The Biden Economy

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

I guess you didn't bother reading my post, where I included Trump. Also, again if you bothered to read it, you would have seen the beginning of current spike in gas prices began in early 2021, right after the current admin's efforts to decrease supply began. The info I provided is from a non political site, not from an opinion blog from a left leaning news site.

I read your post including Trump's share of the blame, as you assigned.

Just that I totally disagree with you regarding the Keystone or suspending leases leading to spike in gasoline cost. This was mostly due to oil producing countries having gone through the Covid shutdown when their revenues dropped to nothing and now making up for lost time, along with the usual oil company gouging. And Keystone crude oil (shale oil from Canada, not US) was never going to end up in our gas station to begin with. Even otherwise, it would have taken several years before the pipeline was completed to have any effect on our oil supply. So I call that a BS.

So Keystone is yet another Benghazi type scare mongering for the Fright wing. More on Keystone:

The takedown of the notorious Keystone XL (KXL) tar sands pipeline will go down as one of this generation’s most monumental environmental victories. After more than 10 years of tenacious protests, drawn-out legal battles, and flip-flopping executive orders spanning three presidential administrations, the Keystone XL pipeline is now gone for good.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipeline

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by whell

It's only disingenuous if you're only capable of only looking at one thing at a time, or are incapable of navigating around your own preconceptions.

I've posted about this before.

1) Shutting down 1/2 of the economy for months - without a doubt - creates inflationary pressures because fewer goods and services were produced during that time. Demand lessened for some of those goods and services as well, but not enough to overcome the lack of supply. Many health experts - example here - now believe that the lockdowns were not effective. Were lockdowns a scientific response ("follow the science") or a political response? I think some of both. Quarantining is a "go-to" method for controlling the spread of disease, but the evidence was mounting pretty early on that lockdowns were not very effective in controlling the spread of COVID-19. Yet, few elected officials were willing to abandon them. Those that did were pillared in the media. What started out as a "follow the science" response morphed into politics as usual. Thus, lockdown impacts on supply - particularly in places where they were extended due to political considerations - were ultimately political decisions and not a "result of COVID".

2) Supply chain bottleneck also produced inflationary pressures, but...

3) Once the effects of the pandemic lessened, though, demand rebounded in a BIG way. According to the NY Times/NY Fed, it is THE biggest driver of inflation.

Supply shocks — which include shortages of workers, raw materials and shipping containers needed to produce and move goods globally — accounted for the remaining 40 percent of inflation in the model, with 58 of 66 industrial sectors that the research identified experiencing supply constraints.

The researchers concluded that, without supply bottlenecks, inflation in the United States would have been 6 percent at the end of 2021, instead of 9 percent. The research finds that demand shocks played a larger role in explaining inflation in the United States, whereas supply chain bottlenecks have done more to fuel inflation in Europe.

3) Included in and underlying the inflationary numbers is the cost of energy. Gotta say it: the Biden administration set about immediately put downward pressure on supply in January 2021, including pulling the plug on the Keystone pipeline, halting any new oil and gas leases on public lands, begining a thorough review of existing permits for fossil fuel development(a.k.a. bury them under additional red tape), restricting additional public lands accessible for exploration, etc.). Oil prices have been all over the place in the last 50 years (with price volatility correlating with the first Arab Oil Embargo in '67). Historic inflation for energy has been around 4.6%. Starting in 2017 there was a lowering of the energy price inflation trend, but that was immediately and significantly reversed starting in 2021.

4) Shortage of workers. Both Trump and Biden share this one. Paying individuals not to work during the pandemic decreases the supply of workers, increased the cost of production, and curbed supply. All of these impacted the overall inflation picture.

So, yes, if you want to inflate the cost of everything, reduce energy supply and make the cost of producing goods and services higher. Then impose lockdowns during a pandemic, and then extend them due to political expediency when evidence of their ineffectiveness would suggest another course of action. And, in the process of locking folks down and shutting down a huge chunk of the economy, pay people to not work and keep paying them even when unemployment numbers are relatively high (as late as Sept 2021, and the Biden admin suggested that states could use Federal COVID relief funds to extend enhanced unemployment benefits beyond that).

