TM加速器-旋风加速度器

If you're squeezed for information,
that's when you've got to play it dumb
You just say you're out there waiting
for the miracle, for the miracle to come
—Leonard Cohen, Waiting For the Miracle

Humankind has reached a fork in the road. The business-as-usual path implies robust economic growth with a rise in the carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to anthropogenic climate change. The other path, whatever its actual form turns out to be, shuns business-as-usual in an attempt stabilize greenhouse gas levels (mainly carbon dioxide CO₂) in the Earth's atmosphere (e.g. at 450 ppmv, parts-per-million-by-volume) to avoid catastrophic warming (e.g. > 2°C). Considered alternatives invariably lay out a vision of the future in which emissions steadily decline while economies continue to grow. Is such a vision realistic? This essay questions standard assumptions underlying this "have your cake and eat it too" view.

1. The Economy/Climate Dilemma

The Energy Information Agency's special October supplement to its monthly Short-Term Outlook projected carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions in the United States in 2009 to fall 5.9% compared to the previous year's levels. The December STEO report revised the figure upward to 6.1%. Based on the EIA data, Reuters' Recession puts U.S. halfway to emissions goal calculated that 2009 U.S. emissions were a whopping 8.9% below 2005 levels.

Obama is expected to pledge next week at a U.N. climate meeting in Copenhagen that the United States will cut output of gases blamed for warming the planet, including carbon dioxide, roughly 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

On Tuesday the Energy Information Administration said in a monthly outlook that U.S. carbon dioxide output in 2009 will fall about 6.1 percent to 5.45 billion tonnes as the recession cuts demand for coal used to generate electricity.
That was about 8.9 percent below the 2005 level of 5.98 billion tonnes, putting the U.S. on track, at least for now, to reach Obama's goal.

The International Energy Agency's 2009 World Energy Outlook estimated that globally, CO2 emissions fell 3% in 2009 compared with the previous year. One might have thought that global warming activists would be jumping for joy, but the news brought no rejoicing. The reason for their reticence was not hard to find. From 网络加速 again—

"Losing weight by starving is different than shedding pounds through exercise," said Kevin Book, an analyst at ClearView Energy Partners, LLC.

He said as the economy recovers electricity demand should rise, pushing up emissions from that sector. That will require the world's second largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China to move faster to low-carbon sources like renewable energy if Obama's short-term goal is to be met, he said.

While it is debatable how soon prosperity will return to the United States, the corrective to anthropogenic climate change seems abundantly clear: shrink the economy. This solution is both politically and socially unacceptable. It is even unthinkable. This passage from the 免费外网加速器app opinion piece Let the global technology race begin by Isabel Galiana and Christopher Green introduces some key concepts while also hinting at why the assumption of future global economic growth can not be questioned.

To describe the required trade-offs of any climate policy, analysts use the 免费的外网加速器
C = P × (GDP/P) × (E/GDP) × (C/E)

which relates carbon emissions, C, to its four driving factors: population (P); per capita gross domestic product (GDP/P); energy intensity of the economy (E/GDP); and emissions per unit of energy (C/E).

Conventional climate policy considers only the emissions, C, and the political will needed to achieve reductions, but ignores the driving factors. Policy-makers are understandably reluctant to use population or economic growth to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions; hence policy should focus on the technological drivers. A useful way of looking at these is by combining E/GDP and C/E to yield the economy's carbon intensity (C/GDP).

In recent decades, although global GDP has grown at about 3% per year and global carbon intensity has declined by about 1.4% per year, emissions have grown well in excess of 1% per year. In view of this, the proposal by the Group of 8 rich nations (G8) to cut global emissions in half by 2050, consistent with limiting global long-term temperature increase to 2 °C — and to do this without slowing economic development — would require a tripling of the average annual rate of decline in carbon intensity for the next 40 years. This accelerated decline in carbon intensity requires a revolution in energy technology that has not yet started.

如何把游戏加速器用在最合适的游戏时间上呢？-有趣加速器:今天 · 如何把游戏加速器用在最合适的游戏时间上呢？ 2021-06-18 分享到：今天就跟各位小伣伴来谈一谈游戏要在哪个阶段用游戏加速器才合适！现在很多外服游戏常常都会因为我伞是内地玩家而导致卡顿甚至登录困难，这是因为超远的物理距离导致我伞在连接国外服务器的时候出现的传输速度过慢形成的。

It is simply not an option to "use ... economic growth" to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Thus, the solution must lie a "revolution in energy technology that has not yet started." The Kaya variable per capita gross domestic product (GDP/P) must and is expected to grow. The option of manipulating this variable is off the table. Similar observations apply to the population variable P, as Galiana and Green note above.

Indeed, the effects of the "Great" recession have been quite severe, underscoring the "reluctance" of policy-makers to put the brakes on economic growth to mitigate climate change. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "official" unemployment is 10% as of this writing, but the broader U6 measure shows that total unemployment and under-employment is 17.3%. Even this number does not reflect all those who have 加速器 due to the impossibility of finding work. It is no wonder that politicians refuse to tell voters that jobs growth will not be possible now because of the necessity of fending off warming whose worst effects are likely some decades away.

In 2006, primary energy from fossil fuels (oil, natural gas & coal) made up 85% of total energy consumed in the United States (Figure 1).

浏览外网的免费加速器
Figure 1 — The primary energy mix in the United States in 2006, as cited in the National Academy of Sciences report What you need to know about energy (2009).

Wind and solar energy made up 0.4% of primary energy consumption in the United States in 2006. With such a small contribution from so-called "renewable" sources, which make up 7% of the total, and with most of that (5% of the total) coming from resource-constrained supplies of wood to burn and water to dam, the carbon intensity (C/GDP) of the American economy, which has been falling steadily since 1980, is still very high. This EIA data indicates that in 1980, U.S. carbon intensity was 917 metric tons of CO2 per 1 million (chained) 2000 US dollars. By 2007, carbon intensity had dropped to 520 metric tons per million 2000 dollars.

Although the carbon intensity decrease provided reason for optimism to many observers, total CO2 emissions in the United States increased from 4,780.831 million metric tons in 1980 to 6,003.263 in 2007 (外网加速器下载). The overall increase was due to the economic growth that took place during those years, and occurred despite efficiency (energy intensity E/GDP) gains during the period. Our historical inability to constrain emissions growth defines the economy/climate dilemma, not only for the United States but globally as well.

Figure 2 from the IEA's 2009 WEO gives us some sense of just how daunting it will be to support future economic growth while reducing emissions to the levels required in a 450 ppmv scenario.

Figure 2 — Source: IEA's 2009 World Energy Outlook. As the IEA's caption notes, global economic growth (in real terms) is assumed to be 2.7% per year after 2030.

NBA2K20连不上服务器解决办法_3DM单机:2021-4-15 · 如果确定路由器及网络没有问题，但仍然连不上服务器，这个时候就需要使用到主机加速器了。为什么需要使用主机加速器，主要原因在于索尼的服务器都架设在国外，而国内因为伡所周知的网络原因，所伡要想网络稳定，主机加速器就至关重要了。

Thus I shall argue here that humanity seems to have backed itself into a corner from which there is no escape.

2. The Radical Hypothesis

In an earlier article The Radical Hypothesis, I explored the plausibility of whether economic growth can continue in the 21st century under conditions where CO₂ emissions—a proxy for fossil fuel consumption—are falling (免费外网加速器app). The world experienced phenomenal economic growth in the 20th century, but history suggests that the concomitant rise in emissions was a necessary condition of that growth. The rule is expressed in (1) & (2).

(1) If the economy is growing, then anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are growing

免费外网加速器app

(2) If anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are not growing, the economy is in recession

Figure 3 — A conceptual depiction of the Radical Hypothesis. Economic growth (dotted line) has always been accompanied by growth in CO₂ emissions (black line). Emissions are a proxy for fossil fuels consumption. At a future inflection point, emissions begin to decline as economic growth continues. A third alternative, a reduction in the carbon intensity (C/GDP) of economic growth, is also shown (dashed line). In this case, economic and emissions growth are still tightly linked; only the rate (slope) of positive emissions growth has changed. Compare Figure 2 above.

Thus the Radical Hypothesis rejects the requirement that growing emissions from fossil fuels have been a necessary condition for economic growth, and might be stated as in (3).

(3) The economy is growing but anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are shrinking

This view contradicts our historical experience as stated in rules (1) & (2) above and illustrated in 免费外网加速器app below.

Figure 4 — CO₂ emissions in the United States since 1980 (based on the EIA data cited above) compared with recessions (gray bars). Recessions are defined according to the widely recognized National Bureau of Economic Research 加速器.

The tendency for emissions to decline during recessions is most pronounced during the severe dual recession in the 1980's and the current "Great" recession. Interestingly, emission declines continued 网络加速 the recessions in the early 1980s, and started to decline 免费的外网加速器 the short-lived recessions of 1991-1992 and 2001, which implies that economic activity had slowed before the NBER officially recognized this condition. This phenomenon requires more study, but otherwise the historical pattern does not contradict Rule (2)—if anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are not growing, the economy is in recession. On longer time scales, the overall historical trend is absolutely clear as shown in Figure 2.

If the Radical Hypothesis is false, meaning rising anthropogenic emissions can not be unlinked from economic growth, what outcome might we expect? There is a very wide range of bad outcomes for future consumption of fossil fuels in the SRES climate scenarios. The worst case is called business-as-usual (BAU), but less carbon-intensive paths are also possible. Outcomes are shown conceptually in Figure 5.

Figure 5 — A truncated range of SRES outcomes if the Radical Hypothesis is false (i.e. there is no inflection point as in Figure 3.) The CO₂ emissions curve (black line) illustrates a worst-case business-as-usual scenario for anthropogenic emissions. The dashed line illustrates a less carbon-intensive scenario in which the rate of positive emissions growth declines as in Figure 3 above.

The Radical Hypothesis consensus rests upon assumption (4) (and more humorously, Figure 6). I call (4) the Assumption of Technological Progress (ATP)

(4) Technological progress marches on. Improvements are always sufficient to meet the requirements of economic expansion, or drive that expansion. These improvements include, most importantly, civilization's need for energy to fuel growth. For example, net energy returns on investment (EROI) for currently inefficient processes (e.g. biomass to cellulosic ethanol conversions) do not matter because they are based on current science & technology.

Figure 6 — The Assumption of Technological Progress. Source.

The ATP is ubiquitous. Successful climate mitigation scenarios appeal to it directly, but so do business-as-usual scenarios. Perhaps the only meaningful difference between these cases is the degree of technological progress which is assumed. This is true in so far as the Radical Hypothesis seems to require far greater innovation than business-as-usual, which is itself problematic when we view resource depletion (e.g. for conventional crude oil) through the lens of current science & technology.

In BAU scenarios, the assumption is that technological progress will improve the efficiency of current Coal-To-Liquids (CTL) technology, or extraction efficiency in other areas (外网加速器下载 for tar sands oil, in conventional oil extraction, in biomass to liquids conversions, or in the production of liquid fuels from oil shales).

At the inflection point and “forever" after in the Radical (conventional) view, technological improvements permit the decoupling of economic growth from fossil fuels consumption. For example, wind or solar will replace coal, biofuels or electric vehicles will replace oil, and so on.

Most importantly, if many or all these improvements should fail to materialize, the ATP still guarantees that something will turn up that permits economic growth to continue indefinitely. In so far as the assumption of economic growth is unassailable, it follows that the Assumption of Technological Progress it rests upon also can not be questioned.

I criticized this deeply flawed assumption in The Secretary of Synthetic Biology, where I examined the possibilities for success (unanticipated breakthroughs) in Energy Secretary Steven Chu's quest to create "4th generation" biofuels. Galiana and Green made the Assumption of Technological Progress explicit in their Nature opinion piece—

Can a technology-led approach avoid dangerous climate change? We proposed such a policy as part of the 2009 Copenhagen Consensus on Climate, in which a panel of leading economists ranked 15 policy responses to global warming. Our analyses show that cumulative emissions consistent with minimizing the rise in global temperature (climate stabilization) can be achieved by investing US $100 billion a year for the rest of the century in global energy R&D, testing, demonstration and infrastructure.

It is entirely proper for us to ask exactly how throwing $100 billion a year at the climate mitigation problem amounts to a guarantee, as if by fiat, that the required miracles will occur. As Kenneth Boulding pointed out in 1980—

如何把游戏加速器用在最合适的游戏时间上呢？-有趣加速器:今天 · 如何把游戏加速器用在最合适的游戏时间上呢？ 2021-06-18 分享到：今天就跟各位小伣伴来谈一谈游戏要在哪个阶段用游戏加速器才合适！现在很多外服游戏常常都会因为我伞是内地玩家而导致卡顿甚至登录困难，这是因为超远的物理距离导致我伞在连接国外服务器的时候出现的传输速度过慢形成的。

[My note: This is also quoted in 次元连接加速器_次元连接二次元加速器_次元连接吧:2021-9-7 · 次元连接二次元游戏加速器 - 蜗牛娱乐网 2021年9月7日 - 次元连接二次元游戏加速器时间:2021-09-07 来源:本站原创作者:蜗牛 -小 +大安卓手游加速器,大部分都是日服游戏,主流日服游戏都有,目前 … cited above.]

This is not to say we will not achieve any important breakthroughs, for some miracles may indeed occur. And the yearly $100 billion should be invested, for otherwise our chances—whatever they are, if they are not zero—will surely be diminished. Beyond this, there is only handwaving.

3. The Technology Paradox

It is not surprising that the Assumption of Technological Progress gives rise to a paradox: if technological progress is guaranteed (网络加速 comes "for free"), we need not try very hard to make technological progress happen! This completes the circle of inaction that we witnessed most recently at Copenhagen, where no binding CO₂ reduction targets were specified.

So, while the assumption of technological progress (and concomitant economic growth) has fueled hope among those who believe climate mitigation is possible, it has also retarded efforts to actually make progress in addressing the problem.

Dangerous Assumptions, a Nature commentary by climate researchers Roger Pielke Jr., Tom Wigley and Christopher Green, argues that "the technological advances needed to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions may be greater than we think." These researchers point out that much of the technological change required to meet emissions targets is expected to occur spontaneously over time—

Here we show that two thirds or more of all the energy efficiency improvements and decarbonization of energy supply required to stabilize greenhouse gases is already built into the IPCC reference scenarios. This is because the scenarios assume a certain amount of 腾讯80款游戏将落实防沉迷新规|腾讯网游加速器怎么使用 ...:2021-6-11 · 腾讯网游加速器是一种我伞国内制作的游戏加速器，腾讯网游加速器的使用非常方便，可伡选择各种加速功能，使用腾讯网游加速器玩国外在线游戏零延迟，可伡享受到愉快的游戏体验。腾讯网游加速器可伡有效地解决了国内玩家在海外玩游戏网络问题。. Thus, the IPCC implicitly assumes that the bulk of the challenge of reducing future emissions will occur in the absence of climate policies. We believe that these assumptions are optimistic at best and unachievable at worst, potentially seriously underestimating the scale of the technological challenge associated with stabilizing greenhouse-gas concentrations...

In the Working Group III report [for the 2007 加速器连接国外网络 (AR4)], the IPCC observes that “there is a 网络加速 technological change and diffusion of new and advanced technologies already assumed in the baselines”

But how much is “significant”? The median of the reference scenarios considered by the IPCC AR4 (righthand bar, Fig. 1), requires 2,011 gigatonnes of carbon in cumulative emissions reductions to stabilize atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations at around 500 parts per million (the blue and red portions of the AR4 bar). 腾讯80款游戏将落实防沉迷新规|腾讯网游加速器怎么使用 ...:2021-6-11 · 腾讯网游加速器是一种我伞国内制作的游戏加速器，腾讯网游加速器的使用非常方便，可伡选择各种加速功能，使用腾讯网游加速器玩国外在线游戏零延迟，可伡享受到愉快的游戏体验。腾讯网游加速器可伡有效地解决了国内玩家在海外玩游戏网络问题。. These assumptions are robust across the scenarios used by the IPCC...

[My note: See the article (linked above) to view Figure 1 alluded to in the quoted text.]

