Sunday, June 15, 2008

Regarding Economic Forecasts

No one! No one but God Himself can see more than 6 months out on factory or business orders. Simply doesn't happen. As a sales guy with existing customers I can really only see about 30 days with certainty. Sometimes customers will give a quarterly outlook. Beyond that a sales guy has to give his best guess. Generally a pretty good one but a guess none the less for about two quarters out. Beyond, it is a complete crapshoot. So, the guys in the governement (hearts in the right place) say it will be better in 6-9 months. What else can they say? "It will be aweful for the forseeable future"?!? No. That would almost certainly be a self fulfilling prophecy. So, they talk about the next quarter where no one has any idea what will happen in the most positive terms!

alternative energy? do the math


Dear Mr. L (aka Chicken Little)
The oil economy has a long life left in it. It has always been characterized by too little production capacity or two little refining&distribution. As it happens we now have both (as a result of both GREENs causing a crisis by stopping refineries being built and local exloration and production capacity being hampered by the same GREENs and second, no doubt our boneheaded president has helped by pushing the dollar lower and engaging in an unwinnable war). so, we have a bubble. I have now moved my small bet ($40K that was $25k when I bet it on Cummings as a play on highrer oil prices to airline stocks as a play on lower prices).

I agree oil won't last forever. And, we should be bulding nuclear (corn won't do it because it takes a gallon of oil to make a gallon of ethanol; wind won't ever do it --do the math; solar is VERY energy intensive+there is no more toxic industry than semiconductors). Nuclear is our only answer. Asside from COAL which i think is great becaseu we have lot.

Hydrogen, battrery, or hybrid cars simply move the problem from one energy prodcution source to another.


On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:32 AM,
Mr. L wrote:

Drop back from 200? or drop back from 130? The Fareed Zacharia article in Newsweek would argue neither. Now before you tell me not to listen to left wing rag like Newsweek, my right leaning friend, I generally do not. Check out the issue if you can. It has gas pumps on the cover spelling out "Recession". The article is co-written with Dave Gross and a dozen or so other economists, none of whom hold much faith in Paulson's claim that the second half of of the year will make up for the first. Really, at this point, Paulson seems more and more like an administration hack. A buffoon selling bad data for political goodwill.

You are betting the price of oil will retreat in the fall? By $5? Can Tom make money on price aberations? All the pressure is in the other direction as demand has not budged and the majors are pumping at capacity. There are no elephants left as matt damon's character says in the brilliant but underappresiated "Syriana." This is the final push and there is nothing pushing back.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: can't reach you from my work address
Indeed. $200 is not out of the question. But, I do think after the summer we see it drop back quite a bit--I'm betting that way in the market.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Mr L wrote:
Fuck OPEC indeed. Way beyond the powere base Kissinger imagined when he created the petrodollar.
No matter what we do to increase supply, whether asking SA to pump more or drilling at home, we burn 25 million barrels a day and now have some new world competition for what's left. You have to be prepared to ask yourself the tough question,...is $200 the new $60?
----- Original Message -----

Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: can't reach you from my work address
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Mr. L. wrote:
Wow, great rant.

I totally agree, we brought this on ourselves. It is mindless that we haven't built a refinery in 30 years, but in balance it is at least a bit disinguous to deny some complicity by the bigs who, had they desired to build refineries here, were certainly among the most sophisticated and well funded lobbying industries to grace the houses of Congress during that same 30 years, could have made some progress towards that end. If that is what they had wanted, would simple regulations for polution and land use have stopped them? These are the days they hoped would come.

YOU GOT THIS RIGHT. OF COURSE, IF THEY HAD WANTED IT THEY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN IT. BUT, AS A COUNTER, DON'T YOU THINK TEXAS PACIFIC GROUP WOULD LIKE TO BUILD COAL PLANTS BUT WAS STOPPED?

Remember also that American refinery shortage doesn't affect the world price of petroleum. Our world competitors for this dwindling and finite resource are at least mostly responsible right? Either way, the cheap dollar is more responsible than the shortage of American refineries. The only mainstream refinery derivative we are "frac"-tionally short on as a result is diesel, which, do you imagine they really wish they could sell for less?

