Financial News

[StrangeSox]

 

Seriously, that's a depressing read.

[Balta1701]

 

Seriously, that's a depressing read.

Don't worry, the government bailed them out, so no one important was hurt.

[lostfan]

I missed that whole debate, that was good (Y2HH spent a prolonged amount of time making a lot of sense and making me agree with him, I knew he could do it!). SS *is* an insurance system even though it's not really called that every day or thought of it that way. When people save for retirement they might do the best they can while they work, but they have no idea how long they're going to live, and people would outlive their savings like they used to do before SS. It has nothing to do with being stupid or making bad investments, it's just something you can't really predict. The only way to make it work is to have everyone participate or else you start having self-selection problems, only the people that need it would use it, and it'd fall apart. The same as any insurance system, really. If you only have people buying auto insurance who are prone to getting into accidents, and know they are, while everybody else chooses to not have insurance, the company is either not going to be able to make its payouts, or it's going to be prohibitively expensive.

[Y2HH]

I missed that whole debate, that was good (Y2HH spent a prolonged amount of time making a lot of sense and making me agree with him, I knew he could do it!). SS *is* an insurance system even though it's not really called that every day or thought of it that way. When people save for retirement they might do the best they can while they work, but they have no idea how long they're going to live, and people would outlive their savings like they used to do before SS. It has nothing to do with being stupid or making bad investments, it's just something you can't really predict. The only way to make it work is to have everyone participate or else you start having self-selection problems, only the people that need it would use it, and it'd fall apart. The same as any insurance system, really. If you only have people buying auto insurance who are prone to getting into accidents, and know they are, while everybody else chooses to not have insurance, the company is either not going to be able to make its payouts, or it's going to be prohibitively expensive.

 

Somewhere in our galaxy, a star collapsed, forming a black hole which will inevitably swallow our entire galaxy -- all because you agreed with me.

 

Good job.

[NorthSideSox72]

After the lowest volume trading day of the year yesterday, activity should pick up a bit with some reports...

 

Retail sales for the holiday season: the official store numbers aren't out yet, but two early indicators released yesterday (SpendingPulse and Customer Growth Partners) are saying the increases are 5.5% or 6%, either of which would be the highest since 2005 and both blow expectations out of the water.

 

Some economic forecasters are upping their expectations for GDP in 2011.

 

8am we'll get the October home price index (expected to fall a bit)

 

9am we'll get the new consumer confidence index reading (expected to rise a bit)

 

[NorthSideSox72]

8am we'll get the October home price index (expected to fall a bit)

20-city price index YOY down 0.8%, versus expectations of down 0.6%. Markets didn't seem to care about the difference, still showing a positive pre-open bias.

 

[Cknolls]

Consumer Confidence 52.5 vs 56.10 Briefing.com consensus.

[NorthSideSox72]

Two very interesting pieces of financial news I just saw - one good and one bad...

 

First the good news... CareerBuilder survey indicates growing optimism for increased hiring in 2011, along with modest wage increases.

 

Now the bad news... former President of Shell is predicting $5 a gallon for gas by 2012. His answer is of course to drill more - which will of course only make the slightest of improvements.

 

Are people really still thinking that heavy investment in alternative, renewable energy is not worthwhile? There are few other things the government can invest in at this point that will have a bigger effect.

 

[southsider2k5]

Two very interesting pieces of financial news I just saw - one good and one bad...

 

First the good news... CareerBuilder survey indicates growing optimism for increased hiring in 2011, along with modest wage increases.

 

Now the bad news... former President of Shell is predicting $5 a gallon for gas by 2012. His answer is of course to drill more - which will of course only make the slightest of improvements.

 

Are people really still thinking that heavy investment in alternative, renewable energy is not worthwhile? There are few other things the government can invest in at this point that will have a bigger effect.

 

Which is why we are looking at predictions of $5 gas.

[NorthSideSox72]

[/b]

 

Which is why we are looking at predictions of $5 gas.

I'd say its the other way around - $5 gas is a reality period, which is why we need to do something. Since drilling more AND increasing use of non-fossil fuels will both have a positive effect, but one is clearly the better long term alternative (because it actually creates high paying jobs, pollutes less, and costs us a TON less in the future), the choice should be crystal clear.

 

[Balta1701]

Good day for impressive graphs.

Link

 

And a whole page of graphs arguing that housing prices have another 20% to fall.

