2025年4月4日 - 与吉姆·普拉瓦瓦（Jim Puplava）和能量大师马克·米尔斯（Mark Mills）搭扣国家能源分析中心当他们打开美国的AI繁荣和关税混乱时！米尔斯放弃了一个重磅炸弹：一个AI数据中心会忙着每天的能源每日能量，以为埃隆的星际飞船正在爆炸。随着特朗普推动将工厂带回家，网格的吱吱作响以及我们迫切需要的中国ho积矿物。除非减税和放松管制，否则关税可能会引发70年代风格的停滞噩梦。促进增长是否可以避免经济摊位，还是我们要下降？调整这一批判性讨论 - 您的业务策略可能取决于它。
网站：国家能源分析中心
图书：Amazon.com：Mark P. Mills：书籍，传记，最新更新
x：马克·P·米尔斯（@markpmills） / x
LinkedIn：马克P米尔斯|LinkedIn
在今天的节目中讨论的要点：
AI的能量饥饿：中型的AI数据中心每天消耗的能量与月球火箭发射一样多，技术巨头一年来超过了阿波罗计划长达十年的成本。
关税驱动的重新设备：特朗普政府推动将制造业带回美国的努力提高了电力和矿产需求，并累积了基础设施。
中国的矿产优势：中国控制着关键矿物质的全球50％至90％，矮小欧佩克的石油份额和对美国行业的供应链风险构成供应链风险。
滞留风险：米尔斯警告说，关税可能会导致吉米·卡特时代的停滞价格上涨，除非与减税和放松管制配对，否则没有增长。
电力激增：重新升级和AI增长正在推动几十年来看不见的公用事业需求，而数据中心的每美元投资功率比电动汽车多10倍。
监管障碍：由于允许延误，新的矿山需要10 - 16年的时间才能建造，从而阻碍了国内矿产对制造业至关重要。
政策修复需要：米尔斯倡导里根风格的减税和放松管制，并与关税相同引发繁荣而不是破产，敦促国会采取行动。
全球依赖危险：过度依赖外国矿物质和停滞的国内生产可能会使美国易受伤害，类似于欧洲去工业化。
私营部门领导：AI和云增长是由私营部门驱动的，但成功取决于政府实现能源和资源可用性。
经济利益：没有促成增长的改革，米尔斯预测，与中国战略上升形成对比的是无关紧要的缓慢滑动。
成绩单
在这里，用标点符号，拼写和语法错误固定了校正的成绩单，使其尽可能接近原始词，并删除了大多数破折号。扬声器标签在每个部分之前都进行粗体。我保留了一些破折号，以增强自然语音流，但大大降低了它们。
吉姆·普拉瓦瓦（Jim Puplava）：
好吧，关税是当今新闻中的第一个问题，但还有另一个主导市场的问题，这是云增长的AI。让我们谈谈这要做的事情，以及重新培养矿物质的需求。马克·米尔斯（Mark Mills）加入我们的计划。他是国家能源分析中心的执行董事兼创始人。他是德克萨斯公共政策研究所的杰出高级研究员，也是西北大学麦考密克工程学院的教职员工。马克，您本周周二在国会山上谈论美国的AI Moonshot。根据我们现在尝试使用AI做的事情，为我们的月球听众绘制了类比。
马克·米尔斯：
该委员会主席渴望，我分享了他渴望对发生的情况阐明，还有其他一些委员会。月球类似物在广义上是可以的。我们对此充满热情。我认为，这抓住了每个人都认为这是AI中发生的事情的感觉。它不仅是技术意义上的，而且在大国竞争意义上。月球就像是一场大国比赛：谁会在技术比赛中首先进入月球。这是非常类似的。正如我所指出的那样，它也很像月光。大多数人开始感觉这是一种非常耗能的技术。我以这种方式将其上述，我认为任何人都这样做了这样的计算。中型的中型AI数据中心是沃尔玛建筑物中装满计算机芯片的大小，因此这是一栋相当大的建筑物。它每天使用的自然能量与向月球发射火箭所需的能量相同。
吉姆·普拉瓦瓦（Jim Puplava）：
哇。
马克·米尔斯：
因此，每天，每天，一个数据中心每天都在使用月光的能量。实际上，埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）在星际飞船（Starship）的SpaceX建造的新月火箭是天然气驱动的。这是一艘液化天然气燃料的火箭船。大多数数据中心将是液化天然气的，天然气供应。因此，月球和能量之间的对应比大多数人意识到。正如我在证词中指出的那样，类比崩溃的地方是AI与Moonshot所做的事情。与AI的成本相比，Apollo计划的Moonshot技术正在变化。目前，数据中心行业（大型科技公司）今年将在数据中心花费的花费比阿波罗计划成本的整个十年要多，以实现通货膨胀调整后的金钱感。月球的目的是刺激某种形式的空间行业，这是我们在卫星上的通信。但这是月球本身：将12个人放在月球上，就是这样。我们试图做的是让AI进入每个人的业务，每个人的口袋，每个人的办公室。这是一个非常明显的目标。它具有国家安全的影响，具有竞争力。但是从目标的角度来看，政府并不是要使我们上月球，使AI工作。我们有私营企业。这是一个重要的区别：将AI分发给每个人，而不仅仅是为12个人。类比很有趣，但是当您以实际的实施术语考虑时，它开始崩溃。
吉姆·普拉瓦瓦（Jim Puplava）：
好吧，我认为人们不理解的是运行这些中心所需的大量电力。如果您将其扔给特朗普政府将行业带回来的努力之外，马克，我想到了我在凤凰城长大的地方。他们有台湾半导体植物，他们有一个苹果植物和英特尔工厂。这将需要大量的电力和能量来为此提供动力。然后，您将AI扔在此之上。突然之间，我们看到了两到三十年中没有看到的公用事业的增长率。
马克·米尔斯：
