The charts above show annual personal consumption expenditures from 1995-2011 on "Energy Goods and Services," which "consists of gasoline and other energy goods and of electricity and gas," based on BEA data available here. Some interesting observations:
1. The top chart shows that American consumers spent $460 billion (in real 2005 dollars) on "energy goods and services" in 2011, which was the lowest level of spending on energy since $454 billion in 1998, more than a decade ago.
2. On a per-capita basis (using population data here), annual real energy spending per person was lower in 2011 than in any year going back to 1995, and about 11% below 2005 when real energy spending peaked at $494 billion. Compared to the first year in the series, 1995, real spending on energy per person in 2011 was 7.5% lower.
3. The bottom chart displays energy spending as a share of total real personal consumption expenditures (in real dollars), which has fallen from slightly more than 7% in 1995 to slightly less than 5% in 2011.
MP: The reduction in real spending on energy over the last six years, and the ongoing reduction in spending on energy as a share of total consumption since 1995, could reflect increasing energy efficiency (appliances, cars, new homes, etc.), reduced driving, and lower natural gas costs. The downward trend in both series would also suggest that higher gasoline prices in 2012 would have less of an impact on consumers than in past years.
Comments welcome.
Thanks to Marmico for the link to the BEA data, and for the suggestion for the chart below using nominal dollars:
Update: The bottom chart above shows the share of spending on energy using real dollars, and the new chart below shows the share of spending on energy using nominal dollars. Adjusting for inflation, the share of energy spending goes down from 7% to 5% from 1995 to 2011, whereas the unadjusted share spent on energy goes up from 5% to 6% over the same period. I agree with Morganovich and Marmico that the unadjusted, nominal measure of energy's share of total personal consumption spending is better than the inflation-adjusted measure, and I stand corrected (and updated!).
1. The top chart shows that American consumers spent $460 billion (in real 2005 dollars) on "energy goods and services" in 2011, which was the lowest level of spending on energy since $454 billion in 1998, more than a decade ago.
2. On a per-capita basis (using population data here), annual real energy spending per person was lower in 2011 than in any year going back to 1995, and about 11% below 2005 when real energy spending peaked at $494 billion. Compared to the first year in the series, 1995, real spending on energy per person in 2011 was 7.5% lower.
3. The bottom chart displays energy spending as a share of total real personal consumption expenditures (in real dollars), which has fallen from slightly more than 7% in 1995 to slightly less than 5% in 2011.
MP: The reduction in real spending on energy over the last six years, and the ongoing reduction in spending on energy as a share of total consumption since 1995, could reflect increasing energy efficiency (appliances, cars, new homes, etc.), reduced driving, and lower natural gas costs. The downward trend in both series would also suggest that higher gasoline prices in 2012 would have less of an impact on consumers than in past years.
Comments welcome.
Thanks to Marmico for the link to the BEA data, and for the suggestion for the chart below using nominal dollars:
Update: The bottom chart above shows the share of spending on energy using real dollars, and the new chart below shows the share of spending on energy using nominal dollars. Adjusting for inflation, the share of energy spending goes down from 7% to 5% from 1995 to 2011, whereas the unadjusted share spent on energy goes up from 5% to 6% over the same period. I agree with Morganovich and Marmico that the unadjusted, nominal measure of energy's share of total personal consumption spending is better than the inflation-adjusted measure, and I stand corrected (and updated!).
the amount of driving has certainly dropped.
ReplyDelete"The Federal Highway Administration says Americans drove 1.45 trillion miles from January through June of 2011. That’s 15.5 billion miles less than in the same period last year—the first time mileage driven has dropped in the first half of the year since 2004."
that would seem to annualize to about $6 billion in savings.
that would seem to be drag on lifestyle.
but it also does not account for the whole picture. the larger drop seems to be coming from lower heating costs, etc, which would seem like a benefit to consumers.
i'm really not sure how to net that out.
I'd be curious to know if electricity use has dropped beyond seasonal.
ReplyDeletelarry-
ReplyDeletethere is a website called "google".
perhaps you have come across it?
such questions are easily answered.
http://205.254.135.7/electricity/monthly/update/
you probably could have had the data in less time than it took to wrote that comment. i know i did as compared to this one.
Excellent blogging by Mark Perry.
ReplyDeleteThanks to private-sector reaction to higher oil prices, the expected is happening: Businesses and consumers are innovating, using less oil, alternatives, while new supplies are found.
