Oil ends lower as U.S. drillers add to rig count
2017-11-10 2:43 PM ET (MarketWatch)
Trump wants to open up Alaskan oil.
Will gasoline be down to a dollar per gallon?
Remember that many North Dakota drillers gave up because it was not profitable for them. Then OPEC dropped its production and prices got better for U.S. oil. See https://www.npr.org/2017/05/24/529852301/boom-time-again-for-u-s-oil-industry-thanks-to-opec.
As the above MarketWatch item states, more production lowers prices.
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Sunday, November 12, 2017
Sunday, December 04, 2016
Software: automobile or yard equipment?
Software behaves more like yard equipment: one has to continually add fuel and oil, tighten bolts, and clean many parts.
And it seems every time we turn around there is a new update.
With cars, we go months without any service other than adding fuel and maybe a wash. And maybe we get one update a year on some warranty part.
And it seems every time we turn around there is a new update.
With cars, we go months without any service other than adding fuel and maybe a wash. And maybe we get one update a year on some warranty part.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Muslims do speak out. Are you listening?
A few weeks ago a letter writer to the Reader stated that “ALL Muslims” must speak out. He stated this over and over again.
Should others claim that “ALL Christians” must speak out about slavery, lynchings, or discrimination? In an ideal world maybe “ALL” whoever would speak about crimes committed by some of their “co-religionists”, but we live in a complex world where people’s abilities and wishes vary.
Many Christians didn’t speak out about slavery or lynchings out of fear for themselves and their families. Many Christians didn’t speak out because they were far removed from where these crimes were being committed. Many Christians didn’t speak out because they had other concerns that were more immediate to them.
Are not many Muslims in similar situations? Are those in areas controlled by the Islamic State or by dictators going to speak out against injustice and be killed, imprisoned, or tortured for their opposition? Are those far from these awful situations going to spend all their time speaking out against injustice instead of going to work or caring for their families?
Well, if you have several news sources you will find that many Muslims are speaking out. The Duluth News Tribune of Sunday, February 22 had a story headlined “Norway’s Muslims form protective human ring around synagogue”. This was in reaction to a Danish Muslim killing two people at a synagogue in Copenhagen; the synagogue was holding an event to promote free speech. The Star Tribune has published several stories about the concern of Muslim parents that their children are being seduced to join ISIS.
Remember that one of the first people killed in the Charlie Hebdo attack was a Muslim police officer. Remember that in the attack on the Kosher grocery one of the people who led some people out was a Muslim employee.
Remember that Salman Rushdie, author of “The Satanic Verses”, condemned to death by Ayatollah Khomeini for blasphemy, is still speaking out against injustice.
Remember that Egypt struck back against ISIS in Libya because of brutal beheading of Coptic Christians, Christians who were Egyptian citizens.
Note that Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish journalist and Muslim, has been writing about the need for toleration by Muslims for the New York Times. You can find two of his latest columns at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/opinion/mustafa-akyol-a-letter-concerning-muslim-toleration.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/opinion/islams-problem-with-blasphemy.html. See also his TED talk at http://video.ted.com/talk/podcast/2011X/None/MustafaAkyol_2011X-480p.mp4.
He also wrote Islam without Extremism, A Muslim Case for Liberty. Here are two notable quotes from his book.
“In all these cases, the Muslims who reacted with anger and violence probably were sincere in their zeal to defend their faith. Yet, alas, the practical result of their actions was to vindicate the very accusation brought against them—that Islam is an intolerant and aggressive religion. So, if they really want to change that negative perception about their religion, they must begin by changing their course of action.” p. 252
“Beyond the Hadith literature, a response to blasphemy that is more compatible with the liberal standards of the modern world actually comes from the Qur’an. The Muslim scripture not only lacks any suggestion of earthly punishment for blasphemy, it also advises a nonviolent response: ‘When you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.’” p. 254
My notes for this column include many more quotes about the tension among various Islamic schools of thought. I’ll try to summarize some of the highlights.
After the death of Muhammad, politicians dictated Islamic thought. They interpreted it to increase their power rather than to increase the welfare of the people. Sounds like something that has happened and is happening in Christendom.
A tool to increase political power were the Hadiths, “a collection of literature that claims to communicate the Sunna (tradition) of the Prophet Muhammad.” Many of them are contradictory to the Qur’an and to each other. Unfortunately, a number of historic events squelched the more liberal schools of Islamic jurisprudence and strengthened the more illiberal school.
“In 1258, the Mongols sacked Baghdad–then the most vibrant and polished city of Islamdom, if not the world.” The Mongols were so destructive that “that the river turned black for the ink for days on end”, ink from all the documents the Mongols destroyed.
Other invasions followed that weakened liberal Islamic thought and strengthened conservative thought.
Turkey allied itself with Germany in the early 20th century as a counter to its old rival, Russia. Poor choice! The defeat of Germany led to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The Allies slowly broke the Empire into pieces and installed leaders they chose. This continues today with the West trying to decide who should be rulers of these pieces. These actions certainly aren’t Christian: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
A second invasion was of oil men. Keep the flow of oil in our control and keep local leaders who support us in control. This strengthened those who supported Wahhabism, a very strict form of Islam that Akyol calls more of the desert than of Muhammad.
But beware, it can happen here in the hands of those who call themselves Christians. Jacques Berlinerblau warns in How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom that the “Revivalists” who claim that the United States is and has been a Christian nation really don’t want a pluralistic Christianity, but a Christianity as they interpret it. They ignore that the Founders were concerned with any given Protestant sect taking control and limiting the freedom of other sects.
Should others claim that “ALL Christians” must speak out about slavery, lynchings, or discrimination? In an ideal world maybe “ALL” whoever would speak about crimes committed by some of their “co-religionists”, but we live in a complex world where people’s abilities and wishes vary.
Many Christians didn’t speak out about slavery or lynchings out of fear for themselves and their families. Many Christians didn’t speak out because they were far removed from where these crimes were being committed. Many Christians didn’t speak out because they had other concerns that were more immediate to them.
