Tuesday, December 28, 2010

The Finite World of Paul Krugman's Thinking

Paul Krugman claims that the commodity markets are telling us that we're living in an Ehrlich-like finite world of resource scarcity where "the rapid growth of emerging economies is placing pressure on limited supplies of raw materials, pushing up their prices."

And what are the implications of the recent increase in certain commodity prices? According to Krugman, "It's a sign that we’re living in a finite world, one in which resource constraints are becoming increasingly binding."

Don Boudreaux responds and suggests that Krugman study resource economist Julian Simon, and points out that:

"It’s not true that vigorous economic growth necessarily makes resources more scarce.  In fact, history shows that, because of human ingenuity, the opposite is not only possible but prevalent. Since the dawn of the industrial revolution in the mid-18th century, available supplies of coal, petroleum, iron ore, and most other resources have increased significantly – and, as a result, their real prices have fallen." 

MP: The evidence is working against Krugman and in favor of Boudreaux on this one.  The chart above shows the monthly, inflation-adjusted Dow Jones-AIG Commodity Index back to January of 1934 (data from Global Financial Data, paid subscription required). The DJ-AIG index is composed of futures contracts on 19 physical commodities in five categories with the following weights (individual weights are listed here): 

1. Agriculture (coffee, corn, cotton, soybeans, soybean oil, sugar, wheat): 34.37%
2. Energy (crude oil, natural gas, heating oil, unleaded gas): 27.28%
3. Industrial Metals (aluminum, copper, nickel, zinc): 17.65%
4. Precious Metals (gold, silver): 14.60%
5. Livestock (lean hogs, live cattle): 6.10%

(Note: According to Global Financial Data, data in the index from 1933 to 1989 are from the Dow Jones Futures Index, and data from 1990 are from the Dow Jones-AIG Commodity Index.)

Bottom Line: Over a very long period of time (76 years), there has been a significant downward trend in the real prices of commodities (see red trend line in graph), and the decline in commodity prices has taken place during a period when the world population increased by more than three times, from 2 billion in 1934 to the current population of 7 billion in 2010.  Don asks the right question:

"If economic growth since the industrial revolution coincided with increasing resource supplies, why should we expect that continued economic growth will suddenly start to have the opposite, dreary effects predicted by Mr. Krugman?"

40 Comments:

At 12/28/2010 12:13 PM, Blogger Buddy R Pacifico said...

Paul Krugman writes: "It's a sign that were living in a finite world, one in which resource constraints are becoming increasingly binding."

I agree with Don Boudreaux that available resources continue to grow. Krugmnan's assertion on constraints may be true in the sense of price manipulation that acts like finite supply in markets.

There is a lack of transparancy that is growing in commodities markets. JP Morgan is being investigated for market manipulations involving as much as one-third of the silver market.

So, Krugman is inadertantly correct today and Boudreaux is overall historically correct.

 
At 12/28/2010 12:15 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Excellent post by Dr. Perry.

Recent surges in commodities may reflect demand from the Far East, but it will be filled, barring too many manmade impediments (such as oil thug states).


The commodities exchanges also are dubious places of commerce. According to reports, one trader has amassed 90 percent of the copper stored at the LME.

The CFTC has no authority to ascertain true identities of traders on the NYMEX, and, of course, OPEC exists purely to thwart market forces.

Gold is in demand by Far East investors and also India--it has become a fever.

The least-sensible conclusion one can reach is that global commodities prices are influenced by US monetary policy.

 
At 12/28/2010 12:38 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Maybe Krugman should take a laxative and then kick back and read: Optimists 2, Malthusians 0

 
At 12/28/2010 12:52 PM, Blogger Bruce Stram said...

Not only did PK hit on the finite resources nail, he explicitly cited speculation as well. So what is it Mr. Krugman, real scarcity or artificial speculation? Both fit the liberal theology so I guess its best for you to entertain both these rather contradictory hypotheses. Of course the best evidence for either cuts the other way, but hey, why should that get in the way of a faith based column.

 
At 12/28/2010 1:36 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

juandos-

holdren's position is very typical. and change at all means that we need more governmental control.

cooling, warming, it doesn't matter. all change is bad, because, as we all know, we live in a perfect world and any deviation from that must be met with the full force of government to protect us.

it really does often seem that it is the liberals who are in fact conservative.

