence-falls-apart/#ixzz1PGk1f3F0

[boutons_deux]

The wealthy elites are all smiley, but I doubt they'll carry through on their Positive Thinking bullshit and actually hire people,


“Fully 87% of our CEOs anticipate higher sales,” said Ivan G. Seidenberg, Chairman of Business Roundtable and Chairman and CEO of Verizon Communications. “As a result, more than half of our CEOs plan to increase both capital spending and U.S. hiring. This continues a positive trend for our companies’ activity heading into the second half of 2011.

A similar poll of medium and small companies would probably show radically different results. Their access to capital is limited which makes their opportunities to expand constrained.”

Read more: CEOs Thrilled With Economy - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2011/06/14/ceos-thrilled-with-economy/#ixzz1PGn1vT7s

[boutons_deux]

"their optimism about economic conditions and expectations for growth are more muted than three months ago"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/14/us-usa-economy-roundtable-idUSTRE75D35D20110614?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F +US+%2F+Top+News%29

[boutons_deux]

There may be inflation, but, like with oil and food, it will be cost-push, not demand-pull.

[Agloco]

Less speculation than real underlying supply/demand problems from what I understand. Read up on the concept "peak oil" for more information, but ignore the hand-wavy hysteria surrounding the topic. If you like I can do a quick work up of good data and PM it to ya.

Speculation is creeping in there though. Even the people whose jobs are watching the oil markets seem to be divided as to the ultimate extent of the market distortion.

If it is speculation, then you can expect some real price volatility, and if it collapses, it will be pretty dramatic.

:tu

I'd like to see it. I've sold imaging technology to geophysicists a time or two and my reward was an involved discussion on the subject of peak oil/tectonic plate integrity. I don't recall the details, but there seems to be folks on both sides of the fence. I don't think one can deny that there's a finite supply, the question in my mind would be the scale. If and when will it's finite nature come into play?

[Agloco]

There may be inflation, but, like with oil and food, it will be cost-push, not demand-pull.

For the slow thinkers here BD: En Ingles por favor.

Will my dollar still allow me to enjoy my Vauen Konsul Briar and my Courvoisier, Hennessey or Grand Marnier 5-7 years from now? Or will it take substantially more of those dollars?

I have priorities as you can tell.

[RandomGuy]

There may be inflation, but, like with oil and food, it will be cost-push, not demand-pull.


For the slow thinkers here BD: En Ingles por favor.

Will my dollar still allow me to enjoy my Vauen Konsul Briar and my Courvoisier, Hennessey or Grand Marnier 5-7 years from now? Or will it take substantially more of those dollars?

I have priorities as you can tell.

Inflation = imbalance in supply and demand, with supply falling short of demand.

Either the underlying demand for something goes up faster then the supply, or demand stays the same while supply goes down.

It gets more complicated with concepts like elasticity, and the curviness/slope of the supply/demand curves and so forth, but that is it basically.

BD is saying that underlying demand (read: US consumer demand) is not causing the run up, (demand-pull), but instead we are faced with higher underlying costs (cost-push) for energy as the global supply of energy gets tighter.

China faces a lot of demand-pull inflation, as rising wages there are significantly increasing the underlying demand for goods/services.

[boutons_deux]

"Inflation = imbalance in supply and demand"

no, inflation is increase in prices, period.

In mid-2008, we had speculator-driven oil price inflation to $148/barrel, while the world economy, esp the US economy (25% of world oil consumption), was in a recession (same or less demand). There was no imbalance or mismatch in supply and demand, just pure speculation detached from supply/demand actuality, iow, inflation detached from supply and demand.

When post-peak oil hits, then we'll see a horrible mismatch in demand and supply, which is exactly what the oil producers and sellers dream about and buy politicians to deliver by killing oil conservation and oil alternatives development (and denial of carbon-driven anthropogenic global warming). They won't care about the resulting world recession reducing oil demand, because they'll sell less oil at much higher prices, every businessman's dream, at lower volumes.

[RandomGuy]

:tu

I'd like to see it. I've sold imaging technology to geophysicists a time or two and my reward was an involved discussion on the subject of peak oil/tectonic plate integrity. I don't recall the details, but there seems to be folks on both sides of the fence. I don't think one can deny that there's a finite supply, the question in my mind would be the scale. If and when will it's finite nature come into play?

The short answer: Most experts think that it will come into play sometime between 2010-2015

There is still a huge amount of oil left, but what is left is a lot harder to get at and use.

That is a simple statement with some profound implications.

Another short answer:

Demand will be going up at the same time supply goes down, causing some very strong upward price increases. Oil in ten years or twenty will not be as competitive price-wise as it is now compared to other forms of energy.

If you want to bet money long term, bet on that somehow. Wind turbine manufacturers, natural gas, solar, and people who know how to build with energy efficiency in mind. I have half a mind to get into consulting along those lines. Did a fun paper for a cost accounting class on solar power in Central Texas, and learned a lot that I have since built on.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think one can deny that there's a finite supply, the question in my mind would be the scale. If and when will it's finite nature come into play?
I like to tell people we will never run out of oil and watch their reaction. You see, as the supply diminishes, oil will get so expensive that other supplies for energy will be used. We will always have some left, it will just be too expensive for anyone to want it.

[Nbadan]

Predicting future oil consumption rates and prices can be very tricky because the Chinese economy could crash and burn tomorrow and all of the sudden you have a glut of oil on the market....or conversely, there could be a terror attack on one of the main suppliers or supply line to Europe and all the sudden you have a run on oil, given that none of these scenario happens anytime soon, oil is an finite resource while growth is infinite......depending on the growth of demand the world could be demanding twice as much oil as today in just 20 years.......

[Nbadan]

I remember a few years back when gas was 1.50/gal RG posted that it would take at least a decade for gas to hit $4 per gallon...I told him it would take Bush just 2 short years or shorter....a few months later gas was $4 oer gallon and RG mysteriously disappeared for almost a year

:lol

[Nbadan]

RG - 4/24/09


Gold will stay high for many of the reasons that oil will, but will drop like a lead ballon in about 2 years. I will find this highly amusing.

