Senator Ron Johnson, on Foxconn, in 2018:
“Today’s groundbreaking is the start of an exciting chapter for southeastern Wisconsin. Not only will our state benefit from the jobs created directly at Foxconn, but also indirectly throughout the economy. I want to congratulate President Trump, Gov. Walker and Speaker Ryan for the commitment and vision to make this possible.”
Senator Ron Johnson, on Oshkosh Corp., in 2022:
“I wouldn’t insert myself to demand that anything be manufactured here using federal funds in Wisconsin,” Johnson told reporters after appearing at a “Parent Empowerment Rally” in Washington County. “Obviously, I’m supportive of it. But in the end, I think when using federal tax dollars, you want to spend those in the most efficient way and if it’s more efficient, more effective to spend those in other states, I don’t have a real problem with that.”
I’m not a big fan of targeted investment subsidies, or industrial policies generally. However, the fact that Senator Johnson isn’t willing to try to persuade a company to invest in his home state is kind of befuddling – he could try to jawbone without spending any public funds.
All I can say is his support for the Foxconn adventure speaks volumes for his judgment, as evaluated by the Mercatus Center. Remember, even if tax credit payments have been relatively small due to Foxconn’s general failure to invest, localities spent hundreds of millions on infrastructure investment, etc.
Mr. Johnson also stated:
“It’s not like we don’t have enough jobs here in Wisconsin.
I am glad the Senator Johnson feels like Wisconsin has enough jobs.
Figure 1: Wisconsin nonfarm payroll employment, in 000’s, s.a. (black). NBER defined recession dates shaded gray. Source: BLS via FRED, NBER.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/02/wisconsin-usps-delivery-vehicles-oshkosh-defense
February 2, 2022
‘Building back worse’: Wisconsin’s fight over the production of USPS vehicles
Political and labor leaders say that unless Wisconsin-based Oshkosh Defense’s production is done in state, Democrats will be hurt in November’s elections
By Steven Greenhouse – Guardian
Wisconsin residents cheered when Oshkosh Defense, a Wisconsin-based manufacturer, won a large contract to build a new generation of post office delivery vehicles – up to 165,000 – but now Wisconsinites are fuming about the company’s decision to produce those vehicles in South Carolina, rather than Wisconsin….
[ Senator Ron Johnson, on Oshkosh Corp., in 2022:
“I wouldn’t insert myself to demand that anything be manufactured here using federal funds in Wisconsin,” Johnson told reporters after appearing at a “Parent Empowerment Rally” in Washington County. “Obviously, I’m supportive of it. But in the end, I think when using federal tax dollars, you want to spend those in the most efficient way and if it’s more efficient, more effective to spend those in other states, I don’t have a real problem with that.” ]
The problem here is profound in that development will not come when the objective is simply “efficiency.” The point to development in Laos is building where there is only a need, otherwise a rail line from landlocked Laos to China would remain a mere foolish vision. * Wisconsin needs to be where post office vehicles are built for the sake of building Wisconsin.
* http://www.news.cn/english/2021-12/03/c_1310348028.htm
December 3, 2021
China-Laos railway carrys dreams, brings hearts closer
By Phouthaphone Sirivong and Zhang Jianhua
VIENTIANE — The sunshine is still burning in a railing base in the northern outskirts of Lao capital Vientiane, but what Sida Phengphongsawanh, a trainee for China-Laos railway train driver, cares, is the jingle of the train maintenance which sounds like music.
The crisp sound in the China Railway No. 2 Engineering Group (CREC-2) of the China-Laos railway seems to celebrate her for one more step closer to fulfill her wish.
The 22-year-old looks gentle while holding a determined “steel locomotive dream”: being a train driver. To this end, as soon as she heard that the China-Laos railway was to be built, she thought about working on it in the future.
Give the guy a break Menzie. It takes a lot of effort to beat Joe McCarthy as Wisconsin’s worse Senator ever.