是的，大约二十年。它像三十年前一样增长，但是过去的二十年来，我们的电力需求增长非常低或停滞。其中一部分是要牢记的重要，因为我们从某种意义上进行了工业化，我们对制造业变得非常不友好。因此，对电力的需求，像制造业这样的极具能源密集型业务，并没有像其他人那样增长。在过去的二十年中，我们在全球制造业中的份额有所下降。我们不应该惊讶我们的电力消耗了。另一个原因是我们在效率方面有一次性提高。将LED灯添加到各地的房屋和建筑物中是一次性提高效率。这调节了需求。它不会再发生了。它发生在历史上一次。同样，您的冰箱效率也有一次性提高。冰箱您和我在我们的厨房里现在与20年前的一年一样多了四分之一的电力。一旦所有住房库存都从旧效率的冰箱转移到了新的冰箱中，这会减轻电力需求。有数千万冰箱。这与云和数据中心的到来同时发生。实际上，云的电气需求因其他两个领域对电力的需求下降而隐藏了。总需求保持平坦；人们认为什么都没有发生。我们这些研究了这一点的人，而且我已经过去了几十年写了很多次，并确切地预测了我们的位置。当我们决定重新建造似乎在政治上是不可避免的，当我们耗尽商业和住宅领域一次性的效率增长时，电力需求就会起飞。这是;即将来临的史诗般的增长。让我们用这些大型工厂，这些芯片工厂，TSMC的工厂以这样的方式进行构架。当它们建造时，十亿美元的芯片晶圆厂将在十年中使用数十亿美元的飞机使用大约能量。它是电力，而不是石油，而是以美元的方式，它们大约相同。如果您建造了十亿美元的数据中心，则使用的电力将比十亿美元的工厂多三到四倍。如果您在亚利桑那州居住，并且看到十亿美元的工厂上升，那么您刚刚以电力形式看到了价值价值价值十亿美元的价值的价值。如果您看到十亿美元的数据中心上升，您刚刚看到了相当于100亿美元的飞机，就在那里，但以电力从电网或发电厂中取下电力。这些是能源密集型的。十亿美元的电动汽车使用了大约十亿美元的AI数据中心的十分之一。如果您建立AI数据中心而不是将电动汽车放在道路上，则可以将资本支出的美元兑美元收入增加10倍。
吉姆·普拉瓦瓦（Jim Puplava）：
好吧，让我们谈谈含义。我们谈论这些数字大教堂，对这些AI和云数据中心供电的电力需求。除此之外，我们还将制造业带回美国。对电力的需求更大。然后在其中，Mark，让我们进入原材料。如果我们将工厂带回来，而您将开始制作东西，那么您必须拥有矿物质。
马克·米尔斯：
是的。
吉姆·普拉瓦瓦（Jim Puplava）：
我想到了亚利桑那州的坚决地雷。我认为必拓和里约·廷托一直试图将其投入生产已有十多年了。
马克·米尔斯：
是的。
吉姆·普拉瓦瓦（Jim Puplava）：
那么，如果我们不允许在这个国家进行采矿，我们将如何做所有这些事情？我不认为，如果我们想将制造业带回来，但是我们要从中国购买原材料，我认为这不行。
马克·米尔斯：
那就是我们所做的；我知道，就是这样。实际上，它比那更糟糕。所有原材料都必须完善。当您说出来时，很明显：除非您做某事，否则您可以吃玉米。你必须煮它；这是一种炼油形式。如果您曾经尝试吃一块生玉米，那就不是很愉快。当然，您可以使用小麦，而无需进行精炼的过程。您可以在不精制的情况下使用石油。您可以在岩石和铜矿中使用铜，而无需精炼。人们想知道谁在做炼油，而不仅仅是谁在做采矿，因为炼油是扼流圈。中国是地球上完全占主导地位的矿物精炼厂。他们从全球范围内，不仅在中国的国内扩大覆盖范围，而且要控制或拥有南美的矿山，尤其是非洲，以及许多矿工的许多产品。它们为镍，铜，锂产生这些或原矿石。他们将矿石运送到中国进行精炼。中国有一个市场份额，其中有十几个关键矿物质，范围从50％到90％的世界炼油，全球炼油。他们在所谓的能源矿物质，矿物质对能源行业和工业部门以及芯片制造方面都有市场份额。他们在能源和关键矿产方面的市场份额是OPEC在石油业务中的三重市场份额。
吉姆·普拉瓦瓦（Jim Puplava）：
因此，如果我们不这样做，这将如何工作？我现在正在考虑关税战争。他们一直在向适当的征收关税，就像我们唤醒了我们对我们对我们签发的关税近两三十年的事实。
马克·米尔斯：
是的。
吉姆·普拉瓦瓦（Jim Puplava）：
然后突然间，这是我们想到的新事物。这是如何运作的？他能否有效地挥舞执行命令并加快将这些地雷投入生产的过程？我想到亚利桑那州；明尼苏达州的矿山，我们在缅因州的阿拉斯加各地都有一些地雷。我们有矿物质，但是我们可以使用它们。
马克·米尔斯：
好吧，他可以做一些事情。任何总统都可以做一些事情。我们称之为加速速度，我们称之为工业过程的自然速度。地雷确实是大工业。如果您没有任何类型的障碍和法规，那么建造一个新矿山仍然需要数年的时间。它可以加快花费了十年和数百万美元来获得许可的现有矿山的许可；只需完成它们，将它们越过终点线即可。绝对可以做到。为了大大扩展采矿，创建净新矿，我们必须是现实的。全球创建净新矿的平均时间为16年。这样做大约十年了，这就是为什么中国人已经呆了二十年了。这是他们制定的非常有意识的公共政策。他们没有秘密就自己的事情秘密。他们在20年前和10年前发布了计划。这并不是我们不知道他们在这样做。我们在西方，欧洲和美国感到非常高兴，因为他人廉价地完成了矿物质和采矿。这有后果。我们取决于进口，100％依赖于约20种关键金属和矿物的进口，依赖100％。美国曾经是；人们谈论了很多稀土元素。您可能知道稀土元素并不罕见。它们具有稀有的特性，这使其非常有用。Neododymium使制造出色的强大磁铁和电动机发电机，风力涡轮机，军用设备和电动机成为可能。到20世纪末，美国是稀土矿物质的主要矿工，供应商和炼油厂；我们在世界上生产了约90％的人。中国现在生产约80％，我们的生产近零。这不是因为我们用完了矿物。我们本质上将这些行业追赶到该国。我回到关税；我想说的是关于我们在全球化和关税方面的制造业的一件事。我认为使用关税作为说服投资者和国家建立工厂并在这里做事的工具的本能，无论是我的还是炼油厂，我都知道。他不是第一位这样做的总统。里根总统在摩托车和汽车行业中做到了这一点。它必须与里根40多年前使用的其他两种工具配对。您将关税用作进行谈判的工具；当然，其他人用钱在这里建立工厂。您还必须削减税收，如果您提供在此处建造的激励措施，则必须削减法规。对于我们的行业而言，您很难在这里建立高税收，以及对于外国和国内行业的监管障碍。这不会发生；这需要太长，否则他们只是不会做。价格只会上涨，不会建造任何其他选择。现在，政治势头显然是针对关税，因为大胆地让人们开始谈判，但是在这里建立东西可以理解。算我一个粉丝。如果国会没有介入并加强税收减免，而里根实施了与关税威胁搭配的税收，那么我们将获得经济繁荣。我们将得到吉米·卡特（Jimmy Carter）的停滞。
吉姆·普拉瓦瓦（Jim Puplava）：
是的，因为我们在加利福尼亚州的火灾中看到了一件事，试图清理它，就是可以进入并建造。如果您可以为您的房屋获得火灾保险之类
马克·米尔斯：
