In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On February 13 2013 14:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Even ol' Harvey quips about his 401K
When I think of "middle class", I don't think of david harvey, who is a tenured professor
edit: at any rate, "middle class" is the single most obfuscatory word in all of american politics
edit: and the fact that people have a 401k which they don't really control, is therefore social power which is being wielded quite possibly contrary to their own interests. that was the point of harvey's "quip" about his 401k.
On February 13 2013 14:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Even ol' Harvey quips about his 401K
When I think of "middle class", I don't think of david harvey, who is a tenured professor
edit: at any rate, "middle class" is the single most obfuscatory word in all of american politics
edit: and the fact that people have a 401k which they don't really control, is therefore social power which is being wielded quite possibly contrary to their own interests. that was the point of harvey's "quip" about his 401k.
Well swap Harvey for a GM worker - the same applies more or less.
You have a fair point about the 401K's but part of the issue there is that people don't want that social power (or perhaps more appropriately - the responsibility comes with it).
On February 12 2013 23:07 paralleluniverse wrote: SotU tonight. The media buzz seems to suggest that Obama will focus on jobs, instead of the counterproductive obsession with deficits. Hopefully, he really will focus on jobs, ask for more spending on infrastructure, education, etc. It's doubtful that he will get it, but reshaping the public debate is a important step now.
I don't think he can completely ignore talking about deficits, given that the sequester is imminent. He should clearly reject Republicans saying that there will be no tax hikes as the deal averting the fiscal cliff contained entirely tax hikes. This ignores the fact that the deficit reduction deal of 2011 contained entirely spending cuts, much more so than recent tax hikes. In fact, and I know this will never happen, he should ask for the sequester to be delayed until 1 year after the unemployment rate hits 6.5%.
Obama should continue to assert that the best way to achieve fiscal sustainability is not through cuts and suffering but through growth and jobs. It would also be good, if he outlines some debt relief for underwater homeowners, and ways to make it easier for them to refinance, or otherwise fix the drag caused by the slow housing recovery.
However, SotUs usually seem to achieve nothing substantial. So one should not expect much.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think those cuts were just reductions in the baseline growth rate of spending.
Depends how you look at it. There's been reductions in the rate of growth of spending, i.e. spending is increasing slower than normal. But there's also has been actual reduction in spending as a share of GDP. i.e. spending as a percentage of GDP is down, see FRED. There's also been reduction in spending government consumption and investment.
People need to get over this obsession, at least for until the economy is better.
So yes, spending cuts, actual reductions in the level of spending, have not been enacted yet.
Got it.
Well, actual reductions in population growth also haven't happened yet. So what's your point? Either way you slice it, whether you prefer to view it as a reduction in the rate of spending increase, or a slower increase in nominal spending, or an actual reduction in spending per GDP, it's still dramatic, large, and not normal. And more importantly, not good for the economy.
On February 12 2013 23:07 paralleluniverse wrote: SotU tonight. The media buzz seems to suggest that Obama will focus on jobs, instead of the counterproductive obsession with deficits. Hopefully, he really will focus on jobs, ask for more spending on infrastructure, education, etc. It's doubtful that he will get it, but reshaping the public debate is a important step now.
I don't think he can completely ignore talking about deficits, given that the sequester is imminent. He should clearly reject Republicans saying that there will be no tax hikes as the deal averting the fiscal cliff contained entirely tax hikes. This ignores the fact that the deficit reduction deal of 2011 contained entirely spending cuts, much more so than recent tax hikes. In fact, and I know this will never happen, he should ask for the sequester to be delayed until 1 year after the unemployment rate hits 6.5%.
Obama should continue to assert that the best way to achieve fiscal sustainability is not through cuts and suffering but through growth and jobs. It would also be good, if he outlines some debt relief for underwater homeowners, and ways to make it easier for them to refinance, or otherwise fix the drag caused by the slow housing recovery.
However, SotUs usually seem to achieve nothing substantial. So one should not expect much.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think those cuts were just reductions in the baseline growth rate of spending.
Depends how you look at it. There's been reductions in the rate of growth of spending, i.e. spending is increasing slower than normal. But there's also has been actual reduction in spending as a share of GDP. i.e. spending as a percentage of GDP is down, see FRED. There's also been reduction in spending government consumption and investment.
People need to get over this obsession, at least for until the economy is better.
