Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Speaking as a retiree, I can vouch for the fact that many people as they get older find that warm climates suit their bones better than colder ones. Take a look at the CD retirement forum and that will bear this out. I hear this time and time again even from those living here who would like to live in warmer, drier climates but for one reason or another can't make the move.
I am not one of those people. I never liked hot weather and still don't. When I decided to move from Portland back to the Midwest region I knew what I was getting into having been born and raised in Chicago. I could have moved to a warmer climate like many retirees but there would have been no reason other than being able to get around more freely during the winter.
Many retirees who live in the Midwest become snowbirds and tough out the winters in Florida returning to the Midwestern or the Northern climates in the summer.
These compounding forces (heat, drought and pop increases) will run the Colorado River dry just as our oil tap runs dry (40 years max).
We've had a 40 year supply of oil for the last 100 years. Sometimes it's a 35 year supply, sometimes 45. Doesn't anybody here know any economics? When the price rises, the harder-to-get oil becomes economically profitable and the supply expands. Also, there are geologists working day and night to discover new oil. And there are other sources of energy besides oil. The more the other sources are developed, the longer the oil will last.
Location: livin' the good life on America's favorite island
2,221 posts, read 4,391,624 times
Reputation: 1391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel
We've had a 40 year supply of oil for the last 100 years. Sometimes it's a 35 year supply, sometimes 45. Doesn't anybody here know any economics? When the price rises, the harder-to-get oil becomes economically profitable and the supply expands. Also, there are geologists working day and night to discover new oil. And there are other sources of energy besides oil. The more the other sources are developed, the longer the oil will last.
You're welcome, Chicken Little.
Exactly! I’ve been in commodities biz all my life. I’ve sold more zinc than anyone in the world. Zinc was the best performing commodity the last couple years, 200% appreciation due to big supply cuts, mine closures when price was real cheap late 2016. Couple major mines closed, inefficient and ‘depleated’. Price got so high the ‘depleated’ mine reopened. There are ‘shortages’ at certain prices for commodities but not at high prices..
Exactly! I’ve been in commodities biz all my life. I’ve sold more zinc than anyone in the world. Zinc was the best performing commodity the last couple years, 200% appreciation due to big supply cuts, mine closures when price was real cheap late 2016. Couple major mines closed, inefficient and ‘depleated’. Price got so high the ‘depleated’ mine reopened. There are ‘shortages’ at certain prices for commodities but not at high prices..
Except that higher prices for commodities can reduce or preclude the consumption of the commodities, especially by lower-income households.
I've invested in metals and energy for decades, and the reality is that the demand for fossil fuels and most metals have increased dramatically, especially as China and other developing nations have modernized, and the cheapest sources of supply, such as for conventional fossil fuels, have been or are nearing depletion. Ditto with many metals, where mankind even now is just at the cusp of ocean mining for copper, manganese, and other metals.
E.g., while fracking has dramatically increased supplies of fossil fuels at higher prices, it has done so at the cost of substantial environmental harm, whether earthquakes in Oklahoma or the IMO very unregulated injection of radioactive fracking water waste under high pressure beneath potable water aquifers in eastern Ohio, a likely ticking time bomb bestowed on future generations by Ohio Republicans, especially John Kasich, and largely ignored by Ohio media.
Barrick lost billions when it was forced to abandon development of a high-altitude copper mine on the southern border of Argentina and Chile because the environmental destruction associated with the mine was deemed too excessive despite the immense economic benefit, especially to Barrick. Freeport's development of its Grasberg mine, one of the world's largest copper mines, environmentally gutted two pristine watersheds....
In some rare cases, expensive metals have inexpensive potential substitutes, such as the ongoing development of organic flow batteries for mass storage, and perhaps even household storage of photovoltaic solar supply. Alternatively, higher prices for raw materials can make products too expensive for many existing or potential, lower-income customers, such as for personal passenger vehicles in much of the world and even the U.S.
It's also true that the strength of the U.S. dollar has kept fossil fuel and metals relatively cheap for Americans. Most experts, examining America's budget and current account deficits, expect a great weakening of the dollar in coming years, even beginning later this year into 2019. Eventually the U.S. will likely increase consumption taxes, and implement a value-added tax if the U.S. wants to remain global competitive in manufacturing and international services. Such taxes depress commodity demand elsewhere in the world, moderating the impact of depletion of cheaper sources of supply, but also raise the end cost of commodities and products that rely on them for end users.
