PPCC - Pisitófilos Creditófagos - HoT SuMMeR 2021

[senslev]

[Derby]

La apuesta de Morgan Stanley...La Fed empezará a cerrar el grifo a finales de este año: diciembre 2021. La primera subida de tipos de interés para el segundo trimestre de 2023.

https://themarketear.com/posts/cOPJiE1dyC

Morgan Stanley: tapering announcement in December, first hike in Q223....

Data are sending mixed signals on workforce tightness vs. slack. Analyzing why labor force participation plunged in the pandemic, research concludes that unemployment will fall below pre-Covid levels by end-2022. Research moving up their forecasts for Fed tapering and the first rate hike… MS Research now expect a Fed tapering announcement in December 2021. Lower participation for longer and the stronger job growth they expect to continue mean the economy can reach recovery benchmarks earlier than they had anticipated… With inflation likely remaining at or above 2%, maximum employment is the next threshold for the Fed’s first rate hike. MS Research now believes the FOMC will judge that it has been reached in 2Q23, and research’s expectation for the first rate hike moves up to 2Q23 from 3Q23, with two 25bp hikes in 2023 to end the year at 0.625%... (Morgan Stanley)

[Derby]

https://www.reuters.com/business/us-productivity-growth-slows-second-quarter-2021-08-10/

U.S. productivity growth slows in Q2; labor costs revised down in Q1

WASHINGTON, Aug 10 (Reuters) - U.S. worker productivity growth slowed in the second quarter and labor costs were far weaker than previously estimated in the first quarter, the Labor Department said on Tuesday.

Nonfarm productivity, which measures hourly output per worker, increased at a 2.3% annualized rate last quarter. Data for the first quarter was revised lower to show productivity rising at a 4.3% rate instead of the previously reported 5.4% pace.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected productivity to rise at a 3.5% rate. Productivity jumped early in the pandemic before slumping in the final three months of 2020, and has since rebounded. The see-sawing has been partly attributed to the cratering of lower-wage industries, like leisure and hospitality, which have been reopening over the past few months at an increasingly brisk pace.

Compared to the second quarter of 2020, productivity rose at a 1.9% pace. Hours worked increased at a 5.5% rate last quarter, accelerating from a revised 4.0% growth pace in the January-March period.

Overall output is now 1.2% above pre-pandemic levels but hours worked remain 2.8% below it, the report also showed. The resurgence in economic activity has not been matched by people flooding back into the workforce. On Monday, U.S. job openings jumped to a fresh record high in June, Labor Department data showed. read more

Small business owners across the United States grew less confident in the economic recovery in July as labor shortages remained an issue, according to a National Federation of Independent Business survey released on Tuesday. read more

The cooling in the most recent data notwithstanding, Oxford Economics lead U.S. economist Lydia Boussour said the pandemic appears to have "induced an upside shock to productivity."

"The adoption of technology has accelerated, new firms are being created at an historic pace, and the shift to remote work is likely to outlast the crisis," she wrote in a note on Tuesday. "While some of the pandemic-driven efficiencies could take years to be fully realized, we think these four forces will lead to a sustained productivity revival in the medium run."

Unit labor costs - the price of labor per single unit of output - rose at a 1.0% rate. They contracted at a revised 2.8% pace in the first quarter. Unit labor costs increased at a 0.1% rate from a year ago. They have also been distorted by the pandemic's disproportionate impact on lower-wage industries.

Hourly compensation rose at a 3.3% rate last quarter. That followed a revised 1.4% growth pace in the first quarter. Compensation increased at a 2.0% rate compared to the first quarter of 2020.

[Manu Oquendo]

Chomsky nos previno.
Así se fabrica el consenso y así se reacciona ante las amenazas.


Han comenzado a pasar cosas desde que, el pasado 28 de Junio, Expansión se descolgó con un artículo herético de Pascal Richet. Un nuevo Galileo.

El foro recordará que dicho artículo llamaba la atención por aportar datos y conclusiones que nunca se ven en la Prensa del Sistema y exponía algo sabido pero oculto por ser Políticamente Incorrecto. Mucho.  https://www.fpcs.es/clima-y-co2-la-evidencia-frente-al-dogma/

Richet decía que no hay relación significativa alguna entre CO2 atmosférico y temperatura terrestre y que la  relación que los datos muestran es la contraria de la sostenida por el IPPC y los gobiernos de la UE.

Vamos, una herejía que en otro tiempo le habría llevado al Auto de Fe y a retractarse en público antes de ser llevado a su pira funeraria. En el foro algunos compañeros y un servidor se dieron cuenta y se mostraron curiosos por saber por qué se había publicado a Pascal Richet cuyo CV resumimos brevemente en la Nota 1.