So yes, spending cuts, actual reductions in the level of spending, have not been enacted yet.
Got it.
Well, actual reductions in population growth also haven't happened yet. So what's your point? Either way you slice it, whether you prefer to view it as a reduction in the rate of spending increase, or a slower increase in nominal spending, or an actual reduction in spending per GDP, it's still dramatic, large, and not normal. And more importantly, not good for the economy.
Where do you get cause to state that? Certainly not your FRED chart.
Obama's speech was pretty meh. Rubio speech is awful, full of empty platitudes, and general nonsense.
Here are some excerpts:
The State of the Union address is always a reminder of how unique America is. For much of human history, most people were trapped in stagnant societies, where a tiny minority always stayed on top, and no one else even had a chance.
But America is exceptional because we believe that every life, at every stage, is precious, and that everyone everywhere has a God-given right to go as far as their talents and hard work will take them.
Rubio seems to be oblivious to the fact that America has amongst the worse social mobility for any developed country. And that it's getting worse. Equality of opportunity is terrible in America compared to other developed countries which are mostly welfare states. Then he goes into a story about his life, as if a single data point disproves a statistical trend.
And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.
No one is proposing taxes to be raised on the middle class. Except maybe Republicans who didn't want to extend the recently expired payroll tax cut.
More government isn’t going to help you get ahead. It’s going to hold you back.
More government isn’t going to create more opportunities. It’s going to limit them.
And more government isn’t going to inspire new ideas, new businesses and new private sector jobs. It’s going to create uncertainty.
Because more government breeds complicated rules and laws that a small business can’t afford to follow.
Because more government raises taxes on employers who then pass the costs on to their employees through fewer hours, lower pay and even layoffs.
And because many government programs that claim to help the middle class, often end up hurting them instead.
Then there's more empty platitudes. The usual Republican rant against government. In fact, if you have a look at Rubio's speech compared to Obama's, whereas Obama cites a lot of statistics to make some points, Rubio mostly just uses standard Republican anti-government rhetoric. Sure, Obama did some of this too, but Rubio's entire speech is this sort of rhetoric. I don't have the patience to go through it all.
Tax increases can’t do this. Raising taxes won’t create private sector jobs. And there’s no realistic tax increase that could lower our deficits by almost $4 trillion. That’s why I hope the President will abandon his obsession with raising taxes and instead work with us to achieve real growth in our economy.
And Republicans have an obsession with spending cuts. Let's recap the deficit reduction deals so far: $1.5T spending cuts, $0.6T tax increases, $0.5T interest savings.
In order to balance our budget, the choice doesn’t have to be either higher taxes or dramatic benefit cuts for those in need. Instead we should grow our economy so that we create new taxpayers, not new taxes, and so our government can afford to help those who truly cannot help themselves.
Rubio believes in the doctrine of expansionary austerity.
On February 12 2013 23:07 paralleluniverse wrote: SotU tonight. The media buzz seems to suggest that Obama will focus on jobs, instead of the counterproductive obsession with deficits. Hopefully, he really will focus on jobs, ask for more spending on infrastructure, education, etc. It's doubtful that he will get it, but reshaping the public debate is a important step now.
I don't think he can completely ignore talking about deficits, given that the sequester is imminent. He should clearly reject Republicans saying that there will be no tax hikes as the deal averting the fiscal cliff contained entirely tax hikes. This ignores the fact that the deficit reduction deal of 2011 contained entirely spending cuts, muche lh more so than recent tax hikes. In fact, and I know this will never happen, he should ask for the sequester to be delayed until 1 year after the unemployment rate hits 6.5%.
Obama should continue to assert that the best way to achieve fiscal sustainability is not through cuts and suffering but through growth and jobs. It would also be good, if he outlines some debt relief for underwater homeowners, and ways to make it easier for them to refinance, or otherwise fix the drag caused by the slow housing recovery.
However, SotUs usually seem to achieve nothing substantial. So one should not expect much.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think those cuts were just reductions in the baseline growth rate of spending.
Depends how you look at it. There's been reductions in the rate of growth of spending, i.e. spending is increasing slower than normal. But there's also has been actual reduction in spending as a share of GDP. i.e. spending as a percentage of GDP is down, see FRED. There's also been reduction in spending government consumption and investment.
