[Shadowfax]

[quote=Aecetia]Green is gone: “Renewable power companies have been forced to abandon attempts to raise money on the London and Madrid stock markets amid fallout from the European debt crisis and concerns about future public spending levels.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/13/renewables-float-spain-economic-uncertainty%5B/quote%5D
Call me a lefty, but this makes me quite sad. Not only do we not have enough enterprises ready to put “green” energy on the market, but the markets don’t have any support for the few that are left! I don’t see much future in getting the US off oil if there’s little invesment interest in other forms of energy….

To change the tone of this debate a little, what makes “green” energy or other industries so hard to promote and produce? It definitely takes a lot of money (and permits and such) to erect a wind farm, but an oil rig must take at least that much, right? Are the profits just so much bigger? Barrels of oil vs. kilowatts of wind power?

I guess a key difference is there’s little or no intermediate market–crude oil has to be processed and then distributed, so there’s lots of opportunities for money to change hands there.

Wind and sun convert pretty easily (I am no expert, but I don’t see any refineries connected to the houses in town with solar panels) into electricity.

Are we just making green energy too simple to be profitable?

As for the jobs generated in CA–I have seen an uptick of solar-related contractors lately. Surely there’s a few hundred jobs there? Or do they not count becuase they are probably all out of work roofers who just made a career change….

[Shadowfax]

[quote=Aecetia]Green is gone: “Renewable power companies have been forced to abandon attempts to raise money on the London and Madrid stock markets amid fallout from the European debt crisis and concerns about future public spending levels.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/13/renewables-float-spain-economic-uncertainty%5B/quote%5D
Call me a lefty, but this makes me quite sad. Not only do we not have enough enterprises ready to put “green” energy on the market, but the markets don’t have any support for the few that are left! I don’t see much future in getting the US off oil if there’s little invesment interest in other forms of energy….

To change the tone of this debate a little, what makes “green” energy or other industries so hard to promote and produce? It definitely takes a lot of money (and permits and such) to erect a wind farm, but an oil rig must take at least that much, right? Are the profits just so much bigger? Barrels of oil vs. kilowatts of wind power?

I guess a key difference is there’s little or no intermediate market–crude oil has to be processed and then distributed, so there’s lots of opportunities for money to change hands there.

Wind and sun convert pretty easily (I am no expert, but I don’t see any refineries connected to the houses in town with solar panels) into electricity.

Are we just making green energy too simple to be profitable?

As for the jobs generated in CA–I have seen an uptick of solar-related contractors lately. Surely there’s a few hundred jobs there? Or do they not count becuase they are probably all out of work roofers who just made a career change….

[Shadowfax]

I think many of the participants here are saying the same things. The “Super-wealthy”–both biological persons and legal fictions–need to pay their fair share. (The latter especially since they were recently gifted the ability to influence elections–representation without taxation is an alien concept!) Definitions of “wealth” need to be clear and free of loopholes. And those definitions should account for modern day realities–a dual income of $250k a year in 1975 seemed like a lot of money, but is really just “comfortable” in today’s terms. It equates to a dual-income professional family. When you factor in retirement savings, college education(s) for that family’s 1.7 children and, most likely, contributions of the primary wage earners to their parents’ care as they reach old age, this is really not a lot of money.

So, super rich is not a family that earns $250k a year–it’s more like a million or more per year. And this shouldn’t be limited to classical “salary”. The definition should include significant investment income (profits from rentals, dividends, etc.). Yes, this creates a disincentive to invest, but if you are making a shit ton of money from these activities, you have reaped a benefit from our societal system and you should be contributing it back.

And offshore corporations that make profits in the US should be TAXABLE HERE like a domestic corporation. Those tax rates should be examined as well and likely increased.

Yes, this redistributes wealth, but I think it’s time the super rich ask themselves a simple question–how much is enough? I personally don’t need a cliffside house in Malibu and chateaux around the globe. Greed is ugly and why is it so repulsive to people to share when they have over an above a level of abundance? I have admired Buffet for years because he has been saying that he doesn’t pay enough in taxes. (now, whether he tells his accounting firm that does Berkshire’s and his own taxes to “pay more”, who knows?)

[Shadowfax]

I think many of the participants here are saying the same things. The “Super-wealthy”–both biological persons and legal fictions–need to pay their fair share. (The latter especially since they were recently gifted the ability to influence elections–representation without taxation is an alien concept!) Definitions of “wealth” need to be clear and free of loopholes. And those definitions should account for modern day realities–a dual income of $250k a year in 1975 seemed like a lot of money, but is really just “comfortable” in today’s terms. It equates to a dual-income professional family. When you factor in retirement savings, college education(s) for that family’s 1.7 children and, most likely, contributions of the primary wage earners to their parents’ care as they reach old age, this is really not a lot of money.

So, super rich is not a family that earns $250k a year–it’s more like a million or more per year. And this shouldn’t be limited to classical “salary”. The definition should include significant investment income (profits from rentals, dividends, etc.). Yes, this creates a disincentive to invest, but if you are making a shit ton of money from these activities, you have reaped a benefit from our societal system and you should be contributing it back.