AGREE. BUT, DIESEL IS A CASE WHERE REGULATION (NEW CLEAN STANDARDS AND CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS DIFFERENT THAN OTHER STATES) HAS FRACTURED OR FRAGMENTED THE SUPPLY CHAIN RESULTING IN LESS SUPPLY OF A GIVEN STANDARD DIESEL.

But yes, old friend, we did this to ourselves. Arrogance really. Even as recently as 4 years ago, Ted Kennedy led the charge to defeat a proposed wind farm off the coast of his Connecticut beach home. We definitely are facing the California style brown outs and worse over the next two decades. Response after crisis is always more expensive, and less well planned. We will make a real mess of that as well. This is not a crisis we can pump our way out of. If we had started drilling ANWAR ten years ago when it was first put on hold, we'd be conserving it by now too.


THE TROUBLE WITH OUR NATURAL RESOURCES IS THAT UNLIKE THE OPEC STATES 20 YEARS AGO OUR GOVT DOESN'T CHARGE DRILLERS AND MINERS BY THE UNIT EXTRACTED. WE SHOULD START THIS FOR ANWAR AND USE THE MONEY TO BUILD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. FUCK OPEC.

It aint spam if it's good stuff. Good stuff.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Weather Channel Founder outting Al Gore.

A key disclaimer for me: I like clean air. I like clean oceans. Less shit from people in both is good. I simply don't buy the win at all costs, end justifies the means approach from the tree huggers.



Weather Channel Founder outting Al Gore. Worth the read.....

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

But why no new refineries? The Greens, of course

From my Labor friend (CAPS MY RESPONSE TO HIM)

I totally agree, we brought this on ourselves. It is mindless that we haven't built a refinery in 30 years, but in balance it is at least a bit disinguous to deny some complicity by the bigs who, had they desired to build refineries here, were certainly among the most sophisticated and well funded lobbying industries to grace the houses of Congress during that same 30 years, could have made some progress towards that end. If that is what they had wanted, would simple regulations for polution and land use have stopped them? These are the days they hoped would come. YOU GOT THIS RIGHT. OF COURSE, IF THEY HAD WANTED IT THEY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN IT. BUT, AS A COUNTER, DON'T YOU THINK TEXAS PACIFIC GROUP WOULD LIKE TO BUILD COAL PLANTS BUT WAS STOPPED? Remember also that American refinery shortage doesn't affect the world price of petroleum. Our world competitors for this dwindling and finite resource are at least mostly responsible right? Either way, the cheap dollar is more responsible than the shortage of American refineries. The only mainstream refinery derivative we are "frac"-tionally short on as a result is diesel, which, do you imagine they really wish they could sell for less? AGREE. BUT, DIESEL IS A CASE WHERE REGULATION (NEW CLEAN STANDARDS AND CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS DIFFERENT THAN OTHER STATES) HAS FRACTURED OR FRAGMENTED THE SUPPLY CHAIN RESULTING IN LESS SUPPLY OF A GIVEN STANDARD DIESEL. But yes, old friend, we did this to ourselves. Arrogance really. Even as recently as 4 years ago, Ted Kennedy led the charge to defeat a proposed wind farm off the coast of his Connecticut beach home. We definitely are facing the California style brown outs and worse over the next two decades. Response after crisis is always more expensive, and less well planned. We will make a real mess of that as well. This is not a crisis we can pump our way out of. If we had started drilling ANWAR ten years ago when it was first put on hold, we'd be conserving it by now too. THE TROUBLE WITH OUR NATURAL RESOURCES IS THAT UNLIKE THE OPEC STATES 20 YEARS AGO OUR GOVT DOESN'T CHARGE DRILLERS AND MINERS BY THE UNIT EXTRACTED. WE SHOULD START THIS FOR ANWAR AND USE THE MONEY TO BUILD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. FUCK OPEC.

