Investors: We'd like to build zero-emissions, baseload power stations to provide affordable electricity to consumers.
Politician: There's no market for that in Australia. //
This article by James Fleay of DUNE – Down Under Nuclear Energy looks at investment in nuclear energy on the National Electricity Market.
Nuclear energy is clean, cheap, reliable and safe.
Like many advocates for nuclear energy in Australia, my colleagues and I believed that if the Federal Government would only repeal the ban on nuclear power, business or state governments would eagerly build nuclear power plants (NPPs) to rapidly cut emissions, reduce power prices and improve network reliability. In fact, this belief prompted the creation of DUNE a company formed to study the investment case and present the facts to politicians and power market participants.
After all, being thus informed, they would hasten to repeal said law…right? How wrong we were.
The federal ban is only the first challenge to deploying clean, cheap and reliable power in Australia. The second, and much bigger problem, is our liberalised, energy-only National Electricity Market (NEM) and the out-of-market subsidies that provide additional revenue to solar and wind generators. Dr Kerry Schott, the chief advisor the Energy Security Board (ESB) recently confirmed this in an article in The Australian. Among other things, she confirmed that the NEM was not functioning to attract much needed new investment in “always on” power generation. Despite high power prices and a need for investment in “always on” generation, our NEM market design will not support NPP investment[1].
Delta's research is based on its business customers saying what they're going to do in the future. 40% say they'll be back to normal flying by 2022. I don't even know how I'm going to behave next week. //
Then again, I do believe there'll soon be enormous enthusiasm for getting away from it all to anywhere sunny that'll let us in. Just so we can breathe quietly and forget 2020.
Wouldn't it be a beautiful twist of fortune if, in the near future, companies worked far harder at getting their employees to fly away and relax with their loved ones, rather than to eat steak and drink whiskey with someone they don't even like?
CBS News
@CBSNews
Biden minimum wage proposal could lift more than 1 million workers out of poverty //
From CBS:
The CBO also estimated the move would cost 1.3 million American jobs, a claim long made by conservative economists. Mr. Biden’s call to boost the minimum wage to $15 an hour “is the absolute last thing that unemployed workers need right now,” Michael Farren, an economist with the right-leaning Mercatus Center at George Mason University, said in an email. “After all, they can’t benefit from higher wages if those higher wages result in slower job growth.” //
TheRightWingM 🇺🇸
@TheRightWingM
Replying to @CBSNews
We need to pull a million people slightly over this arbitrary poverty line so we can put 1.3 million out of work & into poverty. Great work Joe & CBS! //
Reverend Doctor Jill Biden Derek Hunter
@derekahunter
Hell, then he should raise it to $50 and raise everyone out of poverty, since there's no downside and no one would lose their jobs, especially now. #EconomicIlliterates
“It’s not right for individuals to accumulate a massive amount of wealth that’s equivalent to millions and millions of other people combined. There’s nothing fair about that.
“We saw that at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries with the Rockefellers and Carnegies and Mellons and Fords of the world. That kind of accumulation of wealth is dangerous for a society. It shouldn’t be this way.”
Coupla questions.
-
What is unfair about family wealth remaining within the family that created it?
-
What is fair about taking that wealth from that family and arbitrarily redistributing it to random strangers?
-
Why is retained family wealth dangerous for a society?
-
Why shouldn’t it be this way, and who should determine that it won’t?
Renowned economists Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams said it best.
Thomas Sowell.
“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”
And Dr. Williams:
“But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you — and why?”
This is the kind of (expletive deleted) garbage (expletive deleted) legislation these (expletive deleted) politicians concoct in the name of serving the public. Impeach them all, burn the place to the ground, and salt the swamp when finished. This is utter and consummate trash.
The world this week lost a great defender of economic freedom with the passing of the great American economist Walter E. Williams. He was 84.
Williams’ legacy will be one of fighting for lasting liberty at every turn against those who would be dictators over their fellow man.
As an economics professor at George Mason University, Williams gave numerous speeches at The Heritage Foundation over the years, and he always had fascinating things to say. His mind was sharp and clear as he saw things for the way they are, putting him at odds with those seeking Big Government policies for shortsighted solutions.
There have been only a small number of economists in modern times who have challenged and overturned more wrongheaded economic thinking than Williams. //
In his December 2019 column “Why Capitalism Is Morally Superior to Other Systems,” Williams made a succinct case for free-market capitalism for young people by pointing out:
Free markets are morally superior to other economic systems … . In a word or so, our protest should not be against capitalism. People should protest crony capitalism, where people use the political arena to buy government favors.
If millennials and others want to wage war against government favors and crony capitalism, I’m with them 100%. But I’m all too afraid that anti-capitalists just want their share of the government loot.
