Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 5:27PM ET - U.S. Markets Closed.

Charles Wheelan, Ph.D. The Naked Economist

Charles Wheelan, Ph.D., The Naked Economist

Mining an Alternative Fuel Disaster

by Charles Wheelan, Ph.D.

Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story
Very Good (612 Ratings)
3.549018/5
Posted on Tuesday, June 5, 2007, 12:00AM

This is one of those times when I'd like to send the members of Congress on an all-expenses-paid "fact finding" mission to Hawaii, or Bali, or wherever they'd like to go.

Why? Because it would be a lot less expensive than letting them stay in Washington.

Subsidizing a Bad Idea

According to the New York Times, "a powerful roster of Democrats and Republicans" is pushing a package of subsidies to help the coal industry produce liquid fuels, such as coal-based diesel.

The package includes loan guarantees, a pre-commitment by the government to buy certain quantities of coal-based fuels, a tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of coal-based fuel sold through 2020, and so on.

In short, the government is offering the coal industry lots of financial support to make fuel out of coal, which apparently wouldn't make any economic sense without the government subsidy. Why is this a terrible idea? Let me count the ways.

Publicly Funded Lunacy

First, let's start with the obvious. The purpose of a subsidy is to encourage rational firms to do something that wouldn't otherwise be rational. (If an activity makes economic sense without a subsidy, then obviously it wouldn't need one.) So if you strip away the fancy rhetoric, the coal companies are essentially saying to Washington, "Pay us to make fuel from coal. Because without a lot of government money, that would be complete lunacy."

I'm sure there are profit-hungry firms that would make jet fuel out of old tennis shoes if we paid them enough. That doesn't mean we ought to do it.

True, subsidies are a good idea if they induce behavior that has some significant social benefit, such as subsidizing pharmaceutical companies to produce drugs for rare diseases; without that subsidy, the firms couldn't recoup their research-and-development costs, and some life-improving drugs would never appear.

But coal is arguably as bad for the environment as oil, and possibly worse, so I don't see any social benefit in using public money to induce a switch. (Yes, making energy from coal reduces our demand for foreign oil, but I'll get to that in a minute.)

A Rebate for Recklessness

Second, subsidies for alternative energy make less sense as the price of oil goes up, not more. The high price of energy is exactly what causes the market to find alternatives on its own. By using government money to hold fuel prices artificially low, we kill the incentive for entrepreneurs to develop alternative energy sources that don't need subsidies.

Third, global warming is for real. The evidence continues to mount, and is slowly but steadily convincing anyone who doesn't sell fossil fuels for a living. To reduce our CO2 emissions, we're going to have to change some of our behavior. And the best way to change behavior is to raise the price of the activities that we want to discourage. Curiously, this policy does just the opposite.

Most of us would agree that it's bad for the planet when someone commutes alone 62 miles to work in a Chevy Tahoe. Instead of discouraging that activity, the coal subsidy actually makes it cheaper -- almost like a government rebate. And the more you drive, the bigger the government check. Does that make any sense?

Furthering Foreign Dependence

Fourth, using government money to hold down fuel prices isn't going to save you any money. Sure, you might get lower-priced fuel. But come on, people -- where do you think those subsidies come from? From your taxes. (Or, more realistically at the moment, from the Chinese government, in which case your children will have to pay higher taxes whenever we repay our mounting foreign debt.)

Finally, subsidizing coal is an inefficient way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It's kind of like reducing coffee consumption by offering Starbucks wads of cash to lower the price of tea.

Would it work? Yes, probably a little. But if you really want to reduce coffee consumption, wouldn't it make more sense to raise the price of coffee?

Bipartisan Solidarity at Last

On the positive side, this proposal is truly bipartisan: It requires both parties to abandon their core principles. Democrats are supposed to be serious about the environment. Subsidizing activities that contribute to global warming will not make Al Gore happy at all.

And Republicans are supposed to believe that the market, rather than the government, should determine what kind of fuel we put in our cars. If firms can make money by turning coal into diesel, then they'll turn coal into diesel. And if they can't earn a profit, they won't do it.

And yet Democrats and Republicans (from coal-producing states) have found a way to work together on this one. It's inspiring in a sad, pathetic kind of way.

A Taxing Solution

I'll repeat what I've written before: If we ever get serious about global warming and our dependence on oil, then we'll implement some version of a carbon tax. Fuels with the most adverse impact on the environment would be the most heavily taxed; cleaner energy would be relatively less expensive. We would all change our behavior accordingly, which is the point.

The carbon tax ought to be phased in over a long period so that households and firms have a chance to adapt before getting socked by higher energy prices. We should then use that new revenue to cut some taxes that discourages productive activity, such as the payroll tax or the income tax.

