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.
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday rejected a controversial bipartisan bill to remove military commanders from decisions over the prosecution of sexual assault cases in the armed forces, delivering a defeat to advocacy groups who argued that wholesale changes are necessary to combat an epidemic of rapes and sexual assaults in the military.
The measure, pushed by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, received 55 votes — five short of the 60 votes needed for advancement to a floor vote — after Ms. Gillibrand’s fellow Democrat, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, led the charge to block its advancement. The vote came after a debate on the Senate floor filled with drama and accusations that Ms. Gillibrand and her allies were misguided.
“What Senator Gillibrand is doing is way off-base,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, his voice rising. “It will not get us to the promised land of having fewer sexual assaults.”
The debate pitted the Senate’s 20 women against one another, and seemed bound to leave hard feelings, given that a solid majority of the Senate actually backed Ms. Gillibrand’s proposal.
“The only reason some are forcing a filibuster on the Gillibrand vote is because they know we have a majority,” said Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, who supported the bill, pointing to a sign that said “Don’t Filibuster Justice.” But Ms. McCaskill wouldn’t budge, and refused to allow the Gillibrand bill to actually get a yes-or-no vote.
Several Republicans, including Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, supported the Gillibrand proposal, and expressed deep frustration with the military’s failure to stem the number of sexual assaults. Congress began scrutinizing the sexual assault problem in the military after a recent series of highly publicized cases, including one at the Naval Academy, and after the release of new data from the Pentagon on the issue. On Sept. 30, 2013, the end of the last fiscal year, about 1,600 sexual assault cases in the military were either awaiting action from commanders or the completion of a criminal investigation.
Critics of the military’s handling of such cases say that the official numbers represent a tiny percentage of sexual assault cases, while Ms. Gillibrand said that only one in 10 sexual assault cases were reported. She and her supporters argue that forcing sexual assault victims to go to their commanders to report cases is similar to forcing a woman to tell her father that her brother has sexually assaulted her.
Because commanders often know both the victims and the alleged abusers, Ms. Gillibrand’s supporters say, victims often shy away from reporting abuse. Military commanders, they say, have not proven themselves able to deal with the issue.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result,” Mr. Paul said. Mr. Grassley added: “The Defense Department has been promising the American people for a long time that they’re working on the problem of sexual assault.” Then he said, “Enough is enough.”
On Thursday, an Army general accused of sexual assault pleaded guilty to three lesser charges. Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair is accused of twice forcing a female captain to perform oral sex, and threatening to kill her family if she told anyone about their three-year affair. General Sinclair admitted to having improper relationships with two other female Army officers and to committing adultery with the primary accuser, which is a crime in the military.
General Sinclair also admitted violating orders by possessing pornography in Afghanistan.
I haven't read every single one of the articles, only the NYTimes one so far. But I'd like to know what specific provisions of the bill that the opposers had against it..
From reading the NPR articles it sounds like the point of contention is over how much authority military commanders have in bringing cases to prosecution, with the bill removing a lot of that authority.
What may have damaged for now the New York senator's pursuit of 60 votes is a recent report by a female-dominated panel of experts that overwhelmingly concluded military commanders should maintain their authority over the prosecution of sexual assault cases.
Former U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman said she came to the panel, established by Congress to study the prospect of moving sexual assault prosecutions out of the chain of command, believing that Gillibrand's proposal "sounded right."
"I changed my mind," Holtzman said when the panel presented its findings.
If removing the commander as the convening authority, she said, and putting the power in the hands of "prosecutorial bureaucracy" would make a difference, "I would be saying junk it. We can't have the present system.
"But we haven't seen any evidence of that," she said, a conclusion shared by eight of the nine panel members, which included two men.
On March 07 2014 06:00 farvacola wrote: You ought to be wishing luck to the thousands upon thousands of folks that are being fucked over by state governments that are choosing not to expand Medicaid; Mass. and its people will be quite alright in comparison.
Then again, who am I kidding, it isn't the people that y'all care about
Primarily, the hundred-fold more that have to pay penalties for not purchasing health insurance or have to buy more expensive insurance now and still make budgets work for their families. My compassion is also towards those that will lose their jobs, lose full-time status, remain unemployed when companies reduce hiring--those that will pay whenever our great legislator-executive decides to implement the rest of his great bill.
