|
Posted on 05.06.08 by Stephen Covington @ 11:47 pm
Petroleum is fast becoming an even more valuable commodity than usual as prices are currently hovering at $120, and there is no probable end in sight. With India and China both growing at phenomenal rates, oil is realistically set to go to $200 in the next two years, and beyond, according to analysts at Goldman Sachs. Drilling in ANWR is often brought up as a possible solution, but as one oil field out of many, this would be a drop in the bucket - and, that oil would not go exclusively to the United States. It would be sold on the open market like any other commodity. Oil shale, liquid coal and ethanol are also popular subjects. As we’re seeing now, corn ethanol production is highly inefficient and is great at producing global famine. There seems to be growing indications from the market that petroleum is simply becoming impractical as a long-term, large-scale energy solution. Its growing rarity makes it expensive, and it requires substantial amounts of infrastructure (pumping wells, pipelines, tankers, refineries, etc) for distribution purposes. All of these infrastructure points are highly susceptible to attacks from terrorism - as an example, consider the recent attacks in Nigeria. A continuing dependence on this shaky source of energy makes us highly vulnerable to the whims of the world. It’s time that everyone - especially those concerned about national security - accept that we would be best served by hurrying along new forms of energy as soon as possible. Electric engines are inherently more efficient than the gasoline-driven variety; an engine that moves a car with electric power generated through the use of a small gasoline engine is actually more efficient than using a single gasoline engine. The main advantage of electric-only cars is that electricity, unlike gasoline or ethanol, is available from a nearly infinite number of sources; if the grid is compromised, people can charge their cars using a backup battery, solar panels, treadmill, etc. This shift to a new energy paradigm is going to happen anyway, so it’s better that we define how energy technology evolves, rather than following behind Japan or China. The transition may be painful, but plugging in every day can’t possibly have as bad of an economic impact as shelling out $10 for a gallon of gasoline. Filed under: Financial News and Opinion and The Economy Comments: 1 Comment |
|
Posted on 02.08.08 by Austin Cassidy @ 9:20 pm
The weakness in the American dollar is attracting hordes of European tourists seeking to take advantage of the favorable exchange rates. Reuters reports that now many businesses in New York are starting to accept Euros and other foreign currencies. Is this yet another signal of a looming collapse of American economic might? Or just a sign of an increasingly global marketplace? Filed under: The Economy Comments: 1 Comment |
|
Posted on 02.05.08 by Stephen Covington @ 12:00 am
Throughout the Republican presidential primaries, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has repeatedly played the “economy card”, claiming that his time at the helm of the state resulted in a rebounded economy, and that he was able to close a $3 billion budget gap, all without raising taxes or borrowing money. However, some in Massachusetts claim that Romney’s claims are heavily inflated at best. In fact, Romney was the beneficiary of tax increases from the former year, in the amount of $1.1 billion, raised by a Democratic-controlled state legislature. He further closed the gap by raising $300 million in business taxes - and imposing $260 million in fees, just in the first year of his term. Unemployment in the state decreased by only 0.4% during Romney’s term, lagging far behind the national average drop of 1.5%. “We’ve had a very slow economic recovery and we’ve trailed most of the rest of the nation,” said Michael Widmer, president of the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. “It’s not the turnaround he’s advertised.” The number of new jobs climbed during Romney’s four years in office — from a loss of 54,700 in his first year to a gain of 34,700 in his final year — but what’s not being reported in the media is that most of the rest of the country rebounded from the national recession faster. In fact, Massachusetts is actually one of only six states that hasn’t managed to regain all the jobs lost during the recession. “Our losses were steeper, and our gains have been slower and as an end result we are still nearly 100,000 jobs down,” said Dana Ansel of the Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth, a nonpartisan think tank. Filed under: Campaign 2008 and Mitt Romney and The Economy Comments: 2 Comments |
|
Posted on 01.25.08 by Ginger West @ 11:27 pm
Since the 2008 Republican primary race began, Rudy Giuliani’s consistent message to the American public has been that his personal experience with 9/11 makes him the best candidate for the highest office in the land. Seemingly as an afterthought has been his history of cutting taxes 23 times while serving as mayor of New York. Hs main focus has been on the terrorists’ efforts against the United States, and how he is best suited to keep the nation safe. However, in recent days, and in light of a looming recession, Giuliani has apparently changed his focus from national security to domestic economics. Now, in addition to reminding us how he cut taxes in New York, and turned a multi-billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus, he’s driving home a message of taking decisive action on our current economic problems. The former New York mayor is in favor of making the Bush tax cuts permanent and his tax cut plan is the largest in modern American History. In addition, Rudy has proposed a new form for tax filing and wants to give Americans a choice of either using the old tax forms or using the new “Fair And Simple Tax form”, or F.A.S.T. The new form only has three rates allowing Americans to save substantially in taxes. Rudy Giuliani’s tax plan is extensive, touching on all areas of the economy normally encountered by the average American. He intends on repealing the death tax, cutting the corporate tax rate, cutting the capital gains tax, and indexing the AMT for inflation and eventually he will eliminate it altogether. One thing’s for sure, America needs a fiscal conservative and Rudy Giuliani is unlike both John McCain, who has voted more than 50 times not to cut taxes, and Mitt Romney who not only failed to cut taxes but actually raised them in many cases. Florida may be Rudy’s last stand. For the sake of the economy, let’s hope he pulls off a win finally. Filed under: Campaign 2008 and Florida Primary and Opinion and Rudy Giuliani and Taxes and The Economy Comments: 4 Comments |