 
At 12/28/2010 2:39 PM, OpenID Sprewell said...

Looking at the chart, it is interesting that the trend would in fact have been flat up to 1980, after which it dropped by 60-75% till 2000, then doubled again this decade. I wonder why the index is so spiky and why most of the price drops were from 1980-2000. Could it be that the real deflator was the rise of services and IT in the 80s- exemplified by the PC revolution of the early '80s when Apple, Microsoft and Sun all went public in the US- devaluing more commodity-based heavy industry in the process? Or was there just a burst of commodity finds around that time, of gold mines and oil wells, etc, that hasn't kept up with population and industrial growth this decade?

 
At 12/28/2010 3:02 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

spre-

i'm just guessing here, but it seems to me that the big sell off in commodities coincided with the nasty double recession of 79-83.

the rest of the decade or so may have had to do with the collapse of the soviet union and the opening up of their resource base to the world and the import of western extraction techniques and farming as well as their dramatic drop in output of finished goods.

not sure that would drive the whole thing, but it could certainly have been influential.

 
At 12/28/2010 3:14 PM, Blogger Sean said...

I'm pretty sure Krugman is only referring to short term pressure and not the long run. But since other commenters were confused, maybe the post has some merit.

 
At 12/28/2010 3:41 PM, Blogger Jason said...

Looks like Krugman is embracing the "sustainability culture" of a number of left-minded groups. The arguement is there is a limited number of resources, an expanding population, global warming: So we should all immediately embrace a self-depriciating nunnery of existance.

There are spikes in commodities due to any number of reasons. This present spike could be due to some misalignment of supply and demand, mislocated supply (the ETF madness in gold and silver, and soon copper) and some temporary scarcity as old mines sunset and new ones come on line.

Oil is the one commodity that may be undergoing some true scarcity issues. But we could make that disappear if we ever decide to get our head out of our tails and align energy consumption to the available (wealth of) resources we have in America.

 
At 12/28/2010 4:08 PM, Blogger Jet Beagle said...

Sean: "I'm pretty sure Krugman is only referring to short term pressure and not the long run."

I had a different interpretation of Krugman's statement, Sean.

Yes, the main point of his essay was that the current and short-term global recovery is causing commodity prices to rise. But when he wrote:

"we're living in a finite world, one in which resource constraints are becoming increasingly binding."

there is little doubt in my mind he was referring to the long run.

When he wrote in that piece:

"It will require that we gradually change the way we live, adapting our economy and our lifestyles to the reality of more expensive resources."

I interpreted that to mean long run changes. It is Krugman's long run "reality of more expensive resources" to which Don Boudreaux objects.

 
At 12/28/2010 4:31 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Depletable resources are finite, and even the sun will burn out.

It seems, we're at Peak Oil, unlike the supply shocks in the 1970s.

 
At 12/28/2010 4:44 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"it really does often seem that it is the liberals who are in fact conservative"...

Yeah morganovich and I think Milton Friedman would agree with you...

 
At 12/28/2010 5:34 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"I interpreted that to mean long run changes. It is Krugman's long run "reality of more expensive resources" to which Don Boudreaux objects"...

Well jet beagle I'm guessing that Krugman's real 'finite' has a different inspiration all together...

 
At 12/28/2010 6:28 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

What is lost in this discussion is the fact that commodities run through cycles that see their prices fall and rise sharply over 15-17 year periods. Right now I would rather bet on rising commodity prices than falling prices for the next five to seven years or so because we have already seen a ten year period during which they have gone up substantially. Given the problems that we have with Peak Oil and the need for cheap energy to make heap leach operations economic we could have trouble for a while in the metals sector until the next technological leap makes the price fall once again. For those wondering what that might be I suggest that they look at the mining of minerals by going after hydrothermal vents, which is very energy efficient since it does not require separation of high value concentrates from worthless rock.

And while I have no problem with arguing against Krugman's position, it seems to me that what is missed by both sides is the possibility of the destruction of much of the purchasing power of the USD. In the real world the rewards tend to accrue to those that are prudent and productive. The US has been neither as it has discouraged capital accumulation and has added massive amounts of debts that cannot be paid back without a significant devaluation of its currency.

