Larry Kudlow admits - wrong about Biden economy

[eyecu2]

Kudlow is a moron who's hayday was when he was on CNBC, Joe kernan, David Faber and Mark would always pull his pickle, but it is what got him a job interview with Trump.

He's literally a washed up Alchy who didnt understand the economy in 2010, 2020, nor now in 2024. He is a genuine idiot.

He keeps spouting off about liquid gold../ aka oil but is so fucking stupid he thinks that oil companies are going to keep drilling holes, while oil is cheap. Not going to happen. Why would any company invest 5-40 million for a hole when oil prices are low?

If you added a whole bunch more supply would just drive the price lower!


Actually all the Fox "News" economists are literal hacks. For the past 3 years and one month they have been screaming the sky is falling, and economy is heading for recession. And while the stock market is hit all time high is consistently.

Do you know why? Because all they do is gas light and use fear-mongering tactics in order to sway political ideology - and to sell the stupid fucking books that every one of those mouthpieces has written. Equally they've been wrong about every part of the economy from GDP, jobs, and stock market.

When you look at the figures, they don't lie and while the economy could certainly be stronger, it's doing way better than they have been reporting for the past 3 years plus. I wonder how the magma morons feel about how they've been led down the primrose path , lie after lie by good old Kudlow and the dumbasses at Fox and the heritage foundation.??

These are the same people that would be gleeful if the market would take a giant shit - so that they could at least say they were right one time during the last 4 years, or really in the last 8!

[eyecu2]

Sorry duplicate post

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

The usual suspects on here that trot out their institute papers on the Biden economy have another chance to attack and dispute the facts. Have at it.

Sure, I'll have at it. Yeah, GDP growth is trotting along just fine. But at what cost? Any MORON can pump 5 trillion into an economy that doesn't really need fiscal stimulus and outperform other large economies, except maybe for China's.

The federal debt held by the public is now over 100% of GDP. And it's continuing to grow. That's crazy! Someday we'll have to pay the piper. And what did the workingman end up with for all the extra debt? Well, as adav8s28 has noted, many got big screen televisions with their American Rescue Plan checks. But, in no small part because of high inflation caused in part by loose fiscal policy, real wages dipped after Biden took office and still haven't regained levels at the end of the Trump presidency.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Kudlow is a moron who's hayday was when he was on CNBC, Joe kernan, David Faber and Mark would always pull his pickle, but it is what got him a job interview with Trump.

He's literally a washed up Alchy who didnt understand the economy in 2010, 2020, nor now in 2024. He is a genuine idiot.

What's a hayday?

Joe Kernan and Larry Kudlow are two peas in a pod. Kudlow's smart. He knows economics and finance better than any poster on this board, save two. Yeah, Kudlow says he was surprised that we haven't gone into a recession since 2020. But so were most economists. Seventy-nine percent surveyed in June, 2022 figured a recession would start by the 2nd quarter of this year,

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...recession-usa/

Kudlow's instincts are good. I wouldn't necessarily say he's better than Larry Summers or Jason Furman, who were Clinton's and Obama's economic gurus. And Kudlow perhaps worked more on promoting Trump's policies than coming up with them. But he's head and shoulders above anybody in the Biden administration except maybe Janet Yellen. And Yellen has the same problem Kudlow did. Biden won't listen to her. Similarly, Trump wouldn't listen to Kudlow on trade policy.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

He keeps spouting off about liquid gold../ aka oil but is so fucking stupid he thinks that oil companies are going to keep drilling holes, while oil is cheap. Not going to happen. Why would any company invest 5-40 million for a hole when oil prices are low?

If you added a whole bunch more supply would just drive the price lower!

I don't understand your point. Of course oil companies don't drill as many wells when prices are low. The problem is that MORONS like Biden don't want American companies to drill when prices are high, even for clean-burning natural gas.

The current price of oil, around $73 per barrel for WTI, is sufficient to keep American production growing btw.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

I wonder how the magma morons feel about how they've been led down the primrose path , lie after lie by good old Kudlow and the dumbasses at Fox and the heritage foundation.??

While I too disagree with a lot of the Heritage Foundation's positions, it's spot on when it comes to the economy. Lower spending, cutting taxes (to the extent we can cut spending more) and appropriate deregulation would make most Americans better off.