People need to get over this obsession, at least for until the economy is better.
So yes, spending cuts, actual reductions in the level of spending, have not been enacted yet.
Got it.
Well, actual reductions in population growth also haven't happened yet. So what's your point? Either way you slice it, whether you prefer to view it as a reduction in the rate of spending increase, or a slower increase in nominal spending, or an actual reduction in spending per GDP, it's still dramatic, large, and not normal. And more importantly, not good for the economy.
Where do you get cause to state that? Certainly not your FRED chart.
Well, from that graph it's clearly a large reduction. Have there been larger reductions in the past? Yes, but you have to go back a few decades, and economic growth as stronger back them, whereas now the economy is weak. From this post several days ago which you seen, it's not really normal. Normal would be continuing the previous trend.
But anyway, what's the point? That spending hasn't been cut and that the $2.5 trillion agreed to in cuts aren't really cuts?
A few notes on Obama's speech. He made some good points. For example, he said that we can't cut our way to prosperity (something that he's repeated many times, and it's true, are there examples of countries successfully cutting their way out of debt in a weak economy?), he said that growth and jobs will be the North Star that guides our efforts. However, a couple of lines about growth and jobs is not enough for a coherent and forceful argument for growth and jobs. He did not hammer these points.
He also talked about the Jobs Act, infrastructure, education, home loan refinancing etc. These are all positive, but again he did not hammer the point that these are more important than the deficit and that cutting spending will be bad for jobs and growth. I don't think he connected the dots to make a unified and persuasive argument.
On February 13 2013 13:00 aksfjh wrote: [quote] Eh, when real wages have been stagnant since the 80s for a majority of Americans while healthcare and education costs have risen dramatically, I would rather jump to the conclusion that it's harder for them to save more than they aren't "willing."
I don't think that's correct. Real household income has risen for all income groups and healthcare / education costs are included in inflation figures.
Fair enough. However, US production has grown around 232% since 1979. Source
True and a disproportionate amount of that gain went to non-wage income. Had the middle class saved more they would now be reaping a greater share of that non-wage income than they currently are.
Really? I thought a majority of the investment income was coming from a funding of consumer credit. Had they saved more, the returns probably would have been much less. Instead of rewarding those workers with higher wages for increased production, those that employed them (indirectly) loaned them the money instead.
I don't think consumer credit is very big. I think most is tied to the nation's capital stock (factories, offices, equipment, houses, etc.)
Housing/mortgage is tied to consumer credit. If it wasn't, the housing bubble wouldn't have been such a big deal. In one swoop, not only did the worst crash since 1929 erase a great deal of middle class investment (homes), but highlighted the poor shape it was already in. When the housing market collapsed, it showed us that the middle class was on it's last leg to begin with, putting all their savings into their homes, without much option since wages didn't allow them to "diversify their portfolio."
Mortgages are considered separate from consumer credit. A large part of the problem there was the lack of savings - homes sold with little equity.
The reason for little equity was twofold: not enough savings for a large down payment and a lust for larger and more expensive homes.
They are different, but a home mortgage can act as leverage for more consumer credit. That still leads me back to the same point, if middle class families would have "saved" instead of borrowing so much for a home and living expenses, where would the money be invested if that's where the money was going anyways?
If the middle class saved more and put it into their homes then more of the wealth from their homes would have flowed to them instead of the lenders (the rich) and their middlemen (banks).
if the middle class saved more for their houses, they would have just gotten even bigger houses and even bigger mortgages. with the housing prices back then, i doubt it would have been a wise investment, particularly second homes and the like.
On February 13 2013 18:26 paralleluniverse wrote: A few notes on Obama's speech. He made some good points. For example, he said that we can't cut our way to prosperity (something that he's repeated many times, and it's true, are there examples of countries successfully cutting their way out of debt in a weak economy?), he said that growth and jobs will be the North Star that guides our efforts. However, a couple of lines about growth and jobs is not enough for a coherent and forceful argument for growth and jobs. He did not hammer these points.
He also talked about the Jobs Act, infrastructure, education, home loan refinancing etc. These are all positive, but again he did not hammer the point that these are more important than the deficit and that cutting spending will be bad for jobs and growth. I don't think he connected the dots to make a unified and persuasive argument.
