Jobs outlook for small businesses may be getting bleaker

[Gaspar]

Well, lets shift the incentive then.  Add a large enough tax incentive for fuel refined in the united states to mitigate the expense of building more small clean refineries.   

Additionally, each barrel of oil yields around $16 in end user consumer fuel tax.  That's $320million in tax dollars a day.  Of that, a tiny tiny fraction is devoted to alternative energy research or incentives for domestic fuel production.

[nathanm]

Ok, I think that to stimulate the economy, you need to get money in the hands of businesses. The consumer dollar is shrinking, because of unemployment, and the longer we wait, the less effect any injection of cash or incentive will have.  Had we taken action earlier we wouldn't' be in this predicament.
...
Freedman, Mises, Hayek et. al. would agree that we cannot stay on this path without collapse.  The Keynesian model always has to be discounted or temporarily abandoned to stimulate an economy in crises.

Friedman, Mises, Hayek, et. al. are the ones whose writings got us into this mess. Alan Greenspan, being one of their disciples, just couldn't believe that he could be wrong about economics. Turned out he was. Thanks, Alan, for your bubble.

Also, while I need to dig up a link, I've read many news articles lately pointing out that most businesses are hoarding cash right now. Cutting their taxes will be absolutely useless to the end of increasing economic activity. Unless perhaps you figure out a way to make it hit only the very small businesses who don't have the money to hoard because the banks are still holding on to their money tighter than a Rottweiler holds on to a burglar's leg.

One needs to examine the economic situation carefully before relying on dogmatic approaches. Right now, Keynesian spending puts a lot more money into the economy than tax cuts are simply because people and businesses are holding on to their money as much as possible. They're worried, so they don't spend. This is why I think the stimulus was too small by about half. It simply wasn't big enough to have a large impact on our economy. I believe I pointed that out at the time it was being debated.

[guido911]

Heh, like you missed when I said "all is fair during an election".

go back to your cave. Oh, yeah, I'll never mention your name again, but I'll be thinking of you. Just look for the code words....context, bully, neo, fantacist, freeper...

Back at you. Look for code words...phony, coward, and in particular, crybaby. The latter of course being the real source of your handle.

[waterboy]

Well, lets shift the incentive then.  Add a large enough tax incentive for fuel refined in the united states to mitigate the expense of building more small clean refineries.   

Additionally, each barrel of oil yields around $16 in end user consumer fuel tax.  That's $320million in tax dollars a day.  Of that, a tiny tiny fraction is devoted to alternative energy research or incentives for domestic fuel production.

I like tax incentives when used correctly. However, we seem to be stuck in the paradigm that more oil, more refining, more drilling is the answer. I think we should pay attention to how countries who have never had large oil reserves or refineries have survived. Oil isn't the only answer to our needs. We probably produce and refine enough for our product manufacturing needs or can find substitutes. For instance the amount of plastic in products is unnecessary and can often be replaced with more natural and abundant fibers from bamboo, corn silk etc. Germany is currently a leader in electrical energy from solar, batteries etc. They actually water ski behind solar electric powered boats. England has one of the most efficient electric motors ever produced. It is difficult to even buy it here in the states due to protectionist attitudes. Instead we produce lookalike motors and market them as E-tec. The Scandinavian countries are also into alternatives but they use a lot of natural gas too. I read where they have mini-hydrogen stations placed strategically along highways that convert water to hydrogen to power experimental clean engined cars.

If anything needs incentivized right now, its a move towards industries that will create new bases of employment and less reliance on early 20th century technologies and non-renewable resources. Using your question as to what actions in the past have created more jobs and stable growth, I would point to governments' past encouragement of new technologies like steam engines, railroads, and space exploration as examples. We actually led the world in those endeavors and prospered for more than a century afterwards.

[Gaspar]

I read where they have mini-hydrogen stations placed strategically along highways that convert water to hydrogen to power experimental clean engined cars.