That won't happen anytime soon. So in the meantime, I'll reiterate my offer to send our elected representatives on the boondoggle of their choice -- as long as they leave their business in Washington unfinished. Believe me, it would be a lot cheaper than writing huge checks to the coal industry year after year.

Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story

Rate This story

Very Good (612 Ratings)
3.5/5
Sign-in to rate!

182 Comments

Showing comments 6-35 of 182<< PreviousNext >>
Sort: first to last

  • EverettD - Sunday, November 4, 2007, 9:00PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Perhaps Al Gore would like to explain why he thinks this is stupid when so many others agree with the sentiment. The truth is that the government tries to control everything instead of letting market forces determine directions. If people would be more accountable for their own decisions rather than allowing the government to decide for them, we would surely have elected officials who would follow our suggestions instead of telling us what is best for us. Don't get me wrong. Al Gore has done much to promote the acceptance of the threat of global warming. It is his traditional stance of the political platform that the government should dictate social equality at the expense of free enterprise that concerns me.

  • GeraldoL - Saturday, September 8, 2007, 10:42AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    We're in the XXI century but we're still thinking like the XX century. It is not about what it is happening... it is about what we need to do to change and improve what it is happening. Last century at this time the car, the plane and other wonderful things come to life. This century we are still thinking like in the 90's. This comments is aimed to congress and not the author of the article. It is a good article overall.

  • Kevin - Friday, September 7, 2007, 8:42AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Dr. Wheelan, Great book. It should be standard reading for every high school senior. I find part of your argument compelling. The subsidy you mention is for an externality that can not be fixed through the market, otherwise Congress wouldn't be in favor of it (I'm making some broad assumptions that Congress is privy to reports that I haven't read which are about what happens to a natural resource when it is depleted). What is compelling about your argument is that you suggest a tapered in carbon tax. WHY! However, if the tax would have large credits for alternative uses of carbon it may create a market for carbon and create competition and new industry. My argument is this, though: What HAS to happen is the creation of another market for carbon, not a tax. Carbon (CO2) needs to become valuable or a byproduct of it, otherwise a tax is inevitable and will do nothing other than make a few rich at the expense of many (and the same goes for the subsidy)

  • Jerome - Tuesday, September 4, 2007, 10:58PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    This man and 534 more like him belong in Congress

  • hattone - Thursday, August 30, 2007, 11:41AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Stupid, just plain stupid. Al Gore jr.

  • mike m - Friday, August 24, 2007, 2:35PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    good comment

  • Doreen S Pizza Inc I - Sunday, August 19, 2007, 8:23AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    economics 101!

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, August 6, 2007, 1:55AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Wheelan is so correct. Government subsidies are a terrible idea, except when they are for socially worthwhile goals such as public health, education, etc. Increasing the use of fossil fuels is not socially worthwhile. It is corrupt pork-barrelling, pure and simple.

  • Alex - Friday, August 3, 2007, 12:34PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    One thing all should be able to agree upon is a Carbon tax. Why? Because it is a way of capturing externalities associated with fossil fuel consumption. We can quibble a little bit about what these externalities are, and to what degree of certitude they can be measured. That should be part of the ongoing debate as to how high to set these taxes. Global warming, foreign policy concerns, other environmental costs, etc, are obvious candidates with obvious disagreements as to how significant they are. The one thing is clear about fosssil fuels - when they're gone, they're gone. That is why any Carbon Tax should be disbursed as a Dividend modeled after Alaska's oil Dividend. Parents can use this to compensate their kids for living in a world with diminished natural resources. This is the most 'pure' approach, and should be palatable to people of all political stripes.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, July 30, 2007, 3:00PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Excellent. By Taxing Gas, people won't be driving everywhere, polluting our air and clogging our freeways. Wind Farms will be sprouting up instead of liquid coal factories.

  • Larry K - Thursday, July 12, 2007, 2:50AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Subsidies are a good idea if they induce behavior that has some significant social benefit. Subsidies to promote the production of liquid fuels from coal promotes energy independence from foreign countries, which would greatly benefit the nation. I challenge the naked economist to come up with a real solution (something OTHER than new taxes, PLEASE - why are new taxes the naked economist's solution to everything?) to the nation's problem of being addicted to foreign oil. Also, I think it’s incredibly naive/academic to believe that a government, after implementing a carbon tax, would actually use the revenues to offset payroll taxes. It’s far more likely they would use the money for their pet projects.

