True. But it doesn't, and didn't, help when "conservatives" such as #$%$ Cheney were making "deficits don't matter" comments, and GWB was providing medicare recipients with a drug benefit that was never paid for.
It ain't just liberals that have caused the debt problem.
Lake, do you *think* about what you read?
"The consumers would pay for the solar panels and sell the power they produced back to Toshiba, which would take the place of an energy utility"
So, HOW will that happen without a "grid" of some sort?
"... sell it directly to consumers at a lower price than that of the grid."
And... what does that say about the economic viability of Germany's plan to be 50% renewable?
" The initial deployment will involve installing solar panels at about 7oo homes, including storage batteries added to the local network"
What is a "local network" if not a "grid"?
"The direct-to-consumers sales strategy will be the first for any solar-panel. The strategy may become a precedent for other solar developers to bypass the electric power grid and the electric utilities that control them."
You understand that the German model has no parallel in the US because solar installs here are mostly NOT done by the electric utiltiies?
"Toshiba believes that it can reduce costs and sell lower-priced power to consumers without relying on subsidies, which have attracted considerable controversy in recent months due to rise in electricity bills."
Again... what does this arrangement - the subsidies, etc. - say about the viability of Germany's approach to renewables?
This article touches on much of what is wrong with Germany's approach to renewable power...
I don't own solar. Never have. I'm "aware" of them but know absolutely nothing about the industry, nor do I have a regular source of information about the industry. Tend to think the industry is driven more by politics than economics. Since I don't trade solely on technicals, they've never "popped" onto my view screen. If you have a suggested screen based on technicals, I'm educable. Maybe. 8-)
As for the big gains... I've had a few over the years; I don't worry myself into a tizzy over missing more. And I'm comfortable enough without feeling the need to engage in a frenetic pursuit of catching the next triple. It's nice to kick back and not worry about day-to-day changes in the market.
Read the comments about the prior debt restructure.
Then listen again to the most recent CC and Soph's comments about an impending 4th quarter covenant violation.
Correct. I do not own any FRO at this point.
The astute trader is up 70% at the *moment*... assuming (s)he managed to buy at one of the low points over the past couple of months. Otherwise (s)he is up, what... 30% - 40%? Still a nice gain.
As with the other message thread... I don't usually trade in the attempt to score some short tem gains. Occasionally I will do so. But, usually not. I don't spend enough time watching price movements for that. I screen on fundamentals and work from there. I do use MA, bollinger, etc. in an effort to pick a buy point, but I don't trade solely on technicals.
If that makes me one of the sheep, so be it.
Actually, the EGLE short was profitable (as was the NM long). If anything, I erred in closing it out too quickly and left some on the table.
As for fundamentals.... it was those that led me to GNK back in 2008 - or whenever it was I originally bought the stock. That one was a 10 bagger.
At this stage in life, I invest mostly for stable income, not ST gains. I don't spend anywhere near enough time watching price movements to attempt to play the ST swings. Every once-in-a-while an opportunity pops up. Like when OSG went BK with enough assets to fully cover their debt and the bonds were selling at 30 cents on the dollar. Or when EGLE went to 8 or 9 based on a mostly fictional earnings report.
"When you take 95%of their wealth they are still one of the wealthiest families in the country."
And???? Is the entire justification for confiscating their wealth nothing more than the fact that they ARE wealthy?
And, similar to scs_dan's observation about family farms... how much of the Walmart wealth is tied up in the "family business"?
Is it your belief that every family business should be liquidated, and the proceeds redistributed by government, when the family head dies?
Who's fighting the tape?
In one of our exchanges I stated the opinion that it is possible to make money trading on technical indicators even when those trades might not be justified by fundamentals; it's all about (mis-)pricing. I was, for a period earlier this summer / fall, simultaneously short EGLE and long NM. Those positions were entered based on a combination of "fundamentals" and the anticipation of market pricing (call it "the tape", if you wish).
While I do not know for certain - he never announces his trades, I believe Audio takes long AND short positions when he believes the market has provided an opportunity to make a profit.
It is the case that he has proved himself knowledgeable about industry fundamentals and about specific companies. IIRC from your earlier messages, you do not look at fundamentals. Consequently it is unlikely that we - Audio and I and others - will agree with your general perspective on the industry. It would be incorrect, however, to conclude that we are not trading when we think it might prove profitable to do so.
I'm not currently spending enough time following the daily market moves to engage in short term trades - certainly not for FRO.
"I didn't say strip them of their wealth,DID I ?"
You said, and I quote:
"95% of their wealth should be taken from them"
YOU might not think the confiscation of 95% of someone's wealth is "stripping" them of their financial resources. But I bet most folks would disagree with your semantic hairsplitting. And, I bet, too, that you'd be annoyed if we took 95% of YOUR financial resources.
"Sam Walton did a great job of reinventing marketing, but that wasn't the topic,WAS IT?"
Of COURSE it was the topic. YOU argued that the family wasn't entitled to the money because it was "given" to them. I responded that Sam **earned** the loot and is entitled, under US tax law, to leave it to his heirs.
