• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Global Economy Bursting?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Your claim about the graph and data cannot be taken seriously unless you can present an alternative that supports your claim.

Bull.

The graph is "presented" and not documented. Please inform us where exactly on the graph it states where exactly the data was pulled from, and in the data pdf what mathematical model was used. Otherwise, like my college professor stated "they are lying to you".

As for support for my claim, well you posted another less than adequately documented graph that refutes how the data was presented (aka, the whole data range from the PDF and in one case actually showing the axis).

In other words, you are asking for the equivalent of a scientific proof that God exists. I know what type of annotation is needed to vet the graph and data, have mentioned it, and you keep saying that I am wrong and the graph and the data are correct. Whether the data has 5 trillion papers/reports and scientists backing it up, along with the research and workfiles of all those reports, does not make it valid if NONE of them are properly annotated. The who and how are not properly referenced in the graph and data. The graph may have been properly annotated in the original document it was pulled from, but as presented by you it was not. The data pdf is NOT properly annotated and thus entirely invalid. Period.
 
I see you don't know the answer to the question of where academia gets its data on population. You need my help. Look at the Harvard paper again.

After doing a word search on the phrase "united nations", it says:

1 The United Nations makes several separate forecasts of population size, including ones based on low-, medium-, and high-fertility assumptions. This paper uses the UN's medium-fertility scenario except where otherwise stated.

Population projections from the United Nations change every two years as new estimates are published.

Source: Authors' calculations based on data in United Nations, World Population Prospects: the 2008 Revision

Sources: ILO (2009) and World Population Prospects 2008 (United Nations, 2009)

United Nations (2009). World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision. CD-ROM Edition - Extended Dataset


Now, can you answer the question where does the United Nations gets it data for population?

Oh, my college professors would fail you just on the lack of initiative and laziness. It seems that you cannot understand where data on population comes from, let alone of how it was analyzed and projections made.
 
Pop Flesh in the boiler

Its human to want to live forever ....

But Kavorkian is right about so much ....

But it would be far better to let fragmentation be our undoing than a command and control health care system ....

...just like the promise of social security being a lie ... so is everything told to us from big pharma, to big medicine, to big Agiculture ....

.... We are the Brave New World of Bigness Lies ...

... Pop culture, Pop Presidents, Pop Medicine ...

... Pop Flesh

.... my gut and brain .... what are they ... Palovs' Dog ..... conditioned ....

...and we are Pop programmed to believe anything that will give another day to drink and another round of big gulps and popcorn

.... Pop Sickle Keynesians are Us.

... We are no longer curious about much I think
 
None of those countries have a good track record of staying on "the shining path" for very long.

True and that's why the United States still is the world's reserve currency.

But that technology will eventually work in many of the OPEC countries as well as elsewhere making us less competitive (price wise) and inviting increased oil use.

Technology is the great equalizer. However, infrastructure plays a large role too. The problem going forward is how unstable governments will become because of the aging population. Europe is a prime example. Riots, revolutions and change in government will be the outcome. Energy is a problem too and I agree with your assessment on increased oil and coal consumption for developing nations.

I predict that many states will achieve the goal of 20% "renewables" by 2020 only by sleight of hand. "borrowing" green energy from elsewhere and "selling" their own fossil fueled electricity in hokey trades. Does anyone really believe that wind generated electricity in Wyoming is going to make it all the way to Minnesota?

California is already there at 20% green energy. The problem is, that works in the day time. It doesn't work at night or when the wind don't blow. They have to have capacity at peak demand and that means natural gas generation plants and duplication of capacity; green and fossil fuel.

China is dependent upon the state making the right decisions rather than the market. How long can that last before the state makes a boo-boo.

Our government made the biggest boo boo with banking and real estate. It is also making another boo boo on energy. It is also making a huge boo boo on debt and deficit spending. Not only do we borrow 40 cents on a dollar spent, we print 70 cents on every dollar of the debt the FED buying.

We have negative real returns on our debt.
 
California is already there at 20% green energy
If my memory serves me well, there are substantial incentives to develop "green" in CA and the goal is 33% by 2020. But the cost of electricity there was higher than the national average and only a reduction in the cost of (Chinese) solar panels kept the marginal energy cost from going through the roof.

With both high sunshine and winds, California can generate more energy from those sources than elsewhere. But they also import a lot of electricity from neighbors, about 25%, and expect to import even more after a nuclear plant (San Onofre) went offline unexpectedly.

Stanford Un. has a lot of money, partly from investments with donated funds. Among their investments is "Green" energy. In real terms that means natural gas. They won't buy into an oil well. But they do buy mineral rights in areas of dry gas. Almost all the mineral rights collected by a leasing company in OK City are resold to Stanford. I run across them a lot in the Fayetteville shale which is a natural gas play (no oil.)

"Green" is a badly overused term.
 