This 2007 Econbrowser blog post (concerns about future Saudi production):
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2007/05/northern_ghawar
motivated me to download the Saudi production records to data:
https://www.eia.gov/opendata/qb.php?category=1039874&sdid=STEO.COPR_SA.A
Here is the annual production record:
Year Series ID: STEO.COPR_SA.A million barrels per day
1993 8.2
1994 8.1
1995 8.2
1996 8.2
1997 8.4
1998 8.4
1999 7.8
2000 8.4
2001 8.0
2002 7.6
2003 8.8
2004 9.1
2005 9.6
2006 9.2
2007 8.7
2008 9.3
2009 8.2
2010 8.9
2011 9.4
2012 9.8
2013 9.7
2014 9.7
2015 10.1
2016 10.4
2017 10.1
2018 10.4
2019 9.8
2020 9.2
2021 9.1
EIA has the series to finer detail, but I’ve rounded to .1MM bopd for communication. Also, I’m not sure how they have an annual number here already for 2021 (they report faster than USA?) but that’s a nuance. Also, probably there are earlier records. But let’s look at what’s available this far back.
The average production over the 29 year period was: 9.0 MM bopd. The lowest production was 7.8 MM (in 1999) at 13% below average. The highest production was 10.4 in 2016 and 2018 (2016 slightly higher than 2018 if you look at the unrounded numbers). The highs were 16% above average. So, you’re looking at a reasonably stable record of production. Not wild movements to double or halve production (as with many other producing nations).
It’s a time series, so I’m not expecting some wonderful linear regression. But just out of interest, I plotted it. It’s actually an upwards trend over the period. The linear fit is 75,000 bopd/yr increase, with an rsq of 0.63. Again, not monotonic or some 0.9+ rsq. But still, if you just want to know if production has tended to decline…well, no. Really pretty stable, and slightly increasing.
If you look at the yearly records, it seems to match up pretty closely to the expected actions of a dominant player, propping up price. Low in 1999 and 2009 for instance. High in 2016 and 2018 during intra-cartel battles for share (driving Russia into the cartel). Some might try to say that low production with low price makes sense, but SA is not the marginal supplier on the cost curve. They have way fewer rigs running than the US, have low decline, and even full cycle have very low costs. They are the low cost producer, not the high cost one. And note that 2016 production record (one of the worst years recently for price, but intra-cartel battles were well reported in the news, as well as the desire to stop ceding share to shale.)
The 2007 post concluded with:
“After Stuart’s monumental research, I really think the burden of proof is on those who claim that Saudi Arabian production can continue to increase. At this point, we need not the conclusions of experts nor the reassurances from Aramco, but hard data to support the claims.If Saudi production is permanently on the way down, we have just entered a new phase of history.”
Leaving aside “burden of proof”*, the fact is we know now the results, now. And production has not declined markedly since this article. Actually the 2007-2021 trend (linear fit) was up 71,000 bopd. Lousy rsq of 0.26, but still the trend sure ain’t convincingly down. If anything, I’d just call it stable.
The article had a pretty strong opening:
“If you end up being surprised by the big story of the next decade, you can’t say, “nobody told us.” Instead you’ll have to say, “we didn’t listen.”
I’m not sure if “next decade” means the 2010-2019 (conventional decade) or 2008-2017 (next ten years after the article), but in either case the production did not end up being a big story of decline. It had been 8.7 MM bopd in 2007 (year if the article) and was 9.2 MM bopd in 2006 (last full year before the article). But it averaged 9.8 MM bopd in the teens (9.6 MM bopd in the next ten years). So, about a million bopd more than the year of the blog post.
Perhaps, Staniford (and Hamilton) were overly influenced by the 05-07 production trend of 9.6 to 9.2 to 8.7 MM bopd. And with this happening in the face of increasing prices. Could seemingly be explained either by unstoppable depletion or by dominant player action. Given the next 15 years of production, I don’t think depletion was the correct choice…
*Really? Saudi Aramco and EIA and USGS and IHS are all going strong. Stuart has departed oil analysis and the peak oil amateur analyst clubs like ASPO and The Oil Drum have closed.
Anonymous,
Well, looks like Stuart was wrong, although neither you nor I nor for that matter Jim Hamilton are sufficiently knowledgeable about this sort of physical analysis he made to determine why he proved to be wrong.