El artículo de Expansión apareció en medio del impacto de la Subida Artificial del Precio de la Luz debida fundamentalmente  al incremento del precio de los derechos de emisión de CO2 decretado por la UE de Úrsula van der Leyen.
Si no recuerdo mal este Impuesto por tonelada de CO2 se ha multiplicado por 5 --en pleno verano, para disimular-- y es la causa directa del cierre de aquellas pocas industrias intensivas en energía que nos quedan.

Ya anteriormente se nos había hecho imposible fabricar muchas cosas en España; Aluminio entre ellas. Por tanto no nos va a quedar otra que seguir trayendo emigrantes para mantener el precio de la vivienda a base de crédito barato. No me extraña que el sector de la Vivienda esté que se sale.

Con esta subida y las que se nos vienen encima se supone que para 2050 habremos evitado el apocalipsis del clima terrestre. Es decir, son incapaces de predecir el tiempo más allá de tres días en gran parte del mundo pero nos prometen que en 30 años, si pagamos y callamos, todo estará bien. 
Casi prefiero que de una vez lleguen los Extraterrestres.

Ojo, porque según nos dice esta gente la temperatura ha subido --en 1000 años de datos hábilmente manipulados--  como máximo 1.4ºC y en media mucho menos.

Lo presentan de tal forma que toda esa subida se produce en la última parte del Siglo XX pero  son capaces de decir "exactamente" cuál era la temperatura media ¿? en cada año desde entonces. A finales del siglo XX el asunto climático se llamaba Calentamiento Global. Luego vieron que a partir de principios de siglo XXI nos "enfriábamos" una pizca, como realmente está sucediendo en nuestro entorno desde los 90,  y cambiaron el Mantra a lo que siempre pasa porque el Clima siempre cambia y lo llamaron Cambio Climático sin más.

Cómo será la cuestión que hasta una Ministra de este Gobierno se vio obligada a sugerir a la UE que se revise el papel del Carbono y del CO2 en sus estrategias geopolíticas, industriales y ambientales como hemos visto en las redes electrónicas.  No localizo en enlace de su intervención en Youtube pero seguro que algún compañero lo encuentra.

El caso es que de forma incipiente comienza a percibirse un hartazgo en muchas partes de la sociedad sobre este y otros manejos en una cuestión que para muchísima gente, habitualmente muy bien informada,  no tiene ni credibilidad ni fundamento y no pasa de una psicosis colectiva artificial creada a base de confusionismo, alarmismo y medias verdades,  para manipular a las masas de “Contribuyentes Sin Representación” en un momento en el cual ya es evidente que Occidente va de mal en peor porque está en manos de unas élites destructivas de su propia sociedad.

Esta élites de Inútiles Vividores que Parasitan nuestras Instituciones nacionales e internacionales no tardaron en ver el peligro de que, además de Richet,  otros científicos de verdad comenzasen a hablar y reaccionaron a través de sus medios cautivos. "Con nuestras cosas de comer no se juega", dijeron.
Dicho y hecho.
A los pocos días vimos que  La Vanguardia del Miércoles 14 de Julio tomó nota y fue el único periódico impreso español que encabezó su Portada con lo siguiente: "Los que Emiten CO2 deben pagar por ello".  Letras de gran tamaño al lado de una foto de Úrsula van der Leyen. 

Prepárense pues a pagar por respirar nos venía a decir y lo dijo.
Pero no debió de gustarle que el resto de la prensa se hiciese la remolona. 

Pero vamos a ver, Doña Úrsula, ¿Qué leches tiene que ver el CO2 y el Carbono con el Calentamiento o Enfriamiento que estamos viviendo? ¿Justo lo contrario de lo que usted dice? By the way, ¿Cuánto dinero se han gastado para desarrollar tecnologías de captura de carbono que tan siniestro les parece?

Derby, siempre atenta a las reacciones de la prensa sumisa, nos lo advirtió hace unos días con un gráfico famoso en un enlace de la página anterior: el famoso y desprestigiado Hockey Stick de Michael Mann (Nota 2) según el cual vivimos el momento más cálido de los últimos mil años. Más que cuando en Groenlandia crecían las arboledas de los poblados Vikingos y Alemania e Inglaterra  eran la meca de los viñedos europeos. Una etapa climática de 400 años expurgada de los datos que expone el IPPC como ha sido publicado y no rebatido. El dato también es desmentido por China, que presume de ser el país con más datos fidedignos sobre los últimos 4000 años de historia. Algo que nadie más tiene.  Aquí el enlace de Derby.  https://www.vox.com/22613027/un-ipcc-climate-change-report-ar6-disaster

Los gráficos, verán ustedes, muestran unos márgenes de error que invalidan todo el conjunto porque en su abrumadora  mayor parte son, inevitablemente,  hasta tres, cuatro y cinco veces superiores a los actuales que no son pequeños. Por no hablar de otras cuestiones que también ponen en solfa todo el constructo.  Dicen los estadísticos anglo Do you want a number? Don't worry, I'll give you one.