If my memory serves me well, there are substantial incentives to develop "green" in CA and the goal is 33% by 2020.

That is correct, California law requires that all utilities get 33% of their electrical power from green sources. It is not a goal, it is an enforceable statue.

But the cost of electricity there was higher than the national average and only a reduction in the cost of (Chinese) solar panels kept the marginal energy cost from going through the roof.

The cost of electricity in California is significantly higher than neighboring states and the national average. Any business that is energy intensive wil move out of California and new businesses will not come to California. Intel has said publicly that they will never build another semiconductor manufacturing plant in California. Texas has been the main beneficiary of semiconductor manufacturing expansion.

With both high sunshine and winds, California can generate more energy from those sources than elsewhere. But they also import a lot of electricity from neighbors, about 25%, and expect to import even more after a nuclear plant (San Onofre) went offline unexpectedly.

Wind mills can not operate competitively with out subsidies. There is high maintenance just to keep them going.

There will be no more nuclear power plants in California.

Stanford Un. has a lot of money, partly from investments with donated funds. Among their investments is "Green" energy. In real terms that means natural gas. They won't buy into an oil well. But they do buy mineral rights in areas of dry gas. Almost all the mineral rights collected by a leasing company in OK City are resold to Stanford. I run across them a lot in the Fayetteville shale which is a natural gas play (no oil.)

"Green" is a badly overused term.

The politicians had to make an exception to what is green, including natural gas a green fuel because so much of the current electrical generation is done by that fuel in California.

Reliable power is not green.
 
Colleges freeze, reduce tuition as public balks at further price increases

http://californiawatch.org/dailyrep...on-public-balks-further-price-increases-17532

After three decades of tuition hikes that have outpaced inflation and increases in family income, students, families, legislators and governing boards are demanding a halt.

Some private universities, too, have agreed to stop raising their tuition, or even cut it, after being alarmed to discover their enrollments starting to slip.

Colleges and universities have long been reluctant to lower or cap their prices, McCardell said, because – as with new cars and fine wines – they believe students and their families equate price with prestige.

In his 25 years as a higher-education administrator, “I was reared to believe that what you charge is a reflection of your position in the marketplace,” McCardell said. “And I was reared to believe that no matter what happens, the American people will pay the sticker price. But all that changed fundamentally in 2008,” at the start of the economic downturn.

Supply and demand have not traditionally affected the price of higher education. That’s because supply largely remained unchanged, while demand was ever-rising. But the number of high school graduates, which peaked in 2009, is starting to decline. Enrollment fell at more than 40 percent of colleges and universities last year, according to the credit rating firm Moody’s.
 
Renewables have rough ride in Idaho

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2012/aug/12/renewables-have-rough-ride-idaho/

In 2011, Idaho's Department of Commerce devoted a 37-page magazine to renewable energy, with Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter touting geothermal, wind, solar and biomass. “Sustainable, renewable energy is going to play a big role in Idaho's future,” Otter proclaimed.

The publication now doubles as a grim recapitulation of projects where the lights have dimmed or gone out.

Hoku Corp.'s $400 million Pocatello solar polysilicon plant has been mothballed, while Transform Solar, Micron Technology Inc.'s energy venture, is dead. A biomass power project at an Emmett sawmill highlighted in the magazine failed, too, forcing its developers this month to pay Idaho Power Co. $200,000 in damages.

Additionally, independent wind and solar entrepreneurs complain Idaho's policies have suffocated development. The 2011 Commerce publication spoke of Idaho's renewables “sweet spot” — just as the Idaho Legislature that spring rejected keeping a tax rebate for alternative power producers alive.

Peter Richardson, a Boise energy lawyer and would-be solar developer, contends his industry faces a “train wreck.”

“New projects are non-existent,” Richardson said. “There's no support for renewables in this state.”

Even the future of funding for Otter's Office of Energy Resources' is in jeopardy because renewables haven't panned out.

The office was to be funded by royalties on federal geothermal leases, but those never materialized.

Geothermal developers say declining natural gas prices, expiring tax incentives and a surplus of cheap, existing power amid the economic downturn now make developments in Idaho a tough proposition.

For the last half-decade, Idaho's renewables industry has been dominated by wind projects.

Developers installed hundreds of megawatts that regulated utilities had to buy, according to a 1978 federal law. State and federal tax breaks also made their projects attractive for investors.

But the rush to wind turbines largely ended in 2010, when the Idaho Public Utilities Commission intervened on behalf of utilities that complained wind farms were driving up ratepayers' costs.

“Wind is just not a good resource for Idaho Power,” Mark Stokes, the utility's power supply manager, said Tuesday, contending wind is unreliable on hot, summer afternoons when the utility needs power for irrigation pumps and air conditioners.

The cost of electricity in Idaho, produced largely by dams, coal-fired power plants and natural gas turbines, is second-lowest in the nation, according the Institute for Energy Studies.