The Medicaid expansions come with strings attached for the federal money. States can't choose to use it in efficient ways to help their own citizens. Utah's governor, Gary Herbert, in his rejection statement, said "If the federal government will just block grant us the money, take away the strings and give us maximum flexibility, we will find innovative ways to do things better." We're out here, we help the poor, and we reject government "THROW MORE MONEY AT THE PROBLEM" failed policies. The Democrats haven't matured much after the 60s, which fits just fine in their one-size-fits-all approaches.
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday rejected a controversial bipartisan bill to remove military commanders from decisions over the prosecution of sexual assault cases in the armed forces, delivering a defeat to advocacy groups who argued that wholesale changes are necessary to combat an epidemic of rapes and sexual assaults in the military.
The measure, pushed by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, received 55 votes — five short of the 60 votes needed for advancement to a floor vote — after Ms. Gillibrand’s fellow Democrat, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, led the charge to block its advancement. The vote came after a debate on the Senate floor filled with drama and accusations that Ms. Gillibrand and her allies were misguided.
“What Senator Gillibrand is doing is way off-base,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, his voice rising. “It will not get us to the promised land of having fewer sexual assaults.”
The debate pitted the Senate’s 20 women against one another, and seemed bound to leave hard feelings, given that a solid majority of the Senate actually backed Ms. Gillibrand’s proposal.
“The only reason some are forcing a filibuster on the Gillibrand vote is because they know we have a majority,” said Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, who supported the bill, pointing to a sign that said “Don’t Filibuster Justice.” But Ms. McCaskill wouldn’t budge, and refused to allow the Gillibrand bill to actually get a yes-or-no vote.
Several Republicans, including Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, supported the Gillibrand proposal, and expressed deep frustration with the military’s failure to stem the number of sexual assaults. Congress began scrutinizing the sexual assault problem in the military after a recent series of highly publicized cases, including one at the Naval Academy, and after the release of new data from the Pentagon on the issue. On Sept. 30, 2013, the end of the last fiscal year, about 1,600 sexual assault cases in the military were either awaiting action from commanders or the completion of a criminal investigation.
Critics of the military’s handling of such cases say that the official numbers represent a tiny percentage of sexual assault cases, while Ms. Gillibrand said that only one in 10 sexual assault cases were reported. She and her supporters argue that forcing sexual assault victims to go to their commanders to report cases is similar to forcing a woman to tell her father that her brother has sexually assaulted her.
Because commanders often know both the victims and the alleged abusers, Ms. Gillibrand’s supporters say, victims often shy away from reporting abuse. Military commanders, they say, have not proven themselves able to deal with the issue.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result,” Mr. Paul said. Mr. Grassley added: “The Defense Department has been promising the American people for a long time that they’re working on the problem of sexual assault.” Then he said, “Enough is enough.”
On Thursday, an Army general accused of sexual assault pleaded guilty to three lesser charges. Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair is accused of twice forcing a female captain to perform oral sex, and threatening to kill her family if she told anyone about their three-year affair. General Sinclair admitted to having improper relationships with two other female Army officers and to committing adultery with the primary accuser, which is a crime in the military.
General Sinclair also admitted violating orders by possessing pornography in Afghanistan.
I haven't read every single one of the articles, only the NYTimes one so far. But I'd like to know what specific provisions of the bill that the opposers had against it..
From reading the NPR articles it sounds like the point of contention is over how much authority military commanders have in bringing cases to prosecution, with the bill removing a lot of that authority.
What may have damaged for now the New York senator's pursuit of 60 votes is a recent report by a female-dominated panel of experts that overwhelmingly concluded military commanders should maintain their authority over the prosecution of sexual assault cases.
Former U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman said she came to the panel, established by Congress to study the prospect of moving sexual assault prosecutions out of the chain of command, believing that Gillibrand's proposal "sounded right."
"I changed my mind," Holtzman said when the panel presented its findings.
