Re: SWR, terminal values, TIPS, I-bnds & comm pape
That is exactly right. Politicians have a "planning horizon" that coincides very closely with their term of office. But this is a democracy, and they only stay in power because a majority of us voters put them there.
Hiss wrote:
Please don't be quiet with your views because you certainly have some good points, and I don't entirely disagree.
I would argue that certain natural resources are critical to economic growth, especially when the infrastructure of a nation has become dependent on them, the way that all industrialized nations are heavily dependent on oil. To get those natural resources, a country does not need to have domestic supplies, but does need access to foreign supplies. The major cause of Japan's aggression in the Pacific during the 1930's and 1940's was its perceived need to guarantee access to oil and rubber. The effort of the U.S. to block this access, to punish Japan for its aggression in Manchuria, Korea, and China, was the motivation for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor and Bataan.
We most certainly still need crude oil. Even if we succeed in maintaining access to the major reserves in the Middle East, oil is going to become increasingly expensive as existing reserves diminish and the demand for it in countries like China and India explodes. Sure, we will develop alternatives, and I advocate that we mobilize market forces to accelerate that process by shifting taxes onto crude oil. But barring any unforeseen technological breakthrough, those alternatives will necessarily be more expensive -- meaning that fewer resources will be available for producing everything other than energy.
While I agree that most technological breakthroughs are unforeseen, I think that all such "progress" is ultimately subject to the "law of diminishing returns." For example, in communications, we have progressed from letters carried on horseback over mud roads in the 18th century, to the telegraph in the 19th Century, to the telephone in the early 20th Century, to the Internet and cell phones today. Well, maybe there will be smaller cell phones invented, that can be embedded in a person's head (like my daughter's cell phone already seems to be). But how much additional value will that actually add? And so on in every functional area.
I'd would say that the greatest potential for productivity gain in the future is not in the area of technology, per se, but rather in solving the socio/economic challenge of elevating the "underclass" to become productive members of society.
That is exactly right. Politicians have a "planning horizon" that coincides very closely with their term of office. But this is a democracy, and they only stay in power because a majority of us voters put them there.
Hiss wrote:
Please don't be quiet with your views because you certainly have some good points, and I don't entirely disagree.
I would argue that certain natural resources are critical to economic growth, especially when the infrastructure of a nation has become dependent on them, the way that all industrialized nations are heavily dependent on oil. To get those natural resources, a country does not need to have domestic supplies, but does need access to foreign supplies. The major cause of Japan's aggression in the Pacific during the 1930's and 1940's was its perceived need to guarantee access to oil and rubber. The effort of the U.S. to block this access, to punish Japan for its aggression in Manchuria, Korea, and China, was the motivation for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor and Bataan.
We most certainly still need crude oil. Even if we succeed in maintaining access to the major reserves in the Middle East, oil is going to become increasingly expensive as existing reserves diminish and the demand for it in countries like China and India explodes. Sure, we will develop alternatives, and I advocate that we mobilize market forces to accelerate that process by shifting taxes onto crude oil. But barring any unforeseen technological breakthrough, those alternatives will necessarily be more expensive -- meaning that fewer resources will be available for producing everything other than energy.
While I agree that most technological breakthroughs are unforeseen, I think that all such "progress" is ultimately subject to the "law of diminishing returns." For example, in communications, we have progressed from letters carried on horseback over mud roads in the 18th century, to the telegraph in the 19th Century, to the telephone in the early 20th Century, to the Internet and cell phones today. Well, maybe there will be smaller cell phones invented, that can be embedded in a person's head (like my daughter's cell phone already seems to be). But how much additional value will that actually add? And so on in every functional area.
I'd would say that the greatest potential for productivity gain in the future is not in the area of technology, per se, but rather in solving the socio/economic challenge of elevating the "underclass" to become productive members of society.
