Author Topic: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?  (Read 16019 times)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #50 on: January 10, 2017, 12:11:09 AM »

There's no doubt in my mind that his approach -- pumping up the Carbon Bubble -- is going to lead to a massive crash. There's no way it doesn't. The economy is based on the environment, after all, and when Miami starts to disappear, and Oklahoma turns back into a Dust Bowl, well, we are not going to be worrying so much about the performance of the stock market.

To be fair, this was going to happen no matter who was elected President. It's much too late to stop things like this from occurring.

wienerdog

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #51 on: January 10, 2017, 09:58:59 AM »
Many small-business-people are optimistic that a clearing of the brush as regards regulations will help small businesses (see the increase in the Russell 2000 index, which has surged much more than the SP500 index). Three places where this will play out: Clean Power Plan, Affordable care act, and the landscape for Union activities.

Along those lines:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-10/u-s-small-business-optimism-index-surges-by-most-since-1980

boy_bye

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #52 on: January 10, 2017, 10:30:06 AM »

There's no doubt in my mind that his approach -- pumping up the Carbon Bubble -- is going to lead to a massive crash. There's no way it doesn't. The economy is based on the environment, after all, and when Miami starts to disappear, and Oklahoma turns back into a Dust Bowl, well, we are not going to be worrying so much about the performance of the stock market.

To be fair, this was going to happen no matter who was elected President. It's much too late to stop things like this from occurring.

Sure, but speeding it up by artificially keeping the economy focused on fossil fuels certainly isn't going to help. The more time we can provide ourselves to respond, the better.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #53 on: January 10, 2017, 12:24:32 PM »

There's no doubt in my mind that his approach -- pumping up the Carbon Bubble -- is going to lead to a massive crash. There's no way it doesn't. The economy is based on the environment, after all, and when Miami starts to disappear, and Oklahoma turns back into a Dust Bowl, well, we are not going to be worrying so much about the performance of the stock market.

To be fair, this was going to happen no matter who was elected President. It's much too late to stop things like this from occurring.

Sure, but speeding it up by artificially keeping the economy focused on fossil fuels certainly isn't going to help. The more time we can provide ourselves to respond, the better.

Right, because why pump the breaks before the crash?  If you're going to wreck anyway, you should just floor it and swerve into oncoming traffic?

I just don't understand this thinking.  When I start to get fat, I don't go buy more ice cream.  When the stock market declines, I don't stop buying.  When my shower is dirty, I don't throw mud into it.  When you see a problem, you're supposed to figure out how to fix it, or at least minimize the damages. 

More climate change is coming, but that doesn't mean we should try to make it worse.  An economic collapse in carbon extraction may be imminent, but can still be mitigated.  The first step is to stop making things worse.

Sometimes I think the preppers WANT the world to end.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 06:47:28 PM by sol »

theolympians

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 240
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #54 on: January 10, 2017, 06:44:08 PM »
OK, so I am into a couple cognacs when I started reading the latest in this thread. "Fossil fuels" will not collapse. There are plenty of reserves for decades and improving tech will allow access to other reserves in an economic manner.

"Climate change" is a boondoggle. I remember in the 70's we were told the CO2 was going to cause a new ice age. Then they said the CO2 would cause global warming. When the warming stopped (or "paused" if you are inclined) they changed the name to "climate change". Hogwash! They can't reliably predict the weather days hence; they can't predict climate centuries ahead either. It is a tax and spend scheme. Nothing more (well, a healthy dash of anti-capitalism thrown in as well)......

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #55 on: January 10, 2017, 06:55:00 PM »
"Climate change" is a boondoggle.

Thank you for sharing your misinformed opinion.

But to the point, you are mistaken and every scientist in the world agrees that you are mistaken.  The world is warming, there is no debate on this point because it is recorded by thermometers and thermometers don't have opinions.

We have been predicting this warming would happen, since we first noticed the accumulation of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.  In the 70s scientists predicted an ice age because they had just learned that the natural cycle of Earth's climate should be in a multi-millenia-long cooling phase right now, based on changes to the planet's orbit.  Then they noticed the greenhouse gasses, and quickly calculated that their impact should be a much stronger warming influence than the natural cooling trend.  For the first few decades this was a predictive theory, not yet born out by observations.  For the past few decades it has just been year after year of data confirming the same theory in the same way.  By now we're pretty confident about it.