If removing the commander as the convening authority, she said, and putting the power in the hands of "prosecutorial bureaucracy" would make a difference, "I would be saying junk it. We can't have the present system.
"But we haven't seen any evidence of that," she said, a conclusion shared by eight of the nine panel members, which included two men.
Criticized as xenophobic and an American Nightmare, not Dream, by ABC and HuffPo. Aired during Academy Awards and I think Sochi. Saw George Stephanopoulos on TV lambasting it. I'm wavering between surprised and not surprised at something so obviously provocative to be just humorous igniting such coverage. It's just a TV ad, but then again, this is US Politics.
On a more serious note it's also a great example for the myth that surrounds Americas great social mobility(that doesn't actually exist) that leads to poor people screwing themselves over by voting for exactly the wrong people.
On March 07 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote: On a more serious note it's also a great example for the myth that surrounds Americas great social mobility(that doesn't actually exist) that leads to poor people screwing themselves over by voting for exactly the wrong people.
We may not top the chart in every metric but there's still a lot of mobility in this country and it's been that way for generations.
On March 07 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote: On a more serious note it's also a great example for the myth that surrounds Americas great social mobility(that doesn't actually exist) that leads to poor people screwing themselves over by voting for exactly the wrong people.
We may not top the chart in every metric but there's still a lot of mobility in this country and it's been that way for generations.
Yes that's true. But the reason for that is not that the government doesn't exist or the kind of lifestyle that video is hinting at. Just look at all the "how can you vote for the democrats?" comments int the section, when left-leaning politics(US left leaning) in general, and the democrats specifically, have helped the lower class way more than the Republicans.
On March 05 2014 04:17 Danglars wrote: It's more about how much you want to explain away Obama's record on the bubble burst or maybe opposition from the Republicans. Record low home ownership rate across three administrations, 50% increase of Americans on food stamps. On jobs, lowest labor force participation since Jimmy Carter ... working age Americans that just don't have a job. Also, in 2013, 87% of those new jobs created since he took office were part time. Declines in median household income (~4k) and 53% of all American workers making less than $30k a year. It's not a pretty picture, and everybody I talk to peddle the line, "We didn't know it was going to be that bad, Obama did everything he could've."
And if I read jellojello right, it was more about the "drama and lies." If you like your health plan, you can keep it, right? Considering his current job approval numbers, maybe its his supporters that are getting the record wrong. Its all nice and fun supporting social justice and all until the ACA taxes you (redistributes your income, if you prefer) to subsidize others.
Where is your baseline for judging Obama? Is it 2007? Is it 2008? Is it 2009? I think the fair place to judge Obama starts when his stimulus was passed. Since then, the numbers are all up.
It's futile to play this game with Republicans. If you point out the fact he inherited a nosediving economy with an already unbalanced budget, "Bush left office 5 years ago! When does Obama start taking responsibility?!" When you point out that Republicans in Congress have done nothing but oppose him and everything he touches (including further economic growth policies), "Obama refuses to negotiate with Republicans! He doesn't take us seriously!" When you point out that Obamacare was originally a Republican idea taken seriously, "Not a single Republican voted for it! By definition it's not 'bipartisan' or Republican in origin!" When you point out how well he did with the budget (to the ire of many Democrats), "We'll still go bankrupt in 25 years when Medicare and Social Security explode! He's done nothing to solve our long term problems!"
Obama can do nothing right in the eyes of 30-40% of the US. Using "facts" to support any claim otherwise just causes them to double down on something else, or change the subject to such diversions as Benghazi or the IRS 501(c)4 inquiries.
LOL, I love this argument of how nothing gets done in the Hill and it's all because of Republicans opposing Obama and Democrats.
The president isn't a king who can rule by decree it requires the sides to work together and since barring extraordinary circumstance the speaker of house wont put a bill forward in the house without a majority of his parties support and a majority of the party will not work with president on anything you basically will get nothing done at all. That is why it always amuses me when the news at the start of the year tries to say that "this year will be different" because it wont because the house wont do anything and if they did you still need 60 votes in the senate.
