OT: So much for those California "Green" Jobs

User Forum Topic
Submitted by flu on September 6, 2011 - 5:57am

Oops...$500 million...

No worries, I'm sure some company in China will buy all the I.P./patents that this company created from the economic stimulus grants inevitably paid by taxpayers at 10cents on the dollar -(

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/solyndra-to-...
lay-off-1100/

Solar company Solyndra is closing down and filing for bankruptcy.

That news, reported by NBC and which we’ve just confirmed with the solar company, is chilling because so many hopes have been pinned on Solyndra’s success story for job creation, solar manufacturing and a celebration of American innovation.

The Fremont, Calif., company, which uses a novel process to make solar panels that are consisted of rows of solar cell-lined tubes, is laying off its 1,100 full-time and temporary employees immediately, the company said. The company, which has suspended production, plans to file for Chapter 11 and figure out what to do with its intellectual property and assets. Options include selling its business and licensing is technology.

“Solyndra LLC, the American manufacturer of innovative cylindrical solar systems for commercial rooftops today announced that global economic and solar industry market conditions have forced the Company to suspend its manufacturing operations,” the company said in a statement.

More from the company press release:

Despite strong growth in the first half of 2011 and traction in North America with a number of orders for very large commercial rooftops, Solyndra could not achieve full-scale operations rapidly enough to compete in the near term with the resources of larger foreign manufacturers. This competitive challenge was exacerbated by a global oversupply of solar panels and a severe compression of prices that in part resulted from uncertainty in governmental incentive programs in Europe and the decline in credit markets that finance solar systems.

“We are incredibly proud of our employees, and we would like to thank our investors, channel partners, customers and suppliers, for the years of support that allowed us to bring our innovative technology to market. Distributed rooftop solar power makes sense, and our customers clearly recognize the advantages of Solyndra systems,” said Solyndra’s president and CEO, Brian Harrison. “Regulatory and policy uncertainties in recent months created significant near-term excess supply and price erosion. Raising incremental capital in this environment was not possible. This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate.”

Solyndra has garnered the spotlight not only for its unusual technology but also for receiving a hefty federal loan guarantee of $535 million to build a factory. Solyndra broke ground on the factory project just before Labor Day in 2009 and completed the factory last year. Solyndra has also raised close to a billion dollars in equity and loans.

We knew this year would be a make-or-break year for Solyndra, given the company’s plan to ramp up production this year and perhaps putting behind the hubbub about its decision to forego an IPO in favor of raising private funding. The company had to lay off employees and close an older factory last year because it was having trouble competing with manufacturers, particularly those from China, that had built much larger factories and cut their costs significantly.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 6, 2011 - 6:55am.

FLU: Relax, man, there's still, like, 499,000 green jobs in California when you subtract the 1,100 lost at Solyndra from the 500,000 that were already here. Remember?

Three good articles out there in the NYT, WashPost and Investors Business Daily on Obama's green energy boondoggle.

IBD details how Johnson Controls smoked through $300MM and created just 150 jobs (that's $2MM per job, if you're counting): http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis...

WashPost "Green Jobs Myth": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

NYT on how California used over $90MM to create just 538 full time jobs, most of these being administrative in nature: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/us/19b...

I wonder if our Leftist troll buddy will come out and try to rebut this information. I mean, it seems like this is really money well spent...

Submitted by harvey on September 6, 2011 - 7:10am.

Allan,

It would seem from your post that government waste and failed investments is a purely "leftist" phenomenon - and always Obama's idea.

But why just consider green jobs? Let's start making a list of failed defense projects and their cost to taxpayers.

The list will be similar to yours above - just a few times longer and a few more zeros at the end of many price tags.

Of course "failed" is a relative term in the defense industry since, if it doesn't work, they just keep trying (read: spending.)

I guess it does create jobs though.

Remember that phrase I mentioned the other day: "Tea Party Keynesian?"

Submitted by EconProf on September 6, 2011 - 7:15am.

So the taxpayers will pay for this "investment" in green jobs. This is the problem when the government tries to pick winners and losers instead of the private sector. They make choices based on faulty science and the whims of extreme environmentalists. Private investors, with their own money at stake, tend to weigh costs and benefits before allocating resources. They may not always get it right, but they suffer the consequences when wrong (absent government bailouts). I wonder if any politicians or bureaucrats will suffer from this boondogle. Also, had that government "investment" money stayed in taxpayers' pockets and been spent on consumer items, how many real private sector jobs been created?