But you're clearly not, and that's okay.  You might consider cracking an earth history textbook, or auditing Geology101 at your local community college, to get some exposure to these ideas.  You might be surprised by what you learn, despite your pre-existing bias.

theolympians

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 240
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #56 on: January 10, 2017, 07:18:24 PM »
"Every scientist in the world" does not agree. If you look at a graph at temperatures through the eons there is a distinct "wave". Sometimes it is warm, other times cold. Man caused climate change is a boondoggle.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #57 on: January 10, 2017, 07:37:13 PM »
"Every scientist in the world" does not agree. If you look at a graph at temperatures through the eons there is a distinct "wave". Sometimes it is warm, other times cold. Man caused climate change is a boondoggle.

Yep, totally a wave.  A wave that should be getting colder right now, but is instead getting suddenly and dramatically warmer at a rate that totally ruins the wave pattern.  It's doing that for physical reasons that are well understood.

For example, our Air Force uses heat seeking missiles on their jets.  Those missiles didn't work very well in clouds.  Why did they not work in clouds?  Because water vapor is really good at absorbing those wavelengths of energy.  They knew this in the 60s.  They had to modify the missiles.

This is a well understood physical effect that you can measure yourself.  Certain things in the atmosphere absorb certain kinds of incoming energy, and greenhouse gasses are the ones that absorb the most.  As we add more of them, we can calculate how much more energy they absorb, and figure out how much warmer it should get as a result.  We did that in the 70s and early 80s.  It's working just like the math says it should (unfortuantely) for almost 40 years now.

All of these facts are not disputed.  Every scientist agrees with them.  Every one. 

Some people (generally not scientists) like to argue about what it all means, what we should do about these facts, or whether it will be cost effective to do anything at all or better to let it all just go to hell.  They do not argue about the basic physics I've just outlined for you. 

I suppose climate change could be a real thing that is happening AND a boondoggle.  Is that your position?  Or are you more on the "Chinese hoax" side of the fence?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #58 on: January 11, 2017, 01:30:29 AM »

There's no doubt in my mind that his approach -- pumping up the Carbon Bubble -- is going to lead to a massive crash. There's no way it doesn't. The economy is based on the environment, after all, and when Miami starts to disappear, and Oklahoma turns back into a Dust Bowl, well, we are not going to be worrying so much about the performance of the stock market.

To be fair, this was going to happen no matter who was elected President. It's much too late to stop things like this from occurring.

Sure, but speeding it up by artificially keeping the economy focused on fossil fuels certainly isn't going to help. The more time we can provide ourselves to respond, the better.

I guess you could make that argument, but since the end result is the same, I'm not sure I see the difference. The whole world is focused on fossil fuels, and shows such little effort in changing that focus that one politician wouldn't make a measurable difference in 'speeding things up'.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #59 on: January 11, 2017, 01:33:42 AM »

There's no doubt in my mind that his approach -- pumping up the Carbon Bubble -- is going to lead to a massive crash. There's no way it doesn't. The economy is based on the environment, after all, and when Miami starts to disappear, and Oklahoma turns back into a Dust Bowl, well, we are not going to be worrying so much about the performance of the stock market.

To be fair, this was going to happen no matter who was elected President. It's much too late to stop things like this from occurring.

Sure, but speeding it up by artificially keeping the economy focused on fossil fuels certainly isn't going to help. The more time we can provide ourselves to respond, the better.

Right, because why pump the breaks before the crash?  If you're going to wreck anyway, you should just floor it and swerve into oncoming traffic?

I just don't understand this thinking.  When I start to get fat, I don't go buy more ice cream.  When the stock market declines, I don't stop buying.  When my shower is dirty, I don't throw mud into it.  When you see a problem, you're supposed to figure out how to fix it, or at least minimize the damages. 

More climate change is coming, but that doesn't mean we should try to make it worse.  An economic collapse in carbon extraction may be imminent, but can still be mitigated.  The first step is to stop making things worse.

Sometimes I think the preppers WANT the world to end.

We're not 'about to crash'. We're over the cliff, flying through the air, already mid crash. Just because we haven't slammed into the rocks and burst into flames doesn't mean that there is time to change anything. That chance went out the window years ago. Pumping the brakes is not going to make the crash one iota less painful; it's too late for actions like this to have an effect on the outcome.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 01:37:28 AM by Metric Mouse »

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #60 on: January 11, 2017, 02:30:45 AM »
"Every scientist in the world" does not agree. If you look at a graph at temperatures through the eons there is a distinct "wave". Sometimes it is warm, other times cold. Man caused climate change is a boondoggle.