Ridiculous. That's what the opposing party does all the time. Both Republicans and Democrats do it. That's politics in two party system, period. What's lacking in the past 5-6 years is the leadership that stems from the White house. It's true that Republicans have done their best to block any legislative achievements by Obama administration, but what else are they supposed to do? Roll over and play dead?
Both Reagan and Clinton went through the same scenario, but they were able to bring both parties together and get things done. If you really believe that the current (and past) political stalemate is all on the Republicans, then you really need to take off your crimson glasses and stop drinking the DNC kool aid.
Damn. I forgot the, "Obama lacks the ability to lead from the White House!" line. It's so hard to keep up with the deflections. Never mind that all the facts point to an unprecedented obstructionist party and the least productive Congress in history, it HAS to be Obama's inability to lead a party he isn't the head of.
What in the hell... Do you even know what the heck you are saying? Talk about falling on deaf ears...
On March 07 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote: On a more serious note it's also a great example for the myth that surrounds Americas great social mobility(that doesn't actually exist) that leads to poor people screwing themselves over by voting for exactly the wrong people.
We may not top the chart in every metric but there's still a lot of mobility in this country and it's been that way for generations.
Yes that's true. But the reason for that is not that the government doesn't exist or the kind of lifestyle that video is hinting at. Just look at all the "how can you vote for the democrats?" comments int the section, when left-leaning politics(US left leaning) in general, and the democrats specifically, have helped the lower class way more than the Republicans.
The ad has a target market. It's not out there to deliver the unadulterated truth, it's there to appeal to given mindset. If you work your ass off and earn a lot, you're going to think that you've earned it (a very reasonable opinion).
As for any political implications, the ad isn't targeted to low income people and they largely vote Democrat anyways. I wouldn't poop on Reps too much, they were largely behind the EITC which is one of the bigger anti-poverty programs.
On March 07 2014 09:14 Danglars wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGJSI48gkFc Criticized as xenophobic and an American Nightmare, not Dream, by ABC and HuffPo. Aired during Academy Awards and I think Sochi. Saw George Stephanopoulos on TV lambasting it. I'm wavering between surprised and not surprised at something so obviously provocative to be just humorous igniting such coverage. It's just a TV ad, but then again, this is US Politics.
On March 07 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote: On a more serious note it's also a great example for the myth that surrounds Americas great social mobility(that doesn't actually exist) that leads to poor people screwing themselves over by voting for exactly the wrong people.
We may not top the chart in every metric but there's still a lot of mobility in this country and it's been that way for generations.
There is mobility in Denmark too, except with cheaper universal healthcare and universities you get paid to attend (and greek spend more hours at work than Americans). Surprised Danglers wasnt more salty about the commercial, I would have thought that Danglers, whose tax dollars were stolen to bailout socialist government motors, would find it an insulting commercial, mocking his values and whatnot.
Obama’s foreign policy strategy suffered from a more fundamental problem: it rested on an overly optimistic premise. He had assumed that if the United States moderated its tone, reached out to foreign capitals, stressed common interests and then decided to lead, others would follow. Bush had failed, on this assessment, not so much because issues were complicated, or countries disagreed over what to do and how to do it, or because foreign capitals had different priorities, but because he had led badly. Obama would instead reclaim the diplomatic mantle of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy.
Obama, however, had become president in an entirely different geopolitical context from any of these presidential predecessors. No country was playing the role of the Soviet Union, spurring countries to put aside differences to rally around the United States. Rapid economic growth in emerging markets had shifted the balance of global economic power and created new cross-national networks both within and between regions that bypassed the United States. The 2008–2009 financial crisis further weakened the US ability to lead, its economic woes being interpreted both abroad and at home as evidence of its decline.
None of this was a surprise for Obama. He had spoken often on the campaign trail about how globalization was remaking the world. But he had not followed his analysis of global trends to its logical conclusion. A world in which power was more dispersed and new cross-national networks had developed would be a world that was harder to lead. Rather than hungering for US leadership, many countries were indifferent to it. They did not see Washington offering solutions that addressed their primary concerns. So they pursued their interests elsewhere. At times, even traditional friends and allies as well as rising powers contested American leadership. China sought to reconfigure the balance of power in Asia and remake the global financial architecture on a pattern more to its liking. Brazil and Turkey tried to broker a deal with Iran over its nuclear weapons programme. India saw itself as the dominant power from Aden to the Strait of Malacca, not as a junior partner to Washington. Reconciling these competing ambitions, interests and priorities was a daunting, perhaps Sisyphean, task.