Submitted by flu on September 6, 2011 - 7:18am.

I think the most disturbing thing was in the IBD article...

Quote:

....unemployment remains, at 9.1%, unacceptably high. It seems that the high jobless numbers catch the administration by surprise each month.

But they shouldn't.

History is a guide. Spain's green economy program destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green job it created.

Meanwhile, the Italians put into a single green job the same amount of capital needed to create almost five jobs in the general economy.

A green economy, it seems, is scarcely better than a red one.

Submitted by flu on September 6, 2011 - 7:28am.

EconProf wrote:
So the taxpayers will pay for this "investment" in green jobs. This is the problem when the government tries to pick winners and losers instead of the private sector. They make choices based on faulty science and the whims of extreme environmentalists. Private investors, with their own money at stake, tend to weigh costs and benefits before allocating resources. They may not always get it right, but they suffer the consequences when wrong (absent government bailouts). I wonder if any politicians or bureaucrats will suffer from this boondogle. Also, had that government "investment" money stayed in taxpayers' pockets and been spent on consumer items, how many real private sector jobs been created?

I don't think government funding of projects isn't the issue per se... But things about this "green job" was bound to fail if there is no clear game plan. Come on, did anyone really think that any of these green job grants were going to succeed, without a centralized, definitive plan by the government on WHAT and HOW specifically the money was to be spent?

I mean, who would have thought "projects" that were self-started by individuals/corporations, marketed and back by VC's and marketing/sales folks who often inflate and distort the truth about a company's accomplishments, wouldn't have failed?

And regarding those defense projects. There is a big difference between funding of these green jobs versus defense/intelligence spending. Defense/intelligence projects typically originate from the government with a specific goal and specific result...The way a lot of these green job grants went was basically a free-for-all loan to whatever cock-a-mania idea someone applying for the grant could come up with....In other words, this "green job program" never had any direction but just to hand out money to companies that could market themselves (lie) the best to government who probably had no idea on what they really were going to do or how to do it....For all the railing against greedy corporations and expression of how government should regulate more, they sure didn't regulate and provide enough oversight on a "centralized green economy program". This was a disaster waiting to happen. I would be surprised to find any meaningful success stories from green job funding when it's all said and done...

Submitted by DomoArigato on September 6, 2011 - 7:57am.

For those of you upset about this relatively piddling amount, are you also concerned about the $16 trillion in secret loans to criminal banksters?

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/...

After all, $500 million is only 0.003 percent of $16 trillion.

If the criminal banksters were able to make just a 2% spread on those $16 trillion in loans, that's a theft of $320 billion from taxpayers straight to the criminal banksters who caused the economic mess we are currently in. $500 million is just 0.15 percent of $320 billion.

The difference between the right and the left is that the right always focuses on something that is relatively inconsequential (a $500 million dollar failed loan) while the left actually focuses on things that are important ($16 trillion in secret loans from the Federal Reserve to criminal banksters).

Submitted by harvey on September 6, 2011 - 8:05am.

flu wrote:
centralized, definitive plan by the government on WHAT and HOW specifically the money was to be spent?

Centralized economic plan? Where have I heard that term before?

Quote:
Defense/intelligence projects typically originate from the government with a specific goal and specific result...The way a lot of these green job grants went was basically a free-for-all loan to whatever cock-a-mania idea someone applying for the grant could come up with....

So spending a few hundred million on developing a more efficient solar panel is "cock-a-mania" idea but spending multiple billions on missile defense is a sound investment?

Dude, you're a tech guy and an investor. Think about it.

Which do you think has the bigger potential for investment returns? How much of our GDP goes into energy? Building a solar panel that is just slightly more efficient than current technologies could be worth trillions of dollars.

Missile defense? Talk about pipe dreams.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-03...
No one knows whether the $35 billion program would work. It has never been tested under conditions simulating a real attack by an intercontinental ballistic missile deploying sophisticated decoys and countermeasures. The system has flunked 7 of 15 more limited trials, yet remains exempted from normal Pentagon oversight and so far has been spared the cuts Congress is demanding in other areas of federal spending.