:lmao

[Nbadan]

The price of a barrel of oil will reach a consistant $100 in about 7 years,

:lol

Try two....

[admiralsnackbar]

I remember a few years back when gas was 1.50/gal RG posted that it would take at least a decade for gas to hit $4 per gallon...I told him it would take Bush just 2 short years or shorter....a few months later gas was $4 oer gallon and RG mysteriously disappeared for almost a year

:lol
It no doubt had to do with the pain you caused him.

[Nbadan]

It no doubt had to do with the pain you caused him.

At least RG came back, eventually.....everytime Marcus is wrong with one of his predictions he disappears for a year and comes back as another avatar, just like Yoni...in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Marcus is here now under another one of his 'creative' alias..

:lol

Manny will eventually crawl his way back into the club to pass off his gf to other clubbers...

[PublicOption]

America, in desperation, will start a trade war and start penalizing(heavily) companies that use foriegn labor and tax the shit out of goods coming from China and India and anywhere else. This has to happen to get our jobs back.

[RandomGuy]

I remember a few years back when gas was 1.50/gal RG posted that it would take at least a decade for gas to hit $4 per gallon...I told him it would take Bush just 2 short years or shorter....a few months later gas was $4 oer gallon and RG mysteriously disappeared for almost a year

:lol

Yes, and it was entirely because I was too embarassed to admit my prediction didn't pan out. :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

RG - 4/24/09



:lmao

Another bit that didn't pan out. Yet.

I will still find it highly amusing when the gold price drops down to more sustainable historical norms. That won't change. ;)

[RandomGuy]

:lol

Try two....

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5300812&postcount=129

[RandomGuy]

Predicting future oil consumption rates and prices can be very tricky because the Chinese economy could crash and burn tomorrow and all of the sudden you have a glut of oil on the market....or conversely, there could be a terror attack on one of the main suppliers or supply line to Europe and all the sudden you have a run on oil, given that none of these scenario happens anytime soon, oil is an finite resource while growth is infinite......depending on the growth of demand the world could be demanding twice as much oil as today in just 20 years.......

Nope.

Demand destruction will kick in, as it already has. People will simply start buying smaller gas-powered vehicles, as they are doing now, and modify a host of other habits collectively, such as getting smaller commutes, or picking modes of transportation that require less or no oil.

The Chinese economy, even were it to crash is rapidly industrializing, and would take a catastrophic crash to change that dynamic to any appreciable degree vis a vis oil demand. I think talk of a "bubble" is vastly overstated.

[MannyIsGod]

At least RG came back, eventually.....everytime Marcus is wrong with one of his predictions he disappears for a year and comes back as another avatar, just like Yoni...in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Marcus is here now under another one of his 'creative' alias..

:lol

Manny will eventually crawl his way back into the club to pass off his gf to other clubbers...

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8491

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8491


7. Military Conscription Begins in Summer of 05 -

:wow

[SnakeBoy]

I remember a few years back when gas was 1.50/gal RG posted that it would take at least a decade for gas to hit $4 per gallon...I told him it would take Bush just 2 short years or shorter....a few months later gas was $4 oer gallon and RG mysteriously disappeared for almost a year


Yeah it sucked that Bush raised the price of gas. So why is your man Obama raising the price of gas now?

[Agloco]

"Inflation = imbalance in supply and demand"

no, inflation is increase in prices, period.

In mid-2008, we had speculator-driven oil price inflation to $148/barrel, while the world economy, esp the US economy (25% of world oil consumption), was in a recession (same or less demand). There was no imbalance or mismatch in supply and demand, just pure speculation detached from supply/demand actuality, iow, inflation detached from supply and demand.

When post-peak oil hits, then we'll see a horrible mismatch in demand and supply, which is exactly what the oil producers and sellers dream about and buy politicians to deliver by killing oil conservation and oil alternatives development (and denial of carbon-driven anthropogenic global warming). They won't care about the resulting world recession reducing oil demand, because they'll sell less oil at much higher prices, every businessman's dream, at lower volumes.


The short answer: Most experts think that it will come into play sometime between 2010-2015

There is still a huge amount of oil left, but what is left is a lot harder to get at and use.

That is a simple statement with some profound implications.

Another short answer:

Demand will be going up at the same time supply goes down, causing some very strong upward price increases. Oil in ten years or twenty will not be as competitive price-wise as it is now compared to other forms of energy.

If you want to bet money long term, bet on that somehow. Wind turbine manufacturers, natural gas, solar, and people who know how to build with energy efficiency in mind. I have half a mind to get into consulting along those lines. Did a fun paper for a cost accounting class on solar power in Central Texas, and learned a lot that I have since built on.


I like to tell people we will never run out of oil and watch their reaction. You see, as the supply diminishes, oil will get so expensive that other supplies for energy will be used. We will always have some left, it will just be too expensive for anyone to want it.

Thanks for all of the responses. I think I need some time to let all of that percolate.

[Nbadan]

Another bit that didn't pan out. Yet.

I will still find it highly amusing when the gold price drops down to more sustainable historical norms. That won't change. ;)

so when is your prediction now RG? You gonna predict the rapture next too?

I dog you RG but at least you take chances and stick your neck out on some predictions and I can respect that...in the years that this forum has been around I have never seen Manny make a prediction, economic or otherwise that actually had any teeth to it...that is a snake...

[RandomGuy]

so when is your prediction now RG? You gonna predict the rapture next too?

I dog you RG but at least you take chances and stick your neck out on some predictions and I can respect that...in the years that this forum has been around I have never seen Manny make a prediction, economic or otherwise that actually had any teeth to it...that is a snake...

Honestly, I don't know when gold will tank. The run up in gold has all the earmarks of a classic asset bubble, IMO.

At some point, it will collapse and I think that collapse will be pretty harsh.

If I knew the time, I would short gold somehow.

I don't mind going out on a limb for these things. I am not infallible, and know that some of them won't pan out. It is still fun though, and it does spark some conversation.

[RandomGuy]

I like to tell people we will never run out of oil and watch their reaction. You see, as the supply diminishes, oil will get so expensive that other supplies for energy will be used. We will always have some left, it will just be too expensive for anyone to want it.