Are not many Muslims in similar situations? Are those in areas controlled by the Islamic State or by dictators going to speak out against injustice and be killed, imprisoned, or tortured for their opposition? Are those far from these awful situations going to spend all their time speaking out against injustice instead of going to work or caring for their families?
Well, if you have several news sources you will find that many Muslims are speaking out. The Duluth News Tribune of Sunday, February 22 had a story headlined “Norway’s Muslims form protective human ring around synagogue”. This was in reaction to a Danish Muslim killing two people at a synagogue in Copenhagen; the synagogue was holding an event to promote free speech. The Star Tribune has published several stories about the concern of Muslim parents that their children are being seduced to join ISIS.
Remember that one of the first people killed in the Charlie Hebdo attack was a Muslim police officer. Remember that in the attack on the Kosher grocery one of the people who led some people out was a Muslim employee.
Remember that Salman Rushdie, author of “The Satanic Verses”, condemned to death by Ayatollah Khomeini for blasphemy, is still speaking out against injustice.
Remember that Egypt struck back against ISIS in Libya because of brutal beheading of Coptic Christians, Christians who were Egyptian citizens.
Note that Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish journalist and Muslim, has been writing about the need for toleration by Muslims for the New York Times. You can find two of his latest columns at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/opinion/mustafa-akyol-a-letter-concerning-muslim-toleration.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/opinion/islams-problem-with-blasphemy.html. See also his TED talk at http://video.ted.com/talk/podcast/2011X/None/MustafaAkyol_2011X-480p.mp4.
He also wrote Islam without Extremism, A Muslim Case for Liberty. Here are two notable quotes from his book.
“In all these cases, the Muslims who reacted with anger and violence probably were sincere in their zeal to defend their faith. Yet, alas, the practical result of their actions was to vindicate the very accusation brought against them—that Islam is an intolerant and aggressive religion. So, if they really want to change that negative perception about their religion, they must begin by changing their course of action.” p. 252
“Beyond the Hadith literature, a response to blasphemy that is more compatible with the liberal standards of the modern world actually comes from the Qur’an. The Muslim scripture not only lacks any suggestion of earthly punishment for blasphemy, it also advises a nonviolent response: ‘When you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.’” p. 254
My notes for this column include many more quotes about the tension among various Islamic schools of thought. I’ll try to summarize some of the highlights.
After the death of Muhammad, politicians dictated Islamic thought. They interpreted it to increase their power rather than to increase the welfare of the people. Sounds like something that has happened and is happening in Christendom.
A tool to increase political power were the Hadiths, “a collection of literature that claims to communicate the Sunna (tradition) of the Prophet Muhammad.” Many of them are contradictory to the Qur’an and to each other. Unfortunately, a number of historic events squelched the more liberal schools of Islamic jurisprudence and strengthened the more illiberal school.
“In 1258, the Mongols sacked Baghdad–then the most vibrant and polished city of Islamdom, if not the world.” The Mongols were so destructive that “that the river turned black for the ink for days on end”, ink from all the documents the Mongols destroyed.
Other invasions followed that weakened liberal Islamic thought and strengthened conservative thought.
Turkey allied itself with Germany in the early 20th century as a counter to its old rival, Russia. Poor choice! The defeat of Germany led to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The Allies slowly broke the Empire into pieces and installed leaders they chose. This continues today with the West trying to decide who should be rulers of these pieces. These actions certainly aren’t Christian: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
A second invasion was of oil men. Keep the flow of oil in our control and keep local leaders who support us in control. This strengthened those who supported Wahhabism, a very strict form of Islam that Akyol calls more of the desert than of Muhammad.
But beware, it can happen here in the hands of those who call themselves Christians. Jacques Berlinerblau warns in How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom that the “Revivalists” who claim that the United States is and has been a Christian nation really don’t want a pluralistic Christianity, but a Christianity as they interpret it. They ignore that the Founders were concerned with any given Protestant sect taking control and limiting the freedom of other sects.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Let’s Stop It with Global Warming Denial
The blogosphere is filled with nitpicking about NASA’s supposedly only 38 percent certainty about 2014 being the warmest year for recorded data. Does it really matter if 2014 was the warmest year in recent history or the third warmest year? The trend is still up even though there may be slightly cooler years or there may be cooler spots that had been warmer.
Think of your house in winter. Assume it is a five-room house with a basement. Assume you have no central heating and your only heat is from electric space heaters.
If you turn on one space heater in one room, you will feel warmer by the heater and colder as you move away from it. Suppose you turn on a space heater in every room. Each room will warm up near the space heater and be cooler away from the space heater. If you are on the opposite side of the room, there is no room-heating! And if you go to the basement, you have proven that there is no household warming!
What happens if you put a space heater in every corner of each room and in every corner of the basement? You will have a very warm house, maybe an unbearably hot house.
So what happens if you have a few steam-powered factories? Not much. What happens if you add hundreds and thousands of steam-powered factories. Well, the areas around these factories may be a bit warmer, but few will notice until they go into the factories.
What happens if you have a few steam-powered trains? Not much, just like with the factories.
What happens if you have a few thousand gasoline-powered cars? Not much. But if you take lots of measurements, you will find that the temperatures are rising slightly around the areas where these factories, trains, and cars operate.
What happens when there are hundreds of thousands of factories and trains and millions of cars? Where is all the heat from these going to go? Magically back into the ground where the fuel came from?
Add to this that these factories, trains, and cars generate carbon dioxide. Since the Earth takes in energy as ultra-violet radiation and sends out energy as infra-red radiation, you would think there would be some stability in energy. But carbon dioxide (and other gasses) block infra-red radiation. The more carbon dioxide we dump into the atmosphere, the more heat will be retained on earth. The more generators of carbon dioxide we have, the more carbon dioxide we will have dumped into the atmosphere.
Let’s go back to our household heaters. Nowadays, we use electric heaters. Any carbon dioxide that results from our use is generated outside the house. But what if our heaters are fireplaces and wood stoves? The carbon dioxide is being generated inside our house. If we are not careful, we could suffocate ourselves. To make sure we have enough oxygen, we have to have leaky windows and doors or some controlled source of oxygen.