All interesting ideas, great to pursue in times of prosperity. . .and here the problem lies, we are facing a full on depression, and we need to make energy very very cheep to prime the economy.  All of these solutions are an additional investment in energy that produces fewer watts of power at a higher expense.  This administration is basically following your line of thought, using a crisis to promote policy.  Whether you agree with this or not, the product does not address the problem.  Our economy is not "too big to fail." 

I would be just fine if we were to go "organic" on all soda bottles with cornstarch plastics and use paper containers for all other beverages and food packaging.  I prefer cotton to synthetic fabric. I love the idea of using trees.  They are, after all, a crop just like corn or wheat. 

Some tree varieties such as royal palawan are already being used to replace native American species because they grow 10 feet a year and produce high quality pulp for packaging in the natural products industry.

I think it is unrealistic to think we can replace petroleum based plastics.  Doing so would cause environmentalists to simply shift back to crying over trees.  We consume.  That will never change.  As long as we exist there will be the elite mentality that seeks to persecute us for consuming (existing).  Take 300 million people and convert them to driving electric vehicles, and there will be an outcry over the thousands of coal, oil, hydro, and nuclear facilities that have to be built to produce enough electricity to fuel those vehicles.  The average American already uses about 11,000kwh of electricity a year.  I'm sure this would nearly double if we rely on electric transportation.  Wind power is an option, but it requires constant wind, and most mills only produce 1mw of power at peak output.  Even the larger ones only produce 10mw at peak. 

So that's basically my point, we have a long way to go before renewable energy becomes cheap, and even when we get there, and we will, it will be an expensive journey.  We need to head that direction, but not right now.  We need to get back on our feet and walk before we can run.

[rwarn17588]

So that's basically my point, we have a long way to go before renewable energy becomes cheap, and even when we get there, and we will, it will be an expensive journey.  We need to head that direction, but not right now.  We need to get back on our feet and walk before we can run.

I agree with your larger point that we've got a long way to go figuratively and technologically with renewable energy. But I disagree that little can be done now.

One thing that can be done even in hard times is conservation. If you conserve energy, you'll spend less on it, and leaving more money in your wallet. That's something everyone can do, and it's the most overlooked factor in all this.

And I'm not talking about living like cavemen. I'm talking about basic things such as programmable thermostats, making sure your water heater is set at an energy-saving setting, and putting compact fluorescent lightbulbs in your house. These are things that take very little money and save you a lot on your utility bills down the road.

According to EnergyStar in 2009, just 11 percent of households in America use CFLs. That is pathetically low, and CFLs make a big impact in energy consumption. When with the bulbs' price going down to as low as a buck apiece, there's no more excuse for not buying them. Even if you have concerns about the bulbs' infinitesimal amount of mercury, dead bulbs can be recycled at Home Depots and recycling centers.

And look out in the next decade or so when the relatively mild problems and costs with LED lighting get ironed out.

Having done a lot of renewable energy research the past 10 years or so, I can tell you from experience that people put the cart before the horse regarding solar panels, wind turbines, etc. One needs to conserve energy first, so you won't need to spend as much money on those solar panels or wind turbines to power your home. Obviously, such a policy can be incentivized nationwide.

[Conan71]

I agree with your larger point that we've got a long way to go figuratively and technologically with renewable energy. But I disagree that little can be done now.

One thing that can be done even in hard times is conservation. If you conserve energy, you'll spend less on it, and leaving more money in your wallet. That's something everyone can do, and it's the most overlooked factor in all this.

And I'm not talking about living like cavemen. I'm talking about basic things such as programmable thermostats, making sure your water heater is set at an energy-saving setting, and putting compact fluorescent lightbulbs in your house. These are things that take very little money and save you a lot on your utility bills down the road.