That is an important point though. Long before all the oil is pulled out of the ground, we will have moved on to other forms of energy

The thing about peak oil is that the "easy" oil is gone. What is left requires a lot more effort to get out of the ground.

[TeyshaBlue]

so when is your prediction now RG? You gonna predict the rapture next too?

I dog you RG but at least you take chances and stick your neck out on some predictions and I can respect that...in the years that this forum has been around I have never seen Manny make a prediction, economic or otherwise that actually had any teeth to it...that is a snake...

lol @ predictions. You wanna make 'em? Knock yerself out, kid.

That predictions are somehow a metric of bbs quality is fascinating. And by fascinating, I mean retarded.:lol

[RandomGuy]

lol @ predictions. You wanna make 'em? Knock yerself out, kid.

That predictions are somehow a metric of bbs quality is fascinating. And by fascinating, I mean retarded.:lol

I must say though, that it does tend to expose people's mindview to a good extent.

Dan's 2005 predictions were based on his mindset, and some, like conscription in the US, were pretty badly wrong.

The flawed thinking based on ideology comes to the fore most obviously, when Republicans/conservatives predict things like "landslides" for McCain and so forth, or lefties predict quick slides into fascism. Once you start predicting things like that with little to no evidence, you really expose the hacks.

The prediction game has its uses.

Hell, I could even be wrong about gold. :greedy

[LnGrrrR]

RG, what do you think about silver? Tons of people in the office buying it up, but I'll stick with various "safe" stocks myself.

[RandomGuy]

RG, what do you think about silver? Tons of people in the office buying it up, but I'll stick with various "safe" stocks myself.

Silver actually is cheap enough to have some industrial uses, so it actually has *some* underlying demand.

But

It is still well above historic norms from what I understand. Haven't been following it nearly as much as gold, but they are so closely linked I don't see one moving in a direction that the othe doesn't go for very long.

I don't see the massive inflation that really makes gold or silver a viable long term asset. The only value in these things has been to provide a shield against inflation.

Absent that inflation, there isn't a need.

We will see a lot of inflation from oil price run ups, but our economy is not as sensitive as it once was to such things.

[Nbadan]

Hell, I could even be wrong about gold.

No, your right, it's a bubble..


but ...keep buying until around Nov 2012, then watch out...

[Wild Cobra]

Well, one of my first posts on gold; 6/3/09 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3440527&postcount=19).

From what I heard today in the news, I don't think it can be kept down. I think all precious metals will rise again. The dollar has dropped four days in a row now, to other currencies.

OK, changing my mind... Buy Gold!

This much I know. Compare the gold prices of past and present to currency rates. they should be very similar, ratio wise. If not, gold is likely over valued.
Notice I said all precious metals.

[Agloco]

Silver actually is cheap enough to have some industrial uses, so it actually has *some* underlying demand.

But

It is still well above historic norms from what I understand. Haven't been following it nearly as much as gold, but they are so closely linked I don't see one moving in a direction that the othe doesn't go for very long.

I don't see the massive inflation that really makes gold or silver a viable long term asset. The only value in these things has been to provide a shield against inflation.

Absent that inflation, there isn't a need.

We will see a lot of inflation from oil price run ups, but our economy is not as sensitive as it once was to such things.

Do you see any other inflationary pressures in the near term? How much of an impact does the Feds timing have on such things?

Do you track the other commodities much? I know that it's a volatile sector by nature.

[RandomGuy]

Do you see any other inflationary pressures in the near term? How much of an impact does the Feds timing have on such things?

Do you track the other commodities much? I know that it's a volatile sector by nature.

Near term, it would seem no, especially not with the rather lack lustere economic data recently.

Modest recovery followed by little to no growth for a long, long time.

Looks like oil's fast run up has fallen back somewhat.

[RandomGuy]

I agree that the failures will likely occur as described. The bailouts will cause farther harm, and I doubt taxpayers will see a profit. Corporate entities will find a way of keeping profits. Afterall, they are friends of the democrats.

Probably

Sounds good

I agree the ballon will pop, but I give it a little longer than the above estimate. Gold value will drop when stocks become preferred again.

I'm still stuck on them hitting as low as 6,000 for the Dow. It is looking like I'm wrong. I just have the gut feeling this administration will make a boneheaded policy that has stock owners running.

No Shit, but do you really think this Marxist president and pork friendly congress will do that?

I've been saying similar for how long? Except I don't believe driving moderates out will harm them I think that will save them. They at least need to drive out the liberals.

Agreed. Any stimulus money spent needs to be on infrastructure. Not social welfare.

A sad fact, and that will be our downfall. As taxes are raised, revenue increases are only temporary. It causes a decline in free market activities, which in turn, reduce revenues to lower levels than they started. As you lose wealth to tax, the tax revenues are reduced!

This should be promoted as a concept for people not to spend beyond their means. Debt itself is not bad, as long as it can be managed properly.

You're more optimistic than I. I don't see it happening that soon with the policies being implemented by this congress and president. I hope you're right about it being that soon.

I disagree here too, unless this president destroys this great nation. Once we get over the bad times, the economy should grow at close to 8% annual, making up for prior losses over time.

Not if corporate and income taxes rise...

remove income tax, move to a consumption based tax, and manufacturing will move back here more readily than any other means of trying to accomplish that.

The prospective financial gains are definitely there now to make more people wanting to develop it. I have a pretty open mind on scientific things. Unless we develop cold fusion, I don't see any cheap energy other than solar and nuclear. Improving the efficiency of solar plants would probably be the best payoff.

Maybe. I say that is really too hard to predict. Up and down, yes. Maintaining? Too many factors to predict that one in my opinion.

Anyone looking for WC predictions can go here.

The U.S. economy will not grow at 8% again in my lifetime.

[RandomGuy]

A sad fact, and that will be our downfall. As taxes are raised, revenue increases are only temporary. It causes a decline in free market activities, which in turn, reduce revenues to lower levels than they started. As you lose wealth to tax, the tax revenues are reduced!

A "fact" eh?

Care to quantify that? or provide some support for this theory?

You seem to be under the impression that once money is taxed, it goes into the government and disappears. It does not.

Frankly, we need to be borrowing as much money as we can right now, and using that to invest in infrastructure while interest rates are so low.

