The Biden administration and its many friends in Congress talk of “retaliation” against Saudi Arabia. But is an exhausted American imperium really in a position to throw around such lazy language?
Oh yeah, let's retaliate by cutting off arms shipments that the Saudis pay for! Brilliant way to get them to buy from our good buddies Russia who we want to punish. The Sauds are in a perpetual cold war with Iran who happens to wish evil on the little Satan, Israel and the big one, the US. The enemy of my ....
The inane policy choices of Biden's crew early on made the in-progress petro mess. It was already floundering from ESG policies pushed by Blackrock among others restricted investment in fuel ventures. The capital required for fuel production is high, along with the risks. Generally more than even Exxon can handle completely let alone the smaller guys. That ESG push was happening as Trump took office. I suspect it wasn't on his radar in spite of a minor decline in fuels production, we were OK. But exploration, drilling, extracting take time and money. That would have been visible as the pandemic arrived and we stopped the world for a bit.
With a recovering economy and growth despite producing at near 2019 level, it was not enough and the work to prepare for that growth didn't happen. Shortages lead to price hikes. Worse during the pandemic we shuttered wells and smaller producers died. Restarts are near impossible. Adding to that the Biden policy made any investment even more risky and eliminating leases made it worse.
My solace lies in some lovely holding of Exxon which is now more than capable of paying their clockwork dividends. For a bit, they were borrowing money to pay dividends! A lot of retirees like me, kinda need them. Even the forced (by Blackrock) new Exxon ESG company directors have set aside ESG for the moment given the crisis.
We and Germany are learning that green energy hasn't arrived. Amazon can't deliver energy overnight. The transition was happening as it was making some economic success. Imagining government policy could propel it faster than the economics allowed was foolish. I suspect the grand plans for Detroit EVs will result in a lot of wasted capital trying to dig the needed material out of the ground, but not my area. I think there is a viable, sustainable path with hydrogen after we create the needed technology. History says that development takes whatever time it takes and policy pronouncements without a huge investment effort won't get it faster.
With $30T in debt projects like the Manhattan or Moon projects are near impossible. Just wait and see what Congress does when debt service interest explodes to consume outlays.
"The transition was happening" in its own, decentralized way. Indeed.
I might put out very short piece that takes up this theme. The context: Foreign Policy magazine just put out an issue about "How we can feed the world." It is all about technocratic/centralized solutions that, ironically, piggy-back off of private initiatives. So, like, why not just let private initiatives do their own thing rather than fold them into (and pervert them within) government programs?
Centralized solution can never embody the creativity of the guy doing the actual work. In terms of feeding the world I'm pleased to see those huge greenhouse factory farms using vertical technology and a high degree of recycling/refreshment of soil/water. Much of he complex is solar powered nearly self contained. I imagine we still need better information on how to create highly nutritious foods via soil processing. Turns out soil is a complex organizer itself teaming with it's own lifeforms.
I have thrown some money at crowd funding of companies improving farm ag with sensors, greater automation and resource controls. I see robots arriving that can roam fields squirting nutrition and pesticides exactly where and when needed. I suppose we will have robot to harvest the fields as well. I'm not in the game myself, but if I were a younger person, I'd want to be trying to contribute.
The amount of integration needed for ag is stunning. No way can a group of people stuck in cubes will get answers or solutions. I can see teams of people working if the capital can see a way to profit. I can see government has a role in advancing technologies that are well beyond risk capital. Nearly all basic research is in that that area. As things move into applied research industrial companies once were leads but government has stepped in and disincentivised that private capital work, not sure why. Tax policy? Bell labs anybody? The market & short termism?
I very much agree with that "Austrian" view. Von Mises noted in passing that the proponents of centralization don't appreciate dynamic considerations like innovation. But, I appreciate that development economists William Easterly and Dani Rodrik appreciate that neo-classical economics also doesn't have good theories of innovation and growth. Where does all the good stuff come from? It's hard to model.
I remember reading someone remarking about the Soviet Union: It was good at developing all of types of electronics for military applications, but it couldn't commercialize a toaster.
Please. I had the opportunity to tear down and study a Russia laser ~ 1971. In those days lasers were just arriving commercially. The Hi-V section was marginal at best and had a fairly short useful life given it's design. They did quite well with the machining of critical alignment parts but the optics were not the best quality. Quite a solid functional design without many frills well copied from US similar models. I think they had less access to quality electronic parts but the Russia made parts were adequate.
A friend showed me some Russian vehicle stuff. The machining was well done on the parts needing that smoothness and fit, but completely ignored elsewhere. Not much for aesthetics but for function. No idea how appearance matters to a soldier but suspect they might take more care of a carefully crafted thing.
Innovation to me arrives from some inspiration related to solving some problem. Not sure it's a group creation although groups can help inspiration - thinking about an issue. It also depends on a knowledge base, the wider the better. i can recall the guys in our lab asking what shall we invent this week, somewhat tongue in cheek. Some things we tried to do were not easy at all. Alas, their are dead horses along the way of trying. Another saying was don't forget where you buried that dead horse.