$35 billion dude.

My neighbor, who works at BAE, told me about this one:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/0...
$2.7 Billion Later, Army's Intelligence-Sharing Computer Still Doesn't Work

Defense spending is "top-down" - the government (Congress) decides how much to spend and then doles it out. If there are not enough sensible ideas, do you think they cut the budget, or choose not to invest?

The budget gets bigger every year. If there aren't enough projects that "make sense" they still give it to whomever/whatever. Surely you've heard the term "use it or lose it?"

This article makes some good points:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-much-...

Read it, and then read it again. The second time you read it, replace the words "defense spending" with "energy research." Not much changes, eh?

Submitted by harvey on September 6, 2011 - 8:09am.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
I wonder if our Leftist troll buddy will come out

Our rightist troll buddy (EconProf) has come out.

Why don't you ever complain about him?

Submitted by briansd1 on September 6, 2011 - 8:23am.

flu wrote:
Oops...$500 million...

No worries, I'm sure some company in China will buy all the I.P./patents that this company created from the economic stimulus grants inevitably paid by taxpayers at 10cents on the dollar -(

I wonder how China does it when we can't. We had the lead and the technology.

Yeah, it's really smart of us to cheer the bankruptcy of one of our own companies.

Loans at very low rates from state-owned banks in Beijing, cheap or free land from local and provincial governments across China, huge economies of scale and other cost advantages have transformed China from a minor player in the solar power industry just a few years ago into the main producer of an increasingly competitive source of electricity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/busine...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/busine...

Submitted by The-Shoveler on September 6, 2011 - 8:43am.

No one says anything when china prints money,

Heck I don't think anyone even keeps track and if they did anyone here think that it would be accurate ?
So lets just put it out there, we go flat currentcy, china prints, who do you think will win ?

Submitted by flu on September 6, 2011 - 8:57am.

pri_dk wrote:

So spending a few hundred million on developing a more efficient solar panel is "cock-a-mania" idea but spending multiple billions on missile defense is a sound investment?

Dude, you're a tech guy and an investor. Think about it.

Which do you think has the bigger potential for investment returns? How much of our GDP goes into energy? Building a solar panel that is just slightly more efficient than current technologies could be worth trillions of dollars.

The problem is, again, our government had NO IDEA what was being built.... Read the details about this particular type of solar panel. It was doomed from day one, because the cost of using more than one flat panel was still < the cost of one of these "newer solar panels"...

The problem is our government has know knowledge of understanding/assessing. As an "investor", I would assume at least I would somewhat "understand" what I was investing into. No agency, no knowledge of what these companies where going to do...

If the government is going to have spend on an energy program. Fine. More power to our government. What is our energy program again, and how is the money being used????

Quote:

rant about defense spending

You won't get a disgreement from me about how much we shouldn't be spending on defense. But the point I was trying to make was at least there's some direction on what "should" be built from DOD, with a spec and all.

These green projects was more like "here's the money, tell us what you're going to build, or tell us what you think you're going to build, even if you don't..." If there's any lesson to be learned about how we work in this country is that if you give someone a buck, they'll figure out how to spend 4 and won't remember what they used it for....It applies to our government.

The really really sad part is that someone is going to end up buying the i.p. of said company and that someone probably will be an overseas company.

Submitted by flu on September 6, 2011 - 8:56am.

briansd1 wrote:
flu wrote:
Oops...$500 million...

No worries, I'm sure some company in China will buy all the I.P./patents that this company created from the economic stimulus grants inevitably paid by taxpayers at 10cents on the dollar -(

I wonder how China does it when we can't. We had the lead and the technology.

Yeah, it's really smart of us to cheer the bankruptcy of one of our own companies.

Loans at very low rates from state-owned banks in Beijing, cheap or free land from local and provincial governments across China, huge economies of scale and other cost advantages have transformed China from a minor player in the solar power industry just a few years ago into the main producer of an increasingly competitive source of electricity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/busine...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/business/energy-environment/25solar.html

Brian, who's cheering the demise of our companies?

And to answer the question why china can do it cheaper...Cheaper labor, relaxed environment concerns, government subsidies,etc.

