I'm getting rather annoyed about I keep hearing on television. Economists keep saying that spending is the key to economic growth and it's how we're going to be pushed out of this recession. I'm not denying that spending is part of the economy, but spending inevitably falls under supply and demand. It naturally gravitates to a balance and I think people are missing that.

The main thing that annoys me is that people like Robert Rice and other economists keep saying if the government cuts taxes, bails out the people, gives refund checks that people would save their money or pay off debt. OH THE TRAGEDY!!!! The horrors of saving your money. Oh no!! Paying off your debt. That's treason!!!

There needs to be a balance between capital and spending. Saving your money, paying off debt, investing all falls under the category of capital. Spending is when you consume. Obviously a business will do better if more people buy, but there needs to be capital too. You can't make loans, without capital. You can't make investments without capital.

Americans have been spending way too much and saving too little. Like, this is an undisputed fact. The fact that saving rates have been growing is good. The fact that people are taking any extra money and paying off their debt is good. If you want a credit crisis to be fixed, let people pay off their debt, let people save money. The more capital a bank has, the more money they can lend.

Obviously the government just wants to spend because that's what the government does best. Government spending will never fix this problem. Money that the government spends comes from someone else. The money leaves the economy and comes to them as tax or the money leaves the economy and comes to them as purchased bonds. There's no net gain, just a distortion between capital and spending.

I'm sure I'll get a typical response like "well what would you do?" It's suddenly implied that something must be done. The market is correcting itself from a distortion and that's what has to happen. No amount of spending will change that. When the correction is finished, the economy will be able to get back to business. Cutting taxes would help, but it's not going to change much. The correction will still need to occur.

The only remedy for this problem... is time.


Posted by Christopher | 8:26 PM | | 1 comments »

I really wanted to mix a little science and politics today. I'm very passionate about this issue because I am an electrical engineer and I did major in power systems. I've had the chance to study, design and work with the "renewable energy" sources that are so hyped by the government. Well, are wind turbines good enough? I would argue no.

Everyone that reads my blog is always suspicious about my motives since I'm a capitalist and obviously wouldn't support such things. With all the subsidies and slimy businesses involved with the government to produce this stuff, it should be enough to make my point, but I'm going to talk to you about the realities.

When I hear Obama talk about solar panels and wind generators, I think he's talking about this new utopia. The talk that we can get off foreign oil and things like this make me laugh.

Wind turbines produce power, but they're just not good enough and here is why...

Space - The amount of space that is required to generate a sufficient amount of power is massive. I don't think people understand the gravity of how much space is required. You need tens if not hundreds of thousands of wind turbines to generate the same amount of power as a single nuclear power plant. This means that huge portions of land (or water) have to be used.

Man Power - Wind turbines require maintenance. The need for millions of people to do all this maintenance will be needed. Let me repeat that... millions of people to do the maintenance.

Doesn't Follow Load - Wind turbines will never become a significant electricity source because they are unable to follow the load of the grid. Nuclear can follow the grid, gas can follow the grid, coal can follow the grid, dams follow the grid. Wind turbines can't because you have to take what you get. If the wind is blowing 30km/hr, that's what you get.

Essentially all power generation (besides the solar panel) is based on a rotors. Wind turbines, nuclear power, dam power, etc is all done through spinning a rotor. This rotor will have magnets on it. When you rotate a magnetic field around wires, you'll generate a current (ie: electricity).

For the sake of efficiency and cost, you want to have less rotors. Rotors are physically moving parts and they will break. Anything that moves will break. Anything that breaks will need to be fixed and undergo maintenance. The less rotors, the better.

That means we need to find a solution where we can produce more power with less revolutions of a rotor.

Nuclear power is by far the superior option. It's safe (despite what ignorant idiots would tell you). A single nuclear plant will have maybe 4 or 8 rotors and power a lot of cities. You'll need hundreds of thousands of wind turbines to produce the same power.

Doing maintenance on 4 to 8 rotors in a single building is a lot cheaper than doing maintenance to 100,000 rotors stretched over 1000's of acres.


I'm sure with me making this post that I'll get some very ignorant replies from people telling me I'm wrong. They won't have engineering degrees or know anything about what they're talking about, but I'll get them. Some people have been so indoctrinated by this that they can't accept the fact that it could be bad technology.


Posted by Christopher | 7:53 PM | | 0 comments »