According to EnergyStar in 2009, just 11 percent of households in America use CFLs. That is pathetically low, and CFLs make a big impact in energy consumption. When with the bulbs' price going down to as low as a buck apiece, there's no more excuse for not buying them. Even if you have concerns about the bulbs' infinitesimal amount of mercury, dead bulbs can be recycled at Home Depots and recycling centers.

And look out in the next decade or so when the relatively mild problems and costs with LED lighting get ironed out.

Having done a lot of renewable energy research the past 10 years or so, I can tell you from experience that people put the cart before the horse regarding solar panels, wind turbines, etc. One needs to conserve energy first, so you won't need to spend as much money on those solar panels or wind turbines to power your home. Obviously, such a policy can be incentivized nationwide.

All good points.  I'm totally shocked at how much less I'm paying in electricity than I was at my old house with a more efficient cooling system, high-end thermal windows and CFL's in just about every fixture with the exception of two which had to be halogens to get the amount of light I needed.  I put those on rheostats so I didn't have to blare them all the time, only at brief spurts if I'm digging around for something in either of those rooms.

For 200 more square feet, I'm averaging about $100 to $125 less per month in electric expenses, though part of that may also be that my new house does not have a pool and I was running a recirculating pump about 10 hours a day at the old house, that still shouldn't have added up to the entire difference, especially considering the ancient A/C and drafty windows.  My gas usage savings wasn't quite as impressive as I would have thought, but it was still an improvement.

Edit to add: To this point the biodiesel tax credit had supposedly renewed in March, but as of July

http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1268256494183.xml

http://brownfieldagnews.com/2010/07/02/biodiesel-tax-credit-situation-still-unresolved/

"The biodiesel tax credit situation is still unresolved.

Several attempts by the Senate to pass a tax extenders package have failed to get the 60 votes need to proceed.  Most of those Senators who opposed the package cite the fact that a significant level of the cost was not offset with cuts or savings and thus would add to the federal deficit.  The biodiesel tax credit and other tax credits were fully offset, but an unemployment benefits extension and some other items were not offset.

The American Soybean Association says it will make every effort to revive the tax extenders bill or have the biodiesel credit included in any other measure that moves forward.  One possibility is a potential energy bill that could move in the Senate in late July."

Perhaps they should try and pass this as a stand-alone instead of sausage stuffing with other bills.  This has left some large bio-diesel plants in total limbo for months.  The Prairie Pride plant in Deerfield, Mo. is one of my clients and they are still shut down.  It's costly to start up and shut down due to a fuel needing to be so heavily subsidized to compete with petroleum fuels.  We've got the technology and capacity to make plenty of ethanol and bio-D, they simply are not competitive with fossil fuels, but pushing gas and diesel prices to $5.00 a gallon would drive the final nail into our economic coffin right now.

[Gaspar]

I agree with your larger point that we've got a long way to go figuratively and technologically with renewable energy. But I disagree that little can be done now.

One thing that can be done even in hard times is conservation. If you conserve energy, you'll spend less on it, and leaving more money in your wallet. That's something everyone can do, and it's the most overlooked factor in all this.

And I'm not talking about living like cavemen. I'm talking about basic things such as programmable thermostats, making sure your water heater is set at an energy-saving setting, and putting compact fluorescent lightbulbs in your house. These are things that take very little money and save you a lot on your utility bills down the road.

According to EnergyStar in 2009, just 11 percent of households in America use CFLs. That is pathetically low, and CFLs make a big impact in energy consumption. When with the bulbs' price going down to as low as a buck apiece, there's no more excuse for not buying them. Even if you have concerns about the bulbs' infinitesimal amount of mercury, dead bulbs can be recycled at Home Depots and recycling centers.

And look out in the next decade or so when the relatively mild problems and costs with LED lighting get ironed out.

Having done a lot of renewable energy research the past 10 years or so, I can tell you from experience that people put the cart before the horse regarding solar panels, wind turbines, etc. One needs to conserve energy first, so you won't need to spend as much money on those solar panels or wind turbines to power your home. Obviously, such a policy can be incentivized nationwide.