[eyecu2]

Just to put perspective in Larry Kudlows knowledge and credentials: he is a HISTORY major. He went to Rochester University and has a bachelor's degree in history.

Kudlow began his career as a staff economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, taking a position "as a junior economist in a job where a master's degree wasn't required".[7] He worked in the division of the Fed that handled open market operations. He MIGHT understand the costs pricing of bonds with rate changes, but I doubt it


During the first term of the Reagan administration (1981–1985), Kudlow was associate director for economics and planning in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)aka Accounting.


With that level of knowledge and experience he might be able to be a loan officer, or an accountant, or a history teacher. But he has no business creating complete or suggesting complete financial objectives through understanding complex economic ideas. He couldn't even teach at community college with that background.


He demonstrates a severe lack of understanding complex financial concepts by talking about assessing tariffs (punitive to buyers and sellers), and oil exploration by private companies, as they somehow would be required to follow a political policy vs. a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. AND as far as drilling goes, more than half of the wells drilled in the permian basin are for oil, but the majority of wells in the North East are much higher production of nat gas. Oil is almost a nuisance to large Marcellus or Utica wells. Just sludge to get rid of. Messes up the whole flow of gathering lines. So he demonstrates his lack of understanding about what wells are drilled for generally speaking. It's not as simple drill a hole and get money out proposition

He's a fucking idiot.
His only claim to fame was ever being on TV and working for Trump hence why he continues to repeat that asshole's name at every opportunity he can

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Just to put perspective in Larry Kudlows (sic) knowledge and credentials: he is a HISTORY major. He went to Rochester University and has a bachelor's degree in history.

Kudlow began his career as a staff economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, taking a position "as a junior economist in a job where a master's degree wasn't required". He worked in the division of the Fed that handled open market operations. He MIGHT understand the costs (sic) pricing of bonds with rate changes, but I doubt it.

During the first term of the Reagan administration (1981–1985), Kudlow was associate director for economics and planning in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) aka Accounting.

With that level of knowledge and experience he might be able to be a loan officer, or an accountant, or a history teacher. But he has no business creating complete or suggesting complete financial objectives through understanding complex economic ideas. He couldn't even teach at community college with that background...

... He's a fucking idiot.

Whoa, eye. I vaguely remember having this conversation with you already. You keep attacking Larry Kudlow for not having enough credentials to be a professional economist. I'm sorry, but where did you study economics again? Did you at least major in it as an undergraduate somewhere? Or was your major in Human Resources? I personally would never attack someone's credentials, or lack thereof, in an area where I myself don't have any depth. Kudlow was Chief Economist at Bear Stearns for many years. They don't hire "fucking idiots" or "morons". I think he's worth listening to, even when he's wrong.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

He MIGHT understand the costs (sic) pricing of bonds with rate changes, but I doubt it.

Hmm... what exactly are you talking about? Tell me more, please. Price versus yields? Evidently you understand it, right?

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Just to put perspective in Larry Kudlows knowledge and credentials: he is a HISTORY major. He went to Rochester University and has a bachelor's degree in history.

Kudlow began his career as a staff economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, taking a position "as a junior economist in a job where a master's degree wasn't required".[7] He worked in the division of the Fed that handled open market operations. He MIGHT understand the costs pricing of bonds with rate changes, but I doubt it

He's a fucking idiot.
His only claim to fame was ever being on TV and working for Trump hence why he continues to repeat that asshole's name at every opportunity he can

Being a history major in college has worked out well for at least two people. Bush43 was a history major at Yale and got elected president twice. Kudlow got paid the big bucks to talk economics on CNBC.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Just to put perspective in Larry Kudlows knowledge and credentials: he is a HISTORY major. He went to Rochester University and has a bachelor's degree in history.

Kudlow studied for a graduate degree in economics at Princeton. But he dropped out of university, like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

During the first term of the Reagan administration (1981–1985), Kudlow was associate director for economics and planning in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)aka Accounting.

Interesting. He worked at the OMB, like David Stockman, who also had an undergraduate degree in history. Stockman never even studied economics. I can relate to him though, as he studied theology at Harvard. That's because I have a Doctor of Divinity and am founder of the Church of Tiny.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

With that level of knowledge and experience he might be able to be a loan officer, or an accountant, or a history teacher. But he has no business creating complete or suggesting complete financial objectives through understanding complex economic ideas. He couldn't even teach at community college with that background.