To make matters worse, Pielke and the others further point out that the rate of decarbonization is lagging behind that assumed in SRES forecasts (Figure 7).

Figure 7 — Decarbonization discrepancies. Implied rates of carbon- and energy-intensity decline from the 2000 Special Report on Emission Scenarios, showing six illustrative scenarios. The red marker indicates actual observations (2000–2005) based on global economic growth calculated using market exchange rates." From the article: "All scenarios predict decreases in energy intensity, and in most cases carbon intensity, during 2000 to 2010. But in recent years, global energy intensity and carbon intensity have both increased, reversing the trend of previous decades..."

The authors then go on to state the obvious: robust economic growth in emerging markets, especially China, India and the rest of South Asia, is leading to very large emissions increases, and this trend is likely to continue for quite some time. They conclude that—

... the IPCC is playing a risky game in assuming that spontaneous advances in technological innovation will carry most of the burden of achieving future emissions reductions, rather than focusing on creating the conditions for such innovations to occur.

Dangerous assumptions, indeed! The increasingly obvious risks of inaction arise directly from the Assumption of Technological Progress itself. Worst yet, recent emissions trends appear to falsify this assumption, although the climate researchers do not go this far in criticizing current policy—their sole emphasis remains on using technological innovation to reduce carbon intensity. The economic variable in the Kaya Identity remains off the table.

That future economic growth is taken for granted is most evident in the discounting economists apply to investments made now to mitigate climate (or do anything else). I covered this material at length in my original Radical Hypothesis article, so I will be brief here.

Human beings discount the future, whereby “society places a lower value on a future gain or loss than on the same gain or loss occurring now.” And so do economists because—

If people’s preferences count and if people prefer now to the future, those preferences must be integrated into social policy formulation. Time-discounting is thus universal in economic analysis, but it remains, as it always has, controversial.

It seems self-evident that people prefer now to the future. Given this axiom of Human Nature, discounting is based upon the further assumption that future generations will be wealthier than the current generation. You will be hard-pressed to find a climate scenario in which economic growth does not continue, even taking in the worst effects of climate change itself on our future prosperity (e.g. even if Lower Manhattan were a few feet underwater).

The discount rate assumed makes an enormous difference to the "future value" of investments made now to stabilize and subsequently decrease CO₂ levels in the atmosphere. In 2005 the British Government asked Sir Nicholas Stern to review the economics of climate change. The end result of Gordon Brown’s request was the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change published in late 2006.

Stern used a very low discount rate of 1.4%, based on his assumption that future economic growth would be 1.3%/year. So, one trillion dollars invested now would still be worth $497 billion 50 years from now, a substantial sum. In part, Stern's discount rate was based on his assumption that inaction on climate change will severely damage the world economy.

The economic model used in the Stern Review finds that the damages from business as usual would be expected to reduce GDP by 5% based on market impacts alone, or 11% including a rough estimate for the value of health and environmental effects that do not have market prices (“externalities,” in the jargon of economics). If the sensitivity of climate to CO₂ levels turns out to be higher than the baseline estimates, these losses could rise to 7% and more than 14%, respectively... Stern speculates that an adjustment for equity weighting, reflecting the fact that the impacts will fall most heavily on poor countries, could lead to losses valued at 20% of global GDP. These figures are substantially greater than the comparable estimates from most economists.

Representing most economists, Yale's William Nordhaus suggests using a much higher discount rate. Nordhaus assumes that future generations will be much richer than Stern does. Nordhaus' higher discount rate is based on his assumption of a "real return on [human capital] of 6 per cent per year," meaning our trillion dollar present investment will only be worth $50 billion 50 years from now.

Discounting is justified by continuing economic growth, which itself rests upon "spontaneous" technological progress in the future. Our descendants will be much wealthier than we are in large part because they will have much better technology. In the argument among economists, Nordhaus believes that future technology will be much more efficacious than Stern does. For climate, we can imagine that obstacles and inefficiencies associated with carbon capture & sequestration will have been worked out, or technologies will exist that allow us to easily remove CO₂ (or any other greenhouse gas) directly out of the atmosphere. Or there will be other breakthroughs we can not imagine given our impoverished knowledge of miracles to come.

In the end, high discount rates applied under standard, incontrovertible economic assumptions about future growth discourage making large technology investments now to stabilize CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The notion that things will simply take care of themselves is thus self-defeating. More importantly, reducing the size of our economy to reduce emissions remains forbidden, despite the fact that technological innovation has failed up to the present to achieve the required decreases in carbon intensity. In so far as every passing year puts us deeper in the climate hole, our flawed reasoning is persuading us to keep on digging.

4. Is Business As Usual Likely In a Peak Oil Scenario?

次元连接加速器_次元连接二次元加速器_次元连接吧:2021-9-7 · 次元连接二次元游戏加速器 - 蜗牛娱乐网 2021年9月7日 - 次元连接二次元游戏加速器时间:2021-09-07 来源:本站原创作者:蜗牛 -小 +大安卓手游加速器,大部分都是日服游戏,主流日服游戏都有,目前 …

Voluntary (policy-led) efforts that discourage demand for fossil fuels (through a carbon tax) or cap emissions (e.g. through the proposed Waxman-Market cap & trade legislation in the U.S.)
So-called "spontaneous" technological innovations that enable decarbonization over time

如何加速访问国外服务器? -「云杰通信」:今天 · ③ 租用一台香港云服务器作为中转服务器。方法是，国内的电脑远程连接香港云服务器;然后再在云服务器上通过远程连接到海外服务器，这样也能加速访问!香港云服务器距离国内比较近，访问速度快!香港是全球网络枢纽中心，在全球访问速度一流!

Depletion of recoverable fossil fuels, particularly in conventional crude oil, combined with "above-ground" (e.g. geopolitical) factors which leads to irreversible declines in production or an inability to increase production flows beyond some ceiling (the rate, measured in million barrels-per-day)

This last consideration describes a "peak oil" scenario in which oil production can not grow sometime in the near to medium term, say by 2015. I do not intend to argue for or against such a scenario here. The interesting question here is whether global GDP can continue to grow in the absence of a growing oil supply. I initially wrote about this question in Is Business As Usual Likely In A Peak Oil Scenario? Some of that material is included below.

The relationship between global economic growth and increased oil demand is straightforward (加速器).

外网加速器下载
Figure 8 — Taken from an IEA overview of their 2009 Medium-Term Oil Market Report (MTOMR). Oil consumption (and thus emissions from oil) follows Rule (2) as specified above—if anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are not growing, the economy is in recession. Any historical chart covering the 20th century up to the present would show the same relationship.

In the high growth case, the IEA expects oil demand to rise approximately 1.4% in each year in which global GDP grows between 4 and 5%, so the oil intensity ratio Oil/GDP is approximately 0.31 at present. The IEA's projections for future demand assume that oil intensity will continue to decline following the historical trend described in the 2009 MTOMR.

A "peak oil" scenario would effectively cap oil production rates, implying that the global economy could no longer grow, given its current oil intensity, once demand exceeds supply. In the low growth case, implied oil demand growth would likely remain below a potential ceiling on oil production during the forecast period in Figure 8. The peak of world oil production will presumably cause large crude oil price spikes in the future. Such spikes are called “oil shocks” by economists. Historical experience strongly suggests that oil shocks are a major cause (among other things) of recessions (加速器).

Figure 9 — Nominal and inflation-adjusted crude oil prices 1970-2009, taken from Steven Kopits’ Oil: What Price Can America Afford? Oil shocks precede and are a major cause of recessions. The latest example is the price shock of 2007-2008 in which the oil price rose sharply in 2007 just before the "Great" recession that began in December of that year. Prices continued to rise thereafter, finally hitting a nominal high of $147/barrel in July, 2008. The literature on the connection between oil shocks and recessions is large, and the results connecting such shocks with recessions are robust. Economist James Hamilton of the University of California (San Diego), who recently testified before Congress, is an expert on the link between oil prices and recessions. Read Hamilton’s Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08 (2009) and Oil and the Macroeconomy (2005).

Climate researchers almost invariably reject the possibility of a "peak oil" scenario, but should such an event come to pass, they further assume that technological innovation will enable the production of enough unconventional liquids from fossil fuels (e.g. coal-to-liquids, oil shale or oil sands) to "fill the oil emissions gap" shown in Figure 10. Just-in-time substitutes for oil permit business-as-usual to continue, which implies no significant interruption to economic growth.

加速器
Figure 10 — A worst case business-as-usual scenario is assumed to be possible even should oil production peak & decline over time. A "peak oil" scenario reduces emissions over time (dashed line) if liquid fuel substitutes are not available to take up the slack. Technological progress "fills the gap" by enabling other sources of liquid fuels.

In the "peak oil" case, historical experience suggests a scenario like the following—

business-as-usual means economies & emissions grow without limit, BUT
oil price shocks occur when demand outstrips supply
ceteris paribus, oil price shocks appear to trigger recessions
recessions reduce fossil fuel demand across the board, which further reduces CO₂ emissions, as we've seen in 2008-2009.

In so far as the historical data suggests that growing anthropogenic emissions are a 网页加速器 condition for economic growth, we are not entitled to conclude that business as usual will continue in a "peak oil" scenario.

The SRES outcomes generally assume there are no near-term limits on recoverable fossil fuel resources. This assumption supports BAU scenarios (Figure 11).

Figure 11 — Oil production in two SRES cases and actual (black line), augmented by a "peak oil" scenario (gray line). Even in a relatively "low emissions" scenario such as B1 Image (blue line), oil production continues to rise until about 2040. The A2 ASF scenario more resembles BAU. In this case, oil production reaches a very high peak in the 2025s and declines thereafter. Growth in oil production has fallen short of these SRES forecasts in both cases.

Although a "peak oil" scenario implicitly posits an early limit on (easily) recoverable conventional oil reserves, I do not want to argue about fossil fuel resources here. The real problem arises in the assumption of continuing economic growth under such a scenario. Climate researcher Ken Caldeira’s remarks at the 2008 American Geophysical Union meeting (Scientific American, December 18, 2008) illustrate the problem.

Caldeira reported on recent forecasts of how the climate would respond if the world completely stopped using oil today. In the one case, it is replaced with coal-based liquid fuels and in the other with renewable resources, such as wind, solar, or nuclear power.

The results are clear, Caldeira said. If liquefied coal powered the world’s vehicles … the Earth would warm 2º Celsius (3.6º Fahrenheit) by 2042, three years sooner than if society continued to use oil. If, however, society replaces oil with renewable energy, that 2º C rise would occur in 2056, 11 years later than with oil.

有些国外网络进不了怎么办我想进国外的网站可是进:2021-6-13 · 有些国外网络进不了怎么办我想进国外的网站可是进来自：百科更新日期：2021-06-13 首先需要给电脑安装百度浏览器，直接在百度中搜索下载，也可伡直接从小编所提供的网盘中获取最新版本的 …

So rather than view peak oil as a climate savior, he said, those scientists, engineers and economists should see the end of oil as a “new challenge” to efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

[My note: An important consideration, which I will not pursue here, is how little bang for the buck we get by replacing oil entirely with renewable sources such as biofuels or wind-driven electric transport instead of liquefied coal—locking in a 2°C temperature rise above pre-industrial levels is delayed only by 11 years! Even replacing oil with liquefied coal conversion makes only a 3 years difference.]

At issue here is Caldeira’s implicit use of a standard economic model in drawing his conclusion that "as [oil] becomes scarcer and more expensive to extract, industry will switch to other fuels for economic reasons." Whether he knows it or not, Caldeira's view echos the Hotelling Rule, which is a fundamental result in The Economic Theory of Non-Renewable Resources (an overview by Neha Khanna). I also briefly reviewed this theory in The Price Is Not Right.

Figure 12 — The Hotelling Rule with backstops, i.e. substitutes for conventional oil (tar sands, biofuels, plug-in hybrids, coal-to-liquids). Harold Hotelling (The Economics of Exhaustible Resources, 1931) defined the classical economic theory of the long-term pricing of non-renewable resources like conventional oil. The theory states that the price of a depleting resource like conventional oil should rise over time at the interest rate because its value (= the marginal extraction cost + 外网加速器下载, see Khanna) should increase as the stocks (reserves) are exhausted. As the oil price rises, more costly backstops become affordable, and thus the market seamlessly switches over to the available backstops.

What is notable about the Hotelling Rule is its abysmal failure in predicting oil prices over time. For some background on this issue, see Tobias Kronenberg's Should We Worry About the Failure of the Hotelling Rule? In his Understanding Crude Oil Prices, economist James Hamilton comments on the failure of the Hotelling rule—

Although Hotelling’s theory and its extensions are elegant, a glance at Figure 1 [below] gives us an idea of the challenges in using it to explain the observed data. The real price of oil declined steadily between 1957 and 1967, and fell quite sharply between 1982 and 1986...

Although the sharp run-up in price through June of 2008 might be consistent with a newly calculated scarcity rent, the dramatic price collapse in the fall is more difficult to reconcile with a Hotelling-type story.

Figure 13 — Unity 官网无法访问|国外网站访问过慢|国外网站访问加速器 ...:2021-8-12 · UnityHub无法连接证书服务器各种烦的彻底解决方案1：下载UnityHub2：下载Node.js3： Win+R(输入命传) npm install -g asar 直到出来下图4：下载完UnityHub默认在C盘，打开 C:\Program Files\Unity Hub\resources。单击resources，按住shift

Various attempts have been made to save the Hotelling rule. Despite the declining discoveries trend since the 1960s, technological progress has led to reserves additions over time, a situation which is complicated by the fact that OPEC's unaudited proved reserves numbers never decline to reflect produced oil. Flat or growing proved reserves signals to the market at all times that oil is not yet scarce. Thus the simplest explanation for the failure of the Hotelling Rule is that conventional oil has always been priced as though it were renewable. James Hamilton notes that—

... many economists often think of oil prices as historically having been influenced little or none at all by the issue of exhaustibility.

More to the point, oil prices do not rise at the rate of interest as Hotelling assumed because price shocks are a major cause of recessions, which in turn cause large dips in demand, which pushes prices down. This happened in 1982-1986, and again in 2008-2009. An oil price shock model in a "peak oil" scenario implies great volatility in future prices, as we have seen historically (Hamilton's Figure 1). I made a prediction for future prices based on such a model in The Price Is Not Right (cited above).

Thus if conventional oil were scarce, meaning that a supply ceiling actually exists, market pricing would not necessarily reflect this reality. In the lead up to the oil price shock of 2007-2008, EIA data indicates that world oil production declined slightly in each of the 3 consecutive years 2005-2007 before rising again in 2008 after OPEC committed most of its spare capacity.

Nevertheless, the apparent ceiling on world oil production during those years had little or no influence on future prices. The oil price began to come down after hitting $147/barrel in July, 2008 due to the effect on high, sustained prices on demand, the worsening recession, and the withdrawal of "long" speculators from the market. When the financial crisis hit in October, the price fell dramatically, finally bottoming out in February, 2009 in the $35-40 range.

There are more fundamental difficulties. Markets operate on partial (or incorrect) knowledge; obviously, markets can not know the future. If conventional oil is not treated as an exhaustible resource to begin with, prices will never reflect its long-run scarcity even as annual consumption depletes the resource. Unusually low or high oil prices are always viewed as local minima or maxima in the oil pricing function over time. It is but a small leap to further assume that conventional oil may once again be plentiful in the future. The Hotelling Rule assumes that markets operate with perfect knowledge of the time to exhaustion of the resource, and will thus price it accordingly.

So the continuous increase in price required to bring substitutes (i.e. backstops in Figure 12) onto the market does not exist, and historically, has never existed. Without that price signal, a prompt, seamless transition from conventional oil to coal-based liquids (or other sources) becomes even more unlikely in a "peak oil" scenario owing to investment uncertainty which delays bringing substitutes onto the market.

Even if there were an unremitting rise in the oil price, increasing coal-to-liquids production to significant levels will take decades (Figure 14).

Figure 14 — Making the transition from oil to liquefied coal, from Volume II of the report of the Task Force on Strategic Fossil Fuels (2007). In the “high oil price” case, which is assumed by the Hotelling Rule, it will still take more than 20 years for the U.S. to achieve 2 million barrels-per-day of liquids from coal, assuming the required investments are made over time. Efficient direct liquefaction of coal still faces technological challenges, as opposed to indirect (Fisher-Tropsch) coal-to-liquids methods using an intermediate synthetic gas (syngas) step. See the Rand study Producing Liquid Fuels From Coal.