Two factors have changed the CFL market and made the product more appealing.

First the price has been lowered.  As of last year I took a count, went to Walmart, and spent $240 to replace all of the bulbs (not on rheostats) in my house.  Had I done that the year before it would have cost me well over $600.

Second, and the most important to me, they now have bulbs with the soft friendly warm temperature that I am used to with incandescent.  They used to only produce that harsh blue/white 7000k tone that made everyone look like zombies.

My electric bills went from well over $300/mo to under $200 (we have tons of can lights). 

As for conservation in general, that should be driven by technology & innovation, not by sacrifice.  As capitalists, conservation of resources must be profitable to be viable.  In other countries where resources are at a premium, conservation is big business.   We have a long way to go before the longterm payback becomes more attractive than the initial investment.  We're getting there.

The worst mistake is to apply government force to attain conservation, doing so circumvents the free market creating irresponsible industry.  I think we know what that causes.  

The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it. – Harry Browne 

[rwarn17588]

As for conservation in general, that should be driven by technology & innovation, not by sacrifice. 

But, again, what conservation methods did I mention require sacrifice? Conservation and sacrifice aren't inextricably linked by a long shot.

Just look at computers ... they're accomplish more tasks with less power, and it's happening all the time.

I think the failure for the public to embrace CFLs is a lack of education of the product, not because it's a bad product. The pluses are enormous compared to the minuses.

[Hoss]

But, again, what conservation methods did I mention require sacrifice? Conservation and sacrifice aren't inextricably linked by a long shot.

Just look at computers ... they're accomplish more tasks with less power, and it's happening all the time.

I think the failure for the public to embrace CFLs is a lack of education of the product, not because it's a bad product. The pluses are enormous compared to the minuses.

Just wish they'd hurry up and get a dimmable CFL...the only two incandescents left in my house ... or even outside of it now, are the two in my ceiling fan lights.  Too bad the technology won't allow if, from my understanding of it.

[rwarn17588]

Just wish they'd hurry up and get a dimmable CFL...the only two incandescents left in my house ... or even outside of it now, are the two in my ceiling fan lights.  Too bad the technology won't allow if, from my understanding of it.

Dude, they've been on the market for quite a while.

http://www.amazon.com/Dimmable-Compact-Fluorescent-Light-Bulbs-15w/dp/B000XSKD4C

[Hoss]

Dude, they've been on the market for quite a while.

http://www.amazon.com/Dimmable-Compact-Fluorescent-Light-Bulbs-15w/dp/B000XSKD4C

Hmm..I just assumed they didn't exist because I couldn't find one at ANY hardware store/big box store....I'm going to have to read up a little on them, since it appears they don't all work the same.  Some seem to suggest not dimming until after they've been on for an hour??

[Gaspar]

Hmm..I just assumed they didn't exist because I couldn't find one at ANY hardware store/big box store....I'm going to have to read up a little on them, since it appears they don't all work the same.  Some seem to suggest not dimming until after they've been on for an hour??

They're expensive and they don't work yet.  Especially on a ceiling fan.  They require the full voltage to come on, and buzz horribly when you dim them.  You also notice the 60 cycle flicker when dimmed.  We tried some in the living room and went back to incandescent.   It also seems like they don't actually dim, but rather they step up and down three or four levels between off and bright.

[Hoss]

They're expensive and they don't work yet.  Especially on a ceiling fan.  They require the full voltage to come on, and buzz horribly when you dim them.  You also notice the 60 cycle flicker when dimmed.  We tried some in the living room and went back to incandescent.   It also seems like they don't actually dim, but rather they step up and down three or four levels between off and bright.

Thanks for that, Scott...likely why the big box and hardware stores don't stock them.  I'll stick with my 60W incandescents in there...those lights get used pretty rarely anyway..

[heironymouspasparagus]

Gaspar, you have discovered the economies of scale.