如果保险如此昂贵？因为，正如您所知，在加利福尼亚州，该州决定为保险公司建立标准要求，因为他们可以赚钱，因为他们可以赚钱。该州提供了支持保险，我认为这是没有用的，但对于坚持州保险的不幸房主而言，覆盖范围非常有限。我们有几十年的不良政策，工业政策以及与不良工业政策相关的不良抵押监管和税收政策。从大多数人想到的意义上讲，我也不喜欢工业政策。在大多数情况下，当政府参与工业政策时，他们想选择自己想成为赢家的行业。一旦您决定做工业政策，这就是本能。做工业政策的正确方法是决定您想要行业。您需要各种。我们不知道哪些会繁荣，而是为工业繁荣创造条件，这意味着要削减法规，使监管领域具有更大的确定性并减少税收。如果您不得不补贴事情，而国会可以帮助自己或州政府，那就是政客所做的。他们从您那里赚钱，或者向您捐款。他们唯一的工具是拿钱或捐钱，这是其他人的钱。如果您感到不得不补贴行业，而不是补贴筹码行业（例如筹码行业），请通过联邦门户网站加速折旧来挑选赢家和失败者。在折旧资本上加一个额外的踢脚。您知道金钱的工作原理和财务运作；如果我通过低利率或加速折旧使资本更便宜，那么您将获得更多的投资，更多的资本投资。那将会发生。如果您想将其定位给工业领域以进行制造业，那么我将全力以赴。不要开始挑剔谁应该得到钱；这只是创建了一个系统，即命名法，旧苏联的人，他们是获奖者，因为他们知道与谁交谈，而不是与任何人交谈。只需构建您认为的意义，就可以从广义上获得偏好。双方都试图选择获胜者和输家。我同意你的看法;我们需要开采。顺便说一句，我小时候在一家矿业公司工作。我们滥用了我们的采矿业。您可以将其收回，但是要采用这些广泛的工具。您可以肯定会对进口的矿产征收关税，这可能会提供一些临时帮助，并诱使外国矿工在这里投资。如果需要25年或30年才能获得许可证，他们不会在这里投资矿山；他们不疯狂。无论您是否关税都不重要；他们仍将将矿山实际建造的矿山放置在南美，中国或非洲。
吉姆·普拉瓦瓦（Jim Puplava）：
好吧，这提出了整个问题，您在向国会的演讲中解决了这一点：这是私营部门产生的。我们不需要政府；AI，云中心，这是私营部门的钱。如果我们没有电力，那么如果我们没有网格来支撑它，如果我们没有制造商需要的原材料，或者我们参与其中，我们必须从中国购买它，并且由于某些事情而对我们感到生气并决定与之抗衡，并决定使用稀土，是的，我们会陷入困境。
马克·米尔斯：
这绝对不起作用。并不是说我们不想与其他国家进行交易，包括我们不太喜欢的国家。几个世纪以来，我们一直在做到这一点。我们不总是与朋友交易。我们甚至与敌人交易，除非他们进入伊朗和朝鲜等罚款箱。这就是美国一直做的事情。问题是当您获得这些深度不对称的时候；您可以如此依赖，以至于您没有使用特朗普的术语，谈判权力。这一直是真的。我们陷入了非常危险的一定程度的依赖。我同意你的看法。我们可能必须采取非凡的措施来扭转它，但这需要时间。当然，您对私人市场和私人资金的评论也是如此。电力是一个受监管的行业。如果您想要更多的发电厂，我每天至下周日下注，我们可以得到您需要的所有发电厂；在美国，我们没有建造发电厂的问题。我们对监管结构有一个问题，使市场能够为制造业和数据中心建造为经济繁荣提供动力所需的发电厂。我们可以做这些事情；这不是火箭科学。我在谈论从现在起十年来建造核电厂。您将不得不建造燃烧轮机，燃气轮机，燃气发动机，甚至可怕的燃煤电厂。那就是我们所看到的；由于对电力起飞的需求，最近几个月中，许多公用事业最近推迟或取消关闭燃煤电厂。我希望我们会看到更多，这是一件好事。
吉姆·普拉瓦瓦（Jim Puplava）：
您知道，人们不介绍这件事，这真是令人惊讶，您已经谈论了这一点：这款iPhone。它看起来像一个小型设备。苹果说，运行这件事并不需要太多。但是，这背后的应用程序可以回到我们看到的建造：AI中心，云中心。
马克·米尔斯：
是的。
吉姆·普拉瓦瓦（Jim Puplava）：
巨大的。谈论尺寸和尺度。我刚刚读过梅塔在路易斯安那州刚刚买了2500英亩的土地。他们将建立一个100亿美元的AI中心。这是要创造的，但是您会谈论大规模的结构。
马克·米尔斯：
是的，这是让我着迷的部分。我在书中写了很多关于云革命，并在一本早期的书中创造了这个短语 - 数字大教堂，并将其放在新书中。数据中心在我们认为智能手机，iPhone的一端的一端表现出尺度的缩影；它的身体很小，身体上的轻巧，做神奇的事情。这些神奇的事情是在其他地方的大型机器中完成的。您不会看到大型机器，即所谓的信息高速公路。顺便说一句，无线网络像数据中心一样涉及到尽可能多的电力。只是这是一个分散的需求。所有的电池塔和所有路由器，即移动信息的东西，消耗的电力与流动信息并存储信息一样多。鳞片真的很惊人。就您而言，元数据中心网站是像星际之门一样宣布的数字的典型代表。在宾夕法尼亚州，刚刚在宾夕法尼亚州荷马市宣布的一家真正古老的燃煤电厂的地点是宾夕法尼亚州。他们将在那里将3吉瓦的汽油发电量投放到电力中心。Gigawatt，一个大核电站为1吉瓦特，因此在接下来的几年中，他们将建立相当于三个核电站发电的价值，即燃气，就在Marcellus页岩附近，充足的天然气供应。您从Meta谈论的Facebook的路易斯安那州站点将由三个1 GW天然气燃烧发电厂提供动力，即天然气燃料，而不是核电站。他们也将建造一些太阳能和风能，这是整个包装的一部分，但关键的要点是，这个庞大的地点将由天然气运行。路易斯安那州是一个大规模的天然气场中的死亡中心，就像西得克萨斯州和宾夕法尼亚州中部一样。理解这里规模的最简单方法是我几年前写的，这仍然是真的。实际上，现在比我十年前写的更真实：您的iPhone用电力比厨房里的冰箱更多。大多数人本人都有几种iPhone的相当于，但是在大多数房屋中，有一个冰箱，也许是两个。在美国的大多数房屋中，至少有三个iPhone或四种类似iPhone的设备：iPad和笔记本电脑。每个人都是一个更大的电力用户，远离您，云和网络来支持它。您所占的份额就像冰箱。如果您是Z代或观看美国职棒大联盟并将视频流式传输到您的手机，那么这是两个冰箱。
吉姆·普拉瓦瓦（Jim Puplava）：
