1) Oil Companies got better at producing with lower labor cost. It's called productivity and it's good.
2) Oil companies decided not to rapidly and recklessly expand capacity during every boom, trying to be prudent with investment capital. This is good. If you think they are being too cautious get in the game yourself.
3) Renewables that require subsidies are un-economical welfare. Make work jobs that cost the government money are bad for society.
Neat, that doesn't change what's going to happen with interest rates, job markets (especially for young men), and especially birth rates. Europe's energy prices nearly double from 3 days ago.
"What should we do with interest rates" is a different question then "should we subsidize known bad investments".
If I want to increase birthrates and/or stimulate the economy I can just give tax cuts directly to families. You could just refund payroll taxes based on number of children and reward and/or stimulate directly.
That makes a lot more sense then having the government subsidize an inefficient make-work job in the hopes that maybe it helps a guy get some income that maybe helps birthrates.
Hungary spent a decade and billions on exactly what you're describing — tax cuts, zero-interest loans, housing grants for families. Two years of energy-driven inflation wiped most of it out. Czech Republic went from 1.83 TFR to 1.37.
Central banks have made clear they'll keep rates elevated regardless of the cause. Your family tax cuts are fighting a current that strong.
The article isn't “simply” about propping up old oil companies. It's about why the price shock itself has to be prevented, because almost nothing downstream survives it
Hungary did a really bad job running its family policy, which is full of the kind of "throw money at a bunch of badly targeted subsides" that I don't like about your piece.
But if you think it needs to do more, I support doing more. I'd double what Hungary is doing and make it cash based instead of their hodgepodge of soviet central planning ideas. That's about where you need to get to to solve fertility.
Which do you think would be a better response?
1) Give families cash and they can buy more energy if they want or anything they think is best.
2) Subsidize renewables with that same amount of cash and hope (against logic) that this has a more positive impact then cash.
"It's about why the price shock itself has to be prevented"
I don't want war with Iran.
I'm not going to subsidize wind turbines I know lose money on the off chance we end up in WW3.
Yes, Europes energy policy sucks. Their the ones that love renewables so much they ended up like this.
1) Oil Companies got better at producing with lower labor cost. It's called productivity and it's good.
2) Oil companies decided not to rapidly and recklessly expand capacity during every boom, trying to be prudent with investment capital. This is good. If you think they are being too cautious get in the game yourself.
3) Renewables that require subsidies are un-economical welfare. Make work jobs that cost the government money are bad for society.
Neat, that doesn't change what's going to happen with interest rates, job markets (especially for young men), and especially birth rates. Europe's energy prices nearly double from 3 days ago.
"What should we do with interest rates" is a different question then "should we subsidize known bad investments".
If I want to increase birthrates and/or stimulate the economy I can just give tax cuts directly to families. You could just refund payroll taxes based on number of children and reward and/or stimulate directly.
That makes a lot more sense then having the government subsidize an inefficient make-work job in the hopes that maybe it helps a guy get some income that maybe helps birthrates.
Hungary spent a decade and billions on exactly what you're describing — tax cuts, zero-interest loans, housing grants for families. Two years of energy-driven inflation wiped most of it out. Czech Republic went from 1.83 TFR to 1.37.
Central banks have made clear they'll keep rates elevated regardless of the cause. Your family tax cuts are fighting a current that strong.
The article isn't “simply” about propping up old oil companies. It's about why the price shock itself has to be prevented, because almost nothing downstream survives it
Hungary did a really bad job running its family policy, which is full of the kind of "throw money at a bunch of badly targeted subsides" that I don't like about your piece.
But if you think it needs to do more, I support doing more. I'd double what Hungary is doing and make it cash based instead of their hodgepodge of soviet central planning ideas. That's about where you need to get to to solve fertility.
Which do you think would be a better response?
1) Give families cash and they can buy more energy if they want or anything they think is best.
2) Subsidize renewables with that same amount of cash and hope (against logic) that this has a more positive impact then cash.
"It's about why the price shock itself has to be prevented"
I don't want war with Iran.
I'm not going to subsidize wind turbines I know lose money on the off chance we end up in WW3.
Yes, Europes energy policy sucks. Their the ones that love renewables so much they ended up like this.