[vtsnowedin]

On trial and error economics:
I think trial and error has been the predominate method actually employed for centuries and has yielded the civilization and industrial base we have. Those local results are typical in every locality and taken together become the whole. A solution that has proven to work in one locality has a good chance to work elsewhere with perhaps some minor adjustments to the local conditions.
The progress is slowed down however when a method proves to be an error but is tried repeatedly due to the arrogance of the proponents that makes them unable to admit their error.
Most science is in fact trial and error. One has an idea, puts together an experiment to "trial that idea then tries to make an unbiased observation on the results. The good results are built on, and bad results are annualized looking for the flaw trying to correct that flaw.
So far the Biden administrations policies on energy production have all been failures but of course they can not admit it even to themselves.
35 months to go.

[AdamB]

I’m sure you believe the 7% inflation too.

I'm sure you don't know what I believe. You have shown zero ability to learn spanning 15+ years now, you certainly aren't about to start, let alone grow a third eye and become clairvoyant.

Hey look, he avoided another question. I’m shocked!!

You didn't ask a question. Moron.

[AdamB]

economists who can't get stuff right....but the precepts within their social science, as you described in words, are reasonable.

The basic principles of economics, as originally defined during the 19th century, are reasonable. The problem started when people started pointing at economists as an expert source.

I might agree with that. I certainly use the principles as defined early within the creation of the "science", but based on what I see within applied science shops nowadays, I understand the caveat as well, and can't deny that it exists.

And economics understands the basics of that system better than anything else us clever monkeys have dreamed up

I beg to differ. Ecologists have very interesting things to say when you apply them to human society. And as far as I can tell, it's a discipline that hasn't been biased yet by people with too much money.

You are free to differ, what a crappy world it would be if reduced to nothing but the dogma of the uninformed. Ecologists do say interesting things....what is their opinion on...say...remaining quantity and cost of non-renewable energy resources needed to continue powering the world towards either the renewable energy nirvana some are claiming, or a crash and burn in our future? Two ecologists, Charles Hall and Guy McPherson, have previously written and spoken on topics like this, and successfully discredited their own opinions (but maybe not the specialty?) in the process.

I have no professional experience in either industry, science or applied science environments working with ecologists, so you can see how my opinion is lacking a proper sample size. Do you have examples of their professional contribution to the kind of energy related issues we discuss around here, or are discussed generally within the energy arena?

[AdamB]

While short term price hikes for gas and other fuel are annoying they do tend to even out over time. Inflation on the other hand erodes the value of any savings you have banked and the value of your wages and it never reverses back to what it was.

True. But you are an investor type, same as many of the rest of us. What is your take on the value of your equity holdings from back then, through now, and whether or not that will continue to be the mechanism that the average folk use to not be left out?

[vtsnowedin]

While short term price hikes for gas and other fuel are annoying they do tend to even out over time. Inflation on the other hand erodes the value of any savings you have banked and the value of your wages and it never reverses back to what it was.

True. But you are an investor type, same as many of the rest of us. What is your take on the value of your equity holdings from back then, through now, and whether or not that will continue to be the mechanism that the average folk use to not be left out?

I got out of any stocks I held when I started sending my children to college. I had found the only people making money on my account was the brokers. I also fell into one of the traps (Palm) that discouraged me.
Today low or no cost whole market index funds can be bought by the little guy with as little as $10 to open an account. That allows anybody to reap the average return of the market with very low risk and without having a third of it skimmed off by the brokerage firm. I highly recommend it to any young person starting their working career.

[Armageddon]

My track record is pretty good. Things I said that came true

- cut rates to zero when everybody said they’d raise
- debts and deficits will explode
- inflation will run rampant
- oil will exceed $100 again

I nailed all four before they were popular

[Armageddon]

US debt will be 50T in 4 years. When this happens, the deficit will exceed 5T quite easily. It won’t be long when nearly every tax dollar collected will go to servicing the debt. The day of reckoning is approaching.

[AdamB]

While short term price hikes for gas and other fuel are annoying they do tend to even out over time. Inflation on the other hand erodes the value of any savings you have banked and the value of your wages and it never reverses back to what it was.

True. But you are an investor type, same as many of the rest of us. What is your take on the value of your equity holdings from back then, through now, and whether or not that will continue to be the mechanism that the average folk use to not be left out?

I got out of any stocks I held when I started sending my children to college.

I wasn't thinking of stocks, more the kind of 401k plans that have been around for decades now.

I had found the only people making money on my account was the brokers. I also fell into one of the traps (Palm) that discouraged me.
Today low or no cost whole market index funds can be bought by the little guy with as little as $10 to open an account. That allows anybody to reap the average return of the market with very low risk and without having a third of it skimmed off by the brokerage firm. I highly recommend it to any young person starting their working career.