您知道，一件事当我们看所有这些时，您会谈论法规，税收；随着我们的前进，将一个矿山投入生产需要15。16年。我认为，科技公司理解这一点，因为它们可以与公用事业联系。在政治上，这是更好的，因为州长不想在其州内看到停电，因为您放入了几个数据中心。我自己的状态只是一场灾难。我们通过一项法律，允许保险公司起诉石油公司发生火灾和气候变化。我想实现的是过去两到三十年的环境运动是：好的，我们想要清洁能源，我们不想要污染，但是我们所做的只是将其外包在其他地方。我们将其外包给中国，印度，南美；它在那里完成了，我们看不到它，所以这里看起来很干净。他们不明白做出这一点的需要。
马克·米尔斯：
是的，正如您所知，这是我做很多写作的时候，所以我认为言语很重要。那就是为什么我写。作为物理学家，我认为事实很重要。这两个以迷人的方式在能量域中相交。我们将风车和太阳能电池板称为“清洁能源”；好吧，你的意思是什么意思？如您所知，人们真正的含义是二氧化碳，因此我们得到了“清洁”一词的演变，不要谈论水污染，栖息地破坏，夷为平地的树木，铺路，铺路，这在流行的话语中不再是什么意思。清洁意味着，如果您使用魔术Google机器，我们都知道什么意思是：这意味着切割二氧化碳排放。问题在于我们所有人都知道我们真正的清洁含义。很多人关心二氧化碳排放，我明白了，但是每个人都在乎清洁的空气，干净的水，我们打扰了多少土地。这一点很明显：出现的风车和太阳涡轮机称为“干净技术”；这是一个完全错误的名称。他们是任何清洁剂；实际上，它们比燃气轮机或核电站甚至煤炭电厂（例如矿物质和岩石的数量）所需的传统技术要少，因为您必须获得产生相同数量的能量的数量，而这些能量的矿物质，尤其是在其他地方的采矿，尤其是离岸的矿山，尤其是在过去的几十年中，都会在过去的几十年中影响到矿山，从而增加了我们的影响。我们假装它们不存在，我们称这项技术为清洁。我举一个简单的例子：使用电动汽车，典型的电动汽车中的电池重量为半吨；它没有燃烧汽油，是的，没有开玩笑，它是一辆电动汽车，因此没有发射二氧化碳。显然，要为电池充电，二氧化碳会根据您发电的位置发射，但更重要的是，一个重量半吨的电池需要您开采大量的250吨地球才能制造一个电池。在其他地方进行的250吨地球的开采是使用油燃式机器，大型柴油机。岩石被大型柴油机和燃煤机器粉碎，用石油燃料运输，因此所有涉及环境影响和权衡的机器；所有这些都涉及二氧化碳的排放，但是您不会看到它，因为汽车到达了您的车道，所有这些排放都会发生在您获得汽车和其他地方之前，但是它们非常真实，而且它们非常大。太阳能电池板也是如此。The solar panels on a roof of a California home, a typical small home, since 90% of all the photovoltaic cells themselves are fabricated in China, you can calculate that something on the order of 30 tons of Chinese coal was burned to put the solar panels on just one roof.
Jim Puplava:
So as we take a look at this, Trump wants to bring industry back, and we need to start making things because we saw the vulnerability, I think, during COVID with the supply chain disruptions: everything from pharmaceuticals to computer chips.As you mentioned, there’s two other aspects of that: we’ve got to get the taxation, so if Taiwan Semiconductor or some other company is going to come here to build, Saudi Arabia or whoever else they’re talking about, they have to have the tax incentives to do that, but more importantly, the regulations.What can the President do to do that, or does that have to be an act of Congress?
Mark Mills:
Well, both, so there’s a lot of things that a president can do;Reagan did, with accelerating permitting, holding the agencies that do the permitting’s feet to the fire, putting people in charge that actually do their job right;they have to get their job done.There’s a statutory requirement in many of these laws, like the National Environmental Policy Act, to get a review done within two years.Two years is a long time, but two years at least seems reasonable;it doesn’t happen.There’s no recourse to the company if it takes four years, five years, and then when you get your permit, it’s just revoked casually from another