And offshore corporations that make profits in the US should be TAXABLE HERE like a domestic corporation. Those tax rates should be examined as well and likely increased.

Yes, this redistributes wealth, but I think it’s time the super rich ask themselves a simple question–how much is enough? I personally don’t need a cliffside house in Malibu and chateaux around the globe. Greed is ugly and why is it so repulsive to people to share when they have over an above a level of abundance? I have admired Buffet for years because he has been saying that he doesn’t pay enough in taxes. (now, whether he tells his accounting firm that does Berkshire’s and his own taxes to “pay more”, who knows?)

[Shadowfax]

I think many of the participants here are saying the same things. The “Super-wealthy”–both biological persons and legal fictions–need to pay their fair share. (The latter especially since they were recently gifted the ability to influence elections–representation without taxation is an alien concept!) Definitions of “wealth” need to be clear and free of loopholes. And those definitions should account for modern day realities–a dual income of $250k a year in 1975 seemed like a lot of money, but is really just “comfortable” in today’s terms. It equates to a dual-income professional family. When you factor in retirement savings, college education(s) for that family’s 1.7 children and, most likely, contributions of the primary wage earners to their parents’ care as they reach old age, this is really not a lot of money.

So, super rich is not a family that earns $250k a year–it’s more like a million or more per year. And this shouldn’t be limited to classical “salary”. The definition should include significant investment income (profits from rentals, dividends, etc.). Yes, this creates a disincentive to invest, but if you are making a shit ton of money from these activities, you have reaped a benefit from our societal system and you should be contributing it back.

And offshore corporations that make profits in the US should be TAXABLE HERE like a domestic corporation. Those tax rates should be examined as well and likely increased.

Yes, this redistributes wealth, but I think it’s time the super rich ask themselves a simple question–how much is enough? I personally don’t need a cliffside house in Malibu and chateaux around the globe. Greed is ugly and why is it so repulsive to people to share when they have over an above a level of abundance? I have admired Buffet for years because he has been saying that he doesn’t pay enough in taxes. (now, whether he tells his accounting firm that does Berkshire’s and his own taxes to “pay more”, who knows?)

[Shadowfax]

I think many of the participants here are saying the same things. The “Super-wealthy”–both biological persons and legal fictions–need to pay their fair share. (The latter especially since they were recently gifted the ability to influence elections–representation without taxation is an alien concept!) Definitions of “wealth” need to be clear and free of loopholes. And those definitions should account for modern day realities–a dual income of $250k a year in 1975 seemed like a lot of money, but is really just “comfortable” in today’s terms. It equates to a dual-income professional family. When you factor in retirement savings, college education(s) for that family’s 1.7 children and, most likely, contributions of the primary wage earners to their parents’ care as they reach old age, this is really not a lot of money.

So, super rich is not a family that earns $250k a year–it’s more like a million or more per year. And this shouldn’t be limited to classical “salary”. The definition should include significant investment income (profits from rentals, dividends, etc.). Yes, this creates a disincentive to invest, but if you are making a shit ton of money from these activities, you have reaped a benefit from our societal system and you should be contributing it back.

And offshore corporations that make profits in the US should be TAXABLE HERE like a domestic corporation. Those tax rates should be examined as well and likely increased.

Yes, this redistributes wealth, but I think it’s time the super rich ask themselves a simple question–how much is enough? I personally don’t need a cliffside house in Malibu and chateaux around the globe. Greed is ugly and why is it so repulsive to people to share when they have over an above a level of abundance? I have admired Buffet for years because he has been saying that he doesn’t pay enough in taxes. (now, whether he tells his accounting firm that does Berkshire’s and his own taxes to “pay more”, who knows?)

[Shadowfax]

I think many of the participants here are saying the same things. The “Super-wealthy”–both biological persons and legal fictions–need to pay their fair share. (The latter especially since they were recently gifted the ability to influence elections–representation without taxation is an alien concept!) Definitions of “wealth” need to be clear and free of loopholes. And those definitions should account for modern day realities–a dual income of $250k a year in 1975 seemed like a lot of money, but is really just “comfortable” in today’s terms. It equates to a dual-income professional family. When you factor in retirement savings, college education(s) for that family’s 1.7 children and, most likely, contributions of the primary wage earners to their parents’ care as they reach old age, this is really not a lot of money.

So, super rich is not a family that earns $250k a year–it’s more like a million or more per year. And this shouldn’t be limited to classical “salary”. The definition should include significant investment income (profits from rentals, dividends, etc.). Yes, this creates a disincentive to invest, but if you are making a shit ton of money from these activities, you have reaped a benefit from our societal system and you should be contributing it back.

And offshore corporations that make profits in the US should be TAXABLE HERE like a domestic corporation. Those tax rates should be examined as well and likely increased.

Yes, this redistributes wealth, but I think it’s time the super rich ask themselves a simple question–how much is enough? I personally don’t need a cliffside house in Malibu and chateaux around the globe. Greed is ugly and why is it so repulsive to people to share when they have over an above a level of abundance? I have admired Buffet for years because he has been saying that he doesn’t pay enough in taxes. (now, whether he tells his accounting firm that does Berkshire’s and his own taxes to “pay more”, who knows?)