Yesterday, the House passed — unanimously — a new law imposing United States accounting standards on all foreign companies that are listed on US stock exchanges.
The Senate has already passed the bill — also unanimously — and Pres. Trump is expected to sign it into law without delay.
The bill, the “Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act,” requires that any foreign companies traded on US stock exchanges must prepare financial disclosures and audits in compliance with US accounting standards. The consequence of a failure to comply is that the company will be delisted by the exchanges. Compliance is to be enforced by the SEC in the same manner that it enforces accounting and audit standards on US companies.
It is no secret that the legislation is aimed squarely at Chinese companies that have listed themselves on US stock exchanges in order to access US capital markets. One provision in the new statute requires Chinese companies specifically to identify any Directors who are members of the Chinese Communist Party.
Most foreign companies traded on US exchanges already comply with US accounting standards, as most have operations inside the United States.
But Chinese owned companies operate under Chinese laws that prevent corporate records and audit papers from leaving China. In most respects, this leaves investors who purchase shares in the companies largely in the dark as to whether the company’s publicly reported financial condition is a true reflection of its actual financial condition. //
According to a government report, there are 217 Chinese companies listed on NASDAQ, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), and NYSE American, with a total market capitalization of $2.2 trillion. Some are also traded on foreign exchanges, and may simply allow themselves to be delisted in the United States while remaining on those foreign exchanges.
But the US stock exchange markets have one significant difference from most foreign exchanges — companies are allowed to become publicly traded before they show net profitability, unlike in many foreign stock exchange markets. This allows start-up companies — often companies with cutting-edge technology advances — to go into the equities markets to raise money from investors for development and advancement based on projected future earnings.
Taking this action will likely result in greater Chinese government financing of developing companies in China — with the risk of failure to rest on the Chinese government rather than investors in United States equities markets. The Chinese had adamantly worked to prevent the passage of this legislation, and there is much uncertainty about how China might react — especially in response to a Biden Administration (maybe).
Playwright David Mamet (who is not a conservative) writing in the Wall Street Journal comes to a different conclusion. Our experts are making bad decisions because that is all they know how to do.
We have seen shameless incompetence rewarded before.
Consider Prof. Frederick Lindemann, a close adviser to Winston Churchill during World War II. He treasured his access to the prime minister. Experts couldn’t get near Churchill unless they came through Lindemann. He feuded with everybody he perceived to be a threat, and was especially threatened by Sir Henry Tizard, who helped to develop radar, one of the most useful tools in the war effort. Naturally Lindemann mocked it. Later, Lindemann dismissed the possibility that the Germans were developing a liquid-fueled rocket capable of bombing London—the V-2.
Lindemann was feted and honored to the end of his days.
Or consider Joseph Stalin’s science adviser, Trofim Lysenko. He, too, had complete access to the boss. He believed that plants, like good Communists, could be educated—that peas and wheat could be trained to grow in winter. The Soviet ministry of agriculture, acting on Lysenko’s bogus theories, managed to ruin crops all over Eurasia and starve as many as 10 million people. Later his ideas influenced agriculture policy in Mao’s China and killed several million more.
Lysenko was a talented flatterer. He outlived Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev, dying peacefully in 1976.
Now we have climate change and its attendant alarmists. In 2001 a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change highlighted a recent study claiming that the Earth’s temperature had risen dramatically during the period coincident with the introduction of fossil fuels—the famous “hockey stick graph.” The news media, backed by those parts of the “scientific community” the media chose to honor, presented this analysis as though it were indisputable fact. In fact, it was riddled with problems. That would have been fine—no harm done—except that the American left, and the running dogs in education and the press, saw the fear occasioned by the hockey stick as an opportunity. No correction was forthcoming.
Most recently we have Covid-19. The New England Journal of Medicine reports that masks are useless outside health-care facilities, that there is little possibility of catching the virus from a “passing interaction in a public place.” Happy news, save that they, one week later, issued a squishy semiretraction, saying, in effect, “It couldn’t hurt.”
What could the shutdown hurt? A pandemic was allowed to destroy the American economy. Tens of millions are driven out of work, cover their faces, and walk down the streets in fear of their neighbors.
A friend owns a restaurant. He is going broke. He had seating outside, but winter approaches and heaters are back-ordered until next spring. He is holding on. One is “permitted” to sit at his tables and eat without a mask. Indeed, how would one eat while wearing one? Does the virus know that one is sitting down?
He greeted two regular customers the other night, and sat at their table to chat. He took off his mask. The customer informed him that the regulations stated that employees of a restaurant are required by law to wear masks at all times. The owner put his mask on and rose. But does the virus know he is an employee of the restaurant? With whom would he argue, being an employee and a proprietor? With the virus?