I was reading today a poll in the McPaper (USA Today) that says that more people blame US oil producers than OPEC for high oil prices. Wonder why USA Today didn't ask people whether they blame the Greens? The Greens don't hurt anybody. They have worked for this for years, they're gleeful with high energy prices. Makes windmills (16th century technology) more competitive.

More rants on energy policy

Sorry for sounding so bitter but I really am. But, most people are missing some key points:

1) The price of oil is in dollars. The dollar has essentially been devalued by W, Congress, and the Fed. So, the high price of oil in large part reflects the decrease in the value of the dollar.
2) Refinery capacity: We haven't built a new refinery in the US in 30 years!?! Why? The greens won't let us. Just like they won't let us build coal power plants in Texas. Take a look at the electricity demand vs. supply curves lately? Better get ready for California-style brown outs in the next couple of years. Anyway, with respect to the price of gas it would sure take a lot of pressure off the price if we weren't running right at capacity in terms of our ability to refine.
3) Drilling for our own oil in Alaska, off the coast of California, and in the Gulf of Mexico? NO! Well, at least the Gulf of Mexico is being tapped…by the CHINESE! We can't drill there but in Cuban waters not too far from Key West the Chinese are sinking wells.

I'm not a particular fan of George Will. But, he is on target with both of these:

The Gas Prices We Deserve
By George F. WillThursday, June 5, 2008; A19
Rising in the Senate on May 13, Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat, explained: "I rise to discuss rising energy prices." The president was heading to Saudi Arabia to seek an increase in its oil production, and Schumer's gorge was rising.
Saudi Arabia, he said, "holds the key to reducing gasoline prices at home in the short term." Therefore arms sales to that kingdom should be blocked unless it "increases its oil production by one million barrels per day," which would cause the price of gasoline to fall "50 cents a gallon almost immediately."
Can a senator, with so many things on his mind, know so precisely how the price of gasoline would respond to that increase in the oil supply? Schumer does know that if you increase the supply of something, the price of it probably will fall. That is why he and 96 other senators recently voted to increase the supply of oil on the market by stopping the flow of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which protects against major physical interruptions. Seventy-one of the 97 senators who voted to stop filling the reserve also oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. Seventy-two of today's senators -- including Schumer, of course, and 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain -- have voted to keep ANWR's estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market.
So Schumer, according to Schumer, is complicit in taking $10 away from every American who buys 20 gallons of gasoline. "Democracy," said H.L. Mencken, "is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." The common people of New York want Schumer to be their senator, so they should pipe down about gasoline prices, which are a predictable consequence of their political choice.
Also disqualified from complaining are all voters who sent to Washington senators and representatives who have voted to keep ANWR's oil in the ground and who voted to put 85 percent of America's offshore territory off-limits to drilling. The U.S. Minerals Management Service says that restricted area contains perhaps 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- 10 times as much oil and 20 times as much natural gas as Americans use in a year.
Drilling is underway 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are.
ANWR is larger than the combined areas of five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware), and drilling along its coastal plain would be confined to a space one-sixth the size of Washington's Dulles airport. Offshore? Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a large spill. There has not been a significant spill from an offshore U.S. well since 1969. Of the more than 7 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore in the past 25 years, 0.001 percent -- that is one-thousandth of 1 percent -- has been spilled. Louisiana has more than 3,200 rigs offshore -- and a thriving commercial fishing industry.
In his book "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence,' " Robert Bryce says Brazil's energy success has little to do with its much-discussed ethanol production and much to do with its increased oil production, the vast majority of which comes from off Brazil's shore. Investor's Business Daily reports that Brazil, "which recently made a major oil discovery almost in sight of Rio's beaches," has leased most of the world's deep-sea drilling rigs.
In September 2006, two U.S. companies announced that their Jack No. 2 well, in the Gulf 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, had tapped a field with perhaps 15 billion barrels of oil, which would increase America's proven reserves by 50 percent. Just probing four miles below the Gulf's floor costs $100 million. Congress's response to such expenditures is to propose increasing the oil companies' tax burdens.
America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy.
georgewill@washpost.com