The economics faculty at Princeton doesn't brook dumb asses, either students or professors, except for Paul Krugman.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

He demonstrates a severe lack of understanding complex financial concepts by talking about assessing tariffs (punitive to buyers and sellers), and oil exploration by private companies, as they somehow would be required to follow a political policy vs. a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. AND as far as drilling goes, more than half of the wells drilled in the permian basin are for oil, but the majority of wells in the North East are much higher production of nat gas. Oil is almost a nuisance to large Marcellus or Utica wells. Just sludge to get rid of. Messes up the whole flow of gathering lines. So he demonstrates his lack of understanding about what wells are drilled for generally speaking. It's not as simple drill a hole and get money out proposition

Kudlow is a free trader. He tried to talk Trump out of imposing high tariffs on China and other countries. He tried to talk him out of starting trade wars. See here for example for what he really thinks:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/06/p...omy/index.html

https://time.com/5587848/kudlow-trum...day-interview/

https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...o-talk-2018-11

As to the second part of your post, I searched Google for Kudlow's pronouncements on oil and gas, and don't see where he said anything unreasonable. Except that perhaps he exaggerated the effect on New Mexico of Biden's policies. Biden did try to shut down drilling on federal leases in New Mexico, along with the rest of the country, but that only lasted for several months. He had to abandon that for political reasons when gasoline prices went up, and for legal reasons as challenges worked their way through the courts. The other issue, which I don't think was significant in the scheme of things, was banning drilling in the Chaco Canyon area.

I'm not particularly familiar with production from the Marcellus or Utica formations, but seriously doubt that gas producers view oil as a nuisance. Gas wells that produce significant condensate and other hydrocarbon liquids in general make more money than wells that produce dry gas. Right now, in terms of how much you pay for a BTU from oil versus gas, oil costs about six times more than gas. That is, oil is much more valuable than gas. At present, there are undoubtedly a lot of gas wells that would be uneconomic without the associated condensate and liquids production.

I can think of possible reasons why liquids could be a problem in some instances. One would be reduction of flow capacity as a result of lower permeability to gas from having a liquid hydrocarbon phase in the reservoir. A second would be the cost of installing and operating artificial lift to remove the liquids, although water, not oil, is the reason that commonly would be required. Finally accumulation of paraffin in the production system or near the wellbore could cause problems. But all these are insignificant compared to the incremental revenues gas producers receive from condensate and liquids.

As to sludge, you're not going to see a low viscosity oil (that is, sludge) produced from a gas well. It just doesn't happen.

In other words, I didn't find where Kudlow is operating under misconceptions about the oil and gas industry. I do see where you are, even though admittedly you know more than the average person about the industry.

[lustylad]

^^^ Another tour de force, Tiny!

You always know how to take the "sludge" out of an argument lol.

We need to keep working on eye. He shows enough flashes of cognizance (in between his TDS flare-ups) to be a candidate for conversion to the Free Markets Church of Tiny!

[eyecu2]

Clearly you gents have never been on a gas well site. The commodity is gas. It's not oil, or butane or other things that come from the well.. It's strictly methane. Oil has to be trucked off site, and other gases have to be filtered out. ALL the wells in PA that are a part of the gas boon are in either the Marcellus, Utica or Devonian shale formations. THe deeper you go, the higher the pressure. You start pulling out water out of wells first, since that's how they are fracted. That water is contaminated and know as production water. It's full of all the shit you don't want, and has to be trucked or stored.

While you might not think oil is a problem- it is if you are gathering up gas- and moving it to midstream (compression) lines. Oil flows in Texas are a totally different animal than stuff here. There are still some shallow wells that produce oil locally, but that has not been the big part of the economy in our state of PA for the past 40-50 yrs.

About good ol'Larry Kudlow; yes, he worked on tv to describe what bond yields do for a daily business, and why money sat on the sideline with a analysts' perspective or atleast had enough charisma to sell it on tv. (not very well by the way). He's never been good at valuations of anything other than bonds etc.

Regarding his education and others- I know of plenty of drops outs that were mentioned that are actually smart- and proved it by producing a product. Larry aint one of them. He dropped out for whatever reason, but his claim of working at Bear Sterns-....well lets just look how well that company did!!