The virus here is government—or at least the incompetents who advise our rulers and cannot admit the legitimacy of dissension. Absent intervention, this virus may eventually kill the host organism.
There is abundant evidence showing how hydrocarbon interests have worked to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about nuclear power. Since the stories are spread over the 80 year period since atomic fission was discovered to be an incredibly dense source of heat, they can be overlooked or forgotten. For obvious reasons, there has been some effort to obscure the truth so researchers have to dig and keep working to get attention for their findings.
It’s completely logical to believe that at least some of the people whose jobs, wealth and power stem from one of the world’s largest enterprises recognize and respond to the competitive threat from nuclear energy.
It doesn’t take much of an exercise in deductive thinking to recognize that some of the people who have financial reasons to discourage nuclear energy will build support for their cause by making financial contributions to respected charities. Buying friends among groups that campaign for wildlife or for environmental protection is an investment that can provide major returns when it protects hydrocarbon markets from nuclear energy competition. //
Even though industrial civilization depends on energy and fuel supply enterprises are enormous, PROFITS from the business are elusive. It is well known to be a “boom and bust” business. Busts nearly always occur as a result of an overabundance (glut). When supplies exceed demand by just a few percentage points, it doesn’t take long for storage systems to fill up.
When that happens, prices fall precipitously.
Anticipation of a glut from new sources of supply can be enough to cause a substantial market price reduction. Conversely, anticipation of future shortages can produce almost unbelievable cash flows as prices rise when customers build inventories in fear of insufficient supplies.
Nuclear energy continues to pose the threat of making enormous capital investments worth less. When a entire countries like France or Sweden can shift almost all electricity production from coal and oil to nuclear over a 15 year period, it makes bankers, fossil fuel CEOs, sheiks, oligarchs, prime ministers, and others take action to prevent the possibility that others will “get it.”
I’m not sure how to overcome this obstacle to developing clean, abundant, reliable and affordable power, but I am hoping that increased recognition will help.
Over the last four years, Trump has broken through wall after wall of impossibility according to the left. First, the Dow broke 20,000, then 25,000. //
As SARS-CoV-2 spread across the globe and the American economy took a dive, the left practically had a collective orgasm as a result of the tumble of the market. When the market dipped below 19,000 in March 2020, they all crowed about how it was Trump’s economic policies that put us there. There were predictions that the economy would take years to recover to the point it was before the virus and placed the blame at the feet of Trump.
Now here we are, celebrating the DJIA breaking 30,000, again a feat we were told was not possible. Remember, in March when the Dow fell from 29,551 to 18,591 erasing all of Trump’s stock market gains since 2017, the left was convinced that they had proven Trump’s economy to be a myth. Not only did the stock market recover, but it also recovered in just 8 months. That wasn’t Joe Biden. That wasn’t the Democrats. That was President Trump’s doing. For comparison, it took Obama over 4 years to recover 7,000 points in loss from 2008, or roughly 50% of the market.
“Deutsche Bank unveiled a new report Tuesday that said people who choose to work from home should be taxed 5% of their salary, with the revenue generated going to help people who cannot work from home.
“The report states a 5% ‘privilege’ tax could benefit workers who don’t have the opportunity to stay home.” //
This tax is another form of tyranny; a way for the government to dictate how your income can be spent, and to diminish the incentives for making the choice to work on your own. It’s a naked incursion on your economic freedom. //
It also punishes ingenuity and the ability to hustle. Independent work separates the worker bee from the drone. People who have (or want to have) the ability to further themselves, are the ones that think outside the box, and find creative ways to get and keep work on their terms; those that need the structure of time, place, and job description are cut from a different cloth. Both serve and contribute to the economy, and to the community. One should not be penalized for the benefit of the other.
This Privilege Tax, the PRO Act, and S.4378 only serve to reward and codify one model, and eliminate the other.
Mark my words: A Biden-Harris administration will work to restrict any form of business that does not involve Labor Union control, and these bills and proposals are the tools in their arsenal.
National Economy: Direction
Registered Voters
Jan. 01, 2016 — Oct. 30, 2020:412,238 Responses
Do you think the nation's economy is getting better or worse?
“Our insurance company is finding their way out so they don’t have to pay for all this arson,” Khindri wrote on Car Source’s Go Fund Me fundraising page.
Now, Khindri is working with a lawyer to convince his insurer to cover at least some of the damages, which he estimates to total about $2.5 million.
Khindri did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment on the situation.
However, Khindri told Kenosha News that the city is pressuring him to clean up his lot and remove the burned vehicles.
“He didn’t do this,” John Morrissey, director of Kenosha’s Department of City Inspections, told Kenosha News. “We understand that. But he does have to clean it up.”