lawsuit.These kinds of lacks of certainty can be rectified to some extent by administrative fiat, but they have to be rectified fundamentally by acts of Congress;Congress needs to modify, amend, or update laws that are being abused so that we keep in place what we’ll call environmental guardrails that everybody wants, but we have more certainty and less abuse of the rules, so businesses can look at it and say, I can meet all those rules, and I can get them, and if I get one year to get a permit, I’m all in;I’ll spend the money.If your time to get the permit, for example, overlaps two different presidencies, then we know what that means: you went from a Keystone Pipeline, for example, being approved and then hundreds of millions being spent, to being revoked when the next president came in;of course, this was Trump’s first term into Biden’s term.Those things scare capital away;they don’t attract capital;it’s a very bad thing.Yes, the president can do something, but a lot of what he can do is the bully pulpit: to get Congress to step up, and that’s going to be hard.I do think we have a shot at getting Congress to step up, in large part now because there’s a better realization, especially because of AI and data centers, that the kinds of things that everybody seems to want to have happen: more manufacturing, more data centers, competing AI with China, all these things that we have now a bipartisan agreement on, there’s no escaping that;it’s hard to do that without greasing the skids, so to speak, not just giving money away, getting out of the way.I’m cautiously optimistic that the bipartisan sense that we’ve got to get manufacturing going, we’ve got to get these other things happening, will get us to some kind of bipartisan legislation on the regulatory reform, but it won’t happen unless a president pushes hard for it as well;this is how politics always works in our country.
Jim Puplava:
You know, the problem is if we don’t get this done, the way we were going was unsustainable, whether the money we were spending or relying on China to manufacture all our goods and get our raw materials.A guy by the name of Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater, just spoke at Hillsdale College and talked about how military warfare is changing: you send an $800 drone against us, and we fire a million-dollar missile.这是如何工作的？You go broke doing that?If we don’t do this, what, if you’re optimistic, what if things did not go right, what would they be?They don’t get the regulation removed, they don’t allow mining to take place;in your mind, what would that be?
