WSJ這篇質疑紐約州市長綠能政策的社論「New York’s Green Energy Roulette」，裡頭有句話總結德國與歐洲十國的綠能轉型經驗報告，說得相當簡潔透徹：
「Germany shows and a new study of 10 nations confirms: Investing heavily in wind and solar doesn’t really reduce fossil-fuel use or fossil-fuel emissions. Why? Adding solar and wind as adornments to a basically functioning grid is one thing. Once you begin relying on them, however, each must be paired with an equivalent gas plant for when wind and sun are absent.
The cut to the corporate tax and deregulatory process are giving businesses more certainty and money to spend on capital investments.
However, the severer trade wars between China and America will definitely wound the economy of the both sides, particularly worse on the US . It means the benefits from tax cut and deregulation could be wiped out by the wrong tariffs. These are the macro-constraints of the U.S.
Meanwhile, according to Credit Suisse, the capital expenditures of the S&P500 have risen to $166 billion in the first quarter of 2018, up 24% from a year earlier. Is it a good news? Well, it depends on each isolated case. The capital expenditure of companies may or may not lead to good returns, which means the more capital investing activities do not promise higher profits in the future. Wastes or mis-location of resources can happen in this the-more-the-better investing phenomenon, especially when a company has some bad KPI requirements. It’s due to “Money Illusion” to a certain degree. Bad incentive systems influence the managers’ decisions as well. And I believe these two factors are the source of the business cycle.
I haven’t expected the turning point coming so fast. Nevertheless, I could smell something going wrong recently. I’ve increased the cash share of my investment pile more than fifty percentage and guess by doing so would be safer in the next two years. Of course, if there is a good objective at an attractive price, I will buy it anyway without considering the macro-economy. Such good deals can always overcome the whole investing environment.