[Y2HH]

I'd say its the other way around - $5 gas is a reality period, which is why we need to do something. Since drilling more AND increasing use of non-fossil fuels will both have a positive effect, but one is clearly the better long term alternative (because it actually creates high paying jobs, pollutes less, and costs us a TON less in the future), the choice should be crystal clear.

 

I'm positive if it were as easy as that, it'd already be done on a massive scale.

 

That said, a lot of money IS being spent on alternative energy research and development right now, and in the years to come you will begin to see the fruits of that labor, albeit small fruits. It's not something that will happen overnight, and most of these newly researched technologies will fail to produce any actual worth, as most will prove to be less efficient than their predecessors. Until something can be more efficient and available on a massive scale (easy to get/refuel, etc), it's all talk and while interesting topics of discussion, it's nothing more.

 

Electric cars will continue to suck until they require less batteries which are also made out of rare earth materials, the batteries stop losing the ability to recharge and store the same amounts of energy, are able to recharge in minutes (not hours), have the same power or more than internal combustion engines, and the infrastructure to recharge them exists all over the place, such as gas stations.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm positive if it were as easy as that, it'd already be done on a massive scale.

 

That said, a lot of money IS being spent on alternative energy research and development right now, and in the years to come you will begin to see the fruits of that labor, albeit small fruits. It's not something that will happen overnight, and most of these newly researched technologies will fail to produce any actual worth, as most will prove to be less efficient than their predecessors. Until something can be more efficient and available on a massive scale (easy to get/refuel, etc), it's all talk and while interesting topics of discussion, it's nothing more.

 

Electric cars will continue to suck until they require less batteries which are also made out of rare earth materials, the batteries stop losing the ability to recharge and store the same amounts of energy, are able to recharge in minutes (not hours), have the same power or more than internal combustion engines, and the infrastructure to recharge them exists all over the place, such as gas stations.

I don't recall ever saying it was easy, and the reasons its not being done more massively are simple... cost, and political defensiveness (often rooted in corruption).

 

Either one - more drilling to operational status OR better alternatives, are time-consuming. No way around that. We are not going to dodge price increases in 2012, at least not very much of them. Gas demand has already been showing small signs in the past couple years of not rising as much as population justifies, and part of that is the presence of more efficient vehicles and energy methods. But certainly we are a long way from seeing it be a big part of the equation.

 

[Balta1701]

I'm positive if it were as easy as that, it'd already be done on a massive scale.

 

That said, a lot of money IS being spent on alternative energy research and development right now, and in the years to come you will begin to see the fruits of that labor, albeit small fruits. It's not something that will happen overnight, and most of these newly researched technologies will fail to produce any actual worth, as most will prove to be less efficient than their predecessors. Until something can be more efficient and available on a massive scale (easy to get/refuel, etc), it's all talk and while interesting topics of discussion, it's nothing more.

The problem right now is...relative to the timescale of fully upgrading and replacing our transportation and generation infrastructure, massive price spikes CAN happen overnight.

 

$5 gas by 2012, as predicted by Shell a few days ago, would probably be more than enough to push the U.S. back into a large-scale recession, and would absolutely devastate the already-weakened European economies. And really, if it's going to happen, there's no way around it.

 

Oh, and it's worth understanding that this sort of effect is actually a logical consequence of peak energy supplies being reached. If the global economy can only expand if more energy is supplied, but energy supplies are constrained, then every time the global economy tries to grow it's going to be met with a huge headwind in the form of an energy price spike. In this case...economic stagnation is the permanent situation.

[Y2HH]

I agree with both your assessments, I was just pointing out that it will be a hard task and a long road...but I'm sure we will move in that direction, that's a foregone conclusion. As you've both pointed out, we are at what appears to be at an apex when it comes to fossil fuel usage, and critical mass is being met. With many 3rd world countries emerging and beginning to use this same resource in mass quantity, the availability will drop while the demand rises...what will occur then is economics 101.

 

I think we are moving toward alternatives, I just think it's a lonnnnnnng lonnnnnng road. In modern American society where we expect things to be instant...I think people are going to have to learn to wait again...

 

Or ride a bike.

[Balta1701]

Really though, if what I think is at least possible comes true, and every time the global economy tries to grow it produces an energy-price-spike recession, then we're going to have to find a way to speed things up...because otherwise, we'll never get out of that 8-9% unemployment valley we're currently in.

 

And I love biking.