Since borrowing costs are so low the Government is locking in a lot of long-term savings as it replaces 20-30 year old bonds with newer ones with lower rates.

Debt issued at 8.5% in 1990 is being replaced by debt issued at 2% today.

[Nbadan]

RG in 2009


Gold will stay high for many of the reasons that oil will, but will drop like a lead ballon in about 2 years. I will find this highly amusing.

Not quite...

[RandomGuy]

RG in 2009



Not quite...

Yup. That one was definitely wrong.

Gold is still far above historical norms, although if it sustains the price for another few years, then I can only conclude something underlying has changed.

One potential culprit is the fact that they have gold-based ETFs that have come along in the last few years. This does represent some substantial risk for volatility, IMO.

We'll see.

[RandomGuy]

Banks, despite the most recent profits, will continue to bleed money as commercial real estate becomes the other shoe to drop. Many larger banks will require more bailouts mid to late 2009, despite the strings, and smaller banks will continue to bite the dust at a fast clip. There is a good chance that the bailouts will be turned into equity shares, and eventually sold for a profit for the taxpayer. The financial sector will be more regulated, stabilize, and come back in about 2 years.

Sort of, but not too insightful. Mostly right.


The Fed, to fight deflation, will continue to pursue some inflationary policies, keeping the cost of oil (held in dollars) high.

Pretty much right.


The overall US economy will shrink this year, probably at a pace faster than most economists will expect. The Economist predicts -3.2% (http://www.economist.com/countries/USA/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast). My gut says more around -4.5%, because I don't think enough of them are factoring in the coming retail and commercial real estate contraction.

That was right, especially given the economic data at the time turned out to show the economy was worse than we had thought it was.



Gold will stay high for many of the reasons that oil will, but will drop like a lead ballon in about 2 years. I will find this highly amusing.

Wrong. I will still find it amusing when it plummets.


Stocks will likely end the year lower than they are now, probably by another, say 750 points.

Wrong.


At some time in the next couple of years, we will have to back off goverment deficit spending.
Sadly wrong.



Republicans will wander around in the wilderness, re-discover fiscal conservatism, and pick up a few seats in congress. They will continue to drive moderates out of the party, harming their long-term viability. I see the GOP marginalized over time, unless they learn to embrace moderates more than they are doing now.

Sadly right, see: tea party freshmen


If the US stimulus includes a massive chunk of investment in energy infrastructure, both in transmission and renewables, we will do better than most think over the next 10 years.

It didn't. We won't.


Our debt will start catching up with us though. Taxes will have to be raised, and that load will be shared by a lot of people, not just the rich.

Right wing extremism and lack of ability to comprimise in action. Wrong.


I think that we may have actually permanently changed in a minor cultural way. We will start saving more. This will mitigate the credit crunch at some point, because those savings will be used to pay down debt, and pad banks as people deposit actual cash. Credit will get flowing again as this happens.

We were deleveraging, now we are not. Jury is out.


Our economy will start growing again, very slowly, in late 2010.

Have to re-check, moderately right if memory serves.


After that our economy will stagnate for pretty much the next two decades or so, with flat to minimal growth, as energy gets more expensive, and our economy adjusts.
This might be turned around by manufacturing. Long long term prediction though. Jury is out.


As energy gets more expensive, manufacturing will move back to the US slowly, because it becomes cheaper to make things here than to ship them from Asia.
Panning out, although it is higher labor costs in China that is helping drive. I would say this was wrong, short term.


I think there is a good chance that there will be a breakthrough green/renewable energy technology within about 5-10 years. This might be a game-changer. Depending on how revolutionary it is, it would have a substantial positive impact on US economic growth.

Seen some tantilizing things starting to happen. Jury is out.



The price of a barrel of oil will reach a consistant $100 in about 7 years, and $200 in about 13.

This was based on an assumption of prices going up about 6%-7% per year.

They exceeded that rate, rather obviously. Speculation or asian demand? Little of both.

[RandomGuy]

China will continue to grow quickly over the next 5 to 10 years, then suffer greatly when the cumulative effects of pollution, and an aging population hammers their productivity.

Russia will continue to suck ass, and decline by just about any measure.

North Korea will hang on for a while, and may eventually simply disintegrate within 20 years or so.

Iran's government will moderate somewhat, as the aging zealots of the Revolution die off.

Cuba's communist regime will survive another 10 years or so, and that country will abandon communism, and become rather wealthy in about 25 years.

I don't see the US disintegrating over 40 years as ES does.

Interesting. China thing looks on track.

[RandomGuy]

Republicans will wander around in the wilderness, re-discover fiscal conservatism, and pick up a few seats in congress. They will continue to drive moderates out of the party, harming their long-term viability. I see the GOP marginalized over time, unless they learn to embrace moderates more than they are doing now.


GOP still wandering.

Coming to a head now. The chickens have come home to roost.

[RandomGuy]

Yup. That one was definitely wrong.

Gold is still far above historical norms, although if it sustains the price for another few years, then I can only conclude something underlying has changed.

One potential culprit is the fact that they have gold-based ETFs that have come along in the last few years. This does represent some substantial risk for volatility, IMO.

We'll see.

Gold has remained higher than historical norms. Something underlying has changed. My best read is India/China demand has permanently added to the market.

[RandomGuy]

Well, one of my first posts on gold; 6/3/09 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3440527&postcount=19).

Notice I said all precious metals.

700 to about 1200 per ounce. About an 8% return.

[RandomGuy]

Do you see any other inflationary pressures in the near term? How much of an impact does the Feds timing have on such things?

Do you track the other commodities much? I know that it's a volatile sector by nature.

Completely wrong about oil. BAM technology factor

[101A]

GOP still wandering.

Coming to a head now. The chickens have come home to roost.

As polarizing as he is, isn't Trump more "moderate" on many policies than standard-bearer republicans?

Of course you said "wandering". A very generous verb for the current machinations.

[boutons_deux]

As polarizing as he is, isn't Trump more "moderate"

Any progressivism or moderation by ANY President will be strictly obstructed by the strict obstructionist VRWC whores in the House, if not also in the Senate.