Location: livin' the good life on America's favorite island
2,221 posts, read 4,391,624 times
Reputation: 1391
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative
Except that higher prices for commodities can reduce or preclude the consumption of the commodities, especially by lower-income households.
I've invested in metals and energy for decades, and the reality is that the demand for fossil fuels and most metals have increased dramatically, especially as China and other developing nations have modernized, and the cheapest sources of supply, such as for conventional fossil fuels, have been or are nearing depletion. Ditto with many metals, where mankind even now is just at the cusp of ocean mining for copper, manganese, and other metals.
E.g., while fracking has dramatically increased supplies of fossil fuels at higher prices, it has done so at the cost of substantial environmental harm, whether earthquakes in Oklahoma or the IMO very unregulated injection of radioactive fracking water waste under high pressure beneath potable water aquifers in eastern Ohio, a likely ticking time bomb bestowed on future generations by Ohio Republicans, especially John Kasich, and largely ignored by Ohio media.
Barrick lost billions when it was forced to abandon development of a high-altitude copper mine on the southern border of Argentina and Chile because the environmental destruction associated with the mine was deemed too excessive despite the immense economic benefit, especially to Barrick. Freeport's development of its Grasberg mine, one of the world's largest copper mines, environmentally gutted two pristine watersheds....
In some rare cases, expensive metals have inexpensive potential substitutes, such as the ongoing development of organic flow batteries for mass storage, and perhaps even household storage of photovoltaic solar supply. Alternatively, higher prices for raw materials can make products too expensive for many existing or potential, lower-income customers, such as for personal passenger vehicles in much of the world and even the U.S.
It's also true that the strength of the U.S. dollar has kept fossil fuel and metals relatively cheap for Americans. Most experts, examining America's budget and current account deficits, expect a great weakening of the dollar in coming years, even beginning later this year into 2019. Eventually the U.S. will likely increase consumption taxes, and implement a value-added tax if the U.S. wants to remain global competitive in manufacturing and international services. Such taxes depress commodity demand elsewhere in the world, moderating the impact of depletion of cheaper sources of supply, but also raise the end cost of commodities and products that rely on them for end users.
Think u are missing the point. Commodity prices are cyclical, this is not a new revelation. When commodity prices rise it typically attracts more investments in production capacity which eventually pushes prices lower.
Think u are missing the point. Commodity prices are cyclical, this is not a new revelation. When commodity prices rise it typically attracts more investments in production capacity which eventually pushes prices lower.
Commodity prices certainly have cycles, but they also have long-term fundamentals that push real prices higher as demand increases, and all-in cost of production increases due to higher input costs, lower grades, more remote mines, etc.
Real prices for most industrial and energy commodity have shown strong inflation-adjusted price increases in the 21st century.
Location: livin' the good life on America's favorite island
2,221 posts, read 4,391,624 times
Reputation: 1391
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative
Commodity prices certainly have cycles, but they also have long-term fundamentals that push real prices higher as demand increases, and all-in cost of production increases due to higher input costs, lower grades, more remote mines, etc.
Real prices for most industrial and energy commodity have shown strong inflation-adjusted price increases in the 21st century.
Again you are off base. Kitco is not an accurate barometer. Kitchen is in precious metals and rarely accurate. Your article is 12 years old. Anything a few months old in commodities is old news. Price peaked in zinc in 2008. During that time commodity index funds became popular to the mainstream investors worldwide (not just wealthy folks), prices rose to record highes even though supply/demand fundamentals didn’t warrant such high prices, probably a phenomena that won’t be repeated. There are many other factors that can effect commodity prices besides basic fundamentals, USD strength has been a big factor over the last few years, trade uncertainty has had a negative effect on prices, proposed tariffs. You say ‘remote mines’, jeesh, most mines are remote. 80% zinc production is outside the US. FYI, zinc prices are down 30% since February...
Again you are off base. Kitco is not an accurate barometer. Kitchen is in precious metals and rarely accurate. Your article is 12 years old. Anything a few months old in commodities is old news. Price peaked in zinc in 2008. During that time commodity index funds became popular to the mainstream investors worldwide (not just wealthy folks), prices rose to record highes even though supply/demand fundamentals didn’t warrant such high prices, probably a phenomena that won’t be repeated. There are many other factors that can effect commodity prices besides basic fundamentals, USD strength has been a big factor over the last few years, trade uncertainty has had a negative effect on prices, proposed tariffs. You say ‘remote mines’, jeesh, most mines are remote. 80% zinc production is outside the US. FYI, zinc prices are down 30% since February...