Not sure what the point of publishing this now is, as it was clear soon after 2007 that Stuart was wrong. I remember well the postings and discussion here during that period when many were predicting that we had reached peak oil production. It may well be that in this particular post Jim supported, or at least put forward as serious, this argument by Stuart. But my memory is that most of the time he was pushing back against the most fervent of the peak oil production crowd.
It is also the case that Ghawar is the largest oil field in the world. I remember seeing all these reports of production beginning to decline in its northern part. Do you have any figures on what has been going on there, Anonymous? Has production in fact held up in the northern part, which was the focus of Stuart’s analysis, or did it decline with the later increases in Saudi production coming from either the southern part of Ghawar or from elsewhwere? I note that Jim himself noted that there was a lack of certainty about all this due to the Saudis concealing crucial information.
I just checked. Production from al Ghawar is down somewhat, although it had actually peaked in 1961 at over 5 mbpd. It is producing at around 3.8 mpbd currently, with over 50 billion in reserves still. I did not see a breakdown for northern vs southern parts of Ghawar production, but it does look that Staniford probably overstated the degree of decline that was going to come out of the field.
BR:
Ghawar production is not reported. Even the 5 MM bopd down to 3.8, that you see in the media is based on very limited information (recent reserves report) and not a real time series. The only thing reliable is overall Saudi production. (But that is what matters, also.)
At a minimum, the implications of Staniford’s article were misconstrued. The Saudis pumped fine in the 20teens, whether from Ghawar or elsewhere. So, even if Ghawar went to zero (it didn’t, still a massive production coming out of it, right now), Saudi overall production has been fine.
Yes, James did make some calm comments, that were more moderate than the rabid peak oilers. For instance he pointed out that we really don’t know Saudi internal details.
But he still flirted with that stuff a lot and took it as important input. Giving it more importance than it deserved. And didn’t adequately report on the possible surge from shale. Even with caveats like for the TOD stuff, could have mentioned the upside dangers as well…it wasn’t completely unknown. Instead, there was pretty slow reporting only as the story unfolded and some dismissal of the potential. Skepticism is OK, but would make sense to at least consider upsides. Heck EIA didn’t end up overestimating shale, they pretty much underestimated it, while getting beaten up for being too cornucopian. And the EIA critics did even worse (like David Hughes, cited by James in some blog posts).
Given how events played out and how Staniford/ASPO/TOD have all left the scene maybe the EIA, IHS, IEA, etc. were not amiss in seriously following that crowd. Serious social scientists would update their priors and continue analyzing even if the story changed (after all lots of cool things are still happening). But that crowd has mostly run for the hills. Or if they still do analysis (e.g. David Hughes), it’s without serious examination of their past of mistakes and adjustment to new methods. (Patzek is probably the best here but then he’s a real academic scientist and publishes…and in real journals…and ones in the field.)
Of interest, the recent Saudi reserves report was met with a lot of pushback from the peak oilers. Had said for years that they wanted a proper report…then got one and complained about it, rather than using it as input to revise their Matt Simmons style thinking. Report was very high level, but a top Houston reserves firm audited it and signed off and it gave totals. Peak oilers were unhappy that the reserves were close to those from 1980s (despite a lot of production in the mean time). But really, reserves growth is not uncommon–look at the US.
BR, I downloaded the Saudi reserves report a while ago. Sorry, not finding it now (stupid computer directory), but from memory:
1. At 50 B bo and at 3.8 MM bopd, that’s 36 years of production. Probably done a couple years since the report. But then it’s ignoring reserves growth also. In any case, 36 years of production from a finance standpoint is pretty far out (discount it back, for instance).
2. If you look at overall Saudi reserves of ~270B and some nominal 10 MM bopd, you’ve got 74 years of production. Again, pretty far out for any economically relevant scarcity rents.
In any case, there is that reserves report out now. Lot of dissatisfaction from the hard core peak oilers (even light ones like James) about lack of info on Aramco. [If I were them, wouldn’t share it either, screw McKinsey/MBS.] But there’s a report out now. I downloaded it. But very little analysis from the Saudi skeptics. Sure, it is high level, sure the client paid for it…but it was done by two top external reserves auditors Seems like those who were digging into Staniford and wanting more info, would be digging into that report now. Would be updating their Bayesian priors.
