new fossil fuel sources + overproduction = bankruptcy for greedy developers

❝ For decades, elected leaders and corporate executives have chased a dream of independence from unstable or unfriendly foreign oil producers. Mission accomplished: Oil companies are producing record amounts of crude oil and natural gas in the United States and have become major exporters…With a global glut driving down prices, many are losing money and are staying afloat by selling assets and taking on debt…

❝ In the last four years, roughly 175 oil and gas companies in the United States and Canada with debts totaling about $100 billion have filed for bankruptcy protection. Many borrowed heavily when oil and gas prices were far higher, only to collectively overproduce and undercut their commodity prices. At least six companies have gone bankrupt this year, and Weatherford International, the fourth-leading oil services company, which owes investors $7.7 billion, is expected to file for bankruptcy protection…

❝ One concern is that the industry will be forced to leave oil and gas in the ground as climate change prompts environmental restrictions on drilling or a shift to alternative fuels.

As usual, the fossil fuel barons relied on their political bubbas in the White House and Congress to stand in the doorway to blockade any changeover to cleaner and cheaper energy generation. Climate change deniers from both parties were doing their share. Trump was elected and pledged to continue his own variety of populist ignorance to support backwards as the only true American direction.

A funny thing happened on the way to the bank, though. The rest of the world ignored our crooks and hustlers. As did a number of state governments. Not the majority. Just the states that understand that science and engineering, progressive policies result in cleaner, forward-looking economies.

Doesn’t mean problems are all solved. “Backwards” still includes a lot of federal flunkies calling themselves Democrats and Republicans. Change is only coming in the fullest sense of the word if all the deadwood is cleared out of the way.

Better off than your kids will ever be? A new look at income inequality


The real incomes of about two-thirds of households in 25 advanced economies were flat or fell between 2005 and 2014. Without action, this phenomenon could have corrosive economic and social consequences.

Most people growing up in advanced economies since World War II have been able to assume they will be better off than their parents. For much of the time, that assumption has proved correct: except for a brief hiatus in the 1970s, buoyant global economic and employment growth over the past 70 years saw all households experience rising incomes, both before and after taxes and transfers. As recently as between 1993 and 2005, all but 2 percent of households in 25 advanced economies saw real incomes rise.

Yet this overwhelmingly positive income trend has ended. A new McKinsey Global Institute report, Poorer than their parents? Flat or falling incomes in advanced economies, finds that between 2005 and 2014, real incomes in those same advanced economies were flat or fell for 65 to 70 percent of households, or more than 540 million people. And while government transfers and lower tax rates mitigated some of the impact, up to a quarter of all households still saw disposable income stall or fall in that decade.

These findings provide a new perspective on the growing debate in advanced economies about income inequality, which until now has largely focused on income and wealth gains going disproportionately to top earners. Our analysis details the sharp increase in the proportion of households in income groups that are simply not advancing — a phenomenon affecting people across the income distribution. And the hardest hit are young, less-educated workers, raising the spectre of a generation growing up poorer than their parents.

The important part of the analysis is that, of course, this can be changed. The disturbing part is that in many educated, industrialized Western nations we must rely upon politicians in one or another form of republican society who pay little attention to those who put them into office. They refuse to lead, they cower before the economic power of those who pay for election – and re-election – campaigns and, cowards that most are, refuse to bend to democratic reformation that might end their position as the real welfare kings and queens of society.

Limited for decades by the 2-party farce that passes for choice in many lands – not just the United States – we are brainwashed by 99% of media mouthpieces that this is the best of all possible worlds. Just look at us! We are all better off than we ever were in the history of nations. But, the groundwork is solidly in place. Choice and liberty had better be allowed to become opportunity or the next couple of decades will move populism beyond fear, racism and bigotry.

UPDATE: Here’s an interview with Richard Dobbs, this morning. Not as dynamic as the report, itself; but, you get the flavor in a careful, scholarly way.

Top corporate bosses paid more than firms paid in taxes

Jeff Immelt advising Obama on jobs that pay a lot less than he makes
Daylife/Reuters Pictures used by permission

The 25 highest paid US chief executives earned more last year than their companies paid in federal income tax, a study has said.

The average annual remuneration of the 25 bosses was $16.7 million, the left-leaning think tank Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) found. One chief executive on its list is General Electric’s Jeff Immelt, who the IPS said was paid $15.2 million in 2010 while his firm got a $3.3 billion tax refund…

Its spokesman said the study did not include significant federal income taxes paid in 2010 for previous years…

Other bosses on the IPS list are those of eBay and Boeing…

The IPS said two thirds of the 25 bosses were the heads of companies that utilised offshore subsidiaries in tax havens such as Bermuda, Singapore and Luxembourg.

IPS senior scholar and co-author of the report Chuck Collins said: “I think it’s an exposure of weakness in a company if their profitability is dependent on their accounting department and not on making better widgets.”

The think tank also found many of the firms spent more on lobbying politicians than they did on taxes.

The IPS said Boeing spent $20.8 million on lobbying, while paying only $13 million in federal income taxes.

Anyone surprised?

I know, I know. I mean surprised that there were only 25 in the study getting away with this?