Obama acknowledged the problem early in his presidency. ‘If there’s just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, that’s an easier negotiation,' he noted. ‘But that’s not the world we live in’. He calculated that if the United States listened more and stressed common interests ‘at the margins, they (other countries) are more likely to want to cooperate than not cooperate’. This was what one politically tone-deaf Obama adviser called ‘leading from behind’ But the key question left unasked and unanswered was whether more cooperation would translate into enough cooperation. As a result, Obama declined to adjust his foreign policy goals, and struggled to devise a strategy for advancing US interests in a world where other powers, large and small, were busy protecting their own. He stayed on course, laying down markers and drawing lines, only to see many of them ignored.
True, in the short term prices fall. But when prices bottom out companies stop investing. Short-term price floors kill nascent industries and reduce new infrastructure to increase capacity. You would likely see increased use of coal and other dirty energy sources, and reduced concern for efficiency. The overall decline in oil production that we've seen from current oil producing fields picks up, and you risk a serious spike in overall energy prices later on down the road, putting a serious barrier in front of any traditional economic recovery.
Sure, you could have a spike down the road... or you could have low prices persist. There's no crystal ball on how that would play out.
If low prices persist it's because demand is in the toilet and the economy isn't picking up. If so, then the financial crisis has already dropped the coup de grâce, and energy prices won't matter much in this context.
Commodity prices tend to run in long cycles that last more than one economic cycle. Many investments today will last years and so a short term dearth of investment doesn't mean a shortage later (it can but it's not a given). For example, the 90's had strong growth and low oil prices.
And 20 years ago we had a lot more oil that was available cheaply. What you said completely ignores the specifics of the fossil fuels industry (i.e. that far more rigs are needed to draw out increasingly scarce oil, far more rigs are needed to open up shale gas, investment in fracking, etc.)
This is a classic jonny retort where you pull out a business school platitude that apparently discredits what I've said but in reality has no applicability, and is relevant only in the most trivial of senses.
It's true that non-conventional oil is more expensive, and that contributes to keeping prices sticky to the upside. But that isn't the only force in the marketplace. Do you really think you can make a prediction on oil prices just from the rig count? Look at your own graph - when prices fell so did the rig count. But it rebounded quickly with prices. That's no suggestive of a situation where you're risking a huge price spike because of an investment dearth.
No, it was a single piece of evidence. I listed more than one reason in the post, and there are more reasons I haven't listed.
Super.
You still ain't psychic.
If you think otherwise, go get rich.
Don't be idiotic.
This isn't about anything so trivial as a market prediction at a certain time. This is about the trajectory of the long term future.
And you think that trajectory is certain.
Here's what the EIA thinks:
They think the price of oil could go up really high, up modestly or stay low for an extended time. You think differently, and that's fine, (and you may turn out to be correct!) but the future isn't certain on this point or any of the other doom and gloom points you made.
increasing productivity, and outsourcing (a feature of neoliberal globalization) are serious disruptions that aren't going anywhere. Energy prices are on a sawtooth rise that, barring some kind of technological miracle, are only going to continue going up.
These aren't unreasonable opinions / predictions. But they aren't guaranteed facts either. They all have good arguments for why they could be true, or why the could be false. Outsourcing (I assume you mean to another country) ain't the big auto-win it used to be. Productivity has slowed in many advanced economies. The price of nat gas looks to stay low in the US for a long while, and the price of renewables is falling quickly.