Anonymous,
This will be my only further comment on your stuff on this on this thread, where it does not belong at all, a thread about employment in Wisconsin and its Sen. Ron Johnson, although Menzie does tolerate sideshows like this on his threads.
I have to ask why you are bringing this up now and here? You go after a 15 year old post by Jim Hamilton on a thread put up by Menzie Chinn. What is the point? Saudi oil production was up the following year, and was only below that of 2007 in the Great Recession year of 2009. Everybody figured out some time ago that the hard core peak oilers were wrong, and I would stick with my characterization of Jim’s position as not being in their camp particularly, but entertaining the debate. Again, the Staniford study he linked to was a serious matter by a serious guy, even if it turned out it was wrong in the end, and even you admit that Jim did not say it was right, just that if it was it would be a serious matter. Well, it was not, and according to you, this guy is no longer in the business. So why do we need to dredge through this now quite old clearly flawed study? Do you think Jim should have had the expertise to see that it was flawed then?
I find it funny that on the crucial matter of what that study claimed, you do not have an answer, nor do I, namely, what has happened to northern al Ghawar oil production? Even back then, and like Steven Kopits, I was a part of the discussion of all this, I emphasized then as now something you have admitted yourself: the Saudis are very secretive about all this, so it is very hard to get public answers on it. I am sure there are plenty of people who know, but I am not one, and it looks you are not either. Maybe Jim or Steven K., know, but they are not talking about it now.
Yes, Saudi oil production has risen since 2007. This almost certainly means that overall production from al Ghawar did not seriously decline, whatever it is or might be, whatever has gone on in the specifically northern part of it.
Oh, I would also note, more for others, although perhaps you do not understand this, Anonymous, I think Steven Kopits does, and I know Jim H. does, that making a lot about official reserves numbers is misleading. Those indeed do generally rise as production proceeds until, well, they do not. There are many measures of reserves, and what gets publicized are those completely known and measured and currently retrievable profitably. Those numbers move around a lot in arbitrary ways,.so the less said the better frankly.
If you really want to pick a fight with Jim H., then wait for the next time he posts something here, which I know does not happen too often anymore, and he seems to stay away from oil issues, and then have at him. Really way off here with this.
Ghawar?? When did you get into alternative heavy metal??
Your point? Seriously, there are all those words, but “conclusion” reads as mostly snark. If you have a point, make it. ‘ Cause seriously, nearly everything you write seems to come from the weasel school of trash talk.
Grow a spine – say what you mean.
It appears the woman deemed for sainthood by some regulars on this blog is at it again. Well, there must be some excuse for corrupt behavior. Her brain weighs about 1200 grams, so that would clear her of any crimes.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/senate-members-trade-stocks-brown-164038681.html
With flip flops like that Ron Jon can get a job as chef for IHOP
Don’t be dissing IHOP workers. UNlike Johnson they at least contribute to society.
Hi Menzie,
Thanks for the post.
For non-Wisconsin residents that may not know some of our WI history. Oshkosh Corporation was founded in, and has been operating in, and is an important manufacturing employer in Wisconsin for more than 105 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_Corporation
Meanwhile, FoxConn – for which Walker/WIGOP put WI taxpayers on the hook for millions in state $ – did not create a single job in the state beyond a few GOP lobbyists/”consultants” https://journaltimes.com/news/local/building-where-trump-said-foxconn-would-be-8th-wonder-of-the-world-to-be-leased/article_92c43ba9-2a4f-532b-bf01-5322659eaeca.html
I keep hearing that the GOP is the better party for economic growth – but all I see the GOP doing is giving tax breaks to themselves and rich donors – while it is rugged individualism and tighten your belts for the rest of us. https://upnorthnewswi.com/2021/08/11/following-the-money-investigation-shows-how-ron-johnson-secured-a-giant-tax-break-for-mega-gop-donors/
Speaking as an out-of-stater, I don’t think it was history that was/is the problem here. It was the genuineness and sincerity of the parties involved. The irony is, Wisconsinites with a brain should be MUCH more upset about the Foxconn/Walker deal, because it was never going to go down from the beginning and Walker was “stringing people along” like some girl trying to get free meals from a dweeb. I think a pretty strong argument can be made Oshkosh was more sincere about it (more like the girlfriend who was angry you forgot some cheap crap on Valentine’s Day). Yeah, that latter one hurts, but less reason to be angry.