[Shadowfax]

[quote=doofrat]Why do Nigerians send out e-mails? Because they’re too far away to hold free seminars.[/quote]

So funny and so true! I have a touchy-feely question: Did you leave the seminar feeling uplifted? Was the speaker dynamic, charismatic, funny and motivating? Were you bored to tears? If the answer to the first 2 questions is yes, you are being manipulated–someone hired a flashy, well-trained salesman to spin a wonderful yarn about getting rich quick.

If you were bored and realized at some point that getting into land would take a considerable amount of work and money, then you might be on to something…..

[Shadowfax]

[quote=doofrat]Why do Nigerians send out e-mails? Because they’re too far away to hold free seminars.[/quote]

So funny and so true! I have a touchy-feely question: Did you leave the seminar feeling uplifted? Was the speaker dynamic, charismatic, funny and motivating? Were you bored to tears? If the answer to the first 2 questions is yes, you are being manipulated–someone hired a flashy, well-trained salesman to spin a wonderful yarn about getting rich quick.

If you were bored and realized at some point that getting into land would take a considerable amount of work and money, then you might be on to something…..

[Shadowfax]

[quote=doofrat]Why do Nigerians send out e-mails? Because they’re too far away to hold free seminars.[/quote]

So funny and so true! I have a touchy-feely question: Did you leave the seminar feeling uplifted? Was the speaker dynamic, charismatic, funny and motivating? Were you bored to tears? If the answer to the first 2 questions is yes, you are being manipulated–someone hired a flashy, well-trained salesman to spin a wonderful yarn about getting rich quick.

If you were bored and realized at some point that getting into land would take a considerable amount of work and money, then you might be on to something…..

[Shadowfax]

[quote=doofrat]Why do Nigerians send out e-mails? Because they’re too far away to hold free seminars.[/quote]

So funny and so true! I have a touchy-feely question: Did you leave the seminar feeling uplifted? Was the speaker dynamic, charismatic, funny and motivating? Were you bored to tears? If the answer to the first 2 questions is yes, you are being manipulated–someone hired a flashy, well-trained salesman to spin a wonderful yarn about getting rich quick.

If you were bored and realized at some point that getting into land would take a considerable amount of work and money, then you might be on to something…..

[Shadowfax]

[quote=doofrat]Why do Nigerians send out e-mails? Because they’re too far away to hold free seminars.[/quote]

So funny and so true! I have a touchy-feely question: Did you leave the seminar feeling uplifted? Was the speaker dynamic, charismatic, funny and motivating? Were you bored to tears? If the answer to the first 2 questions is yes, you are being manipulated–someone hired a flashy, well-trained salesman to spin a wonderful yarn about getting rich quick.

If you were bored and realized at some point that getting into land would take a considerable amount of work and money, then you might be on to something…..

[Shadowfax]

O’Donnell is a joke. And I love how these unqualified idiots decide to stop giving interviews and withdraw from the media once they have had their a$$es handed to them in any kind of challenging debate. I am all for women in government, but Palin and O’Donnell are cut from the same lackluster cloth and have nothing of value to offer as leadership or even an understanding of the issues. But they look so darn cute spouting those folksy-isms and talking points!

Unions: they served a purpose once, long ago, but now they seem to have become as corrupt as the robber barons and industrialists they used to fight against. I think the goal of having a united workforce has its time and place, but it’s unfortunate that union has become synonymous with corruption, extortion and laziness. The migrant farm workers could really use some old school unionizing right now, but every one is so turned off by what unions have become that it’s an uphill battle.

[Shadowfax]

O’Donnell is a joke. And I love how these unqualified idiots decide to stop giving interviews and withdraw from the media once they have had their a$$es handed to them in any kind of challenging debate. I am all for women in government, but Palin and O’Donnell are cut from the same lackluster cloth and have nothing of value to offer as leadership or even an understanding of the issues. But they look so darn cute spouting those folksy-isms and talking points!

Unions: they served a purpose once, long ago, but now they seem to have become as corrupt as the robber barons and industrialists they used to fight against. I think the goal of having a united workforce has its time and place, but it’s unfortunate that union has become synonymous with corruption, extortion and laziness. The migrant farm workers could really use some old school unionizing right now, but every one is so turned off by what unions have become that it’s an uphill battle.

[Shadowfax]

O’Donnell is a joke. And I love how these unqualified idiots decide to stop giving interviews and withdraw from the media once they have had their a$$es handed to them in any kind of challenging debate. I am all for women in government, but Palin and O’Donnell are cut from the same lackluster cloth and have nothing of value to offer as leadership or even an understanding of the issues. But they look so darn cute spouting those folksy-isms and talking points!

Unions: they served a purpose once, long ago, but now they seem to have become as corrupt as the robber barons and industrialists they used to fight against. I think the goal of having a united workforce has its time and place, but it’s unfortunate that union has become synonymous with corruption, extortion and laziness. The migrant farm workers could really use some old school unionizing right now, but every one is so turned off by what unions have become that it’s an uphill battle.

[Author]

Posts