|
|
Post by archer on Aug 31, 2023 14:51:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Mustang on Aug 31, 2023 17:01:10 GMT
Right are wrong I have added some comments.
1. Corporate Profits. “Over the very long term, profit growth has been closely tied to gains in productivity, which is technically defined as the output per worker per hour worked… But in recent decades, this relationship has taken a sharp divergence, with corporate profits surging as productivity gains lagged… Globalization provided companies access to cheaper foreign labor, which helped to hold down business costs… The key drivers that supported this divergence—including globalization, industry concentration, and low interest rates—seem to be retreating or peaking… So this potential recoupling of profits to productivity could have profound implications for investment returns in the coming decades.”
Comment: It always was about productivity. The only difference is that the productivity increases (units produced per labor dollar) was overseas. Since overseas supply chains (especially China) are starting to become unreliable or weaponized companies are moving production back to the US where labor costs are much higher.
2. Peak Globalization. “But the world has perhaps already reached and passed the point of “peak globalization,” and global integration may be unlikely to advance further from here… Rapid deglobalization is not the most likely scenario. But there is already evidence that business and government priorities are shifting, to try to bring supply chains closer to home, or even back within national borders… Reversing this trend could also increase inflationary pressures. It may take substantial investment to bring supply chains closer to home, which could lead to further increased costs for businesses. “
Comment: True. But can companies maintain the same productivity by moving production back to the US? Not likely. The new generation of workers want three day work weeks with the full pay. Artificial intelligence might offset some of the additional cost. And, if productivity is defined as units produced per labor dollar. productivity is certain to go down.
3. Balance of Power. “The US exerted oversized influence on global relations and the global economy for nearly 3 decades, starting with the end of the Cold War around 1990… Recent years have seen China’s economic power and global aspirations rise, placing the world on a path toward a more multipolar dynamic… defined by the division between countries seeking to defend the old, Western-led world order (such as the US and its closest allies), and countries that generally oppose Western democracy (such as China and Russia).”
Comment: The US became the world's superpower at the end of WWII because all other industrialized nations were almost bombed back to the stone age. The US provided the defense umbrella and the market for other countries to rebuild and the US dollar became the currency of choice. The cold war showed that the world was already multi-polar. The world has always been multi-polar. A few centuries ago it was Britain, France and Spain. Long before that in ancient Greece it was Athens and Sparta. No one should have expected the US to remain the sole superpower forever.
4. Decarbonization. “For more than a century, fossil fuels have been the primary energy source fueling the global economy. This has helped to support a growing global population and improving global standards of living… This encompasses efforts to improve energy efficiency, to generate more energy from clean sources, to remove or capture carbon from the atmosphere, and potentially to reach net-zero emission targets… because underinvestment in traditional energy infrastructure in recent years, in addition to climate-related disruptions to agriculture, have already pushed commodity prices into higher and more volatile territory… Substantial investments may be needed over the coming decades in order to hit decarbonization targets.”
Comment: The timeline is wrong. Since the stone age and man learned to create fire fossil fuels have been our primary source of energy.
As far as climate change, there is no such thing as settled science. Science is about questioning and testing theories. There is going to be significant push back on the climate movement in upcoming years. It has started already. In 2019 thousands of politicians, activists, and scientists preached gloom and doom that would occur as quickly as today. It did not materialize. In fact, none of the gloom and doom predictions have materialized.
Now climate scientists are pushing back. Last week 1,600 actual climate scientists including two Nobel prize winners signed a letter saying there is no climate crises. Even though carbon emissions have continued to increase there has been no increase in world temperatures in the last five year. They point out that the relationship between CO2 and global temperature is unclear and that the climate models currently in use are biased. When inputs and calculations say that CO2 drives temperature then the model’s only outcome is CO2 drives temperature.
To an climate activist every weather disaster is proof of man made climate change. Activists point to this year’s temperatures as proof but these climate scientists point out that the 1930s were far worst.
There will be political push back as well. Underdeveloped countries are going to increase their usage of fossil fuels in order to raise their people out of extreme poverty. The people of developed countries are not going to tolerate the working class becoming the working poor or the working poor becoming extreme poor. Activists may scream but their voices will be drowned out by the cries of hungry kids especially when the pain felt in developed countries is completely offset by increased emissions from other countries. This is far from being certain both scientifically and politically. I suspect the transition to alternative sources of energy will be far longer than anyone suspects.