Good old BEARS STERNS went to the extinct, due to mortgage backed securities and the big sell off in 2008 when JP Morgan got their assets. I wonder if Larry used his history degree to value any of those junk bonds! 18 billion one day- almost 2 billion the next - OUCH!!! Bankrupt! - (Maybe that's why Trumpy liked him- they speak the same bankrupt language!!) He's been appropriately described as "a used car salesman, both in demeanor and honesty". He's strictly a supply side econ focus, - "if you build it they will come". Btw- Larry thought the 2007, 2008 was a mild downturn in the economy that was a holdover from the good ol' Bush years.

Hey Larry- what about Malls and stuff are they a good buy? How about REIT's ?? How about Mortgage Bonds?

So much for hiring a history major. Perhaps he had greater aspirations, but if all of Bear Sterns were history guys and gals, it's no wonder their portfolios went to the shitter.

You know sometimes you get exactly what you pay for.

History ppl get you a story teller.
math ppl gets you equations and proofs and projections
economics ppl get you valuations and viable economic products.

Which do you think would be the bigger education applicable for Bear Sterns if they could do it all over again??


As far as my degree's I have a science degree from Indiana University and a masters from Cornell. How bout yinz??

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Clearly you gents have never been on a gas well site.

If you say so.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

….his claim of working at Bear Sterns-....well lets just look how well that company did!!

Good old BEARS STERNS went to the extinct, due to mortgage backed securities and the big sell off in 2008 when JP Morgan got their assets. I wonder if Larry used his history degree to value any of those junk bonds! 18 billion one day- almost 2 billion the next - OUCH!!! Bankrupt! - (Maybe that's why Trumpy liked him- they speak the same bankrupt language!!) He's been appropriately described as "a used car salesman, both in demeanor and honesty". He's strictly a supply side econ focus, - "if you build it they will come". Btw- Larry thought the 2007, 2008 was a mild downturn in the economy that was a holdover from the good ol' Bush years.

Kudlow was kicked out of his position as Chief Economist of Bear Stearns in 1994, because of problems with substance abuse that he later overcame. What does that have to do with Bear Stearns closure in 2008? The bankruptcy was 14 years after he left Bear Stearns.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Hey Larry- what about Malls and stuff are they a good buy? How about REIT's ?? How about Mortgage Bonds?

So much for hiring a history major. Perhaps he had greater aspirations, but if all of Bear Sterns were history guys and gals, it's no wonder their portfolios went to the shitter.

You know sometimes you get exactly what you pay for.

History ppl get you a story teller.
math ppl gets you equations and proofs and projections
economics ppl get you valuations and viable economic products.

Which do you think would be the bigger education applicable for Bear Sterns if they could do it all over again??

Your point is? You need a PhD in economics from Indiana University to pontificate on malls, REITS and mortgage bonds?

Originally Posted by eyecu2

As far as my degree's I have a science degree from Indiana University and a masters from Cornell. How bout yinz??

Good for you. I believe LustyLad is a graduate of an Ivy League university, based on what he’s posted. As to my education and work experience, it’s a lot more relevant to the topic you brought up than yours. If you argue with LustyLad about economics or me about energy you’re probably going to get your ass kicked.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

The commodity is gas. It's not oil, or butane or other things that come from the well.. It's strictly methane.

Right, it’s strictly methane. Haha! If the well stream is 100% methane, then where's the "oil" coming from? Are the methane molecules miraculously transforming into crude oil once they enter the wellbore?

From the following, horizontal Marcellus gas production in West Virginia in 2021 was 2060.1 BCF and Marcellus oil & natural gas liquids production was 103.6 million barrels. Using recent prices around $2.20/MCF for the gas and $40 for the oil & liquids, that’s about $4.5 billion worth of natural gas and $4.1 billion worth of oil and liquids. The value of the oil and liquids is close to the value of the natural gas.

https://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/datas...ionSummary.pdf

I believe the Utica is oilier than the Marcellus.

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Oil has to be trucked off site, and other gases have to be filtered out. ALL the wells in PA that are a part of the gas boon are in either the Marcellus, Utica or Devonian shale formations. THe deeper you go, the higher the pressure. You start pulling out water out of wells first, since that's how they are fracted. That water is contaminated and know as production water. It's full of all the shit you don't want, and has to be trucked or stored.