A simple thought experiment shows that we are definitely putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. For millennia, people cooked their food and warmed themselves with wood fires. The wood provided the carbon for fuel and the trees absorbed the carbon dioxide to grow more wood. This is a virtual cycle: what gets used for one purpose is recycled to produce more of the original substance.
Then people discovered coal in the ground. This burned better than wood and was never rotten or damp. For millennia, the techniques for extracting coal were too inefficient to provide world-wide use.
As the world population grew and agriculture spread, more trees were cleared for buildings and farms. This meant less wood was available for fuel and alternatives were needed. Extracting coal became more efficient.
However, its use wasn’t always efficient. Many fireplaces and factories didn’t burn coal efficiently and much soot was dumped into the air. This resulted in dirty laundry and more cases of pulmonary diseases. As late as the 1940s, steam locomotives would spew cinders and other pollutants as they rumbled by. At the time, we lived right next to the tracks in an otherwise nice neighborhood. We would have to brush our hair after a train passed.
Coal and other fossil fuels are inefficient for another reason. They ain’t making them anymore! We have drained the swamps where critters large and small drowned and slowly broke down into coal and oil. We have also “drained” the easy access to oil and coal. Now we blow up mountains to get coal and pound the heck out of the underlying rock formations to get oil and gas. The first has ruined towns and rivers. The second is causing minor earthquakes.
Both of these operations remove thousands of trees and other vegetation that would absorb carbon dioxide. Add to that we want larger and larger parking lots, wider and wider highways, and larger and larger buildings. We will need more oil for these and will take away more of the carbon sink vegetation. This is a vicious cycle; things only get worse.
Meanwhile we have more and more carbon being burned and many people making lots and lots of money producing carbon fuels. To understand the denial of global warming, follow the money. As Adam Smith wrote in his “Wealth of Nations”, those who live by profit are not to be trusted.
You can find more thoughts like this at my blog: http://magree.blogspot.com.
Think of your house in winter. Assume it is a five-room house with a basement. Assume you have no central heating and your only heat is from electric space heaters.
If you turn on one space heater in one room, you will feel warmer by the heater and colder as you move away from it. Suppose you turn on a space heater in every room. Each room will warm up near the space heater and be cooler away from the space heater. If you are on the opposite side of the room, there is no room-heating! And if you go to the basement, you have proven that there is no household warming!
What happens if you put a space heater in every corner of each room and in every corner of the basement? You will have a very warm house, maybe an unbearably hot house.
So what happens if you have a few steam-powered factories? Not much. What happens if you add hundreds and thousands of steam-powered factories. Well, the areas around these factories may be a bit warmer, but few will notice until they go into the factories.
What happens if you have a few steam-powered trains? Not much, just like with the factories.
What happens if you have a few thousand gasoline-powered cars? Not much. But if you take lots of measurements, you will find that the temperatures are rising slightly around the areas where these factories, trains, and cars operate.
What happens when there are hundreds of thousands of factories and trains and millions of cars? Where is all the heat from these going to go? Magically back into the ground where the fuel came from?
Add to this that these factories, trains, and cars generate carbon dioxide. Since the Earth takes in energy as ultra-violet radiation and sends out energy as infra-red radiation, you would think there would be some stability in energy. But carbon dioxide (and other gasses) block infra-red radiation. The more carbon dioxide we dump into the atmosphere, the more heat will be retained on earth. The more generators of carbon dioxide we have, the more carbon dioxide we will have dumped into the atmosphere.
Let’s go back to our household heaters. Nowadays, we use electric heaters. Any carbon dioxide that results from our use is generated outside the house. But what if our heaters are fireplaces and wood stoves? The carbon dioxide is being generated inside our house. If we are not careful, we could suffocate ourselves. To make sure we have enough oxygen, we have to have leaky windows and doors or some controlled source of oxygen.
A simple thought experiment shows that we are definitely putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. For millennia, people cooked their food and warmed themselves with wood fires. The wood provided the carbon for fuel and the trees absorbed the carbon dioxide to grow more wood. This is a virtual cycle: what gets used for one purpose is recycled to produce more of the original substance.
Then people discovered coal in the ground. This burned better than wood and was never rotten or damp. For millennia, the techniques for extracting coal were too inefficient to provide world-wide use.
As the world population grew and agriculture spread, more trees were cleared for buildings and farms. This meant less wood was available for fuel and alternatives were needed. Extracting coal became more efficient.
However, its use wasn’t always efficient. Many fireplaces and factories didn’t burn coal efficiently and much soot was dumped into the air. This resulted in dirty laundry and more cases of pulmonary diseases. As late as the 1940s, steam locomotives would spew cinders and other pollutants as they rumbled by. At the time, we lived right next to the tracks in an otherwise nice neighborhood. We would have to brush our hair after a train passed.
Coal and other fossil fuels are inefficient for another reason. They ain’t making them anymore! We have drained the swamps where critters large and small drowned and slowly broke down into coal and oil. We have also “drained” the easy access to oil and coal. Now we blow up mountains to get coal and pound the heck out of the underlying rock formations to get oil and gas. The first has ruined towns and rivers. The second is causing minor earthquakes.
Both of these operations remove thousands of trees and other vegetation that would absorb carbon dioxide. Add to that we want larger and larger parking lots, wider and wider highways, and larger and larger buildings. We will need more oil for these and will take away more of the carbon sink vegetation. This is a vicious cycle; things only get worse.
Meanwhile we have more and more carbon being burned and many people making lots and lots of money producing carbon fuels. To understand the denial of global warming, follow the money. As Adam Smith wrote in his “Wealth of Nations”, those who live by profit are not to be trusted.
You can find more thoughts like this at my blog: http://magree.blogspot.com.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
If regulation is bad for business, then…
Why are so many breweries opening in Duluth and elsewhere in Minnesota? See "Canoe give me a Bent Paddle". Alcohol production and sale is very highly regulated. Why are so many other small businesses opening, if they don't compete with giant corporations? See "Big corporations hinder little corporations".
