OT: Wind Generation Follow-up

Page 4 of 5  
Re Re: OT: Wind Generation Follow-up:

Thanks to Jimmy Carter.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

rather
of
Good point. Devices are becoming more efficient all the time. I remember in 1982 working on a mainframe that's less powerful than any of the 20 PC's I have in the basement "junk tower." In 30 years, the computing industry has taken enormous strides. As the incredible technical advances made during WWII show, where there's a will, there's often a way. I am confident that there will be tremendous advances in solar, wind and other types of alternative energy once we really get behind funding R&D for them. Once we change our corporate entitlement structure, we'll pay to develop alternative forms of energy instead of subsidizing the oil and gas industry with incentives that *should* have been phased out decades ago.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/17/2011 7:23 PM, Robert Green wrote:

Back in 1987-88 I was working on a Core of Engineers project where a Cray X-MP Super Computer was being installed. A few years back, I read a story about one of them in Huntsville, Alabama that the state couldn't give away because nobody wanted it. ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL. Spoken like a true lib, where the newest technique is to redefine every word in the english vocabulary in a desperate attempt to continue the ways that most American people have rejected. Now allowing certain tax deductions in an industry that pays HUGE federal income taxes as welll as more taxes on the fuels themselves suddenly becomes "entitlements", as if it were welfare handed out to a skunk who dropped out of high school, got pregnant with 4 kids by 3 different fathers, chooses not to work and has never paid any income taxes.
Kind of like the Obama method of starting to count "jobs saved", a term no one, including economists ever heard of before. And for good reason, because it can't be measured and is totally bogus. But of course, the liberal media gobbled that up, hook, line and sinker without ever questioning it or mentioning it had never been done before. Or equating continuing the current tax rates as something "we can't afford", as if it's equivalent to spending. Funny, it's the only thing I've heard so far that the libs have found that we can't afford.....
Here's a novel concept. Let's phase out all subsidies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/18/2011 9:44 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Sounds like someone is in Rush Limbagh fantasy land. If we are going to have this fantasy "free market" then lets have one. No exceptions for oil companies and no bailouts for bankers either. Show me 3 dozen of the bankers and Wall Street elite who sacked the economy in handcuffs and I will believe your statement means something.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

Why would you put them in handcuffs?
In the main, they broke no laws, they played by the rules, they have families.
Think of their children!
All the current difficulty started when some empathetic souls in the Congress decided to redefine membership in the middle class. Since "middle class" means, generally, that you own your own home, some liberals felt people could be moved from "poor" to "middle class" simply by fixing the economic system so these "poor" folks could have a house (they already had a car, cell-phone, microwave, 52" TV, and obviously more than plenty to eat).
Ergo, low-cost home loans were mandated.
The bankers and such that you want to see chained to a wall upside down are, in my view, the wrong targets for your wrath.
You should go after Bush!
But you already knew that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There's a better chance of that happening than of seeing Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, or Jamie Gerlich go to jail. Tell me this. If there is a clear prosecutable case against Wall Street executives, why is it that they aren't being prosecuted? After the collapse of the internet bubble we saw dozens of prosecutions of executives from Enron, Wcom, Tyco....
Oh, but wait, that was under the Bush administration that was supposed to be in cahouts with big business, right. So, why is it that Eric Holder under Obama won't prosecute? Hmmm? Could it be he knows he doesn't have a case?
The thing that had the populist libs shorts all in a knot was the TARP money that was put together by Bush and bailed out Wall Street as well as other companies, like GM. How outrageous! Why that money is going to pay the guys that ran those companies! They still to this day rant on about it.
Well, of the $757bil that was lent or invested in those companies, what do you think happened to it all? In Obama's proposed budget it shows that all but $48billion has been recovered. But wait. That was when the budget was prepared months ago. As of now, it's down to $28bil that's still at risk. And when it's all over, it's almost certain the govt will have an actual PROFIT on the whole thing.
Compare that to Obama's stimulus for $850Bil+, which was money that went out the window never to be repaid at all.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/18/2011 8:02 PM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

So you are saying it is OK to be totally disingenuous by constantly chanting "free market" and not be totally outraged that the government bailed out all of the pirates and gamblers?

Sounds like you completely missed my point. It shouldn't have happened in the first place and anyone who is chants free market and is honest should be outraged. If Rush Limbagh is going to use the phrase "free market" 100 times each show then I want total outrage when the government gets involved in *anything*. If not Limbagh and his devotees are just being totally disingenuous.