Sin entrar en cuestiones más hondas como, por ejemplo el significado de temperatura media de la Tierra a través de 1000 años de historia. ¿Qué es ese dato?

Por no hablar de que el  IPPC, como sabe cualquiera que se haya interesado en estudiar esta cuestión,  tiene de Científico  lo que yo de Párroco. Funcionarios y políticos que viven del paradigma y ya es mucho.

El caso es que a la voz de mando tras el artículo del IPPC hoy vemos que Todos los Periódicos de España han sido debidamente puestos firmes y han encargado a los becarios de Agosto reaccionar y los editores han elegido los siguientes titulares en respuesta al citado artículo de Pascal Richet. 

La Vanguardia: Los "Expertos" --sin nombre ni apellidos-- alertan (omite “de”) que la crisis climática se agudiza y es irreversible. Otro titular de deficiente gramática de La Vanguardia pero muy disciplinado.

El artículo nos habla de los “expertos” de la ONU, ese gran lobby de vividores e ideólogos activistas en pro un solo gobierno mundial en sus manos.
El periódico  no se corta y atribuye al cambio climático los incendios forestales Griegos y de California.

Mientras tanto seguimos por aquí en un Agosto que, como el del año pasado, tampoco alcanza los 40º C en  Madrid o los 24ºC en el norte de España. Realmente estamos  más fresquitos que en toda mi ya larga vida.

El Mundo, en primera página como segunda o tercera noticia “El Cambio climático en España: 3.5ºC más ¿?, fuegos ¿? y sequía ¿?.  Los signos de interrogación son míos. Mientras tanto los pantanos de Madrid están en máximos históricos.  Esta tarde he pasado por Valmayor.

El País, nos regala esto "La humanidad ha causado ya Daños Irreversibles al Planeta". Primera página a todo trapo que no comento porque la grandeza del medio de la Sra. Botín me supera.

ABC, el más discreto, dice en portada bajo la foto de un incendio en una de las 6000 islas griegas, que "La mano del hombre sube la temperatura del Planeta" y en letra más pequeña "La ONU alerta de los daños irreversibles para la Tierra y urge evitar el caos climático".

La Razón de Maruenda hace como que no ha oído y no trae la cuestión en portada. Se limita a recordar que Pedro Sánchez quiere educar a nuestros hijos y nietos. Lo cual no es novedad, solo un apretón de tuercas.

¿Se habrán quedado tranquilos?

Saludos.


Nota 1. El Prof. Richet está ligado al Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris desde hace 35 años, habiendo sido también profesor visitante en Stanford University y en el Tokyo Institute of Technology. Autor de numerosos libros y artículos, ha recibido prestigiosos premios a su trayectoria científica, como el Ivan Peychès de la Académie des Sciences francesa, el premio Von Humboldt (Gay-Lussac) y la medalla Urey. Su último trabajo de investigación, cuyas conclusiones resume este artículo, puede encontrarse en hgss-12-97-2021.pdf (copernicus.org).


Nota 2. Michael Mann. Clima. Para saber de este personaje he ido a la biblia sobre la cuestión: Climagate, 2010, en la que Brian Sussman, veterano climatólogo, expone gran parte del Fraude Global en marcha desde Al Gore.
Las referencias a Mann vienen en las páginas: 17-19, 35-37, 40-42, 45, 55, 74 y 76.  Es muy interesante leer el tipo de personaje que medra en medio de estas cuestiones que generan inmensos negocios cuyas externalidades pagamos todos.

[Derby]

https://asia.nikkei.com/Editor-s-Picks/Interview/China-s-yuan-likely-to-become-Asia-s-central-currency-Kenneth-Rogoff

China's yuan likely to become Asia's central currency: Kenneth Rogoff

Fifty years after Nixon shock, US risks overconfidence, Harvard professor says

BOSTON, U.S. -- At a secret gathering at Camp David in the summer of 1971, U.S. President Richard Nixon and his top economic advisers made the historic decision to suspend the dollar's convertibility into gold, unilaterally changing the global monetary system.

Fifty years after the event dubbed the "Nixon shock," the U.S. dollar still retains its status as the world's key currency. But will this last for the foreseeable future?

Nikkei sat down with Kenneth Rogoff, professor of economics and Thomas D. Cabot professor of public policy at Harvard University, to discuss the future of the monetary system. Edited excerpts of the interview follow.

Q: You have raised the possibility of China no longer pegging the yuan to the dollar some day.

A: Right now, the dollar is overwhelmingly the dominant currency in the world, much more so than the euro, which is mainly a regional currency in Europe. The dollar, in terms of reserves, invoicing practices, how much countries stabilize around the dollar, financial markets -- just everything -- it's overwhelming. It's more dominant than it was in the 1950s.

However, a significant piece of this is that China has decided to stabilize their exchange rate around the dollar. We don't know what would happen if someday China went to a more normal inflation-targeting regime, and even had an exchange rate more like the yen -- which has been very stable against the dollar in recent years, but it can move.