Mark Mills:
I said I was cautiously optimistic;okay, I’m hedging.
Jim Puplava:
You’ve got a hedge there?
Mark Mills:
I hedge in my optimism.We have examples of what’s going to happen;it’s not hard to guess;it doesn’t require a particularly clear crystal ball.Germany is de-industrializing as we speak;England is de-industrializing in real time, right before our very eyes;their dependencies, not just on gas before the Ukraine war with Russia, they have lots of other dependencies, so you become a de facto vassal state.You don’t disappear as a country, but you become enervated instead of energized, so your growth collapses.Canada, Germany, England’s wealth per capita is flat or declining.Germany, the German average per capita GDP is roughly equal to the average of the poorest U.S. state now;same is true for England and for Canada.That’s the future;the future is you de-industrialize, you’re subject to the predations of other countries economically and militarily, and the country will still be there, and you’ll have more debt, all those things, but fundamentally it’s a slow-motion catastrophe;these are high-inertia systems, but we move into slow motion to becoming an irrelevant country, just like the United Kingdom is now, sadly.That’s the future if we keep having punitive regulatory policies, which we have, not as bad as them, but that’s the direction a lot of people want to take them;if we have punitive structures with respect to how you supply energy, if we move our energy system to what they’ve done, which is lots of windmills, shutting down nuclear plants, shutting down coal plants, we’ll follow in their steps.They gave us the gift of the lesson of what the path represents, and we just take a look at what’s going on in those countries.It doesn’t mean you can’t go there for a vacation;it’d be pleasant;there’s still hotels, obviously, it’s just that as a nation they’re drifting into senescence and irrelevance, which is very sad, and it creates obvious risks geopolitically as we think about how the world’s realigned, because there’s a lot of bad actors in the world who become predators, not just economically.
Jim Puplava:
You know, it’s amazing that people in Congress, the problem I have with Congress, a lot of them don’t understand economics, and especially, this is on both sides, where they don’t understand: hey, okay, you want to bring industry back, what are you going to do to make it easier for them to build a plant?What are you going to make it easier from an incentive point of view to bring that plant here tax-wise?They don’t follow through with all that;everybody’s excited about AI, but AI takes power, it takes electricity.
Mark Mills:
Yep, well, they think they’re following through because that’s why they passed the CHIPS Act, which was bipartisan, so what they’ll say, and the defenders of the CHIPS Act say, we’re giving you an incentive;we’ll write you a check.The problem with subsidies, grants, writing checks, as you well know, is that they have strings attached, so you have to jump first;you have to apply for it, which takes time and takes lobbyists and jump through hoops, so not only are you now a vassal to the government offering you a check, you have to do a bunch of things they’re asking to do.If what the government did instead was say, look, we’re willing to spend that amount of money, of taxpayers’ money, to get chip fabs back here, I’ll give an obvious example what Congress could do: a much more equitable blunt instrument would be to offer far greater depreciation and tax breaks for chip fabs.Just say if you build a chip fab here, you pay no taxes for five years;pick a number, whatever the number is, to balance out to be equal to the subsidy.Don’t give an overt upfront subsidy that people have to petition you for and beg for and hire lobbyists for;give an ex post facto subsidy locked into law: you build it, we’ll give you accelerated depreciation, we’ll give you no taxes, whatever the giveaways you want to give, but then you’re not picking.The market will figure out what to build, whether it’s foreign or domestic, I mean foreign-owned or domestically owned;they’ll figure it out.Also offer accelerated portals to the permits;do the same for power plants.You’ll get an outcome that would be exciting and fast, but the human instinct is that there’s a lot more power attached, to be unkind to Congress, but it’s easy to do;there’s a lot more power attached to you have to petition me to ask me for the money, as opposed to just providing the market with the incentives, and there’s no reward in terms of personal politics;nobody is going to put money into my PAC because they don’t have to talk to me because they could just get the benefit by building the plant.
Jim Puplava:
It was really amazing how, I think it was Elon Musk, and I think it was Virginia, where he in three months built one of the largest data centers;he did, and then came in and brought in two natural gas plants, had it up and running in three months.
Mark Mills:
Right, that was Memphis, Tennessee.
Jim Puplava:
Yeah, but as you point out, if we don’t get manufacturing back here, don’t get mining back here, we’re going to go the route of Germany, England, and we’ll just be nothing but a satellite in a Chinese empire sphere.
Mark Mills:
Yeah, I’m writing a piece now for城市日报, trying to find a simple thousand-word way to frame the argument of why manufacturing matters in a post-industrial society.I guess the answer is China showed us why it matters because they took over the leadership in manufacturing things, but people have in their head in a sense that they really do have bought into the post-industrial language.That phrasing is true if you thought our economy’s growth was primarily anchored in industrialization;our growth is no longer anchored in industrialization, but industrial policy, industrial infrastructure is a predicate for growth, and so it’s a subtlety that’s not trivial.So it doesn’t matter if we have chip fabs here?Well, yeah, apparently it does, and we invent the chips, but they’re made over there;很重要。
Jim Puplava:
Yeah, it’s just absolutely amazing that people aren’t picking up on what this means because we’ve been able to live this way for three or four decades;we outsourced.Just a quick question: I think that as I was pondering, reading a lot of this stuff that really hit me is if you look at industrialization and outsourcing of manufacturing, I think it began in the ‘70s;we had inflation, we had labor unions and strikes and things like that, and companies said, you know, screw this, we’ll just shut the factory down, put it over there, I don’t have to deal with this.
