U.S. Economy Shrinks in 4th Qtr

[DinoDoc]

Who says it really hasn't? The only valid comparison is "what would have happened without that spending?" And yes, save yourself the trouble.

You needn't have worried. I don't believe in the value of counter factual history beyond the entertainment it might provide. I can only really deal with what actually happened. Anemic growth from massive government spending over the course of this administration.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Which may be a bad thing, or may be a good thing if the alternative was a post 1929esque nosedive. It might be a bit different if the rest of the world was flying along and the US the only laggard.

[Ben Kenobi]

So Obama's quest is to 'suck less than Hoover?" Ambitious.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ever heard of refinancing? If the treasury and federal reserve actions distorted the market, there's a lot of smart people on Wall St., and in London, Beijing and elsewhere who would respond. Since they (a) know what they're doing as they make their livings off the bond market, and (b) aren't freaking out, I see no reason to get worked up.

They have. They've downgraded the US.

So what? What is the bank doing with that money in the savings account? Paying 0.5% for your money, then investing it in treasuries at 2%. The majority of treasuries are "held privately"

So why do we need to take private investor's money away from them so that the government can invest it in their own bonds? The private investors can get a better return. I'm sure it benefits the government, but at the expense of the people.

You'd mind it if you had an inflation rate of 12% And we're hardly in an age of deflation.

As opposed to a 8 percent real inflation rate that is zero if you're the right kind of people? No. Not at all. Give me a honest 12 not a fake 0.

It might be redirected into euro bonds. Or the Chinese would sit on theirs.

And what's wrong with that? The borrowing costs will reflect actual demand for US treasuries.

[Ben Kenobi]

Dude, if you believe that, you must be doing some time travelling back to the 60's.

Oh, I predict we'll see 50's style workforce participation before long. Obama's more than halfway there!

The country is full of pipelines and projects. Environmental regulation exists for a reason, and really isn't an impediment to growth.

You might want to ask all the farmers in the San Jaoquin Valley. Save the Smelt indeed. The unfortunate thing is that California doing poorly raises food prices for everyone.

lots of whining about how there hasn't been a major refinery built in California in the last ten million years.

Which is a problem, no? What's going to happen when the refineries eventually give up the ghost? Is California going to refuse to rebuild them? Power everything off of coastal windfarms? Or will Texas simply sell you electricity and reap the fruits of perspicacity?

You don't get to ride on it or drive it. And the Army would probably suggest you just pay your taxes, since they like things like revenue predictability to keep that puppy in good running order.

Or else what? They'll crush my car?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Oh, I predict we'll see 50's style workforce participation before long. Obama's more than halfway there!

You might want to ask all the farmers in the San Jaoquin Valley. Save the Smelt indeed. The unfortunate thing is that California doing poorly raises food prices for everyone.

LFMAO. You're going to tell me about SJV? I spent about 10 years doing water agency work in Cali, from Riverside County all up to Colusa County in the Sacramento Valley. I forget more about Cali water issues and water infrastructure issues each time I take a dump than you'll ever learn reading whatever you read there in Texas. Energy and utility (e.g. water) infrastructure is my main field for 20+ years.

There is a hell of a lot more complexity to SJV and SV water basin issues than either farmers or smelt, and a lot of mismanagement at the private sector and water agency level. One big factor the ag boys don't like to mention at all is the cumulative effect of years of overproduction. Less than 100 years ago, average well depth in the southern SJV (northern SJV includes different water basins with different recharge characteristics) was less than 50 feet. Now it's well over (no pun intended ) 400 feet, with significant increase in salinity to the extent of stunting standing crops in some areas. You can drain all the water you want, and kill the whole Sactramento Delta, but you're only going to dent that issue slightly, not solve it, because the fundamental issue is sustained overuse. West side soil depletion is so bad in many areas that you can only grow garbage crops, or land simply falls out of production. The problems are also very localized with specific variations all over the place.

Which is a problem, no? What's going to happen when the refineries eventually give up the ghost? Is California going to refuse to rebuild them?