It wouldn't happen overnight, but my guess is that over time Asia would coalesce, not around the dollar but around the RMB [Renminbi, the Chinese yuan]. Then we'd be in a world where the RMB would be a regional currency in Asia, the euro would be a regional currency in Europe, and the dollar would have everything else.

That would be a loss of an enormous part of the global economy. It would certainly have an impact on the ease with which U.S. corporations can borrow. The U.S. gets benefits from the fact that Asia is so dollar centric.

Q: The dollar is still dominant.

A: The power of the dollar is not just that so much of the world uses it as a unit of account and for invoicing [and] for reserves, but the fact that, because of the power of the dollar, the U.S. has a lot of control over information.

Any time there is dollar clearing, anywhere in the world, a lot of it happens in the U.S. It's very difficult for a foreign central bank, a foreign clearinghouse, to compete with a U.S. clearinghouse because the U.S. clearinghouse has the Federal Reserve behind it. If something goes wrong, they just have an infinite supply of dollars.

If clearing happens in the U.S., that means someone in the U.S. knows what the trade was, what happened. Now, I'm not saying that [President] Joe Biden looks at this every day, but he could.

Q: When you look at history, has the global monetary system usually been multipolar or unipolar?

A: Unipolar is the usual. Multipolar is usually transitional. It's not a stable equilibrium, because there are networking effects that are very powerful, and that tends to prevail. So, if we see China become as important as Europe is today, I suspect there would be a transition to where someday it became the center.

The dollar could last a long time, after the U.S. economy had diminished.

There's an incredible advantage to being on top. Like in anything, if you're a powerful monopoly, you can deliver a mediocre product for a long time before you lose your monopoly. But I think Americans underestimate the fact that it could happen.

The progressives especially just say, "Well, let's make everything free for everyone, and we can just borrow. Interest rates will never go up." You see that argument a lot. That's basically close to modern monetary theory.

Everyone is treating that like that's forever. If the U.S. political system believes in itself too much, [then it takes] a big risk.

Q: What is the time frame we are talking about?

A: It will sort of come over years. China could make a sudden move to inflation-target, but I don't think that would necessarily lead to a sudden move in everything. That would really shake up markets, but it might take 10, 20, 30 years before everyone's following China.

The risk is that interest rates start rising and the U.S. decides not to do anything about it, and it just waits too long -- like in any financial crisis.

[Americans] think they can borrow, and borrow, and borrow, and nothing will ever happen. The history of these things is nothing ever happens 'til it does. The progressives do not sufficiently value the U.S.' geopolitical role. They're interested in the next two years and redistributing as much money as possible.

If I were the U.S., I would be interested in the next 200 years, and trying to remain culturally and politically and economically dominant for as long as possible.

By the way, I favor redistributing income. Why not raise taxes, if you want to provide more benefits? But right now, in Washington, they are very reluctant to raise taxes on most people, and they want to raise benefits a lot, and it's a slippery slope.

Q: What will the future global currency system look like?

A: It's a little bit of prediction about the geopolitical system, of who's going to be controlling the internet in a hundred years, and who's the global superpower. If you extrapolate China's growth and divide by three, it's still going to be the global superpower in a hundred years. And it's very hard for the dollar to withstand that indefinitely.

I've been very surprised China has not had a deep recession -- that it reports, anyway. If you asked me 20 years ago what were the odds that China would have 20 years without even a significant growth recession, I would have been wrong.

It could turn out that their system is very good for dealing with good times, and very bad for dealing with bad times. We don't know.

Political science scholars argue that if China were to continue to ascend, it's going to expand its sphere of influence across Asia.

The most likely [scenario] is that we have a multipolar system for quite a while, maybe up to 2100, with China becoming much more significant. I don't see how China can put up with the current system indefinitely, and they've made small steps.

At some point they're going to see it's not working and make a change. It really depends on when China decides that it wants to do that. And it also depends on the rest of Asia, of who follows.

Hopefully this is something positive. They should be inflation-targeting, as they get bigger. They should open up their country. So that's not necessarily a warlike outcome. It would be a natural outcome.

Q: Do you think that a multipolar system will be better for the stability of the world economy?

A: Probably not more stable. It's very stable to have a dominant currency that's run well and where the hegemon is responsible and looks at the goal. That's the most stable system, because a multipolar system is not a natural equilibrium, because there are network effects. The natural equilibrium is for one currency to be much bigger than the other currencies.

However, in the U.S., if you have leadership that goes this way, then that way, then this way, then this way -- it's not very good for the world. Right now we have President Biden, who is -- whatever else you want to say -- very stable and sane, and tries to be responsible. Who knows what the next person [will do]?

What happened on January 6th [regarding the attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of President Donald Trump] was kind of incredible. Who could have predicted that? That's just beyond belief.