浏览外网的免费加速器 indicates the world produced 2.3 million barrels-per-day of unconventional oil from fossil fuel sources in 2007. Most of this (1.4) was synthetic crude from Canada's tar sands and "extra" heavy Orinoco crude (0.6) from Venezuela. The small remainder came from coal-to-liquids (0.2) or gas-to-liquids (0.1). Short-term plans to increase this production have been delayed by the current "Great" recession.

In a paper for Environmental Resource Letters, A. E. Farrell and A. R. Brandt considered the 加速器 in a "peak oil" scenario. In their short section on economic risks, the authors considered the case in which substitutes for conventional petroleum derived from fossil fuels (SCPs) replace declining conventional oil production.

Assuming conventional oil production declines at a rate of 2%/year and annual growth in demand is 1.6%, aggregate annual additions of SCPs capacity will have to be about 3 Mbbl/day to meet demand. This is equal to today’s total SCP capacity and about five times the current rate of capacity addition.

[My note: Today's SCP capacity is less than 3 million barrels-per-day, as I have noted. Also, at the current oil intensity (0.31) of economic growth, this scenario implies annual global GDP growth of 4.96% per year. Combined with the 2% decline in conventional oil production, this high-growth/sharp-decline scenario can be viewed as a worst case.]

In light of the agonizingly slow increase in coal-to-liquids production in the U.S. in the "high price" case shown in Figure 14, and generalizing this to the entire world for those few countries (like China or Australia) whose coal reserves are sufficient to support large-scale production, it appears that less than a third of the required annual increase would come from this source for most of the first decade in the Farrell and Brandt's scenario.

2008 production at Alberta's oil sands is now listed as 1.2 million barrels-per-day, which is less than 2007 number cited by the EIA. Looking to the future, the Center For Global Energy Studies estimates that—

Oil sands production will increase by 1.19-1.99 million b/d during 2009-20, depending on the degree of economic and environmental cooperation among major countries, the study says.

海外和全局加速是什么意思？如何使用？ – Baacloud:2021-3-18 · 海外加速：访问国内使用本地网络，访问国外使用伟理网络。全局加速：无论访问国内国外均使用伟理网络。在连接线路前点击所需要的模式即可，凸选按钮是当前选择模式，软件可伡记住选择。

It has taken many years for Canadian oil sands production to get to where it is now. A strong growth scenario sees production rising by 1.99 million barrels-per-day by 2025. Such production growth is only a tiny fraction of the annual 3 million barrels-per-day increase in SCPs that Farrell and Brandt estimate the world would need to meet demand in their high economic growth case. That Venezuela has not been able to increase its "extra" heavy Orinoco crude production much only makes matters worse.

Farrell and Brandt further note that a volatile price signal, combined with the extraordinarily high initial per-barrel capital cost of implementing non-conventional oil, makes investments in this area very risky as I noted above—

Because SCPs require greater initial capital per unit of production relative to conventional oil, and are also more expensive in the long run, SCP projects are financially risky to
investors and may become uneconomical should oil prices fall, as they have in the past. Indeed, investment in SCPs moves the global supply curve for liquid hydrocarbons out and will tend to cause world oil prices to fall...

Investments of this magnitude [in SCPs], in some cases in technologies with which we have limited experience [e.g. for liquids from oil shale], will be a challenge, especially given the risk of stranded capital should oil prices fall.

We are forced to conclude that neither a consistent price signal nor our ability to quickly ramp up non-conventional fossil fuel substitutes supports a just-in-time, seamless transition away from conventional oil to maintain business-as-usual in a "peak oil" scenario.

Within the climate community, only Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen (to my knowledge) made explicit assumptions about business-as-usual in a "peak oil" scenario. Their 外网加速器下载 view of economic growth supported by rising coal emissions mirrors that of Ken Caldeira. Implications of “peak oil” for atmospheric C02 and climate was finally published in Global Biogeochemical Cycles after considerable resistance from reviewers—the paper was rejected by Environmental Research Letters. Kharecha and Hansen's study thus provides a second, more specific, case where future emissions are likely overstated (免费的外网加速器.

Figure 15 — In the business-as-usual scenario (BAU, top left) oil peaks before 2025 (blue line) but coal emissions (orange line) still grow without limit out to about 2075. The Less Oil Reserves (”peak oil”) scenario (bottom left) assumes the Coal Phase-out case (top, middle), so coal emissions are limited by policy, not economic growth.

Their BAU scenario makes it clear that Kharecha and Hansen implicitly assume something like the Hotelling Rule in their estimate of future emissions from coal. In so far as it is likely that a "peak oil" scenario will derail business-as-usual, and thus reduce the growth in CO₂ emissions from coal over time, I have taken the liberty of modifying their BAU graph to reflect a more realistic outcome (Figure 16).

Figure 16 — A modified business-as-usual scenario. Kharecha and Hansen’s future coal emissions curve (solid orange line) has been replaced with a more realistic scenario (dashed orange line) which takes future recessions and the timing of technological fixes into account. Coal emissions still grow, but not nearly at the pace envisioned in most BAU climate scenarios. One could make a similar change to projected coal emissions in the Less Oil Reserves scenario as well. In either case, the total anthropogenic emissions (without land use changes, red line) need to be adjusted downward (dashed red line).

The revised scenario in Figure 16 is certainly not the only possible outcome. It represents a family of outcomes in which the adverse economic effects of a peak in world oil production are taken into account. I have argued that these effects are ignored in standard business-as-usual accounts that rely upon a smooth transition to coal liquefaction or other fossil fuel substitutes.

国外访问国内网络如何加速或者伢化? - V2EX:2021-6-11 · 宽带症候群 - @hongzhng - 人在国外,访问国内的网络有时候还挺慢的. 不太想用别人卖的加速器.所伡想请问下有什么能自己动手加速的办法么? (建 VM+伟理?) 谢谢了. *我现在有 Azure 国外的一些 …

5. Physical Constraints on Future CO2 Emissions?

I would like to relate the foregoing to Tim Garrett's 如何把游戏加速器用在最合适的游戏时间上呢？-有趣加速器:今天 · 如何把游戏加速器用在最合适的游戏时间上呢？ 2021-06-18 分享到：今天就跟各位小伣伴来谈一谈游戏要在哪个阶段用游戏加速器才合适！现在很多外服游戏常常都会因为我伞是内地玩家而导致卡顿甚至登录困难，这是因为超远的物理距离导致我伞在连接国外服务器的时候出现的传输速度过慢形成的。 This important paper was recently published in the journal 浏览外网的免费加速器. Necessarily, my exposition here will be far too brief to convey all of the implications of Garrett's work, so consult the original (and highly technical) paper for further details. This overview comes from the University of Utah press release Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Garrett treats civilization like a "heat engine" that "consumes energy and does 'work' in the form of economic production, which then spurs it to consume more energy," he says.

"If society consumed no energy, civilization would be worthless," he adds. "It is only by consuming energy that civilization is able to maintain the activities that give it economic value. This means that if we ever start to run out of energy, then the value of civilization is going to fall and even collapse absent discovery of new energy sources."

Garrett says his study's key finding "is that accumulated economic production over the course of history has been tied to the rate of energy consumption at a global level through a constant factor."

That "constant" is 9.7 (plus or minus 0.3) milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar. So if you look at economic and energy production at any specific time in history, "each inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar would be supported by 9.7 milliwatts of primary energy consumption," Garrett says.

Garrett describes a thermodynamic growth model ("effectively a heat engine") and by analogy, Garrett applies his growth model to the economic growth of civilization and it's waste products (i.e. CO₂ emissions). As an insightful science 网页加速器 said, Garrett—

essentially ... boils down the human-planet system to physics. Carbon dioxide, the output of energy consumption, exits civilization at a constant rate [see below], but accumulates over time. This trade-off is represented as the variable η, which is the “rate of return” of energy to a system. It essentially represents a feedback loop in which the greater the energy consumption and production, the greater is the potential for more consumption and production. (Remember that carbon emissions are tied to this production and energy consumption.)

It is this "rate of return" or "feedback efficiency" η that ties Garrett's work to the arguments I've made here. 浏览外网的免费加速器 explains both his economic growth model and the constant value λ cited in the press release above.

网络加速
Figure 17 — Garrett's economic growth model is explained in his caption to his Figure 2. Note that cumulative emissions E are tied in to civilization's "heat engine" via the cumulative energy a required to keep the economy growing and the carbon content c of that energy.

At all times, the cumulative size (the historical integral) of the economic value of human civilization C (in 1990 inflation-adjusted dollars) is tied to energy consumption a (in watts) through a "constant of proportionality" λ. Thus the time derivatives for energy da/dt and value growth, or the economic growth dC/dt (= P) are related by the same constant. The increase in civilization's capacity to consume energy (or its GDP) enlarges civilization's interface with its environment to allow it to grow further (i.e. consume energy at a faster rate, da/dt = ηa).

By analogy, think of a child that grows to adult size by consuming food (and excreting waste) or primary productivity in plants.

有些国外网络进不了怎么办我想进国外的网站可是进:2021-6-13 · 有些国外网络进不了怎么办我想进国外的网站可是进来自：百科更新日期：2021-06-13 首先需要给电脑安装百度浏览器，直接在百度中搜索下载，也可伡直接从小编所提供的网盘中获取最新版本的 …

Interestingly, the approach is of identical mathematical form to one often used to successfully model growth of vegetation, where vegetative “value” C refers not to money but instead to biomass, and P to the net primary productivity. Presumably, biological organisms must also maintain a high potential interface with respect to their environment, enabling them to consume energy, produce heat and waste, and do work to incorporate the matter that enables them to grow. Thermodynamic laws are fully general.

A difference between plants and civilization is that plant waste includes CO2 that is recyclable, whereas the global economy creates most CO2 from fossil-carbon, much of which accumulates in the atmosphere.

Garrett tested his theory "for the combination of world energy production a (EIA, Annual Energy Review 2006) and real global economic production P (United Nations 2007) (expressed here in fixed 1990 US dollars) for the 36 year interval between 1970 to 2005 for which these statistics are currently available" as shown in 浏览外网的免费加速器. He found a constant λ linking energy consumption of cumulative economic value C.

Figure 18 — Garrett's successful model evaluation.

Here we are interested in the relationship between economic growth P = dC/dt and growth in emissions E as shown in Figure 17. This relationship is expressed in Garrett's equations (9) and (11).

Equation (9) says that the economic growth rate, expressed as the rate of change in the (natural logarithm) of GDP P, equals the (current) rate of return of energy to the system η plus the change in that rate. This states directly that if the sum of these two rates is negative, the economy is shrinking.

Equation (11) relates this result to emissions through the rate of return η. Assuming η is positive, and there is no change in the carbon content of that energy c, emissions E grow with η.

An advantage of appealing to energy efficiency in forecasts of CO₂ emissions is that η ... tends to vary rather slowly. Since 1970, growth of 浏览外网的免费加速器 [expressed in economic terms] has climbed from 1.4% per year to 2.1% per year in 2005... [as shown in 浏览外网的免费加速器]

The carbonization of the energy supply c, is changing even more slowly with a time scale of about 300 years. What this means is that future emissions rates for CO₂ are most strongly influenced by the current state of η. As a zeroth-order assumption, it is reasonable to assume persistence in η, meaning that on [relatively short] time-scales..., future emissions are unlikely to depart substantially from the recent growth rate of 2.1% per year.

In other words, the rate of return overwhelms heretofore very slow changes in the carbon content c of the energy supply in determining the rate of emissions growth.

In a "peak oil" scenario, assuming that business as usual is ruled out, as I have argued here, the rate of return η will be shrinking, implying that the economy is shrinking as stated in equation (9). In Garrett's model, expressed in purely economic (1990 real dollar) terms, η = P/C, where GDP P = dC/dt, or equivalently, P = ηC. If η is shrinking but still positive, the global economy is in recession (GDP is contracting).

Equation (11), per Garrett's remarks above, strongly implies that if η is positive but shrinking, emissions growth is slowing. In absolute terms, expressed as million metric tons of CO₂, total emissions are shrinking, as reported by the EIA in Figure 4. We saw this in the early 1980s and during the current "Great" recession of 2008-2009.

You will recall my proposition (1) based on the historical experience of human civilization over the Industrial Age.

(1) If the economy is growing, then anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are growing

Thinking in million metric tons of CO₂, we can derive (5) from Garrett's model.

(5) If the positive rate of return η is shrinking, anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are shrinking

It then follows directly from (1) that the economy is in recession, as Garrett's equation (9) implies. Proposition (5), together with (1), formalizes what happens in a "peak oil" scenario as described here.

Garrett then directly relates the rate of return to the carbon content of the energy supply—

... the “carbon footprint” of civilization in recent decades reflects a simple relationship between the rate of global carbon emissions E and the accumulation over history of real global value C. The coefficient is 如何解决访问国外ERP服务器及跨境办公难题?-解决方案问题 ...:2021-6-8 · 访问国内外ERP网络慢成为各个大型企业头痛的问题很多有海外分公司的大型企业都遇到一个非常普遍的问题，就是海外分公司连接国内ERP服务器的网络速度一直都是非常的慢、网络不稳定、掉线等问题，造成了沟通的迟滞，尤其是重要的邮件和订单都无法发送，影响了公司的工作效率，造成订单 ... of global economic value.

To take the result further, Eq. (11) points towards a non-dimensional number [a number with no physical units, a "pure" number]

representing the relationship between the global economy’s rate of decarbonization, 网页加速器, and its rate of return, η... If 加速器, [then] d ln E/dt ≤ 0, and [thus] emissions are stabilized or declining.
To reach stabilization, what is required is decarbonization that is at least as fast as the economy’s rate of return. Taking the 2005 value for η of 2.1% per year, stabilization of emissions would require an equivalent or greater rate of decarbonization. 2.1% of current annual energy production corresponds to an annual addition of approximately 300 GW of new non-carbon emitting power capacity—approximately one new nuclear power plant per day.

The Radical Hypothesis assumes that η will always be positive and growing, thus rejecting the premise of (5). This standard view assumes that not only is it possible to reach CO₂ stabilization, whereby decarbonization is at least as fast as the economy’s rate of return, but it is also possible for decarbonization to outpace growth in η to support future economic expansion, as shown in the IEA's 免费外网加速器app above.

This view is not contradicted by anything in Garrett's model, but requires a seemingly impossible rate of decrease in carbon intensity (one nuclear power plant per day). Outside this improbable event, we get some version of business as usual (dη/dt > 0) or an economy that is not growing (dη/dt < 0).

Thus Garrett's work supports my conclusion that a growing economy is incompatible with falling emissions. His model also supports (albeit indirectly) my conclusion that emissions (and thus the economy) will not be growing in a "peak oil" scenario. Thus he says in the press release

"Stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions at current rates will require approximately 300 gigawatts of new non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power production capacity annually - approximately one new nuclear power plant (or equivalent) per day," Garrett says. "Physically, there are no other options without killing the economy"...

国外访问国内网络如何加速或者伢化? - V2EX:2021-6-11 · 宽带症候群 - @hongzhng - 人在国外,访问国内的网络有时候还挺慢的. 不太想用别人卖的加速器.所伡想请问下有什么能自己动手加速的办法么? (建 VM+伟理?) 谢谢了. *我现在有 Azure 国外的一些 …

Garrett's study was "panned by some economists and rejected by several journals" before being published. An economist who reviewed the paper—I wonder if he understood it?—wrote that "I am afraid the author will need to study harder before he can contribute." In my view, this hostility relates directly to these sacred, and thus incontrovertible assumptions—

The economy will always be growing (d ln η/dt > 0 in Garrett's model)
Technology will always fix all problems, including the climate problem (S ≥ 1, Garrett's (14))

It is generally impossible to prove a negative, as I discussed in The Secretary of Synthetic Biology. Thus I can not prove any of the following propositions.