Here’s a 2010 Econbrowser guest post by some fellow named, um, Steven Kopits.
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2010/06/eia_hard_core_p
Main message in the article was that EIA (called “cheerleaders”) were coming to Jesus by moderating their long term oil forecasts. By eye from the post’s chart, 2020 total liquids production forecasts were:
Forecast year: MM bopd total liquids in 2020
2007: 104
2008: 101
2009: 95
2010: 92
(We could get the actual #s, by digging up several different old EIA AEOs, but that’s close, by eye.)
Here were the actual results, from EIA: https://www.eia.gov/opendata/qb.php?sdid=INTL.53-1-WORL-TBPD.A
Year MM bopd
2007 85.3
2008 86.7
2009 85.9
2010 88.4
2011 88.7
2012 90.8
2013 91.3
2014 93.9
2015 96.7
2016 97.0
2017 97.8
2018 100.5
2019 100.4
2020 93.9
As you can see, we took a hurting from Covid in 2020. But we actually hit 100+ in both 2018 and 2019 (pre Covid). We were on a track of a little under the 07 forecast and a little over the 08 one. Every bear market ends right after the last bull throws in the towel and becomes a fellow bear. 😉
By the way, that’s some nice growth (pre Covid). I wonder what the big story of that decade was. Where all those hydrocarbons came from. Maybe the Canadians? Brazil? Guess we needed some warnings on the added supply potential…not just Staniford’s warnings about Saudi depletion.
This is a pretty sound “explaining arbitrage theory to peak oilers” article, from 2005.
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2005/06/contango_backwa_1
Making the point that sure, maybe the futures markets might be wrong (lot of uncertainty, just like point spreads in football, versus outcomes). But that buyers and sellers have an incentive to try to be right.
And also, that peak oilers ought to put their money where there mouths were. (Only thing is I would say buying equity stakes in oil producers is a more tax and brokerage fee efficient way to make the peak oil play, if you think you are smarter than the strip.)
Unfortunately, he seemed to have left that 2005 framework of listening to the market (or at least considering seriously that people think differently as shown by their bets) by NOV14:
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2014/11/a-glut-of-oil
“Here’s my advice to anybody who’s contemplating selling $85 oil at $66 a barrel– don’t do it. If you can wait a few years, that $85 oil will be worth more than it costs to produce. But selling it at a loss in the current market is a fool’s game.”
I guess if you could wait until now (perfect market timer) and had no interest or storage costs, then it might have made sense to hold that $66 oil. Seems like a stretch though, given most of the last seven years. And in any case of how it turned out, it’s definitely not a prediction markets Bayesian style, EMH mindset. More of an I’m smarter than the market mindset.
I guess we should start with a congratulations to Oshkosh for getting this big contract with the USPS:
https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/companies/2021/02/23/united-states-postal-service-announces-contract-oshkosh-defense-produce-zero-emission-low-emission-d/4562695001/
If Wisconsin has blown it – it seems these jobs will go to South Carolina. Maybe Ron Jon did not want the postal service getting new trucks on the hope of gumming up the 2022 election the way DeJoy was supposed to suppress the votes in the 2020 election.
And of course Ron Jon can brag that US taxpayer funds went to shore up a large Taiwanese multinational.
It seems this contract may be in jeopardy from the EPA, which could lead President Biden not to let it go ahead as originally planned:
https://fordauthority.com/2022/02/oshkosh-defense-usps-mail-carrier-contract-catches-flak-from-epa/
Of course the original bidding was done when the incompetents working for Trump were in charge.
Irrespective of Mr Johnson’s claim “[i]t’s not like we don’t have enough jobs here in Wisconsin”, a time series of Wisconsin nonfarm payroll employment certainly isn’t sufficient in refuting the claim.