[RandomGuy]

Here is a bit on Indian/Chinese demand for gold I was talking about earlier.

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21695558-indias-government-tries-curb-imports-goldagain-tarnished-appeal

China's economic slump will sap some demand. If India's economy slows (unlikely, given their young population) then I would expect gold to tank hard.

[rmt]

Remember some international banks (4?) are going negative on the interest rates. Also, after the Federal Reserve increased the interest rate late last year, the stock market took a serious dive in the beginning of the year. Don't think they're going to chance another one soon. Both scenarios make gold attractive.

[CosmicCowboy]

Fed will raise at least 25 basic points this year if not 50.

[Agloco]

Completely wrong about oil. BAM technology factor

Hey bud :tu

Moved recently. Been under a rock. My alter egos been posting for the most part.

How have you been?

[ElNono]

Interesting. China thing looks on track.

Actually, IIRC, you've been harping on the impending, any-minute-now, China collapse for a while now...

[TeyshaBlue]

Hey bud :tu

Moved recently. Been under a rock. My alter egos been posting for the most part.

How have you been?

You're TSA? :lol

[RandomGuy]

Actually, IIRC, you've been harping on the impending, any-minute-now, China collapse for a while now...

Yeah. It looks like that analysis was a bit too colored by pessimism.

Their problems are still there, just a lot more slow motion. It is a big country, that will take a while to get to where it is going. It is easy to get worked up, especially after the housing bubble crisis in the west.

not all problems manifest themselves over a period of months.

[Nbadan]

7. Military Conscription Begins in Summer of 05 -

:rolleyes

i predicted Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita when they where still that butterfly flap in the Philippines....but yeah, I underestimated the Bush Administrations evil use of the National Guard in Iraq....

[2centsworth]

Fed will raise at least 25 basic points this year if not 50.

it's "basis" points.

[RandomGuy]

Fed will raise at least 25 basic points this year if not 50.

No, it won't. I will bet a gentlemanly 6-pack on that.

[RandomGuy]

Republicans will wander around in the wilderness, re-discover fiscal conservatism, and pick up a few seats in congress. They will continue to drive moderates out of the party, harming their long-term viability. I see the GOP marginalized over time, unless they learn to embrace moderates more than they are doing now.



I've been saying similar for how long? Except I don't believe driving moderates out will harm [the Republican party] I think that will save them. They at least need to drive out the liberals.

T.
R.
U.
M.
P.


:lmao

'nuff said. Keep driving out the moderates.

[CosmicCowboy]

No, it won't. I will bet a gentlemanly 6-pack on that.

Freetail Ale

[hater]

$200 a barrel

:lmao :lol :lmao :lol :lol

[hater]

:lol being off by 800% :lmao

[RandomGuy]

Freetail Ale

Done.

Heh, figure the odds either of us will remember at the end of the year... (although this thread is on my subscription list)

[RandomGuy]

The price of a barrel of oil will reach a consistant $100 in about 7 years, and $200 in about 13.

$200 a barrel

:lmao :lol :lmao :lol :lol


:lol being off by 800% :lmao

:lol hater not being able to add/read. Look closely and add 9 to 13. It isn't 16, geenyus.

Smack talk, when you get your shit wrong, makes you look dumb.

2009 is before US fracking really became a thing, so that was definitely a game changer that I didn't foresee increasing the economically viable amount of recoverable reserves.

Good thing I'm not an oil analyst. No apologies, and it was better than your prediction.

[spurraider21]

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/12938106_10156633266520456_8877586522432818127_n.j pg?oh=a4c869a2447038f47e45a37b30b96a0e&oe=5794441A

[TeyshaBlue]

No, it won't. I will bet a gentlemanly 6-pack on that.

Yeah, I dont see 25 points either. Stella Artois, CC.

[Nbadan]

me either......if fact, I see deflation ahead......Dale's pale for me....

[boutons_deux]

FT headline:

"Gold snapped up by central banks (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/68d0b646-f72c-11e5-803c-d27c7117d132.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fh ome_europe%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct)

Net purchases rise to second highest level since end of the gold standard"

... so banks are speculating on gold to increase as the (industrial) economy decreases?

[hater]

:lol hater not being able to add/read. Look closely and add 9 to 13. It isn't 16, geenyus.

Smack talk, when you get your shit wrong, makes you look dumb.

2009 is before US fracking really became a thing, so that was definitely a game changer that I didn't foresee increasing the economically viable amount of recoverable reserves.

Good thing I'm not an oil analyst. No apologies, and it was better than your prediction.

The fracking was obliterated by OPEC and Russia pumping oil till it was at dirt cheap price. RIP fracking. It was no game changer at all :lol

[Nbadan]

The fracking was obliterated by OPEC and Russia pumping oil till it was at dirt cheap price. RIP fracking. It was no game changer at all :lol

Yeah, I don't think we've seen the last of fracking.....

[boutons_deux]

20% of S&P 500 Have Negative Guidance for Q1

http://247wallst.com/economy/2016/03/31/20-of-sp-500-have-negative-guidance-for-q1/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FRyNm+%2824%2F7+Wall +St.%29

[hater]

Yeah, I don't think we've seen the last of fracking.....

Sure it can come back to life but at the moment. It's dead.

[pgardn]

Hater jabbing anyone about predictions...

Russia will defeat ISIS
And shit turning real

[boutons_deux]

In March, job cuts announced by the largest US-based companies soared 31.7% year-over-year to 48,207. The fourth month in a row of year-over-year increases. Up 40% from March 2014.

Job-cut announcements in the first quarter jumped to 184,920, up 32% from 2015, and up 52% from 2014.

These are not minor increases. And they only include the largest US-based companies that announce layoffs to the media. They do not include smaller companies that might be trimming their payrolls quietly.

In Q1, about 50,000 job-cut announcements, or 27% of the total, were “attributed to falling oil prices,” as the report put it. That includes companies such as manufacturers that supply the oil sector. Last year in Q1, “oil-related” job cuts had reached 47,610, or 34% of the total.

This shows that the oil sector is still shedding jobs manically, but other sectors have now jumped into the fray in significant numbers. As the report put it: This “upward trend outside of the energy sector is somewhat worrisome.”