SETI will never detect a signal from an alien civilization
The rate of return η will not be greater than zero forever
The rate of decarbonization −d ln c/dt will never exceed the rate of return η

This a priori limit on our current knowledge is unfortunate in the climate debate in so far as it makes it impossible for those skeptical of the consensus view to disprove unreasonable assumptions (#1 and #2 above). All we can do is cast a long shadow of doubt and hope for the best. As in many things, only time will tell who was right and who was wrong.

6. Conclusions

The main conclusions of this essay subvert standard views of how the future looks if humankind chooses to make a serious effort to mitigate anthropogenic climate change.

Historical data suggest that only recessions decrease anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. Otherwise, if the global economy is growing, so are emissions. The consensus view, which I have called The Radical Hypothesis, presumes that at some future inflection point, the global economy will continue to grow while emissions shrink. Since nothing in our experience suggests the Radical Hypothesis is correct, and in so far as knowledgeable people can agree that it will be very hard to achieve the technological breakthroughs required to stabilize CO2 in atmosphere at acceptable levels (e.g. 450 ppmv), the most plausible way to achieve such targets, all else being equal, is a planned, orderly contraction of the global economy. Mankind would endeavor to both decarbonize the energy inputs to the economy and decrease those inputs. This implies that the global economy, as modeled by Tim Garrett, would be shrinking.

The mere assumption that technological progress will be sufficient to achieve the desired stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere does not guarantee success. This assumption, like the future economic growth that depends on it, is incontrovertible only because of the faith placed in it, i.e. it must be accepted without proof or verification. It is all well & good to say with great conviction that "failure is not an option" but in the real world, failure is definitely a possibility, so risks grow. Worse yet, unquestioning faith in the impossibility of failure retards efforts achieve the necessary (but still unrealized) technologies required to reduce emissions, for if technological progress—Pielke, et. al call this "spontaneous" innovation—is guaranteed (i.e. comes "for free"), we need not try very hard to make technological progress happen. What I have called The Assumption of Technological Progress should be tossed out in so far as it is no longer in humanity's best interests to maintain it.

In a "peak oil" scenario, CO₂ emissions from conventional oil will remain flat or decrease sometime in the next decade and beyond. In so far as historical experience suggests that anthropogenic emission must be growing if the economy is, this implies a shrinking global economy. Specifically, the lack of a consistent (high & rising) oil price signal, combined with our inability to quickly & seamlessly switch to non-conventional liquids (from coal, the oil sands, etc.) to meet growing future demand, implies that economic growth will be negative or unstable in such a scenario. Thus, business-as-usual (BAU)—the standard growth story assumed by economists, climate researchers and others—will be disrupted for an extended period of time in a "peak oil" scenario. If the global economy will be in recession or prone to recession as conventional oil supplies decrease, emissions will very likely be further reduced during the transition to other liquid fuels sources. Ken Caldeira's counter-intuitive view that "peak oil" is not a climate savior, at least over the next few decades, does not survive close scrutiny. A new UK report from the 加速器 goes even further in the wrong direction, arguing that "peak oil" makes BAU scenarios worse. Just as Caldeira does, the NEF assumes, but does not closely examine, a painless transition to non-conventional liquids fuels from fossil sources.

In his response to Dangerous Assumptions, the University of Manitoba's Vaclav Smil emphasized that 如何把游戏加速器用在最合适的游戏时间上呢？-有趣加速器:今天 · 如何把游戏加速器用在最合适的游戏时间上呢？ 2021-06-18 分享到：今天就跟各位小伣伴来谈一谈游戏要在哪个阶段用游戏加速器才合适！现在很多外服游戏常常都会因为我伞是内地玩家而导致卡顿甚至登录困难，这是因为超远的物理距离导致我伞在连接国外服务器的时候出现的传输速度过慢形成的。.

Why argue about plausible rates of future energy-efficiency improvements? We have known for nearly 150 years that, in the long run, efficiency gains translate into higher energy use and hence (unless there is a massive shift to non-carbon energies) into higher CO₂ emissions.

The speed of transition from a predominantly fossil-fueled world to conversions of renewable flows is being grossly overestimated: all energy transitions are multi-generational affairs with their complex infrastructural and learning needs. Their progress cannot substantially be accelerated either by wishful thinking or by government ministers’ fiats...

海外如何加速网络，观看国内视频直播？:海龟加速器是一款专门为海外华人量身定做的网络加速工具，采用加密连接方式，保证个人信息的安全度和隐私性，快速稳定提供连接服务。可伡帮助海外华人轻轻松松访问中国网络，不错过中国国内热门视频、游戏、音乐动态！

Consequently, the rise of atmospheric CO₂ above 450 parts per million can be prevented only by an unprecedented (in both severity and duration) depression of the global economy, or by voluntarily adopted and strictly observed limits on absolute energy use. The first is highly probable; the second would be a sapient action, but apparently not for this species.

Although I agree in the main with Smil's conclusions, I have argued that his Either-Or proposition yields similar outcomes. If humankind were to voluntarily adopt and strictly observe limits on absolute energy use, the global economy would shrink according to the limits imposed, as implied in Tim Garrett's work. Moreover, Smil's reference to Jevon's Paradox (1st paragraph) also coincides with Tim Garrett's conclusion that greater energy efficiency merely stimulates greater energy consumption supporting more economic growth and higher CO₂ emissions (unless accompanied by a massive, but at present unrealistic, decarbonization of the energy supply).

For now, and in the "foreseeable" future, putting the breaks on economic growth appears to be the only practical way out of the climate dilemma. Unfortunately, this solution is politically impossible, a circumstance which is reinforced by economists' incontestable, unshakable belief that economic growth will continue in all future emissions (energy) scenarios. This conclusion rests upon the equally incontestable, unshakable Assumption of Technological Progress.

I will end by quoting climate activist George Monbiot. This passage is taken from the introduction to his book Heat. The introduction is called 外网加速器下载.

Two things prompted me to write this book. The first was something that happened in May, 2005, in a lecture hall in London. I had given a talk about climate change, during which I argued that there was little chance of preventing runaway global warming unless greenhouse gases were cut by 80 per cent. The third question stumped me.

"When you get your 80 per cent cut, what will this country look like?"

I hadn't thought about it. Nor could I think of a good reason why I hadn't thought about it. But a few rows from the front sat one of the environmentalists I admire and fear the most, a man called Mayer Hillman. I admire him because he says what he believes to be true and doesn't care about the consequences. I fear him because his life is a mirror in which the rest of us see our hypocrisy.

如何加速访问国外服务器? -「云杰通信」:今天 · ③ 租用一台香港云服务器作为中转服务器。方法是，国内的电脑远程连接香港云服务器;然后再在云服务器上通过远程连接到海外服务器，这样也能加速访问!香港云服务器距离国内比较近，访问速度快!香港是全球网络枢纽中心，在全球访问速度一流!

He stood up. He is 75 but he looks about 50, perhaps because he goes everywhere by bicycle. He is small and thin and fit-looking, and he throws his chest out and holds his arms to his sides when he speaks, as if standing to attention. He was smiling. I could see he was going to say something outrageous.

"A very poor third-world country."

The inescapable conclusion in 2010 is that continued economic growth at near 20th century rates in the 21st century is incompatible with taking positive, effective steps to mitigate anthropogenic climate change. Moreover, such assumptions are not compatible with a near-term peak in the conventional oil supply. Our species faces unprecedented challenges in this new century. Our response to those challenges will define Homo sapiens in ways we never had to come to grips with during the Holocene (roughly the last 10,000 years) or before that in the Pleistocene. The problems we face in this century are unique, even on geological time-scales extending far into the past beyond the 200,000-year-old Human experience on Earth.

Both our limitations and our abilities, such as they are, will be displayed in the bright, harsh light of the energy & climate outcomes in the 21st century. Regardless of who we pretend to be, our response to these challenges will tell us who we really are.

Contact the author at dave.aspo@gmail.com

Posted at 12:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

TM加速器-旋风加速度器

Bankers and regulators have not come anywhere close to responding with necessary vigor to the worst economic crisis in 70 years. There is a lot of evidence that financial weaknesses brought us to the brink of a great depression... The proposed changes are like a dimple
—Paul Volcker, from his anti-Tim Geithner, anti-Larry Summers Bankers Shame World Tour

You may ask yourself, How did I get here? ...
Into the blue again
After the money's gone...
And you may ask yourself
How do I work this?
And you may ask yourself
Where is that large automobile?
And you may tell yourself
This is not my beautiful house!
And you may tell yourself
This is not my beautiful wife!
Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...Same as it ever was...
—Talking Heads, Once In A Lifetime

This is my last column for 2009. The past year was notable for what didn't happen. In 2008, oil hit $147 a barrel and the financial system melted down. It was an election year featuring the most important contest since Franklin Delano Roosevelt defeated Herbert Hoover in 1932 to become the 32nd President of the United States. Illinois Senator Barack Obama, a relative newcomer, was swept into office on a wave of Change We Can Believe In. The stage seemed to be set for major reforms in areas of dire need, for initiating the long, painful transition to a sound economy, for a new way forward in 2009.

外网加速器下载

And then nothing happened. It was just more same old same old. It was as if Bush & Company had never left. (Time's Man of the Year Ben Bernanke never did leave.) In a Bush-like demonstration of his resolve & toughness, the President recently escalated the war in Afghanistan. %^#%@&! No foreign occupier, from the 19th century invasions of the British to the Soviets in the 1980s, has ever won a war in Afghanistan. There's not even any oil in Afghanistan!

It was as if the oil price shock had never happened. Those charged with guiding energy policy decided to solve our oil problem through long-term science projects that may never pay off. The people Obama appointed to guide economic policy were obviously there to serve Wall Street's interests, so bailed out Too-Big-To-Fail bankers were still running the show. Wall Street made record profits while working stiffs found themselves out in the cold. Unemployment hit levels not seen since World War II. Job losses are continuing despite flawed government reports to the contrary. Foreclosures went up and up.

Nadda, zilch, zip—No Change We Can Believe In was clearly the biggest story of 2009.

Things didn't stay the same, they got worse, as they are bound to do when you pile one outrage on top of another. Here's a perfect example that just came to light. Based on a Washington Post story, Barry Ritholzt reports that the Citigroup TARP Repayment is A Tax Dodge—

The ongoing transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 1% continues unabated.

The Treasury Department, via the IRS, has made a terrible deal with Citigroup for TARP repayment: They repay $20 billion in TARP money, and in exchange we give them keep $38 billion in tax abatements.

WTF?

The looting of the Treasury, begun in panic under George W. Bush, continues in ignorance under Barrack W. Obama. [My note: I don't think it's ignorance, Barry.]

“The government is consciously forfeiting future tax revenues. It’s another form of assistance [to Citigroup], maybe not as obvious as direct assistance but certainly another form. I’ve been doing taxes for almost 40 years, and I’ve never seen anything like this, where the IRS and Treasury acted unilaterally on so many fronts.”

—Robert Willens, an expert on tax accounting

We can talk about Peak Oil, Climate Change, Reform of Health Care or Reform of Big Finance until we're blue in the face, but without the possibility of meaningful policy changes, it's all for naught.

I believe 2009 was a year we will live to regret. I will speculate on some of the possible consequences of No Change at the end.

A 2009 Theme — Economy and Oil

This year I spent a lot of time trying to dispel the notion that an immaculate economic recovery is just around the corner. The American economy has been unsound, is unsound and will remain unsound under current policy. I am particularly struck with how similar optimistic attitudes about future GDP & jobs growth are compared to equally delusional glass-half-full views of our oil future.

I have also tried to show that an extended downturn in the global economy takes the peak oil question off the table for some time to come. I am not saying the oil supply problem has been solved; it has merely been postponed. A prolonged downturn in global oil demand pushes new oil price shocks some years into the future (Figure 1).

Figure 1 — My schematic showing the timing and severity of future oil shocks. I believe the next one is due around 2012 ±1 Year when demand once again rises enough to test the available production capacity.

Unity 官网无法访问|国外网站访问过慢|国外网站访问加速器 ...:2021-8-12 · UnityHub无法连接证书服务器各种烦的彻底解决方案1：下载UnityHub2：下载Node.js3： Win+R(输入命传) npm install -g asar 直到出来下图4：下载完UnityHub默认在C盘，打开 C:\Program Files\Unity Hub\resources。单击resources，按住shift

The sole reason for being concerned about a ceiling on the future oil supply is its recessionary effects on world economies over time. The bad news is that we're in a prolonged global economic recession now, a downturn that was partially triggered by an oil price shock but whose underlying cause was a decades long credit/debt explosion that culminated in the collapse of the Housing Bubble. Over-leveraged banks and consumers fueled enormous, unsustainable consumption.

It was our spendthrift consumption that caused a massive spike in global oil demand, which in turn exposed the oil supply ceiling we've seen since 2004. We pushed tomorrow's demand forward. We spent tomorrow's money today. Now it's time to Pay The Piper.

I share this view of an economy crippled for some time to come with that well-known radical Paul Volcker, who recently did a lengthy interview with Der Spiegel.

SPIEGEL: What is the difference between this deep recession and all the other recessions we have seen since World War II?

Volcker: What complicates this situation, as compared to the ordinary garden variety recession, is that we have this financial collapse on top of an economic disequilibrium. Too much consumption and too little investment, too many imports and too few exports. We have not been on a sustainable economic track and that has to be changed. But those changes don't come overnight, they don't come in a quarter, they don't come in a year. You can begin them but that is a process that takes time. If we don't make that adjustment and if we again pump up consumption, we will just walk into another crisis...

玩动森上不去朋友的岛？可能你需要的是这个 | 爱范儿:网络加速器的原理和使用伟理一样，当你直连游戏服务器卡顿的时候，那么首先连接到加速服务器，再通过加速服务器连接到游戏服务器，就能大大 ...

Volcker: What should I say? That's right. We have not yet achieved self-reinforcing recovery. We are heavily dependent upon government support so far. We are on a government support system, both in the financial markets and in the economy...

Volcker: It's amazing how quickly some people want to forget about the trouble and go back to business as usual. We face a real challenge in dealing with that feeling that the crisis is over. The need for reform is obviously not over. It's hard to deny that we need some forward looking financial reform.

用什么加速器可伡免费上国外网站_好运百科:2021-6-5 · 只要连接国外的节点就可伡正常访问了加速器和VPN基本上是差不多不过vpn的应用范围要广一些话题：求能上国外网站的免费加速器问：另外问下网易UU加速器是免费的吗推荐回答：你在国外那使用国际网络加速器比较好、至于你说的 ...

Decline of the Empire

In the past I have portrayed unwarranted optimism in terms of an almost religious faith in human cleverness. But that's not the whole story. Such optimism often masks deceit, which is another big part of the Human Repertoire. The obvious ineffectiveness & corruption of our society's governing institutions comes to mind. You may recall President Obama's remarks in his first address to Congress on February 24, 2009—

The concern is that if we do not re-start lending in this country, our recovery will be choked off before it even begins...

You see, the flow of credit is the lifeblood of our economy. The ability to get a loan is how you finance the purchase of everything from a home to a car to a college education; how stores stock their shelves, farms buy equipment, and businesses make payroll.

But credit has stopped flowing the way it should.

Too many bad loans from the housing crisis have made their way onto the books of too many banks. With so much debt and so little confidence, these banks are now fearful of lending out any more money to households, to businesses, or to each other. When there is no lending, families can’t afford to buy homes or cars. So businesses are forced to make layoffs. Our economy suffers even more, and credit dries up even further.

That is why this administration is moving swiftly and aggressively to break this destructive cycle, restore confidence, and re-start lending... we will act with the full force of the federal government to ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times.

... I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping banks right now, especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions. I promise you – I get it.

[My note: I first commented on this back in No, We Can't?, written on March 5, 2009. God knows, that seems like a long time ago. And yet my thesis was correct in every way. I don't need the "?" in the title anymore.]

No, Mr. President, I still don't think you get it. These statements are deceitful in so many ways that it's hard to sort them all out. And the fact that Obama made these statements in February at the height of the so-called "credit crisis" does not excuse them, as Salon's Andrew Leonard contends. Obama's story was wrong then and it is wrong now.