  • Joseph - Tuesday, July 10, 2007, 2:16PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    This gentleman continues to write intelligent, thoughtful articles that explain economic principles in an easy to understand manner, and they are even humorous at times. This one is another great example. If we could only get congress to read his articles and act accordingly, I think we might all be better off.

  • therealdeacon - Friday, July 6, 2007, 8:59AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Sadly, Mr. Wheelan is grossly misinformed about coal-to-liquids (CTL) technology and the economics surrounding it. The rationale for supporting CTL with government subsidies is that oil is not produced and sold in a true free market. About 90% of the world's oil reserves and production are in the hands of state-owned national oil companies, e.g., Saudi Aramco. The OPEC cartel at the moment still has enough reserve production capacity to flood the market with cheap oil if they wanted to significantly reduce oil prices for a while. A fledging CTL industry would need some protection from this risk. Although CTL plants become profitable with oil prices above about $35-45 per barrel, getting financing from the investment banking community is still a significant challenge. Because the world's only production scale CTL plant (in South Africa) was developed several decades ago with government subsidies, there are currently no working models in the free market. CTL plants are expensive, about $1 billion of capex per 10,000 barrels-per-day of production capacity. Everyone wants to build the second plant, but not the first. Bankers like to see proven operating models with a history of free cash flow. Anything else is perceived as having high risk. CTL plants can be made to be carbon friendly. Most or all of the carbon dioxide output can either be sold commercially (either to beverage industry or to the oil industry for enhanced oil recovery usage) or it can be sequestered. The latter increases capital costs (probably around 20%), but it is feasible. In the long run, CTL is something that the U.S. will need to deploy. There is no magic bullet solution to the world's energy needs. We will need just about ALL of the energy technology and policy mechanisms we can conceive to meet the future needs of modern civilization. Conservation, hybrid vehicles, wind, solar, biofuels, and the rest will all be needed. CTL is a viable interim solution that can be deployed *now* as part of the energy production matrix. A vibrant CTL industry would be good for America. It would decrease our dependence on foreign oil and our exposure to geopolitical risks in oil-producing nations. Government subsidies will help to get CTL off the ground more quickly and with greater certainty of success.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, July 5, 2007, 7:25AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    We're not going to war over Wyoming coal!

  • TheIrishMan - Wednesday, July 4, 2007, 11:30AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Bad idea! This would be akin to putting a prohibitive tax on food to eliminate obesity.

  • jtabbsvt - Tuesday, July 3, 2007, 1:13PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    As always, Wheelan's mantra of "let free markets be truly free" comes through loudly and clearly. Also, his point about citizens paying for this program because subsidies come from tax dollars is right on. All too often people forget how much of politics is based on simply creating new ways to distribute the tax burden amongst the populous.

  • realist08 - Sunday, July 1, 2007, 8:40AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    The "boogeyman" Nuclear should be aggressively pursued. Price will determine the competetive value of alternative fuels, but until the market is introduced to alternatives, we do not have any options. If the federal bureaucracy had any visionary leaders or thoughtful non-politicians, there might be some hope that the right mix of products and profits would be achieved. Since there are no brains focused on anything but positioning for the next election, or making political deals, we will probably flounder until somebody in Washington or the private sector is interested in the good of the country versus their own careers.

  • DanielF - Saturday, June 30, 2007, 12:36AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    This idea of congressional subsidy to promote a dirty coal alternative to foreign oil is typical of congress; "to just give the public something, whether it makes sence or not." After all, why are we here? To stay on this gravey train as long as possible. Nice salaries, big pensions, lots of recesses, Hey we got it made! If we the people could just be wise enough to separate the jokers from honest legislators with common sense, just maybe we would see some bills drawn up that would permeate the populace with the right choices. eg. If we are going to give money, let us do it in the form of a loan to tech companies working on advanced batteries for electric cars. I have seen some of these lately, they are sharp looking. The chrysler crossfire, pt cruiser, mini cooper, and others. With the right batteries, no one has to build an expensive network of fuel stations.