The only thing propping up oil prices are thug nations that control oil, such as Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, Russia, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq etc etc etc.
You have no free enterprise, property law, contract law etc in those nations. They are monkey-thug states.
Even so, such is the ability of man to innovate we may see gluts again anyway.
Bringing home overseas US uniformed employees would save a lot of money and oil too. And you can't pump or transport oil with aircraft carriers.
A possible bright spot is Iraq. They may be able to go to 15 mbd in 10 years, enough to add 20 percent to world oil supplies. Iran might be able to a similar story.
morg.. in the amount of time you took to respond, you could have provided a wonderful answer!
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you have it bookmarked!
This chart shows the stupidity of fighting global commodities prices with US monetary policy.
ReplyDeleteConsumers and businesses are responding, adapting.
Oil is less important than ever.
What is important is economic recovery, not suffocating the economy to fight globally set oil prices.
In the for "what's worth' category the EIA has this web page: SHORT-TERM ENERGY OUTLOOK with a nice moving graphic showing (supposedly) the forecasts for West Texas crude, diesel, gasoline, heating oil, natural gas, and electricity...
ReplyDeleteThere is also a price summary showing a price summery and a forecast out to 2013 with everything going up except natural gas...
Notably Obama's pond scum fuel hasn't made the list yet...
see the top chart, im told its oct/nov:
ReplyDeletehttp://peakoil.com/consumption/why-is-gasoline-consumption-tanking/
that's a great link rjs.
ReplyDeletethanks.
that does seem like a stunning drop.
i have no reason to claim it has, but one thing they do not mention that i always try to look at first in the face of such sharp changes is "did something change in the dataset wither in terms of calculation or sourcing".
this seems like a very straightforward dataset with no adjustments, so i doubt it is a calculation issue.
could some set of stations/refineries have stopped reporting?
again, i have no reason to claim such, but long experience with datasets has made me cautious around such discontinuous moves.
the drop in miles driven and changes in mileage seem inadequate to explain this drop.
could it be that this is unblended gas and we are seeing the effects of ethanol?
even if so, that would only seem to account for a 10% drop, max.
very interesting.
going to need to play with this a bit.
it's also a fascinating chart from two other perspectives:
ReplyDelete1. - we are one of the largest consumers of oil in the world. we are down ..but the price of oil is skyrocketing.
2. - nothing we would do in this country from the keystone pipeline to drilling offshore would seem to help us unless we did not export it and sold it for less that the world market price.
re: Why Is Gasoline Consumption Tanking?
ReplyDeleteYeah, I posted this as it ran on the Zer0 Hedge site a few days ago...
It is good stuff from Mish and Charles Hughs...
A few days later from the same site (also linked here) was a related article showing that all energy consumption was down...
The question asked at Zer0 Hedge though was: "Is that indicative of economic growth?"...
The opinion of the article writer was this: "Those claiming that U.S. growth is sustainable and the Dow is heading for 15,000 must square their rosy projections with sharply declining energy consumption"...
"nothing we would do in this country from the keystone pipeline to drilling offshore would seem to help us unless we did not export it and sold it for less that the world market price"...
ReplyDeleteWell larry g ask, beg, plead on your knees to Obama to quit cranking out the Bernanke Bucks...
what does Bernanke have to do with worldwide oil conditions?
ReplyDeleteis the price of oil controlled by world markets and conditions?
larry-
ReplyDelete"nothing we would do in this country from the keystone pipeline to drilling offshore would seem to help us unless we did not export it and sold it for less that the world market price."
your thinking on that is incomplete.
oil also has transport costs.
getting it a a terminal in kuwait makes it much pricier to bring to the us than having in piped in from canada.
second, there is a TON we could be doing.
oil production on lands leased from the US government is dropping rapidly. that's a supply issue. offshore drilling was never allowed to resume after the gulf spill (perhaps the most overhyped enviro-disaster in oil history)
anwr remains closed to drilling, as does much of the California coastline.
all of that would have an effect on prices.
and this:
"what does Bernanke have to do with worldwide oil conditions?"
really?
oil is denominated in dollars.
we buy it that way. if the value of a dollar drops, the price of oil in the US rises.
since 2001, the USD has lost half its value in forex terms.
thus, this current price looks much lower if you are swiss and have seen the value of you currency double.
$105 is only $52.50 if you had you money in CHF.
the price of oil denominated in gold looks even lower.
that's what greenspan and helicopter ben have to do with the price of oil.
morg - how does increased production of oil in the US - help the US if it is exported?