Submitted by flu on September 6, 2011 - 8:59am.

DomoArigato wrote:
For those of you upset about this relatively piddling amount, are you also concerned about the $16 trillion in secret loans to criminal banksters?

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/...

After all, $500 million is only 0.003 percent of $16 trillion.

If the criminal banksters were able to make just a 2% spread on those $16 trillion in loans, that's a theft of $320 billion from taxpayers straight to the criminal banksters who caused the economic mess we are currently in. $500 million is just 0.15 percent of $320 billion.

The difference between the right and the left is that the right always focuses on something that is relatively inconsequential (a $500 million dollar failed loan) while the left actually focuses on things that are important ($16 trillion in secret loans from the Federal Reserve to criminal banksters).

This isn't a right versus left rant. This is an argument about the government should stop spending taxpayer dollars on bullshit without a definitive plan, right or left.....And more importantly, why government should not be able to exist completely to the left nor should it be allowed to exist completely to the right...

Submitted by harvey on September 6, 2011 - 9:47am.

Solyndra has also raised close to a billion dollars in equity and loans.

So this wasn't a purely government funded venture. In fact, most of their capital came from the private sector.

This wasn't some goofy idea that the government blindly tossed money at - it was a startup that founded by experienced managers and backed by serious venture capitalists.

How many auto manufactures started and failed in the 1930?

How many aircraft manufactures started and failed in the 1950?

How many IT and biotechnology companies started and failed in the past thirty years?

This company is really just another example of a startup that didn't make it - part of a healthy and functioning capitalist system.

And yes, people are "cheering" this failure. This company is being positioned as a poster-child of Obama's failed economic policy.

And you really think the government knows what the defense industry is doing with our money?

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-s...

When it comes to national security, all too often no expense is spared and few questions are asked - with the result an enterprise so massive that nobody in government has a full understanding of it. It is, as Dana Priest and William M. Arkin have found, ubiquitous, often inefficient and mostly invisible to the people it is meant to protect and who fund it.

The articles in this series and an online database at topsecretamerica.com depict the scope and complexity of the government's national security program through interactive maps and other graphics. Every data point on the Web site is substantiated by at least two public records.

This shouldn't be a left/right debate, but the first response to this thread shows that it is.

And our Domo is correct - what is lacking is the sense of proportion. One side of the political spectrum doesn't know how to count zeros when they see big numbers.

Submitted by EconProf on September 6, 2011 - 9:36am.

DomoArigato wrote:
For those of you upset about this relatively piddling amount, are you also concerned about the $16 trillion in secret loans to criminal banksters?

.

Yes.

Submitted by afx114 on September 6, 2011 - 9:53am.

Maybe this is part of the reason for the failure?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 6, 2011 - 9:58am.

briansd1 wrote:

I wonder how China does it when we can't. We had the lead and the technology.

Yeah, it's really smart of us to cheer the bankruptcy of one of our own companies.

Brian: No one is cheering the demise of an American company. That's a complete red herring and a cheap rhetorical attempt to deflect focus from the facts.

As was just pointed out, this is not a Left versus Right rant, but a pointed reference to the "true" cost of green energy. As has already been discovered by Spain, England and Germany, there are significant costs, both direct and opportunity, in green energy. As I've pointed out, the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, but should instead be promoting R&D efforts and then let the market drive the winners.

How can China do it, you ask? Well, if you're interested in facts, China is NOT doing it. Its a friggin' Potemkin Village over there, as evidenced by the recent chem/enviro issues in Dalian and that supposed "accident" involving high speed rail. The idea that we're ceding the lead to China can be disproved and any lead that China is enjoying will be ephemeral at best.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 6, 2011 - 10:06am.

pri_dk wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
I wonder if our Leftist troll buddy will come out

Our rightist troll buddy (EconProf) has come out.

Why don't you ever complain about him?

Pri: As a former Army officer, you should appreciate the value of good intel. The remark about the Leftist troll was related to a dust-up that FLU and I had with an idiot that kept banging on about the "500,000 green jobs" that WERE already in California. This was a complete lie and easily exposed, but this person kept insisting that it was fact and then started in with the ad hominem (yes, I did just use the word "idiot", which might sound like ad hominem, except this person WAS an idiot).