Some COVID-19 is involved, sure. But the outsized impact of questionable political decisions plays a much larger role.

Any assessment on the effect of exporting energy, especially diesel?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Apparently so is being dismissive...

I've long since learned that your long-winded posts that follow having been thoroughly punked are nothing other than you throwing a bunch of spaghetti against the wall hoping that the shear volume of your response will overwhelm the simple fact that you were punked. It's as predictable as it is laughable.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I've long since learned that your long-winded posts that follow having been thoroughly punked are nothing other than you throwing a bunch of spaghetti against the wall hoping that the shear volume of your response will overwhelm the simple fact that you were punked. It's as predictable as it is laughable.

Dude, you asked a question in post 141. That was the answer. There are many factors driving the underperforming economy. You wanted to myopically focus COVID.

Now, after responding to your question - where you suggested I was disingenuous - you apparently couldn't be bothered with the response?

I guess for being disingenuous, it takes one to know one.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Dude, you asked a question in post 141. That was the answer. There are many factors driving the underperforming economy. You wanted to myopically focus COVID.

All I did in that post was to show your hypocrisy/inconsistency in your using COVID to excuse a Trump failure/underperformance while dismissing COVID's impact on the economy under Biden. You can't have it both ways and your long-winded diatribe can't change that.

[RickeyM]

Never give up, never surrender!

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

I read your post including Trump's share of the blame, as you assigned.

Just that I totally disagree with you regarding the Keystone or suspending leases leading to spike in gasoline cost. This was mostly due to oil producing countries having gone through the Covid shutdown when their revenues dropped to nothing and now making up for lost time, along with the usual oil company gouging.

Sure, the Keystone Pipeline cancellation - in a vacuum - had a very modest impact on futures prices. But taken in total with this administration's other actions involving the domestic oil/energy industry - some of which were mentioned in the prior post - the environment for energy companies to invest in new sources of domestic supply is pretty lousy right now.

If you're an oil company CEO, here's what you're seeing today:

- The guy who won the 2020 presidential election is the guy who, when asked a question during one of the debates about whether he'd shut down the oil industry, said:

“I would transition from the oil industry, yes,” Biden said.

This response even seemed to perplex the debate moderator, who asked Biden, “Why would you do that?”

“The oil industry pollutes significantly,” he continued. “It has to be replaced by renewable energy over time.”

- Among the first things the new Prez does when he takes office is take significant actions to position the US Gov't as a barrier to increased supply. As a CEO, you can only read this as a signal of the new administration's priorities.
- Then, when faced with rising prices as the pump, and berating the industry for their profits, demand that the industry take immediate steps to increase supply. Production is already at or near capacity, so the Prez's public requests appear to you as political posturing rather than part of any serious effort to impact production or refining.
- The Prez's remarks also stand in stark contrast to what you believe to be a central goal of the administration. Biden campaigned on a promise to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Therefore, how do you explain to your shareholders that 2021 - 2022 is the right time to invest in additional reduction and refining capacity, in a political climate that's hostile to your business?
- In fact, you have the ability under recently passed legislation, to access billions in government funds to develop alternative energy sources. How do you explain to shareholders that it's better to invest in fossil fuel energy capacity when you can get free money to do otherwise?
-While the Prez met personally with leaders of other industries last fall to identify ways to alleviate the supply chain crisis, neither you nor any representatives from your industry were invited to the meeting.
- When you and other industry CEO's did ask for a meeting at the White House, they got one, but they saw Brian Deese, who heads Biden's National Economic Council. Later, you get a meeting with Secretary Granholm, but nothing really results from those discussions.

Taken together, these actions speak volumes. There's no desire on the part of the industry - of which the US is still the largest market by far - to significantly invest and pursue increased production and refining capacity. In point of fact, demand is rising, but production investment is below what it was 5 years ago, even amid rising production costs.

[whell]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Never give up, never surrender!

Yawn...

[finnbow]

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by RickeyM
Never give up, never surrender!

Originally Posted by whell

Yawn...

Dude, it was a compliment