|
Posted on 01.25.08 by Austin Cassidy @ 4:38 am
Stock market woes, the falling value of the dollar, and the big collapse in the housing market are making most politicians nervous. Voters can be tremendously unpredictable during recessions, and it seems that we may be slipping head first into one right in the middle of a heated Presidential campaign. But one man stands to benefit a great deal from all of this. The billionaire mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, is the perfect independent candidate in this environment. Heck, the Bloomberg name itself is synonymous with trustworthy business and financal news. With a Republican in the White House and a Democratic Congress, Bloomberg might well be able to drive up the middle. Blaming both parties for the current mess and offering real world business experience to help turn things around. If the two major parties produce uninspiring nominees (think Romney vs. Clinton) it would be easy to imagine a lot of disappointed voters flocking to back Bloomberg. In a time of an uncertain economic future, the case for a Bloomberg Presidential bid starts to make a whole lot more sense than it did just a few months ago. He’s had the resources and the experience to make a serious run, but now he also has the right message. An outsider who will clean up Washington and revitalize the economy. All he has to do now is decide if he wants to run or not. Filed under: Campaign 2008 and The Economy Comments: 4 Comments |
|
Posted on 01.24.08 by Stephen Covington @ 9:04 pm
Republicans and Democrats in the House, along with the White House have come together on an economic stimulus deal totalling around $150 billion, which may provide one-time payments of between $300 to $1200 per household. This agreement comes at a time when housing sales are at their lowest levels since 1982, and may soon fall even further, according to many economists. The effort to boost economic activity is largely aimed at increasing short-term consumer spending, but whether a net effect will result remains to be seen. The government will mostly be borrowing money and recirculating it through taxpayers - not exactly pumping new blood into the system. Unfortunately, the housing bubble began as the result of the Federal Reserve manipulating interest rates to increase demand in the mortgage market and drive the economy following the slowdown after the dot com bust and 9/11 attacks. This is a fantastic example of why the government should allow natural market corrections to take their own course and adapt to changing conditions, rather than trying to force changes on the market. The knee-jerk reactions that characterize many government actions are driven not by common sense, but by a feeling that they should be “doing something” rather than allowing things to run their course. Rather than blowing money around in a circle, Congress should resolve to trust in the economy to solve its own problems. The housing market will eventually correct itself once demand catches up to supply. People who got themselves into mortgages that they couldn’t afford will either find a way to pay, or get out of them - through foreclosure, transfer, or refinance. The best way to promote economic health is to allow the economy to improve itself. Filed under: Opinion and The Economy Comments: None |
|
Posted on 01.16.08 by Austin Cassidy @ 12:01 am
Honestly, I am completely tired of George Bush at this point. America needs a new President… one who will stand-up for our national interests. We’re giving Saudi Arabia giant piles of money for their oil and then allowing them to turn around and use our money to buy our high tech weapons. To use our money to invest in and purchase controlling shares of our major corporations and national assets. And to use our own oil money to fund extremist schools that exist as breeding grounds for the next generation of terrorist bombers.
The Democrats have nothing to offer… and I’m not sure how much any of the leading Republican candidates will do to fix things. But at the same time, I’m not sure if anyone could do a much worse job than President Bush has in the last couple of years. It doesn’t take an economist to see something is wrong… –> McKinsey warns US may lose financial leadership But aside from a half-hearted (and failed) attempt to fix Social Security, the Bush administration has largely tried to ignore any domestic problems. Unless it involved installing security cameras or bomb sensors in airports and other public places. Gee, I’m so glad that we’ll be able to watch our crumbling national infrastructure and lines of jobless citizens on our awesome new night-vision cameras. I said six months or a year ago that I was sick and tired of defending the Bush administration, because they weren’t earning our defense of them. Well, I’m actually beyond that point now. So many squandered opportunities exist. This administration could have ranked among the greatest in history… the events all lined up. A real leader, engaged and motivated to take action, could have done something amazing with the last four years. But it just hasn’t happened… and I am sick of defending what’s gone on in some of these areas. Why do we have such a gigantic trade debt? Why are we allowing the American economy to be eaten hollow by foreign interests? Why are we paying brutal Middle Eastern dictators billions of dollars for oil that we could be pumping ourselves from Alaska and other places? Why are we helping companies move American jobs overseas? And why are we letting the Congress and the President continue to do nothing… or almost nothing… about the situation? And beyond the damage that this administration’s inaction has done to the country and the economy at large… it’s also been horrible for the Republican Party. All of our resources and our fight was exausted in defense of an unworthy administration. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit now that, in one year’s time, we’ll be living under a President Hillary Clinton. Unless the Republican Party shapes up and becomes an agent of agressive change… it’s hard to imagine a GOP victory in November. Particularly if we’re spiraling into what is already being called the “Bush Recession” by many liberals in the media. Filed under: The Economy Comments: 1 Comment |