This blog entry was inspired by an interview with Niall Ferguson about his book "The Great Degeneration". The interview was by Lauren Lyster "The Daily Ticker" and entitled "The 1.8 Trillion Tax You've Never Heard Of". This huge tax is the supposed cost of all the government regulations. Among other indicators for increased regulations is the increased number of pages in the Federal Regulations.
The premise is if we only cut back on regulations then we'll free up businesses to be more productive. What Ferguson doesn't say is less regulation pushes costs off on everybody else. Yep, if businesses were free to pollute they would be more productive and their prices would go down (or would it be the CEOs salary would go way up). But if they were free to pollute what would our costs be in health? If they were free of regulations in construction then rents would be less (or CEO salary…). But if they were free of construction regulations how many of us would die when their buildings collapsed or caught fire? Triangle Shirtwaist Factory anyone? Bangladesh garment factory? Salvation Army building collapse?
Regulations have increased not because government is eager to have more control. Regulations have increased because we live in an ever increasingly complex and compact society. Regulations increase because we understand more about the harmful effects of many activities and substances on ourselves. Lead in gasoline was seen as beneficial because it reduced engine knock. But then lead was seen as harmful to growing brains. Factories could dump whatever pollutants into nearby streams and lakes, but then people realized that the pollution was killing fish and costing cities more to clean up the water for drinking.
A counter to Niall Ferguson's position can be found at "Niall Ferguson Cites Flawed Evidence to Stoke Regulation Fears", Albert Kleine, Media Matters for America.
This article cites an Office of Management and Budget report of the costs and benefits. Two of my selections from this report follow.
"The estimated annual benefits of major Federal regulations reviewed by OMB from October 1, 2001, to September 30, 2011, for which agencies estimated and monetized both benefits and costs, are in the aggregate between $141 billion and $691 billion, while the estimated annual costs are in the aggregate between $42.4 billion and $66.3 billion. These ranges are reported in 2001 dollars and reflect uncertainty in the benefits and costs of each rule at the time that it was evaluated."
"It is important to emphasize that the large estimated benefits of EPA rules are mostly attributable to the reduction in public exposure to a single air pollutant: fine particulate matter. Of the EPA’s 19 air rules, the rule with the highest estimated benefit is the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, issued in 2007, with benefits ranging from $19 billion to $167 billion per year. While the benefits of this rule far exceed the costs, the cost estimate for the 2007 Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule is also the highest at $7.3 billion per year. In addition, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CAIR Replacement Rule (2060-AP50)) has benefits ranging from $20.5 to $59.7 billion and costs of approximately $0.7 billion."
- 2012 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local and Tribal Entities
This blog entry was inspired by an interview with Niall Ferguson about his book "The Great Degeneration". The interview was by Lauren Lyster "The Daily Ticker" and entitled "The 1.8 Trillion Tax You've Never Heard Of". This huge tax is the supposed cost of all the government regulations. Among other indicators for increased regulations is the increased number of pages in the Federal Regulations.
The premise is if we only cut back on regulations then we'll free up businesses to be more productive. What Ferguson doesn't say is less regulation pushes costs off on everybody else. Yep, if businesses were free to pollute they would be more productive and their prices would go down (or would it be the CEOs salary would go way up). But if they were free to pollute what would our costs be in health? If they were free of regulations in construction then rents would be less (or CEO salary…). But if they were free of construction regulations how many of us would die when their buildings collapsed or caught fire? Triangle Shirtwaist Factory anyone? Bangladesh garment factory? Salvation Army building collapse?
Regulations have increased not because government is eager to have more control. Regulations have increased because we live in an ever increasingly complex and compact society. Regulations increase because we understand more about the harmful effects of many activities and substances on ourselves. Lead in gasoline was seen as beneficial because it reduced engine knock. But then lead was seen as harmful to growing brains. Factories could dump whatever pollutants into nearby streams and lakes, but then people realized that the pollution was killing fish and costing cities more to clean up the water for drinking.
A counter to Niall Ferguson's position can be found at "Niall Ferguson Cites Flawed Evidence to Stoke Regulation Fears", Albert Kleine, Media Matters for America.
This article cites an Office of Management and Budget report of the costs and benefits. Two of my selections from this report follow.
"The estimated annual benefits of major Federal regulations reviewed by OMB from October 1, 2001, to September 30, 2011, for which agencies estimated and monetized both benefits and costs, are in the aggregate between $141 billion and $691 billion, while the estimated annual costs are in the aggregate between $42.4 billion and $66.3 billion. These ranges are reported in 2001 dollars and reflect uncertainty in the benefits and costs of each rule at the time that it was evaluated."
"It is important to emphasize that the large estimated benefits of EPA rules are mostly attributable to the reduction in public exposure to a single air pollutant: fine particulate matter. Of the EPA’s 19 air rules, the rule with the highest estimated benefit is the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, issued in 2007, with benefits ranging from $19 billion to $167 billion per year. While the benefits of this rule far exceed the costs, the cost estimate for the 2007 Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule is also the highest at $7.3 billion per year. In addition, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CAIR Replacement Rule (2060-AP50)) has benefits ranging from $20.5 to $59.7 billion and costs of approximately $0.7 billion."
- 2012 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local and Tribal Entities
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Solyndra loan, just the facts, ma'am
The Republicans have been jumping all over the Obama administration for the collapse of Solyndra; Paul Ryan accusing the Obama administration of "crony capitalism". Guess which administration actually approved the loan? The Bush administration! The loan was not actually made until Obama was in office. See "Clean Energy: Obama Says It's the Future, Paul Ryan Calls It a Fad", Stacy Curtin, Daily Ticker, 2012-08-16.
Meanwhile, the Republicans don't seem to notice the subsidies to oil, gas, coal, and nuclear.
Ryan also said, "We want to get Washington out of the business of picking winners and losers." He seems to forget that the last great Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, was very much in the business of picking winners and losers and providing subsidies. What would this country be like if he hadn't pushed the Transcontinental Railroad with "subsidies" of bonds and free land?