ReplyDeleteand right now - is the price of all increasing for all countries regardless of Bernanke or is it only increasing for the US?
If oil was not increasing for everyone in the world - then the idea about Bernanke would have credence.
but when all countries have to pay more for oil - including us - then unless we are paying even more thn other countries.. the influence of Bernanke's policies seems irrelevant.
What Bernanke is doing is what the Fed has been doing for decades, right?
"What Bernanke is doing is what the Fed has been doing for decades, right?"...
ReplyDeleteWrong larry g and try to look for something with more credibility than wikipedia to answer your question...
Didn't this sentence make any sense to you: "It is not that the price of gas is more expensive; it is that your dollars are worth less"?
Apparently you didn't read the posting thoroughly and you definitely didn't check out its links...
" Didn't this sentence make any sense to you: "It is not that the price of gas is more expensive; it is that your dollars are worth less"?"
ReplyDeleteis this true ONLY in the US or is this true pretty much worldwide?
is what is going on right now due to worldwide price increases or Bernanke?
come on Juandos.. can you at least admit the truth here guy?
According to the article below, energy use per unit of GDP (output = GDP = income) in the U.S. has been falling since the end of the U.S. Industrial Revolution (from 1871-1914) and WWI:
ReplyDeleteEnergy use: Power slide | The Economist
Jan 19th 2011
The energy required to produce a unit of GDP is falling in most countries around the world.
Peaks generally correlate to the high point of heavy industry, before lighter industry and higher value-added businesses (such as services) begin to replace old-fashioned smokestack manufacturers. This often coincides with gains in energy efficiency, too.
I think the biggest things going on here is we (the commentators in this section) are thinking locally. We need to think globally. Oil is a worldwide, tradeable commodity.
ReplyDeleteWhile demand in the US for oil has fallen, it is rising internationally. China, India, Japan (to some extent), and Russia are all seeing growth in their economies (again, Japan is the exception, but their demand for oil is increasing strictly to replace lost production from nuclear plants). Not to mention Iranian threats to close Hormuz, through which much of the world's oil supply travels, are all conspiring to raise prices. The mere fact that oil is denominated in dollars is irrelevant. If that were the cause of rising oil prices, then all commodities (seeing as they are denoted in dollars) would be rising. They are not (see natgas & copper, to name a few). As much as we'd like to, we can;t outright blame this on Bernanke.
Likewise, transportation costs don;t really matter much. Oil is very easy to transport across the world. The fact that transportation costs are higher than they were before in and of itself doesn't mean much and doesn't explain the large jump in oil.
Would Keystone and offshore drilling reduce gas prices? of course not. At least not significantly. What Keystone would have/could have done is insulate us against supply shocks in the global market.
The only way these things would reduce the price of oil was if the world was flooded with new supply, much like NatGas.
""...
ReplyDeleteAhhh larry g. I don't know about truth since in modern America that's a moving target but I did admit the fact that its basically "our" problem since Bernanke apparently following the wishes of the Obama administration & Congress is doing the two step Q&E jig (or is it the three stepper now?) which means 'printing money with no real worth behind it'...
I thought morganovich put it clearly and succintly with his: "oil is denominated in dollars.
we buy it that way. if the value of a dollar drops, the price of oil in the US rises"...
Is it affecting other countries you wonder....
Well that would depend on the country and their monetary & tax policies...
So as not be caught up in our mess consider this three year old Business Week article: China and Brazil: Dump the Dollar
Much more recently I linked this Zer0 Hedge posting here: India Joins Asian Dollar Exclusion Zone, Will Transact With Iran In Rupees
Any of this making sense yet?
" Any of this making sense yet? "
ReplyDeletewith respect to the increasing price of oil worldwide?
no.
are you saying that Bernanke's policies are affecting the price of oil worldwide?
I hope not.
"with respect to the increasing price of oil worldwide?
ReplyDeleteno"...
Well maybe this free site will help...
nope. no help. keep trying.
ReplyDelete;-)
"nope. no help. keep trying"...
ReplyDeleteO.K. larry g, this has nothing to do with oil per se but there might be a lesson here we can all consider...
How scientists taught monkeys the concept of money. Not long after, the first prostitute monkey appeared
No BS, its an actual article with a link to the study at the end of the article...
it's a wonderful article Juandos.
ReplyDeletemuch appreciated.