Well, go ahead. Go get some data and fill in the picture. Employment level may not be the whole story, but as prima facie evidence goes, it’s pretty good.
Anybody here keep track of the tricks used by evolution deniers? One of them is to point to gaps in the fossil record and crow “Ah Hah! What about that?” Then, when a new fossil is found which fits in the gap, their answer is “Look! Now there are two gaps in the fossil record!”
There’s never enough evidence for those for whom evidence isn’t the point.
That’s Menzie’s job – I haven’t made any claims here. He failed and he should admit it. He’s the one who needs to go get data to support his agenda – not me. My agenda is to point out his slip-ups and this one was glaringly obvious.
Your comparison to the “god of the gaps” is simply ridiculous yet admittedly a pretty good attempt. Menzie’s posting of employment levels is silly because we know labor markets have seen huge shifts (transitory or permanent ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) during this pandemic.
Menzie has yolk on his face. Yet again.
So you have no responsibility to substantiate your views, but assign responsibility to others? You fail to make a valid point and then pretend to judge who has?
Sad little pretender.
What “view”? The only “view” that I’ve asserted is posting the levels of employment doesn’t refute a politician’s comment regarding the availability of jobs. If you can’t see that (which I’m beginning to see some might not) the problem isn’t with me.
And your is chirping word salad which you do so well
Econned: I’d welcome your data to substantiate Mr. Johnson’s assertion. 2021M12 Manufacturing sector real wage in Wisconsin is 0.9% lower than in 2019M12 (5% for entire private sector). If there was a tremendous outstripping of supply by labor demand, would I not expect an increase in real wage relative to pre-pandemic?
Do you actually think Econned is going to bother specifying a labor demand / labor supply model? That would get in the way of his prime directive – incessant chirping.
Menzie: very strange reply…
1) Why would you think I have my own “data” (e.g. “your data” is very strange – maybe this is your own “Data Paranoia Watch”)
2) Why would I attempt to “substantiate Mr. Johnson’s assertion”? I don’t see how the validity Mr. Johnson’s assertion is relevant to the issue that you provided data that completely failed to invalidate Mr. Johnson’s assertion. Your attempt at pushing such a logical fallacy is silly.
3) why would you now point to the level of manufacturing real wages as supporting Wisconsin having (or not) “enough jobs”? And not before? Is this you tacitly conceding that your prior presentation of data was largely useless?
4) you may very well expect that but I (thankfully) do not know your precise expectations. Either way, it’s completely irrelevant to my comment. I suppose you may continue to move the goalposts if that is the approach to dialogue that you continue to foster on this blog.
5) why are you hanging your hypothetical expectation on “pre-pandemic” dynamics while discussing mid(ish?)-pandemic dynamics? Such analysis is quite amateurish.
Remind me never to head into the forest together with you. You enjoy playing “poke the bear” way too much. Luckily for you, Menzie has much better tolerance, lenience, and sophistication than a bear. But I think I may have just now figured out why Menzie attracts half-wits such as yourself.
So many words and not a shred of substance…what dressing should we put on that word salad
Another worthless honk of the clown nose from the tragic clown. Same old routine on the old same channel.
You know – if monopsony power in your state was allowed to become more prevalent under Walker, that might explain the lower amount of employment as well as your observation about real wages. Of course the mere concept of monopsony power is going to drive the right wingers here insane.
Econned,
Your genitalia are stinking again. I suggest you go somewhere to air them fully before so stupidly and hypocritically shooting off your mouth here again.
Of course looking at a time series of non-farm employment in Wisconsin is the appropriate data to consider whether there are “enough jobs in Wisconsin” or at least central to such a consideration. Menzie asks what other data you would provide to consider the matter, and rather than answer his question, you declare that somehow it is up to him to provide the data you claim is necessary, but that somehow it is beneath you to mention. even what such data might even be.
As usual, you are the one moving goalposts and with egg yolk all over your face, except for the especially rotten part dripping down all over your stinking genitalia.
Barkley,
Yes, you silly old fool – it’s up to Menzie to provide meaningful data to argue his stance. It isn’t up to me to do the work for him.