While you might not think oil is a problem- it is if you are gathering up gas- and moving it to midstream (compression) lines. Oil flows in Texas are a totally different animal than stuff here. There are still some shallow wells that produce oil locally, but that has not been the big part of the economy in our state of PA for the past 40-50 yrs.

That’s largely true. And irrelevant, not just to Larry Kudlow but even as to whether oil is “just a sludge to get rid of.” For your edification, you sound like an oilfield rube when you say “other gases have to be filtered out” and refer to “production water.” Given that this is off topic and given it would take a long time to educate you about natural gas processing, I won’t explain the filtered part. But it’s commonly called “produced water,” not “production water.”

And yeah, liquids can accumulate in gas pipelines as a result of changes in pressure and temperature. But that's a small price to pay for the added value that comes from condensate and natural gas liquids. For the same gas reserves and gas production rates, you'd prefer a 1400 MMBTU/MCF wet gas to a 1000 MMBTU/MCF dry gas with no liquids, hands down, every time. FYI, dry gas with an energy content of 1000 MMBTU/MCF should indeed be close to 100% methane, with negligible natural gas liquids, unless it has nonhydrocarbon impurities like CO2 or nitrogen.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Larry Kudlow, the Trump White House’s Director of the National Economic Council, on Thursday admitted on Fox News he was wrong about the Biden economy and all the predictions of an economic slowdown and impending recession that turned out to be false.

Interesting.

So Larry has come around to the point of view that everything about the current economy is just hunky-dory, and we can all forget about recession risks for 2024?

Well, if you think Larry was so wrong in his predictions for 2023, why do you think they'll be any better in 2024?

Originally Posted by VitaMan

The usual suspects on here that trot out their institute papers on the Biden economy have another chance to attack and dispute the facts. Have at it.

OK, I'm not up for the idea of disputing facts. That's an exercise in abject futility, since they are very stubborn things (as President Reagan reminded us so many years ago).

But I'll certainly have a go at disputing consensus narratives that I believe are likely to be wrong!

Yes, there's no question that a large percentage of economists and fund managers believed a year ago that a big slowdown and likely recession was in the cards for 2023. Yet here we are.

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Bidenomics still working. Unless you watch Fox or listen to complaints by Righties on here.

What is "Bidenomics?" Well, a lot of things, I suppose, but perhaps the most obvious feature is that it involves spending an absolute shit-ton of money on various ultra-ambitious and overarching programs and subsidies. In fact, according to recent CBO reports, our annual debt-accmumulation run rate is clocking in at $2+ trillion, or around 8% of GDP. Don't you think the "robust" economic expansion we're enjoying is largely dependent on sustaining or even increasing current levels of deficit spending? And doesn't it concern you that the incremental GDP increases (the actual amount, NOT percentages, of GDP increase we might expect as a reasonable estimate of trend) are considerably less than excess government spending (the amount by which spending levels exceed the threshold beyond which public debt/GDP ratio increases). Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I always thought we were supposed to reduce the deficit and even head toward fiscal budget balance when the economy was humming along at full employment.

Then there's the declining household savings rate. Check this:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=r9v

Notice anything? Last month, the savings rate fell to about 3.7%, or about half the pre-pandemic trend. (Well, retailers did have a pretty good holiday season. Everybody was feeling good!)

And don't ask about rising credit card debt and the growth of delinquencies in the lower three quintiles of the income distribution. Nothing to see there, I'm sure.

I heard that somebody on fintwit posted recently that they could throw one absolute helluva party with a trillion bucks -- and with TWO trillion, one for the ages! So, are we going to see a recession denied, or only delayed? Obviously, no one knows. My point is simply that there are risks -- serious ones -- and it may take a little delicate dancing, with Treasury Janet pulling out all the stops, to get the Joey-Kamala regency safely past the election. (The obvious ultimate goal, of course.)

But not to worry. There's an obvious and effective solution. Just put Professor Stephanie Kelton in the Fed chair with a license to fire up the superchargers as well as all the engines!

That will make everyone feel fantastic!

(At least for a while.)