It was sloppy of me to quote a 12-year-old article. I obviously wasn't paying attention. I disagree that Kitco historic charts are unreliable, but they generally aren't inflation-adjusted.
However, here is an authoritative source on metal price inflation -- the Bureau of Labor Statistics as reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis FRED system. Here's an article on the FRED database.
Here are a couple selections that show the massive inflation in the 21st century. Click on max to see the index back to 1982. There may be a chart for zinc exclusively, but I stopped looking after a couple pages.
It's ridiculous of you to claim that most mines are remote, and not note that wasn't always the case.
E.g., miners today are pursuing the likes of Barrick's Pascua Lama Mine and Yamana's Aqua Rica (among the richest of the next generation mines), Mongolian mines, Nevsun's Bisha Eritrean mine (copper, gold, silver and zinc), let alone the New Guinean ocean project of Nautilus Minerals, which currently is floundering. Geopolitical and human rights difficulties in nations such as Eritrea and the Congo are profound. Contrast this with the likes of the greatly depleted Bingham Canyon Mine, less than 30 miles from Salt Lake City.
As the highest marginal cost of production sets the floor on commodity prices (Econ. 101), remote mines with heavy transportation costs raise the price of commodities, once adequate risk-adjusted profit margins are included.
If India follows the Chinese historic demand curve for industrial metals in coming decades, there will be massive shortages. That's why the Chinese are seemingly paying top dollar for every available mine and massively financing new mines.
U.S. dollar strength in the last few years has lowered the price of commodities priced in U.S. dollars. A weaker dollar, as expected by many in coming years, will raise the price of commodities priced in U.S. dollars.
I said that commodity prices are cyclical. They plummet during global recessions. Yet long-term pricing trends for commodities in the 21st century, reflecting certainly globalization, show significant inflation-adjusted increases in commodity costs. A weakening dollar will exacerbate these trends.
And I invest in miners with significant zinc production and am well aware of the recent zinc price decline from very high pricing levels. Zinc appears under accumulation at current prices (see zinc warehouse levels at Kitco).
We've had a 40 year supply of oil for the last 100 years. Sometimes it's a 35 year supply, sometimes 45. Doesn't anybody here know any economics? When the price rises, the harder-to-get oil becomes economically profitable and the supply expands. Also, there are geologists working day and night to discover new oil. And there are other sources of energy besides oil. The more the other sources are developed, the longer the oil will last.
You're welcome, Chicken Little.
Oh, okay. Guess I'll listen to the immature guy on an internet forum who uses ad hominem characterizations, like "Chicken Little", to address people he disagrees with. You certainly come off as far more credible than the hundreds (thousands?) of economists and scientists who not only continue to warn of shortages but also increased market volatility and regulation, radical limitations in access and absolute certainty in continual price hikes. If you can't connect those dots to the other vulnerabilities we are talking about, .
Back to my original point, however, which was more-so about "urban heat islands" and the ramifications of rising temperatures, water shortages and increased energy costs. How will a state like Arizona fare when they are registering 130 degree days, energy becomes "too expensive" to artificially cool their massive populations and the Colorado River cannot supply their needs?
Oh, okay. Guess I'll listen to the immature guy on an internet forum who uses ad hominem characterizations, like "Chicken Little", to address people he disagrees with. You certainly come off as far more credible than the hundreds (thousands?) of economists and scientists who not only continue to warn of shortages but also increased market volatility and regulation, radical limitations in access and absolute certainty in continual price hikes. If you can't connect those dots to the other vulnerabilities we are talking about, .
Back to my original point, however, which was more-so about "urban heat islands" and the ramifications of rising temperatures, water shortages and increased energy costs. How will a state like Arizona fare when they are registering 130 degree days, energy becomes "too expensive" to artificially cool their massive populations and the Colorado River cannot supply their needs?
Imo cities like Phoenix in the middle of the desert should've never been built. People cried for their sunshine 365 days a year now they should just enjoy it don't expect everybody to bail you out. ( like Wanting the great lakes water supply, LOL) Likewise, if you build a house on the beach good chance It could be wiped out by a hurricane.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