 
At 12/28/2010 6:35 PM, Blogger Jet Beagle said...

morganovich and sprewell,

I think the sharp decline of commodity prices in the early 1980s resulted from three factors, probably in this order of importance:

1. After a decade of government interference, the U.S. lifted price controls on domestic oil production. It was the U.S. government-induced spike in oil prices in the 1970s - not the drop in the 1980s - which was artificial. The Iranian and and Iraqi supply interruptions at the end of the 1970s would have had much less impact had Washington not tried to control domestic prices.

2. The severe increases in the 1970s caused energy consumers worldwide to invest in energy conservation. Consumers and industry demanded efficient vehicles and energy-efficient building.

3. The recessions of 1980-1982 dampened somewhat the demand for energy - though I'm pretty sure this was a very short term impact.

 
At 12/28/2010 6:48 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Recent surges in commodities may reflect demand from the Far East, but it will be filled, barring too many manmade impediments (such as oil thug states).

Where will the supply come from? The OPEC fields are old and in decline. Production in Russia and the US has peaked. New discoveries are small, difficult to develop, and provide a much smaller return on the energy invested. We could see a price collapse again but only if it comes from a collapse in demand, not a material increase in supply. The simple fact is that the world's supply of light sweet crude peaked in 2005 and we are not going back to those levels again.

The commodities exchanges also are dubious places of commerce. According to reports, one trader has amassed 90 percent of the copper stored at the LME.

If supply is sufficient to meet demand it is likely that the trader will face huge losses. But what is being missed is the fact that the price is not all that unusual. If we look at the Wolfram Alpha data we see that the current price is around the same level as 2008 and 2006.

http://tinyurl.com/28w267u

If Mark is right in his optimism for the world economy the price could be justified because copper inventories are not very high at a time when demand is growing.

http://tinyurl.com/278qoxk

The least-sensible conclusion one can reach is that global commodities prices are influenced by US monetary policy.

That is one of your dumbest statements yet. And given what you have written in the past that is saying a lot.

 
At 12/28/2010 7:02 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

1. After a decade of government interference, the U.S. lifted price controls on domestic oil production. It was the U.S. government-induced spike in oil prices in the 1970s - not the drop in the 1980s - which was artificial. The Iranian and and Iraqi supply interruptions at the end of the 1970s would have had much less impact had Washington not tried to control domestic prices.

Don't forget the development of the heap leaching process that allowed producers to make money by mining very low grade ores.

2. The severe increases in the 1970s caused energy consumers worldwide to invest in energy conservation. Consumers and industry demanded efficient vehicles and energy-efficient building.

This may be valid but the critical factor was production capacity. OPEC had a lot of oil behind closed valves ready to hit the markets any time prices rose by even a buck or two per barrel. It was not as disciplined as the Texas Railroad Commission, which it was modeled after so there was no way to keep prices at a high level.

The only time that capacity began to come close to demand was after 2002 when oil began its rise to its 2008 peak. Had the economy not collapsed there was no way to keep prices from going over $200. I suspect that we will see similar moves with oil demand rising until capacity is so low that prices spike. That spike would be a trigger for another economic contraction and another oil price fall. That process is likely to continue with the big winners the producers with decent reserves in safe areas of the world.

 
At 12/28/2010 7:50 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

My guess is Vange is long commodities...and it may be a good bet right now.

Vange does make an amateur's mistake in thinking about the oil market as an oil market only--it is actually part of an energy market.

Right now in Oklahoma City, I can buy a used truck for $6k outfitted to run on CNG. (See cngvehiucles.net). Today--this is not a hypothetical technical fix.

There are CNG pumps popping up around Los Angeles, though I am told Oklahoma and Utah are much further down this road (farther?).

Iraq may hit 12 mpg output in 10 years. That amount would eclipse Saudi Arabia, and we don't know if Chavez disappears and a new regime ramps up production. They have heavy oil to the moon in Venezuela.

And Iraq and Venezuela could find that at more than $60 a barrel, it has no market.

Good luck Vange, let us hope your profits match your ego.

 
At 12/28/2010 8:06 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Serious students of commodities may wish to peruse thispost

http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/

then tell me if it makes sense.

 
At 12/28/2010 8:24 PM, Blogger Craig said...

