Preliminary reading of 72.6 far exceeded Bloomberg consensus of 65.5. That’s an increase of one standard deviation (calculated for the last three years).
Figure 1: University of Michigan Sentiment Index (blue), Bloomberg consensus of 7/14 (light blue +), and Conference Board Confidence Index (tan). July Sentiment Index is preliminary. NBER defined peak-to-trough recession dates shaded gray. Source: University of Michigan via FRED, Conference Board via investing.com, Bloomberg, and NBER.
The increase in sentiment came from both current conditions as well as expectations (for more discussion of determinants of the indices, see this post). The UMich director attributed the gain to gathering confidence in the stabilization of inflation (Investopedia) This shift is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Actual year-on-year CPI inflation (bold black), University of Michigan one year expected inflation (blue), Bloomberg consensus of 7/14 (light blue +), and Survey of Professional Forecasters expected inflation (red +). July inflation is preliminary. NBER defined peak-to-trough recession dates shaded gray. Source: BLS, University of Michigan via FRED, Philadelphia Fed, Bloomberg, NBER, and author’s calculations.
That being said, it appears sentiment is improving subtantially primarily among Democrat/Lean Democrat. Republican/Lean Republican seem mired in gloom
Source: Levin, “So long ‘vibecession’…,” Bloomberg, July 14, 2023.
To the extent inflation has depressed (non-Republican) consumer moods and (non-Republican) approval of Biden’s job performance, slowing inflation ought to do for Biden what it has done for confidence. So far, however, any improvement is in a reduced disapproval rate:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
The old “job gains => re-election” calculus doesn’t seem to be all that useful now, either. Republicans have tried to saddle Biden with the blame for inflation – dishonest, but apparently effective. Now, slower inflation reportedly has them scrounging around for something else to blame on Biden:
https://www.thehill.com/homenews/senate/4096609-gop-mulls-retooling-message-as-inflation-rate-plummets/amp/
Low inflation doesn’t instantly lead to a perception that prices aren’t too high – maybe moods will take time to improve. There are also record heat, the sour-mood aftermath of Covid (which ain’t really over), relentless “Biden news is bad news” yacking from the troll choir writ large – the list goes on.
Right now, it looks like Biden vs Trump in 2024, which turned out OK last time. Both are unpopular. Biden’s disapproval rating is lower (better) than Trumps by a fair margin, Biden approval rating higher by a lesser margin. The electoral college doesn’t run in approval ratings.
Presidential preference polls don’t count for much right now, either, but here they are:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
Biden comes out on top vs Trump more often than not, but the numbers are very close.
Could be that Democrat and D-leaning respondents’ moods have improved because they think lower inflation means reduced Republican electoral prospects?
That would be sad. That would mean politics before reality. Just like Republicans.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2216248120
June 27, 2023
Caught in the crossfire: Fears of Chinese–American scientists
By Yu Xie, Xihong Lin, Ju Li and Junming Huang
Significance
Our study reveals the widespread fear among scientists of Chinese descent in the United States arising from conducting routine research and academic activities. If this fear is not alleviated, there are significant risks of underutilization of scientific talent as well as losing scientific talent to China and other countries. Addressing the fear of US-based scientists of Chinese descent and making the American academic environment welcoming and attractive to all will help retain and attract scientific talent and strengthen the US global leadership in science and technology in the long run.
Abstract
The US global leadership in science and technology has greatly benefitted from immigrants from other countries, most notably from China in the recent decades. However, feeling the pressure of potential federal investigations since the 2018 launch of the China Initiative, scientists of Chinese descent in the United States now face higher incentives to leave the United States and lower incentives to apply for federal grants. Analyzing data pertaining to institutional affiliations of more than 200 million scientific papers, we find a steady increase in the return migration of scientists of Chinese descent from the United States to China. We also conducted a survey of scientists of Chinese descent employed by US universities in tenured or tenure-track positions (n = 1,304), with results revealing general feelings of fear and anxiety that lead them to consider leaving the United States and/or stop applying for federal grants. If the situation is not corrected, American science will likely suffer the loss of scientific talent to China and other countries.
And this is related to the current post how?
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2216248120
June 27, 2023
Caught in the crossfire: Fears of Chinese–American scientists
By Yu Xie, Xihong Lin, Ju Li and Junming Huang
Seventy-two percent do not feel safe as an academic researcher.
How many americans would feel safe conducting research in china?