Trump, I don't think he was wrong about everything, but he tried to reverse the election. He really did. He really wanted to.

And, in a way, the progressives, now, want to grab much more power than the voters gave them, and that's also destabilizing. These very fast changes at the top are not something you want to see in the leadership. [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel is just the same every year, little changes, and that's what you'd like to see in the global leader.

Q: What do you think are the minimum conditions for the Chinese renminbi to be the world currency?

A: You have to have some kind of very clear rules of law, which [Chinese leaders] don't have right now. At least they don't have [rules under which] others would trust them. When the U.K. was the central currency, it was also the banking center and the financial center. All the business was done there. You can't be the world currency if nobody trusts doing business in your country.

They would certainly have to greatly strengthen their institutions, their trust. Obviously, everyone had thought the only way that could happen was becoming more democratic. That doesn't seem to be happening.

Maybe they have another way of doing it. I don't know. Eventually if they become two-thirds of the world, they can do anything. But, if you don't trust [Chinese] institutions, you're not going to want to do financial contracts there, you're not going to want to just do your Chinese business in China. You're not going to want to do anything that you don't have to.

So, they have a lot of work to do to get there.

[Derby]

https://www.reuters.com/article/global-markets/global-markets-stocks-strengthen-yields-dollar-rise-on-fed-taper-talk-idUSL1N2PH1CB

Stocks strengthen; yields, dollar rise on Fed taper talk

“Expectations have clearly shifted for Fed Chair Powell to turn hawkish at Jackson Hole and make a formal announcement on tapering asset purchases at the September FOMC meeting,” said Ed Moya, senior market analyst at OANDA in New York.

[sudden and sharp]

[ AGAIN ]

[sudden and sharp]

 

[Rafa_]

Respecto al cambio climático, esta noticia me hizo gracia el otro día:

https://www.mpg.de/17223684/0719-evan-lethal-attacks-by-chimpanzees-on-gorillas-observed-150495-x

Primer ataque observado, no sabemos por qué: cambio climático. Ciencia de la buena.

[puede ser]

https://www.eleconomista.es/vivienda/noticias/11355260/08/21/La-burbuja-global-de-la-vivienda-amenaza-con-crear-una-sociedad-de-propietarios-e-inquilinos.html

Este un fenómeno prácticamente generalizado en las economías avanzadas. El precio de la vivienda se ha disparado casi un 10% en el último año en la OCDE
(...)
Jonas está involucrada en una campaña radical que insta al gobierno de la ciudad de Berlín a expropiar 240.000 vivienda a los propietarios más grandes de Alemania que cotizan en bolsa, acusándoles de exprimir a los residentes con ingresos a través de un mantenimiento deficiente y alquileres elevados.

Después de conseguir más de 350.000 firmas para sus peticiones, su propuesta, que apunta hacia los propietarios corporativos con más de 3.000 pisos cada uno, se votará en un referéndum local en septiembre. Las encuestas sugieren que casi la mitad de los berlineses apoyan la expropiación

Tanto va el cántaro a la fuente...

[Maloserá]

Respecto al cambio climático, esta noticia me hizo gracia el otro día:

https://www.mpg.de/17223684/0719-evan-lethal-attacks-by-chimpanzees-on-gorillas-observed-150495-x

Primer ataque observado, no sabemos por qué: cambio climático. Ciencia de la buena.

Los autores dicen que el cambio climático puede ser una posibilidad y que lo van a investigar. Del artículo:

'The authors from Osnabrück and Leipzig suggest several explanations for the interspecies violence observed including hunting and food competition between the species: "It could be that sharing of food resources by chimpanzees, gorillas and forest elephants in the Loango National Park results in increased competition and sometimes even in lethal interactions between the two great ape species”, says Tobias Deschner. The increased food competition may also be caused by the more recent phenomenon of climate change and a collapse in fruit availability as observed in other tropical forests in Gabon.'

Tampoco es descabellado pensar esa posibilidad. Cambio de clima, menos comida, hostias con los vecinos que además son mas flojuchos. Que posibilidades van a investigar, si los gorilas están todo el día en la Nintendo con juegos violentos?

Lo que no entiendo es la postura negacionista. O sea, seguimos como siempre? Y si al final tenían razón pues nada, a chorar a Cangas y listo?

El climategate fue en realidad un climategategate.https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Leyendo algún resumen aquí y allá de antiguas ediciones del informe del IPCC, parece que se extremaron de cautos en el pasado para complacer a los gobiernos y así seguir como siempre. Me hace gracia que busquéis intereses espurios (espúreos? se me olvida el castellano ) detrás del cambio climático, y no en los negadores del mismo.

[sudden and sharp]

Respecto al cambio climático, esta noticia me hizo gracia el otro día:

https://www.mpg.de/17223684/0719-evan-lethal-attacks-by-chimpanzees-on-gorillas-observed-150495-x

Primer ataque observado, no sabemos por qué: cambio climático. Ciencia de la buena.