Could it be that the real deflator was the rise of services and IT in the 80s

I'd sooner think it was due to the brief flash of anti-inflationary policies by the world's central banks following Volcker's slaying of the inflation monster in the United States in the early 80s.

It's true that Greenspan started to inflate in the late 90's, but it takes a while for that to manifest itself in higher prices.

 
At 12/28/2010 8:46 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

My guess is Vange is long commodities...and it may be a good bet right now.

I don't know if it is a good bet now but it has been a good bet for around ten years so far. I only hold commodity stocks and Canadian dollars.

Vange does make an amateur's mistake in thinking about the oil market as an oil market only--it is actually part of an energy market.

Not true. My bigger and more profitable investments have been in coal, which has been much cheaper thanks to the global warming scam scaring off other investors. I have also invested in natural gas and uranium. My preference so far has been heavier oil plays that are expensive to develop, again because of the price.

Right now in Oklahoma City, I can buy a used truck for $6k outfitted to run on CNG. (See cngvehiucles.net). Today--this is not a hypothetical technical fix.

Of course not. My brother-in-law works for a CNG supplier in China where many vehicles run on natural gas.

There are CNG pumps popping up around Los Angeles, though I am told Oklahoma and Utah are much further down this road (farther?).

It makes little difference because the number of CNG vehicles is tiny in comparison to the total fleet. If the trend continues natural gas prices will rise steeply and I may finally get a good return in my oil service plays.

Iraq may hit 12 mpg output in 10 years. That amount would eclipse Saudi Arabia, and we don't know if Chavez disappears and a new regime ramps up production. They have heavy oil to the moon in Venezuela.

Iraq does not have as much oil as has been claimed by the optimists and is not capable of a production level of 12 mbpd. That said, I am invested in a Kurdish producer so I hope that they do well. Iraq does not have enough capital and the Chinese and Russian companies that will develop the fields will take some time to sink money into the country because they are waiting for things improve.

For the record, rising Iraqi production cannot offset declines of production from existing fields. Venezuela will need a lot of money to develop its heavy oil reserves and those will not scale up well. Given the poor energy return and the poor quality you will far more than one barrel of production to offset the reduction of a single barrel of light sweet crude.

And Iraq and Venezuela could find that at more than $60 a barrel, it has no market.

You can't develop Venezuelan deposits at less than $80 a barrel.

Good luck Vange, let us hope your profits match your ego.

Ego has nothing to do with it. Losers complain about the flaws and contradictions of others. I prefer to see others as they are and take advantage of the opportunity for fun and profit.

 
At 12/28/2010 8:49 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Vange-

You seem blissfully unaware that all energy markets could become glutted, and have many times before.

Indeed, that is the nature of energy markets in free markets.

 
At 12/28/2010 8:50 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Serious students of commodities may wish to peruse thispost

http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/

then tell me if it makes sense.


Part of it makes sense. Commodity prices only fell because demand collapsed. There was no supply solution and there won't be one until many more projects come on-line at some later date.

But part of it is wrong because the Fed's loose monetary policies are certainly a material factor.

 
At 12/28/2010 9:34 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

You seem blissfully unaware that all energy markets could become glutted, and have many times before.

The could become 'glutted' if you are able to answer the following questions:

1. Where will the supply come from?

2. Will the new supply be able to offset the depletion from current fields?

3. Why would there be investment in the sector if supply is growing and threatening to bring down prices?

Indeed, that is the nature of energy markets in free markets.

Free markets? We have seen Obama prohibit drilling offshore, in ANWAR and other federal land. We have seen environmental groups stop refineries, pipelines and nuclear plants from being built. Where do you see free markets?

 
At 12/28/2010 9:51 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

dollar debasement us only a driver of higher commodity costs for the US and those who peg to our currency.

if you buy in a currency such as the swiss franc, then you have seen a much smaller increase in commodity prices.

while the constant commodity index is up 179% since 2000, it is only up 53% in swiss francs or only 34% in australian dollars and is down a great deal if you held your money in gold.

the effect of US monetary policy on commodity prices for the rest of the world depends a great deal on whether or not they follow it with their own currencies.

 
At 12/29/2010 11:02 AM, Blogger Sean said...