I wish you had read and cited the explanation of the graph instead of just posting a bald picture with undefined coordinates. The report just picks circumstances in three different cases, without assigning any probabilities to which case is more likely to occur. The graph doesn't say anythign about what the EIA actually thinks is going to happen. Here's what the report actually says about the low oil price scenario:
Low Oil Price case
The AEO2013 Low Oil Price case assumes slower GDP growth for the non-OECD countries than in the Reference case. OPEC is less successful in restricting production in the Low Oil Price case, and as a result its share of total world liquids production increases to 49 percent in 2040. Despite lower Brent prices than in the Reference case, non-OPEC petroleum production levels are maintained at roughly 54 million barrels per day through 2030. After 2030, total non-OPEC production declines as existing fields are depleted and not fully replaced by production from new fields and more costly EOR technologies. With higher average costs for resource development in the non-OPEC countries, the Brent crude oil price in the Low Oil Price case is not sufficient to make all undeveloped fields economically viable. Non-OPEC petroleum production rises slightly in the projection, to 54 million barrels per day, before returning to roughly current levels of 51 million barrels per day in 2040. Non-OPEC production of other liquids grows more rapidly than in the Reference case, and in 2040 it is 25 percent higher than projected in the Reference case.
Brent crude oil prices fall below $80 per barrel in 2015 in the Low Oil Price case and decline further to just below $70 per barrel in 2017, followed by a slow increase to $75 per barrel in 2040. In the near term, extra supply enters the market, and lower economic growth in the non-OECD countries leads to falling prices. The higher levels of OPEC petroleum production assumed in the Low Oil Price case keep prices from increasing appreciably in the long term.
OPEC's ability to support higher oil prices is weakened by its inability to limit production as much as in the Reference case. Lower prices squeeze the revenues of OPEC members, increasing their incentive to produce beyond their quotas. As a result, OPEC liquids production increases to 54 million barrels per day in 2040. The lower prices in the Low Oil Price case cause a decline in OPEC revenue to the lowest level among the three cases, illustrating the relatively strong incentive for OPEC members to restrict supply.
So this case is based on slow GDP growth for non-OECD countries, and OPEC's inability to control its own petroleum production to keep prices high. An implicit assumption here is that the reserves OPEC countries (considered a state secret by most, so all we have to go on is what they tell us) are both accurate in the sense that they actually have that much oil, and accurate in the sense that that much oil is available at roughly the same production cost as the oil they are currently producing (i.e. very cheap).
There are numerous reasons to think that OPEC countries have vastly overstated their current oil wealth. In the 1980s when they introduced their quota system, several Middle Eastern nations doubled or even tripled their stated reserves, essentially over night. Increasing their reserves means they can produce and sell more oil, but it casts considerable doubt on the legitimacy of their claimed reserves. Moreover, despite decades of extremely intensive oil production, the stated reserves have barely changed, or even increased, since the mid-1980s. A Wikileaks cable was released in 2011 that indicates that the US Embassy has concerns, based on the views of the former head of exploration of Saudi-Aramco, that Saudi Arabian oil reserves could be inflated by as much as 40%.
So the graph you linked assumes that OPEC countries could ramp up production in a fit of competitiveness and continue oil production at current costs for the next 25 years. This is unlikely both because the stated oil reserves are likely overinflated, and because there is a worldwide consensus that peak oil was reached sometime between 2006 and 2008, and so production is tailing off in known and exploited oil fields. Oil reserves may exist that are theoretically obtainable, but it costs more money to extract that oil.
Another important point here is that in this hypothetical scenario, other technologies wither away due to being uneconomical. So in the 15 or 20 years of current oil production that we have at current demand continue at low prices, you are going to eventually hit a shock, where oil production dries up and you have no economical alternatives. This doesn't even touch on the issue that if demand is remaining relatively low in this scenario, you likely have slowing global growth rates anyway in a sluggish economy.
Energy prices are a critical component of continued economic prosperity under the current model. You mention that outsourcing isn't necessarily an auto-win these days and that natural gas prices will be kept low. One of the reasons is that the dirt cheap transportation costs which made China the manufacturing center of the world are a fading reality. Natural gas isn't very good for transporting large quantities of goods around the globe.
On March 05 2014 14:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Sure, you could have a spike down the road... or you could have low prices persist. There's no crystal ball on how that would play out.
If low prices persist it's because demand is in the toilet and the economy isn't picking up. If so, then the financial crisis has already dropped the coup de grâce, and energy prices won't matter much in this context.