[NorthSideSox72]

Really though, if what I think is at least possible comes true, and every time the global economy tries to grow it produces an energy-price-spike recession, then we're going to have to find a way to speed things up...because otherwise, we'll never get out of that 8-9% unemployment valley we're currently in.

 

And I love biking.

I bike to work every day from May through September.

 

See, the great thing about the alt energy stuff to is, its got the added benefit of not only adding a lot of good paying jobs (oil would to an extent too, though less of the high paying kind)... but creating industry to EXPORT our technology globally, which is what the US needs to propel real, serious growth.

 

I feel like a broken record, but I really think we are missing a great opportunity here. We're spending stimulus money on road construction, tax cuts mostly benefiting the people who are already rich, and a crappy attempt at health care overhaul. Putting the US as a leader in alt energy is, IMO, far more valuable for the long range health of the country than any of those things.

 

[Balta1701]

We're not spending money on the health care overhaul. We're spending money on a crappy and expensive health care system.

[NorthSideSox72]

We're not spending money on the health care overhaul. We're spending money on a crappy and expensive health care system.

So we replaced those costs with other costs that still don't fix the main problems. Not helping.

 

[Y2HH]

We're not spending money on the health care overhaul. We're spending money on a crappy and expensive health care system.

 

That's because the health care overhaul failed to overhaul anything in the actual health care system -- instead, it overhauled the insurance system that pays for said health care system -- because people erroneously considered them one and the same.

 

What was done is akin to attacking gas stations for charging you 5$ a gallon for gas, when the oil they're paying for costs them 4.90$. I said this from the start. In order for that reform to have meant anything, it needed to reform all of it, from doctors/hospitals, drug companies, to the insurance systems covering it...

 

It was and is a dismal failure.

[Balta1701]

So we replaced those costs with other costs that still don't fix the main problems. Not helping.

But then the problem isn't the ACA, it's the broken system itself.

[Y2HH]

I bike to work every day from May through September.

 

See, the great thing about the alt energy stuff to is, its got the added benefit of not only adding a lot of good paying jobs (oil would to an extent too, though less of the high paying kind)... but creating industry to EXPORT our technology globally, which is what the US needs to propel real, serious growth.

 

I feel like a broken record, but I really think we are missing a great opportunity here. We're spending stimulus money on road construction, tax cuts mostly benefiting the people who are already rich, and a crappy attempt at health care overhaul. Putting the US as a leader in alt energy is, IMO, far more valuable for the long range health of the country than any of those things.

 

I agree with this in part...but obviously involving so many huge industries makes it a very complex argument.

[NorthSideSox72]

But then the problem isn't the ACA, it's the broken system itself.

Lots of systems are broken. I still feel as though we could have made the system better (not perfect - better) by spending a very small amount of money, and then moved onto things that really do take larger amounts of money but that pay for themselves multiple times over later.

 

[jasonxctf]

I agree with both your assessments, I was just pointing out that it will be a hard task and a long road...but I'm sure we will move in that direction, that's a foregone conclusion. As you've both pointed out, we are at what appears to be at an apex when it comes to fossil fuel usage, and critical mass is being met. With many 3rd world countries emerging and beginning to use this same resource in mass quantity, the availability will drop while the demand rises...what will occur then is economics 101.

 

I think we are moving toward alternatives, I just think it's a lonnnnnnng lonnnnnng road. In modern American society where we expect things to be instant...I think people are going to have to learn to wait again...

 

Or ride a bike.

 

It can be instant and it's already here.

 

Two Words

 

Clean Diesel (TDI)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharged_Direct_Injection

 

My wife and I each have a TDI car. (She's got the Audi A3 and I've got the VW Jetta) Both have averaged between 37-40mpg since we got them. That includes driving in the winter here in Chicago (horrible mpg) and highway driving (where we get 40-42mpg consistently)

 

Does it end fossil fuel usage? Of course not. Can it significantly slow down its usage and need. Absolutely.

[Y2HH]

It can be instant and it's already here.

 

Two Words

 

Clean Diesel (TDI)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharged_Direct_Injection

 

My wife and I each have a TDI car. (She's got the Audi A3 and I've got the VW Jetta) Both have averaged between 37-40mpg since we got them. That includes driving in the winter here in Chicago (horrible mpg) and highway driving (where we get 40-42mpg consistently)

 

Does it end fossil fuel usage? Of course not. Can it significantly slow down its usage and need. Absolutely.

 

That's not alternative energy. It's petrol based therefore it's still fossil fuel/oil.

 

It's more efficient yes...but it's not alternative.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Y2HH