Jet Beagle,


"we're living in a finite world, one in which resource constraints are becoming increasingly binding."

there is little doubt in my mind he was referring to the long run.


I suppose you may be right. I'm just hesistant to attribute that kind of logic to people.
The world's resources *are* eventually finite: you can measure the mass of the Earth and therefore its potential energy, as well as that of the sun's rays: the ultimate soruce of all of our "renewable energy". So eventually the Malthusians will be right if we don't leave this ball of dust. But we're not that close to having tapped it all yet.

 
At 12/29/2010 11:27 AM, Blogger Len said...

Don't forget that Krugman is the definition of the "Dismal Science".
Is it fair to say that Paul's abiding message is "The sky is falling!"?
In one sense he is correct, no one gets out alive.

 
At 12/29/2010 12:21 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Vange-
I already said that only impediments set up by man could result in energy "shortages."

Glust are easy. Sheesh, if Iraq and Venezuela gear up, we get gluts, as world demand is flat.

Demand has been falling in Europe and Japan for generations, and it flatin USA and may start falling here.

China? They have mandated electric bikes, and may mandate electric cars. Or, as they do not allocate resources by the price signal, China may collapse, or sink into longterm recession like Japan.

Bubalah, anything can happen.

 
At 12/29/2010 12:55 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

I already said that only impediments set up by man could result in energy "shortages."

But that is not true. Our oil production mostly comes from very old fields that have peaked and are declining rapidly. Without new investment we would probably lose about 5-10 mbpd of production, which is a huge number. Shortages could come even if we invested a great deal because to offset that depletion will be very difficult and to grow production will be harder still.

Gluts are easy. Sheesh, if Iraq and Venezuela gear up, we get gluts, as world demand is flat.

How do you propose to get much out of Iraq and Venezuela? Do you remember that natural depletion from existing fields? The new production will have to offset that depletion in order for you to even think about new supply to add to the existing levels. You would need trillions in new investment. Where would that come from and why would it appear unless the investors are guaranteed a return?

Demand has been falling in Europe and Japan for generations, and it flatin USA and may start falling here.

Global oil demand is around 85-86 mmbpd today. It was less than 70 mmbpd in 1990.

China? They have mandated electric bikes, and may mandate electric cars. Or, as they do not allocate resources by the price signal, China may collapse, or sink into longterm recession like Japan.

Been to China recently? You can't ride bikes in most places because you will be run over by the cars that are fighting for the same space on the roads. Chinese demand has exploded.

Bubalah, anything can happen.

No, it can't. For you to have much new oil you have to find and develop it in time to offset depletion. That has not happened.

 
At 12/29/2010 4:09 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"1. Where will the supply come from?

2. Will the new supply be able to offset the depletion from current fields?

3. Why would there be investment in the sector if supply is growing and threatening to bring down prices?
"...

Well the answers to questions one and two vangeIV might be methane hydrate...

The answer to question three might be 'long term energy source'...

 
At 12/29/2010 5:35 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Well the answers to questions one and two vangeIV might be methane hydrate

We are a long way away from methane hydrates being viable. By that time we will lose at least 50 mmbpd of current production that will have to be replaced by new investment. I am scheduling a meeting with one company regarding a few methane hydrate ideas but I do not see anyone being ready to overcome some of the technical problems for several years and the infrastructure problems for at least another decade.

Please note that the article that you cited is more than three years old and that there has been little progress made to this point. From what I hear from my sources, the Chinese are looking at hydrates as a source of natural gas and are a long way from deciding to go the gas to liquid conversion route. At least they won't have to worry about the fake global warming scare or complying to any agreement to limit emissions.

The answer to question three might be 'long term energy source'...

Only if it is viable and the risks are contained. We are a long way from there and the trick is to make it from here to the transition point intact.

 
At 12/30/2010 3:30 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"We are a long way away from methane hydrates being viable"...

Wrong again! Methane extraction is simpler chemistry, much simpler chemistry than dealing with crude extracts...

What's holding it up is the 'tree hugger & root kisser' contingent...

"Please note that the article that you cited is more than three years old and that there has been little progress made to this point"...

What?!?! Don't web search engines work for you?

"Only if it is viable and the risks are contained"...

That means dealing with the 'tree hugger & root kisser' contingent...