:-)
larry-
ReplyDelete"morg - how does increased production of oil in the US - help the US if it is exported?"
i have to admit, there are times if i wonder if you can possibly be serious with these questions.
oil is a world price.
it depends on world demand and world supply.
anwr alone could have a noticeable effect on world oil prices. keep in mind that price elasticity of demand for oil is very high.
you really seem not to understand this monetary issue either.
the ben and alan printing press festival affects OUR buying power. i already laid out a swiss counterexample.
i'm really not sure how to make it any simpler.
if the value of a dollar falls, it buys less oil. this does not matter of you are swiss, but if you live here, it matters a great deal.
the price of oil is 3X higher in dollars than in 1998.
in swiss francs, it's only 1.5X.
wages in switzerland have probably kept up with that, but not here.
A lower standard of living means less driving. Less driving means lower expenditures on energy. Throw in a warm winter that reduces the need to heat homes and you get a nice low number. Of course, it does not help to talk about real expenditures when you are using fake inflation numbers but that is a point for another posting.
ReplyDeletei have no reason to claim it has, but one thing they do not mention that i always try to look at first in the face of such sharp changes is "did something change in the dataset wither in terms of calculation or sourcing".
ReplyDeleteI think that the changes are at the BLS, not the EIA and DoT reporting data. We may find that the employment data is not as great as is being reported and that the lives of people on Main Street are not as good as the financial press is claiming.
Morganovich says "the ben and alan printing press festival affects OUR buying power...if the value of a dollar falls, it buys less oil..." etc.
ReplyDeleteYou can thank the Fed for smoothing-out business cycles, particularly at the height of the Information Revolution from 1982-07, which helped raise U.S. living standards.
Also, countries need dollars to buy oil. So, they sell their goods to the U.S., receive dollars, buy oil, and those dollars are invested in the U.S..
Foreigners paid more for oil, because they received increasingly smaller "gains-in-trade" for dollars, while the U.S. received increasingly larger gains-in-trade, which was necessary to maintain U.S. consumption (to keep dollars flowing to foreigners), because of diminishing U.S. marginal utility.
Also, the U.S. economy is the only economy that can expand with huge negative net exports.
So, the U.S. has been able to consume more than produce in the long-run, which also raised U.S. living standards, while monetary policy improved to keep domestic resources more employed.
You want an economy where limited resources are better and fully employed, and gains more than your trading partners in international trade.
Morganovich says "the price of oil is 3X higher in dollars than in 1998...in swiss francs, it's only 1.5X...wages in switzerland have probably kept up with that, but not here."
ReplyDeleteIn the real economy, you won't find low-skilled working immigrants in Switzerland, who can buy newer, bigger, and better houses, SUVs, light trucks, or minivans, and lots of other goods.
re: how does production of oil in the US help US consumers
ReplyDeleteincreased production of oil in the US can and does affect the world price of oil but if that same oil was not exported and sold at a cost-plus basis as we do right now with electricity - then us consumers would be less vulnerable to world price fluctuations.
why is it in the best interest of the country as a whole to increase drilling if it has an almost negligible beneficial impact to American consumers?
and
re: how does Bernanke's policies affect the world price of oil that in turn affects US consumers?
you can make an argument that Bernanke's policies affect the price of ALL products in the US market but I doubt seriously you can make the argument that Bernanke's policies affect the price of products around the world to include oil.
I'm just trying to sort out the pet ideological beliefs with the realities here.
Something seems amiss with the charts. Just eyeballing the second chart, the price of gasoline has risen too much relative to other prices since 1999 for there to be a declining energy share since the turn of the century.
ReplyDeleteMy calcs show a 5% share in 1995, 4.8% in 2000, peaking at 6.3% in 2008 and 2011 clocking in at 6%. I just used nominal dollars in the BEA Table referenced.
peak-
ReplyDeleteyou are confusing a whole pile of topics there.
obviously, immigration and taxation are very different in switzerland.
i am not advocating emulating their practices. we are richer than they are.
but their currency has doubled in value against ours in a decade.
been there lately? you'll find it quite expensive if you get paid in dollars.
i'm trying to show larry why printing dollars makes oil more expensive.
in usd, price is up 200%. in chf, it was up 50%. that's much easier for wages to keep up with, no?
Larry,
ReplyDelete"why is it in the best interest of the country as a whole to increase drilling if it has an almost negligible beneficial impact to American consumers?"