That wave used to happen over thousands of years, if not 10's of thousands. Man has managed to create a wave in just 50.

And the warming didn't stop, or pause. It's still happening, the global maxima experienced in 1998 (due to a very strong el nino) that the sceptics keep banging on about as some sort of peak was eclipsed a few years ago. We are well past that now (I say this during a 41C day in Sydney today - 106F on your scale).

Learn something. Read this link and then read the related links inside. Please do not dismiss it because you think you know better than NASA.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #61 on: January 11, 2017, 10:06:41 AM »
We're not 'about to crash'. We're over the cliff, flying through the air, already mid crash.

I was specifically reverting to the referenced coming economic crash in carbon industries, not changing climate.

Our climate is going to get warmer for thousands of years to come.  I agree that this looks pretty unavoidable, unless we invent ways to pull CO2 back out of the air or some other new technology.

But that doesn't mean our economy based on fossil fuels has to crash.  Oil companies can become power generation companies, and liquid fuels will always have at least some market no matter how expensive they get, because they are the best solution to some problems.  We can't yet built EV rocket ships.

If we started subsidizing alternative energy at the same rate we subsidize fossil fuels (lots or none, doesn't matter) then these companies that are currently economically fragile due to their dependence on a single resource might be incentivized to diversify their income streams.  It would be good for the environment and good for the economy, if we just stopped playing favorites by wasting so much taxpayer money on supporting oil and gas in preference to the alternatives.

Reynold

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #62 on: January 12, 2017, 09:04:54 AM »
Krugman's concepts of macroeconomics are grounded in models that have proven themselves over and over again. Along with Lawrence Summers they have both proposed ideas about how to battle against economic stagnation, and one of the takeaways is that federal deficits are not bad, in fact fiscal stimulus is what is needed in lowflation/slow growth/low-zero interest rate economies.

Shouldn't that have worked during the last two decades in Japan, then?  Or southern Europe, more recently? 

talltexan

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5344
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #63 on: January 12, 2017, 09:14:43 AM »
Shinzo Abe (when he re-assumed power in Japan in 2012) basically did that, with a massive, Krugman-style monetary stimulus, and it worked. Then he caved to political pressure to address his budget deficit, instituted a new VAT, and the economy cooled off again. Team Keynes declared victory.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3576
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #64 on: January 12, 2017, 10:07:26 AM »
Krugman's concepts of macroeconomics are grounded in models that have proven themselves over and over again. Along with Lawrence Summers they have both proposed ideas about how to battle against economic stagnation, and one of the takeaways is that federal deficits are not bad, in fact fiscal stimulus is what is needed in lowflation/slow growth/low-zero interest rate economies.

Shouldn't that have worked during the last two decades in Japan, then?  Or southern Europe, more recently?

Europe went the austerity route.   Cut spending and raised taxes. 

boy_bye

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #65 on: January 12, 2017, 10:18:40 AM »
Krugman's concepts of macroeconomics are grounded in models that have proven themselves over and over again. Along with Lawrence Summers they have both proposed ideas about how to battle against economic stagnation, and one of the takeaways is that federal deficits are not bad, in fact fiscal stimulus is what is needed in lowflation/slow growth/low-zero interest rate economies.

Shouldn't that have worked during the last two decades in Japan, then?  Or southern Europe, more recently?

Europe went the austerity route.   Cut spending and raised taxes.

Yeah, and we see how well THAT is working.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #66 on: January 12, 2017, 11:03:56 AM »
Quote
Europe went the austerity route.   Cut spending and raised taxes.

Yeah, and we see how well THAT is working.

It's difficult to draw broad conclusions from single experiments, but the 2008/9 global recession definitely supports the Keynesian view.  Countries that responded with stimulus grew their economies out of it, and countries that resorted to austerity are still suffering.

It's hard to know for sure, though.  You could equally make the argument that Bush's deregulation and tax cuts for the rich successfully grew the economy, until they caused the 2008 crash.  We don't really know what the future of the Bush/Obama stimulus will bring, and we've only had 8 years of amazing growth to support it being the right decision.  Maybe next year will finally see the 50% crash some folks have been predicting for years now?

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3576
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #67 on: January 12, 2017, 12:15:58 PM »

It's difficult to draw broad conclusions from single experiments, but the 2008/9 global recession definitely supports the Keynesian view.  Countries that responded with stimulus grew their economies out of it, and countries that resorted to austerity are still suffering.