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/04/wolf-richter-job-cuts-pile-up.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capi talism%29

[CosmicCowboy]

Sure it can come back to life but at the moment. It's dead.

It can come back almost overnight. There have been hundreds if not thousands of wells in Texas drilled and capped while it is cheap to drill...all they have to do when prices come back up is frack and complete them...could be online in a month.

[RandomGuy]

The fracking was obliterated by OPEC and Russia pumping oil till it was at dirt cheap price. RIP fracking. It was no game changer at all :lol

Wow. You schooled me with that insightful analysis, supported by industry commentary.

smh.

"the fracking" was not obliterated. Rate of new wells drilled has dropped a lot, but the US is still producing almost twice as much oil as it was ten years ago.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCRFPUS2&f=W


US drillers have dropped the cost of a new well as the price has dropped. Learning curves and a lot of spare equipment and skilled people floating around.


To provide a sufficient margin of comfort, prices may have to rally a lot higher than $40 a barrel to lure capital back in. Bobby Tudor of Tudor, Pickering, Holt, an energy-focused investment bank, believes that at $40 a barrel production will continue to decline, at $50 it would flatten out, and only at $60 would it increase. “Drilling wells at today’s commodity prices is still destructive of capital,” he argues. One further wrinkle: as oil prices increase, so can costs. Those, then, who hope that nimble shale producers will be able to move the global oil price up and down just by turning the taps on and off may be disappointed. Their financial backers will be the ones really calling the shots.

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21694522-rising-oil-prices-will-not-quickly-rescue-beleaguered-shale-industry-duc-and-cover

"dead" is not quite the right word. Going into a holding pattern, yes.

[boutons_deux]

"destructive of capital"

:lol MONEY LOSER! :lol

List of 36 Oil & Gas Companies that Filed for Bankruptcy in 2015

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2015/11/list-of-36-oil-gas-companies-that-filed-for-bankruptcy-in-2015/

Half of US shale drillers may go bankrupt: Oppenheimer's Gheit

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/11/half-of-us-shale-drillers-may-go-bankrupt-oppenheimers-gheit.html

Investors losing $100Ms? somebody is?

[DarrinS]

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/12938106_10156633266520456_8877586522432818127_n.j pg?oh=a4c869a2447038f47e45a37b30b96a0e&oe=5794441A



Yeah, fuck Bernie's plan, tbqh

[Nbadan]

Yeah, fuck Bernie's plan, tbqh


...you would save much more than that in just yearly health care costs IMO.....

[spurraider21]

...you would save much more than that in just yearly health care costs IMO.....
those numbers are changes to biweekly paychecks, not annual income

[boutons_deux]

...you would save much more than that in just yearly health care costs IMO.....

not actual health care, but just employer/group health insurance.

[ElNono]

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/12938106_10156633266520456_8877586522432818127_n.j pg?oh=a4c869a2447038f47e45a37b30b96a0e&oe=5794441A

Not saying it's not informative, but it's a pretty shallow analysis. What is the deficit going to look like with that, what is going to get cut that we might need to pay out of pocket instead (ie: subsidies, etc).

That said, Shillary's numbers strike me as status quo more or less, which isn't surprising either.

[rmt]

Yeah, fuck Bernie's plan, tbqh

I agree. I can pay my family's health care costs and contribute some of my IRA with what he wants taken out.

[CosmicCowboy]

Fuck Bernie's plan. I just paid right at 160,000 in personal taxes and haven't gotten the bad news yet on corporate taxes. 40% is fucking enough. That doesn't even include sales tax and property tax.

[Th'Pusher]

Fuck Bernie's plan. I just paid right at 160,000 in personal taxes and haven't gotten the bad news yet on corporate taxes. 40% is fucking enough. That doesn't even include sales tax and property tax.

If you paid $160k in federal income tax that would equate to an effective rate of 33.6% on $475k in taxable income. Just to put things in perspective, that leaves you $315k to live on... And that's not including any deductions as the $475 is taxable income.

It's a progressive tax system. Welcome to America.

[tlongII]

Fuck Bernie. That's bullshit.

[RandomGuy]

If you paid $160k in federal income tax that would equate to an effective rate of 33.6% on $475k in taxable income. Just to put things in perspective, that leaves you $315k to live on... And that's not including any deductions as the $475 is taxable income.

It's a progressive tax system. Welcome to America.

Most people would be thrilled to have $300k to live on.

[rmt]

Everybody is looking to pay as little tax as possible. It would be one thing if the government spent our taxes wisely, but it spends irresponsibly and wastes so much.

[CosmicCowboy]

Most people would be thrilled to have $300k to live on.

I admit it's been nice to be able to help my kids....

but it's not like I didn't work my ass off for 40 years and take a lot of financial risks to get here.

[rmt]

I admit it's been nice to be able to help my kids....

Don't whisper that - shout it from the roof top :-) We all wish we could too.

[Th'Pusher]

Everybody is looking to pay as little tax as possible. It would be one thing if the government spent our taxes wisely, but it spends irresponsibly and wastes so much.

Your wasteful government spending talking point aside, In principle I agree that people should be able to keep more of the money they earn, but the reality is a progressive tax system is better for the economy as a whole.

I realize this is wildly oversimplified, but let's say Ted Cruz is elected and implements his 15% flat tax. CC's Tax burden gets cut in half. What's he gonna do with that extra $80k? He may spend a little of it, but most of it will be saved and invested. No significant new jobs will be created.

[rmt]

Your wasteful government spending talking point aside, In principle I agree that people should be able to keep more of the money they earn, but the reality is a progressive tax system is better for the economy as a whole.

I realize this is wildly oversimplified, but let's say Ted Cruz is elected and implements his 15% flat tax. CC's Tax burden gets cut in half. What's he gonna do with that extra $80k? He may spend a little of it, but most of it will be saved and invested. No significant new jobs will be created.

You really think that the government using CC's tax is gonna create more new jobs than if he re-invests his money in his own company or invests in mutual funds/etfs?

[spurraider21]

Your wasteful government spending talking point aside, In principle I agree that people should be able to keep more of the money they earn, but the reality is a progressive tax system is better for the economy as a whole.