BTW: one of the commenters asked where Paul Ryan called clean energy a fad. Given how quotes of any kind get distorted and go viral, it is hard to find sources for a supposed quote. What Ryan said was "fads like Solyndra" on "60 minutes" with Bob Schieffer. I can't find a direct quote from 60 minutes, but dozens of repeats by many sites, each with its own particular bias.
Whatever, the fact is the Bush administration approved the loan. Now the Republican Party has morphed to promote only fossil fuels and nuclear energy and to disparage any alternate sources of energy.
Meanwhile, the Republicans don't seem to notice the subsidies to oil, gas, coal, and nuclear.
Ryan also said, "We want to get Washington out of the business of picking winners and losers." He seems to forget that the last great Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, was very much in the business of picking winners and losers and providing subsidies. What would this country be like if he hadn't pushed the Transcontinental Railroad with "subsidies" of bonds and free land?
BTW: one of the commenters asked where Paul Ryan called clean energy a fad. Given how quotes of any kind get distorted and go viral, it is hard to find sources for a supposed quote. What Ryan said was "fads like Solyndra" on "60 minutes" with Bob Schieffer. I can't find a direct quote from 60 minutes, but dozens of repeats by many sites, each with its own particular bias.
Whatever, the fact is the Bush administration approved the loan. Now the Republican Party has morphed to promote only fossil fuels and nuclear energy and to disparage any alternate sources of energy.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
The fallacy of Buy American
Once again the cry "Buy American" is heard from high and low places. One was Chip Cravaack, R-MN8, putting a statement into a transportation bill that the steel used in highways should be American-made.
A little aside I can't resist. Aren't the Republicans the one who are all for free markets and no government intervention? Shouldn't the free market decide the best quality for the lowest price? Not some government bureaucrat or politician?
I try to buy American and buy local, but in general this is only a preference, not an iron-clad rule. We buy local produce when it is available. I love my made-in-Minnesota Red Wing work boots and some of my made-in-America yard equipment. For decades I wore 36-30 Levis and then they suddenly became too long. It wasn't me that changed; I found the 30-inch inseam was actually over 31 inches! Could that have been because Levi Strauss outsourced the making of Levis and that somebody didn't make a proper conversion to metric?
On the other hand we own one American vehicle and one Japanese vehicle, each bought for specific reasons, not the country of manufacture. Can you find an American-made digital camera? Same for most computers and related stuff. The software might be made anywhere. I prefer a French music-composing program to a Minnesota program. Do you know anyplace in the U.S., other than Hawaii or greenhouses where bananas are grown? Would you rather have chicory than coffee?
On the other hand, we should be grateful that many other countries aren't pushing too strongly on Buy English or Buy German, and surprise, Buy Chinese.
Personally, I'm very glad that in the 60s and 70s European governments weren't pushing very hard to buy only European computers. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to live in Europe for six years maintaining software for Univac computers made in Minnesota. Our customers included Lufthansa, the French Army, and the Swedish Police.
Minnesota doesn't make many computers now-a-days, but many medical devices are designed and made in Minnesota. If we don't buy goods from other countries, should they buy our medical devices?
Farmers in the U.S. are glad that they have a big export market for all kinds of agricultural products, from grains to meat. Although India still has many import restrictions "Indian Consumers already buy almonds and grapes from California, and apples by the truckload from Washington." Adam Belz, "Minnesota looks for a bigger taste of India", Star Tribune, 2012-07-19
The military-industrial complex is probably very glad that military establishments around the world aren't restricted by Buy Nationally policies. Even the most militarily-oriented Congress couldn't raise enough taxes to buy all the weapons that the U.S. military-industrial complex could produce. So, those countries buying U.S. military hardware have to raise funds to purchase the hardware. To do that, they have to sell goods and services outside their own countries, for example, oil!
One of the most interesting news items is the direction of parts for wind turbines passing through the Duluth Harbor. Big blades are coming from Europe to U.S. destinations. Big blades are going out to many other countries, the latest being Brazil. Probably each set of blades had different features that met the requirements of the buyers.
And then there is the name game. Some years ago a U.S. city was considering buying a piece of heavy equipment. The city council favored Caterpillar over Kubota because the later was an American name. Surprise! The Caterpillar was made in Japan and the Kubota was made in the U.S.
It isn't easy being a free-marketer and a protectionist at the same time.
A little aside I can't resist. Aren't the Republicans the one who are all for free markets and no government intervention? Shouldn't the free market decide the best quality for the lowest price? Not some government bureaucrat or politician?
I try to buy American and buy local, but in general this is only a preference, not an iron-clad rule. We buy local produce when it is available. I love my made-in-Minnesota Red Wing work boots and some of my made-in-America yard equipment. For decades I wore 36-30 Levis and then they suddenly became too long. It wasn't me that changed; I found the 30-inch inseam was actually over 31 inches! Could that have been because Levi Strauss outsourced the making of Levis and that somebody didn't make a proper conversion to metric?
On the other hand we own one American vehicle and one Japanese vehicle, each bought for specific reasons, not the country of manufacture. Can you find an American-made digital camera? Same for most computers and related stuff. The software might be made anywhere. I prefer a French music-composing program to a Minnesota program. Do you know anyplace in the U.S., other than Hawaii or greenhouses where bananas are grown? Would you rather have chicory than coffee?
On the other hand, we should be grateful that many other countries aren't pushing too strongly on Buy English or Buy German, and surprise, Buy Chinese.
Personally, I'm very glad that in the 60s and 70s European governments weren't pushing very hard to buy only European computers. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to live in Europe for six years maintaining software for Univac computers made in Minnesota. Our customers included Lufthansa, the French Army, and the Swedish Police.
Minnesota doesn't make many computers now-a-days, but many medical devices are designed and made in Minnesota. If we don't buy goods from other countries, should they buy our medical devices?