Even if you were correct(you aren't)it's in the interest of the United States to provide more jobs and wealth via drilling. This is the lowest of low hanging fruit, and doesn't cost the taxpayers a cent. Instead, your hero Obama is pushing pond scum.
larry-
ReplyDelete"increased production of oil in the US can and does affect the world price of oil but if that same oil was not exported and sold at a cost-plus basis as we do right now with electricity - then us consumers would be less vulnerable to world price fluctuations."
i am really starting to despair of your ever understanding this.
first off, anwr alone would have a serious effect on world prices.
second, oil is always going to be a world market. you seem to think that export controls would do anything. they wouldn't.
if the us consumes X for which we import Y and we up anwr production to A and refuse to let it be exported, then out imports drop by A. this leaves A in extra supply for the rest of the world which will drop would market price exactly as if we sold it abroad.
thus, your export restrictions wind up accomplishing nothing apart from forcing us refiners to buy a specif type of oil that may not match well with the way their refineries are set up.
if you are set of for heavy sour from venezeula, you cannot refine anwr oil without significant capital expenditure.
so, we lose flexibility and incur capital costs all to accomplish nothing.
marmico-
ReplyDeletemark is using chained dollars.
i think your methodology is the better one.
if you compare nominal energy to nominal income, you get a pure number that reflects reality.
mark is adding a CPI bias that does not need to be there.
No CPI bias possible here, that's a BLS measure of prices, this is BEA data.
ReplyDeletemark-
ReplyDeletebut aren't you using chained dollars?
why is the needed if you have nominal energy expenditure and nominal consumer expenditure/dpi?
seems like an easier way to get a number as opposed to using deflated figures.
Okay. So Perry is using BEA Table 2.3.6U.
ReplyDeleteThe BEA is using different 2005$ chained deflators for Energy Goods and Services [EGS](as numerator) and Personal Consumption Expenditures [PCE](as denominator) to calculate the spending ratio.
But the consumer pulls away from the gas station after payment with a nominal EGS dollar out of his total nominal PCE dollars which is why the nominal ratio not chained series should be used.
In other words, the EGS chained data is measuring the quantity of gasoline, electricity, natty gas, etc. purchased which is declining relative to the quantity of total PCE purchased. However, the ratio of spending on the quantities has changed.
I'll update the second graph in the post using nominal, instead of real dollars. Once I had the dataset for inflation-adjusted energy spending over time, I used the inflation-adjusted total consumer spending to get the ratio/share. I agree that for the ratio/share measure, it's not necessary to use inflation-adjusted dollars.
ReplyDeletePost has been updated with a graph of the energy share of total consumption using nominal dollars, instead of real dollars.
ReplyDeletethanks mark.
ReplyDeleteIn case anyone is still reading this, to answer Larry's question:
ReplyDeleteThis year's seasonal decline (September-May, historically) in electric power generation is the most severe on record.
Vangel added the big missing factor - the standard of living is dropping.
ReplyDeleteHere's total energy use:
http://www.nowandfutures.com/images/us_energy_consumption.png
And here's electricity generation:
http://www.nowandfutures.com/images/electric_generation.png
And the PCE definition is an abomination as far as presenting a fair and balanced picture.
re: "Even if you were correct(you aren't)it's in the interest of the United States to provide more jobs and wealth via drilling. This is the lowest of low hanging fruit, and doesn't cost the taxpayers a cent."
ReplyDeleteoh I agree about the jobs.. I'm questioning how it reduces the price for consumers. have you got a number?
take anwr - if anwr went to zero...what effect would that have on world prices?
" second, oil is always going to be a world market. you seem to think that export controls would do anything. they wouldn't."
no.. I'm not advocating export controls. I'm asking to quantify the benefit to consumers. Is it 1 cent .01 cent or .000001 cents?
all I am really asking is to put a number on the benefits of opening up more drilling in the US to US consumers.
surely someone can come up with a ballpark numbers, right?
I mean otherwise.. why would we be so sure when we make the claim that it benefits US consumers that it really does - at least to any significant agree that would convince everyone that opening up more drilling is worth doing?
It's a simple question. eh?
"take anwr - if anwr went to zero...what effect would that have on world prices?"
ReplyDeletenone. no oil is being produced there.
the real question is, what effect would opening it up to production have?
the world produces 80million bbls of oil a day.
anwr is a huge deposit of easy to extract oil. better than cantarell and we have better tech.
it could provide 2mm/bbls/day, maybe more. (cantarell peaked at 2.14, and has not been managed well by the mexicans)
at 2mm, it alone would probably drop world oil prices 10%, maybe more.
oil has very high price elasticity of demand.
that's likely a drop of 40-50c a gallon in the US. could be as much as 70-80c a gallon if it really hit.
it's a BIG number, not some 1c rounding error.
re: "it's a BIG number"
ReplyDeleteso .. we could, for instance, put a number on how much the North Dakota oil fields are saving US consumers and it would be a "big number"?
or we could put a number on the Keystone Pipeline and it would be a "big" number?
If this is true... then why don't they make that case in their PR efforts?
About 60% believe apparently that it is indeed a "big" number but I don't think I've ever seen any number put on it.
but that's EXACTLY what you'd need (IMHO) to convince enough people that opening up Federal lands and offshore to drilling would be worth doing.
larry-
ReplyDeleteare you trying to be deliberately ignorant and aggravating?
i'm seriously trying to figure you out. no one can be as oblivious to these facts as you seem to be.
what's the story? you seem to demand everyhting be spelled out for a third grader and unable to look up basic facts and concepts and educate yourself.
are you just lazy or is this some sort of tactic to try and disrupt conversation?
keystone is a separate issue. that's about limiting supply constraints.
a lot of is oil would come from tar sands, which is why the environmentalists hate it.
would it up world oil supply? well, that's not entirely clear. it depends on how much of that oil can be shipped out now relative to how much could be produced relative to current shipping constraints.
but the tar sands in canada have an astounding amount of oil. like several saudi arabias astounding size. so yes, figure out how to exploit them and bring the oil to market is a very big deal.
it's not going to be really cheap like anwr though. processing tar sands is still costly.
ND is starting to matter. 500k bpd is starting to be meaningful.
it's not cheap oil though.
the cost of production matters when you look at driving price down.
if it costs $95/bbl to get, it cannot drive cost below that.
the problem right now is that lots of big fields have dropping production, some from resource depletion, some from a failure to invest to keep them up (like mexico and VZ).
thus, you need to run to stand still.
cantarell used to produce 2.14mm bpd, now it's under 500k.
so we need 3 north dakotas just to keep supply flat.
you seem to think ND has no effect because prices are up, but the real question you should be asking is how much higher would they be without it?
the answer is likely 3-4%, but pinning down exact price elasticities ahead of time is difficult. oil demand is not very elastic in the short run. that's why small changes in supply move the price so much. in the long run, people adapt and demand is more elastic.
there is nothing at all difficult about this conceptually.
you demand hard numbers where none can exist. there is no master chart. it's like saying "if i drop the price of an ipad 10%, how many more would i sell". the answer depends on price elasticities than change over time and dozens of other factors.
seriously, are you just trolling to try and be disruptive, or do you really not get this?
are you trying to be deliberately ignorant and aggravating?
ReplyDeleteHe does not have to try. Being ignorant comes naturally to him.
Morg - I'm not on the eviro-weenies side on the Keystone but I point out to you that the Keystone and Federal Land and Offshore Drilling is being "sold" to the American people as a way to reduce costs at the pump.
ReplyDeleteI'm not asking for "hard" numbers.
I'm asking for ballpark numbers to see if the PR hype about reducing prices at the pump - are true.
I'm skeptical.
I do not think I'm alone.
but I do compliment you on your patience and your willingness to offer your insight and knowledge that I find beneficial to me - and I thank you for it.
the amount of driving has certainly dropped.
ReplyDelete============================
Might have something with not having a job to go to.
hydra-
ReplyDeleteyou know, i had not thought of that. i suspect you are probably right.
with 7 million fewer employed persons than pre recession, there must be less commuting going on.
"I'm skeptical."
ReplyDeleteyou are also lazy.
it took me about 5 minutes to look up the data i gave you and think through it a bit.
boards like this work best when everyone contribute. you are just lazily asking repetitive 3rd grader questions that you could easily answer yourself if you spent 10 minutes with google.
it gets really tiresome larry. time to start doing some work. these exchanges with you are entirely one sided.
if you want an econ tutor, go hire one.
" if you want an econ tutor, go hire one"
ReplyDeleteoh .. I do not consider you a tudor Morg.. I'm just trying to understand your point of view..and I do ask for evidence ... on occasion.
you're got knowledge and experience but you're also ignorant like everyone.. just on different subjects.
the point here is to learn.
once you think you don't need to.. you've lost.
larry-
ReplyDeletei agree that the point is to learn, but i never learn anything from you.
this interaction is one sided.
if you want a discussion, you need to add value. i'm not here to answer your questions, but to engage in dialogue.
if you want it to continue, you need to hold up your end.
further, when i am ignorant, i tend to go look things up.
it works pretty well. you should try it.
Morg - I'm not here to teach you.
ReplyDeletebut I don't buy everything you say either.
you boys here like to get into male member swinging contests... it appears to me.
that's fine.
but I'm not impressed.
when you're in an open forum, and you're obviously very knowledgeable ... you ability to learn has a lot to do with your willingness to learn and to put up with those who may not understand what you consider to be basics.
I simply do not buy the conventional wisdom that more drilling results in lower pump prices.
it's more complicated than that.
I'm sorry you think that's not a good view.
but it's a view with some validity.
there is no such thing as a pure "supply and demand" market.
you know that.
larry-
ReplyDeletemy point, which you seem to be unable to grasp is this:
for me to exchange ideas with you, i want somehting back.
you seem to be unable or unwilling to provide anything in the exchange apart from repetitive questions that belie very little understanding.
if you want a dialogue, you need to provide value to the other side.
why would i want to keep putting forth effort when you do not?
why would i trade value for nothing?
then, you say absurd things like this:
"I simply do not buy the conventional wisdom that more drilling results in lower pump prices."
and support them with nothing.
so supply does not effect price?
if you can prove that, you have overturned the whole of economics. head to stockholm for your prize.
you are not providing any data nor even theoretical framework for your belief, just repeating a nonsensical position that you have not supported in any way.
when you are ready to be a part fo an actual discussion and provide thought out ideas that you can support with facts and theory, i'm happy to talk to you, but continually addressing your unsupported claims, providing facts you could easily get yourself, and trying to teach you basic economics is a waste of time for me. i get nothing out of it.
i hope you can raise your game and participate at CD, but right now, you are not adding anything to the discussion.
and this "you ability to learn has a lot to do with your willingness to learn and to put up with those who may not understand what you consider to be basics." is just nonsense.
ReplyDeletemy ability to learn here is predicated on the knowledge of those with whom i converse.
there are a number of folks here whose ideas and skills have aided me. but you are not one of them.
putting up with "those who may not understand what you consider to be basics" does not teach me anything nor is my ability to learn predicated on caring about your ignorance. it just wastes all of our time. worse, efforts to teach you the basics have all, thus far, been fruitless. you seem to be learning nothing, just repeating the same stuff over and over.
my point, which you seem to be unable to grasp is this:
ReplyDeletefor me to exchange ideas with you, i want somehting back."
I challenge you Morg to provide the details to what you claim to substantiate ...
"you seem to be unable or unwilling to provide anything in the exchange apart from repetitive questions that belie very little understanding."
maybe. I clearly don't have your level of understanding but even others here disagree with you at times, sometimes quite violently.
I'm only pointing out that much of what happens here is opinion and beliefs in economic theories of which there are many contradictions and exceptions.
"if you want a dialogue, you need to provide value to the other side."
no. that's not correct. if you knew all and I knew nothing (which I'm sure you might agree with), then what's the advantage of you just agreeing with others with equivalent knowledge?
"why would i want to keep putting forth effort when you do not?"
I put forth effort in my view. I ask questions. I posit what appear to be contradictions to conventional thinking. I challenge your presumptions. those are of value even if you consider them annoying.
"why would i trade value for nothing?
then, you say absurd things like this:
"I simply do not buy the conventional wisdom that more drilling results in lower pump prices."
and support them with nothing."
HEY.. I support them with the REALITY that pump prices are going up while demand is going down and drilling is increasing.
is that not in contravention to theory?
"so supply does not effect price?
if you can prove that, you have overturned the whole of economics. head to stockholm for your prize."
I'm challenging ... why does it APPEAR to NOT follow theory?
"you are not providing any data nor even theoretical framework for your belief, just repeating a nonsensical position that you have not supported in any way."
I'm citing practical evidence in the current market. If our domestic supplies are going UP and we are using LESS - then why is the price continuing to skyrocket?
"when you are ready to be a part fo an actual discussion and provide thought out ideas that you can support with facts and theory, i'm happy to talk to you, but continually addressing your unsupported claims, providing facts you could easily get yourself, and trying to teach you basic economics is a waste of time for me. i get nothing out of it."
you ought to Morg. Are you THAT confident that you DO understand why the market is behaving this way right now? There's a bunch of people out there that don't not to mention O'Reilly and others.
"i hope you can raise your game and participate at CD, but right now, you are not adding anything to the discussion."
Morg - I'm a contrarian at heart.
I like consistency in theoretical frameworks and inconsistencies and contradictions draw my attention and I DO SEEK to understand why but I fully admit that I do not have your dept and scope of knowledge and yes.. I want to take advantage of it.
My value to you - should be your willingness to go back and understand the contradictions better yourself and to posit possible explanations for them.
that's a benefit to you .. if you get nothing more from it than further validation of your own thinking.
surely no one is so smart that they really do think they know it all, eh?
now.. if you wanted to know how to run a Class III rapid or get your butt down a wilderness river in one piece, or you'd be curious what an MPO is and how it works, I might be your man but I'm betting you'd not find that very useful knowledge anyhow, eh?
I'm just someone who wants to learn more - but I'm knowledgeable and skilled, just not in the things you are.
larry-
ReplyDeletethat's just more rambling nonsense from you in which you provide nothing and demand that lots of others provide work and data while you sit back and free ride and make outlandish statements like supply not affecting price and then assuming that others bear the burden of proof.
why would i waste my time on that?
do some work lar, you are not pulling any weight here and that babble about my learning by explaining things to you over and over is just more of the same.
i come here because people disagree. we share ideas and hash out thoughts and data. but you offer nothing, just endless unsupported statements.
i suggest you look at disagreements i have with jon and mehtinks and vangel and others and see if you can spot the difference between those conversation and your own.
good luck lar.
i'm pretty bored with this, so i'm going to let it drop.
sorry to disappoint you Morg.
ReplyDeleteI'll try to do better.
:-)
but I'll never be able to swing my male member as high as you boys!
;-)
oh .. I do not consider you a tudor Morg.. I'm just trying to understand your point of view..and I do ask for evidence ... on occasion.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that you have shown over and over to be incapable of understanding. I do not know if that is because you cannot read carefully, do not want to look at information that refutes your beliefs, or are simply stupid. Actually, it does not really matter what the reason because as long as it persists you will remain as you are.
"The problem is that you have shown over and over to be incapable of understanding. I do not know if that is because you cannot read carefully, do not want to look at information that refutes your beliefs, or are simply stupid. Actually, it does not really matter what the reason because as long as it persists you will remain as you are. "
ReplyDeleteI believe, if not mistaken, you too were woefully ignorant about how social security really works but you continued to insist arrogantly that you were the expert and in the end, it turned out that you not only were not an expert, you were ignorant.
but you conducted yourself in an arrogant and condescending way even as you displayed your ignorance.
so lecture yourself dude.
Both Van and his sidekick Ron themselves subscribe to some pretty interesting "theories" about Natural Law and the Austrian School of Economics but both conduct themselves as if they know something.
ReplyDeleteBoth apparently believe in global conspiracies with regard to science and politics...
I can go on but you boys are no paragons of intellect yourselves.
I believe, if not mistaken, you too were woefully ignorant about how social security really works but you continued to insist arrogantly that you were the expert and in the end, it turned out that you not only were not an expert, you were ignorant.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, you are mistaken. I know exactly how the SS system works, which is why I have pointed out that the IOUs have no market value while you pretend that is not a problem. I have pointed out, along with many others, what the term 'unfunded liabilities' really means and how you cannot ignore accrued liabilities by choosing to use cash based accounting. Yet, you still have no clue what that means and what the implications are.
Unlike for you, this is not some stupid game for me. Unlike you, I make my living by being right about what is happening in the real world.
you not only did not know..you stuck to your ideology in "explaining" it and you had no clue how the trust fund really worked.
ReplyDeletebut you were nasty and condescending from day one even though you did not really know.
this is a pattern with some of you here.
No matter how much you know, or think you know you have no right to be arrogant and condescending and when you're wrong .. you expose who you really are.
I'd probably not be here bothering Morg if it were not for you and ROn but I totally reject you two's bullying tactics and I've watched you do it to others.
ya'll need to put your attitudes were the light don't shine.
you have zero room to point at others being "ignorant" when you are such sad wads yourselves...
I totally reject your "ignorant" epitaphs and I totally reject the (more polite) version of it from Morg.
Ya'll need to take a powder and stifle it cause I'm going to come right back at you every time you feel the need to return to your bully behaviors.
you have zero room to point at others being "ignorant" when you are such sad wads yourselves...
ReplyDeleteTo fix what ails you all you need is a mirror and someone to teach you how to see.