5. A Changing Landscape. “While the new investing terrain is still emerging, some key aspects of the lay of the land can already be identified. Inflation may be higher and more volatile, due to constraints on commodities, the retooling of global supply chains, and other forces. Higher interest rates are likely to go hand in hand with higher inflation. While returns potential may face some headwinds from low productivity gains of recent years, other long-term trends could create pockets of compelling opportunity. And lower correlations may lead to greater opportunities to diversify portfolios by geographic exposure.”
Comment: True. But, this is more of a return to the norm than new investing terrain. I have thought for some time that the investment environment of the last 30 years with extraordinarily high P/E ratios were artificially created by near zero interest rates. It may be a long time before that happens again. |
|
|
|
Post by retiredat48 on Sept 1, 2023 5:27:00 GMT
@ Mustang ,... nice reply post.Guess that means I agree with a lot of your counter-balancing observations. R48 |
|
|
|
Post by archer on Sept 1, 2023 6:10:22 GMT
"While productivity gains have been low in recent years compared with history—"
The graph isn't showing a decline in productivity compared with history. If anything I would say the graph shows a slightly increased rate of productivity from '95 to present compared to '60-'95.
As for the future effect on markets, I agree a case could be made that profits will likely decline for the reasons the article states. On the other hand, the point of business is to make a profit. I would be careful not to underestimate business adaptability to changing environments.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnfish on Sept 1, 2023 11:52:50 GMT
Comment: True. But, this is more of a return to the norm than new investing terrain. I have thought for some time that the investment environment of the last 30 years with extraordinarily high P/E ratios were artificially created by near zero interest rates. It may be a long time before that happens again. I'm not sure about the last 30 years but certainly couldn't agree more with the unnecessary (at times) low rates for the last 20. |
|
|
|
Post by Mustang on Sept 7, 2023 14:34:25 GMT
Going back to #4. Decarbonization. There is nothing about about the climate policies being implemented that doesn't indicate higher inflation to me. In the US most of our goods, including food, is transported by truck. Here is an article about truckers' thoughts on the new EPA regulations. www.foxnews.com/media/trucker-warns-bidens-epa-regulations-catastrophic-american-food-supply"Despite the positive spin by the current administration, truckers say the agency's standards will promote green energy at the expense of the economy and the country's food supply... by complying with the EPA's clean energy mandates, many small trucking companies will be pushed out of the business, tightening trucking capacity nationwide and causing severe price inflation "worse than we have right now," which will be passed down to consumers... The EPA estimates the technology required to meet the new rule’s standards will cost between $2,568 and $8,304 per vehicle, but the American Truck Dealers Association (ATDA) estimates it is more likely a $42,000 increase per truck." "A new clean diesel long haul tractor typically costs in the range of $180,000 to $200,000," Kucharski said. "A comparable battery electric tractor costs upwards of $480,000, that's about a $300,000 upcharge, [which] is cost prohibitive for the overwhelming majority of motor carriers." "Kucharski said the driving range of electric trucks is nowhere close to gas and diesel powered vehicles and is simply "not practical" right now. The charge of an electric truck is about 10 hours and the distance could be about 150 miles to 300 miles," Kucharski said. "To give you an idea right now, one of our diesel trucks, when it fills out 300 gallons, it has a capacity to go 1,600 to 1,800 miles." "So these 300 miles, let's say you and I jump in a truck tomorrow, we have to go to Los Angeles from Chicago, we're barely out of the state of Illinois, let alone able get food to the West Coast or come back," he added." Everything indicates to me that inflation is going to raise its head again and there will be very little the Fed can do to tame it. |
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Sept 7, 2023 15:05:15 GMT
Going back to #4. Decarbonization. There is nothing about about the climate policies being implemented that doesn't indicate higher inflation to me. In the US most of our goods, including food, is transported by truck. Here is an article about truckers' thoughts on the new EPA regulations. www.foxnews.com/media/trucker-warns-bidens-epa-regulations-catastrophic-american-food-supply"Despite the positive spin by the current administration, truckers say the agency's standards will promote green energy at the expense of the economy and the country's food supply... by complying with the EPA's clean energy mandates, many small trucking companies will be pushed out of the business, tightening trucking capacity nationwide and causing severe price inflation "worse than we have right now," which will be passed down to consumers... The EPA estimates the technology required to meet the new rule’s standards will cost between $2,568 and $8,304 per vehicle, but the American Truck Dealers Association (ATDA) estimates it is more likely a $42,000 increase per truck." "A new clean diesel long haul tractor typically costs in the range of $180,000 to $200,000," Kucharski said. "A comparable battery electric tractor costs upwards of $480,000, that's about a $300,000 upcharge, [which] is cost prohibitive for the overwhelming majority of motor carriers." "Kucharski said the driving range of electric trucks is nowhere close to gas and diesel powered vehicles and is simply "not practical" right now. The charge of an electric truck is about 10 hours and the distance could be about 150 miles to 300 miles," Kucharski said. "To give you an idea right now, one of our diesel trucks, when it fills out 300 gallons, it has a capacity to go 1,600 to 1,800 miles." "So these 300 miles, let's say you and I jump in a truck tomorrow, we have to go to Los Angeles from Chicago, we're barely out of the state of Illinois, let alone able get food to the West Coast or come back," he added." Everything indicates to me that inflation is going to raise its head again and there will be very little the Fed can do to tame it.Diesel fuel and oil prices are becoming a big problem. I fear you could be correct. If the clowns that are blindly pushing electric big rigs have their way, we will pay for the $300k upcharge with extreme shipping costs, added infrastructure and added man-hours. THEY DO NOT CARE. |
|
|
|
Post by uncleharley on Sept 7, 2023 15:41:01 GMT
While hybrids are expensive, they seem to be competitive distance wise.