Or, for that matter, how many Japanese, South Koreans, or Vietnamese?
ltr is obviously arguing from the point of view of American exceptionally. The U.S. is better than China, so one should expect that Chinese researchers in the U.S. would feel safe, whereas U.S. researchers in China would feel threatened.
Glad to see ltr has a realistic understanding of the relative virtues of these two countries.
Exceptionalism. D#&$&d auto-correct.
Thought this was an interesting article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/us/california-math-data-science-algebra.html
Since 2020, California has led a contentious experiment in high school math. That year, public universities in the state — including Berkeley and U.C.L.A. — loosened their admissions criteria, telling high schools that they would consider applicants who had skipped Algebra II, a cornerstone of math instruction. In its place, students could take data science — a mix of math, statistics and computer science without widely agreed upon high school standards. Allowing data science, the universities said, was an “equity issue” that could send more students to college. But it also raised concerns that some teenagers would be channeled into less challenging coursework, limiting their opportunities once they got there. Now, the California experiment is under review. On Wednesday, the State Board of Education voted to remove its endorsement of data science as a substitute for Algebra II as part of new guidelines for K-12 schools. “We have to be careful and deliberate about ensuring rigor,” Linda Darling-Hammond, president of the state board, said before the vote. The board took its cue from the state university system, which also appeared to back away this week from data science as a substitute for Algebra II. A U.C. faculty committee — which controls admission requirements for the state’s entire public university system — announced on Wednesday that it will re-examine what high school courses, including data science, meet the standards for “advanced math.”
Wait I had to take Algebra II and Calculus in high school. But please read on as the rest of the article is indeed an interesting issue in education.
This new math standard is a problem. Most stem degrees require calculus as the basic prerequisite for upper level classes. If students arrive at college at or below algebra 2, they are at least a year behind getting into a calculus class. This adds a year of remedial math to their time in college, and probably turns the degree plan into at least 5 years. Better to do that math in high school, if possible. Real world examples of the math deficiency is corev.
Negative energy prices in Europe?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/european-power-prices-fall-below-zero-with-green-power-boom/ar-AA1dU50h?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=5c5b3d5fee804d9c83a6a12a5d2d4c35&ei=13
lectricity prices across Europe are set to fall below zero this weekend as the continent experiences a surge of summer winds combined with the peak season for solar generation.
The sub-zero prices are a preview of what’s to come for European power markets if a flood of planned renewable power production isn’t met with a shift in demand. The hope is that eventually larger electric car fleets, smarter grids and better battery technology will catch up, but for now the mismatch is a headache for policy makers and companies.
The risk is that a prolonged slump in prices could undermine the case for future investments, add costs for consumers and waste energy that could be used to cut demand for polluting alternatives.
Data from Epex Spot SE on Friday show electricity prices for certain hours of Saturday are negative in nearly a dozen countries including the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and France. That’s likely to continue into Sunday when wind power production is set to ramp up further in northern continental Europe and Britain.
Negative prices aren’t new, but are happening more frequently this summer after Europeans added a record amount of solar panels to the power grid last year to cut demand for expensive natural gas. The new production helped the EU hit a milestone earlier this summer when monthly solar power surpassed electricity generation from coal for the first time.
do you suppose they shut down all gas generation?
probably not. it cost euros to shut down generators to start up a day later, and with mild year, and leaks in sanction eu nat gas caverns are full.
I am sure there is a way to shut down wind turbine under spin load….. just how?
when electric is scarce prices per kwh go up, when it costs euros to shut down generation price goes to zero.
like what happened to crude in spring 2020, oil going to storage overfilled, and supplier virtually paid some one to take the oil.
Reverse intermittency? Oh no!
% power supplied is watts of source sold divided by total watts demands.
both are variable over time, denominator can be model with a few degrees of freedom (variability causes).
the numerator should be the predictable portion as the grid buys the watts.
intermittency is the numerator challenge.
peak solar output is off peak demand, while wind watts are thrown around by weather, and equipment availability.
Similarly to not shutting hydrocarbon plant down for a few days, it also doesn’t make sense to build energy storage that is only needed for a few days every year.
The consequences of having too much vs not enough electricity are asymmetrical. Blackout or brownouts when there is not enough electricity, has bad consequences for individuals and businesses. Selling electricity for slightly negative prices creates a few winners and a few losers on Wall Street. Nobody important notice any difference.
There ya go.
But it is worth noting that alternative sources of electricity have expanded in Europe to the point that the can have a substantial effect on pricing.