First 2 paragraphs, that's what angers and frustrates me right now. The debate in Washington is all about how to fix a debt problem that isn't even a problem (yet). The current elephant in the room, unemployment, underemployment, and poor wages is seen as a political compass to whose deficit plan has more political traction. Nobody cares about helping these people.
On February 12 2013 23:07 paralleluniverse wrote: SotU tonight. The media buzz seems to suggest that Obama will focus on jobs, instead of the counterproductive obsession with deficits. Hopefully, he really will focus on jobs, ask for more spending on infrastructure, education, etc. It's doubtful that he will get it, but reshaping the public debate is a important step now.
I don't think he can completely ignore talking about deficits, given that the sequester is imminent. He should clearly reject Republicans saying that there will be no tax hikes as the deal averting the fiscal cliff contained entirely tax hikes. This ignores the fact that the deficit reduction deal of 2011 contained entirely spending cuts, muche lh more so than recent tax hikes. In fact, and I know this will never happen, he should ask for the sequester to be delayed until 1 year after the unemployment rate hits 6.5%.
Obama should continue to assert that the best way to achieve fiscal sustainability is not through cuts and suffering but through growth and jobs. It would also be good, if he outlines some debt relief for underwater homeowners, and ways to make it easier for them to refinance, or otherwise fix the drag caused by the slow housing recovery.
However, SotUs usually seem to achieve nothing substantial. So one should not expect much.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think those cuts were just reductions in the baseline growth rate of spending.
Depends how you look at it. There's been reductions in the rate of growth of spending, i.e. spending is increasing slower than normal. But there's also has been actual reduction in spending as a share of GDP. i.e. spending as a percentage of GDP is down, see FRED. There's also been reduction in spending government consumption and investment.
People need to get over this obsession, at least for until the economy is better.
So yes, spending cuts, actual reductions in the level of spending, have not been enacted yet.
Got it.
Well, actual reductions in population growth also haven't happened yet. So what's your point? Either way you slice it, whether you prefer to view it as a reduction in the rate of spending increase, or a slower increase in nominal spending, or an actual reduction in spending per GDP, it's still dramatic, large, and not normal. And more importantly, not good for the economy.
Where do you get cause to state that? Certainly not your FRED chart.
Well, from that graph it's clearly a large reduction. Have there been larger reductions in the past? Yes, but you have to go back a few decades, and economic growth as stronger back them, whereas now the economy is weak. From this post several days ago which you seen, it's not really normal. Normal would be continuing the previous trend.
But anyway, what's the point? That spending hasn't been cut and that the $2.5 trillion agreed to in cuts aren't really cuts?
Well no, the normal thing to do is not follow the trend. There are periods where government expenditures saw robust growth and periods of paltry growth. If the trend in the 90's had been sustained government expenditures would be less than today. Also note that many of the previous trends were unsustainable and would have grown government to over 100% of GDP if left unchecked.
Regardless the $2.5T in agreed to cuts aren't really cuts. They're cuts to a projected reality that will almost certainly not exist.
But beside that point only about $1T is actually agreed to. The other $1.5T is what congress is supposed to replace the $1.2T sequester with. Instead the move right now is to replace the $1.2T sequester with something less. (I assume we're talking about the $2.5T from the budget control act?)
On February 13 2013 13:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] I don't think that's correct. Real household income has risen for all income groups and healthcare / education costs are included in inflation figures.
Fair enough. However, US production has grown around 232% since 1979. Source
True and a disproportionate amount of that gain went to non-wage income. Had the middle class saved more they would now be reaping a greater share of that non-wage income than they currently are.
Really? I thought a majority of the investment income was coming from a funding of consumer credit. Had they saved more, the returns probably would have been much less. Instead of rewarding those workers with higher wages for increased production, those that employed them (indirectly) loaned them the money instead.
I don't think consumer credit is very big. I think most is tied to the nation's capital stock (factories, offices, equipment, houses, etc.)
Housing/mortgage is tied to consumer credit. If it wasn't, the housing bubble wouldn't have been such a big deal. In one swoop, not only did the worst crash since 1929 erase a great deal of middle class investment (homes), but highlighted the poor shape it was already in. When the housing market collapsed, it showed us that the middle class was on it's last leg to begin with, putting all their savings into their homes, without much option since wages didn't allow them to "diversify their portfolio."
Mortgages are considered separate from consumer credit. A large part of the problem there was the lack of savings - homes sold with little equity.