Oh yeah, let's retaliate by cutting off arms shipments that the Saudis pay for! Brilliant way to get them to buy from our good buddies Russia who we want to punish. The Sauds are in a perpetual cold war with Iran who happens to wish evil on the little Satan, Israel and the big one, the US. The enemy of my ....
The inane policy choices of Biden's crew early on made the in-progress petro mess. It was already floundering from ESG policies pushed by Blackrock among others restricted investment in fuel ventures. The capital required for fuel production is high, along with the risks. Generally more than even Exxon can handle completely let alone the smaller guys. That ESG push was happening as Trump took office. I suspect it wasn't on his radar in spite of a minor decline in fuels production, we were OK. But exploration, drilling, extracting take time and money. That would have been visible as the pandemic arrived and we stopped the world for a bit.
With a recovering economy and growth despite producing at near 2019 level, it was not enough and the work to prepare for that growth didn't happen. Shortages lead to price hikes. Worse during the pandemic we shuttered wells and smaller producers died. Restarts are near impossible. Adding to that the Biden policy made any investment even more risky and eliminating leases made it worse.
My solace lies in some lovely holding of Exxon which is now more than capable of paying their clockwork dividends. For a bit, they were borrowing money to pay dividends! A lot of retirees like me, kinda need them. Even the forced (by Blackrock) new Exxon ESG company directors have set aside ESG for the moment given the crisis.
We and Germany are learning that green energy hasn't arrived. Amazon can't deliver energy overnight. The transition was happening as it was making some economic success. Imagining government policy could propel it faster than the economics allowed was foolish. I suspect the grand plans for Detroit EVs will result in a lot of wasted capital trying to dig the needed material out of the ground, but not my area. I think there is a viable, sustainable path with hydrogen after we create the needed technology. History says that development takes whatever time it takes and policy pronouncements without a huge investment effort won't get it faster.
With $30T in debt projects like the Manhattan or Moon projects are near impossible. Just wait and see what Congress does when debt service interest explodes to consume outlays.
"The transition was happening" in its own, decentralized way. Indeed.
I might put out very short piece that takes up this theme. The context: Foreign Policy magazine just put out an issue about "How we can feed the world." It is all about technocratic/centralized solutions that, ironically, piggy-back off of private initiatives. So, like, why not just let private initiatives do their own thing rather than fold them into (and pervert them within) government programs?
Centralized solution can never embody the creativity of the guy doing the actual work. In terms of feeding the world I'm pleased to see those huge greenhouse factory farms using vertical technology and a high degree of recycling/refreshment of soil/water. Much of he complex is solar powered nearly self contained. I imagine we still need better information on how to create highly nutritious foods via soil processing. Turns out soil is a complex organizer itself teaming with it's own lifeforms.
I have thrown some money at crowd funding of companies improving farm ag with sensors, greater automation and resource controls. I see robots arriving that can roam fields squirting nutrition and pesticides exactly where and when needed. I suppose we will have robot to harvest the fields as well. I'm not in the game myself, but if I were a younger person, I'd want to be trying to contribute.
The amount of integration needed for ag is stunning. No way can a group of people stuck in cubes will get answers or solutions. I can see teams of people working if the capital can see a way to profit. I can see government has a role in advancing technologies that are well beyond risk capital. Nearly all basic research is in that that area. As things move into applied research industrial companies once were leads but government has stepped in and disincentivised that private capital work, not sure why. Tax policy? Bell labs anybody? The market & short termism?
I very much agree with that "Austrian" view. Von Mises noted in passing that the proponents of centralization don't appreciate dynamic considerations like innovation. But, I appreciate that development economists William Easterly and Dani Rodrik appreciate that neo-classical economics also doesn't have good theories of innovation and growth. Where does all the good stuff come from? It's hard to model.
I remember reading someone remarking about the Soviet Union: It was good at developing all of types of electronics for military applications, but it couldn't commercialize a toaster.
Please. I had the opportunity to tear down and study a Russia laser ~ 1971. In those days lasers were just arriving commercially. The Hi-V section was marginal at best and had a fairly short useful life given it's design. They did quite well with the machining of critical alignment parts but the optics were not the best quality. Quite a solid functional design without many frills well copied from US similar models. I think they had less access to quality electronic parts but the Russia made parts were adequate.
A friend showed me some Russian vehicle stuff. The machining was well done on the parts needing that smoothness and fit, but completely ignored elsewhere. Not much for aesthetics but for function. No idea how appearance matters to a soldier but suspect they might take more care of a carefully crafted thing.
Innovation to me arrives from some inspiration related to solving some problem. Not sure it's a group creation although groups can help inspiration - thinking about an issue. It also depends on a knowledge base, the wider the better. i can recall the guys in our lab asking what shall we invent this week, somewhat tongue in cheek. Some things we tried to do were not easy at all. Alas, their are dead horses along the way of trying. Another saying was don't forget where you buried that dead horse.