I realize this is wildly oversimplified, but let's say Ted Cruz is elected and implements his 15% flat tax. CC's Tax burden gets cut in half. What's he gonna do with that extra $80k? He may spend a little of it, but most of it will be saved and invested. No significant new jobs will be created.
good god that would be a disaster :lol

[RandomGuy]

Everybody is looking to pay as little tax as possible. It would be one thing if the government spent our taxes wisely, but it spends irresponsibly and wastes so much.

No it doesn't.

Define "waste" and "irresponsible".

Then quantify that, in terms of % tax/spent.

If you can't or won't do either, you have a rather poor assumption on which to base any kind of realistic policy.

I am ready to say, yes, waste and irresponsible spending happens, but no to anywhere near the degree you would probably think it does, or could reasonably quantify.

(edit)
You want to start... look at DOD spending. The low-hanging fruit is there if you are looking for waste.

[RandomGuy]

Your wasteful government spending talking point aside, In principle I agree that people should be able to keep more of the money they earn, but the reality is a progressive tax system is better for the economy as a whole.

I realize this is wildly oversimplified, but let's say Ted Cruz is elected and implements his 15% flat tax. CC's Tax burden gets cut in half. What's he gonna do with that extra $80k? He may spend a little of it, but most of it will be saved and invested. No significant new jobs will be created.

Nah. Flat tax schemes always have healthy wage exemptions, that make them progressive.

What flat taxes would do is make a lot of wealthy people scramble for their lobbyists, as their favored tax break vanishes.

Flat tax is a great idea thatI have become convinced is probably the best way to go, but is so politically impossible as to be a fantasy. Sad.

[RandomGuy]

You really think that the government using CC's tax is gonna create more new jobs than if he re-invests his money in his own company or invests in mutual funds/etfs?

Depends on what the government spends it on.

Governments can earn some solid returns on some of their spending, such as free needles, or drug rehab programs, or even roads.

[RandomGuy]

I admit it's been nice to be able to help my kids....

but it's not like I didn't work my ass off for 40 years and take a lot of financial risks to get here.

That is good. You should be rewarded, and are it would seem. A good economic system should reward such risk-taking.

[Th'Pusher]

You really think that the government using CC's tax is gonna create more new jobs than if he re-invests his money in his own company or invests in mutual funds/etfs?
Sure. Using that $80k as a direct transfer of wealth via SS will absolutely create more jobs as its more than likely going to be spent. Investing in a mutual fund or an etf? Companies are sitting on cash and have been for a while. Our economy is based on consumption. One thing we know is that the government is going to spend the money.

[RandomGuy]

Sure. Using that $80k as a direct transfer of wealth via SS will absolutely create more jobs as its more than likely going to be spent. Investing in a mutual fund or an etf? Companies are sitting on cash and have been for a while. Our economy is based on consumption. One thing we know is that the government is going to spend the money.

This is correct.

Economically, investing in existing stocks/bonds doesn't really do much for the economy, especially ours.

Since so much of the wealth in the US is just sitting on its hands at the moment, it isn't too surprising our economy is in the doldrums.

[Th'Pusher]

Fed will raise at least 25 basic points this year if not 50.

Fed raises rate .25%

I think some people owe CC sone beer?

[RandomGuy]

Fed raises rate .25%

I think some people owe CC sone beer?

Dammit. Yes.

Color me shocked at the buzzer beater. CosmicCowboy wins. :/

[Nbadan]

Dammit. Yes.

Color me shocked at the buzzer beater. CosmicCowboy wins. :/

Yep there were quite a few posters here predicting a rise..bottom line..The US needs to raise the minimum to $10 per hour.......that will help spur economic growth

[RandomGuy]

Economic prediction for the next four years:

Trump will not deliver in the long run.

If he carries out the trade wars he promises, living standards will fall, with inflation outpacing wage growth.

He will alienate many many groups he needs to get things done, and his cabinet will be ineffective and incompetent.

Fiscal hawks in his own party will stop him from doing the infrastructure he promised.

Hard to really estimate the effects of his actual policies until he puts them into action. He lied so much that it is impossible to really predict what he will actually do or even try to do.

Best guess with low confidence:
The economy will gain pace as it has for the last few years, then maybe bump up a bit, then will suffer some sort of recession close to the end of Trumps term, IF he doesn't monkey with things too much, or get us into a war.

Trump will be a one term president, and the GOP will suffer some crushing defeats in 2020, not regaining the presidency while I live.

[boutons_deux]

Inequality will increase and continue to restrain broad economic growth, as will Repug austerity at Fed and red/slave state levels

95%+ of all economic gains will continue to the 1%

40m+ people should continue to need public assistance, but Repugs will kick a few million of them off and into abject poverty and into the streets.

BigCorp/BigFinance predation and fleecing will continue unabated.

10Ks of will suffer and/or die for want of health care.

BigOil and BigFinance will collude to bid up the price of oil, pushing fuel to record highs

(possible positive: people buy more EVs as batteries improve and recharging stations proliferate)

Fed and red/slave state incentives for renewables will be cut or zeroed, throwing 100Ks out of work.

Fed will continue raising rates, pushing unemployment higher, or at best almost no job growth, like in Repug 2001 - 2008

Mar a Lago will be inundated with rising sea levels.

[Nbadan]

If he carries out the trade wars he promises, living standards will fall, with inflation outpacing wage growth.

This goes without saying IMO....the main reason that there is no inflation (i.e. broad growth) is because wages have failed to keep up with price increases....without a real wage increase, this pattern of wage deflation will continue to drag the economy and the best growth rate we can even hope for is about 2%....

[Nbadan]

Trump will not deliver in the long run.

If Trump becomes a Bush type empty suit the GOP will push its own agenda....building a wall....Pro-globalist...pro-war....Most Republicans are disappointed that Obama didn't do more to support the Syrian rebels....I wonder if Trump "the campaigner" would have done any different?

[tlongII]

We shall see.

[Nbadan]

He will alienate many many groups he needs to get things done, and his cabinet will be ineffective and incompetent.

well, there is a lot of mucky muck there....Liberals need to stall GOP legislation with committee investigations like the Russian voting scandal...AND....filibuster health care and Social Security reform...that alone would go along way in 2018

[boutons_deux]

If Trump becomes a Bush type empty suit the GOP will push its own agenda

Trash is already an empty suit, and will offer no resistance or vetoes to the sociopathic Repug agenda.