The reason for little equity was twofold: not enough savings for a large down payment and a lust for larger and more expensive homes.
They are different, but a home mortgage can act as leverage for more consumer credit. That still leads me back to the same point, if middle class families would have "saved" instead of borrowing so much for a home and living expenses, where would the money be invested if that's where the money was going anyways?
If the middle class saved more and put it into their homes then more of the wealth from their homes would have flowed to them instead of the lenders (the rich) and their middlemen (banks).
if the middle class saved more for their houses, they would have just gotten even bigger houses and even bigger mortgages. with the housing prices back then, i doubt it would have been a wise investment, particularly second homes and the like.
Sure, some would have done that but not all. And you would only have been 'screwed' if you had bought a house in the last decade (not even including anything you save from not renting).
a large part of the wealth disparity increase is also due to the tax system's preference for capital gains income vs wage. may not show up in income, but does affect behavior.
On February 14 2013 02:48 oneofthem wrote: a large part of the wealth disparity increase is also due to the tax system's preference for capital gains income vs wage. may not show up in income, but does affect behavior.
The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And there is a reason for that. Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.
“We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions,” said Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was for about a decade the leading source of financing for firearms research.
Chris Cox, the N.R.A.’s chief lobbyist, said his group had not tried to squelch genuine scientific inquiries, just politically slanted ones.
“Our concern is not with legitimate medical science,” Mr. Cox said. “Our concern is they were promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated.”
The amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say.
I'm not really an advocate either way on gun control, but it's rather shameful for political groups to get in the way of legitimate science. This helps explain why there's a lack of "obvious data" for gun control activists to point to.
On February 14 2013 02:48 oneofthem wrote: a large part of the wealth disparity increase is also due to the tax system's preference for capital gains income vs wage. may not show up in income, but does affect behavior.
The preference is for wage income...
Then why are CEOs and other high executives often paid in ways that qualify as capital gains, as opposed to traditional wages? I understand your standard quip about "double taxation," but that hardly seems relevant when it's been revealed that the business tax loopholes greatly reduce the effective tax rate on large businesses.
On February 14 2013 02:48 oneofthem wrote: a large part of the wealth disparity increase is also due to the tax system's preference for capital gains income vs wage. may not show up in income, but does affect behavior.
The preference is for wage income...
Then why are CEOs and other high executives often paid in ways that qualify as capital gains, as opposed to traditional wages? I understand your standard quip about "double taxation," but that hardly seems relevant when it's been revealed that the business tax loopholes greatly reduce the effective tax rate on large businesses.
iirc moving CEO compensation from wages to stock options (and the like) was mainly an attempt at resolving (or mitigating) the principal-agent problem and not an exercise in tax arbitrage. I'll take a look into it if I get the chance or demonstrate that it's all about taxes if you can find something yourself.
True that business tax loopholes exist, though wage and benefit tax loopholes exist too.
On February 14 2013 02:48 oneofthem wrote: a large part of the wealth disparity increase is also due to the tax system's preference for capital gains income vs wage. may not show up in income, but does affect behavior.
The preference is for wage income...
Then why are CEOs and other high executives often paid in ways that qualify as capital gains, as opposed to traditional wages? I understand your standard quip about "double taxation," but that hardly seems relevant when it's been revealed that the business tax loopholes greatly reduce the effective tax rate on large businesses.
iirc moving CEO compensation from wages to stock options (and the like) was mainly an attempt at resolving (or mitigating) the principal-agent problem and not an exercise in tax arbitrage. I'll take a look into it if I get the chance or demonstrate that it's all about taxes if you can find something yourself.
True that business tax loopholes exist, though wage and benefit tax loopholes exist too.
Indeed they do, but not nearly to the same extent, especially when mixed with local tax exemptions. There are also those times when multi-billion dollar companies end up with net profits from tax incentives and subsidies. Far from a common case, but an example nonetheless that the business tax rate deviates far more from the "target" than individual rates.
On a side note, do you ever sleep?
Some sources on compensation: CEO compensation is 20% in salary - Also noted, regular compensation over $1 million can not be deducted as business expenses. However, retirement accounts and some really confusing stock option rules allow for the executive (or any highly compensated employee) to realize a lower tax rate on their earnings.