Farmers in the U.S. are glad that they have a big export market for all kinds of agricultural products, from grains to meat. Although India still has many import restrictions "Indian Consumers already buy almonds and grapes from California, and apples by the truckload from Washington." Adam Belz, "Minnesota looks for a bigger taste of India", Star Tribune, 2012-07-19
The military-industrial complex is probably very glad that military establishments around the world aren't restricted by Buy Nationally policies. Even the most militarily-oriented Congress couldn't raise enough taxes to buy all the weapons that the U.S. military-industrial complex could produce. So, those countries buying U.S. military hardware have to raise funds to purchase the hardware. To do that, they have to sell goods and services outside their own countries, for example, oil!
One of the most interesting news items is the direction of parts for wind turbines passing through the Duluth Harbor. Big blades are coming from Europe to U.S. destinations. Big blades are going out to many other countries, the latest being Brazil. Probably each set of blades had different features that met the requirements of the buyers.
And then there is the name game. Some years ago a U.S. city was considering buying a piece of heavy equipment. The city council favored Caterpillar over Kubota because the later was an American name. Surprise! The Caterpillar was made in Japan and the Kubota was made in the U.S.
It isn't easy being a free-marketer and a protectionist at the same time.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Republicans and reality; the only thing they have in common is starting with RE
As a former Republican party activist, I am so disappointed with the Republicans since Reagan (another name starting with RE). The latest disappointment was the attitude of Minnesota Republican legislatures towards light rail, specifically the Southwest line out of Minneapolis. See "Critics rail about state money for Southwest light rail line", Pat Dole, Star Tribune, 2012-03-09.
Despite many businesses saying that light rail aids development, the state Republicans are still opposed to the light rail line. Hey, I thought Republicans were pro-business. I think they are more pro-Koch and pro-oil than anything else.
The most egregious comment was by Kurt Zellers, R-Maple Grove, "We like our independence and having our own car to drive where we want and when we want." He also said. " I think buses…are working very, very well." Excuse me, is anyone telling him that he can't drive? Oh, yes! The Republican Party is not "pro-choice".
He is so wrong on two counts.
Once I drove out of Chicago on I-90 towards O'Hare airport. It was on a Sunday(!) and stop-and-go. In the middle was a commuter train. The highway traffic would stop, and a train would catch up. The highway traffic would stop, and a train would catch up. The highway traffic would stop, and a train would catch up. Eventually the train pulled ahead and was gone. So much for "when we want".
As for the efficiency of buses, for two years I drove a suburban bus into the Twin Cities from Maple Grove!!!! Rare were the times it was a steady 55 mph from Maple Grove to downtown Minneapolis. Sometimes I had to drive on the shoulder. What was my supposed maximum speed? 35mph! What does light rail go? I don't know, but probably better than 35 mph between stations. And the light rail drivers generally have all the green lights in their favor. I had to slow down for merging traffic.
Despite many businesses saying that light rail aids development, the state Republicans are still opposed to the light rail line. Hey, I thought Republicans were pro-business. I think they are more pro-Koch and pro-oil than anything else.
The most egregious comment was by Kurt Zellers, R-Maple Grove, "We like our independence and having our own car to drive where we want and when we want." He also said. " I think buses…are working very, very well." Excuse me, is anyone telling him that he can't drive? Oh, yes! The Republican Party is not "pro-choice".
He is so wrong on two counts.
Once I drove out of Chicago on I-90 towards O'Hare airport. It was on a Sunday(!) and stop-and-go. In the middle was a commuter train. The highway traffic would stop, and a train would catch up. The highway traffic would stop, and a train would catch up. The highway traffic would stop, and a train would catch up. Eventually the train pulled ahead and was gone. So much for "when we want".
As for the efficiency of buses, for two years I drove a suburban bus into the Twin Cities from Maple Grove!!!! Rare were the times it was a steady 55 mph from Maple Grove to downtown Minneapolis. Sometimes I had to drive on the shoulder. What was my supposed maximum speed? 35mph! What does light rail go? I don't know, but probably better than 35 mph between stations. And the light rail drivers generally have all the green lights in their favor. I had to slow down for merging traffic.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Facts, figures, and finagling
Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN8), in his "Week in Review & Look Ahead" for January 13, quotes the National Association of Manufacturers that the Keystone XL pipeline project is "estimated to create 20,000 high-paying manufacturing and construction jobs".
So, what is a "high-paying" job? My wife cynically says anything above minimum wage. For starters, I'll go with $20/hour. At forty hours per week that would be $800/week and $41,600/year. So, 20,000 workers would be paid 832 million dollars. I was often told that the overhead for employees was equal to their salary. We do have to add 6.2 percent payroll tax, health insurance, and liability insurance. Those would easily take us over one billion dollars just for labor for the pipeline. But if "high-paying" really means high-paying, then we're probably talking $40 or more an hour. That means were talking over two billion dollars for labor for the pipeline. But these probably won't be 40-hour weeks, but more likely 60-hour weeks. That gets us to over three billion dollars.
Then we have side effects upon side effects, externalities in economic terminology.
First, all those workers will drive up local costs, making life very expensive for local people. This has already happened in the Dakotas.
Second, the free market proponents of this project should consider the anti-free market components of this project. A true free market has many buyers and sellers, buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision, buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market, and there are no externalities – costs to other than the buyers and sellers.
There will essentially be one buyer for the right of way for the pipeline. That buyer will determine which property will be required and will set a price. The property owners of that right of way are not free to leave the market; the buyer and governments have determined that they cannot leave the market. Interestingly, free marketers are very much against government interference with private affairs.
The externalities other than contamination of the aquifers have not really been considered. These include the distortion of local economies mentioned above, farmland taken out of cultivation, air pollution from the large construction project, and cost of security for the pipeline (both for safe operation and against malicious damage).
Another factor not being considered is opportunity cost. An opportunity cost is money spent for one thing that could have given greater gain elsewhere. An opportunity cost is not regularly washing your car and paying more later for rust repair or shorter useful life.
How many solar panels and windmills could these billions buy? How much battery research could these billions buy? How much energy conservation could these billions provide? How much public transportation could these billions provide? Hey, a bus driver may not have a "high-paying" job, but it is a great job with a living wage. I know, I was a bus driver. And every passenger is often one less car on the road.