Did you not have the opportunity to do the kind of 401k funds I was thinking of? I didn't have them available to me early in my career, but I noticed that one kid had it availlable as soon as he took his first job in college while working at a department store, and the daughter had it available as soon as she entered the white collar world.

[AdamB]

My track record is pretty good. Things I said that came true

predict the year when the draft starts. i say 2006

[AdamB]

US debt will be 50T in 4 years.

Avogadro's number is bigger than yours.

[vtsnowedin]

Did you not have the opportunity to do the kind of 401k funds I was thinking of? I didn't have them available to me early in my career, but I noticed that one kid had it availlable as soon as he took his first job in college while working at a department store, and the daughter had it available as soon as she entered the white collar world.

I had a state retirement plan that was taking 5.5% of my pay before taxes. Worked out pretty well as I stayed the required 30 years and it is paying me more then social security when you add in the healthcare deducts. I have already been drawing it for sixteen years so have already more then recouped my contributions.

[vtsnowedin]

For young investors they should of course use 401Ks and the like to the maximum allowed and take any company match they offer to reduce their tax burden. Some companies don't offer index funds in their 401Ks which is a shame but if you have a choice of funds chose the one with the lowest expense ratio and the lowest annual turnover.
In my 401K I have FNILX which is a large cap index fund passively managed. It's expense ratio is 0.00% and it's annual turn over is 5%.
A Competitor is Vanguard's VTI which is a whole market index with an expense ration of 0.03% and an annual turnover of 8%.
I'm not promoting either one but compare to say QQQ which has an expense ratio of 0.20% and a turn over of over 200%. In that 0.2% is 0.07% spent on advertising which comes to $95,000,000 then in a year they sold 819 million shares of stock and bought 797 million shares of stock with brokerage expense of 114 million. All of that comes out of shareholder pockets.

[AdamB]

Did you not have the opportunity to do the kind of 401k funds I was thinking of? I didn't have them available to me early in my career, but I noticed that one kid had it availlable as soon as he took his first job in college while working at a department store, and the daughter had it available as soon as she entered the white collar world.

I had a state retirement plan that was taking 5.5% of my pay before taxes. Worked out pretty well as I stayed the required 30 years and it is paying me more then social security when you add in the healthcare deducts. I have already been drawing it for sixteen years so have already more then recouped my contributions.

Those state plans, or the Federal ones, can be pretty reasonable. My mother has one, she also was doing the 401k thing as well. That does at least as good as her state pension.

[AdamB]

A Competitor is Vanguard's VTI which is a whole market index with an expense ration of 0.03% and an annual turnover of 8%.

The wife has something called Vanguard in her retirement contributions. Unfortunately, I don't have access to normal investing type instruments due to the terms of my employment.

[vtsnowedin]

A Competitor is Vanguard's VTI which is a whole market index with an expense ration of 0.03% and an annual turnover of 8%.

The wife has something called Vanguard in her retirement contributions. Unfortunately, I don't have access to normal investing type instruments due to the terms of my employment.

Well Vanguard is a brokerage firm and has dozens of funds both good and bad. They did invent the first index funds back in the 1970s. Of course they don't promote the low cost index funds much as they don't bring in the cash to them the "managed " funds do.
If your wife has one Vanguard fund perhaps she could add VTI to her account and you could both contribute to it. In a taxable account there are no limits to contributions and you only pay taxes on withdrawals after you have withdrawn your tax paid contributions and then it is at capital gains rates.

[Armageddon]

Highest inflation ever if it was calculated the same way back in the 70s and 80s.

[vtsnowedin]

Highest inflation ever if it was calculated the same way back in the 70s and 80s.

Yes and I think it really understates the effect for people living paycheck to paycheck as food fuel and rents take a bigger chunk out of them compared to the more affluent. For them it maybe as much as twenty percent year on year.

[Armageddon]

The last time inflation was here, the Fed Funds rate was 11.50%

[vtsnowedin]

The last time inflation was here, the Fed Funds rate was 11.50%

Yes and we may see that again but I do not think even that will help this time.
They need to reverse almost every Biden policy especially those regarding energy. Then shut down the mints printing presses and stop handing out free money to non workers.
Chance of that? ZERO!!!
35 months to go.

[Tanada]

I find it "interesting" that WTI is trading around $120/bbl and yet the price of Gasoline and Diesel fuel are setting all time records. Sure back in 2008 we swung all the way up to $147/bbl pretty rapidly. However despite that fact and the fact that back then we were importing a far larger percentage of our total oil consumption for even higher prices on the world market somehow fuel prices are not 19% lower than they were when we set that 2008 record. Instead the fuel prices to consumers are some 30% higher than they were in 2008.

So any theories to explain just how the end user is getting bent over by "big oil's big lie"?