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

What is "Bidenomics?" Well, a lot of things, I suppose, but perhaps the most obvious feature is that it involves spending an absolute shit-ton of money on various ultra-ambitious and overarching programs and subsidies. In fact, according to recent CBO reports, our annual debt-accmumulation run rate is clocking in at $2+ trillion, or around 8% of GDP. Don't you think the "robust" economic expansion we're enjoying is largely dependent on sustaining or even increasing current levels of deficit spending? And doesn't it concern you that the incremental GDP increases (the actual amount, NOT percentages, of GDP increase we might expect as a reasonable estimate of trend) are considerably less than excess government spending (the amount by which spending levels exceed the threshold beyond which public debt/GDP ratio increases). Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I always thought we were supposed to reduce the deficit and even head toward fiscal budget balance when the economy was humming along at full employment.

Then there's the declining household savings rate. Check this:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=r9v

Notice anything? Last month, the savings rate fell to about 3.7%, or about half the pre-pandemic trend. (Well, retailers did have a pretty good holiday season. Everybody was feeling good!)

And don't ask about rising credit card debt and the growth of delinquencies in the lower three quintiles of the income distribution. Nothing to see there, I'm sure.

I heard that somebody on fintwit posted recently that they could throw one absolute helluva party with a trillion bucks -- and with TWO trillion, one for the ages! So, are we going to see a recession denied, or only delayed? Obviously, no one knows. My point is simply that there are risks -- serious ones -- and it may take a little delicate dancing, with Treasury Janet pulling out all the stops, to get the Joey-Kamala regency safely past the election. (The obvious ultimate goal, of course.)

But not to worry. There's an obvious and effective solution. Just put Professor Stephanie Kelton in the Fed chair with a license to fire up the superchargers as well as all the engines!

That will make everyone feel fantastic!

(At least for a while.)

Heh heh heh. Excellent!

[lustylad]

Hey folks - wouldn't it be peachy if all of us could pound out comments that are as smooth, instructive and fun to read as Tiny and TC?

Eye, you really need to give Larry Kudlow a break. As Tiny noted, he's actually a recovering addict. He did a good job of cleaning up his life. How many former addicts go on to host multiple shows on cable TV and serve in the White House as Director of the National Economic Council?

TC - excellent post, as usual. Except you went a little too far into the weeds with this:

"And doesn't it concern you that the incremental GDP increases (the actual amount, NOT percentages, of GDP increase we might expect as a reasonable estimate of trend) are considerably less than excess government spending (the amount by which spending levels exceed the threshold beyond which public debt/GDP ratio increases)."

I like to keep it simple and just say - "doesn't it concern you that our debt keeps increasing more (or faster) than our GDP"?

"More" means dollar for dollar. "Faster" means percentage-wise, but I get your point.

As to the debt/GDP ratio, it's already bounded way past 100% if you use gross debt. Maybe that's why most economists seem to have switched to tracking net (publicly held) debt instead, so we don't freak everyone out completely. (Or everyone but Professor Stephanie.)

US Nominal GDP 2023: $27.4 trillion
US Gross Debt (12/23): $33.1 trillion
US Net Debt (12/23): $26.5 trillion

Gross debt/GDP: 121%
Net debt/GDP: 97%

[eyecu2]

Originally Posted by Tiny

If you say so.


Kudlow was kicked out of his position as Chief Economist of Bear Stearns in 1994, because of problems with substance abuse that he later overcame. What does that have to do with Bear Stearns closure in 2008? The bankruptcy was 14 years after he left Bear Stearns.



Your point is? You need a PhD in economics from Indiana University to pontificate on malls, REITS and mortgage bonds?

NOPE, The point is the guy was SUPER WRONG- and I blame it on his lack of education- or understanding the current economic conditions. Feel free to pick why he was wrong- but wrong is wrong.

Good for you. I believe LustyLad is a graduate of an Ivy League university, based on what he’s posted. As to my education and work experience, it’s a lot more relevant to the topic you brought up than yours. If you argue with LustyLad about economics or me about energy you’re probably going to get your ass kicked.


Well Tiny- I believe that we can all defend ourselves, but if Lusty needs your assistance- that's fine. Please share your educational credentials and your scientific understanding of Gases under pressure, and the types of compression related issues for midstream applications, and what is done with wet gas, vs. dry gases. Some physics is involved, but nothing really difficult to understand- But somehow you must have missed what happens to centrifugal compressors at high speed when contaminants enter into it. Please share your expertise on that!!