But the problem is, Khindri told the newspaper, “if something does go through, the [insurance] adjuster is going to come … to look at the cars” and assess the damage. The adjuster can’t do that if the owners remove the vehicles, he said.
His burned-out dealership “does look bad, but [the city] let it all happen,” Khindri said. “They don’t want to admit it.”
The number of gasoline stations in the United States has been declining since 1994 when there were over 200,000 stations. From 2003 to 2006, those declines leveled off and in 2005, the number of stations increased slightly. However, since 2005, the number of stations has begun to decline again with a loss of more than 9,000 stations from 2010 to 2011.
As of 2016, there were approximately 111,100 such establishments across the United States.
Would you close down the oil industry?” Trump asked Biden.
“I would transition from the oil industry, yes,” Biden replied.
“Why would you do that?” Welker asked.
“Because the oil industry pollutes significantly,” Biden explained.
Biden said he would stop giving them federal subsidies.
Trump highlighted it for voters. “That’s maybe the biggest statement in terms of business … because basically what he said is he is going to destroy the oil industry. Will you remember that, Texas? Will you remember that Pennsylvania, Oklahoma?”
You could see Trump’s face, he knew that Biden had just committed electoral suicide with that remark, you could see him thinking, “I just won Pennsylvania with that remark.” Even the moderator Kristen Welker, couldn’t quite believe that Biden went there and actually said it.
Ahh, 2020 you magnificent $%^& *#$% don’t you ever change.
Well, after all the countries made a mad dash to close down their economies and threaten people to stay home or be harassed by the MAKS MOB, now comes word that the W.H.O. decides that maybe that wasn’t the best plan?
Ya think!?!?!?!?!
Right from the News of Australia down under…
The World Health Organisation has backflipped on its original COVID-19 stance after calling for world leaders to stop locking down their countries and economies.
Dr. David Nabarro from the WHO appealed to world leaders yesterday, telling them to stop “using lockdowns as your primary control method” of the coronavirus.
He also claimed that the only thing lockdowns achieved was poverty – with no mention of the potential lives saved.
“Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer,” he said.
“We in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr Nabarro told The Spectator.
“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”
In fact, 2019 was actually an historic year for ALL Americans living standards. It was the best year for household economic gains in over 50 years!
The official poverty rate fell to an all-time record low of 10.5 percent in 2019. Over 4 million people were lifted out of poverty between 2018 and 2019 for a 1.3 percentage point decrease. This was the largest reduction in poverty in over 50 years. Minority groups led the way in poverty alleviation. Compared to the overall poverty rate reduction of 1.3 percentage points, black poverty fell by 2.0 percentage points, Hispanic poverty fell by 1.8 percentage points, and Asian poverty fell by 2.8 percentage points. The poverty rate fell to an all-time record low for every race and ethnic group in 2019. Notably, the black poverty rate fell below 20 percent for the first time in history. Income gains in 2019 were largest for minority groups. Real median income grew by 7.9 percent for black Americans, 7.1 percent for Hispanic Americans, and 10.6 percent for Asian Americans. These one-year increases were all record highs, and the new income levels reached in 2019 were all record highs as well.
The gains from 2019 are significant. Real median household income increased $4,400 to a record high of $68,700. This is an almost 7% increase from 2018; the largest one year increase on record.
Government is awful at…everything.
Government price setting/regulating/capping…is awful squared.
Why is price setting awful?
Because it is impossible to do it even remotely accurately.
There are a multitude of market factors that coalesce into the price of a widget at any given moment.
These multitudinous market factors – are constantly changing. So the price of the widget is constantly changing – from moment to moment, over and over and over again.
So the price government artificially sets yesterday – may be way too low today. AND way too high tomorrow. There are simply too many variables at play.
Markets set prices WAY better.
And prices need to reflect future expenses – not just past expenses.
To wit: Gasoline. The price at the pump doesn’t reflect how much the last oil barrel was – it reflects how much the next oil barrel will be.
The price of a widget – has to reflect how much it will cost to make the next widget. //
Thomas Sowell wisely noted:
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”
Eight Percent > Four Percent //
federal tax revenues increased by four percent in 2019, reaching the highest level in American history. Republicans cut taxes (every single Democrat voted no), the economy grew, employment soared, and the federal government is now collecting more money in tax revenues than ever before. And yet, that same federal government is running a growing deficit, with the debt mushrooming, all in a period of prosperity and relative peace. Why? It's manifestly not because of the tax cuts. It's because Uncle Sam is spending way too much, with the top drivers of the debt being...unsustainable and ballooning entitlement programs, and interest payments on the debt. This is basic stuff to people who pay attention to our worsening fiscal mess, but it's diametrically opposed to the rhetoric of leading Democrats.