|To: J.B.C. who wrote (110842)||6/14/2022 10:12:05 AM|
Victor David Hansen, is a prolific writer, I like him a lot. I do not have time to read the full article you posted, but I read over half. He failed to mention that most Californians have voted these idiots into office for decades. You reap what you sew. I have no sympathy for Californians. My only regret is those liberals that flee the Liberal States should not be allowed to vote in the Conservatives States to which they flee, to keep them from fucking up the Conservative States.
My MDA thread was ruined by a major contributor, because he did not like Trump. He supported Biden. I warned him and the others that shared his few they would regret their choice and would become silent on the subject once it became clear they were so very wrong. And they have become silent...TRUTH BE TOLD
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)|
|To: J.B.C. who wrote (110848)||6/14/2022 10:16:25 AM|
Insurrectionist try to block access to the USSC. Will the FBI be their to arrest them. Well not in the United Socialist States of America...
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: J.B.C. who wrote (110869)||6/14/2022 11:30:01 AM|
| Don Surber|
All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
Biden proves Krugman "right"
Nobel economics laureate Paul Krugman's manic-depressant take on the election of Donald John Trump as our 45th president was a glorious read for two reasons. The first being the flood of liberal tears he unleashed. Tasty. Mighty tasty.
But the second is this world renowned economist was totally wrong -- capital T and capital W.
The Princeton professor and New York Times column let his emotions run wild.
He wrote, "It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?
"Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.
"Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.
"Under any circumstances, putting an irresponsible, ignorant man who takes his advice from all the wrong people in charge of the nation with the world’s most important economy would be very bad news. What makes it especially bad right now, however, is the fundamentally fragile state much of the world is still in, eight years after the great financial crisis."
He was angry that his candidate lost. He wanted the world to be punished for losing an election. He misread an initial drop in stock futures as proof of his genius and the world's stupidity. Within a few hours, he would learn the opposite was true.
Krugman ended his short column, "So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight. I suppose we could get lucky somehow. But on economics, as on everything else, a terrible thing has just happened."
Under Trump, the economy boomed, employment hit 50-year highs, wages surpassed inflation, and the stock market rose by 67% from his election tom his departure from office. Trump's policies were not designed by people who graduated from Harvard's school of government and were not focus-grouped to get the right wording. Instead, he applied his experience as a businessman and went with what works.
The last time a pundit was this wrong was in 1998 (now 24 years ago) someone wrote, "The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’—which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants—becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s."
And the name of that pundit was Paul Krugman.
Now we have Biden.
In an otherwise catastrophic presidency which has seen war and prices rise while our standard of living has fallen, Biden has accomplished one thing.
He has made Krugman's prediction of economic Armageddon come true.
A real recession nears, one that was caused by presidential incompetence and ignorance, and not caused by a pandemic panic.
Stock prices have tumbled about 20% so far this year and likely will fall another 20% because Biden's policies are so darned bad. Whereas under President Trump, America became energy independent for the first time in 50 years, Biden has stopped the drilling and made us reliant on dictators and other foreigners.
Food inflation hit 11.9% last month and the price of gasoline has more than doubled from the $2.379 a gallon that Trump left him.
As Krugman wrote nearly 6 years ago:
Under any circumstances, putting an irresponsible, ignorant man who takes his advice from all the wrong people in charge of the nation with the world’s most important economy would be very bad news. What makes it especially bad right now, however, is the fundamentally fragile state much of the world is still in, eight 14 years after the great financial crisis.
And yet Krugman voted for Biden nevertheless.
UPDATE: Oops, I left out the obligatory reference to Krugman serving as an economic adviser to Enron.
The man is always wrong.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)|
|To: J.B.C. who wrote (110870)||6/14/2022 11:31:49 AM|
|BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN ENERGY POLICY|
SIX MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH “GREEN” TRANSITION
German economist Hans Werner Sinn identifies six major problems with Europe’s fanciful plan to transition to wind and solar energy:
Problem no. 1: The Paris Accord is non-binding
The Paris Accord in fact has been signed by only 61 of 191 nations and so pledge to reduce their emissions, i.e. more than two thirds of the globe’s nations are not obliged to do anything.
This will simply allow the rich signatories to outsource their emissions to unconstrained nations. China and India both end up with a free pass. The Paris Accord will have no effect on global emissions and citizens of rich countries will be forced to make huge sacrifices. We’re seeing it today already.
Problem No. 2: EU targets are “utopian”
The former IFO head calls the EU’s targets “utopian” and adds: “Germany at the same time wants to exit coal and nuclear power, thus making itself dependent on other nations.” Like Russia.
The belief that the EU can power itself solely using volatile renewables like wind and sun is kept alive purely by “propaganda media”. In fact it is doomed to fail.
Problem No. 3: Volatile energy supply
Prof. Sinn explains that another major problem is: “Electricity from wind and sun is too volatile to assure an affordable and complete power supply. Even if Germany doubles it’s current wind and solar production capacity, doing so will only double the volatility of the supply:
As the chart above shows, a doubling of the 2019 wind and solar capacity would lead to numerous times of severe oversupply and periods of extreme undersupply for Germany’s roughly average 60 GW of demand.
Problem No. 4: Innovation through government decreed central planning?
“Europe is squeezing out the auto industry and violating the law of ‘one price’. The market as a discovery process to innovate low CO2 technologies is being shut down,” Sinn explains.
Instead of allowing the market to naturally find the best and most efficient solutions, Brussels is simply doing it by decree. In the end, we’ll end up with a failed centrally-planned economy.
Problem No. 5: E-cars are not clean
One problem today already, using Germany’s current electric energy supply mix, electric cars are emitting far more CO2 over their lifetimes than conventional combustion engine vehicles.
Even after 150,000 km of driving, a diesel Golf-class car emits less CO2. Chart: H.W. Sinn.
Yet, governments are aiming to force citizens to drive e-cars. In many countries, this will lead to more CO2 emissions, and not less.
Problem No. 6: Europe going without fossil fuels will have zero global impact
According to Prof. Sinn: “With tradable fossil fuels, Europe going without will not have just a tiny effect, but rather have no effect.”
Whatever fuels Europe opts not to use, other countries will simply burn them instead. As long as global oil production keeps growing, so will CO2 emissions – no matter what Europe does, decrees or decides
Europe’s unilateralism with climate policy will undermine the competitiveness of its industries, initiate its downfall and thus discourage other countries from following the the European – and especially the German – approach.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|