What is needed, and will rarely ever happen, is a full cost-benefit analysis of projects like these. Rather than look at the benefits for a few, we should look to the benefits and costs to the whole society. Rather than cater to special interests, something many of the writers of the Constitution decried, we need to seek the public good:
"It is a misfortune, inseparable from human affairs, that public measures are rarely investigated with that spirit of moderation which is essential to a just estimate of their real tendency to advance or obstruct the public good; and that this spirit is more apt to be diminished than promoted, by those occasions which require an unusual exercise of it." - Federalist No. 37, James Madison
So, what is a "high-paying" job? My wife cynically says anything above minimum wage. For starters, I'll go with $20/hour. At forty hours per week that would be $800/week and $41,600/year. So, 20,000 workers would be paid 832 million dollars. I was often told that the overhead for employees was equal to their salary. We do have to add 6.2 percent payroll tax, health insurance, and liability insurance. Those would easily take us over one billion dollars just for labor for the pipeline. But if "high-paying" really means high-paying, then we're probably talking $40 or more an hour. That means were talking over two billion dollars for labor for the pipeline. But these probably won't be 40-hour weeks, but more likely 60-hour weeks. That gets us to over three billion dollars.
Then we have side effects upon side effects, externalities in economic terminology.
First, all those workers will drive up local costs, making life very expensive for local people. This has already happened in the Dakotas.
Second, the free market proponents of this project should consider the anti-free market components of this project. A true free market has many buyers and sellers, buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision, buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market, and there are no externalities – costs to other than the buyers and sellers.
There will essentially be one buyer for the right of way for the pipeline. That buyer will determine which property will be required and will set a price. The property owners of that right of way are not free to leave the market; the buyer and governments have determined that they cannot leave the market. Interestingly, free marketers are very much against government interference with private affairs.
The externalities other than contamination of the aquifers have not really been considered. These include the distortion of local economies mentioned above, farmland taken out of cultivation, air pollution from the large construction project, and cost of security for the pipeline (both for safe operation and against malicious damage).
Another factor not being considered is opportunity cost. An opportunity cost is money spent for one thing that could have given greater gain elsewhere. An opportunity cost is not regularly washing your car and paying more later for rust repair or shorter useful life.
How many solar panels and windmills could these billions buy? How much battery research could these billions buy? How much energy conservation could these billions provide? How much public transportation could these billions provide? Hey, a bus driver may not have a "high-paying" job, but it is a great job with a living wage. I know, I was a bus driver. And every passenger is often one less car on the road.
What is needed, and will rarely ever happen, is a full cost-benefit analysis of projects like these. Rather than look at the benefits for a few, we should look to the benefits and costs to the whole society. Rather than cater to special interests, something many of the writers of the Constitution decried, we need to seek the public good:
"It is a misfortune, inseparable from human affairs, that public measures are rarely investigated with that spirit of moderation which is essential to a just estimate of their real tendency to advance or obstruct the public good; and that this spirit is more apt to be diminished than promoted, by those occasions which require an unusual exercise of it." - Federalist No. 37, James Madison
Monday, January 02, 2012
Oil - synchronicity strikes again
Yesterday I wrote an entry about drilling in the Gulf and that it would not lower the U.S. price of gasoline because the gasoline would be exported to the highest bidder. Today, the Star Tribune published an article entitled "U.S. exports a record amount of refined fuels". The article stated that two Department of Energy analysts predicted this last January. See http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fuel-exports-20111231,0,7622832.story.
The synchronicity is that seemingly similar events happened without mutual causality.
This export market also illustrates a difficult goal - either you have free markets or you have low prices, but not both with "scarce" resources. As we fill our tanks, I'm sure we are not going to be contemplating with joy that this is "efficient" allocation of resources.
The synchronicity is that seemingly similar events happened without mutual causality.
This export market also illustrates a difficult goal - either you have free markets or you have low prices, but not both with "scarce" resources. As we fill our tanks, I'm sure we are not going to be contemplating with joy that this is "efficient" allocation of resources.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Where's the praise for Obama on gas prices?
Here in Duluth, gas prices have been falling bit by bit from near four dollars last spring. Today I've seen $3.39/gallon. So, if President Obama was blamed by some for the high prices, where is the praise for the lower prices? See "Bachmann: I'll bring back $2 gas", Charles Riley, CNN Money, 2011-08-18
Actually, there are many factors outside the President's control for prices of anything. Would we want it otherwise? If the President could have such control over our economy, wouldn't we be getting into a dictatorship?
One of those factors is where fuel is sold, and I don't' mean within the U.S. According to today's Star Tribune, fuel prices might be lower if diesel oil and gasoline weren't exported to other countries.
"Fuel exports hit record, keeping gas prices high", Ronald D. White, Los Angeles Times, 2011-11-12. See either http://www.startribune.com/business/133720623.html or http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fuel-exports-20111112,0,7229614.story
Where's Michele Bachmann now on these exports? My searches on her name, fuel exports, and November dates didn't find anything obviously her opinion on these exports. However, her web site seems to be only drill, drill without any considerations of the consequences and without any mention that some fuel is exported.
Actually, there are many factors outside the President's control for prices of anything. Would we want it otherwise? If the President could have such control over our economy, wouldn't we be getting into a dictatorship?
One of those factors is where fuel is sold, and I don't' mean within the U.S. According to today's Star Tribune, fuel prices might be lower if diesel oil and gasoline weren't exported to other countries.
"Fuel exports hit record, keeping gas prices high", Ronald D. White, Los Angeles Times, 2011-11-12. See either http://www.startribune.com/business/133720623.html or http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fuel-exports-20111112,0,7229614.story
Where's Michele Bachmann now on these exports? My searches on her name, fuel exports, and November dates didn't find anything obviously her opinion on these exports. However, her web site seems to be only drill, drill without any considerations of the consequences and without any mention that some fuel is exported.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
The Iranian Revolution Lives!!