 
At 12/30/2010 4:41 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Wrong again! Methane extraction is simpler chemistry, much simpler chemistry than dealing with crude extracts...

Extraction is simple. But getting the diffused hydrates to the surface where the methane can be extracted is still a difficult technical problem. That is something some of my friends in China have been working on for the better part of a decade. Their government just announced funding for more significant research about five years ago but I doubt that much progress has been made.

I have been looking at the issue ever since I read some Russian papers on the subject while in University. As with commercial fusion, I am still waiting for a breakthrough. That said, I do expect to get some face time at the PDAC with a couple of companies that may be good candidates for an idea that I have been working on with some of my friends. They may have the equipment necessary to come up with an interesting method to develop some of the more concentrated deposits.

 
At 12/30/2010 4:44 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

What?!?! Don't web search engines work for you?

It does work. I see no articles that promise a solution that can be scaled up any time in the next decade.

That means dealing with the 'tree hugger & root kisser' contingent...

Not at all. Some of the people that I deal with don't care about the 'tree huggers' and operate in places where they are not much of an issue. All they care about is a practical solution that works and is safe. So far, there isn't one. That does not mean that one won't be developed but even if it is we are looking at 20-30 years to make a transition.

 
At 12/30/2010 6:03 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Read on brother vangeIV...

 
At 12/30/2010 10:02 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Read on brother vangeIV...

I did read and noted the same old story that I have been reading about for quite some time. We find that, "Test wells planned in 2010 and 2011 could point the way toward a way of economically extracting methane from hydrates."

What this really means is that the companies and government have no idea how to make the process work and how to scale it up effectively without doing a lot of damage to the environment or killing workers. Digging through frozen ground to get to the hydrates takes a lot of energy. So does sucking them up from the cold depths of the sea floor. You still need to figure out how to concentrate the resource and what kind of infrastructure you will need to bring it to market. Everything that is in use today that can be converted for the new purpose of bringing methane hydrates to market has to be evaluated. How corroded is the BP line? How much do you need to spend to upgrade the current line or will you need to build a brand new pipeline? How will you pay for it and where will you put it? Does it make more sense to start with the stranded natural gas in the Mackenzie Delta, which would make me happy because I own interest in some of the royalties? How will this new supply effect the economics of the investments in shale gas? Is the North Slope a unique situation or can it be applied to other sources? Where are those other sources and why haven't they been developed so far even after the Russians, Japanese, and Chinese have spent so much money on studies of the issue? Will the government permit development of will it drag the approval process as it is doing with the proven reserves off the coasts and in the Gulf?

There are many technical, political, and economic questions that will have to be answered before methane hydrates become viable.

 
At 12/31/2010 4:05 AM, Blogger сссси said...

Krugman lies. It is only small falling in 1998-2010 on the schedule, though oil has grown in 10 times, gold in 5 times, copper in 5 times etc., and inflation is only in 2 times during this time.

 
At 12/31/2010 4:20 AM, Blogger сссси said...

Bernanke is printing money. It is the criminal. He prints flat money and steals money from usual people, giving out depreciation of savings and incomes as economic growth and inflates bubbles of commodities. It helps Russia, Iran, ets. by high oil-prices, but not USA.

 
At 12/31/2010 4:32 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"What this really means is that the companies and government have no idea how to make the process work and how to scale it up effectively without doing a lot of damage to the environment or killing workers"...

Well vangeIV you may read it that way but the way I read it is, 'how can we grab the corner of this market and not have to share our technology on how we do it?'...

I have faith in human greed...

Human greed can move mountains and figure out a way to keep government overreach the hell out of the way...

 
At 12/31/2010 5:33 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Well vangeIV you may read it that way but the way I read it is, 'how can we grab the corner of this market and not have to share our technology on how we do it?'...

I have faith in human greed...

Human greed can move mountains and figure out a way to keep government overreach the hell out of the way...


Human greed can't overcome the diffusion problem so we have to keep looking at the concentrated sources. The problem is that we have been looking at them for several decades now and with the exception of some minor production in Russia and planned production in Japan I see nothing yet to get excited about.

You sound to me like the abiotic oil proponents and the people who were betting on commercial fusion to become reality. Like them, you keep seem to accept every claim on faith and have nothing real to support your optimism.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home