Los autores dicen que el cambio climático puede ser una posibilidad y que lo van a investigar. Del artículo:

'The authors from Osnabrück and Leipzig suggest several explanations for the interspecies violence observed including hunting and food competition between the species: "It could be that sharing of food resources by chimpanzees, gorillas and forest elephants in the Loango National Park results in increased competition and sometimes even in lethal interactions between the two great ape species”, says Tobias Deschner. The increased food competition may also be caused by the more recent phenomenon of climate change and a collapse in fruit availability as observed in other tropical forests in Gabon.'

Tampoco es descabellado pensar esa posibilidad. Cambio de clima, menos comida, hostias con los vecinos que además son mas flojuchos. Que posibilidades van a investigar, si los gorilas están todo el día en la Nintendo con juegos violentos?

Lo que no entiendo es la postura negacionista. O sea, seguimos como siempre? Y si al final tenían razón pues nada, a chorar a Cangas y listo?

El climategate fue en realidad un climategategate.https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Leyendo algún resumen aquí y allá de antiguas ediciones del informe del IPCC, parece que se extremaron de cautos en el pasado para complacer a los gobiernos y así seguir como siempre. Me hace gracia que busquéis intereses e

Que sea --por favor--, la última vez que tengamos que explicarte lo obvio:

[url]https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=espurio]spurios (espúreos? se me olvida el castellano ) detrás del cambio climático, y no en los negadores del mismo.

Que sea --por favor--, la última vez que tengamos que explicarte lo obvio:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=espurio

'Ask Google', 'google it"... o pregúntaselo a Google.





De lo otro... pues ese es el tema: nos mixtifican, esto es, nos dan medias verdades, la más eficaz de las mentiras y, además, con toda la intención de llevarnos al error. Encontrar qué es cierto y qué no es el leit motif del foro. ¿Dónde has estado estos años?


Una especie de symploke... no todo es mentira, no todo es verdad, pero hay algo de verdad, ahí, entre las mentiras.

• No puedes ganar
• No puedes siquiera empatar
• No puedes abandonar el "juego".

Esto es lo que nos dicen... [Je, je.]

Y ésta con técnicas de programación programación recursiva:

-------------

[ O... cómo luchar contra una "exponencial"...    ]

[pollo]

Respecto al cambio climático, esta noticia me hizo gracia el otro día:

https://www.mpg.de/17223684/0719-evan-lethal-attacks-by-chimpanzees-on-gorillas-observed-150495-x

Primer ataque observado, no sabemos por qué: cambio climático. Ciencia de la buena.

Los autores dicen que el cambio climático puede ser una posibilidad y que lo van a investigar. Del artículo:

'The authors from Osnabrück and Leipzig suggest several explanations for the interspecies violence observed including hunting and food competition between the species: "It could be that sharing of food resources by chimpanzees, gorillas and forest elephants in the Loango National Park results in increased competition and sometimes even in lethal interactions between the two great ape species”, says Tobias Deschner. The increased food competition may also be caused by the more recent phenomenon of climate change and a collapse in fruit availability as observed in other tropical forests in Gabon.'

Tampoco es descabellado pensar esa posibilidad. Cambio de clima, menos comida, hostias con los vecinos que además son mas flojuchos. Que posibilidades van a investigar, si los gorilas están todo el día en la Nintendo con juegos violentos?

Lo que no entiendo es la postura negacionista. O sea, seguimos como siempre? Y si al final tenían razón pues nada, a chorar a Cangas y listo?

El climategate fue en realidad un climategategate.https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Leyendo algún resumen aquí y allá de antiguas ediciones del informe del IPCC, parece que se extremaron de cautos en el pasado para complacer a los gobiernos y así seguir como siempre. Me hace gracia que busquéis intereses espurios (espúreos? se me olvida el castellano ) detrás del cambio climático, y no en los negadores del mismo.

Que haya gente intentando sacar tajada de las circunstancias (por parte de varios bandos) no es sorprendente. De hecho debería ser lo esperable.
Lo que me parece risible es el concepto de sistema antisistema y que haya gente que no sólo se lo cree, sino que participa de ello y hace proselitismo. De alguna forma han convencido a mucha gente que la realidad científica no importa, sino la postura al respecto.

Al final, tanto defender nuestra identidad a toda costa, nos vamos a quedar sin habitabilidad ni identidad. Como la mitad de los efectos sean ciertos, vamos a reirnos un buen rato todos y vamos a aprender a hostias lo que significa ser una sociedad infantil, que lo somos.

El problema aquí no es la existencia o no de problemas con el clima (en los que prefiero creer a la gente que dedica su vida a estudiarlos y no a gente random con delirios paranoides). El problema es que desde la política y la industria se está jugando a sacar tajada y no a resolver el problema.