Consequently, regulated utilities have little economic incentive to buy electricity from renewables providers. And unlike Oregon and Washington policy makers, Idaho legislators haven't required utilities to buy a percentage of their electricity from alternative projects.

In Otter's first State of the State speech in 2007, the incoming governor announced Hoku's Pocatello solar plant, promising hundreds of high-paying construction and manufacturing jobs. Today, Hoku's parent company faces potential bankruptcy; it laid off its last 100 Idaho workers this spring.

The 2011 Department of Commerce magazine, entitled “Energy Opportunities are ON,” predicted a renewables renaissance in Idaho. Things haven't worked out as well as many of the companies featured had hoped. Here's a partial list of projects that have faltered.

— Solar declines: In the 2011 magazine, the Department of Commerce announced Hoku Corp. was putting the “final touches” on its $400 million polysilicon manufacturing plant in Pocatello to supply the solar panel industry. The plant hasn't been completed and its employees have been laid off.

And Transform Solar, the joint venture between Idaho-based Micron Technologies Inc. and Australia's Origin Energy, were just preparing to hire hundreds at the time it was lauded by Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter in the 2011 publication. Earlier this year, the company announced it was shutting down, laying off its workers and closing the Nampa factory's doors.

— Turbine trouble: The agency publication predicted that Utah-based Pavilion Energy Resources would be building a new wind turbine manufacturing facility in Idaho to mass produce low-wind turbines, to fulfill an initial $100 million turbine order. Last month, the company's leader, Rick Wood, said from his offices in Salt Lake City, “If Idaho doesn't get its act together, there's a real chance we're not going to go ahead.”

— Biomass bust: Yellowstone Power, a company developing a $28.5 million biomass facility at a proposed sawmill in Emmett Idaho, won a 15-year electricity purchase agreement from Idaho Power that got attention in the magazine. Last week, Montana-based Yellowstone agreed to pay Idaho Power $200,000 in a non-performance damage settlement because the project failed and it couldn't deliver promised electricity.

—Wind departs: Notably, one of the Idaho Department of Commerce's biggest marketing coups of 2008, a turbine-manufacturing factory of California-based Nordic Windpower lured to a vacant military building in Pocatello, wasn't featured in that magazine. The reason? Nordic decided Idaho was too far from its customers in the Midwest so it moved to Kansas.
 
I see you don't know the answer to the question of where academia gets its data on population. You need my help. Look at the Harvard paper again.

After doing a word search on the phrase "united nations", it says:
<snip>
Oh, my college professors would fail you just on the lack of initiative and laziness. It seems that you cannot understand where data on population comes from, let alone of how it was analyzed and projections made.

You posted a graph and a link to an article.
The graph is bupkis because, as I stated, it was deliberately staged to create the emotion expressed in the article and the article did NOT give proper annotation (references, etc) as to where the data was taken from nor did the graph. The notation on the bottom of the graph was, in fact, a brief annotation so that when the reader chose to look up in the references at the bottom (page 37) of the discussion paper the graph was originally included within the reader could go on and vet the information for themself.

The paper the graph was originally taken from is "The Great Leveraging" by Alan M. Taylor http://people.virginia.edu/~amt7u/papers/DP9082.pdf
The proper annotation for the graph is on page 37 of that document (the graph is on page 19) and is "Pradhan, Manoj, and Alan M. Taylor. 2011b. Are EMs the New DMs? Emerging Issues, Morgan Stanley, May 4."

Because the graph is NOT properly annotated on the graph itself nor in the article you quoted it is invalid as you used it. The link to the data as presented by you does not contain proper annotations either and thus is irrelevant as presented (although as part of a larger article it is only "questionable at best".

So, are you still so certain on your claims that it is valid as used by you?

Also, you may want to read again who the author was in regards to the paper the graph was originally from as well as the authors of the article that is used as a reference for said graph.


As proof the graph itself was neither properly annotated as presented in the post you made nor in the article you quoted I present the original article it came from as evidence on how proper annotation SHOULD be done.


Oh yeah, "United Nations" is not a particular scientist or paper just like United States Military is not a particular scientist or paper.:laugh:
 
So let me recap.

You do not know where academia gets the population data from.

You do not know where the United Nations gets the population data from.

You do not know the methodologies used to make the statistical representations or projections used by academia, the United Nations or governments.

Your intellectual opinion on statistics and graphs is based upon ignorance (since you do not these things) and cannot be taken seriously, in addition to your laziness and lack of initiative to find these things out for yourself.

Just to help you, again, the United Nations gets the population data from the governments.

So, we have academia, the United Nations and governments colluding to brainwash you with their political agendas, all three exchanging data and analysis.

I think I have captured what you are saying. You are entitled to your opinion no matter how ignorant it is. :flowers:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top