[Thread]

If Trump becomes a Bush type empty suit the GOP will push its own agenda....building a wall....Pro-globalist...pro-war....Most Republicans are disappointed that Obama didn't do more to support the Syrian rebels....I wonder if Trump "the campaigner" would have done any different?

No. They'll fall in line behind him just like we did with the actual empty suited Bush. Fuck, we never even knew what hit us as I stood in that line. Sadly, only during this gd cycle did I realize that there was such a line and that I was in said line, smilin' like a fuckin' fool.

This time? At least this time I will not stand in it. I'm taking CN, kickin' & screamin' out of it and we're going to the Chuckwagon, on him.

[CosmicCowboy]

Predictions for 2017

Inflation ticks up as energy costs rise. Energy and cheap imports are the only think that has held inflation down.

Import costs rise as third world middle class increases

Stock market is frothy. May top 20K but goes sideways or down from there.

Fed bumps rate at least 50 basic points in 2017

Trump won't get tax cuts he wants, especially on personal tax. May reduce corporate to 20%

[RandomGuy]

well, there is a lot of mucky muck there....Liberals need to stall GOP legislation with committee investigations like the Russian voting scandal...AND....filibuster health care and Social Security reform...that alone would go along way in 2018

Democrats will be pressured, and are being pressured to resist in any way possible.

Democratic voters will hold their people accountable just like the tea partiers did, when establishment candidates lost, if they don't work to oppose Trump.

I expect 4 years of partisanship that make the last 8 look mild.

[DMC]

My gut has been right throughout the last couple of years in a lot of things, but I am normally hesitant to make longer range predictions, but, what the hell:

Banks, despite the most recent profits, will continue to bleed money as commercial real estate becomes the other shoe to drop. Many larger banks will require more bailouts mid to late 2009, despite the strings, and smaller banks will continue to bite the dust at a fast clip. There is a good chance that the bailouts will be turned into equity shares, and eventually sold for a profit for the taxpayer. The financial sector will be more regulated, stabilize, and come back in about 2 years.

The Fed, to fight deflation, will continue to pursue some inflationary policies, keeping the cost of oil (held in dollars) high.

The overall US economy will shrink this year, probably at a pace faster than most economists will expect. The Economist predicts -3.2% (http://www.economist.com/countries/USA/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast). My gut says more around -4.5%, because I don't think enough of them are factoring in the coming retail and commercial real estate contraction.

Gold will stay high for many of the reasons that oil will, but will drop like a lead ballon in about 2 years. I will find this highly amusing.

Stocks will likely end the year lower than they are now, probably by another, say 750 points.

At some time in the next couple of years, we will have to back off goverment deficit spending.

Republicans will wander around in the wilderness, re-discover fiscal conservatism, and pick up a few seats in congress. They will continue to drive moderates out of the party, harming their long-term viability. I see the GOP marginalized over time, unless they learn to embrace moderates more than they are doing now.

If the US stimulus includes a massive chunk of investment in energy infrastructure, both in transmission and renewables, we will do better than most think over the next 10 years.

Our debt will start catching up with us though. Taxes will have to be raised, and that load will be shared by a lot of people, not just the rich.

I think that we may have actually permanently changed in a minor cultural way. We will start saving more. This will mitigate the credit crunch at some point, because those savings will be used to pay down debt, and pad banks as people deposit actual cash. Credit will get flowing again as this happens.

Our economy will start growing again, very slowly, in late 2010.

After that our economy will stagnate for pretty much the next two decades or so, with flat to minimal growth, as energy gets more expensive, and our economy adjusts.

As energy gets more expensive, manufacturing will move back to the US slowly, because it becomes cheaper to make things here than to ship them from Asia.

I think there is a good chance that there will be a breakthrough green/renewable energy technology within about 5-10 years. This might be a game-changer. Depending on how revolutionary it is, it would have a substantial positive impact on US economic growth.

The price of a barrel of oil will reach a consistant $100 in about 7 years, and $200 in about 13.

How's this coming along?

[RandomGuy]

How's this coming along?

Mixed bag, mostly wrong due to impact of fracking and low gas prices.

Retail didn't tank until this year.

Low interest rates and low wage growth has stagnated savings rates.

Fed had a lot of inflationary policies.

GOP is continuing to drive out moderates.

Renewables have continued on their trendline of lowering costs, and it is changing a lot of games.

Fracking boom collapsed oil prices, which obviated a lot of pain, keeping energy prices lower than they would have been otherwise.

Economy will still stagnate, mostly due to technological and demographic disruption.

Stocks will continue to be a good investment, because of stock-buy backs. Over the long term, this will mean fewer shares traded by simple necessity. This will increase volatility.

[RandomGuy]

Predictions for 2017

Inflation ticks up as energy costs rise. Energy and cheap imports are the only think that has held inflation down.

Import costs rise as third world middle class increases

Stock market is frothy. May top 20K but goes sideways or down from there.

Fed bumps rate at least 50 basic points in 2017

Trump won't get tax cuts he wants, especially on personal tax. May reduce corporate to 20%

Called it. Well done.

[RandomGuy]

Near term, it would seem no, especially not with the rather lack lustere economic data recently.

Modest recovery followed by little to no growth for a long, long time.

Looks like oil's fast run up has fallen back somewhat.

Two years after initial OP, this was more accurate to what has happened.

[RandomGuy]

Yup. That one was definitely wrong.

Gold is still far above historical norms, although if it sustains the price for another few years, then I can only conclude something underlying has changed.

One potential culprit is the fact that they have gold-based ETFs that have come along in the last few years. This does represent some substantial risk for volatility, IMO.

We'll see.

Gold still hasn't tanked. Flat out wrong. Looks like some underlying shift.

I will still find any downturn in the price funny.

[Pavlov]

Gold still hasn't tanked. Flat out wrong. Looks like some underlying shift.

I will still find any downturn in the price funny.My first instinct with gold is that it will go up after some crypto bust, but I'm sure I'm missing something.