Search results

All of them, I hope. It is waste to put CO2 anywhere but in the air. For a maximally green world, we would have CO2 concentration of at least 1300 ppmv. Unfortunately, there is not nearly a large enough URR of fossil fuels to get there, but let's get as close as we can. Astronomers say earth...

Hurricanes are just a coastal problem, and most years there are either none or only weak ones--I speak as one who grew up not far from the Texas coast. I would guess that most of Texas' wind turbines are probably on the plains in West Texas, where most of the wind is, and were GW Bush (the...

Texas produces a lot of grape fruit in the lower Rio Grande Valley.

Texas focused on maximizing efficiency while ignoring the robustness of the system, its ability to roll with the punches. This is a classic trade off. The decision makers may have been taking the global warmmunists seriously. For 20 years they told us we would all get warmer and warmer and...

And solar PV generates even more waste, among other problems with the green energy dream: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-reality-check AND https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/R-0319-MM.pdf

Governor George W. Bush made Texas the leader in wind turbine electricity. Any intermittent power source when fed into the grid makes it more vulnerable and harder to keep in balance. The scientifically illiterate lawyers (mostly) who make these laws don't understand electricity or how the...

Oh, please, you can't drive the stock of a financially viable company to zero. Even if you could (meaning the shares would be free for the asking!), as soon as the company earned a profit, the value would leap up again.

LTCM, run by nobel prize winning economists, had all its options carefully balanced so that nothing could go wrong, yet it not only failed in 1998, but very nearly brought the who global financial system down with it. Too much counterparty risk. And all those financial crises that swept so...

Indeed, the CIA war gamed financial warfare years ago, and it was shown to be a potent weapon. In fact, some observers think, based on evidence, that the 2008/09 calamity was triggered by the financial meddling of some unfriendly foreign power, but it is difficult to trace the money flows back...

What about Dick Fulde and Lehman Bros.??? Anyway, socializing losses just means you set the whole interconnected system up for a mega-collapse. Neither the Fed nor the US gov have infinite resources.

I view this as a disadvantage. They need to learn to manage the fear. Put some skin on the line.

With a micro lot, the new trader can risk the high leverage. Indeed, watching the wild swings in both directions that can come with high leverage will be a good education in managing risk. With a larger position, it could, of course, be disastrous, but a micro lot risks very little money per pip.

I vote for micro. Having some real money on the line will "concentrate the mind wonderfully," but the amount risked with one micro lot will not ruin the new trader.

Economies and markets move in cycles. We can't time those cycles precisely, but we can approximately. We can see when we are early or late in the cycle, and this one is clearly on its last legs. All the signs are there. I can't say for sure this year or next year, but no way will it go on for...

The Fed creates (through digital ledger entries) bank reserves, which are NOT part of the money supply. The Fed has very few tools at its disposal, and money printing is not one of them. Also, the Fed looks at PCE to determine inflation, not CPI. CPI is more of interest to the government...

Don't wrack your brain trying to figure this out. The number of cases is too small to draw a reliable conclusion one way or the other.

Actually, Dems tend to draw their supporters from both extremes of the social continuum, while Republicans tend to be the party of the broad middle class.

By the way, Keynes disagrees with YOU, not with him. Keynes said when the recession is over, the government *should* run budget surpluses and pay down the debt until the next recession.

Appeals to authority is a well known fallacy of logic. In fact, there are many historical examples of economy's growing without deficits. Further, just because the government borrows and spends the money instead of the private sector spending the money does not make the government spending...

Nothing baseless about those claims. There is lots of good evidence (including many sworn affidavits by witnesses), and the SCOTUS would have been forced to hear that evidence (focusing mass public attention on it) if they had not refused to hear the case (in striking contrast to a far more...