Posturing At the Pumps
By George F. WillThursday, May 17, 2007; A17
Democrats, seething at the injustice of gasoline prices, have sprung to the aid of embattled motorists. So resolute are Democrats about defending the downtrodden, they are undeterred by the fact that motorists, not acting like people trodden upon, are driving more than ever. Gasoline consumption has increased2.14 percent during the past year.
That probably is explained by the inconvenient (to the Democrats' narrative) truth that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was characteristically overwrought when she said that Democrats intend to do this and that because the price of gasoline recently " set a record" at $3.07 a gallon. In real (inflation-adjusted) rather than nominal dollars, $3.07 is less than gasoline cost in 1981.
Pelosi vowed, as politicians have been doing since President Richard Nixon set the fashion, to achieve "energy independence." Such vows are, as Soviet grain production quotas used to be, irrational reflexes that no serious person takes seriously. Pelosi baldly asserts that "energy independence is essential to reducing the price at the pump," but she does not say how.
As Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute notes, there is no yearning for national self-sufficiency concerning other essential goods, such as food, automobiles, airplanes or medicines. Are Democrats worried about security of oil supplies? In some ways, Hayward says, America's energy supply is more secure than it was in the 1970s, partly because "since 1975, energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product has fallen 48 percent." Furthermore, "oil represents a shrinking share of total U.S. energy consumption -- from 44 percent in 1970 to 40 percent in 2005." The oil America consumes -- only one-eighth of which comes from the Middle East -- is used almost entirely in transportation. Half of America's electricity is generated by coal, of which the United States has a huge abundance.
America has about 22 billion barrels of "proven" oil reserves, defined as "reasonably certain to be recoverable in future years under existing economic and operating conditions." In addition, there are an estimated 112 billion barrels that could be recovered with existing drilling and production technology. Make that, with existing drilling and production technology and fewer Democrats like Pelosi who, while promising energy independence, are opposed to any drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and much drilling offshore, where 87 billion of the 112 billion barrels are located, as is much of the estimated 656 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas.
Pelosi announced herself "particularly concerned" that the highest price of gasoline recently was in her San Francisco district -- $3.49. So she endorses HR 1252 to protect consumers from "price gouging," defined, not altogether helpfully, by a blizzard of adjectives and adverbs. Gouging occurs when gasoline prices are "unconscionably" excessive, or sellers raise prices "unreasonably" by taking "unfair" advantage of "unusual" market conditions, or when the price charged represents a "gross" disparity from the price of crude oil, or when the amount charged "grossly" exceeds the price at which gasoline is obtainable in the same area. The bill does not explain how a gouger can gouge when his product is obtainable more cheaply nearby. Actually, Pelosi's constituents are being gouged by people like Pelosi -- by government. While oil companies make about 13 cents on a gallon of gasoline, the federal government makes 18.4 cents (the federal tax) and California's various governments make 40.2 cents (the nation's third-highest gasoline tax). Pelosi's San Francisco collects a local sales tax of 8.5 percent -- higher than the state's average for local sales taxes.
Pelosi and others who just know, evidently intuitively, the "fair" price of gasoline must relish what has happened in Merrill, Wis., where Raj Bhandari owns a BP gas station. He became an outlaw when he had what seemed, to everyone but the state's government, a good idea. He gave a discount of 2 cents per gallon to senior citizens and 3 cents for people who support local youth sports programs.
But Wisconsin's Unfair Sales Act requires retailers to sell gasoline for 9.18 percent above the wholesale price. The state's marvelously misnamed Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection has protected consumers from Bhandari's discounts by forcing him to raise his prices. Some customers now think he is price gouging.
Some Wisconsin legislators are considering changing the Unfair Sales Act to allow retailers to discount gasoline to benefit things those legislators think should be benefited. In Madison, Wis., as in Washington, D.C., it is considered eccentric to think that government should butt out, let people buy and sell as they please, and let markets equilibrate.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Bubbles, bubbles EVERYWHERE

What happens when you print too many dollars? You get an asset-price bubble. We got it in the late '90s in stocks. We got it again in houses in the last 7-8 years. We are getting it again in commodities. The BernakeGreenspanBush have opened the spigot even further in the last few months--essentially devaluing the dollar and taxing (punishing) our trading partners by reducing the value of their reserves. What caused the bursting of the housing bubble and the ensuing 'credit crunch' ? It really isn't important. A bubble is going to burst and it is notoriously hard to know the exact timing ahead of time.