California isn't in the refinery business. The existing refineries are continuously rebuilt and upgraded in pieces and modified by new lines and batteries over time. They also change hands from time to time, but the basic thing is no oil company will build a new refinery, because it is financial suicide to do so - why build a hugely expensive, underutilized asset that will exacerbate a general situation of overcapacity? Especially when you can take advantage of the relatively rare periods of undercapacity and blame treehuggers while you rake in money hand over fist? It's not in the oil companies' singular or collective self-interest to build new refineries.

Power everything off of coastal windfarms? Or will Texas simply sell you electricity and reap the fruits of perspicacity?

Windfarms here are inland, and wind power sucks. Good luck to Texas, you can't move the power even if you had it.

Or else what? They'll crush my car?

They'll leave that to the IRS.

[MichaeltheGreat]

dp

[MichaeltheGreat]

Hey this is Poly. Write for your audience they say.

I prefer casting pearls before swine.

Demonstrated to work. Worked just fine for Coolidge. The economic theory behind it is sound.

Yeah, it worked great because he was lucky enough to have Harding as a predecessor and lucky enough to get out of Dodge so that Hoover could reap the whirlwind of ol' Cal's policies. The economic theory behind it is frankly dated.

Worked well for Texas. Texas cut their budget last year and has a quite substantial surplus this year.

Works great for the people of Texas too. You get all that federal money, and then Texas has a per capita income below national average, while California's is some 7% above national average based on the 2010 census data.

BTW, Texas isn't a country, despite the delusions of some of its populace. Comparing state or provincial tax and economic policy to national policy doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[Ben Kenobi]

Windfarms here are inland, and wind power sucks. Good luck to Texas, you can't move the power even if you had it.

Oh darn. That really sucks, keeping TX power in TX. As for the wind farms - it's a terrible way of generating power. But, it's perfect for California. Also, bird kills are a bonus!

West side soil depletion is so bad in many areas that you can only grow garbage crops, or land simply falls out of production. The problems are also very localized with specific variations all over the place.

Which is why Cali's got about half of it locked down to save the Smelt. I see. Meanwhile everything dries out. Rather than destroying perfectly good ag land to feed SoCal, why not stop all the norcal diversions south? The reason you're draining the water there isn't so much because of the SJV, but because of the water demands of the rest of Cali.

California isn't in the refinery business. The existing refineries are continuously rebuilt and upgraded in pieces and modified by new lines and batteries over time. They also change hands from time to time, but the basic thing is no oil company will build a new refinery, because it is financial suicide to do so

Because the state has set it up that way. So, rather than rebuild with a modern plant, Cali would rather spend 10x as much refitting everything. Seems like a typical Cali plan. Dumb****ed on the economic end, wastes overall resources and is inefficient to boot!

It's not in the oil companies' singular or collective self-interest to build new refineries.

Then why the regulations barring new ones from being constructed.

[Ben Kenobi]

BTW, Texas isn't a country, despite the delusions of some of its populace. Comparing state or provincial tax and economic policy to national policy doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

So given the argument that it worked for the US the last time they tried it, and the argument that it worked for Texas just last year, you manage to ignore both arguments? If it was outdated, then why did it work so well for Texas?

[Kidlicious]

Cutting government spending would keep more dollars in the private sector. More dollars in the private sector = more growth.

Most of what the govt spends goes into the private sector.

[Hauldren Collider]

I prefer casting pearls before swine.

Demonstrated to work. Worked just fine for Coolidge. The economic theory behind it is sound.

Yeah, it worked great because he was lucky enough to have Harding as a predecessor and lucky enough to get out of Dodge so that Hoover could reap the whirlwind of ol' Cal's policies. The economic theory behind it is frankly dated.




Works great for the people of Texas too. You get all that federal money, and then Texas has a per capita income below national average, while California's is some 7% above national average based on the 2010 census data.

BTW, Texas isn't a country, despite the delusions of some of its populace. Comparing state or provincial tax and economic policy to national policy doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Texas is easily big enough to be a country. Its state government has enough power for its economic decisions to be quite meaningful.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Oh darn. That really sucks, keeping TX power in TX. As for the wind farms - it's a terrible way of generating power. But, it's perfect for California. Also, bird kills are a bonus!

Wind is useful, and would be moreso if the industry wasn't distorted by excess tax credits (maintaining a wind installation is a *****, since all focus is on manufacturing new equipment, not supply chain and spares. Wind has some siting limitations and needs adequate ready and spinning reserves, but it is a useful part of a generating portfolio.