  • cpcook - Wednesday, June 27, 2007, 3:16PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Providing subsidies for technology that may reduce our burden on imported fuel yet increases pollution and greenhouse gases does not make sense. Not to mention the consequences that come from an increase in coal mining such as environmental scarring and toxic runoff into rivers and streams. The process of liquifying coal is extremely dirty as well and defeats the purpose of investing in such alternative energy sources. It is discouraging that there are still those who refuse to accept the real causes for global climate change. While it is true that the earth has seen warmer days, the earth's climate has never changed so quickly in such a short time. I agree with the author and other economists that a carbon tax is the most effective and fair way to take into account the environmental costs of industry. Just as a tax on tobacco goes to help smoking related diseases. As a responsible free market capitalist, I know that the cost of doing business might be a little higher, but the economy has weathered worse things than a carbon tax, and the consequences of not factoring the earth into our economic models far outweigh the short term benefits.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, June 27, 2007, 12:40PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    The problem with making fuel out of coal is that we can make too much of it. It would make a profit at today's oil prices but if the price of oil dropped below $45 dolars a barrel it would be more expensive than oil and if the price drops below $50 a barrel they wouldn't to earn enough to pay for the considerable upfront cost in setting up the industry. The reason for goverment subsidies is to provide an assurance that if the facilities are set up that the companies will turn a profit. Other wise they will wait until oil price get so high there is no chance of it dropping below $50 a barrel (perhaps $100). The goverment is interveening so they can hopefully head off this problem before it gets that far. Finally as for cleanlyness it is cleaner for the enviroment than oil using the new process that have been developed over the past 30 years. Now that is not to say there aren't cleaner option such as Natrual gas for cars and Nukes for our houses or nukes powering Hydrogen plants. (And no waste is not a concern since 95% of nuke waste is recyclable into new rods but is illegal to do in the US since the 70's) With all of that siad it is a good options since existing cars could use it with little modification and we have enought coal to power the US for hunderends of years.

  • Al - Tuesday, June 26, 2007, 11:11PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Carbon footprints and carbon offsets are a scam and a sham. I just wish I would have thought of the idea of selling these things first.

  • teti11 - Tuesday, June 26, 2007, 9:44AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Anything Uncle touches is a mistake. They should not tax or credit to crate new fuel alternatives. Seed money can be planted through Small Business Innovation Reasearch Program. Through individual grants for proposals with real merit. The American consumer will make the decision of what to drive based on the prices of fuel. The price of that fuel will dictate the alternatives. We don't need alternative fuels until the market demands it. America will respond with a whole new entreprenurial cycle the way it always does. But not before the market fundementals dicatate it. Mars has shrinking ice caps too. The planet (earth) is warming up yes but the cause is a big question. The ocean which covers 75% of the earth's surface is the largest thermal mass on the planet to suggest man can overtake the oceans temperature cycles with carbon emissions in just 100 years is alot for one to accept. Mount St Helens dumped almost half the amount of green house gas into the atmosphere in one singal event than created by all mankind ever so some of the reasoning here is difficult to accept. Expecially when the planet has already gone through hugh themal cycles from tropical due to volcanc activity and steamy to completly frozen. All the politicians are lawyers not scientists so all the ebill they pass related to technology are usually just political pork. Dr Wheelan should stay out of the politic and stick to economics. He sounds just the the people in Washington with a political ax to grind.

  • philip m - Tuesday, June 26, 2007, 9:05AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    Since the article makes sense on the surface, I am sure Congress will do the opposite.

  • Ben Dover - Sunday, June 24, 2007, 8:06AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    Like corn based ethanol, liquefying coal into petroleum has an energy penalty. In addition, the sulfur content of liquefied coal is higher than the petroleum used for automobiles. Due to EPA boiler MACT regulations, using this fuel would be an expensive option for industrial boilers, since they have an SO2 limit. Companies would have to buy millions of dollars worth of emissions control equipment. Energy independence are the big buzzwords of the day, but coal liquefaction is not the solution as it is being touted. We will pay billions in subsidies for a fuel with.... a lower net energy generation rate.... that requires very expensive emissions control equipent... which will be paid for by us, the consumers. And yes, this fuel will still emit more carbon and sulfer, even with improved emmissions control equipent. It's great that we have tons of coal and don't have to buy it from foreign sources. However, liquefied coal is a bad solution that would prove to be expensive and temporary.

  • MarteC - Friday, June 22, 2007, 1:23AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    Dr. Wheelan: With all due respect, you had me right up to your "global warming is real" comment. The earth may be growing warmer but it is not as warm as it has been previously, the supposed effects of "global warming" are extremely overstated by those with a vested interest in creating hysteria. If you're looking for a cause, look to the Sun. Please stick to what you know and what you have actually spent some time researching instead of parroting the ignorance you hear on the evening news and from Al Gore..... CO2 is approximately .03% of our atmosphere and despite the hysteria being fostered regarding it's emissions, there is no definitive link between CO2 levels and rising temperatures and although it is a greenhouse gas, it's capacity to absorb and hold heat is limited. At most, it contributes to only 10% of the greenhouse effect. Just as the Earth has been warmer previously, CO2 levels have also been higher previously and the relationship is not linear by any means. Water vapor is a more prevalant greenhouse gas that has more capacity to absorb heat but since there is no way to control it or blame human activity on it, CO2 has been made the scapegoat by those desperate to create a crisis that they can be paid to study. The models are flawed and inadequate to capture or duplicate the complexity of our ecosystem and no "real" scientist agrees with the IPCC conclusions. If you do a little research, you'll discover that 30 years ago the climatologists were predicting another ice age. Now it's global warming. They have no credibility left. The debate is not over, this is simply a cop out used by those who know they will lose any debate that occurs. Carbon credits??? Give me a break!! I wholeheartedly agree with you on subsidies and believe the free market will determine where we end up regarding alternative energy. Anyone who is really concerned about CO2 emissions should immediately stop breathing. This is called being part of the solution instead of being part of the problem!

