This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ten Minutes With Italy's Mario Monti
Italy's Prime Minister (and self appointed economy minister) shot over to CNBC after his meeting with President Obama this afternoon to discuss how well everything looks for Italy since he was elected took over.
Notable Comments:
- Italian banks are "vulnerable" but have recapitalized themselves (rather, the ECB has given them money)
- He had a good meeting with Obama, and Obama is supportive (he's careful to mention not financially supportive - perhaps forgetting how much the Federal Reserve bails out Euro banks)
- A plan has been in place since January 1st to balance the budget by 2013 (Obama apparently didn't pay attention to this little tidbit)
- Political cost is not a relevant matter... for the unelected government - the people will be happy to know it doesn't matter one bit what they want, the former Goldman Advisor knows what's best for them
- He plans to transfer tax burdens to indvidual property owners and not burden corporations (should help the middle class)
- S&P decision to downgrade Italian banks was due to previous leadership's decisions (he learned a little from President Obama)
?
FTW: "If somebody considers investing in Italy now, thy should not be too worried about what comes next"
A few visuals on why nobody should worry:
»
- advertisements -
I'm paraphrasing, but my favorite part was when Monti twice said something to the effect of:
"We have a firewall in place for Italy, but there is no fire, so people should be confident."
Huh?
I wouldn't give 3-Card Monti 10 Nano-seconds. Italians are fucked!
The fact that this dbag is appearing on CNBC at the NYSE disturbs me. Niether CNBC nor the NYSE are the proper venue for a real leader. Everyone on that channel is a professional liar, running a ponzi scheme, a sociopath, or a combination of the three.
In other words, a fitting venue for Monti.
who cares what Soros says.
The fucking Rothschilds puppet.
Fuck you Monti,and all you banker friends. too.
Did you guys see his face tick when he said, "Support does not mean financial resources because, ah, [tick] we don't need them...." He closed his eyes heavily and looked very uncertain about what he had just said.
:57 mark....
"Import & Exports each ~ 12%"
Is that percent of GDP, or Y/Y growth?
[Thx, and sorry. I shouldn't be this stupid this late in the day.]
For the USD and EUR to go away is exactly the plan. I personally believe 2013-2015 to be the target date for absolute collapse.
All of the pIigs have a very high import energy dependency and dependence on tourism or discretionary spending from the core.
Privatisation of utilties and "liberal" labour laws will transfer the last of the meat to the vultures but will not create any wealth.
The man is not a Prime minister - he is a Hit Man.
www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/ITTPESPI.pdf
Growth is a question of energy - politics is all about who gets to use those energy credits.
The total energy selfficiency of the Italian economy is very low at .15 to .16 which means when energy prices rise its money supply becomes externalised to pay for essentials and its discretionary spending collapses.
If they spent real money rather then credit to reduce this then the profitability of the parasitical sector would collapse - therefore they will continue to run down the Italian economy rather then develop it.
Nothing complicated in this farce really - the Italian economy boomed during the 60s because of cheap oil - it will be destroyed now.
Its fate was sealed in the 80s when they gave up on real investment.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montalto_di_Castro_Nuclear_Power_Station
compare with france...IEA Statistics
http://www.iea.org/stats/graphresults.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=FR
Look at the energy balance figures….. other then Hydro in places such as Norway renewables add very very little energy - they are sucking resourses from new Nuclear Build with very little to show for it.
The value of Nuclear is hidden - it frees up natural gas for its true calling - direct combustion.
Its all about reducing the opportunity costs by burning fuel for its optimum purpose.
Denmark has a large wind industry with the highest cost for the finished product in Europe - electricity is 30cent per kilowat hour !!!…, Germany is number 2 at 27cent per kilowat hour because of its renewable dreams.
Check out the tiny contribution of wind energy to Denmark’s energy balance……. and Denmark has the Largest "wind Industry" in Europe
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DKTPES.pdf
Before France privatised EDF it poured a massive amount of money into Nuclear but got real results.
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRTPES.pdf
Notice the Nuclear peak in 2004 - the Year EDF became a limited liability corporation - coincidence ?
You can see this more clearly in the electricity graphs.
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DKELEC.pdf
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRELEC.pdf
We are simply looking at a massive systematic failure of Europe’s Energy / Industrial policey.
Although I don’t believe it has had a rational Industrial policey since at least 1987.
There has been a dramatic decline in Euro Nuclear because of European offical energy policey which involves the breaking up & privatisation of natural utilties.
Nuclear introduces massive energy gluts into the marketplace- these now privatised utilties cannot make any money from energy gluts as the wealth is socialised withen the system.
Energy utilties can only make "profits" from shortages - hence the lack of investment in nuclear.
But profits in a natural utility is a contradiction in terms..........its not profit , its rent.
Ps check out the massive rise in German electricity prices (until recently it had some of the cheapest prices) - this means Germans have less money to go spending on lets say a Holiday in Italy or Greece.
www.energy.eu
Closing Nuclear plants kills more people I am afraid - through the mechanism of poverty.
Check out IEA German domestic energy production graphs - its about to fall off a second cliff (first cliff was Eastern German shutdown programmes in the early 90s) - they will have to sourse more of their energy from outside and Poland is no longer exporting as much coal as it once was..........
Somebody is going to pay...................................
Total German energy self sufficiency
Y1980 : .5197
Y1990 : .5298
Y2000 : .4012
Y2009e : .4023
Total German TPES
Y1980 : 357.2
Y1990 : 351.4
Y2000 : 337.3
Y2009e : 318.8
TPES / Population (toe per capita)
Y1980 : 4.56
Y1990 : 4.42
Y2000 : 4.10
Y2009e : 3.88
So much for those solar panels at 51 latitude………..