AlJazeera has posted a 47-minute video of the ongoing struggle in Iran, "Letters from Iran".
It is not a pretty story given the brutality of the current regime, but there are cracks. A few in the regime are not happy with what is going on.
Given that hawks in the U.S. are once again raising an alarm about a nuclear-armed "enemy"., I've been mulling over who created the current regime in the first place. Well, not directly, but the CIA and others who wanted a compliant Iranian government overthrew the elected Mohammed Mossadegh to protect "our oil". The CIA was active in putting Shah Reza Pahlevi on the throne. The CIA also helped him by creating SAVAK, a hated secret police. When Khomenei took power, what happened to SAVAK?
While watching "Letters from Iran", I wondered if the Basiji would meet the same fate as those in SAVAK. Guess what, Khomeini converted them into SAVAMA, his own secret police. See "Why did Khomeini absorb the CIA's SAVAK?"
This leads me back to the topic I had been mulling over: You reap what you sow! The U.S. government decides that America's "interests" (not necessarily the long-term interests of the American people, but the short-term interests of certain corporations) must be protected. But the people in the target country don't necessarily agree with the intervention to "protect" those "interests". Eventually they rise up and overthrow the installed government. The result may be better, the result may be worse. In this case, for many Iranians, it was worse.
So, what happens if Israel or the U.S. attacks Iran? Who dies and why? Will only people who support the current regime die? Or will more innocent people die than have been killed by the "Islamic" "Republic"?
Oh, oh! Such attacks could have already started. I was going to end this entry with a reference to Tehran Bureau, a U.S.-based website now hosted by PBS. Its staff does its best to publish as much Iranian news as possible. One of the stories was "At Least 17 Dead After IRGC (Republican Guard) Blast". Iranian authorities claimed the arms depot blast was an accident and that an investigation is underway. But at least one commenter thought that it may have been a U.S. or Israeli air strike.
It could be, the blast story has a link to "Israeli Source Claims Depot Blast Mossad/MKO Operation".
It will probably take weeks or months to sort out what really happened. Even then, who and what shall we really believe? Almost all involved have their own agenda and the truth is not part of those agendas.
It is not a pretty story given the brutality of the current regime, but there are cracks. A few in the regime are not happy with what is going on.
Given that hawks in the U.S. are once again raising an alarm about a nuclear-armed "enemy"., I've been mulling over who created the current regime in the first place. Well, not directly, but the CIA and others who wanted a compliant Iranian government overthrew the elected Mohammed Mossadegh to protect "our oil". The CIA was active in putting Shah Reza Pahlevi on the throne. The CIA also helped him by creating SAVAK, a hated secret police. When Khomenei took power, what happened to SAVAK?
While watching "Letters from Iran", I wondered if the Basiji would meet the same fate as those in SAVAK. Guess what, Khomeini converted them into SAVAMA, his own secret police. See "Why did Khomeini absorb the CIA's SAVAK?"
This leads me back to the topic I had been mulling over: You reap what you sow! The U.S. government decides that America's "interests" (not necessarily the long-term interests of the American people, but the short-term interests of certain corporations) must be protected. But the people in the target country don't necessarily agree with the intervention to "protect" those "interests". Eventually they rise up and overthrow the installed government. The result may be better, the result may be worse. In this case, for many Iranians, it was worse.
So, what happens if Israel or the U.S. attacks Iran? Who dies and why? Will only people who support the current regime die? Or will more innocent people die than have been killed by the "Islamic" "Republic"?
Oh, oh! Such attacks could have already started. I was going to end this entry with a reference to Tehran Bureau, a U.S.-based website now hosted by PBS. Its staff does its best to publish as much Iranian news as possible. One of the stories was "At Least 17 Dead After IRGC (Republican Guard) Blast". Iranian authorities claimed the arms depot blast was an accident and that an investigation is underway. But at least one commenter thought that it may have been a U.S. or Israeli air strike.
It could be, the blast story has a link to "Israeli Source Claims Depot Blast Mossad/MKO Operation".
It will probably take weeks or months to sort out what really happened. Even then, who and what shall we really believe? Almost all involved have their own agenda and the truth is not part of those agendas.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Was BP rewarded for risky behavior?
Drilling in deeper water carries more risks, but why drill in deep water if it is so risky? Some say it is because environmentalists prevent drilling closer in. Some say we need domestic sources of oil for energy independence. And some say that deep drilling is subsidized but shallow drilling is not.
On the latter, the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act exempted oil companies from paying a 12 percent royalty in the deeper water. When crude was cheap the royalty was not an issue but as the price of oil climbed, it made more sense to drill in royalty-free deep water than in royalty-required shallow water.
For more, see "Why was BP Drilling in 5,000 Feet of Water Anyway?", Justin Sharon, Minyanville (via Yahoo Finance), 2010-06-11.
On the latter, the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act exempted oil companies from paying a 12 percent royalty in the deeper water. When crude was cheap the royalty was not an issue but as the price of oil climbed, it made more sense to drill in royalty-free deep water than in royalty-required shallow water.
For more, see "Why was BP Drilling in 5,000 Feet of Water Anyway?", Justin Sharon, Minyanville (via Yahoo Finance), 2010-06-11.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Using oil to save oil
Many are saying that plastic bags should not be used because they are made from oil and that they do not decompose readily in landfills. Some of these people either use paper bags for trash or buy bio-degradable plastic bags.
We tried bio-degradable bags years ago but they were flimsy and ripped easily. We gave them another try this week. They do seem sturdy enough for waste-basket liners. However, as I read the label I found out they were made in Norway! I wonder how much oil it takes to ship them from Norway to Minnesota. Also, the bags are corn-based; corn supposedly takes a lot of oil to raise.
We tried bio-degradable bags years ago but they were flimsy and ripped easily. We gave them another try this week. They do seem sturdy enough for waste-basket liners. However, as I read the label I found out they were made in Norway! I wonder how much oil it takes to ship them from Norway to Minnesota. Also, the bags are corn-based; corn supposedly takes a lot of oil to raise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)