But energy storage can be used frequently to store unused energy and release when needed. Since the stored energy is cheap, this is how a renewable/storage system can pay for itself. Natural gas is ALWAYS a high cost for the energy it produces, and can never pay for itself. You only pray your natural gas drops in value while consuming.
That is certainly true up to a level of storage that is higher than what we currently have. However, if you have excess storage capacity and expect that only 1 day every year you will either need another MW of storage or be forced to sell your solar productivity at a slightly negative price – that MW of storage has to be extremely cheep to justify itself. I have no doubt that Wall Street will get into the business of buying low and selling high – but if that MW of storage only get to fill once a year will the profit from selling later at regular price cover the expense of building the storage. As with all arbitrage at some point there gets to be so many in on the game that nobody can make much money.
“However, if you have excess storage capacity and expect that only 1 day every year you will either need another MW of storage or be forced to sell your solar productivity at a slightly negative price – that MW of storage has to be extremely cheep to justify itself. ”
Ivan, with battery storage (any storage), you choose when you acquire the stored energy. if wind or solar are producing abundant power at a time when demand is low, that power is cheap. that is when you fill up your energy storage. as long as you do not discharge during those peak production hours, you will be profitable with the power. and pay off your system.
in texas, homeowners can purchase power walls and sign electricity contracts that provide electricity on weekends and weekdays for free. they only pay for electricity that is used during the weekday, at a higher price. they can power their home most of the day with free power from the battery, that was accumulated for free the night before. you can improve the outcome if you have solar cells on the roof. you can even sell some of that power back to the grid for a profit during the day.
the current electricity system is not efficient because from a users perspective, it is an on demand system. you pay a price for that simplicity on the user end. however, there is no need to keep such a simple system with modern technology. as you allow your system to move away from an on demand system, it becomes more complex but also more efficient. which means cheaper. only those who cannot handle complexity, or have a vested interest in the simple on demand approach, will resist these changes.
Rust Belt on the Rhine
https://www.politico.eu/article/rust-belt-on-the-rhine-the-deindustrialization-of-germany/
Germany’s biggest companies are ditching the fatherland.
Chemical giant BASF has been a pillar of German business for more than 150 years, underpinning the country’s industrial rise with a steady stream of innovation that helped make “Made in Germany” the envy of the world.
But its latest moonshot — a $10 billion investment in a state-of-the-art complex the company claims will be the gold standard for sustainable production — isn’t going up in Germany. Instead, it’s being erected 9,000 kilometers away in China.
Even as it chases the future in Asia, BASF, founded on the banks of the Rhine in 1865 as the Badische Anilin- & Sodafabrik, is scaling back in Germany. In February, the company announced the shutdown of a fertilizer plant in its hometown of Ludwigshafen and other facilities, which led to about 2,600 job cuts.
“We are increasingly worried about our home market,” BASF Chief Executive Martin Brudermüller told shareholders in April, noting that the company lost €130 million in Germany last year. “Profitability is no longer anywhere near where it should be.”
Such malaise now pervades the whole of the German economy, which slipped into a recession in the first quarter amid a flurry of surveys showing that both companies and consumers are deeply skeptical about the future.
That concern is well founded. Nearly 20 years ago, Germany overcame its reputation as the “sick man of Europe” with a package of ambitious labor market reforms that unshackled its industrial potential and ushered in a sustained period of prosperity, driven in particular by strong demand for its machinery and cars from China. While Germany frustrated many partners by exporting vastly more than it was buying, its economy flourished.
The boom times, however, came with a cost: The economic strength lulled its leaders into a false sense of security. Their failure to pursue further reforms is now coming back to bite.
Suddenly, a perfect storm is brewing over the former European powerhouse, signaling that its current recession isn’t just “technical,” as policymakers pray, but rather a harbinger of a fundamental reversal in economic fortunes that threatens to send tremors across Europe, injecting even more upheaval into the Continent’s already polarized political landscape.
Confronted by a toxic cocktail of high energy costs, worker shortages and reams of red tape, many of Germany’s biggest companies — from giants like Volkswagen and Siemens to a host of lesser-known, smaller ones — are experiencing a rude awakening and scrambling for greener pastures in North America and Asia.
Absent an unexpected turnaround, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Germany is headed for a much deeper economic decline.
Nice propaganda.
You provide no evidence when and why the decision for China was made: This decision predates of course the Ukraine war and was expected as bulk chemicals should be produced where they are sold (China, Asia).