Right, it’s strictly methane. Haha! If the well stream is 100% methane, then where's the "oil" coming from? Are the methane molecules miraculously transforming into crude oil once they enter the wellbore?

What part of filtration did you miss? There is a substantial amount of that at the well head upon the gas being regulated out of the hole. It's not perfect, but better. And yes, if your main product isn't Oil, it's a PITA to get it off the pad, and moved to storage for sale, use or disposal.

From the following, horizontal Marcellus gas production in West Virginia in 2021 was 2060.1 BCF and Marcellus oil & natural gas liquids production was 103.6 million barrels. Using recent prices around $2.20/MCF for the gas and $40 for the oil & liquids, that’s about $4.5 billion worth of natural gas and $4.1 billion worth of oil and liquids. The value of the oil and liquids is close to the value of the natural gas.

https://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/datas...ionSummary.pdf

I believe the Utica is oilier than the Marcellus.

Higher pressures usually include less condensates as a byproduct of pressure increasing. And vice versa. Water can be taken on during depressurization. The Utica does have more oil in it, and is again an issue for production when your true product is methane vs. oil-

That’s largely true. And irrelevant, not just to Larry Kudlow but even as to whether oil is “just a sludge to get rid of.” For your edification, you sound like an oilfield rube when you say “other gases have to be filtered out” and refer to “production water.” Given that this is off topic and given it would take a long time to educate you about natural gas processing, I won’t explain the filtered part. But it’s commonly called “produced water,” not “production water.”

LOL ok Tiny Produced- Keep teaching me sir!

And yeah, liquids can accumulate in gas pipelines as a result of changes in pressure and temperature. But that's a small price to pay for the added value that comes from condensate and natural gas liquids. For the same gas reserves and gas production rates, you'd prefer a 1400 MMBTU/MCF wet gas to a 1000 MMBTU/MCF dry gas with no liquids, hands down, every time. FYI, dry gas with an energy content of 1000 MMBTU/MCF should indeed be close to 100% methane, with negligible natural gas liquids, unless it has nonhydrocarbon impurities like CO2 or nitrogen.

Since all gases have different rates of condensation and evaporation, they can be removed by simply knowing what those temps are. There are many stages of refrigeration on Gas lines, to effect this to occur. If you wanted a scientific discussion on that and even more interesting is the oil production in the Sands area in the upper Northwest. But I'll simply leave this out there. I explained my view of Larry Kudlow as an idiot who only knows that prices on bonds are directly proportionate to yields. He isn't more intelligent than that, and falsely tied all sorts of things to supply side economics that just aren't there. The fact that he doesn't know about supply and demand is a great example of that. He supported tarriffs that had to be subsidized by the prior administration. He further thinks that all those went into the coffers for the benefit of the Trump administration and bragged about it. But he was wrong about that also.


Don't take my word for it- here look at this link:

https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-...mps-trade-deal
Trump signed what he called a "historical trade deal" with China that committed China to purchase $200 billion of additional US exports before December 31, 2021. Today the only undisputed "historical" aspect of that agreement is its failure. One lesson is not to make deals that cannot be fulfilled when unforeseen events inevitably occur—in this case, a pandemic and a recession. Another is not to forget the complementary policies needed to give an agreement a chance to succeed.

In the end, China bought only 58 percent of the US exports it had committed to purchase under the agreement, not even enough to reach its import levels from before the trade war.[1] Put differently, China bought none of the additional $200 billion of exports Trump's deal had promised.


https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/83746#:~:text=Clearly%2C%20the %20Trump%20administration's%20 trade,been%20in%20over%20a%20d ecade.
"Clearly, the Trump administration’s trade policies were not successful. American deficits with China and the rest of the world were higher last year than they had been in over a decade"

So while you may think that Larry Kudlow is a genius, and maybe to you, he is,- I assure you that he has been wrong since he left Bear Stearns. And also the analogy was that Bear Sterns hired incompetent ppl- with a legacy that left the company doomed. Sorry if that needed to be spelled out even MORE directly.


Why don't you tell us about your knowledge and expertise on any of the above commodities, Bonds, and science that is related - or is it simply your opinion on the matter?