Commodity prices tend to run in long cycles that last more than one economic cycle. Many investments today will last years and so a short term dearth of investment doesn't mean a shortage later (it can but it's not a given). For example, the 90's had strong growth and low oil prices.
And 20 years ago we had a lot more oil that was available cheaply. What you said completely ignores the specifics of the fossil fuels industry (i.e. that far more rigs are needed to draw out increasingly scarce oil, far more rigs are needed to open up shale gas, investment in fracking, etc.)
This is a classic jonny retort where you pull out a business school platitude that apparently discredits what I've said but in reality has no applicability, and is relevant only in the most trivial of senses.
It's true that non-conventional oil is more expensive, and that contributes to keeping prices sticky to the upside. But that isn't the only force in the marketplace. Do you really think you can make a prediction on oil prices just from the rig count? Look at your own graph - when prices fell so did the rig count. But it rebounded quickly with prices. That's no suggestive of a situation where you're risking a huge price spike because of an investment dearth.
No, it was a single piece of evidence. I listed more than one reason in the post, and there are more reasons I haven't listed.
Super.
You still ain't psychic.
If you think otherwise, go get rich.
Don't be idiotic.
This isn't about anything so trivial as a market prediction at a certain time. This is about the trajectory of the long term future.
And you think that trajectory is certain.
Here's what the EIA thinks:
They think the price of oil could go up really high, up modestly or stay low for an extended time. You think differently, and that's fine, (and you may turn out to be correct!) but the future isn't certain on this point or any of the other doom and gloom points you made.
increasing productivity, and outsourcing (a feature of neoliberal globalization) are serious disruptions that aren't going anywhere. Energy prices are on a sawtooth rise that, barring some kind of technological miracle, are only going to continue going up.
These aren't unreasonable opinions / predictions. But they aren't guaranteed facts either. They all have good arguments for why they could be true, or why the could be false. Outsourcing (I assume you mean to another country) ain't the big auto-win it used to be. Productivity has slowed in many advanced economies. The price of nat gas looks to stay low in the US for a long while, and the price of renewables is falling quickly.
I wish you had read and cited the explanation of the graph instead of just posting a bald picture with undefined coordinates. The report just picks circumstances in three different cases, without assigning any probabilities to which case is more likely to occur. The graph doesn't say anythign about what the EIA actually thinks is going to happen. Here's what the report actually says about the low oil price scenario:
The AEO2013 Low Oil Price case assumes slower GDP growth for the non-OECD countries than in the Reference case. OPEC is less successful in restricting production in the Low Oil Price case, and as a result its share of total world liquids production increases to 49 percent in 2040. Despite lower Brent prices than in the Reference case, non-OPEC petroleum production levels are maintained at roughly 54 million barrels per day through 2030. After 2030, total non-OPEC production declines as existing fields are depleted and not fully replaced by production from new fields and more costly EOR technologies. With higher average costs for resource development in the non-OPEC countries, the Brent crude oil price in the Low Oil Price case is not sufficient to make all undeveloped fields economically viable. Non-OPEC petroleum production rises slightly in the projection, to 54 million barrels per day, before returning to roughly current levels of 51 million barrels per day in 2040. Non-OPEC production of other liquids grows more rapidly than in the Reference case, and in 2040 it is 25 percent higher than projected in the Reference case.
Brent crude oil prices fall below $80 per barrel in 2015 in the Low Oil Price case and decline further to just below $70 per barrel in 2017, followed by a slow increase to $75 per barrel in 2040. In the near term, extra supply enters the market, and lower economic growth in the non-OECD countries leads to falling prices. The higher levels of OPEC petroleum production assumed in the Low Oil Price case keep prices from increasing appreciably in the long term.
OPEC's ability to support higher oil prices is weakened by its inability to limit production as much as in the Reference case. Lower prices squeeze the revenues of OPEC members, increasing their incentive to produce beyond their quotas. As a result, OPEC liquids production increases to 54 million barrels per day in 2040. The lower prices in the Low Oil Price case cause a decline in OPEC revenue to the lowest level among the three cases, illustrating the relatively strong incentive for OPEC members to restrict supply.