It's complicated, but at a certain compensation level, wages cease to be the optimal payment strategy. Also, it's a work around to pay executives more without incurring that (old) 35% tax rate.
On February 14 2013 02:48 oneofthem wrote: a large part of the wealth disparity increase is also due to the tax system's preference for capital gains income vs wage. may not show up in income, but does affect behavior.
The preference is for wage income...
Then why are CEOs and other high executives often paid in ways that qualify as capital gains, as opposed to traditional wages? I understand your standard quip about "double taxation," but that hardly seems relevant when it's been revealed that the business tax loopholes greatly reduce the effective tax rate on large businesses.
iirc moving CEO compensation from wages to stock options (and the like) was mainly an attempt at resolving (or mitigating) the principal-agent problem and not an exercise in tax arbitrage. I'll take a look into it if I get the chance or demonstrate that it's all about taxes if you can find something yourself.
True that business tax loopholes exist, though wage and benefit tax loopholes exist too.
Indeed they do, but not nearly to the same extent, especially when mixed with local tax exemptions. There are also those times when multi-billion dollar companies end up with net profits from tax incentives and subsidies. Far from a common case, but an example nonetheless that the business tax rate deviates far more from the "target" than individual rates.
On a side note, do you ever sleep?
I'd hesitate before saying that one is greater than the other. That said, it's true that in some cases (GE for example) companies are really good at taking advantage of all the 'loopholes' they can. But a lot of that is intended - Obama just spoke about how awesome it is that solar and wind power is becoming more common - ofc it's becoming more common because of tax credits. Most large companies also operate overseas and so pay foreign taxes as well. So it's really complicated and doing an apples to apples comparison is really hard (similarly most workers receive tax free or tax deferred compensation via health and retirement benefits).
To answer your side note - very irregularly - and I was wondering when someone would notice
Edit: I think most executive stock options are non-qualified which means the gains get treated as normal income.
Incentive stock options are treated as cap gains but the corporation gets no deduction (not sure how the math works out just yet).
I'm not sure if the value of the option itself gets booked in any way.
McConnell rejected Obama’s call for increased infrastructure spending and his push on climate change, instead noting that Obama didn’t mention the Keystone Pipeline or coal, which he called “proven and reliable.”
"The president spoke about energy infrastructure but didn't mention the Keystone pipeline,” McConnell said. “He chose the nation's biggest stage to promote something that's inefficient and costly, like solar panels, instead of something that's proven and reliable - and domestically produced - like coal.”
McConnell rejected Obama’s call for increased infrastructure spending and his push on climate change, instead noting that Obama didn’t mention the Keystone Pipeline or coal, which he called “proven and reliable.”
"The president spoke about energy infrastructure but didn't mention the Keystone pipeline,” McConnell said. “He chose the nation's biggest stage to promote something that's inefficient and costly, like solar panels, instead of something that's proven and reliable - and domestically produced - like coal.”
U.S. oil and gas production is evolving so rapidly—and demand is dropping so quickly—that in just five years the U.S. could no longer need to buy oil from any source but Canada, according to Citigroup's global head of commodities research.
Citigroup's Edward Morse, in a new report, projects a dramatic reshaping of the global energy industry, where the U.S., in a matter of years, becomes an exporter of energy, instead of one of the biggest importers.+ Show Spoiler +
On February 14 2013 09:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Now the Senator from Kentucky...
McConnell rejected Obama’s call for increased infrastructure spending and his push on climate change, instead noting that Obama didn’t mention the Keystone Pipeline or coal, which he called “proven and reliable.”
"The president spoke about energy infrastructure but didn't mention the Keystone pipeline,” McConnell said. “He chose the nation's biggest stage to promote something that's inefficient and costly, like solar panels, instead of something that's proven and reliable - and domestically produced - like coal.”
U.S. oil and gas production is evolving so rapidly—and demand is dropping so quickly—that in just five years the U.S. could no longer need to buy oil from any source but Canada, according to Citigroup's global head of commodities research.
Citigroup's Edward Morse, in a new report, projects a dramatic reshaping of the global energy industry, where the U.S., in a matter of years, becomes an exporter of energy, instead of one of the biggest importers.+ Show Spoiler +
Energy Independence from what I have seen is a myth, there will just by more "energy" on the market.
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/72070179/Income%20groups.PNG)
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/72070179/crude-production-v-net-imports.gif)
