Tag: Economics

The Energy Industry arguments

Let me just start off by saying… Make it make sense to me everyone. I am NOT against ANY resource being utilized to provide some type of energy.

But seriously everyone, you have to think about what is going and think about it.

First, what is going on currently with Ukraine and Russia is terrible. War sucks regardless. The saddening part is that there’s always money to be made when there is a war. Largely the entities that benefit from wars going on is most of the time government’s, elites and elected officials – regardless. There’s always money made to be somewhere between the lines of wars. It’s what they call “smoke and mirrors” because us regular people do not know what actually happens behind the scenes. I will just leave it at that.

Second, the always unanswered question(s)… Why are we still paying to foreign countries to get oil/fuel from them? Why are we still IMPORTING oil/fuel from other countries? Why isn’t the United States of America producing, drilling, fracking, etc. the oil domestically? Forcing people to go to only one direction and only one resource or product (basically limiting the availability of options), hmmm. How has that ever helped any country when they only have 1 product and no freedom of choice of other options?

My main image cover for this particular blog is why I’m asking:

There was detailed report and research conducted back in 2011 (possibly earlier) through 2013 from the Institute for Energy Research. A report was prepared on October 29, 2013 and provided before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing on the North American Energy Infrastructure Act.

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. IER believes that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges and, as such, are critical to the well-being of individuals and society.

The president of this non-profit organization has stated a searchable fact that was conducted over time and makes me think twice (A LOT) of why people are trying to push only 1 or 2 types of a resource to use for energy. Here’s an excerpt from organization’s president, Thomas J. Pyle:

“In the last 100 years, America’s population has tripled. Life expectancy has increased by 70 percent. The productivity of the American people, measured in terms of real per-capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP), has increased by 600 percent. At the same time, we have consumed more than 340 billion barrels of oil, almost 60 billion short tons of coal, and more than 1,090 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These things are linked. Affordable and reliable energy is a crucial factor in making these and many other significant human, social and technological achievements possible.

Yet even with steadily increasing rates of economic and population growth, as well as increasing energy consumption, the United States today possesses greater recoverable supplies of oil, natural gas and coal than at any point in its recorded history. How can that be? Have vast new sources of hydrocarbon fuels magically materialized beneath our feet over the past 100 years? Or is it possible that, despite what you’ve read, heard and have been told, our continent has always had a lot more energy available to it than some would have us believe?

The answers lie in the data. In 1980, official estimates of proved oil reserves in the United States stood at roughly 30 billion barrels. Yet over the past 30 years, more than 77 billion barrels of oil have been produced here. In other words, over the last 30 years, the United States produced more than two and a half times the proved reserves we thought we had available in 1980. Thanks to new and continuing innovations in exploration and production technology, there’s every reason to believe that today’s estimates of reserves are only a fraction of what will be produced and delivered tomorrow—not only here in the United States, but across the entire North American continent.

Unfortunately, even as updated data show plentiful future supplies of domestic energy, driven by new technologies, a significant movement has emerged. This movement’s mission is to advance and perpetuate falsehoods and inaccuracies with respect to the volume and availability of energy resources in and under our country and continent.

The movement is coordinated, orchestrated and well-funded to create the illusion of scarcity that empowers government to deny citizens access to affordable, reliable and much-needed energy. Furthermore, using supposed scarcity as an excuse, politicians and government agencies justify increasing the power and budget of government while substituting their politically-favored energy choices for those chosen by consumers.

“If America only possesses two to three percent of the world’s oil,” they ask, “why bother to unlock additional acreage for future exploration?” If the world is running out of hydrocarbon fuels, why not insist that government spend billions of dollars to subsidize politically well-connected sources of “alternative” energy? This, they argue, is the justification for spending and mandating the use of energy supplies that otherwise could not survive in a market economy where consumers make their own energy decisions based upon availability and price.