|
|
|
|
Post by archer on Sept 7, 2023 16:34:01 GMT
I don't think it feasible to use EV tech for long haul trucking. From the beginning Tesla was targeting short hauls.
I don't know how long it takes to charge a tractor, but I can imagine it would take several hours with current fast charging. This is time that currently the truck would be hauling. If they use battery changing, that would cut down the time, but then your looking at 2 battery packs per truck, or perhaps less, but definitely more than 1, which would add even more to the cost.
The issue with the feasibility isn't the size of the tractors but rather the constant use of the truck. That said, I'm not really sure what the hours per day trucks are operating. I don't know if the tractors work more than 1 shift per day. I would think they do. If I were running a trucking company, I wouldn't want tractors sitting around.
|
|
bruno
Lieutenant
Posts: 57
|
Post by bruno on Sept 7, 2023 17:11:15 GMT
I don't think it feasible to use EV tech for long haul trucking. For sure the truckers wont have to cheat on their daily logs.. |
|
|
|
Post by Mustang on Sept 7, 2023 17:41:52 GMT
I've got to stop reading the news. Its almost as if climate activists want the destruction of our economy. www.foxnews.com/politics/manchin-torch-biden-banning-oil-drilling-across-millions-acres-assault-economyWould someone in the administration please look at the actual science!!! If 1600 climate scientists including two Nobel prize winners say there is no climate crises maybe there isn't. I am tired of activists saying follow the science (until it disagrees with their agenda). We need to get hysteria out of it and actually look at the science. (refer to the previous post). "President Biden was heavily criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike for his administration's actions Wednesday, significantly curbing fossil fuel drilling in an oil-rich region of Alaska."
Note: It seems as if Executive Orders and regulation changes have taken the place of legislation.
"I can’t explain to the American people why we would willingly become more dependent on foreign oil imports, eliminate good paying American jobs and drive up the cost of our electric bills and gas prices across the country," Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said. "This is yet another example of this administration caving to the radical left with no regard for clear direction from Congress or American energy security." "Let’s be clear — this is another attempt to use executive action to circumvent a law to accomplish what this administration does not have the votes to achieve in Congress," he added. "Canceling valid leases, removing acreage from future sales, and attempting to reduce production in Alaska while taking steps to allow Iran and Venezuela to produce more oil — with fewer environmental regulations — makes no sense and is frankly embarrassing."
From the previous post: "The people of developed countries are not going to tolerate the working class becoming the working poor or the working poor becoming extreme poor. Activists may scream but their voices will be drowned out by the cries of hungry kids especially when the pain felt in developed countries is completely offset by increased emissions from other countries." Push back on the climate agenda is already starting.
|
|
|
|
Post by archer on Sept 7, 2023 18:02:23 GMT
So, are climate scientist changing their minds individually, or have 1600 climate scientist that haven't weighed in before now speaking up, thus shifting the collective science based view. In my mind 1600 scientists have discredited science and I have to view both sides of this issue, and science in general with a larger grain of salt.
I don't completely trust scientists to not be biased in their research, and definitely don't trust the news to be free of bias. It's no different than economists agreeing or not agreeing with each other, and the media that gives them voice looks at it from the perspective of what's the best clickbait.
One thing important to keep in mind with science is for the most part, it isn't very lucrative, so it goes to the best funding. I believe this is predominant in pharmacology and nutrition.