So this case is based on slow GDP growth for non-OECD countries, and OPEC's inability to control its own petroleum production to keep prices high. An implicit assumption here is that the reserves OPEC countries (considered a state secret by most, so all we have to go on is what they tell us) are both accurate in the sense that they actually have that much oil, and accurate in the sense that that much oil is available at roughly the same production cost as the oil they are currently producing (i.e. very cheap).
There are numerous reasons to think that OPEC countries have vastly overstated their current oil wealth. In the 1980s when they introduced their quota system, several Middle Eastern nations doubled or even tripled their stated reserves, essentially over night. Increasing their reserves means they can produce and sell more oil, but it casts considerable doubt on the legitimacy of their claimed reserves. Moreover, despite decades of extremely intensive oil production, the stated reserves have barely changed, or even increased, since the mid-1980s. A Wikileaks cable was released in 2011 that indicates that the US Embassy has concerns, based on the views of the former head of exploration of Saudi-Aramco, that Saudi Arabian oil reserves could be inflated by as much as 40%.
So the graph you linked assumes that OPEC countries could ramp up production in a fit of competitiveness and continue oil production at current costs for the next 25 years. This is unlikely both because the stated oil reserves are likely overinflated, and because there is a worldwide consensus that peak oil was reached sometime between 2006 and 2008, and so production is tailing off in known and exploited oil fields. Oil reserves may exist that are theoretically obtainable, but it costs more money to extract that oil.
Another important point here is that in this hypothetical scenario, other technologies wither away due to being uneconomical. So in the 15 or 20 years of current oil production that we have at current demand continue at low prices, you are going to eventually hit a shock, where oil production dries up and you have no economical alternatives. This doesn't even touch on the issue that if demand is remaining relatively low in this scenario, you likely have slowing global growth rates anyway in a sluggish economy.
Energy prices are a critical component of continued economic prosperity under the current model. You mention that outsourcing isn't necessarily an auto-win these days and that natural gas prices will be kept low. One of the reasons is that the dirt cheap transportation costs which made China the manufacturing center of the world are a fading reality. Natural gas isn't very good for transporting large quantities of goods around the globe.
Here's what the EIA thought back in the year 2000:
Predicting oil prices isn't easy, even for the pros! (EIA archives)
Back in '79 they though the low price in '95 would be $77. Seems when prices are high they're expected to stay high. And when prices are low, expected to stay low. It turns out reality is full of surprises!
Energy prices are also becoming less and less relevant:
And it's still ridiculously cheap to ship in bulk (even by container) internationally. NPR's Planet Money recently made a t-shirt and gave a cost breakdown. For a $12.42 shirt shipping cost was:
The men’s shirts cost approximately 10 cents to ship to the United States from Bangladesh. The women’s shirts cost about 7 cents to ship to the United States from Colombia.
sourceIf that cost doubled it would still be less than the tariffs
Costs significantly more to ship steel and other construction materials. Why don't you compare shipping costs on steel and food to wages? Then let's go over your argument for why a minimum wage is going to hurt economic growth.
On March 07 2014 09:14 Danglars wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGJSI48gkFc Criticized as xenophobic and an American Nightmare, not Dream, by ABC and HuffPo. Aired during Academy Awards and I think Sochi. Saw George Stephanopoulos on TV lambasting it. I'm wavering between surprised and not surprised at something so obviously provocative to be just humorous igniting such coverage. It's just a TV ad, but then again, this is US Politics.
the most appalling thing about this ad is the idea that anyone would button both buttons in a two-button suit
On March 07 2014 12:48 IgnE wrote: Costs significantly more to ship steel and other construction materials. Why don't you compare shipping costs on steel and food to wages? Then let's go over your argument for why a minimum wage is going to hurt economic growth.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://lh3.ggpht.com/-YrVzgIkuGtA/T9yL1g9mTyI/AAAAAAAAS88/yT-vcegAQPc/s1600/rig2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/images/figure_21-lg.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/Y2000%20Prediction.PNG)
![[image loading]](http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2013.03.01/consumption.png)
![[image loading]](http://marketrealist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Baltic-Dry-Index-608x440.png)