Imagine a Europe where Poland did not export any net Coal………..well we are getting quite close.
Poland total energy self sufficiency
Y1980 :1.0002
Y1990 :1.0074
Y2000 : 0.8930
Y2009e :0.7136
Coal self sufficiency
Y1980 : 1.2058
Y1990 : 1.2549
Y2000 : 1.2664
Y2009e :1.0976
Notice the big drop after 2000 as Poland slowed the transfer of real resourses abroad…….and burned them at home.
You can see the raw energy total TPES figures which give a countrywide overview of total consumption over these years.
Y1980 :126.6 (Peak) - strikes ?
Y1990 :103.9
Y2000 :79.6
Y2009e :93.6 (more home consumption / investment ?)
Here's my answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q5p283KZGa8
Very inspiring indeed...
Do you have any thoughts on Thorium reactors?
Seems like a good idea to me. But i'm not knowledgable on the subject.
Maybe it's time has come.
Don't know much about thorium but there is not much wrong with todays PWRs - its the dynamics of mass production in this monetory structure.
I say again - PRIVATE UTILTIES CANNOT MAKE ANY PROFITS FROM NEW NUCLEAR BUILD - but that does not mean no wealth is created.
No private company can make money from a energy glut as the wealth is socialised.
The same dynamics operated in early 20th century America - many oil wells went bust because there was no demand.
The energy in normal fission reactions far outperforms chemical reactions - the monetory system will have to change , not the technology.
Dork, whereas I share the view that basic utilities if they are regulated by independent authority for corruption/inneficiency should stay in public domain (Not just nuclear-elec but water, now waste collect/treat etc.) I do believe that nuclear, being what it is, brings one major drawback : located far from consumption for security reasons, the large nuclear units require long transmission lines and incur high energy losses. Consider this : the overall primary energy conversion in a large, remote nuclear plant is arounf 22%, if we take into account that heat recovery for cogeneration is not there either and transmission losses are high.
I am of the feeling that future power plants will have to be smaller more flexible and involve cogeneration and some combined cycle fed on biofuel gas (waste generated), NEAR consumer centers of 50000-100000 size. This is optimal to build heat recovery loops. In such a configuration, which eliminates nuclear for these smaller units (unless thorium types, not PWR/EPR), the overall energy conversion is 60!! So if we go to this type of configuration energy yield is very important, on mixed fuel feedstocks.
BTW : mark my word, the next generation of wind and solar will reach grid parity pricing (13-15 cents/kwh) in the next five years. Thin film solar and improved wind will get us there. We are still high on experience curve.
In my opinion the future key is to have a mix of power units of smaller size, more flexible for local, with integrated heat recovery, using waste generated town gases + solar+ wind. 60% conversion, 13c/kwh price.
I don't buy it - French Nuclear reactors are located no further away then the average large coal plant.
Poland has a cheap coal based energy system and yet you pay more for electricity in Poland then in France despite the lower wage /operator costs.
The IEA uses a thermal efficiencey of 33% as a average for its Nuclear TPES calculations while giving the full calorific content of Coal ,gas etc.
The transformation losses are no worse then a old coal plant while transmission losses are small over those short distances - indeed transmission losses are much higher for lets say Irish Wind turbines as they are usually located up a remote hill far from population centres.
Ireland has "invested" in the most advanced CCGT engines for its base load and we have now have much higher costs then France.
We waste 2 thirds of our gas consumption on electricity production when it should be used for direct combustion in heating , cooking , transport.
The numbers don't lie - In many cases modern nuclear is cheaper then coal - however it needs very high upfront capital costs and therefore a stable monetory envoirment as it takes 10 or more years before it pulls away from the crowd.
Remember “too cheap to meter”?
That having been said, the argument for properly designed and located (not in a flood, tsunami zone or on top of an earthquake fault ) nukes is compelling and I am for them.
District co-gen is a good thing as well if nuke power is not convenient,
Bird eating wind turbines and solar farms where geographically and financially appropriate, Small scale solar anywhere.
“We waste 2 thirds of our gas consumption on electricity production when it should be used for direct combustion in heating , cooking , transport.”
I agree, with an emphasis on transport and a migration out of direct (permanent) heating to electric and passive/solar/geo alternatives as appropriate.
I think we are crazy not to be pushing more CNG now.
My 2c.
all good points. Its a critical strategic field and will condition everything in the next twenty years, as cheap oil, which fueled last century is over.
But something tells me we are looking at a paradigm change window which will evolve very fast with tech progress in next few years. Watch solar, once storage will be addressed but its still early days...
Dork & falak, nice thread.. good perspectives..
Not that I give a rat's ass, but the idiot troll that would ding a comment like this gets to suffer his own punishment..
he has to look in a mirror from time to time.
Mario Monti really perked up when Maria Bartiromo said she wanted to 'drill down' on him ...
Fun to see these two Italians together, obviously sympatico ... she's come a long way from being the coat check girl at her parents' Italian restaurant.
are you suggesting that in this sympatico exchange the "drilling down" had a quid pro quo inuendo? That would be very Roman Holiday!
It's not what you know, it's who you blow.
As Soros said : If I had more money I would buy Italian bonds; either Capitalism tanks or Italy thrives!
Now the question is will capitalism tank?...
Super Mario will print away, and Italian trade balance should improve if Monti has his way. Eurozone will be awash with liquidity, but will it trickle down to small corporates who make the economy turn???
Very big question...as the real economy in Euro zone is ZERO growth in 2012/2013...that's the bitch.
More budget pain more illiquidity in real economy more fiat pump to bubble the ponzi banksta economy; If they do the great splits its goodbye Euro and USD in the next two years...after the elections and after USD debt hits : 120% GDP, like Italy today!!