Las soluciones no pasan por las imbecilidades que sueltan los políticos (que si volverse vegano, que si créditos de CO2, que si producción ecológica...), y por causa de no hacer los deberes durante décadas (y lo que quede) vamos a tener guerras muy crudas y problemas muy graves, también en los países del primer mundo, como ya está siendo habitual. En particular California me parece un punto muy débil de EE.UU. en este aspecto. La sequía persistente y el agotamiento de acuíferos no tienen solución ni a nadie a quién culpar. Cuando se haga tan extremo que sea imposible de remediar, va a ser un golpe muy gordo. Y ojo, que España está situada en una posición muy parecida. Si desaparecen los glaciares del Himalaya, lo cual está proyectado en unas décadas, va a ser una fiesta entre varios estados nucleares e hiperpoblados muy próximos (India, China, Pakistán).

El problema es indefectiblemente energético, de externalidades, estructura productiva y de gestión de residuos y suelo (que ahora es un chiste quitando dos o tres países nórdicos). Mientras no se haga nada con eso, especialmente depender casi 100% de combustibles fósiles, nada cambiará. Todo lo demás, propaganda, por parte de unos y otros, para seguir con su chollo particular.

Al final como siempre, será por las malas. Pero esta vez no va a haber enemigo al que culpar porque no se va a librar ni dios.

[Derby]

https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/era_of_cheap_natural_gas_ends-06-aug-2021-166124-article/

Era of Cheap Natural Gas Ends

(Bloomberg) -- The era of cheap natural gas is over, giving way to an age of far more costly energy that will create ripple effects across the global economy.

Natural gas, used to generate electricity and heat homes, was abundant and cheap during much of the last decade amid a boom in supply from the U.S. to Australia. That came crashing to a halt this year as demand drastically outpaced new supply. European gas rates reached a record this week, while deliveries of the liquefied fuel to Asia are near an all-time high for this time of year.

With few other options, the world is expected to depend more on cleaner-burning gas as a replacement to coal to help achieve near-term green goals. But as producers curb investments into new supply amid calls from climate-conscious investors and governments, it is becoming apparent that expensive energy is here to stay.

“No matter how you look at it, gas will be the transition fuel for decades to come as major economies are committed to reach carbon emission targets,” said Chris Weafer, chief executive officer of Moscow-based Macro-Advisory Ltd. “The price of gas is more likely to stay elevated over the medium-term and to rise over the longer-term.”

By 2024, demand is forecast to jump 7% from pre-Covid-19 levels, according to the International Energy Agency. Looking further out, the appetite for liquefied natural gas is expected to grow by 3.4% a year through 2035, outpacing other fossil fuels, according to an analysis by McKinsey & Co.

Surging natural gas prices means it will be costlier to power factories or produce petrochemicals, rattling every corner of the global economy and fueling inflation fears. For consumers, it will bring higher monthly energy and gas utility bills. It will cost more to power a washing machine, take a hot shower and cook dinner.

It’s especially bad news for poorer nations like Pakistan and Bangladesh that reworked entire energy policies on the premise that the fuel’s price would be lower for longer.

European natural gas rates have surged more than 1,000% from a record low in May 2020 due to the pandemic, while Asian LNG rates have jumped about six-fold in the last year. Even prices in the U.S., where the shale revolution has significantly boosted production of the fuel, have rallied to the highest level for this time of year in a decade.

While there are several one-off factors that have pushed gas prices higher, such as supply disruptions, the global economic rebound and a lull in new LNG export plants, there is a growing consensus that the world is facing a structural shift, driven by the energy transition.

A decade ago, the IEA declared that the world may be entering a “golden age” of natural gas demand growth due to historic expansion of low-cost supply. Indeed, between 2009 and 2020, global gas consumption surged by 30% as utilities and industries took advantage of booming output.

Countries championed gas as a way to quickly reduce their carbon footprint. The shift to natural gas can be done relatively quickly with limited deployment of capital, while having a significant impact on lowering emissions, according to James Taverner, an analyst at IHS Markit. Natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel, and emits almost 50% less CO2 than coal. Meanwhile, non-fossil-fuel alternatives such as wind and solar are at a relatively early stage in the energy transition.

Demand isn’t showing any signs of slowing down.

Utilities in Europe are switching to the cleaner-burning gas due to sky-high carbon prices, South and Southeast Asian governments are planning dozens of new gas-fired plants to meet greater electricity needs, and China is poised to depend more on gas than ever as it seeks to peak coal consumption.

Even as prices are poised to be higher over the next decade, they won’t be high enough to drastically reduce demand for the fuel, according to Gavin Thompson, Asia-Pacific vice chairman at Wood Mackenzie Ltd. “In emerging economies, with policy support, we don’t see demand destruction,” he said.