"I don't believe in inherited wealth above a million dollars for anyone."
What possible objection can there be to a person providing a comfortable life for their spouse / partner, kids and grand kids?
Why shouldn't someone who works hard and / or is successful have a right to leave the fruits of his or her labors as a legacy for the kids and/or grand kids so that they are free of the burden of school debt and mortgages, and are fixed with a comfortable retirement, rather than having to rely on the Federal government to fund all of the above?
"It was just given to them"
So what? They're no greater an economic evil than any other beneficiary of an inheritance.
And it's not as if the Walton family wealth was an ill-gotten gain. Sam Walton took the concept of the big-box store, which he did not originate, and combined it with refinements to centralized ordering, distribution networks and the like. The result was significant cost reductions in what are, in reality, commodity goods. The concept was replicated in a variety of retail segments - electronics, dry goods, home improvements, and the like.
The benefits of Walton's changes to the retail environment have accrued to virtually EVERY consumer where big-box stores exist. The economic significance of Walton's re-envisioning of retail has a current generation parallel only in what Bill Gates did for computerization. Walton EARNED his billions, just as Gates earned HIS billions.
If your argument is that the Walton heirs should be stripped of their wealth because **they** individually, did not **earn** their beneficence, then you are unfairly singling them out for condemnation and confiscation. Virtually every parent does what they can to pass wealth along to their progeny. The Waltons are no different.
And your argument ignores the reality of a US inheritance tax system that effectively precludes cross-generational concentration of wealth. Your "beef" isn't that the government has failed to confiscate the wealth, but that (a) the government doesn't confiscate familial wealth **fast enough** and, perhaps, that (b) the tax system is too generous in that it permits individuals to transfer wealth to non-profit entities that reflect THEIR priorities, rather than YOURS.
If that's a bet, I'll take it. Beer?
I think the 50% objective is laudable, even as I don't believe there is much chance of them meeting it at least not without tanking their economy. Consequently it seems likely there will be some... adjustment... in their overall plan.
"For 2013, coal-fired power's share in the German generation mix is on track to rise above 50%, an analysis of the data shows."
From this article:
But you can find the information elsewhere. Also look at the number of new coal fired plants being planned.
Mark to market on assets would result in a negative NAV.
Take a look at debt. All LT converted to ST due to loan covenant violation. Company has been attempting to renegotiate loan terms.
"WWJD is the question.... He would love and care for the children which means he would feed, cloth and house them not turn his back on them."
Right.. Please provide chapter and verse where Jesus fed, clothed or housed a child. You don't even have to find a verse where he did all three. Just a verse where he, **himself**, did any ONE of the three.
This should be good....
Audio is one of the posters with the most knowledge about the shipping industry. Go back through the messages the past couple of years and you'll be amazed by the info.
Many (most?) of the recent posts are responses to day-traders of momentum/tech traders that appeared when volatility in the stocks increased. These folks post stuff like "A solid quintuple from here". Audio slams these messages with "based on what?" type posts.
As for EGLE... have you read the footnotes to the 10-K? If not, you should.
" it is not about what you believe or want or what I believe and want. It is about reality."
Exactly. And the REALITY is that ACA did NOT reform health **care**. ACA did not reduce health **care** costs.
"You can argue all you want that some do not deserve to have health care"
Who make such an argument? I haven't seen such a suggestion anywhere by anyone.
If it isn't necessary to resort to socialism to cost effectively provide effective food, clothing, shelter and other necessities, why should it be necessary to resort to socialism for healthcare?
The answer, of course, is that it isn't.
Unlike you, I want the system to be fair to everyone.
Which means I don't accept the argument that the middle class needs government subsidies. Nor do I believe the young should be compelled to subsidize the older generation.
"Grump a big hot shot like you that was a wheel hoss at some big FIRM and you made big bucks and you got no health care retirement benefits?"
You seem... unwilling... to understand that there is a very large segment of the US work force that is not employed by government entities or large corporations. And, increasingly over the years, the labor force has become more mobile. For these firms, and the folks who work for them, the 1940s era benefit structure does not, and never has, worked well, if at all.
"From what you have wrote in the pass you are married and have kids."
" why are you surprised that capitalism for profit insurance cost more than socialism health care."
You have still not quite grasped the reality that ACA's "reform" of health **insurance** did not, does not, deliver reform in health **care**.
Same costs of service. The system is still broken.
If you think capitalism is at work in health **care**, just try and cost compare / competitively price lab work or a colonoscopy.
50% Coal, Lake. 50% Coal. And increasing.
There is nothing made up about the amount of power that Germany is generating from coal, and to a large extent, the dirtiest form of coal (lignite).
Think **all** the happy thoughts you want.
But what is written above is REALITY.
Do those who freely signing up agree to pay the price of the conflict themselves, no charge to the tax payers?
If the NATION commits to a military conflict, it should be a requirement that ALL serve, and that ALL pay.
A few war-mongers should not determine policy for all.
Nor should the nation be able to engage in a "popular" conflict and fob the price, in blood or treasure, off to a few.