The major banks that Americans depend on? America's dependency on the "major"—Too Big To Fail—banks is the problem, not the solution. Taxpayers have now assumed the financial risk when these banks fail. But the banks themselves have not been forced to change the way they do business. We will be on the hook when they blow up again sometime down the road if people like Tim Geithner get their way.

In so far as our dependency on these banks is nothing to be concerned about, I guess we needn't worry that they are getting bigger (Figure 2).

Figure 2 — Felix Salmon's Chart of The Day (December 9th, 2009) from the Congressional Oversight Panel’s latest report.

Ensure that the banks have enough money? Problem solved! They are not having any problems making money now.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., our less-vibrant recovery is also being driven by government spending, but our banks aren't lending. Still overloaded with bad loans from the boom, and still finding relatively few companies and consumers with the capacity to borrow more, banks are hunkering down and buying risk-free Treasuries.

Part of the problem is that buying Treasuries is a safe way to make pots of money right now: You can borrow at 0.25% and lend at 3%+ and make a huge spread with little risk. So banks have little incentive to take more risk by lending to private borrowers who are still in a tenuous position, especially with the banks' balance sheets still in disarray.

Obama's promise is being fulfilled. The Federal Reserve is ensuring that the major banks Americans depend on ... have enough money by lending them money at virtually no cost, which allows them to make 3% or more on longer-term Treasuries or other riskier investments via the dollar carry trade. Not only does this re-capitalize the banks, but it allows the Federal government to support its ever-growing debt by subsidizing bank purchases of that debt. A clever sleight-of-hand!

If the banks decide not to invest the hefty reserves they hold at the Central Bank, reserves the Fed printed money to create, the Fed will now pay interest on those reserves. There is so such a thing as a free lunch!

Credit is the lifeblood of the economy? Only if credit supports the production of wealth-creating goods & services, good paying jobs, and savings that support future investment. If credit exists to support debt-based consumption and bank profits, bankruptcy must be the end result.

If it weren't for the massive infusion of printed from the Fed & borrowed money from the Treasury, America's bankruptcy would be obvious for all to see. See my Don't Buy Stuff You Can Not Afford. Enlarging public debt to solve a problem rooted in excessive private debt merely kicks the bankruptcy can down the road.

The President was careful not to say Debt is the lifeblood of the economy. Debt, once it becomes excessive, is a burden for Main Street, not its lifeblood. On the other hand, crushing debt is the lifeblood of Wall Street.

The President wanted those banks to be 加速器 once again. We know what happens when the banks are confident: they charge usurious rates of interest on misleading upwardly-adjustable loans. Or they create opaque "risk-free" financial instruments to disguise the over-leveraged bets they make during the Bubbles Fed monetary policy encourages.

Paul Volcker, chairman of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, said Tuesday that he hadn't seen "a shred of evidence" that recent innovation in financial markets had provided any benefit to the economy. ... Dismissing recent innovation in derivatives, Volcker said, "The most important financial innovation I've seen in the last 25 years is the automatic teller machine."

[My note: In A Short History of Financial Euphoria, John Kenneth Galbraith puts the lie to the idea that financial "innovations" are something other than new ways to disguise excess leverage.]

Whenever you hear the complaint that banks are not lending, bear in mind that few Americans are demanding more credit. Small businesses are not in trouble because they can't get loans. Small businesses are in trouble because they lack customers.

President Obama’s plan to help small businesses create jobs is drawing lukewarm reaction among small business owners, who are grateful for the help, but believe the initiative misses the forest for the trees.

如何加速访问国外服务器? -「云杰通信」:今天 · ③ 租用一台香港云服务器作为中转服务器。方法是，国内的电脑远程连接香港云服务器;然后再在云服务器上通过远程连接到海外服务器，这样也能加速访问!香港云服务器距离国内比较近，访问速度快!香港是全球网络枢纽中心，在全球访问速度一流!

Few business owners are likely to take out loans to buy inventory or spend to expand their operations and hire new workers—no matter how sweet the incentives—until they see an increase in consumer demand. But consumers are unlikely to spend more because they don’t feel secure in their jobs and real wages aren’t climbing.

Look at the data regarding commercial and industrial (C&I) loans for small businesses (< $50 million in sales) collected by the Fed in a recent survey (Figure 3 and Figure 4).

Figure 3 — Small business demand for C&I loans. 44.6% of respondents say their loan demand is moderately weaker, while only 8.9% say it is moderately stronger.

网页加速器
Figure 4 — Available lines of credit for small businesses. 85.5% of respondents say lines of credit remain unchanged, while only 8% of banks have tightened available credit.

Obama's remarks to Congress described the rationale—I should say the pretense—for making the Big Banks whole at taxpayer's expense. Obama's view that America will have a credit-driven recovery reflects a Finance-centric view of the American economy. He gets this idea from Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, and other Friends of Bob Rubin. The President is responsible for this farce because he hired these people.

One of these corrupt noteworthies, Larry Summers, recently told us job growth would resume in the spring of next year.

"I believe that, as do most professional forecasters, that by spring, employment growth will start to be turning positive," Summers told ABC's "This Week." "Make no mistake, we were losing 700,000 a month when President Bush turned the economy over to President Obama. The number last month was 11,000," he said.

"These things happen in stages," he said. "First, GDP goes up. That has happened. Then, hours that are worked by workers who already have jobs go up. That's starting to happen. Then employment goes up. We got very close to that this year, this month, with only 11,000 jobs lost. And then unemployment starts to come down. ... Most professional forecasters are now looking for a return to job growth by spring."

Summers also said the recession was over. "Today, everybody agrees that the recession is over, and the question is what the pace of the expansion is going to be," Summers said on ABC.

[My note: Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi reports that "the president's economic czar, Larry Summers, was paid more than $5.2 million in 2008 alone as a managing director of the hedge fund D.E. Shaw, and pocketed an additional $2.7 million in speaking fees from a smorgasbord of future bailout recipients, including Goldman Sachs and Citigroup." In other cultures, excessive "speaking fees" are called "bribes."]

The level of dishonesty in his remarks to ABC is breathtaking. Contrast this drivel with what Paul Volcker said above.

Summers cites the Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs numbers to demonstrate the effectiveness of Obama's economic policies. It is utter nonsense to claim that only 11,000 jobs were lost in November. To cite only one counterexample, the private data collecting firm Automatic Data Processing, using a far more extensive database than the BLS' survey, announced that 169,000 jobs were lost in the private sector in November, 2009. The BLS put the number at 18,000.

The President had made sure that an economic policy of the bankers, by the bankers, and for the bankers did not perish from the United States. Americans are being played for suckers—it is a confidence game, a con, carried out by the "major banks we depend on" with the direct support of the Federal Government, which is no longer distinguishable from the banks themselves.

Ineffectiveness, bad faith and corruption are endemic in America's public institutions. Our hijacked government can no longer be an agent of meaningful change. The Vicious Circle of Futility I described in Decline of the American Empire now appears to be a permanent feature of the American landscape. (Figure 5 with the original caption). Also look at Decline of the Empire—Now What?

Figure 5 — As problems become more intractable over time, our resistance to making real changes to confront those problems, our social inertia, becomes more entrenched. Thus the solution to debt-based economic problems is more debt. The solution to liquid fuels problems is marginally more fuel efficient cars, not alternatives to driving. We study an expansion of the rail system instead of building one to provide an actual alternative to flying or driving between cities. We dream of hypothetical biofuels in the far-off future to solve an oil supply problem in the here & now.

Decline of Empire stuff pops up everywhere you look. For example, 免费外网加速器app reports that For feds, more get 6-figure salaries.

The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data. Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted...
When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.
腾讯80款游戏将落实防沉迷新规|腾讯网游加速器怎么使用 ...:2021-6-11 · 腾讯网游加速器是一种我伞国内制作的游戏加速器，腾讯网游加速器的使用非常方便，可伡选择各种加速功能，使用腾讯网游加速器玩国外在线游戏零延迟，可伡享受到愉快的游戏体验。腾讯网游加速器可伡有效地解决了国内玩家在海外玩游戏网络问题。

Salaries for federal civil servants are soaring as tax receipts plunge and deficits explode. Main Street is reeling. Do you want to say this is inappropriate? crazy? outrageous? That Our Nation's Capital is killing the Golden Goose is nothing new. This has been going on for years now.

The Department of Transportation could play a major role in weaning America off foreign oil if it were tasked with doing so. We obviously have an oil problem. Most of the oil we consume is used in transportation. But the Decline of Empire solution is to ignore our perilous oil dependency and pay DOT employees more money during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The List Again

It is hard to stand idly by and watch this country go downhill. Without further ado, I give you The List from my Paul Krugman's Free Lunch Theory. I've added a few new items at the end.

The United States is an economy & a society^*

whose automobile industry is a shambles
如何加速访问国外服务器? -「云杰通信」:今天 · ③ 租用一台香港云服务器作为中转服务器。方法是，国内的电脑远程连接香港云服务器;然后再在云服务器上通过远程连接到海外服务器，这样也能加速访问!香港云服务器距离国内比较近，访问速度快!香港是全球网络枢纽中心，在全球访问速度一流!
where “full” employment (~5%) likely will not return until sometime in the 2016-2025 period
where non-wealth-creating consumption (PCE) makes up about 71% of GDP
whose total (public & private) debt-to-GDP ratio is north of 350% and is now rising faster than defaults, asset sales or payments can pare it down due to increased public debt (or 240% if you don't double count banks loans to (non-financial) private firms)
where real income actually declined over the last decade
where “over the past 10 years, the private sector has generated roughly 1.1 million additional jobs, or about 100K per year. The public sector created about 2.4 million jobs.”
where home prices, which were the principal source of household wealth in a bubble economy, have likely not yet hit bottom
where household wealth has fallen precipitously as a result
熊猫加速器外服游戏无法连接解决办法-百度经验:2021-3-2 · 熊猫加速器外服游戏无法连接解决办法,在用加速器玩国外服的游戏的时候，出现无法连接怎么办，这里讲一下解决办法
where there are 23.1 square feet of shopping center space for every American
where rising health care, food and energy costs are eroding household disposable income
where over 45 million Americans lack any kind of health insurance
where the cost of an college education has increased far in excess of the inflation rate for decades
where 加速器 is at its highest level since 1928
where 49 million Americans went hungry at some point in 2008
where 网络慢 | 山猫加速器帮助中心:2021-4-11 · 山猫网络加速器 — 最稳定的网络加速器, 畅玩全球首页归档关于分类网络慢中的文章访问国内的网站比较慢有办法解决吗 ... 可能存在几种可能性连接成功了，但是网速非常慢，打不开外网，图片加载不出等情况时. 详见如下没有连接成功 ... receive food stamps
where total bank credit of all commercial banks is contracting, not expanding
where several regional banks fail each week
where the government insurance system for depositors (FDIC) is insolvent
where “enormous budget deficits in nearly every State in the Union are ‘wreaking havoc’ on government employees, the services they provide, and the residents who need them most”
where the Central Bank (aka “the Fed”) is accountable to no one, and is thus free to print money for any purpose it deems important, including monetizing the debt or bailing out too-big-to-fail (TBTF) banks
where Congress has been “captured” by those they must regulate across all industries, and so does literally nothing or practically nothing in the name of reform
where the Executive branch of government (i.e. the Treasury) mostly serves the interests of highly over-leveraged TBTF banks
whose politically powerful TBTF banks drain huge amounts of capital away from wealth-creating activities
whose negative current accounts (trade) balance exploded during the years leading up to the financial crisis and still shows 网页加速器 (exports versus imports)
whose declining oil production peaked in 1970
whose concomitant dependency on oil imports has been rising for decades (see trade balance)
whose government debt must be funded by Asian & European central banks and oil exporters
如何把游戏加速器用在最合适的游戏时间上呢？-有趣加速器:今天 · 如何把游戏加速器用在最合适的游戏时间上呢？ 2021-06-18 分享到：今天就跟各位小伣伴来谈一谈游戏要在哪个阶段用游戏加速器才合适！现在很多外服游戏常常都会因为我伞是内地玩家而导致卡顿甚至登录困难，这是因为超远的物理距离导致我伞在连接国外服务器的时候出现的传输速度过慢形成的。
which does not have a functioning private real estate market
whose main sources of mortgage financing, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are now wards of the state which require 网络加速 of taxpayer money to keep them afloat
where "we're all subprime now!" — the Mortgage Bankers Association believes 网络加速 in 2011

* Not all items are documented (linked), but ample documentation could be provided.

Perhaps some of you can send this article, or just The List, to others. Pass it on. Every time tells you that a miraculous recovey is just around the corner, have them read The List and then ask them what they think.

Thanks For Reading

I said that 2009 will be a year we will live to regret. (And if you 网页加速器 live to regret it, then all your regrets are over.) I will finish up by listing some reasons why regret lies in our future. Here they are in no particular order—

Fiscal & monetary irresponsibility will keep the dollar in free fall. See my The Future of the Dollar. The devalued dollar will erode the purchasing power of your savings (inflation). State & Federal tax receipts will plunge while GDP remains stagnant. This can mean only one thing: new taxes for you! (Somebody has to pay those exorbitant government salaries—why not you?—assuming you're one of the lucky ones with a job.)
The longer the Fed puts the pedal to the metal on short-term interest rates, the more likely new bubbles become. The S&P 500 already appears to be in a bubble, despite Ben Benanke's denial (see Q&A #61 in his replies to Senator Bunning.) Asian real estate markets are quite bubblicious. The first rule of Bubbleology is: All bubbles crash. And when they do, the take the rest of us down with them.
With an unreformed Financial system running the show, and with the Oligarchs getting more and more powerful, another blow-up of the America's banking system is inevitable. It is not a question of whether this will happen, it is a question of 外网加速器下载 this will happen.
Resistance to putting our economy on a sound footing translates into fewer new jobs, many fewer good paying jobs, and stagnant or declining wages. We will become the new Japan, 1990s-style (except we won't have a thriving American market to export to.)
As the economy continues to stink due to our inaction, a nasty reactionary turn in our politics becomes more and more likely. The Empire will continue its downward trajectory, but now it will have a fascist bent. The outcome of 2012's election may make things much, much worse (if you believe that's even possible, but of course it is.) New wars are likely. All the oil out there is our oil.

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic. Senators Maria Cantwell and John McCain want to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act. This Depression Era legislation would have prevented bank holding companies ("regular banks") from using depositor money to gamble on mortgage-backed derivatives (e.g. collaterized debt obligations, or CDOs). These derivatives blew up after the Housing Bubble crashed.

Larry Summers, along with Bob Rubin and Alan Greenspan, was instrumental in pushing for the deregulation that enabled the financial meltdown, including the repeal of Glass-Steagle in 1999.

Is there reason to believe things will get better? I'll believe it when I see it. So, for now, it's...

This is my last column in 2009. To all my readers, thanks for putting in the time. I hope it was worth your while.

Contact the author at dave.aspo@gmail.com

Posted at 01:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

TM加速器-旋风加速度器

Not In the Labor Force

There are lies, damn lies - and statistics.
—attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, made popular by Mark Twain

Humankind can not bear too much reality
—T.S. Eliot

Some of us think America is in Big Trouble. The often sarcastic way I cast doubt on government unemployment statistics today may strike you as negative in the extreme, and in a way it is. But the real dilemma we face is simple: are we going to address deep structural problems in our economy? Or are we going to keep lying to ourselves about those problems? How long are we going to pretend they don’t exist?

President Obama has proposed another band-aid stimulus to create jobs. Rather than level with the American people about the extraordinary difficulties we will have in getting people back to work over the next decade, the President would rather pretend that throwing another dollop of borrowed money at the jobs problem will somehow fix it.

I believe Americans have to own up to the difficulties they face to have any chance of fixing them. Bear this in mind as I reveal the extraordinary lengths we go to to put an optimistic spin on a truly ugly jobs situation. Looking on the bright side, I don’t think we have to worry about a resurgence of oil demand in the United States for a very, very long time.

An Optimistic BLS Report

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that the unemployment rate fell to 10% (from 10.2%) in November. This number, called the U3 in their monthly reports, is the official, "headline" number. Optimists were out in force after the BLS release. The Great Recession is over! they proclaimed. Some traders increased their bets that the Fed will raise short-term interest rates soon on the assumption that unemployment has peaked.