For some, the benefits associated with advancing this agenda are financial. For others, they are ideological. Access to affordable, abundant energy is, fundamentally, a means of freedom. But for those seeking to create a crisis that provides an opportunity to direct the way we live, work and act, affordable, reliable, abundant, domestic energy is a threat. In a very real sense, the more energy we have, the less power they will have. Energy abundance ends the justification for central energy decision-making…”

So what stuck out to what Mr. Pyle has said in the above paragraphs caught my eye: “Access to affordable, abundant energy is, fundamentally, a means of freedom. But for those seeking to create a crisis that provides an opportunity to direct the way we live, work and act, affordable, reliable, abundant, domestic energy is a threat. In a very real sense, the more energy we have, the less power they will have. Energy abundance ends the justification for central energy decision-making.”

Again, referring back to my second topic of “unanswered question(s)”… Why are we still paying to foreign countries to get oil/fuel from them? Why are we still IMPORTING oil/fuel from other countries? Why isn’t the United States of America producing, drilling, fracking, etc. the oil domestically? Forcing people to go to only one direction and only one resource or product (basically limiting the availability of options), hmmm. How has that ever helped any country when they only have 1 product and no freedom of choice of other options?

Let me paint you the picture of some people out there who are out of touch with reality, who cannot understand regular folks who strive, persevere and try any means necessary to make an honest living…

Another interesting report I stumbled upon from the IER – The 100 Percent Renewable Energy Myth

On page 4 of the 100 Percent Renewable Energy Myth report PDF

Even Elon Musk said this…

Again, I say… Make it make sense to me everyone. I am NOT against ANY resource being utilized to provide some type of energy. I’m all for having an availability of options and choices for me and EVERYONE else to freely choose what we all want to use. Technology now is a WHOLE LOT different as it was before and in the past.

I will end here with some interesting news articles and opinions I’ve come across:

Venezuela could be a fill-in for Russian oil, but critics fear aiding another strongman.

Opinion – Biden’s Bizarre Oil Diplomacy

U.S. Officials Meet With Regime in Venezuela, to Discuss Oil Exports to Replace Russia’s

Milton Friedman, video, “Money and Inflation”

Milton Friedman was an American economist and statistician who received the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his research on consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and the complexity of stabilization policy.

The video below is about 1 hour and 26 minutes long, it is very informational. Please take the time to watch it as it is also educational.

Biden possibly proposing tax rate as high as 43.4% in Next Economic Package

So earlier today Biden has indicated an increase to the capital gains tax on the “wealthy”. Oh come on, really? Are you sure it’s only going to be on the “wealthy”? We shall see in practice is this gets pushed through and passes through Congress – if they still going through passing legislature in Congress.

With the amount of Executive Orders Biden has signed, I cannot keep up nor how many has been signed already.

Bloomberg – Biden Eyeing Tax Rate as High as 43.4% in Next Economic Package

So here’s a thought that just came to my mind as I watched the video above via Bloomberg Quicktake’s Tweet… If they supposedly state that Biden will raise the tax on the wealthy and not increase the taxes on the individuals / families making less than $400,00… To me I see it as a double edge sword. How so? Let me think out loud here…

Taxes increase on the wealthy who make $400,000 and more ~ Of course the wealthy can afford anything even some middle class persons if knowledgeable enough and well connected to seek out financial advice to see how to lower their taxes overall. Example if I’m going to make big bucks – I would see what’s out there financial planning wise to lower what I would owe in taxes so I can be able to have more disposable income (more money to spend on whatever I choose to). I mean lots of investment income encompasses investment losses. So I’m sure plenty of financial savvy folks will utilize investment losses to lessen or lower their tax rates in response to this.

Or if anything, the people who financially proficient will probably just pack up and leave… then who then will the Federal Government go after to tax to get money into the big government…? The people next down – making less than the “wealthy”. As I heard the phrase before – “shit rolls downhill”.

Have to reference back to my previous blog because this really does relate to what our President is doing now: Tax Rates – The Laffer Curve

Thomas Sowell is a gem

A very good interview with American Economist, Mr. Thomas Sowell. He’s born in the 1930’s and he’s well in his 80’s today. Still a very intelligent and a wonderful individual. This is one of many interviews I have seen of Mr. Thomas Sowell. He is truly a gem for this period, among others of course.

He has argued that it is a propaganda tactic akin to those used by Joseph Goebbels because it comes with an attitude that it must be “repeated long enough and loud enough” till it is believed and people “cave in” to it (Wikipedia).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell