Carpe Diem

Friday afternoon links

1. From today’s BLS report on state employment and unemployment: Oil-rich North Dakota once again led the country with the lowest state jobless rate at 3.3% in March. Oil-rich Texas led the country in employment gains over the last year at 329,500, which is almost 1,400 new jobs every business day, and represents 17.3% of all US jobs added over that period, even though the Texas labor force is only 8.2% of the US labor force.

2. More about ND jobs: Women are cashing in on North Dakota service-sector jobs fueled by the growth in oil production.

3. The Chicago Fed National Financial Conditions Index, a measure of risk, liquidity and leverage in fixed income and equity markets, fell last week to the lowest level since February 2007.

4. Amazing VIDEO of the largest glacier calving ever filmed.

5. VIDEO: Fastest way to get through a border patrol checkpoint. (HT: The Mighty Angus).

6.  Stop the Insanity: Isn’t it about time that we return to using corn for food and gasoline to power our vehicles?

7. Photo Essay: Evolution of the New York Driver’s License, 1910-2013.

8. How Cheniere Energy Got First In Line To Export America’s Natural Gas and Why Dow Chemical’s Not Happy.

9. UT-Austin Professor Makes the Case for Liquefied Natural Gas Exports: Economic benefits of LNG exports outweigh the costs.

10. Markets in Everything: 3D printed clothing offers a glimpse into the future of fashion.

23 thoughts on “Friday afternoon links

  1. what I find amusing is the juxtaposed arguments that more domestic oil means lower prices, cheaper products, good things for companies and consumers while at the same time arguing that exporting fossil fuels is ALSO good economically for companies and consumers.

    so we argue, for instance, that stricter pollution controls will increase the price of energy thus harming consumers but exporting domestic resources which will have the same effect – increasing prices and harming consumers is “good” because apparently some folks will make more money if they can sell it at a higher price.

    but won’t manufacturers of pollution control equipment also benefit..created jobs, gain wealth by selling pollution control equipment?

    and of course, we totally ignore the idea that we take land away from property owners and give it to other property owners so they can export and make profits but the people whose land is taken – cannot share the profits but instead have to sell at a govt-set price that benefits the folks who need the others property.

    lord.

    • The issue of domestic versus imports depends on if the market is a North American or a World Wide Market. Oil is a world wide market since it is fairly easy to transport it by tanker without a lot of expense. Natural Gas is different because liquification and re-gasification as well as the much higher costs of an LNG tanker versus an oil tanker, mean that even if exports were allowed the price of natural gas in the us would be less than the export price by the cost of the liquify/gasify cycle. (The energy alone used in the liquification step is 10% of the energy of the gas at the plant entrance i.e. 10% of the input gas is used to fuel the plant). So that likley the price domestically for natural gas would be 20-25% less than the cost in an importing country, unless you have an oil linked contract, where the differential would be much larger.

      • I can see how the world price of oil might end up making exporting of domestic oil – no more profitable than selling it domestically.

        that does not seem to be the strategy of Trans Canada with the Keystone pipeline where they apparently intend to export it once they have the direct pipeline to Texas ports.

        You may be right about NG but essentially what is being argued is that they can (even with the additional costs) make MORE by exporting it than selling it domestically.

        I guess folks who deal with the numbers know what the “spread” is and what it will likely to stay within bounds but it sounds pretty risky … especially if other countries start using the same fracking techniques that we are doing.

        but what is interesting is that the folks who are advocating exporting – as far as I can tell, are not using the argument that you are and if they are, the domestic manufacturers are not buying it.

    • “what I find amusing is the juxtaposed arguments that more domestic oil means lower prices, cheaper products, good things for companies and consumers while at the same time arguing that exporting fossil fuels is ALSO good economically for companies and consumers.”

      The concept of winners and losers is beyond Larry’s chimp level of comprehension.

      Know what argument Larry doesn’t “find amusing?” The one his boyfriend Obama and fellow Democrats make about how leaving the oil and other fossil fuels in the ground will lead to a green jobs economic renaissance.

      • re: ” The concept of winners and losers is beyond Larry’s chimp level of comprehension.”

        ha ha ha

        the “concept” of winners and losers is real but it involves much more than just govt and sometimes govt is “used” by one group to win over the other.

        so you have, (for instance) – one group of folks who want the govt to 1. give the the right to take land away from other property owners and 2. then export their product for profit while you have other groups – like manufacturers that believe that when the govt gives you the right to take land from others that it has to have a public purpose – like how does it affect consumers and job producers.

        nothing to do with Obama – not a whit. This has been going on since the beginning of the country and only ideological loons attribute it to one particular POTUS.

        right Paul?

      • Larry, you don’t find that amusing because you can’t wrap your….whatever that stuff is between your ears….around the most elementary economics. Hell, my housekeeper grew up in El Salvador where in the midst of war she was orphaned and the the caretaker of her younger siblings by the time she was 10 years old. Life’s hardships didn’t allow her to spend a single day in a classroom and she doesn’t know who Hitler is, but she speaks two languages and she can run circles around your in basic economics.

        My, my, aren’t we a rich country when even the brain-dead can glide into old age with nary a scratch. In the third world a case of stupidity as severe as yours would have proved fatal many decades ago.

    • what I find amusing is the juxtaposed arguments that more domestic oil means lower prices, cheaper products, good things for companies and consumers while at the same time arguing that exporting fossil fuels is ALSO good economically for companies and consumers.

      Why do you imagine those two assertions to be “juxtaposed”?

          • Lord…. got the screaming meemies loose this time, eh?

            :-)

            question: what’s economic justification for the govt to take land from one property owner and give it to another?

            if they want to export natural gas for fund and profit, is that a good economic reason?

            you can check with your housekeeper Methinks..it’s ok girl.

          • Ron, exactly. Why does Larry think both can’t be true?

            Oh, right, because he’s an idiot.

          • Larry,

            “what’s economic justification for the govt to take land from one property owner and give it to another?”

            You’re talking about a small pipeline running underneath a person’s land in this case, not throwing them off their property. It’s obvious the only reason you latch onto this is to protect your boyfriend’s refusal to allow the Keystone pipeline to move forward.

            But the founders recognized things like this would sometimes be necessary. As laid out in the 5th amendment: “No person shall be deprived of… property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

          • “what’s economic justification for the govt to take land from one property owner and give it to another?

            I’m a property owner. What’s the economic justification for the govt to take my property, in the form of my taxes, and give it to you?

          • question: what’s economic justification for the govt to take land from one property owner and give it to another?

            It isn’t an economic question, it’s a property rights question.

            if they want to export natural gas for fund and profit, is that a good economic reason?

            It isn’t an economic question, it’s a property rights question.

          • Paul

            I’m a property owner. What’s the economic justification for the govt to take my property, in the form of my taxes, and give it to you?

            That would be a really tough question for a thinking person, but I expect Larry won’t have any trouble with it.

          • SO….it’s OK for the govt to tell you that you have no choice but to allow another property owner to use your property and you will be “compensated” according to what the govt and the other property owner think is fair?

            doesn’t sound like Libertarianism to me guys.

            I’m starting to think that Libertarianism is “convenience” of views and for some reason self-proclaimed Libertarians seem intolerant of these questions involving the govt favoring some property owners over others.

            just FYI – The Keystone is only one of the current issues but many others involve the new “boom” in domestic oil and gas and the folks who own the oil and gas but need to get it to market to make a profit.

            so these folks EXPECT the govt to help them force other property owners to enter into transactions that are not voluntary – and the libertarian types here are mum on it.

            sounds pretty hypocritical … eh?

          • SO….it’s OK for the govt to tell you that you have no choice but to allow another property owner to use your property and you will be “compensated” according to what the govt and the other property owner think is fair?

            No, Larry, for maybe the 20th time, it is NOT OK at all. It is theft. Why do you keep ignoring that answer when it doesn’t fit your narrative?

            doesn’t sound like Libertarianism to me guys.

            You have absolutely no idea what libertarianism is, so what it sounds like to you is of no consequence.

            I’m starting to think that Libertarianism is “convenience” of views and for some reason self-proclaimed Libertarians seem intolerant of these questions involving the govt favoring some property owners over others.

            libertarians are intolerant of dishonest trolls who repeatedly make the same comments and ask the same questions over and over without ever listening to or understanding the answers they’re given.

            so these folks EXPECT the govt to help them force other property owners to enter into transactions that are not voluntary – and the libertarian types here are mum on it.

            What people expect the government to do and what it has the power to do aren’t the same as what is legitimate for it to do.

            sounds pretty hypocritical … eh?

            Only to trolls who don’t understand what they read.

          • so Ron… did I hear you say it was WRONG to give ED power to oil and gas companies?

            did you say that?

            or do you believe that it’s justified because it benefits all the property owners that need gas and oil?

            no trolling here guy.

            It just seems that CD spends quite a bit of time humping for the gas and oil industries and at the same time complaining about rent-seeking, crony capitalism and the corruption of basic libertarian and economic principles preached her.

            The oil and gas companies appear to be not much different than solyndra and the ethanol farmers to me

            at least neither of them can take land to enrich themselves – just subsidies.

            don’t get me wrong – the country benefited greatly by giving right-of-way and free land to the railroad companies and then the gas and oil countries but it just seems like we use double standards on these issues or worse we hold some to the strict definitions of no govt help/interference while just flat ignoring when it’s done in other circumstances.

          • did you say that?

            I have said that every time the subject comes up, which must be 15 or 20 times now.

            You might consider actually reading and thinking about what others write here, instead of starting with your own preconceived conclusions and then rejecting the parts you don’t like and that don’t fit those conclusions.

            It just seems that CD spends quite a bit of time humping for the gas and oil industries and at the same time complaining about rent-seeking, crony capitalism and the corruption of basic libertarian and economic principles preached her.

            There is nothing inconsistent about cheering the development of natural resources by private companies and being opposed to special treatment of those companies by government. It’s really not clear why the two concepts confuse you.

            don’t get me wrong – the country benefited greatly by giving right-of-way and free land to the railroad companies…

            No, “the country” did not benefit greatly from giving land and right-of-way to the railroads. The developers and builders of those railroads benefited greatly at the expense of taxpayers – leaving behind a mess of poorly constructed track over unnecessarily winding routes, and eventual bankruptcies except for those bailed out using additional taxpayer money.

            A notable exception, of course, was the Great Northern, build by James J. Hill using all private funds, that was well constructed, efficient, and profitable.

            Incentives matter.

            You might try learning more about the history of the transcontinental railroads before proclaiming the success of crony capitalism.

            Just so it’s clear to you, the taking of private property in any form – land, income, or anything else – is theft whether taken by a private actor or a gang of thieves purporting to represent some group of private actors.

          • LOL. HA HA HA.. you are a card boy. I suggest you read “Railroaded” .. guy.. if you are as interested in real history.

            the reality is that both the oil & gas industries and the railroads (among others) created/invented crony capitalism and rent seeking and to this day have benefited by taking land from other property owners.

            and today, we act like questioning capitalism which is and was based on the idea of taking things from others is anti-business.

            A true and honest Libertarian would openly ADMIT the reality and at least try to reconcile it in some way that justifies the act itself rather than denying it and pretending it did not happen.

            if the oil and gas industry had to honestly negotiate rights-of-way – with each individual owner on a willing buyer-willing seller basis – it would conform to your silly theory of libertarianism – indeed.

            but the reality is that the oil and gas business continues to rely of the police force of govt to carry out it’s activities and you pretend otherwise because if you actually admitted it you’d also have to admit that pure libertarianism is an archaic artifact that does not work in the real world.

            thems the facts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>