Mark Mills:
正确的？
Jim Puplava:
是的。
Mark Mills:
Look, I think there’s a set of factors that came together.Economic opportunities overseas were very real if you’re an investor.
Jim Puplava:
是的。
Mark Mills:
That was real because of the velocity and the favoritism that was played to capital;you put capital to work in those markets, you could put it to work quickly, you got quick return, and the costs were lower for all set of reasons, not least because we made it expensive here.You add that to the politics, to the environmental part, where we don’t like it here because it’s dirty industries, and then the political psychology itself of we don’t need this stuff, really, it doesn’t matter that much;it’s a miss, but those things all together, it wasn’t one thing, it’s like this toxic brew of things that came together and put us in a hole.The real problem Trump’s got, we all have, is that these things are hard to fix quickly.Some of them you can accelerate a lot, but they’re not;we’re not going to delink from China easily or quickly, and the Chinese know that.Trump’s not stupid;it’s not like he, I don’t believe he thinks for a second that we’re going to not have imports from China;he just wants the playing field to be different, and he’s using a very blunt instrument for it.I’m not so sure he’s wrong, given the fact that we’ve now spent what, 20 years longer there is.A friend of mine was in the Commerce Department and was involved in the negotiations with Europe, with Japan and Europe, both on these trade issues, the asymmetries, during the Bush administration, and he confirmed my own suspicion, having not been involved in them.I said, we know they’re asymmetric;you can’t put a GM dealership in Japan, you just can’t do one, never mind tariffs, there’s no dealership, you can’t open one;that’s not a tariff if you just can’t do it.There’s a whole set of things like that;he said they would have meetings and sit around tables and write papers and be delegations, and the Japanese would promise, our friends, Germans would promise, nothing happened, nothing changed, nothing changed, so they just rope-a-doped us, and Trump knows all this.These are the people who work for him;they rope-a-doped us, he said, okay, I’ll fix that.
Jim Puplava:
You know, it’s amazing because people don’t realize he went after Mexico and Canada.I’m in the financial industry, and we have a large Canadian audience that listens to the show, and I can’t do business with them, although Canadian banks, TD Waterhouse, now owned by Schwab, was Canadian;the largest RIA in the city was just bought out by a Canadian bank, but we cannot do business with Canadians.
Mark Mills:
好的？So every business has a story just like yours;everybody, the agricultural group, the farmers, the manufacturer, all have stories just like yours with every country, whether it’s Canada or Japan, and so how do you fix that?Because they keep doing it over and over again;it’s nonstop, and you know for a fact that if Canada came back and said, we’ll do these three things if you end the tariffs, we’ll let financial institutions operate in Canada, we’ll let you sell your butter here, we’ll get rid of a bunch of stuff, and we’ll build, we Canada, because Canada has Canadian companies, we’ll build, we’ll do this, tariffs would be gone.It’s very transactional, and it may be the only thing that’ll work, but if they don’t negotiate, if they, you know, this is a game of chicken, if they don’t negotiate and start doing things that result in them relaxing their rules, not tariffs or the equivalent, quickly, I don’t know, we’ll get stagflation.I really do think we’ll get stagflation;we’ll just have higher costs and not much growth.
Jim Puplava:
You know the thing that really struck me though, the U.S. economy, 11% is dependent on exports;Europe, over 20;Canada, over 30;Mexico, over 30;China, over 20, so we’re better off.We’re more self-sufficient to some extent that we’re not as dependent.
Mark Mills:
Oh, much, much more so, no question.I think China is fundamentally an export economy, and I think it’s more like half of their GDP is tied up in exports.They need exports.The problem is we need a lot of the stuff they’re making;we just do.We don’t have options that we can switch to quickly or easily, and they know that, whereas with Canada and lumber, Trump was right;we don’t need a single board foot of Canadian lumber;we’ve got lots of forests.This is an industry that can do just fine without Canadian lumber;we shut down all the Maine lumber industries evaporated years ago;fire it up again, you can fire it up in one year, six months, if you really thought you wouldn’t be buying Canadian lumber.I would have no doubt you’d have new lumber mills in Maine, assuming the governor wouldn’t be so insane as to oppose lumber mills being built again.我同意你的看法;I think what I’ve told my friends that say 20% tariff on, call it 15% of all goods, which is imports, is a 3% tariff;it’s a 3% inflator on overall, but it won’t be 3%, because as my buddy Ken Fisher said in one of his little podcasts, the tariffs always have a lower impact than the nameplate percentage because the sender, the origin country, typically absorbs a third of it;the intermediaries often absorb a third of it, so at most a third of that 20% is passed on to the actual goods going into the country, so the real impact is probably 1 percentage point.That’s 20% tariffs on the, and it’s inflationary, 1% higher costs across the board;okay, it’s not the end of the world.It’s this Powell coming up and acting like that’s going to feed inflation, but a trillion dollars of spending yet to be spent under the IRA is not inflationary;why isn’t he talking about that?There’s 1 to 2 trillion dollars of unspent money induced by the Inflation Reduction Act that is yet to be deployed, which will produce nothing of value;it’s profoundly inflationary and can’t get caught.You want to save a trillion dollars from the budget, one-stop shopping: revoke the IRA, trillion of savings.
