Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Was talking about views of the future. But cheap is good.

derhundistlos wrote:

Cog wrote: However I do see a serious flirtation with socialism ending in disaster for the USA. That is a sort of doom I suppose and a great deal of violence over that is not out of the question.

Social Security and Medicare are two popular and classic forms of socialism. Thank you Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson. The Republicons have tried for years to undermine both plans; however, Republicon pols. also know the consequences of their elimination would be catastrophic for society and their reelection.

The results of implementing these socialist policies provide an important safety net for our seniors and resulted in anything but "doom" for America.

America has been a mixed economy (both socialistic and capitalistic) elements for a long time, whether people like to admit it or not.

A timely question is whether taking the socialistic elements to an extreme would be a good thing economically -- re the small horde of lunatic fringe far left POTUS hopefuls wanting to buy lots of votes by massively increasing socialism.

It's easy to claim SS is "good" in a vacuum. However, a strong mandatory savings mandate, and/or a strong company pensions for employees mandate could well have worked out better, re what beneficiaries receive per dollar taken.

It's all about balance -- and trying to figure out what is necessary, IMO.

For example, I'm in favor of seriously looking at some kind of Medicare For All option. However, I am NOT at all in favor of the current "Medicare For All Act of 2019", which from what I've read in articles, eliminates copays, and says NOTHING SPECIFIC ABOUT HOW IT WILL BE PAID FOR, OR WHAT IT WOULD COST.

If "socialism" equates to blatant vote buying without any content, and to hell with the economy, that's not a good thing. Whether the far left realizes it or not, at some point, things need to be paid for.

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
For example, I'm in favor of seriously looking at some kind of Medicare For All option. However, I am NOT at all in favor of the current "Medicare For All Act of 2019", which from what I've read in articles, eliminates copays, and says NOTHING SPECIFIC ABOUT HOW IT WILL BE PAID FOR, OR WHAT IT WOULD COST.

The existing Medicare system is expensive in part because politicians have made it so at the behest of the pharmaceutical and health care industry. For example the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is explicitly prohibited from negotiating directly with drug manufacturers on behalf of Medicare Part D enrollees. For a single payer system to work, politicians would need to realize that their role is to try to reduce medical costs.

yellowcanoe wrote:

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
For example, I'm in favor of seriously looking at some kind of Medicare For All option. However, I am NOT at all in favor of the current "Medicare For All Act of 2019", which from what I've read in articles, eliminates copays, and says NOTHING SPECIFIC ABOUT HOW IT WILL BE PAID FOR, OR WHAT IT WOULD COST.

The existing Medicare system is expensive in part because politicians have made it so at the behest of the pharmaceutical and health care industry. For example the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is explicitly prohibited from negotiating directly with drug manufacturers on behalf of Medicare Part D enrollees. For a single payer system to work, politicians would need to realize that their role is to try to reduce medical costs.

Absolutely right. But in the US, politicians put trying to get elected / re-elected first, so doing the right thing for their constituents comes in a very distant second.

Which is one reason that while in theory, government programs might be fantastic -- in practice, most of the time, the value proposition just isn't there, given that in the real world, someone has to PAY for them.

Medicare for all, if we have the same pricing structure that hospitals and clinics use, would bankrupt the country in short order. We have zero price discovery for medical procedures. I can't price shop if I have no idea what the final bill is.

The other option is government controlled pricing. Not advocating, just pointing out.

At the moment it seems we have the worst of both worlds. It’s not Capitalisim, it’s not Socialisim, it is rampent Consumerisim.

The Conference Board LEI has not turned down.

https://www.conference-board.org/pdf_fr ... 202019.pdf

The time....has not arrived.

copious.abundance wrote:I can't quote myself in the thread linked below anymore because it's been locked.

But note my observation here, posted on May 24, 2017:

copious.abundance wrote:I think you probably have to wait some more before deciding whether or not that chart is really going to show a sustained downturn. It could still be a temporary halt that continues resuming upward. Even if all it did was go sideways for a while, still might not indicate a recession.

Furthermore, it's always a danger relying on just one indicator to predict a recession, because you never know when that one indicator might do something it's never done before. The best method is to devise an index composed of several indicators, such as this one here or this one here. Neither are flashing a recession in the next year or so. That said, I think most economic data nerds will probably agree we are somewhere in the late stages of the current cycle. But that could still mean more expansion for another two years, or more.

That was a year-and-a-half ago as i write this.

The sun, is setting.

How does this piece about the effect of trade barriers on global trade fit into this picture? Essentially it’s saying trade barriers can effect energy markets more than renewables.

https://gcaptain.com/opinion-energy-has ... e-to-fear/

marmico wrote:The Conference Board LEI has not turned down.

https://www.conference-board.org/pdf_fr ... 202019.pdf

The time....has not arrived.