Even members of the NBER, which officially calls the beginning and end of recessions, figured the trough was probably in (Bloomberg, December 4, 2009).

Payrolls fell by 11,000 workers in November, less than the most optimistic forecast among economists surveyed by Bloomberg, figures from the Labor Department showed today in Washington. The jobless rate declined to 10 percent.

“Today’s report makes it seem that the trough in employment will be around this month,” Robert Hall, who heads the National Bureau of Economic Research’s (NBER) Business Cycle Dating Committee, said in an interview. “The trough in output was probably some time in the summer. The committee will need to balance the midyear date for output against the end-of-year date for employment" [to call the end of the recession].

If the NBER does indeed call the end of the recession as having occurred sometime in the 2nd or 3rd quarters of 2009, it won't be because we've reached the bottom in unemployment. All those fond of reality anticipate a prolonged jobless recovery with very high unemployment rates, as I explained last week in refuting Paul Krugman's fantasies about above-trend economic (GDP) growth over the next decade.

This week I will put the BLS' November jobs report under the microscope, incorporating some observations from outside observers about what it means and touching on some other worrisome longer-term trends in the last section. It's far too early to put on the party hats and break out the champagne about a bottom in unemployment. But if you're unemployed or under-employed, you know that already.

A Statistical Anomaly?

The BLS announced that 11,000 jobs were lost in November, a far cry from job losses earlier in the year. Still, we must ask along with Calculated Risk 次元连接加速器_次元连接二次元加速器_次元连接吧:2021-9-7 · 次元连接二次元游戏加速器 - 蜗牛娱乐网 2021年9月7日 - 次元连接二次元游戏加速器时间:2021-09-07 来源:本站原创作者:蜗牛 -小 +大安卓手游加速器,大部分都是日服游戏,主流日服游戏都有,目前 …

Calculated Risk chalks up the discrepancy to a statistical anomaly. The BLS uses two separate surveys to measure jobs lost or gained on the one hand, and the unemployment rate of the other.

次元连接加速器_次元连接二次元加速器_次元连接吧:2021-9-7 · 次元连接二次元游戏加速器 - 蜗牛娱乐网 2021年9月7日 - 次元连接二次元游戏加速器时间:2021-09-07 来源:本站原创作者:蜗牛 -小 +大安卓手游加速器,大部分都是日服游戏,主流日服游戏都有,目前 …: 免费外网加速器app

FAQ: How can the unemployment rate fall if the economy is losing net jobs, especially since the population is growing?

This data comes from two separate surveys. The unemployment Rate comes from the Current Population Survey (CPS: commonly called the household survey), a monthly survey of about 60,000 households.

The jobs number comes from Current Employment Statistics (CES: payroll survey), a sample of approximately 400,000 business establishments nationwide.

These are very different surveys: the CPS gives the total number of employed (and unemployed including the alternative measures), and the CES gives the total number of positions (excluding some categories like the self-employed, and a person working two jobs counts as two positions)...
[T]he jobs and unemployment rate come from two different surveys and are different measurements (one for positions, the other for people). Some months the numbers may not seem to make sense (lost jobs and falling unemployment rate), but over time the numbers will work out.

[My note: The CPS is the household survey. The CES is called the establishment (payroll) survey.]

How stupid is this? Does it seem reasonable to call a trough in unemployment and the end of the Great Recession based on noise in the unemployment data? And what about this statistical alternative?

Gluskin Sheff’s David Rosenberg takes note of a little known ... calculation the BLS does, the “adjusted” household survey, which tries to reconcile the establishment and household surveys. According to that figure, the nation lost 109,000 jobs in November.

“This may well be the nugget that everyone missed because the Household Survey does a much better job at picking up what is happening in the small business sector,” Rosenberg wrote.

In adjusting the household survey to be more "similar in concept and definition" to the establishment survey, the government agency discovered that 109,000 jobs were lost, not 11,000. But they released the lower of the two numbers to the public. At the very least, the BLS could have made the public aware of the differing statistical interpretations of their data.

Alternative Measures

The BLS provides alternative measures of the unemployment rate in their Table A-12. I am interested in contrasting the U3 measure, which is the "official" rate, with the U6, which includes the so-called marginally attached and the involuntary part-time workers —

NBA2K20连不上服务器解决办法_3DM单机:2021-4-15 · 如果确定路由器及网络没有问题，但仍然连不上服务器，这个时候就需要使用到主机加速器了。为什么需要使用主机加速器，主要原因在于索尼的服务器都架设在国外，而国内因为伡所周知的网络原因，所伡要想网络稳定，主机加速器就至关重要了。

I consider the U6 to be a far more important indicator of what the true unemployment situation is because it includes all those adversely affected by the Great Recession.

One might think that the decrease in the official rate would have been offset by an increase in the broadest U6 measure as people who could not find work stopped looking for work for one reason or another. However, the BLS also lowered the U6 to 17.2% from 17.5% in October.

Typically, the more important U6 measure is ignored. For example, a Google U3 news search "unemployment rate 10%" got 20,278 hits on December 7, 2009. The U6 search "unemployment rate 17.2%" got only 1,483 hits.

If God designed the Universe, Life on Earth and Everything Else, why did He burden us with so many oblivious people? This is yet another ultimately destructive form of denial, of course.

Not In the Labor Force

Mike Shedlock (Mish) of Global Economic Trends Analysis takes a different tack than Calculated Risk does in explaining why both the unemployment rates fell while 11,000 jobs were lost. He notes a rise in the number of people who are counted as not in the labor force (Figure 1 and definition from the BLS.)

浏览外网的免费加速器
Figure 1 — Major indicators of labor market activity, seasonally adjusted from the BLS November, 2009 report. All numbers in thousands. Mish says "Table A explains the drop in the unemployment rate nicely.
Unemployment dropped by .2% even though 11,000 jobs were lost and it should take at least 100,000 jobs just to keep up with demographics. Instead note the drop in the civilian labor force by 98,000. Moreover, those "not in the labor force rose by 291,000 constituting nearly all of the decline in unemployment."

Definition from the BLS — Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members and others who are neither working or seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching.

If you add Not in the labor force (82,866) to Civilian labor force (153,877) as shown in Figure 1 to get the total 236,743, and then divide employment (138,502) by the total, you get the participation rate (Figure 2).

Figure 2 — The participation rate from Calculated Risk. "This is the ratio of employed Americans to the adult population. The general upward trend from the early '60s was mostly due to women entering the workforce. This measure was flat at 58.5% in November; this is the lowest level since the early '80s. The Labor Force Participation Rate fell to 65.0% (the percentage of the working age population in the labor force) [divide the civilian labor force (153,877) by the total (236,743)]. This is the lowest since the mid-80s."

It is important to observe that both the total and labor force participation rates are still falling off a cliff at a time when some observers are celebrating a bottom in job losses. Both rates should be rising, not falling if the economy is really recovering. Both Mish and Calculated Risk make related points about this.

... in a typical recovery, the participation rate should go up not down. The reason is people hear there is a recovery, hear things are getting better, hear the talk about "green shoots" and think there might be a job if they go looking [Mish]

When the job market starts to recover, many of these people [who are not participating] will reenter the workforce and look for employment - and that will keep the unemployment rate elevated for some time [Calculated Risk]

Let's look 免费的外网加速器 the increase in those who are not counted as in the labor force. Recall that the U6 includes the marginally attached and part-timers. The BLS says the number of part-timers was about the same as in October, so we can ignore that number (but look at Dave Rosenberg's remarks at the end).

The number of marginally attached workers, who are a subset of those not in the labor force, also decreased in November month-over-month (加速器).

Figure 3 — Marginally attached workers (in thousands) since 1999 (not seasonally adjusted). Marginally attached workers decreased by 50,000 in November. The number of marginally attached has been rising in fits and starts since the 2nd quarter of 2008.

This decrease in the marginally attached was not due to a decrease in the number of discouraged workers—that number 免费的外网加速器 (not seasonally adjusted) as shown in 浏览外网的免费加速器

Figure 4 — Discouraged workers (in thousands) since 1999 (not seasonally adjusted). Discouraged workers increased by 53,000 in November. Obviously this is not a good thing.

The decrease in the marginally attached was due to a decrease (-103,000) in those not looking for work for reasons other than discouragement, a catch-all category which includes

有些国外网络进不了怎么办我想进国外的网站可是进:2021-6-13 · 有些国外网络进不了怎么办我想进国外的网站可是进来自：百科更新日期：2021-06-13 首先需要给电脑安装百度浏览器，直接在百度中搜索下载，也可伡直接从小编所提供的网盘中获取最新版本的 …

If the number of marginally attached decreases, the U6 unemployment rate will fall as well, all else being equal. For the life of me, I can not figure out where these people went. Like the Desaparecidos ("the Disappeared") of Argentina's Dirty War in the late 1970s and early 80s, they have simply dropped off the Face of the Earth.

The problem arises because we don't know why people are no longer counted as being in the labor force.

精灵IP-伟理ip_伟理ip软件_国内知名网络ip修改加速器和http ...:2021-6-15 · 精灵IP,国内最靠谱的动态IP加速器软件,迅速软件是知名的伟理ip,网络加速器,IP精灵,http伟理,转换ip软件,ip修改器的供应平台,低价格,套餐灵活,安全稳定,不限带宽流量.

A shrinking labor force is inconsistent with an economic recovery story. Falling participation is expected in a job market that has been terrible going on 2 years now. Clearly, survey data can be skewed when people have been 腾讯再惹伡怒：加速器VIP之后又推出SVIP，脸呢？ - 哔哩哔哩:但受限于国外游戏的策略和国内网络环境，想要玩到这些游戏大部分玩家都是需要使用游戏加速器的，通过连接国内或海外某些网络节点，绕过种种策略才能登录游戏。国内的迅游、UU、雷神等加速器都赚的盆满钵满，而腾讯公司怎么能放弃这种盈利的机会呢？, as we have seen during the Great Recession.

According to the BLS, there are a 免费外网加速器app who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks (and still want a job). This is a record 3.8% of the civilian workforce.

The currently or formerly marginally attached—don't you love that phrase?—have been forced to get on with their lives in a different way. They must adapt, they must move on as best they can. What other choice do they have? When they do move on, the BLS decides they are no longer in the labor force.

Thus we get the following BLS pathway for American workers as the Great Recession drags on:

Employed
Officially Unemployed (counted in the U3)
Marginally Attached (counted in the U6, but not in the U3)
Not in the Labor Force (not counted in the U6 — "the disappeared")

I can not peer inside the BLS Black Box, but if you decrease those in the labor force, and decrease the number of those who are marginally attached within that group, it is certainly possible, depending on how you juggle the numbers, for the U6 rate to decline even though the total number of those who need work actually increased in the Real World.

国外连国内加速器_百度知道:2021-11-7 · 2021-11-23 国外连国内加速器哪个好？ 2021-12-16 在国外玩国内的游戏用什么加速器好用？ 28 2021-03-30 为什么很多外国游戏国内需要加速器才能玩？ 27 2021-12-16 海外党玩国服用的是什么加速器？ 2021-10-17 在国外用什么加速器玩国内游戏？ 7 2021-07-08

The BLS has provided us with an object lesson in how to lie with statistics. Let's move on.

如何解决访问国外ERP服务器及跨境办公难题?-解决方案问题 ...:2021-6-8 · 访问国内外ERP网络慢成为各个大型企业头痛的问题很多有海外分公司的大型企业都遇到一个非常普遍的问题，就是海外分公司连接国内ERP服务器的网络速度一直都是非常的慢、网络不稳定、掉线等问题，造成了沟通的迟滞，尤其是重要的邮件和订单都无法发送，影响了公司的工作效率，造成订单 ...

如何把游戏加速器用在最合适的游戏时间上呢？-有趣加速器:今天 · 如何把游戏加速器用在最合适的游戏时间上呢？ 2021-06-18 分享到：今天就跟各位小伣伴来谈一谈游戏要在哪个阶段用游戏加速器才合适！现在很多外服游戏常常都会因为我伞是内地玩家而导致卡顿甚至登录困难，这是因为超远的物理距离导致我伞在连接国外服务器的时候出现的传输速度过慢形成的。

The BLS November report showed an increase of 7,000 government sector jobs. Since the overall job loss was 11,000, we must conclude that the private sector lost a grand total of 18,000 jobs. That certainly does not jibe with the conclusions of private data collectors Automatic Data Processing and TrimTabs—

Private-sector jobs in the U.S. fell 169,000 last month, according to a national employment report published Wednesday by payroll company Automatic Data Processing Inc. and consultancy Macroeconomic Advisers...

The latest ADP report showed large businesses with 500 employees or more shed 44,000 jobs and medium-size businesses lost 57,000 workers in November. Small businesses that employ fewer than 50 workers cut 68,000 jobs. Service-sector jobs fell 81,000, and factory jobs dropped 44,000...

In another Wednesday job report, TrimTabs Investment Research estimated that job losses fell to 255,000 last month, compared with 284,000 reported for October.

"The unemployment rate could easily hit 11% by early next year," said Charles Biderman, chief executive of TrimTabs.

TrimTabs uses daily income-tax withholdings to the U.S. Treasury to estimate changes in employment. TrimTabs also estimates -- based on daily income tax deposits -- that wages and salaries fell 4.6% year-over-year in October and 5.3% year-over-year in November.

So which is it? Is it minus 18,000 (BLS) or minus 169,000 (ADP) for the job tally in the private sector? These numbers are much too far apart to be reconciled. Whose numbers should we believe? Should we believe ADP’s payroll data or BLS establishment survey?

MFR’s chief economist Joshua Shapiro says:

[The BLS number] is contrary to virtually all other evidence concerning the labor market, including a survey by ADP which is based on hard data from a much larger sample. Because the government’s report this month is an outlier, we are not prepared to throw in the towel on our expectation of a second consecutive “jobless recovery.”

We also must bear in mind that private firms compiling jobs data have no incentive to issue inaccurate reports. I can think of plenty of reasons why the government might want to put a positive spin on unemployment, especially the day after the President holds a 加速器连接国外网络 to brainstorm ideas for creating paid work in America. The Comedy Channel's Jon Stewart was so impressed with the Obama gabfest that he said "from now on, hand jobs and blow jobs count as actual jobs." This also seems to be the view of the BLS.

Of course, the BLS is probably not consciously fudging the numbers. They may be subtly influenced or simply incompetent.

And let's not forget that 免费的外网加速器economist Michael Mandel notes that “over the past 10 years, the private sector has generated roughly 1.1 million additional jobs, or about 100K per year. The public sector created about 2.4 million jobs.” This lamentable trend continues. (This is item #7 on The List from my Krugman article.) Perhaps one day we'll all be working for the government. And then we can tax ... each other?

The Birth/Death Model

The BLS employs a so-called birth/death model to estimate business start-ups and failures. (So, it is the birth and death of businesses that matters, not individuals.)

In 2008, the CES sample includes about 150,000 businesses and government agencies drawn from a sampling frame of Unemployment Insurance tax accounts which cover approximately 390,000 individual worksites. The active CES sample includes approximately one-third of all nonfarm payroll workers.

The sample-based estimates are adjusted each month by a statistical model designed to reduce a primary source of non-sampling error which is the inability of the sample to capture, on a timely basis, employment growth generated by new business formations. There is an unavoidable lag between an establishment opening for business and its appearing on the sample frame and being available for sampling.

Because new firm births generate a portion of employment growth each month, non-sampling methods must be used to estimate this growth. Earlier research indicated that while both the business birth and death portions of total employment are generally significant, the net contribution is relatively small and stable. To account for this net birth/death portion of total employment, BLS uses an estimation procedure with two components...

[My note: If you want the grisly details, follow the link above.]

As Mish invariably says in his monthly unemployment update—

After the typical in January [of 2009] in which the Birth/Death Model revisions bore some semblance of reality, the birth/death numbers remain in deep outer space.

If you would like to visit outer space, look at Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Figure 3 — A graph of the birth/death data from 2004-2009 (November), courtesy of Jesse's Café Américain. You can see that the 2008 & 2009 numbers are in line with previous years, which indicates that the BLS has not adjusted their model to take the Great Recession into account.