Ordinarily, robust demand would encourage a rush of investment in fresh export facilities. But a big factor in higher gas prices is a lack of fresh capital to increase supply. Growing anti-gas sentiment and heightened scrutiny of dirty methane emissions has stalled projects and forced energy majors to rethink plans. The IEA, which heralded natural gas as a bridge fuel to a low carbon future, drew widespread attention earlier this year when it said investments in new upstream fields need to stop if the world wants to hit net-zero emissions by 2050.

Without new investment, LNG consumption in Asia -- the engine for future gas demand growth -- will outstrip supply by 160 millions tons in 2035, according to WoodMac’s Thompson. For comparison, Asia imported about 250 million tons of LNG last year.

Already, there are signs around the world that supplies will fall short:

*Beyond a massive expansion in Qatar, few new LNG export projects have been cleared since the start of 2020.
*End-users have been less willing to take equity stakes in upstream projects or sign long-term supply deals due to uncertainty surrounding government-led efforts to reduce emissions.
*U.S. shale drillers aren’t immediately responding with additional production, as they’re under pressure from investors to curb spending and avoid creating another glut, while key pipeline projects struggle to move forward.

Mark Gyetvay, the deputy chief executive officer of Russian LNG exporter Novatek PJSC, warns that the green movement could disrupt the delivery of adequate and affordable supply to consumers.

“The lack of capital investments in future natural gas projects does not lead us to an energy transition, but instead leads us down an inevitable path toward an energy crisis,” said Gyetvay.

*LNG= Liquified Natural Gas

[Derby]

Wonderful...

https://wolfstreet.com/2021/08/10/this-reddit-lament-sums-up-wonderfully-what-lots-of-home-buyers-will-grapple-with-as-housing-market-normalizes-and-work-from-home-fizzles/

This Reddit Lament Sums up Wonderfully What Lots of Home Buyers Will Grapple with as Housing Market “Normalizes” and Work from Home Fizzles

The price of FOMO.

Here is a Reddit lament by a self-admitted FOMO-home-buyer in Canada. The couple, mistakenly thinking that working-at-home (WAH) was permanent, had bought for that reason a house “hours away” from Toronto six months ago. But turns out, WAH was transitory for them, and now they need to sell the house.

But in the two weeks that the home has been on the market, they didn’t get offers that would allow them to make a profit or break even, as the market is cooling – a horrifyingly bloodcurdling stupendously surprising situation of having to sell a house without being able to make an instant profit.

And they can’t even rent out the house profitably in their estimates. What kind of horror show is this??

This is the horror show of having bought a house in what has been identified as the #2 Housing Bubble in the world, behind New Zealand, and now this housing bubble is “normalizing,” or “cooling,” or whatever, and suddenly the plans go kaput.

Obviously, the couple can sell the house. But they’ll have to price it to where the market is, and the market isn’t where they thought it would be, or where it was six months ago, and they’ll have to try harder and longer and cut the price, and eventually they’ll be able to sell the house. But the dream of making C$100,000 or whatever in six months on flipping a house “hours away” from Toronto have evaporated.

The post was brought to my attention by Steve Saretsky, a Realtor in Vancouver, whose work, reports, and data have appeared on WOLF STREET. Also note the post’s terse marital nuances that come with a situation like this — “she’s livid about the situation and refuses to live here now,” he says:

“Sorry if this is horribly formatted, I’m not a redditor.

“My wife and I bought 6 months ago at the height of the housing market it seems now. We bought hours away from work (Toronto) as we both were working from home. We thought WAH would be permanent and we were both afraid of missing out on buying if we didn’t pull the trigger. Wife is being called back to work full time. I’ve been given notice that we’re going back part time come September.

“We listed our house a bit over two weeks ago, no offer has come in that we break even on let alone profit. Our realtor has told us the market is cooling and that it would be a surprise if we got what we were asking for. We’ve gotten a couple of offers, none of which are asking price.

“We’re at a loss. My wife is looking for work locally but due to the nature of her work she is unlikely to find equivalent in pay or opportunity. She also doesn’t want to leave her employer, she has great upward mobility and seniority there. I don’t personally mind commuting part time but she’s livid about the situation and refuses to live here now.

“My friends keep telling me that there is no such thing as a Canadian market cooling and to just wait it out until it sells.

“If we listed for rent I think we wouldn’t be making a profit.

“Any suggestions would be appreciated.”

What’s amazing to someone like me who has been around the block too many times is the naiveté and the surprise displayed in these eloquent words by the perplexed and frustrated potential home seller. What were they thinking when they bought the house?

They weren’t thinking. They were governed by the fear of missing out (FOMO), and the poster admitted it. FOMO stipulates that you stop thinking, and that you act without thinking, and act now before someone else snaps the overpriced house out from under you. A housing bubble operates on that basis. You cannot maintain a housing bubble without FOMO.

The post also lays bare the whole conundrum of buying a nice big house somewhere far away from the city because now you can work at home, both of you, and then the bosses say, both of them, no, you gotta come back to the office. This stuff really sucks. And I suspect that there’s going to be a lot of it.