Maggie's Farm

The shale oil issue is an intriguing one. Consider this.
In 1978, I got my license to drive and I was paying the ungodly sum of .65 per gallon of gas. We were outraged, at the time, at this ridiculously high price. When it hit .70 by the end of that year, more than a few people were bent out of shape.

Today, we are ecstatic at $2.69 per gallon here in NJ. It's lower elsewhere. However, $2.69 is, in inflation terms, the same as .65 in 1978.

I've mentioned before that shale oil isn't the 'cause' of lower oil prices, in fact at current levels shale is not profitable. We'll likely see the shale oil revolution slow considerably.
That's not a bad thing. This means other, more marginal, fields will remain to be tapped when prices rise again.

It's also worth noting that our 'enjoyment' of .65 (in real terms) gas compared to our 'outrage' in 1978, to show the real impact of economic conditions over the last 40 years. The price of oil isn't inflated because of lack of resources (as peak oil people claim), but because of Central Bank policies.

It is this price signal manipulation that is causing misallocation of resources (say, in shale oil while prices are declining, though I'm being facetious with that comment) in many industries across our economy and the world.

Ultimately, we're not going to 'run out' of energy, even if we 'run out' of oil. Because prices are a relative thing. The fact we consider our current prices 'low', when we considered them 'high' 40 years ago shows how people adapt.
If we run out of oil, and prices go up, we will adapt to other energy resources which are available at higher prices - and the economy will experience an adjustment period and then resume its growth.

In the meantime, enjoy the low prices. Continue to conserve (because we all like cheap and easy energy like oil), but there's no reason to get crazy about running out of energy anytime soon. Barring a political disruption (like Obama shutting down new drilling and pipelines).

So what?
Minimum wage is an artifact, and part of the driver for higher prices is the minimum wage.

If you don't believe that (and it's possible you don't), then it's a driver for the higher levels of unemployed workers in the US.

It has to be one, or the other. Or it could be both, to some degree.

You can't legislate a wage. If that worked the way its supporters say it does, then why not just legislate the minimum wage to be $150,000 a year, call it a day - we'd all be 'rich'.

People also forget there are precious few families 'living' on minimum wage. It is primarily second-income earners, or people who are living in multiple-person households.

The increased minimum wage from 1978 to today has increased teen unemployment to record levels.

Here's another fact worth considering about prices today. A 1978 Chevy Camaro Z-28, fully loaded (classic teen dream car) was $6,500. Today, a basic Camaro goes for about $27,000. That's about $5,900 in 1978 prices. But TODAY'S basic Camaro has more bells and whistles than the 1978 fully loaded Z-28. If you compared the 1978 version to today's basic version, you'd much rather be driving today's. And it's 'cheaper' in real terms.

The fully loaded Z-28 today is very expensive, even after inflation is factored in. I think it's $42,000. But again, you're getting a lot more with it.

Generally speaking, the 'stuff' people on minimum wage buy is not a Z-28. Still, most products that they buy today ARE better and offer more, at lower prices in real terms.

Minimum wage goes much, much further today than it did in 1978. As a friend of mine recently noted, the generic soup we used to buy in 1985, when we couldn't afford to buy much of anything, was $.25. Today's same generic soup (which is healthier, by the way, if you review the nutrient info) is still $.25.
My old standard bachelor dish, Mac n Cheese, is also sold at roughly the same price as I paid in 1985.

I think that is far more meaningful.

Your version of "forward", of course, is very different from many other's. Many believe Obama's and your "forward" is "backward."

I'm in the middle. I think his version of "forward" is a cynical vote-getting ploy that will impoverish more people than it helps. While I support immigration reform, his version is fraught with problems and no solutions, except to add 5mm potential Democrats.

So by blocking it, and I'm no fan of Republicans, Republicans may have done all of us a favor.

Given the broad disapproval of his direction, the concept of "tyranny of the majority" was protected by the need for a supermajority.

Obama has had plenty of opportunities and methods to employ to push his wishes through. He used backdoor methods to get the ACA, and could've utilized them with immigration, as well - but again, there is broad disapproval. So he knew that he was able to do what he did, appear to be 'magnanimous' to the people he needed to be seen that way by, but still not have to deal with the repercussions.

He is a crafty politician. But the filth piles high with all politicians, particularly him.

Stalemate like that is good for the US - it has helped alleviate the damage Obama and Bush inflicted on us with deficits.

While shutting down the government may have been 'blamed' for the downgrade, the downgrade was a long time coming and everyone in the bond markets knew that. It was the straw that broke the camel's back - but the damage had been done long before the shutdown.

Zach is a classic troll.