So, as with everything in life, context is important.

As to your use of the word "rightist", you do realize that you're using that word incorrectly, right? A "Rightist" is a fascist (again, using context). Of course, you might think EconProf IS a fascist, but that's between you guys.

Lastly, I've always been behind the idea of cutting the shit out of the Defense budget and have posted numerous times what a great idea that would be (along with cuts in entitlement spending, tax reform, bringing taxation in line with previous historical norms, i.e. approx 18% of GDP, etc).

Nice to see, however, that you've moved from the strawman to the false equivalence. That's a good one, just ask Brian.

Submitted by briansd1 on September 6, 2011 - 10:46am.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
How can China do it, you ask? Well, if you're interested in facts, China is NOT doing it. Its a friggin' Potemkin Village over there, as evidenced by the recent chem/enviro issues in Dalian and that supposed "accident" involving high speed rail. The idea that we're ceding the lead to China can be disproved and any lead that China is enjoying will be ephemeral at best.

Time will tell, Allan. But I belived that you'll proven wrong on China just like you were wrong on Iraq. But decades later it'll be too late to fix our mistakes.

You and I would agree that competition is "war." China is organizing a big army with big guns. We have ragtag bands of private militia.

In the scheme of things, the high-speed rail incident is nothing. China will power along and continue building infrastructure.

China is embarking a huge project of state sponsored innovation that Japan, Korea, and to a lesser extent Taiwan, successfully implemented. Germany is a strong export led economy thanks to government policies.

Yes, yes, Japan is not the feared industrial power it once was, but they are a rich country and a worthy competitor.

The question is: do we want the best jobs in America or not?

Yes, I agree that we have lots going for us, from demographics, to land mass, to natural resources. We will continue to be a wealthy country. But wealth is relative.

Submitted by harvey on September 6, 2011 - 10:39am.

Quote:
As to your use of the word "rightist", you do realize that you're using that word incorrectly, right?

Two of my kids are twins. When they were babies they had their own babble language. It was really cute and quite fascinating, but I never bothered to try to translate it.

They've outgrown it now and use the same words as everyone else.

Quote:
I've always been behind the idea of cutting the shit out of the Defense budget and have posted numerous times what a great idea that would be

True, you occasionally drop in a comment along the lines of "and we should cut defense and other stuff also."

But you don't seem to have the same passion for these issues, even though they represent problems that are orders of magnitude bigger.

Also, I don't know what you mean by "false equivalence."

(I googled it and this was the first result: http://furrybrowndog.wordpress.com/2009/...

So now I know a little better what the term means.)

But defense waste and green energy waste are far from equivalent. That's my point.

So, although your outrage may be justified, it seems to be quite selective. And it always seems to come back to Obama.

Submitted by briansd1 on September 6, 2011 - 10:43am.

pri_dk wrote:

So, although your outrage may be justified, it seems to be quite selective. And it always seems to come back to Obama.

Exactly.

What are the proposals from the right? 0% corporate tax rates.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7...

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 6, 2011 - 11:18am.

briansd1 wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
How can China do it, you ask? Well, if you're interested in facts, China is NOT doing it. Its a friggin' Potemkin Village over there, as evidenced by the recent chem/enviro issues in Dalian and that supposed "accident" involving high speed rail. The idea that we're ceding the lead to China can be disproved and any lead that China is enjoying will be ephemeral at best.

Time will tell, Allan. But I belived that you'll proven wrong on China just like you were wrong on Iraq. But decades later it'll be too late to fix our mistakes.

You and I would agree that competition is "war." China is organizing a big army with big guns. We have ragtag bands of private militia.

In the scheme of things, the high-speed rail incident is nothing. China will power along and continue building infrastructure.

China is embarking a huge project of state sponsored innovation that Japan, Korea, and to a lesser extent Taiwan, successfully implemented. Germany is a strong export led economy thanks to government policies.

Yes, yes, Japan is not the feared industrial power it once was, but they are a rich country and a worthy competitor.

The question is: do we want the best jobs in America or not?

Yes, I agree that we have lots going for us, from demographics, to land mass, to natural resources. We will continue to be a wealthy country. But wealth is relative.

Brian: Just out of curiosity, when's the last time you've been to China? Let me know if its been within the last six months, please.