免费的外网加速器
Figure 4 — The actual birth/death adjustments for 2009 courtesy of Mish.

You can see in both graphs that there's always a huge adjustment downward in January right after the holidays. (Next month is January.) Otherwise, the months are all positive with the birth/death model adding 1,179,000 jobs in the period February through November. The net for 2009 is +823,000.

However, Mish points out that BLS jobs numbers are seasonally adjusted while birth/death numbers are not. Thus it is not possible to simply add or subtract birth/death numbers to the totals the BLS reports. And thus we don't know 加速器 how many fictitious jobs the birth/death model added to the BLS's establishment (business payroll) survey in 2009. Here's what a person who scrutinizes the BLS reports had to say about it—

[Errors] may come from the bureau’s calculations about new business creation, which results in the relatively notorious “birth/death adjustment.”Jeffrey Miller at A Dash of Insight explores the methodology behind the monthly jobs report, and comes to this conclusion: the methodology missed some important trends.

The BLS, essentially, guesses at job creation, extrapolating from job destruction. The “residual,” as Miller calls it, is the birth/death adjustment. “For many years this residual was stable,” he writes. “The most recent test against the state data indicated a significant error, showing that the BLS estimates have been wrong for nearly a year, especially since 1Q09.”

“Something important happened at the start of the year - probably the loss of credit available to new businesses,” he says. “The strong historical relationship used by the BLS finally broke down. Without a good estimate of job creation, the BLS monthly change is suspect.”

This total fiasco requires little additional comment from me. This is, however, an opportune time to point out that the BLS makes a benchmark adjustment every year. The coming adjustment will not be gentle.

如何把游戏加速器用在最合适的游戏时间上呢？-有趣加速器:今天 · 如何把游戏加速器用在最合适的游戏时间上呢？ 2021-06-18 分享到：今天就跟各位小伣伴来谈一谈游戏要在哪个阶段用游戏加速器才合适！现在很多外服游戏常常都会因为我伞是内地玩家而导致卡顿甚至登录困难，这是因为超远的物理距离导致我伞在连接国外服务器的时候出现的传输速度过慢形成的。

The preliminary estimate of the next benchmark revision is for a downward adjustment of 824,000, or 0.6 percent of total non-farm employment, for the March 2009 reference month. The final benchmark revision will be incorporated into the payroll survey with the publication of January 2010 data on February 5, 2010.

If I'm reading this right, the huge downward revision will be reflected in the January data, but it really doesn't matter which month's data reflects the change. Adding 0.6% to November's 10.0%, we would get a sudden boost to 10.6% early next year. I wonder how those saying we have hit the bottom in unemployment are going to spin this one.

Kudos to the BLS for admitting (in part) their past errors.

More Temp Workers For the Holidays

The BLS took note of the usual holiday surge in temp workers.

Employment in professional and business services rose by 86,000 in November. Temporary help services accounted for the majority of the increase, adding 52,000 jobs. Since July, temporary help services employment has risen by 117,000.

I like that—"professional and business services." Figure 5 shows us that holiday hiring was better this year than last year.

外网加速器下载
Figure 5 — From Calculated Risk's Seasonal Retail Hiring article. He says "Retailers are hiring seasonal workers at slightly above the pace of last year ... Typically retail companies start hiring for the holiday season in October, and really increase hiring in November... This really shows the collapse in retail hiring in 2008. Retailers only hired 54.2 thousand workers (NSA) net in October. This is essentially the same as in 2008 (59.1 thousand NSA). However retailers hired 321.3 thousand workers in November (NSA), an increase from the 233.7 thousand last year. This suggests retailers are a little more optimistic than last year."

The only thing I can say is that seasonal holiday workers hired in the 4th quarter of 2009 will very likely be fired in the 1st quarter of 2010.

Summing Up This Sad Situation

If you think things look grim for next year, get a load of what David Rosenberg thinks as reported in Chicago Tribune's Obama's unemployment challenge (November 12, 2009).

Gluskin Sheff economist David Rosenberg estimates that the unemployment rate is going to 12 or 13 percent, and the number, alone, is not as disconcerting as Rosenberg’s long-term concerns over the record 6.2 million permanent jobs cuts during this recession. Unlike the past, when companies laid off people during downturns and then brought them back to work as sales picked up, now many jobs presumably have just vanished. Companies, with the aid of technology, have learned to do more with less and< factories have closed....

Rosenberg notes that many of the jobs that were created between 2001 and 2008 were “related either directly or indirectly to the parabolic extension of credit" and consumers paying off their debts rather than borrowing more money, with Wall Street unable to sell the bond-concoctions that took the economy down, those jobs are unnecessary...

[My note: This latter point is one of the reasons why I always going on and on about debt levels in America.]

It gets worse.

Although 11 million full-time jobs have been lost, many people have been shifted through no choice of their own to part-time work amid cutbacks. So the unemployment rate doesn’t reflect the full story. Now, Rosenberg notes, “a record 9.3 million Americans are working part-time because they have no choice. In past recessions, that number rarely got much above six million.”

The federal government keeps unemployment statistics called the U6, and they reflect the underemployed along with the unemployed... That measure – which includes the part-timers -- is at 17.5 percent. So if you throw the unemployed into the statistics, as the U6 does, the nation’s job problems are worse than the 10.2 percent unemployment rate suggests.

And why does it matter that 17.5 percent are underemployed or unemployed? Because employers are likely to move their existing workers from part-time work to fuller-time work before hiring any new workers. As a result, people who are completely out of jobs are going to have a harder time finding work and months of job-looking could be very difficult.

[My note: Bravo Chicago Tribune! Reporter Gail Marksjarvis has discovered the U6 unemployment rate!]

I am in agreement with Rosenberg. Many of the jobs lost are essentially never coming back, or at least not for a very, very long time.

Perhaps I'm being too negative. Surely there is some good news in here somewhere. I found the Silver Lining at 浏览外网的免费加速器. It's in Figure 6.

Figure 6 — From The Onion's Available Labor Rate Increases: "推荐一款超稳定得外网加速器，免费试用 - 简书:推荐一款超稳定得外网加速器，免费试用很多留学科研人士和游戏玩家在浏览国外咨询和游戏连接时，都会遇到网络的限制，还需要各种去搜索可伡加速外网的加速器，市面上本来产品不多，质量更是参差不齐，而且收费标准十分不统一，无法准确的去判断，那么今天给大家推荐一款超稳定，超 ..., the nation's available labor rate has reached double digits for the first time in 26 years, bringing the total number of potentially employable Americans to an impressive 15.7 million. "This is such an exciting time to be an employer in America," said Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, adding that every single day 6,500 more citizens join America's growing possible workforce. "There's such a massive and diverse pool of job-ready Americans to choose from. 腾讯80款游戏将落实防沉迷新规|腾讯网游加速器怎么使用 ...:2021-6-11 · 腾讯网游加速器是一种我伞国内制作的游戏加速器，腾讯网游加速器的使用非常方便，可伡选择各种加速功能，使用腾讯网游加速器玩国外在线游戏零延迟，可伡享受到愉快的游戏体验。腾讯网游加速器可伡有效地解决了国内玩家在海外玩游戏网络问题。

Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, 网页加速器 that "the President's view of [the decrease in official unemployment to 10%] was that [this] was better than expected but certainly not good enough." As I mentioned at the top, the President came up with the usual solution—

President Barack Obama called for a major new burst of federal spending Tuesday, perhaps $150 billion or more, aiming to jolt the wobbly economy into a stronger recovery and reduce painfully persistent double-digit unemployment.

If the President wants to lower the unemployment rate, a new stimulus package of $150 billion is not likely to do it. However, why spend this newly borrowed money when you've got the Bureau of Labor Statistics on the case? I'm quite certain they are up to the task of lowering the unemployment rate all on their own. You don't even have to pay them extra to do it!

无法连接至Steam网络怎么办 - 装机吧:2021-1-10 · 4、重新运行Steam客户端，等待客户端完成更新，之后应该可伡正常连接了。其实由于国内的网络的原因出现无法连接至Steam网络是比较正常的现象，如果伡上两个方法不能解决问题的话，可伡下载Steam加速器看看使用加速器能否登录。

Contact the author at dave.aspo@gmail.com

Posted at 02:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

TM加速器-旋风加速度器

加速器

There is no cause to worry. The high tide of prosperity will continue
—Andrew W. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury - September, 1929

The worst is over without a doubt
—James J. Davis, Secretary of Labor - June, 1930

浏览外网的免费加速器
—Dr. Julius Klein, Assistant Secretary of Commerce - June, 1931

A serious dispute has broken out among economists about fiscal deficits in the United States. Paul Krugman has been making the rounds on the talk shows, arguing that more stimulus spending is required to spur job creation. From his lofty perch at the New York Times, Krugman preaches the Gospel of Spending to anyone who will listen.

Jim Hamilton, whose work on oil price shocks has made him a familiar figure to those concerned about liquid fuels, is worried about the debt load the government is accumulating.

Paul Krugman ([1], [2], [3]) has been arguing vigorously that U.S. budget deficits are no cause for concern. I see things differently.

[My note: link [1] goes to Krugman's The Burden of Debt, which I cite below.]

I see things differently too. I am not going to review Hamilton's cogent arguments, which you can read yourself. In the wrangling about what is politically possible, bond vigilantes and future interest rates, which determine the cost of servicing the debt, our prospects for economic growth are left unexamined.

But Paul feels I'm using an inappropriate metric [for paying off the debt]:

Jim gets scary numbers about the debt burden by assuming that we'll have to pay off the debt in 10 years. But why would we have to do that? Again, the lesson of the 1950s-- or, if you like, the lesson of Belgium and Italy, which brought their debt-GDP ratios down from early 90s levels-- is that you need to stabilize debt, not pay it off; economic growth will do the rest.

如何把游戏加速器用在最合适的游戏时间上呢？-有趣加速器:今天 · 如何把游戏加速器用在最合适的游戏时间上呢？ 2021-06-18 分享到：今天就跟各位小伣伴来谈一谈游戏要在哪个阶段用游戏加速器才合适！现在很多外服游戏常常都会因为我伞是内地玩家而导致卡顿甚至登录困难，这是因为超远的物理距离导致我伞在连接国外服务器的时候出现的传输速度过慢形成的。

Perhaps Paul is suggesting that there may be a potential free lunch available from postponing payment in this case, arising from the fact that the economy's growth rate has historically exceeded the government's cost of borrowing. If I put off paying another year, with interest the amount I owe grows 2% in real terms, but my income grows 3%, so things get easier the longer I put it off.
Let me go on the record as favoring the consumption of truly free lunches. If everything the government buys really is free, then by all means, let's have them buy more, and more, and more, and rather than double my taxes, let's cut taxes all the way to zero...

Krugman's "free lunch" requires "above trend" future economic growth as Hamilton explains. Such growth can not be taken for granted; this assumption requires scrutiny. Here's the relevant text from Krugman's debt burden article—

So: in 2008, with revenues already depressed by the recession and housing bust, the federal government took in $2.5 trillion in revenues. If we assume 2.5% real growth* and 2% inflation, by 2025 that would rise to $4 trillion. So debt service costs due to the next decade's deficits would be less than 6 percent of revenue under current law.

*Contrary to what some think, we’d actually expect growth over the next decade to be somewhat above trend, as the economy picks up some of the current slack. That’s what the historical record tells us actually happens.

Krugman also made his assumptions explicit on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Here Krugman has an exchange with another George, the bow tie George Will.

KRUGMAN: We're not going to hit 100 percent [debt/GDP] until a decade from now. And countries have gone above 100 percent. I mean, if you actually ask about the interest cost, particularly inflation-adjusted interest cost, you know, we're now paying 1.2 percent real interest rate on federal debt. Even if you add 50 percent of GDP in debt, which I don't think is going to happen, that's still only a fraction of a percent of GDP in additional debt service costs.

WILL: But even [with] unreasonably cheerful assumptions about economic growth and interest rates, we're apt to be spending in 10 years $700 billion a year servicing our debt.

KRUGMAN: That's in a $20 trillion economy. It doesn't sound as bad as it is.

What $20 trillion dollar economy is Krugman referring to? He is giving us his estimate of GDP in 2025. I will (generously) assume he is speaking of nominal GDP, which stood at $14.266 trillion in the 3rd quarter this year. 外网加速器下载 was $12.990 trillion in chained 2005 dollars. Krugman thus assumes that the economy will grow about 28.7% over the coming decade. This requires annual nominal GDP growth of 3.4% starting in 2010 and ending in 2025. What an astonishing assumption!

It is as if Krugman regards the economy as a quasi perpetual motion machine whose gears freeze up once and a while. If we apply a liberal dose of lubricant to grease the wheels, the machine easily starts up again, cranking out GDP & jobs regardless of our present circumstances and our past mistakes.

The phrase "free lunch" can be defined like this—

The economic theory, and also the lay opinion, that whatever goods and services are provided, they must be paid for by someone - i.e. you don't get something for nothing. The phrase is also known by the acronym of 'there ain't no such thing as a free lunch' - tanstaafl.

The phrase has it's origins in a 19th century bar practice used to lure morning drinkers—

Free lunch was a commonplace term in the USA and, to a lesser extent in Britain, from the mid 19th century onward. It wasn't used to describe handouts of food to the poor and hungry though, it denoted the free food that American saloon keepers used to attract drinkers. For example, this advertisement for a Milwaukee saloon, in The Commercial Advertiser, June 1850:

At The Crescent...
Can be found the choicest of Segars, Wines and Liquors...
N. B. - A free lunch every day at 11 o'clock will be served up.

Free lunches, often cold food but sometimes quite elaborate affairs, were provided for anyone who bought drink.

The lunch is free, but the drinks are not. Thus, 玩动森上不去朋友的岛？可能你需要的是这个 | 爱范儿:网络加速器的原理和使用伟理一样，当你直连游戏服务器卡顿的时候，那么首先连接到加速服务器，再通过加速服务器连接到游戏服务器，就能大大 .... But in Krugman's world you do get something for nothing, sort of. We can pile on the debt to restart the economy because future growth will pay for it. (Well, OK, not 网络加速 all of it, but why split hairs?) This akin to perpetual motion.

Free lunches are quite popular although, like Unicorns, they do not exist. For example, when CERA tells you that

[Oil] supply evolution through 2030 is not a question of resource availability.
IHS CERA projects growth of productive capacity through 2030, with no peak evident

they are actually telling you that you can eat & drink for free today and every day until 2030. As Hamilton notes in his response to Krugman, let me go on the record as favoring the consumption of truly free lunches. Who doesn't want a truly free lunch? I'm sure CERA report sales are brisk.

The List

Why might I think that the kind of growth Krugman envisions is impossible? Rather than resort to subtle arguments, I will deploy overwhelming brute force.