I haven’t moved any goalpost – you obviously don’t understand what that phrase means. Moreover, you provided ZERO support of the claim.
Glad to see you’re still focused on my private region. You certainly have a strange infatuation with me, you slimy old degenerate.
Econned,
You were the one who brought up your private region here. None o us cares for it at all, sorry to disabuse your ego on that. But now it might get thrown in your face that you brought it up when you get way out of line, as you are on this one. This has been one of your worst performances so far. you got nothing on Menzie, just dumb vacuous name calling.
Hilarious!!! You claim to not care but you continue to bring it up. You’re so awful at this game you play it’s honestly kind of pathetic. Moreover, you still can’t provide any evidence of my moving the goalpost. It’s sad conversing with you but it’s entertaining nonetheless.
Econned,
You were the one who in another thread brought up your private parts for a reason that was never clear. It is my observation that people who talk about their private parts in public without being asked to have a serious problem with those. So, I tell you what: you do not mention them again, and I shall not.
Heck, this was a bizarre matter on your part. At least with the matter of the unfortunate coincidence of the fake name of “Rick S.” we suspect he did not realize what was going on when he picked it. I think we are all letting him alone on that embarrassing matter and moving on. I note, again, that he at least sometimes makes intelligent comments that lead to substantial discussions here, in sharp contrast with you.
As it is, I am hard pressed to remember you coming up with something as stupid and ridiculous as you are on this matter, somehow suggesting that in discussing jobs in Wisconsin Menzie should not talk about employment levels. I mean, really, you deserved to have your worthless private parts thrown in your face. But I promise, it will not happen again, unless you bring them out into public yoursrlf for yet another airing.
And you’re the one who continued to mention it here. Not me. This is your doing here. That makes you obsessed. It’s flattering but it’s weird. You’re weird. This is 100% your doing.
Also, If you’re so outdated and senile that you didn’t understand the original reference then that’s all on you. I don’t really care. It makes your comments even more ridiculous than they normally are. But that’s why I engage with you – for laughter.
Again, your comments are without substance and you’re misrepresenting my comment. I was clear that employment levels don’t tell the story of available jobs and that Menzie isn’t actually refuting Johnson’s comments. He could have but he didn’t care to actually assess Johnson’s complete argument. Your devotion to Menzie will never allow you concede. It’s likely past your bedtime – allow your glucose levels are likely low – we know which version of you we’re dealing with. Go rest. For your own sake. You’re an embarrassment to your colleagues, family, friends, and yourself.
Econned,
He not only showed employment levels, he showed how they were changing. Those are absolutely tied to availability of jobs. Yet again, you are pushing one of the stupidest lines ever seen here without offering the remotest shred of an actual substantive argument, data, or idea of your own, just a lot more name calling, as in this latest post,
Barkley,
You and Menzie are ignoring the complete comment by Johnson. You’re just not an honest person.
At least you aren’t arguing that YOU continue to bring up my private region. Senile old hag.
Econned,
My las comment here, as you just keep your moving goal poss, not to mention bringing up your private parts yet again. So now there is something that Sen. Johnson said that Menzie should have addressed that apparently would have made Johnson”s argument sensible or reasonable? Oh, you are now mentioning this? Why have you not mentioned what that argument was? Ah, yet more invisible moving goal posts on your part. You have offered nothing worth anything about any of this in all these comments by you, just a lot of dumb insults.
Outtahere.
econned, your critique of prof. chinn certainly isn’t sufficient in refuting his post. your assessment is completing lacking and not supported by any evidence. you failed, and should now simply admit you were wrong.
Not wrong at all. Johnson never said that employment is at an optimal level. He was clear. You and Menzie are just are too lazy to do the digging into the actual comment. Johnson’s actual comment in its entirety can be argued but the way Menzie decided to do so is sloppy and partisan. But that’s what Menzie is – sloppy and partisan.
this did not improve your argument in any credible way.