It's hard to know for sure, though.  You could equally make the argument that Bush's deregulation and tax cuts for the rich successfully grew the economy, until they caused the 2008 crash.  We don't really know what the future of the Bush/Obama stimulus will bring, and we've only had 8 years of amazing growth to support it being the right decision.  Maybe next year will finally see the 50% crash some folks have been predicting for years now?

There have been three pretty good Keysesian experiments in this country.  The first and best example was the Kennedy stimulus (actually passed when Johnson was president) because it was crafted by rock-ribbed Keysenian economics from Harvard (where Kennedy took economics from John Kenneth Galbraith), and passed somewhat intact by Congress.   It worked more or less perfectly, with unemployment dropping like a stone and the economy expanding rapidly with no inflation. 

The next was Ronald Reagan, believe it or not.   Reagan cut taxes and increased spending, and again the economy responded favorably.  Now, Supply Siders like to take credit for this, but in the Supply Side world view, there would be no, or at least very small budget deficits.  Reagan promised that if his package was passed, the budget would be balanced by 1984, or maybe 1983.   Reagan's package was passed, again mostly unmolested by Congress and deficits exploded.   That's of course just as you'd expect.  You can't taxes and increase spending without increasing deficits at well.   The economic growth also tends to be remembered much more favorably that it actually was.   The 1980s were actually pretty meh as far as GDP growth.

The Bush II tax cuts weren't really Keyseian because during most of that era we were close to full employment, so there isn't much room for stimulation.   They were created with a Supply Side philosophy.  Economic growth was pretty meh over all in this era too and the trickle down of rising wages for the middle class didn't happen as promised either.   

Next comes Obama.   The Obama stimulus was mostly tax cuts, which are pretty weak stimulus, and the stimulus wasn't very big compared to the economy, but seems to have worked pretty well.  We got a record number of consecutive months of job growth with no inflation.   That's pretty much the target.  Economic growth was on the weak side, however. 

A contrary example is Greece.  They (at the behest of their creditors, mostly Germany) cut spending and raised taxes in order to generate money.   But the opposite happened.  Taxes went up as a percentage of GDP, but because the GDP shrank the total number of Euros collected went down.    In a Keysenian world, they would have stimulated to get the unemployment down, and that would have boosted the GDP.   


talltexan

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5344
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #68 on: January 12, 2017, 01:56:30 PM »
It's not fair to compare Greece and the US without acknowledging:

1. Greece's tax system doesn't have the teeth as far as actually getting people to pay their taxes, and
2. Greece is a member of the Euro, therefore doesn't have any ability to conduct monetary policy

850

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #69 on: January 12, 2017, 05:34:53 PM »
"Every scientist in the world" does not agree. If you look at a graph at temperatures through the eons there is a distinct "wave". Sometimes it is warm, other times cold. Man caused climate change is a boondoggle.

You mean a graph like this one?
https://xkcd.com/1732/

PizzaSteve

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #70 on: January 12, 2017, 05:45:29 PM »
Excellent link.  I hope the anti climate change science folks actually click the link and scroll down. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #71 on: January 13, 2017, 10:09:37 AM »
Excellent link.  I hope the anti climate change science folks actually click the link and scroll down.
  and see what? I mean, the top of the graph clearly shows that temperature swings could have occured, but that the data would be smoothed out over long term averages and would not have been detectable with the methods used. There are much better and more accurate ways to display this information and to make a point.   This graph is such a lazy way to show what is occurring, though that is clearly why it is so popular.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #72 on: January 13, 2017, 10:43:56 AM »
I mean, the top of the graph clearly shows that temperature swings could have occured, but that the data would be smoothed out over long term averages and would not have been detectable with the methods used.

It shows exactly the opposite, as described rather succinctly at about 16,000 BCE.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: 'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?
« Reply #73 on: January 13, 2017, 10:58:01 AM »
I mean, the top of the graph clearly shows that temperature swings could have occured, but that the data would be smoothed out over long term averages and would not have been detectable with the methods used.

It shows exactly the opposite, as described rather succinctly at about 16,000 BCE.

That's an incorrect reading of the graph, and the underlying data.

The issue with global warming's effects on humans has never been strictly slightly warmer temperatures; as evidenced by the graph humans can survive a wide range of global temperature.  All the nasty side effects of more energy in the system ate what will really affect human life. And those have only just begun to be observed, and are unpredictable to a point anyway. Focusing on temperature readings as if they were amazingly horrible absent the other effects is mussing the broader point and biggest dangers of climate change.