Solar cells have gone from a couple hundred dollars per watt to about $2.70 per watt.  Wind has been doing the same thing.  This has been going on for 30 years.  In other countries.  We have walked away from innovation and economic development for decades just to preserve the power and interests of big oil.

Again, puullllleeeeezzzzeeee!!!  Need to walk before we run??  Geez, where does Rupert Murdoch come up with this crap??  We have a running economy.  We HAVE been stifling it all right - since the first week of his regime when Reagan took the solar cells off the White House.  So big oil can continue with their capitalistic monopolism.  (There is a prime example of that economic model.)

As far as energy?  You think it might go up in the future?  Then WHY on God's green earth would ANYONE resist developing new ways to make it??  Like the US has done for decades?  And the rest of the world has NOT for decades?  Where do you think all those massive towers made up by Tiger station in Tulsa are going?  They are for wind generators by the hundreds.  

And energy IS cheap.  Very cheap.  Cheaper in 'real dollars' - whatever those are - than it has been in anyone's life on this board.  Electricity is running about $0.07 per kilowatt hour - at least from PSO.  It was about the same in 2000.  And 1990.  And 1980.  While everything else has skyrocketed.  If Chevy had done the same way, that new Corvette all the aging middle age guys need for their ego boost would still cost about $ 10,000.  And gasoline is still an unbelievable bargain.  

That is the lame, plaintive bleat of reactionary revisionists use to keep us from innovation and developing new technology, jobs and economic activity.  As we have lost out on solar, wind, etc.  

And trees as a solution are unbelievable.  But that is the ignorant kind of example "alternative solution" Murdoch and company use to keep people believing nothing can be done now - we must wait until the future.  Blech!!  As the lame little 15 year old California girl might say, "Gag me with a spoon".  10 feet a year??  How many tons per acre per year of biomass is that?  (Not as much as plain old corn and corn is miserable - couple tons per year per acre.)  How about switchgrass and marijuana?  Both 10 to 12 to 15 tons per year per acre.  Without the massive infusions of insecticides and fertilizer and fuels required by corn.  Let me repeat;  WITHOUT the massive infusions of insecticides and fertilizer and fuels required by corn.  Or palm trees or palawa (shiipping from where?)  Just imagine what a little cultivation and care would create!!

Use marijuana based plastics instead.  Or switchgrass based plastics.  (Oops...there is another economic development opportunity that we must walk away from..)

Good times or bad, we have systematically, consciously and ridiculously walked away from the great growth opportunities of the energy future.  As well as the environmental future.

As far as a crisis to promote policy, well there was never a more extreme example of that then in 2001 - 2003 when crisis was used to promote one of the most ridiculous examples of policy this country has ever seen - even worse than the Spanish-American war!  Iraq.  (We never learn from history, so are doomed to repeat it...and since we expect different results from the same old tire crap, we are by definition, insane.)

Wind power as "option" already provides over 10% of German electricity.  As does solar.  Just think what we could do with extra 20% electricity.  And at least most of it at times - peak times - when electricity is already at a premium (highest load on grid) - in the afternoon when sun is strongest and would bring the biggest benefit to relieving the grid - sun is strongest and would give the most solar watts.  (I repeat to make it easier to understand.)

Yes, alternatives will be expensive.  But what do you think the current grid cost?  It was and is massively expensive!
And so we return to economies of scale.  The more solar and wind, the cheaper it gets - especially at peak times.  Wow, a win/win!!  How about that??  That's how it has gone from $100+ to $2.70.

And I almost hate to even mention this, but if we did have a 200 million gallon marijuana oil spill, how long would it impact the environment??  Until it could decay naturally - about a year - give or take.  Where the gulf will not recover for decades.  Just like Prince William Sound.

I think what we really need is to deport Rupert Murdoch and all his propaganda back to Australia.  Having been raised upside down on this planet gives one an upside down view of the world.