patrick.net

PCGyver says

Why is it every thread turns into climate change?

Because the term global warming doesn't cover the snow, the fires, the storms, the droughts, and the wet bulb death of millions!

Dan8267 says

So if I break the windows in everyone's houses, the GDP goes up?

In this case I don't see why the GDP wouldn't go up. People had paid into the insurance premiums. Insurance companies held onto the money. And now they're paying it back in a way. So I don't see a negative there. Yes homes and material were lost, but the purchase of new materials and costs of labor put much more money back into the system then if there wasn't a hurricane/fire. If there were no disasters these insurance companies would just be sitting on piles of cash. As the money grows and grows, who do you think most of that money will go to? Those at the top. Now the money gets to go to carpenters, plumbers, roofer, electricians, etc who in turn buy things with this money, instead of it sitting with State Farm.
Dan8267 says

Replacing destroyed goods does not increase the wealth of a society. It does not even maintain the wealth of the society because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No, breaking a window and replacing it, burning a house and building a new one, getting cancer and curing it results in a net loss of wealth to society.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the burnt down material in the house is gone and cannot be replaced? Therefore it's a net loss? I guess I kind of get that if that's what you're saying. I mean we can grow more trees for the lumber, but probably not at a quick enough pace to keep up with the demand for lumber. So I suppose all those destroyed homes would be a negative in the regard to putting us further behind the replacement curve for trees. Or say plastics in the house that are destroyed, now have to be made again using products that are finite, oil. If that's what you're saying then I would tend to agree, but....

Every single day, everything is becoming more finite regardless of a hurricane or fire. Do these events speed the depletion of those resources, sure. The ultimate end game is death for most everybody (long time away) as these resources are depleted. The options to extend this deadline is population controls or find more resources elsewhere. There are likely other options, but these are the most impactful and likely in my opinion.

The first is probably the easiest and quickest solution to slow down the process, put limits on # of children. At least in the US, this won't happen in our lifetimes. Yet it's the single easiest way, if carbon is likely the cause of climate problems, to make life last longer on earth. I wouldn't do this or agree with this because the end game is still the same. The last dozen or so centuries before life is no longer sustainable on earth are likely not worth living in anyway. So moving the goalpost isn't all that great of a solution except for a select few, who would likely be the powerful anyway.

The second is the only true way to keep human life on earth surviving on a much longer timeline. I believe way more resources need to be put into the discovery and exploration of other planets and the potential resources that may exist on and within them. We as humans can survive temperature changes (not all will, many would die), but we can't survive without certain resources for very long or at least sustaining the current amount of people let alone as we add more people every day.

While the discussion and science around climate change is real, I've always held a pessimistic view of it. What's the point? If we don't control population or find resources elsewhere, the end game is all the same. It's very likely that much of the resources sunk into climate change are putting us on a faster path towards our demise. As we reduce our per capita output of carbon, we increase the population so it essentially stays at the same level due to population increases.

Electric cars, solar, nuclear, wind power, etc these are all awesome. I support them in the long run. But when we run out of fresh and clean water for the population, it doesn't matter. When the oil is gone, something will replace it. But it will likely be another finite resource. The game can only last so long as the population increases or we don't find additional resources to sustain.

Back to the hurricanes and fires. They really don't matter in the big picture in my opinion. They're just one pixel on a 4k screen. They're mathematically insignificant. This is a made up number, but as long as 10,000 people are being born every day and only 7,500 are dying, we going to run into a wall at some point. A couple hurricanes or fires in 2017 have no bearing on that, except that they reduce the population in bad disasters.

Dan8267 says

It's not magic. It's arithmetic.

And that's what I'm saying above. The math isn't looking good and it has nothing to do with climate change in my opinion. While I'm here, I might as well celebrate a quarter in which people will have more money in their pockets. Unfortunately it's due to a natural disaster that is difficult to definitively peg to climate change. Especially hurricanes and fires. Actually the fires are almost certainly directly tied to population increases and the search for usable land for residential homes that are in technically riskier areas. If there were subdivision there 100 years ago, they likely would have burned at one point too.

Illegal alien started the fire:
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/10/17/ice-detainer-issued-for-suspected-wine-country-arsonist-in-sonoma-jail/

The U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) issued a detainer request on the Sonoma County Jail for Jesus Fabian Gonzalez, who was arrested Sunday on suspicion of arson in Wine Country fires that have killed at least 40 residents.

ICE Director: Suspected Wine Country Arsonist Is Illegal Alien Mexican National

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/10/19/wine-country-ice-director-illegal-alien-charged-with-felony-sonoma-fire-twice-returned-to-mexico-sanctuary-state/
In other words, this fire is all Obama's fault!!!

Dan8267 says

Replacing destroyed goods does not increase the wealth of a society. It does not even maintain the wealth of the society because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. No, breaking a window and replacing it, burning a house and building a new one, getting cancer and curing it results in a net loss of wealth to society.

If such things actually increased wealth as Keynesians believe, then ANTIFA would be heroes. Just let those thugs burn down entire cities and the good times will roll. Why does common sense never get applied to economics. It's not magic. It's arithmetic.

It's no that simple in real life. Clearly breaking something in isolation doesn't increase wealth. But, in certain situations, where people are hoarding money causing an unvirtuous cycle of factories closing leading to less demand leading to more factories closing, etc--an event which forces people to spend their hoarded wealth can be an overall gain to the economy and country. The increased activity associated with higher velocity of money can be a huge gain where people are working again. An economy and a country with lower unemployment is stronger.