Jim Puplava:
Well, I just hope he does this renaissance and we wake up to this because it would be sad to see this country go the way of England and Germany.
Mark Mills:
Yeah, I left Canada for a reason;I like the excitement of the American economy.I am optimistic this will get resolved, but it’s going to be an ugly fight, and there’ll be collateral damage;some of the brute force policies will cause some unexpected consequences that are not going to be ideal.
Jim Puplava:
That’s, you know, they’ve been used to doing this to us for decades, and all of a sudden you’re taking something away, and they’re putting up a stink: hey, why are you doing that?
Mark Mills:
I know, this is the way it’s always worked, exactly.If you’re in the gas business, I’ll tell you, you probably watch that Homer City site that got announced last week, 3 gigawatts of gas, so you think about everything in the food chain: the supply of the gas, the midstream, all the whole infrastructure on gas.If you do a calculation, just a BCF term, if you just assume that half of the data centers that are in the pipeline get built, you get a lot of gas;you get about a 20 or 30% increase in gas supply will be a call on it, which is, we can do it, but if you add 20 to 30% of demand over the next four or five years to gas, that’s boom;that’s a lot of gas.
Jim Puplava:
Well, we’re invested in gas pipelines, so I’m optimistic, I think, but I think he’s got a short window period of time;he’s got, if we don’t see any change or positive change or the public does, then he’s going to run up against the congressional elections, and they’ve already told them what they’re going to do;if they take the House, they’re going to impeach him, of course.
Mark Mills:
No, well, the Senate’s not going to, but they’ll be preoccupied with, instead of passing any legislation, they’re just going to spend all the time attacking Trump, and yeah, I agree, he’s got one year, not 18 months, but one year.I think they made this decision tactically;they knew this would be hard;they thought it was important;they wanted to do the hard thing first, but let’s just hope they get the tax cuts passed, and that these Republicans talking about tax increases, I mean, it strikes you crazy;what the heck is wrong with the Republican Party that we’re talking about tax increases, guys?
Jim Puplava:
Well, Mark, as we close, you’re a prolific writer;I mean, some of your books are fabulous;recommend reading them all.
Mark Mills:
Some of my books, I’ve read them all.
Jim Puplava:
所以...
Mark Mills:
I’m just kidding;I’m just busting your chops.
Jim Puplava:
Why don’t you tell people about the National Center for Energy Analytics?The information that you’re putting out, you very seldom see elsewhere, and you’re really hitting on some really key themes that kind of bring all this together: okay, we’re going to bring manufacturing back, we’re going to build AI and cloud centers, but what does that mean and what does it take to get all that to work?
Mark Mills:
Well, a year ago I started, with the help of some generous donors and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, we created a new national energy think tank because there wasn’t one.If you think about, we’ve been talking about the centrality of energy issues with respect to national security and the environment and trade and economics and industry, obviously, it’s self-evident, it’s important, but a think tank dedicated just to the energy issue seemed to be in need, so we created it.We’re not into our first year of full operation yet, but we’ve got, people can find the website easily by just doing National Energy Analytics and Google National Center for Energy Analytics;the website’s energyanalytics.org.We’ve issued about eight studies, about 150 articles, reports, and op-eds by our scholars;we have a dozen scholars, an advisory board that’s spectacular, people who are leaders in their own right and at least provide me with terrific help and advice and guidance on the technology policy issues to focus on, not the operational details.Look, I have no illusions that one center or one person or any group of people can stop the tide of nonsense;there’s a lot of really silly things being said, promoted about energy, not just by Congress, by a lot of serious people, some not well-meaning, some well-meaning, but we’ve got to try.I think it’s just too important, and to get this right matters;energy is the kind of thing you take for granted when everything’s going well;if it’s reliable and inexpensive, it’s not on anybody’s radar;it becomes self-evident when it’s expensive or not there when you need it, why it matters.It’s like every domain in our lives, right?You have to illuminate what the facts are for people in a way that they’ll understand and believe it’d be credible, to make sure bad policies don’t happen, and that’s the mission of the NCEA.
Jim Puplava:
No, you do terrific work;it’s one of my go-to sites and follow, and it’s impacting a lot of what we’re doing from an investment point of view because we’re in natural gas, we’re in pipeline companies because we see that as the other side of AI.Mark, it’s always a pleasure speaking with you;all the best, and check out Mark Mills on Amazon;he’s a prolific writer, there’s numerous books, everyone is a recommendation.Mark, thanks so much for being on the program.
If you’re not already a subscriber to our weekday FS Insider podcast,点击这里to subscribe.For a link to our full podcast archive, seeFinancial Sense Newshour (All)and don't forget to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube Podcasts!
To learn more about Financial Sense® Wealth Management, give us a call at(888) 486-3939或者点击这里to contact us.
Content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal, or other advice.
There are risks involved in investing, including the potential for loss of principal.
Forward-looking statements are based on assumptions that may not materialize and are subject to risks and uncertainties.
Any mention of specific securities or investment strategies is not an endorsement or recommendation.
Advisory services offered through Financial Sense® Advisors, Inc., a registered investment adviser.Securities offered through Financial Sense® Securities, Inc., Member FINRA/SIPC.DBA Financial Sense® Wealth Management.Investing involves risk, including the loss of principle.过去的表现并不能表示未来的结果。