More from my email thread with Mr. L:

Very interesting article. Seems that pension funds and university endowment funds are pouring money into commodities and commodities futures (as a protection from the devaluation of the USD). No doubt the Saudi and Venezuelan Sovereign Wealth Funds controlled by the same despots with their hand on the oil spigot are profiting using the futures market as well. Wouldn't it be great to have the market cornered and then make even more money on the futures? Sorry, am I dancing on the grassy knoll again? If only we could get Hillary into office and she would outlaw OPEC. Those nasty guys are breaking our laws, after all.

(Don't blame the bankers, Mr. L. It is about like blaming a pistol for a murder. Blame the Fed. That and call your union pension fund buddies and warn them about what happens in a bubble).

But don't worry too much...No doubt Obama will fix it for them by stealing from the rest of us. One thing is for sure, Paulson isn't jetting all over the world proclaiming the benefits of dollar peg of gulf currencies because he needs the frequent flyer miles. Smacks of desperation...

Oil bubble could prove threat to pension funds
Fri May 30, 2008 2:33pm EDTBy Matthew Robinson - Analysis
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Pension funds and other investors who rushed into oil through commodity indexes this year chasing big returns as other asset classes tanked could face steep losses if prices fall from record highs.An avalanche of cash has rolled into commodities through simple long-only indexes this year, feeding the record-setting oil rally some experts say could be a bubble that is becoming more vulnerable to shifts in supply and demand fundamentals.A sell-off in oil could spell big losses for the pension funds, municipal funds, college funds, unions and other groups that jumped out of equities-market plays and into the indexes, but have little experience or flexibility to deal with fundamental changes in commodities."A lot of the accounts that that have moved into commodities over the last 8-12 months clearly don't belong in this forum," said Peter Beutel, president of Cameron Hanover."It means that when this market turns, these people are going to get hurt, and they are going to get hurt badly, and there will be tons of lawsuits because they have no understanding how quickly commodities markets can turn and leave them in the dust," he explained.While many in the energy sector, such as U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, argue that fundamentals are driving oil's rally, others say investment in commodity indexes has pushed prices beyond what supply and demand may justify, contributing to the 30 percent price rise over $130 per barrel this year."We are seeing the classic ingredients of an asset class bubble," said Edward Morse, chief energy economist for Lehman Brothers. "Financial investors tend to 'herd' and chase past performance, comforted by the growing analytical conclusion that markets are tightening, and new flows, in turn, drive prices higher."Indexes such as the giant S&P GSCI and DJ-AIG offer investors a passive way to own a basket of commodities futures including oil, gasoline, metals and grains.They sell front-month futures and buy second-month contracts, allowing them to make money when oil prices rise across the curve, particularly when front-month prices are higher than second-month prices.Investors, exiting asset classes hit by the global credit crunch, have sought to cash-in on a six-year rally that has sent oil prices up sixfold to $135 a barrel this month as supplies struggled to meet rising demand from such emerging economies as China and India.BUBBLE TROUBLE?Some experts say much of the 30 percent rise in oil prices since the start of this year may owe a lot to the inflow of new money, and that fundamentals may not justify current prices.Demand from big consumer nations like the United States has already faltered, and moves by some Asian countries to cut fuel subsidies could clip usage further. Prices could also fall with a significant rebound in the U.S. dollar, after weakness in the greenback sent speculators into oil."These are institutional investors who have said we have looked at all the things we can invest in and we decided it's commodities," said Sarah Emerson, director of Energy Security Analysis Inc."They are buying and holding and then buying more and holding more, and the physical market doesn't discipline them," she added.Investment under commodities indexes has ballooned from around $70 billion at the start of 2006 to $235 billion in mid-April, about $90 billion of which has come from fresh financial flows with the rest coming from gains in the underlying commodities, according to Lehman Brothers.Analysts said that while speculators such as hedge funds, which can be long or short markets, are frequently blamed for driving up prices, it may actually be pension and college funds investing money for average citizens that are helping cause fuel and food riots around the globe."Professional speculators are seen as the bad guys and pension funds are seen as the good guys, but it's pension funds that are the bad guys," said Olivier Jakob of Petromatrix.(With reporting by Barbara Lewis and Jane Merriman in London; Editing by John Picinich)