So lets confuse the issue by bringing up something totally different.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Would you have preferred that instead the govt allowed the entire financial system to collapse just to prove a point? Some of us learned lessons from the Great Depression, where the govt either did nothing or the wrong things. And if a bailout where the govt not only gets back ALL of the money it put on the line, but can actually wind up with a profit is the cost of avoiding a total disaster once every 80 years, I say it's worth it.
As for bailing out all of the pirates and gamblers, I think if you ask the investors that had stocks and bonds in the likes of GM, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc, they would tell you they lost all their investment. Theoretically, that should teach them to be more careful next time. Do I agree with everything the govt did with TARP in all cases? No. But in the end, given that we are getting ALL the money back, with a profit almost assured at this point, the "bailout" looks very smart.
And again, if Obama, who is no friend of capatilism and Eric Holder want to bring criminal charges against anyone, they are free to do so. The Bush administration brought plenty of them after the 2000 stock market collapse against the Enrons, Wcoms, Tycos etc. If they think they have such a great case, what are they waiting for? They found time to bring suit against the state of AZ, didn't they?

It's not something totally different. Obama's $850bil stimulus is a good example of a similar size govt program taken to help the economy. An example of the typical, common, govt action that is taken not once every 80 years, but quite regularly and results in HUGE SPENDING that is never intended to be paid back and adds directly to the national debt. I see that is very different than the govt making a loan once in 80 years to save the economy that is paid back.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/2011 8:53 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

But we don't know. "Too big to fail" was a fabulous spin campaign. I doubt Hollywood or a bigbox marketer could do better. But was it necessary? Things are a lot different than they were 80 years ago. Practically everything is held in electronic form. I don't think it would have been that difficult to throw the pirates and gamblers under the bus and hand over control of their systems to others.
As far as the "profits" go that seems to be something from make believe world. My understanding is that massive massive amounts of "toxic assets" from the pirate/gambler banks were purchased by the government outside the bailouts. So unless we want to devise a new meaning for profits there are none unless those banks purchase those assets back for more than we paid for them.

See above. And I don't agree. You say you want "free markets" and "personal responsibility just like Rush tells you but only sometimes?

Hard to ignore the huge contributions/envelopes/do nothing board seats for relatives/whatever that are delivered to both democrats and republicans just to insure the proper working of the "free market"?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, those pesky toxic assets that were sure to be losers and cost the govt soooo much money. You mean like these:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41228798/US_Treasury_s_Toxic_Asset_Funds_Gain_27 "The U.S. Treasury's toxic asset funds have gained 27 percent since they were created to help revive the mortgage-backed securities market, according to data expected to be released later on Monday. As part of the government's deeply unpopular $700 billion bailout program, the funds were set up to remove illiquid securities from banks by matching private capital with taxpayer money and Treasury loans via funds run by private investment managers."
The TARP program, initiated under Bush and continued under Obama lent out $750Bil to the financial firms in crisis. As of today, the amounts repaid, plus the market value of what the govt still owns in stock, warrants etc, leaves only $28bil at risk. That's simple, straightforward accounting, reported by the GAO, CBO, and Treasury. You're the one living in make believe world, contnuing to rant about failure, ignoring reports like the above, when overall the program has been a resounding success.
Compare that to Obama and the Dems economic stimulus that spent $850Bil, never to be repaid. That;s right, not a single penny. Where;s the personal responsibility in outright handouts?

It is personal responsibility when the stockholders of GM, FNMAE, etc lost all their investment. I would not want the govt to stand by in the middle of a true economic crisis and let a catastrophy occur any more than I would during a natural disaster. I don't need to see $350mil Americans suffer, just to further punish the minority who made serious mistakes.
And I'd say it's not contradictory to free markets when the govt only steps in when it's absolutely necessary, it's the only viable option left, and it occurs once every 80 years. Did you see any corporations or individuals say they were prepared to make those same investments the US govt did? What would you say to the suppliers of GM and Chrysler that in turn went bankrupt themselves, due to unpaid bills, while those two companies went through normal bankruptcy? What would you say to their employees? We should all feel good because we proved a point?

Well, if it's as you say, then truly it's the Democrats and specifically Obama who is corrupt. During the 2001 period, the Bush administration found plenty of people to prosecute for corporate crimes: Enron, Tyco, Wcom. Those executives are still sitting in jail. Obama and Holder can't find one, unless you count Bernie Maddoff, who wasn't even running or working for a publicly traded company. So either Obama is corrupt or else they don't believe they have a case that is winnable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/20/2011 9:28 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

No, I specifically mentioned it was aside from that. They seem to hold the name "Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility".