The interesting fact is that BASF is now under fire by important stock holders who fear that then production site becomes total losss in case of a military conflict between China and Taiwan. “The China bet becommes more and more risky.”
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article245016430/BASF-Totalverlust-Die-China-Wette-wird-immer-riskanter.html
Alas I do not understand German as I would be interested in what your link said. Now it is true that BASF is a multinational that has production facilities all over the place including the US. So whoever wrote this article (which I only note) could have picked a different example.
Politico is usually very weak in science and technology, your article only confirms this. As German chemist I (would) read different stuff.
1) BASF has an problem as their largest market, that is the EU, struggles.
2) BASF used in Germany a lot of NG (from Russia), check what Wintershall was/is.
3) The production of bulk chemicals in Germany is under pressure when the main customers is in Asia. Therefore, it was always expected that the production moves to China, esp. when point 2 also applies. However, with the reaction of the EU in respect to Russia 2022/23, large investments are now trouble in China when a war with Taiwan could be expected. BASF is in an “interesting” situation.
4) To use “rust belt” is a clear case of projection by an author familar with US/UK conditions, not relevant for Germany. Of the 40000 jobs at Ludwighafen around 1500 are on the chopping block, will be reduced by lower hiring.
5) My article dicusses some aspects I listed under 3) + 4).
But, but Mr Ole Bark, bark how can this be? “Confronted by a toxic cocktail of high energy costs, worker shortages and reams of red tape, many of Germany’s biggest companies — from giants like Volkswagen and Siemens to a host of lesser-known, smaller ones — are experiencing a rude awakening and scrambling for greener pastures in North America and Asia. ” Al the policy dream of the liberal ignoranti, but no one wants to admit that the added costs to the electric grid is many multiples of the current level of renewables investment.
How can those previous comments re: the efficiency and lack of intermittency of renewables in the European grids be true?
Yes, Russia’s shut down of the gs supply has caused an economic shock, but the difference is that the overall price increases would have been similar, just a slow boil instead of an instantaneous shock.
Denial and ignorance are an amazement of the liberal mind.
“Confronted by a toxic cocktail of high energy costs, worker shortages”
The energy issue is a problem of BASF, worker shortages not. The interesting question is whether NG is cheaper in CHina. And you only cite an weak article that blends out the 400 pound gorilla in the room, politicla stability in Asia. To sell China as greener pastures during/after the Ukraine war is ignorant.
“but no one wants to admit that the added costs to the electric grid is many multiples of the current level of renewables investment. ”
You are too stupid. BASF is connected to the grid in order to provise grid services, however, produces all the electricity onsite (net effect). The only question relevant for BASF is costs of NG, try to understand what Wintershall is. Is NG cheaper in China?
BASF has to discuss production of bulk chemicals when the main customers are in Asia. A move to the USA in some case made sense.
I’m glad someone who actually understands multinationals responded to that ill informed babble ala CoRev.
Ulenspiegel, admits: “The energy issue is a problem of BASF..” but asks “Is NG cheaper in China? ” Doesn’t matter they are using coal to produce cheap electricity. Your closing comment makes not economic sense without further information. Does the transportation cost from the USA to Asia, so exceed them for Germany?
BASF, Volkswagen and Siemens all produce Annual Reports. Maybe you should read them before your next set o of moronic babbling.
Paying the price: Let market forces end the fossil fuel era
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/paying-the-price-let-market-forces-end-the-fossil-fuel-era/ar-AA1dUrNH?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=a605851c5d844f77808a19a9ac6ae23b&ei=11
There’s an old saying about liars: Fool us once, shame on them; fool us twice; shame on us. We all should be ashamed of letting the fossil energy industry deceive us about global climate change. The price of that con has become unacceptably high.
Yes – William Becker starts this off by nailing little CoRev. Now the rest of his discussion is worth the read.
Becker starts off with the premise that ending big oil is priceless a humongous maxi benefit/maxi regret, bc getting more ghg will end the world, or 1.5 degree Celsius or whatever…..
while most atheist deny the max regret of going to hell and ignore other faiths
Someone forgot to take their medicine.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/15/politics/rfk-jr-covid-jewish-groups/index.html
Suggesting that Covid-19 was somehow “deliberately targeted” to avoid infecting Chinese and Jews is so crazy it would shock me if even one of the off-the-rail commenters on this blog had made such a statement. We are talking MTG” Jewish space laser” crazy in a democratic party presidential candidate.
Junior insults his family name every time he opens his mouth.
I think you overestimate the rationality of humans.