Which is why Cali's got about half of it locked down to save the Smelt. I see. Meanwhile everything dries out. Rather than destroying perfectly good ag land to feed SoCal, why not stop all the norcal diversions south? The reason you're draining the water there isn't so much because of the SJV, but because of the water demands of the rest of Cali.

Not true, dear. In fact the opposite is true. Ever heard of the Kern Water Bank without googling it? The vast majority of SJV groundwater rights are private, the remainder are local water code agencies, and a little for muni water utility departments. SoCal gets CWP water which is surface water from the Sacramento delta. It's not just the smelt. I know you think ecosystem is a four letter word, but the reasons include overall local salinity levels, recharge rates, etc., all of which feed into sedimentation rates, bank erosion control, and all sorts of other factors. Excess diversion of Sacramento delta water causes bay area salt water to intrude further inland and salinize the soil in areas outside the SJV. Farmers like to come up with apocryphal stories and do stupid **** to blame the treehuggers.

I had one agency client who had multiple construction projects going, and they were getting an announced inspection from Fish and Game, because there were a lot of issues. So the dumbass who elected himself to the board every year for 34 years order that all the canal access roads be disked to cover any critter tracks. Despite my telling him flat out that was about the dumbest thing they could do. The results were laughably predictable, but then they decided to blame the tree huggers for the resulting 2081 permit they were required to obtain. All avoidable.

Because the state has set it up that way. So, rather than rebuild with a modern plant, Cali would rather spend 10x as much refitting everything. Seems like a typical Cali plan. Dumb****ed on the economic end, wastes overall resources and is inefficient to boot!

No, dumb ****, industry "set it up that way." There are no available additional port facilities, and it's not like there's usable coastal real estate just sitting around waiting for someone to build. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. "Cali" doesn't spend **** on refineries. Do you understand that? The refineries are privately owned. Arco, Chevron, Shell, Valero, Ultramar, etc. They make the decisions about what they spend and how, on their own property? Do you get that? Are you trolling, or are you truly an ignoramus just talking out your ass about subjects you know nothing about? Your level of knowledge on the subject is on a par with a middle school kid. I'd think you were a product of the Texas educational system.

Then why the regulations barring new ones from being constructed.

What regulations? There are precisely zero regulations which bar new refinery construction in this state. It isn't technically or economically feasible. That's not regulatory, that's business. The only real barrier to construction is economic and logistical. Do you have any idea how many miles of private underground product and raw material pipeline are in this state? Or do you think we should have some sort of magic immunity so an oil company can engage in billions of dollars of construction on and under third-party private property, close down roadways affecting the transit of hundreds of thousands of people, and generally run amok wherever they please, all without any input from affected property owners, public agencies, no building permits, nothing? Oh yeah, and never mind that virtually the whole state coastal area is in seismic zone 4. If you wanted to build a refinery in this state, you could. You'd never raise the capital funding for it, so you'd have to go at risk 100%, and your shareholders would have you out on your ass, but it's permittable.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Texas is easily big enough to be a country. Its state government has enough power for its economic decisions to be quite meaningful.

So when Texas has its own currency, its own military, its own monetary policy, and is no longer a recipient of federal money, please feel free to let me know. California is big enough economically and geographically to be its own country too. So is New York, at least economically. States don't have the functions of national governments, nor do they have trade or monetary policies, so comparing state economies to national economies doesn't really provide much other than idle entertainment.

[MichaeltheGreat]

So given the argument that it worked for the US the last time they tried it, and the argument that it worked for Texas just last year, you manage to ignore both arguments? If it was outdated, then why did it work so well for Texas?

Because national economic policy and subdivision political unit budget policy are not the same thing. It's like comparing your daily commute to the operations of FedEx or J.B. Hunt

Coolidge's head in the sand policies were substantial contributors to the bubble that led to the 1929 crash. Cool Cal just got out of Dodge in time for all those homeless settlements to be known as Hoovervilles instead of Coolidgevilles.

It's also funny how you manage that hypocritical dance in your language. Private sector good, public sector bad, but then you talk about policies being "good for Texas" while conveniently ignoring that Texas' per capita income is below national average. So "good for Texas" doesn't seem to translate to "good for the residents of Texas." Unless they're white, of course.