  • harold - Wednesday, June 20, 2007, 9:50PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    dear mr. wheelan i don't know your background but i see that ph.d. don't worry about coal unless you see big oil start buying coal co's.because they control the world.because they control washington.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, June 20, 2007, 10:20AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    Charles: You have a good thesis here, but you need to list the different methods for changing CTL. There are some old CTL methods which are not good regarding CO2 etc. But, there are also some new ways to convert CTL. Give us some details here. Thanks for the article - the CTL issue needs to be discussed BEFORE the governmental hand-outs begin. Regards, drp

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, June 19, 2007, 9:49AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Excellent article. I don't know what's most scary? Idiotic government intervention to subsidize the coil industry ,or the lunatics who write "what global warming?" (but maybe they are just placed comments from the above-mentioned coil industry ;)

  • bluemoon - Sunday, June 17, 2007, 3:24PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    mr wheelan you got it all wrong! america has most coal in the ground in the world! if you were to change coal to liquid fuel.america would have enough liquid fuel to last for 300 years. every new technology needs subsidy to get get off the ground! as for environmental ! you said coal is as bad as oil, your absolutling wrong!their are new technology out their now, to turn coal into liquid fuel in a very invironmemtal friendly to the earth! the new technology that can change coal to liquid fuel is very friendly towards the earth! this proven technology will be proven in 3 to 5 years! america have to come to terms! most of the countries in the world are anti america now!they are unfriendly towards america ! example chivas, iran ect.america must find a way to get its own resourse and energy! it has to come from the usa or friendly countries like canada ! america have the most coal in the world in their ground! and turning the coal into liquid fuel is very invironmental friendly to the earth!the technology have been proven already! one barrel of oil cost america $70 dollar a barrel! one barrel of coal to liquid fuel cost america under $20 dollar a barrel! that is a $50 dollar in saving for america! it is a win win situation for america and maybe the world! first it is environmental friendly towards the earth! and consumers win! and america wins !because america does not have to depend on the middle east or unfriendly countries as much as before for their oil or resourse! and most of all america don't have to send their soldiers oversea to unfriendly countries to get kill, because they are trying to protect their interest! it is a win win situation for america and the world! america happy because they got their oil, consumer are happy it is cheap under $20 dollar to produceand it create jobs in a america,!and world happy because it is environmeantal friendly for the earth! at the end mr wheelan coal to liquid is very good for america and the world! because at the end it makes a happier world for everyone that cares.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, June 14, 2007, 5:20PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    Very brave, but unrealistic.

Showing comments 6-35 of 182<< PreviousNext >>
The columns, articles, message board posts and any other features provided on Yahoo! Finance are provided for personal finance and investment information and are not to be construed as investment advice. Under no circumstances does the information in this content represent a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. The views and opinions expressed in an article or column are the author's own and not necessarily those of Yahoo! and there is no implied endorsement by Yahoo! of any advice or trading strategy.

More From Charles Wheelan

Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science

An accessible and entertaining introduction to economics for lay readers, now available in paperback.

View more about Charles Wheelan.

The Chicago Tribune described Naked Economics as "clear, concise, informative and (gasp) witty."

Order Naked Economics today. Average customer review on Amazon.com: 4.7 out of 5 stars.

More from Yahoo! Sources

  • CNN Money
  • Consumer Reports
  • Kiplinger
  • The Motley Fool
  • Business Week
  • Wall Street Journal

Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data and daily updates provided by Morningstar, Inc. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Quotes and other information supplied by independent providers identified on the Yahoo! Finance partner page. Quotes are updated automatically, but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity. Quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes. Real-Time continuous streaming quotes are available through our premium service. You may turn streaming quotes on or off. All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein.

Yahoo! Answers is provided for informational purposes only, and no Q&A is intended for trading or investing purposes. Yahoo! shall not be responsible or liable for the accuracy, usefulness or availability of any Q&A information, and shall not be responsible or liable for any trading or investment decisions based on such information. View Complete Answers Disclaimer.