This is an economy & a society^*

whose automobile industry is a shambles
whose manufacturing base has been in decline for decades
where "full" employment (~5%) likely will not return until sometime in the 2016-2025 period (see 浏览外网的免费加速器 and the discussion below)
where non-wealth-creating consumption (PCE) makes up about 71% of GDP
whose total (public & private) debt-to-GDP ratio is north of 350% and is now rising faster than defaults, asset sales or payments can pare it down due to increased public debt (see Figures 1, 2, and 3 and the discussion below)
where real income actually declined over the last decade
where "over the past 10 years, the private sector has generated roughly 1.1 million additional jobs, or about 100K per year. The public sector created about 2.4 million jobs."
where home prices, which were the principal source of household wealth in a bubble economy, 浏览外网的免费加速器
次元连接加速器_次元连接二次元加速器_次元连接吧:2021-9-7 · 次元连接二次元游戏加速器 - 蜗牛娱乐网 2021年9月7日 - 次元连接二次元游戏加速器时间:2021-09-07 来源:本站原创作者:蜗牛 -小 +大安卓手游加速器,大部分都是日服游戏,主流日服游戏都有,目前 …
whose overbuilt residential investment sector (new housing) will stagnate for many years to come
where there are 23.1 square feet of shopping center space for every American
where rising health care, food and energy costs are eroding household disposable income
where 免费的外网加速器 lack any kind of health insurance
where the cost of an college education has increased far in excess of the inflation rate for decades
where 浏览外网的免费加速器 is at its highest level since 1928
where 49 million Americans went hungry at some point in 2008
where 1 in 8 Americans and 1 in 4 children receive food stamps
where 免费的外网加速器 of all commercial banks is contracting, not expanding
NBA2K20连不上服务器解决办法_3DM单机:2021-4-15 · 如果确定路由器及网络没有问题，但仍然连不上服务器，这个时候就需要使用到主机加速器了。为什么需要使用主机加速器，主要原因在于索尼的服务器都架设在国外，而国内因为伡所周知的网络原因，所伡要想网络稳定，主机加速器就至关重要了。
where the government insurance system for depositors (FDIC) is insolvent
where "enormous budget deficits in nearly every State in the Union are 'wreaking havoc' on government employees, the services they provide, and the residents who need them most"
where the Central Bank (aka "the Fed") is accountable to no one, and is thus free to print money for any purpose it deems important, including monetizing the debt or bailing out too-big-to-fail (TBTF) banks
where Congress has been "captured" by those they must regulate across all industries, and so does literally nothing or practically nothing in the name of reform
where the Executive branch of government (i.e. the Treasury) mostly serves the interests of highly over-leveraged TBTF banks
whose politically powerful TBTF banks drain huge amounts of capital away from wealth-creating activities
whose negative current accounts (trade) balance exploded during the years leading up to the financial crisis and still shows a substantial deficit (exports versus imports)
whose declining oil production peaked in 1970
whose concomitant dependency on oil imports has been rising for decades (see trade balance)
whose government debt must be funded by Asian & European central banks and oil exporters
which is involved in one costly but pointless occupation (Iraq) and one pointless but costly foreign war, and is on the verge of expanding the war (Afghanistan)

* Not all items are documented (linked), but ample documentation could be provided

That's enough—you get the idea. The list is not comprehensive. I didn't stop because I ran out of material. Some indicators more time-sensitive than others, so improvements will vary over time if the situation is reversible. For example, house prices (# 8) should bottom out sometime in the next few years. On the other hand, nothing will fix our declining oil production (# 27). Some items are sensitive to political circumstances, 网络加速 the non-accountability of the Fed (# 22).

Other indicators, for example those illustrating growing poverty, may not directly affect GDP growth. These points are meant to show a society going rapidly downhill.

A New Household Spending Spree—Why Not?

Recall that personal consumption expenditures (PCE) make up 71% of GDP (item #4 on the list). For the economy to grow 28.7% in the next decade consumption must keep up. Look at Figures 1-3.

Figure 1 — Private debt levels in the United States as a percentage of GDP from Credit Suisse. (You can safely ignore the Credit Suisse contention that debt levels in the United States are nothing to worry about.)

Figure 2 — Household debt levels in the United States as a percentage of GDP from Credit Suisse as above. The possible scenario indicates household de-leveraging accompanying a rise in the savings rate.

免费的外网加速器
Figure 3 — Debt-driven contribution to demand (left-scale, red line) and unemployment (right-scale, inverted, blue line) from Australian economist Steve Keen's 4 Years of Calling the GFC, published December 1, 2009 at his website Debt Watch.

Taken together, the 3 graphs clearly show that—

private debt levels, including household debt, rose precipitously from the early 1980s on to support the rapid economic expansion. (For example, real GDP grew 22.4% in real terms during the Bubble Era 1998-2007; growth in nominal terms was 37.5%.)
"debt has little impact on demand when the debt to GDP ratio is low–such as ... in the US from the start of WWII till the early 60s. But whenever the debt to GDP ratio becomes substantial, changes in debt come to dominate economic performance [as reflected in unemployment in Figure 3]" (quote from Steve Keen)

You can see in 外网加速器下载 that the debt-driven component of demand has fallen off a cliff and is now negative for the first time since the years immediately after World War II. In Figure 2, you can see the reasonable de-leveraging scenario whereby households repair their balance sheets over the next several years—assuming, of course, that the household is still intact, the adults in the household are still working, and payments on the mortgage are not delinquent (renters need not worry about the latter).

From a debt perspective, the prognosis for expansion of personal consumption expenditures in future years is grim. The huge loss of wealth Middle Class Americans incurred when house prices collapsed will dampen consumer spending for years to come. Finally, the Baby Boomers, the most spendthrift generation in history, will start retiring in 2011. Over half of the Boomers are fiscally unprepared for retirement.

在国外玩国内的游戏用什么加速器好用？:在国外怎么玩国内的游戏_ ：悦游VPN使用方法第一步:下载客户端注册第二步:登录客户端第三步:根据你所玩游戏选择延迟较小的节点第四步:提示连接成功、进入游戏在国外玩国内的游戏用什么加速器好用?_ ：用悦游加速器比较好.悦游加速器能有效解决网通、电信、教育网等网络的互通问题,和 ...

In so far as personal consumption expenditures are 71% of GDP in real terms, I must ask Krugman the now-famous question Barney Frank asked a heckler at a town meeting: Paul, what planet are you living on?

When Will Full Employment Return?

It's mighty hard to jack up your personal consumption when you're unemployed or underemployed. As everyone knows by now, the "official" unemployment rate stands at 10.2% (the U3). The U6 measurement stands at 17.5%. This number includes involuntary part-time workers and the marginally attached. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics—

Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.

[My note: "have a job-market related reason for not looking for work" — meaning they have completely given up looking for work because there's no hope of finding it.]

Since Krugman foresees an enormous economic expansion in the next decade, it behooves us to ask when "full" employment may return. For the sake of argument, let's set the "full" U3 employment number at 5%. Please bear in mind this important statistic cited by Ben Bernanke in 2003—

Because new workers are always entering the labor force, the U.S. economy needs to create something on the order of 150,000 net new jobs each month just to keep the unemployment rate stable.

When can we expect to see this (or a higher) level of job creation?

That's a good question, Ben. In item #3 on The List, I speculated that full employment might return sometime in the period 2016 to 2025. How did I come up with those dates?

The earlier date, which is a mere 7 years from now, derives from the Wall Street Journal's ‎App Store 上的“GoLink-海外华人回国加速器”:2021-6-5 · 玩游戏的时候还是挺好用的玩游戏玩手机了我伞的加速器只有这个比较快还有手机的加速器不用钱电脑还可伡使用二三天我玩第五的时候好卡只要一用就很流畅了还有外国游戏好玩的或者单机游戏好玩的都有今天早上八点开始到下午茶的味道基本上在网络没有问题的情况下使用过程中避免了掉帧和 .... This article was written on October 8, 2009, before the 3rd quarter preliminary GDP number came out (+3.5%) and was subsequently revised down (+2.5%). It was also written before the "official" unemployment rate hit 10.2% that same month.

网游加速器加速失败解决办法-迅速:2021-10-26 · 有时候加速失败是加速器版本太旧造成的，这个时候你就需要下载最新版的网游加速器。二、无线网络不稳定更换有线网络这个是针对笔记本无线网络的玩家，由于无线网络自身不稳定，到节点服务器效果不好，所伡没办法控制。建议使用有线网络连接加速。 the economy to bounce back from four quarters of contraction with 3.1% growth in gross domestic product at a seasonally adjusted annual rate in the just-ended third quarter.

Expansion is seen continuing through the first half of 2010, though at a slower rate. But the massive downturn means the labor market will take years to heal. On average, the economists don't expect unemployment to fall below 6% until 2013...

"Never before has business shed so many workers so fast, so many people failed to find work who are looking for work, and so many dropped out of the labor force as in the current circumstance," said Allen Sinai at Decision Economics....

外网加速器下载 -- not all of whom answered every question -- expect the unemployment rate to peak at 10.2% in February [2010]. But even once the employment situation stops getting worse, economists expect recovery to come slowly. "It could take until 2014-15 before we see a 5% handle on unemployment again," said Diane Swonk at Mesirow Financial.

In line with their overly rosy view of when joblessness would hit 10.2%, the economists surveyed take a more optimistic view of when unemployment will fall below 6% than the situation warrants. The situation is slightly worse than Diane Swonk predicts if everything that can go right does go right (外网加速器下载).

Figure 4 — From the WSJ article. Unemployment was about 5% when the recession started. How long would it take to return to the employment levels we had at the start of the downturn? It will take until the end of 2016, but only if the economy starts adding jobs immediately at a furious pace well above the 150,000 new jobs we need every month to just stay even.

The December, 2016 date shown in Figure 4 may be too optimistic. In Welcome to the New Normal, John Mauldin analyzes past jobs data to determine how many jobs the economy must add each month to get to 5% unemployment by 2014.

Let's assume that we would like to get back to a 5% unemployment rate. That would not be stellar, but it would certainly be better than where we are today. Five percent unemployment in late 2014 will mean 8.1 million unemployed. To get to 5% unemployment we will have to create 14 million jobs in the five years from 2010-2014. (163 million in labor pool minus 8 million unemployed is 155 million jobs. We now have 139 million jobs, so the difference is roughly 15 million.) Plus the equivalent of 3 million jobs that Rosenberg estimates, just to get back to an average work week. And maybe the extra 1.5 million a year I mentioned above.

But let's ignore those latter jobs and round it off to 15 million. Let's hope that by the beginning of next year we stop losing jobs. That means that to get back to 5% unemployment within five years we need to see, on average, the creation of 250,000 jobs per month. As an AVERAGE!!!!!

轻蜂加速器－好用的海外网络加速器【官方网站】:2021-5-29 · 适用于手机网络加速,pc网络加速,稳定加速snkrs、外服手游、海淘、海外高校官网享受无限制在线访问。无限流量伢质线路随时待命，为您提供最快、最稳定的链接。

有些国外网络进不了怎么办我想进国外的网站可是进:2021-6-13 · 有些国外网络进不了怎么办我想进国外的网站可是进来自：百科更新日期：2021-06-13 首先需要给电脑安装百度浏览器，直接在百度中搜索下载，也可伡直接从小编所提供的网盘中获取最新版本的 …

If you take the best year, which was 2006, you get an average monthly growth of 232,000. If you average the ten years from 1999, you get average monthly job growth of 50,000. If you take the average job growth from 1989 until now, you get an average of 91,000 a month. If you take the best ten years I could find, which would be 1991-2000, the average is still only 150,000. That is a long way from 250,000.

To make a long story short, Mike Shedlock (Mish) of Global Economic Analysis takes Mauldin's review as a starting point and concludes that it may be 2025 before the U.S. reaches 5% employment, assuming everything may things go right. That's where I got the higher date in item #3 on The List. Given the staggering jobs growth required, and the economic challenges ahead, the 2025 date does not seem out of line.

From a jobs perspective, Krugman's assumption of real (inflation-adjusted) 2.5% annual GDP growth over the next 10 years seems ludicrous.

Krugman is very concerned about unemployment, as he should be if his rosy visions of future GDP growth are to come to pass. In The Jobs Imperative, Krugman writes—

If you’re looking for a job right now, your prospects are terrible. There are six times as many Americans seeking work as there are job openings, and 腾讯80款游戏将落实防沉迷新规|腾讯网游加速器怎么使用 ...:2021-6-11 · 腾讯网游加速器是一种我伞国内制作的游戏加速器，腾讯网游加速器的使用非常方便，可伡选择各种加速功能，使用腾讯网游加速器玩国外在线游戏零延迟，可伡享受到愉快的游戏体验。腾讯网游加速器可伡有效地解决了国内玩家在海外玩游戏网络问题。

Yes, the recession is probably over in a technical sense, but that doesn’t mean that full employment is just around the corner. Historically, financial crises have typically been followed not just by severe recessions but by anemic recoveries; it’s usually years before unemployment declines to anything like normal levels. And all indications are that the aftermath of the latest financial crisis is following the usual script. The Federal Reserve, for example, expects unemployment, currently 10.2 percent, to stay above 8 percent — a number that would have been considered disastrous not long ago — until sometime in 2012...

So it’s time for an emergency jobs program... Meanwhile, the federal government could provide jobs by ... providing jobs. It’s time for at least a small-scale version of the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration, one that would offer relatively low-paying (but much better than nothing) public-service employment. There would be accusations that the government was creating make-work jobs, but the W.P.A. left many solid achievements in its wake. And the key point is that direct public employment can create a lot of jobs at relatively low cost. In a proposal to be released today, the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive think tank, argues that spending $40 billion a year for three years on public-service employment would create a million jobs, which sounds about right.

[My note: If we are in a Depression, and I think we are, then I support some kind of WPA project to get people working. It sure beats Citigroup debt guarantees. I do not lack compassion except where criminally negligent bankers are concerned.]

Krugman is clearly aware that sustained, high unemployment will hamper his immaculate recovery. Let's review. The free lunch theory goes like this:

Massive stimulus (debt-financed government spending) is required to grow GDP and create new jobs
Such spending will enable 2.5% real GDP growth in the next decade
Servicing the resultant multi-trillion dollar debt will not be a problem because the economic expansion will boost tax receipts, which will obviate the debt-servicing problem and “stabilize” the debt (see Hamilton’s article cited at the top). Throw in 2% annual inflation, and everything should work out just fine.

免费外网加速器app

The phrase "economic Depression" is not well-defined. We only have one good example in the 20th century, and it's clear that what is happening now is not the same as what happened in 1930-1933 (e.g. the TBTF banks did not fail because they were bailed out, we are not in a deflationary spiral due to massive government intervention, etc.). However, a Depression might be minimally defined as a prolonged, painful economic event preceded by unsustainable debt levels and characterized by sustained high unemployment.

We are in some new kind of Depression or we are not in one as defined above. You can't have it both ways. See Dave Rosenberg's How Is This Not a Depression? for one view of the situation. I agree with much of his assessment.

Expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet and the $787 billion stimulus have not prevented terrible economic conditions. And we can’t ignore the trillions of dollars that have been spent to stabilize Big Finance. Monies spent on the banks and via the fiscal stimulus are said to have averted a second Great Depression.

Our failure is clearly indicated by the Chicago Fed’s National Activity Index (CFNAI-MA3, Figure 5).

Figure 5 — This is a three month moving average (MA-3) "The index is a weighted average of 85
indicators of national economic activity. The indicators are drawn from four broad categories of data: 1) production and income; 2) employment, unemployment, and hours; 3) personal consumption and housing; and 4) sales, orders, and inventories.A zero value for the index indicates that the national economy is expanding at its historical trend rate of growth; negative values indicate below-average growth; and positive values indicate above-average growth. When the CFNAI-MA3 value moves below –0.70 following a period of economic expansion, there is an increasing likelihood that a recession has begun."

Here is the relevant passage from the Chicago Fed on determining the end of recession--

When the economy is coming out of a recession, the CFNAI-MA3 moves significantly into positive territory a few months after the official NBER date of the trough. Specifically, after the onset of a recession, when the index first crosses +0.20, the recession has ended according to the NBER business cycle measures... The critical question is: how early does the CFNAI-MA3 reveal this turning point? For four of the last five recessions, this happened within five months of the business cycle trough."

Figure 5 shows that the CFNAI-MA3 indicator is now going South again when it should be headed North. We're nowhere close being out of this recession.

Krugman wants a revival of FDR's Works Progress Administration (WPA). That would seem to indicate that he thinks we're in a Depression. But if we're in a Depression, it would seem that no amount of government spending, absent a mobilization for World War III, is going to enable the kind of GDP growth Krugman envisions. Reviving the WPA is an act of desperation. It is the last resort, a last ditch effort. This is what you do when all else has failed.

Not so, says Krugman. We just haven't spent enough.

I think Krugman's position is incoherent. A Depression, however it is precisely defined, is a prolonged, painful economic event. That is what distinguishes it from a normal business-cycle recession. If we're in a Depression, and we need a WPA, it also seems clear that we're not going to get 2.5% real annual GDP growth over the next decade. If we're not in a Depression, then why do we need a WPA?

Apparently, Krugman’s answer is that there is indeed such a thing as a free lunch. We can get both free drinks—unlimited deficit spending—and free food—vigorous GDP growth thereafter which “stabilizes” the debt and does away with the problem of servicing (paying the interest on) the debt. I do not believe his economic growth story. If only reality worked the way Krugman thinks it does.

Contact the author at dave.aspo@gmail.com

Posted at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (10) | 浏览外网的免费加速器