They have an army with big guns? Uh, no, they don't. What they do have is nearly 100MM people in or approaching old age. They have a birth rate far below their replacement rate (China's vaunted One Child Policy), they have a male-to-female birthrate imbalance that is nearly 1.2 to 1 in some provinces. They have a coming labor bust that will ensure China will get old before they get rich. They have a horrific environmental record (see Dalian) and, contrary to reports, its getting worse, not better. Their internal security budget is largely than ALL of their military outlays combined and their military spending is increasingly rapidly (to give you some sense of proportion).

As to infrastructure: China uses more fly ash in their cement (that's right cement, not concrete) than anywhere else in the world. As a result, you now have failing structures all over the place, from buildings to bridges to dams, and all of the projects are fairly new construction. Speaking of dams, read up on the peer-review engineering reports on Three Gorges Dam and then tell me all about China's infrastructure prowess.

I know you generally don't like facts, Brian, because they do get in the way of the false narrative, but the facts are all there. Hell, we haven't even discussed China's bad loan ratios, in terms of all that state spending you love so much. The country is a mess, but they do an excellent job of hiding it from the world. Do a little research and find out how many riots and incidents of civil unrest occur throughout China in a single year. The number should stun you. It probably won't, but it should.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 6, 2011 - 11:20am.

pri_dk wrote:
Quote:
As to your use of the word "rightist", you do realize that you're using that word incorrectly, right?

Two of my kids are twins. When they were babies they had their own babble language. It was really cute and quite fascinating, but I never bothered to try to translate it.

They've outgrown it now and use the same words as everyone else.

Quote:
I've always been behind the idea of cutting the shit out of the Defense budget and have posted numerous times what a great idea that would be

True, you occasionally drop in a comment along the lines of "and we should cut defense and other stuff also."

But you don't seem to have the same passion for these issues, even though they represent problems that are orders of magnitude bigger.

Also, I don't know what you mean by "false equivalence."

(I googled it and this was the first result: http://furrybrowndog.wordpress.com/2009/...

So now I know a little better what the term means.)

But defense waste and green energy waste are far from equivalent. That's my point.

So, although your outrage may be justified, it seems to be quite selective. And it always seems to come back to Obama.

Pri: Okay, to recap. I babble like an idiot baby and I lack sufficient passion for Defense and entitlement cuts.

Gotcha. Glad we got that out of the way. Now, how about the discussion on government picking winners and losers, versus those successful government R&D programs that properly deploy resources and help market drivers? You know, because Brian wants us to have the right jobs.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 6, 2011 - 11:21am.

briansd1 wrote:
pri_dk wrote:

So, although your outrage may be justified, it seems to be quite selective. And it always seems to come back to Obama.

Exactly.

Brian: Puh-leeze. Pot meet Kettle.

Submitted by patb on September 6, 2011 - 11:25am.

EconProf wrote:
So the taxpayers will pay for this "investment" in green jobs. This is the problem when the government tries to pick winners and losers instead of the private sector. They make choices based on faulty science and the whims of extreme environmentalists. Private investors, with their own money at stake, tend to weigh costs and benefits before allocating resources. They may not always get it right, but they suffer the consequences when wrong (absent government bailouts). I wonder if any politicians or bureaucrats will suffer from this boondogle. Also, had that government "investment" money stayed in taxpayers' pockets and been spent on consumer items, how many real private sector jobs been created?

Answer None: Because the Private sector picks jobs in China over jobs in San Diego.

Submitted by harvey on September 6, 2011 - 11:49am.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Pri: Okay, to recap. I babble like an idiot baby and I lack sufficient passion for Defense and entitlement cuts.

Ok, I know that you didn't mean to call my kids idiots...my bad for mentioning them in the first place.

My point is that you seem to have your own private vernacular - particularly with this "leftist" stuff. It really comes across as an attempted substitute for the world "liberal" - a term that is ubiquitous with the right-wing blowhards like Limbaugh.

Every Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity/etc. show starts out with essentially the same intro: "Look what those liberals are doing now!" and then proceeds with stories about the outrageous behavior of Obama and the "liberals," while completely ignoring the similar and, often much bigger, abuses from the right.

Some of your posts aren't much different. Except you say "leftist" instead of "liberal."