And that's what most people don't understand about Keynes. He didn't propose a one solution fits all panacea. He advocated a REDUCTION in spending during the good times. Politicians never do this, of course, but it's certainly not Keynes' fault.

Take the bankruptcy path and give California exactly what it's asking for, poorer service and higher prices.

Don't worry, Governor Newsom will 'nationalize' PG&E so the State can ration energy to its residents to fight climate change.

Here's what the bleeding heart liberals in California deserve. The state should come in and take over PG&E and use taxpayer dollars to run it. Then they should go in and take over all the gas stations, (they might as well since taxes make up the bulk of the price/gal) Then the grocery/liquor stores etc etc. Once they control all that, they'll have to offer free healthcare and college to stem the masses from fleeing the state. California will be an experiment of what it's like to live in a place where everything is owned and operated by the state (aka socialism) Isn't that exactly what the liberals living there want?

Obligatory reference to the other similar thread:
/post/1320215/2018-11-13-did-poor-forest-management-or-pg-e-cause-paradise-fire

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pg-e-bailout-hopes-crushed-163848465.html

PG&E Bailout Hopes Are Crushed With California Showing Little Interest

Now that PG&E Corp. has said it plans to file for bankruptcy, analysts are seeing little chance that California lawmakers will step in anytime soon with a bailout for the beleaguered power provider.

California’s largest utility, which faces potential liabilities of $30 billion or more from deadly wildfires, said it will file under Chapter 11 of the U.S. bankruptcy code by Jan. 29, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing Monday. Governor Gavin Newsom issued a statement signaling he’s willing to let PG&E proceed, saying that at the same time “the company should continue to honor promises made to energy suppliers and to our community.”

A bankruptcy reorganization would, in fact, allow PG&E to operate and keep the lights on. What’s more, it “diversifies the responsibility for what plays out,” said Kit Konolige, a senior analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence. He said he didn’t believe there was much enthusiasm in Sacramento for an immediate rescue plan. “What politician is going to step up and say ‘I want to save PG&E?’ ’’

There are some, including Democratic Assemblyman Chris Holden, who in a statement called a bankruptcy “deeply concerning for the state.”

The pressure is unlikely to be off politicians to eventually act. Newsom covered that ground in his statement: “I will be working with the legislature and all stakeholders on a solution that ensures consumers have access to safe, affordable and reliable service, fire victims are treated fairly, and California can continue to make progress toward our climate goals.”

PG&E employs 20,000 and provides power to more than 15 million people. Its liabilities could grow from wildfires in 2017 and 2018; the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has blamed 17 of the 2017 blazes in part on company power lines and other equipment.

Its stock has tanked, and it has little left in the bank -- $1.5 billion in cash and cash equivalents as of Friday. PG&E has said it doesn’t intend to make an interest payment of about $21.6 million due Tuesday on 5.4 percent senior notes due in 2040.

“There isn’t a lot of time left. You’re talking six months until you actually get into a liquidity crunch,” said Guggenheim analyst Shahriar Pourreza.

Even if they wanted to, Newsom and legislators might simply be unable to do anything in time.

“The high degree of controversy and public outcry stemming from wildfire damages and perceived blame assigned to PG&E likely creates headwinds in the legislative process,” the research firm ClearView Energy Partners LLC said in a report Monday. “The 15-day notice offers a very short runway for lawmakers to act.”

PG&E on Sunday started searching for a new chief executive officer after Geisha Williams, 57, quit; General counsel John Simon will take the helm in the meantime.

Williams’s departure came after a catastrophic period for PG&E. Bonds that traded above face value about months ago now fetch around 85 cents on the dollar. The stock fell as much as 50 percent to $8.77 a share as of 11:10 a.m. in New York, its biggest intraday drop ever. Shares are down 82 percent since the Camp fire broke out Nov. 8.

PG&E Corporation (PCG) $9.11/sh -8.48 (-48.20%)

PG&E Corporation (PCG) $6.59/sh -1.79 (-21.36%)

PG&E Stock Is Going to Zero, Hedge Fund Says

Shares of bankrupt California utility PG&E (PCG) have been going up, but this investor says it’s based on false hope.

George Schultze, founder of distressed investor Schultze Asset Management, which has about $200 million under management, says he has already profited from shorting the shares of the utility that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Tuesday.

That would make sense: PG&E’s shares are down 40% this year, and have dropped nearly 70% since the wildfires began. And shareholders get paid back last in bankruptcy, behind bondholders, lawyers, and in this case, wildfire victims. But PG&E’s stock surged after the filing, based on what Schultze says is a misguided bet on a bailout. (The shares down 4% on Thursday.)

“99.75% of the time, shareholders get nothing when a company goes bankrupt,” Schultze tells Barron’s at the Context Summits Miami conference. “But there’s false hope that won’t be the case this time. A key part of that speculation is you have to assume the California legislature and California Public Utility Commission will bail you out. And here there is such aversion to that kind of deal.”

The destruction wrought by the recent Camp Fire is too great, and too political -- 86 people died, thousands of acres scorched, thousands of structures destroyed. “So, politically it’s much more challenging than most cases to grant any recovery at all to shareholders,” he says.

Of the stock, “our thesis is that it’ll go to zero,” he says.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/why-a-short-selling-hedge-fund-says-pg-e-stock-is-going-to-zero-51548962268?mod=hp_DAY_4