You seem to love to confuse discussions. I am definitely not a liberal and I am certainly not a mindless Rush Limbagh "dittohead". I am being purely analytical in poking at all of the disingenuous stuff I see.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And when you have any evidence that program, run by the FED is in serious jeopardy of not getting it's money back too, let us all know. It's not as if they handed out money to just buy junk that was worthless. The LOANS they granted to provide liquidity were collaterized by assets the banks provided that were evaluated by the FED and judged to be sufficient to cover the loans. Much like the TARP money that was handed out. Just pointing at something, which you apparently don;t even understand and spreading FUD does nothing to support your position. The TARP funds that I provided a cite to that were involved with buying similar "toxic assets" are showing nice profits at this point.

If anyone's confused here, it must be you. I never said you were a liberal and I certainly never said you were a Limbaugh dittohead. I just compared the TARP program, which is a resounding success to Obama's stimulus. In the case of TARP, with what's already been paid back and the current market value of the investments the govt holds, nearly the whole $700bil is back in the hands of the govt. It will almost certainly show a profit when it's over. Contrary to the claims of many, it did not add to the budget deficit that Bush left. In the case of the Obama stimulus, well $800bil went out the window never to be seen again.....
So, sorry, but I think that's a perfectly legitimate defense of TARP.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote: ...

...
AFAIRecall, Rush _was_ agin it from the git-go, saying GM should file bankruptcy to let them annul labor contracts unilaterally (altho I don't know enough labor/bankruptcy law detail to know if that was a legitimate answer or not).
OTOH, I'm pretty much free-market leaning meself and while don't listen to Rush much (he's far too repetitive for more than about 5 minutes at a time at the outside altho if can get lucky and get the satirical sections alone, they've got a pretty good chance of being a hoot if nothing else), it wasn't clear to me that on GM/Chrysler alone it was a good idea or not.
Unfortunately, we can't rerun the experiment and see how it would have turned out the other way for comparative purposes.
I don't see it alone as any different than Chrysler under Iacocca (sp?) years ago; it was confounded at the time by the rest of the financial happenings that weren't an issue then.
In short, I don't know whether it was better/worse than the alternative and there's no way to tell at this point. I can't believe bankruptcy would have been painless, though--how one could forecast reliably enough the effects is beyond my ken and I believe beyond any human capability to be able to have enough knowledge to know a priori the better overall action.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good points on Rush. I think you're right, that he was against the bailout at the time, so there isn't the alleged hypocrissy. Regarding GM, they in fact did go bankrupt with the stockholders losing everything. In that whole affair, the one part I thought was appalling was what happened to the bondholders. Under law, they should have been ahead of everyone, including the unions. Essentially, existing law was set aside and they got pennies on the dollar, which IMO was unconstitutional.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote: ...

I didn't pay much attention to the actual details(+); I didn't think GM actually filed normal bankruptcy petition and went thru the regular process of reorganizational bankruptcy and that was what made for the bondholder treatment, etc., ...
(+) Wasn't anything _I_ could do about what was happening; didn't own any GM outside of mutual funds and none of them were so excessively overcommitted that whatever the fund managers decided on timing w/ GM wasn't going to make enough difference to change funds on the basis of what GM did or didn't do so I just pretty much ignored it at the time.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/2011 10:40 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Are you sure? I seldom listen to him but someone I know walks around all day saying "Rush said..." and even he agrees that Rush is two faced because he never declared the bank bailout was wrong.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/19/2011 9:49 AM, dpb wrote:

But he was two faced as usual. GM should fail (agree) but "free market" pirate bankers getting bailed out isn't a problem.

I am too. But if we want a "free market" then lets do it. Not a selective one where pirate bankers get bailed out and we build free stores for walmart.
As far as being repetitive his "son" Hannity is twice as bad. He sounds like someone twanging a wound up rubber band.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

I don't recall what I heard of him that he was in favor of that either...

...
That ship sailed 100 years (or more) ago...
There's no putting the genie back in the bottle (and I doubt seriously any would like the consequences if could).
That the pendulum is a little strong to the central planning/gov't side now is probably so; I suspect as usual it will swing back the other way over the next few years.
There's so much gov't subsidy in various competitive markets in the rest of the world that if US were to unilaterally remove much of that the competitive balance would completely topple and if you're concerned about trade balance; that would be an eye-opener indeed (not on positive).
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/20/2011 9:18 AM, dpb wrote:

You made my point. If he wasn't two faced he would have strongly decried how it was wrong on lots of counts such as personal responsibility for actions and how it was contrary to free market principles.

So lets not fix it. Lets all be "dittoheads" and pretend we have a free market while selectively deciding which part is free...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.