Yes, the time has arrived.

Yield curve recession indicator flashes red as 10-year yield falls below 3-month yield

The yield curve as measured by the spread between the 3-month Treasury bill and the 10-year note inverted for the first time since 2007, following a sharp rally in longer-dated notes. The spread between the two maturities stood at around negative 3 basis points. On Friday, the 10-year note yield fell nearly 10 basis points to 2.434%, while the 3-month bill was down a single basis point to 2.462%, Tradeweb data show. Bond prices move inversely to yields. The last nine times the yield curve has inverted, a recession has followed, according to the San Francisco Fed.

Yes, the time has arrived.

There was a false positive in 1967. The 10yr-3mo term spread did not invert prior to the 1991 recession. But with the 10-3 inversion at 2 pips the probability of a recession in 6-18 months has risen. It should be reflected in The Conference Board LEI next month.

1 false positive and 9 true positives. I'll go with the odds.

copious.abundance wrote:1 false positive and 9 true positives. I'll go with the odds.

Actually, this seems like a really strong signal for a recession, given the history. I'm surprised when I read various economists talking like there's a 30% chance or 50-50 chance of recession in the face of this, but then again, I have no degree in economics. (Just some basic college courses, and some informal reading).

And it's certainly about time. Let's clear out some of the over-enthusiasm for stocks and over-priced debt (given the risk).

I'm just not going with the idea that a recession means doom because "we have lots of debt and I'm skeered" re the perma-doomers, who stay shrill and confident despite their deplorable track record.

You, OTOH, have a great track record and don't, in my recollection, make unreasonable claims and projections, so by all means -- as meaningful signals come in, please update us when you feel like doing so.

(One vote, FWIW).

Newfie wrote:How does this piece about the effect of trade barriers on global trade fit into this picture? Essentially it’s saying trade barriers can effect energy markets more than renewables.

https://gcaptain.com/opinion-energy-has ... e-to-fear/

What I see and read here and elsewhere is that high tariffs can be REALLY nasty, in the hands of people in power.

It seems to me this is saying that, in the near term, big tariffs can outweigh competitive pressure from (relatively) small renewable inputs.

Obviously over time, as green energy greatly scales up, this will be less true.

The "fairness" of any trade barrier is, of course, perceived differently depending on which side of a given barrier various interested parties are sitting on.

The Conference Board LEI ticked up in March 2019.

https://www.conference-board.org/pdf_fr ... 202019.pdf

The time....has not arrived.

The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® (LEI) for the U.S. increased 0.2 percent in April to 112.1 (2016 = 100), following a 0.3 percent increase in March, and a 0.2 percent increase in February.

https://www.conference-board.org/pdf_fr ... 202019.pdf

The time .... has not arrived.

marmico wrote:The time .... has not arrived.

Oh ye of little faith (in the collapse)!

If you look at the second graph on page 2 showing the percentage change (rather than compare the month with 2106 as the verbal spin they put on it does), then you will see the month on month change has been getting less and less and is now very close to turning negative.

You are right. we are not quite there, but it could be (by this measure) very soon. [That is if I use the "forecasting" method of IEA which seems to be to draw a straight line through the last few data points in the direction I think it should go.]

Yes, the charts for both the leading and coincident economic indicators appear to be stalling. Not going downhill yet, but not rising very much either.

The important date to pay attention to is June 12th.

On June 12th, the yield curve of the 3-month and 5-year treasuries will have been inverted for 3 months. They first inverted on March 12. According to the guy who discovered the inverted yield curve phenomenon in the 80's and its penchant for predicting recessions, if the 3-month/5-year yield curve remains inverted for a full quarter (3 months), then it has a perfect record in predicting a recession.

Pioneer of Yield-Curve Recession Indicator Says Don't Relax Yet

Harvey, a finance professor at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and senior adviser at Research Affiliates, is experiencing no such equivocation. His original analysis at the University of Chicago in 1986 identified the three-month to five-year spread as the relevant indicator on the curve. His work shows it needs to stay negative for a full quarter to reliably predict a recession. Harvey says this metric predicted the slumps of 1991, 2000-2001 and 2008, and has given no false signals. And those who’ve relaxed, or even bounded into fresh trades since broader sections of the yield curve have begun to steepen, should take note: This one has been inverted since March 12.

On June 12th, the yield curve of the 3-month and 5-year treasuries will have been inverted for 3 months.

No, the yield curve inverted in late March but sprang back right up until the end of this week.

^
That's the 3-month and 10-year. Mr Harvey was referring to the 3-month and 5-year.