I never realized how cynical I am LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Sept 7, 2023 23:44:55 GMT
I don't think it feasible to use EV tech for long haul trucking. From the beginning Tesla was targeting short hauls. I don't know how long it takes to charge a tractor, but I can imagine it would take several hours with current fast charging. This is time that currently the truck would be hauling. If they use battery changing, that would cut down the time, but then your looking at 2 battery packs per truck, or perhaps less, but definitely more than 1, which would add even more to the cost. The issue with the feasibility isn't the size of the tractors but rather the constant use of the truck. That said, I'm not really sure what the hours per day trucks are operating. I don't know if the tractors work more than 1 shift per day. I would think they do. If I were running a trucking company, I wouldn't want tractors sitting around. In town delivery I can see the use of EVs. Bu they are expensive so it should be up to the business to pencil out the value of them. |
|
|
|
Post by mnfish on Sept 8, 2023 12:30:53 GMT
All one needs to do is look at the California Air Resources Board website and see the red tape involved and taxpayer money spent via rebates, loans, etc. No ICE vehicles to be sold after 2035. What will happen is that an ICE truck will meet an EV truck at the CA border and trade trailers so the freight can get to the rest of the country. |
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Sept 8, 2023 12:55:50 GMT
All one needs to do is look at the California Air Resources Board website and see the red tape involved and taxpayer money spent via rebates, loans, etc. No ICE vehicles to be sold after 2035. What will happen is that an ICE truck will meet an EV truck at the CA border and trade trailers so the freight can get to the rest of the country. Exactly and everyone knows that air respects borders. |
|
|
|
Post by Mustang on Sept 9, 2023 12:52:09 GMT
So, are climate scientist changing their minds individually, or have 1600 climate scientist that haven't weighed in before now speaking up, thus shifting the collective science based view. In my mind 1600 scientists have discredited science and I have to view both sides of this issue, and science in general with a larger grain of salt. I don't completely trust scientists to not be biased in their research, and definitely don't trust the news to be free of bias. It's no different than economists agreeing or not agreeing with each other, and the media that gives them voice looks at it from the perspective of what's the best clickbait. One thing important to keep in mind with science is for the most part, it isn't very lucrative, so it goes to the best funding. I believe this is predominant in pharmacology and nutrition. I never realized how cynical I am LOL!
"Patrick T. Brown, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and doctor of earth and climate sciences, admitted in an online article in The Free Press, a blog post and a series of social media posts that he distorted the findings of his studies to appeal to the editors at Nature and Science magazines, which are prestigious online science journals. "And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society," Brown wrote in The Free Press."
"Brown's study published in Nature on Aug. 30 stated that climate change affected extreme wildfire behavior like the devastating fires in California and Maui. The established scientist now admits that he "focused narrowly" only on the human influence of wildfires, instead of focusing broadly on the complexities of other "obviously relevant factors."
"He blamed his angle on the pressure scientists face to get their studies published in prestigious articles and the need to create catchy abstracts that can be turned into headlines... Brown said in The Free Press he is not "disowning" his paper by criticizing how he chose to approach the piece, but admitting it is less "useful than it could have been... Brown wrote that the study didn’t look at poor forest management and other factors that are just as important to fire behavior because he "knew that it would detract from the clean narrative centered on the negative impact of climate change and thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster with Nature’s editors and reviewers. [bold added]... He added such bias in climate science "misinforms the public" and "makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve."
Comment: Catchy abstracts that can be turned into headlines. Most people, including TV anchors and politicians, don't read beyond the headline. Misinforms the public. Why? To comply with preconceived biases in order to get published. Makes practical solutions more difficult. How about impossible. Biased science is affecting government policies! Policies that forces highly expensive, unready solutions that do little more than drive inflation making every person poorer in the process.
P.S. My wife used to work for the forest service. She often complains about the lack of proper forest management today. But findings like that doesn't get climate scientists published.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fearchar on Sept 9, 2023 13:39:26 GMT
Mustang, Unfortunately, Climate Science has devolved into a highly charged political matter. This is in no small part because there are significant economic interests, impacts and of course conflicts. To preserve harmony among us, I suggest limited discussion for this board.
|
|
|
|
Post by habsui on Sept 9, 2023 21:39:36 GMT
I had no idea that there isn't a climate crisis.
Good to know..
|
|
|
|
Post by Chahta on Sept 10, 2023 23:16:22 GMT
Mustang : "Everything indicates to me that inflation is going to raise its head again and there will be very little the Fed can do to tame it. Chahta : "Diesel fuel and oil prices are becoming a big problem. I fear you could be correct." ARTICLE
|
|