Submitted by briansd1 on September 6, 2011 - 12:31pm.

Allan, so China is a mess and we have nothing to worry about. We can rest on our laurels.

You mentioned WWII for getting us out of the Great Depression, a decade after it began. Why does it have to be war and killing people?

True or only partly true, so what if we perceive China as the competition and we work together to outdo the perceived marvels they are building in China?

*

No, I haven't been to China in the past 6 months. But I have a Taiwanese friend, based in Taipei, who is a buyer of products make in China. Her family is Taiwanese (not 1949 refugees from the Mainland) but they all work and have investments in China. Many of her childhood friends are working in China. She's coming here this weekend, so we'll get a chance to talk more.

I have other friends in China whom I regularly keep in touch with.

One friend and his wife are immigrating from Beijing to Canada after working hard and saving money. They are immigrating not because of bad economic condition but to avoid the stress of a hard-driving environment.

China has the benefit of a huge prosperous overseas community that will do business and bring skills to China if the right incentives are there. They have a global class of professionals that can work anywhere in the world. That can only benefit Chinese manufacturers who want to export.

Africa is a huge emerging markets. Chinese small businesses are opening up all over and bringing Chinese products to eager consumers.

BTW, if a Republican is to win the White House, for our country's sake, let's hope that it's Jon Huntsman because he does understand China.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on September 6, 2011 - 12:57pm.

pri_dk wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Pri: Okay, to recap. I babble like an idiot baby and I lack sufficient passion for Defense and entitlement cuts.

Ok, I know that you didn't mean to call my kids idiots...my bad for mentioning them in the first place.

My point is that you seem to have your own private vernacular - particularly with this "leftist" stuff. It really comes across as an attempted substitute for the world "liberal" - a term that is ubiquitous with the right-wing blowhards like Limbaugh.

Every Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity/etc. show starts out with essentially the same intro: "Look what those liberals are doing now!" and then proceeds with stories about the outrageous behavior of Obama and the "liberals," while completely ignoring the similar and, often much bigger, abuses from the right.

Some of your posts aren't much different. Except you say "leftist" instead of "liberal."

Pri: Words mean things. Ideas have weight. I don't use the term "liberal/Liberal" as a pejorative, both because it is not (to me) and because it is one of the most beautiful words and concepts in the English language.

I do use the term Leftist (capital L) as a pejorative because it represents an utterly amoral, intellectually bankrupt and thoroughly reprehensible worldview and it has ties to a vile political system that killed 100MM and which I personally took up arms against during my military service. Sadly, the sticky, foul remnants of this same debunked moral infantilism run through our academic circles and pool in certain areas of the urban intelligentsia. It manifests itself in the use of various memes, tropes and symbology/iconography and I take great pains to fire upon it when I see it.

For the record, I have no truck with Limbaugh, Hannity or any of their ilk, and find them as stupid and mindless as their confederates on the Left, including Maddow and Olbermann.

Words mean things. Ideas have weight. Certain ideals are not only worth fighting for, they're worth dying for.

Submitted by afx114 on September 6, 2011 - 1:14pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
For the record, I have no truck with Limbaugh, Hannity or any of their ilk, and find them as stupid and mindless as their confederates on the Left, including Maddow and Olbermann.

Did someone say false equivalence?

Submitted by Aecetia on September 6, 2011 - 1:15pm.

flu wrote:
I think the most disturbing thing was in the IBD article...

Quote:

....unemployment remains, at 9.1%, unacceptably high. It seems that the high jobless numbers catch the administration by surprise each month.

But they shouldn't.

History is a guide. Spain's green economy program destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green job it created.

Meanwhile, the Italians put into a single green job the same amount of capital needed to create almost five jobs in the general economy.

A green economy, it seems, is scarcely better than a red one.

flu,
The unemployment is even worse than that. Check out this from the AP: "Combined, the 14 million officially unemployed; the 'underemployed' part-timers who want full-time work; and 'discouraged' people who have stopped looking make up 16.2 percent of working-age Americans.
America's 14 million unemployed aren't competing just with each other. They must also contend with 8.8 million other people not counted as unemployed — part-timers who want full-time work."
http://www.rep-am.com/news/national/doc4...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.