The semiconductor industry wants us to know that their sales in 2021 will be around $550 billion as opposed to $440 billion in 2020:
https://www.semiconductors.org/global-semiconductor-sales-increase-24-year-to-year-in-october-annual-sales-projected-to-increase-26-in-2021-exceed-600-billion-in-2022/
An interesting chart is provided that shows monthly sales from January 1996 to the most recent month. Monthly sales used to be $10 billion but are approaching $50 billion. It would seem that any semiconductor shortage is from soaring demand.
One thing that is missing from this industry report. How much of the increase in revenues from an increase in quantity versus an increase in prices,
FRED Blog mentioned this series known as the import semiconductor manufacturing price index, which was noted in a BLS analysis written back in 2020 noting how prices were falling, Ah what about prices over the last year? It seems they rose by a small amount:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IZ3344
This series from the BLS dates back to 2005 and notes semiconductor prices have generally fallen over time. That sound be little surprise given how this sector has evolved since its inception.
There’s just no feeling better than representing your home country, is there??
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/chinas-zhu-yi-leaves-ice-in-tears-after-falling-again-in-team-competition-062758241.html
Can you feel the love tonight??
https://twitter.com/rottentomatoes/status/1154488995507822605?lang=en
That’ll teach all you “scumbuckets” whose parents or grandparents or great grandparents…….. wanted a better life. Take that!!!! all strivers and achievers. How dare you.
This is actually an important life lesson for her, learned by mainland Chinese generations ago: blood is thinner than the ink in a red stamp on paper of cheaper grade than a rag American newspaper. Enjoy it. Or enjoy what that ethnic “bond” is, that you imagine in your playworld mind.
One line in your yahoo link stood out for me. She gave up U.S. citizenship to compete for China. Plenty of athletes compete for countries other than their country of residence or citizenship. Why did this one need to surrender U.S. citizenship? Must be a Chinese rule?
It’s obvious enough why she chose to compete for China. She couldn’t make the U.S. team, but did make China’s. Problem is, she’ll have to live with that decision once she’s too old to compete.
I can’t swear to it, but yes, I’m 80% certain it’s a rule on the Chinese side of things. I looked into that years ago, because they have rules obstructing foreigners from buying property there (if you can believe I would be that stupid. I would have been that stupid). I assume it helps them keep people under their thumb better. I would guess if certain channels were open, and she keeps her public comments mild, there might be a doorway back to the USA someplace. She seems like a unselfish caring girl. I certainly hope if she wants to come back to the USA and regain citizenship she can. It would only be vindictive of Chinese authorities at this point to make her follow through. IMHO. But maybe I’m biased in some ways there, I don’t know. I really kind of feel for her to be honest. She voluntarily put herself into a jam, but she’s young, and I think youth should allow for some errors.
You know what really got her on the skating ice, right?? She cares “too much”.
In what looks like confirmation of “inventory glut” report elsewhere, the January Logistics Managers’ 8ndex report shows inventories rising, warehouse space tight and demand growth softening. The most serious remaining bottleneck is transport:
https://www.the-lmi.com/january-2022-logistics-managers-index.html
That looks disinflationary for goods, once the combined effect of full warehouses and cooling demand growth take pressure off of transportation.
Not all sunshine, of course. The ISM factory and services surveys for January showed similar results, but the reduction in pipeline pressures left conditions very tight. The problem, of course, is that cooling inflationary pressures are accompanied by cooling overall activity. Employment measures, fortunately, remain strong.
Johnson is a globalist con man. He lives for debt and capitalism. Much like all Republicans. The global rich mean more to him than the American working class. It’s part of the tax cut scam: money for foreigners.
I just now noticed something while drinking my beer here listening to Khruangbin and starting to space out. “JohnH” is mysteriously missing in this post.
“JohnH”, Menzie is discussing something you and I have often complained (rightly or wrongly) academic economists don’t discuss enough. Now Menzie is discussing it and you have nothing to say?? Has this ruined your narrative that Menzie and other economists “don’t care” about the little guy?? Also keep in mind, Menzie is discussing this at a time when the “official” unemployment numbers are low. This doesn’t spell out “apathy” to me “JohnH”. Dare I say it (there is no Nobel prize for this in the works for Menzie I guess) it spells out caring and empathy for the working man or regular Joe?? Oh G*d, burn me on a crucifix, I think I just typed that.