Yours truly,John Galt

Who is John Galt

Watching the nomination process and the mess the Fed and the Administration have made of the Dollar makes me think it is an appropriate time to put down some thoughts on the underlying causes of our troubles. The spark to start writing it down comes from an email exchange I have had with one of my best friends...

It is important to understand that my friend is a Liberal. Capital "L", new-speak version of the word. He's a Union guy. Likes to think and philosophize about the Big Picture. Like many Big-L folks he misses (dismisses?) the frequent disconnection between Big Picture soutions he offers and the personal choices that he himself makes. In other words, solving the problem with coercive laws is all fine and good as long he himself personally doesn't have to abide by those laws. My favorite example is taxes: if your tax bill is too low, if you want the government to have more money, send more. The number at the bottom of your 1040EZ is a minimum. Feel free to send more money to Washington. I am SURE they will spend it. But, don't pass a law that compels me to send more money...this is what Hamilton (Madison?) called the tyranny of the majority.

Anyway, the email thread I mentioned: it is about the state of the dollar, mostly. And the poor competitive situation the US holds with respect to China. Here is a taste of the thread...

Mr. L forwards article quoting Buffett:

Buffett sees "long, deep" U.S. recession

BERLIN (Reuters) - The United States is already in a recession and it will be longer as well as deeper than many people expect, U.S. investor Warren Buffett said in an interview published in German magazine Der Spiegel on Saturday.He said the United States was "already in recession" and added: "Perhaps not in the sense that economists would define it" with two consecutive quarters of negative growth."But the people are already feeling the effects," said Buffett, the world's richest man. "It will be deeper and last longer than many think."But he said that won't stop him from investing in selected companies and said he remained interested in well-managed German family-owned companies."If the world were falling apart I'd still invest in companies," he said.Buffett also renewed his criticism of derivatives trading."It's not right that hundreds of thousands of jobs are being eliminated, that entire industrial sectors in the real economy are being wiped out by financial bets even though the sectors are actually in good health."Buffett complained about the lack of effective controls."That's the problem," he said. "You can't steer it, you can't regulate it anymore. You can't get the genie back in the bottle."(Writing by Erik Kirschbaum; editing by James Jukwey)© Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved


My Reply

yeah. i agree on derivatives and companies/sectors being damaged by greedy financial engineers. but, it isn't the fundamental problem. the basic problem is that production and development simply aren't competitive in the US. And, we have ignored this fact and lived beyond our means by running up huge trading deficits (essentially equivalent to running up your credit cards) and printing dollars to pay for it. we now have to pay for real...but there isn't a bill. just a big hole to dig ourselves out of with a lower net worth and a devalued currency. we must do that by innovating, producing and trading. it isn't so much a resession as a new, poorer America. we still have one of the few systems in the world that is based on personal property rights. and, competition that is more open and transparent than anywhere. plus, free flow of capital. the best universities in the world. we have Boeing. Google. Apple. Sports. Movies. Music. Genetics (once we get past the Bush/Stem-Cell issue by getting rid of W). we have the best health care and pharma development in the world (until Obaaama kills the profit motive and rations based on beaucracy and waiting in bread-lines instead of good old fashioned price-based rationing of scarce resources). There is much reason for optimism. We just have to dig in and grit it out.