IF folks go off the grid, solar MIGHT be cheaper than the grid. But how many people ACTUALLY go off the grid when they install solar?
The comparison ignores subsidies. Which, if considered, would mean that solar is NOT cheaper than the grid
The comparison also assumes that no maintenance of the solar will be needed for 25 years. For one thing, and ignoring any other possible cost, I'd bet a roof replacement would be needed over the 25 year period, and the cost of removing then reinstalling the solar to facilitate roof repairs should be charged against the solar.
it also assumes there will be no reduction in efficiency of the cell during the 25 year time frame. That seems unlikely.
The article was less news and factual reporting than enviro marketing hype.
"Grump how do you propose we cut health care cost?"
Competition / market forces drive down the costs of food, clothing, and shelter. They can do so with healthcare as well. Individuals must pay for, and price-shop, health services just like they do everything else in life. We lack price discovery mechanisms to do this in health care. We can easily price shop a auto brake repair, not so, or at least nowhere near as easily, with a colonoscopy.
"As for property taxes in TEXAS which you clearly know nothing about..."
True enough that I do not live in Texas. But I challenge the assertion that it costs any more to provide protection, roads, municipal administration, schooling, etc. for residents of a big home vs. a small home.
"To cut ONLY business and home taxes instead of the state sales tax discriminates against those that can not afford to be in business or own a home"
That would depend upon whether or not those taxes were inordinately high relative to sales tax before cuts were made. It could be that it was businesses and homes that were being discriminated against.
You ignore the fact that most sales taxes do NOT apply to basic necessities... food, etc. The result is that individuals with disposable income in excess of that needed for food etc. pay the lion's share of consumption taxes. Which is why VATs are popular in Europe and elsewhere.
"the same 24% you just discriminated against have no health insurance is what happened."
There is no discrimination in the process Rog. Everyone who buys a taxable item pays the same amount of tax on that item.
"If you are a Christian then tell me what scripture do you base your idea that only the individual is supposed to be a good neighbor and that a Government has no such duty to its citizens? "
I'll answer you with a question. Where in Scripture did JESUS ever demand that govt, whether Roman or Jewish, take on the responsibility of healthcare for the populace? His comment was made to individuals. Look it up.
Yes, we obey government. But if govt removes social welfare as one of its responsibilities, does that mean we're off the hook for helping our neighbor?
"how many on this list could foot a 2 week stay in the hospital of your neighbor?"
So where is the effort to control costs?
Rather than yammering on about how the rich should be continually, and increasingly, taxed to pay for all of this stuff, when will you get responsible and start articulating for cost control?
"... spending money keeping that person alive which is one of the objectives of a sound eco. system."
It is NOT the responsibility of an eco system to keep people alive. It is.. amazing... that you cannot comprehend this.
"Making sure that the well off get more tax breaks"
The well off get "tax breaks" because they're the only ones who actually PAY taxes in any significant amount. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
" 24% of your citizen's do not have health care and some because the state refused to join the Federal Gov. in expanding Medicade"
So? Healthcare is NOT a universal "right" conferred by God or the universe. It is something one earns. Or it is charity.
"do you favor keeping SS being as it is a Gov. program that helps your neighbor"
Do you understand that SS as it exists today is TOTALLY different than what was intended when implemented in the 1930s?
I favor SS as it was implemented... which was NOT a pension plan for the masses. It was a survivor benefit to prevent starvation in old age.
Ross was buying tankers, yes? He was planning to do an IPO (Diamond S?) and pulled it; was it ever completed?
Genco is a bulker. Is Ross buying bulkers, or just tankers (crude and product)?
While GMR went Chapter 11 and shook out the common shareholders, it did not close up shop.
Indeed, the restructured company, now controlled by private equity, recently bought out another tanker company:
Feb 25 (Reuters) - General Maritime Corp, which operates crude oil tankers, will acquire Navig8 Crude Tankers Inc in a stock-for-stock deal, the two companies said in a statement.
A newly formed unit of General Maritime will acquire all of Navig8 Crude's common shares to form Gener8 Maritime Inc.
Tanker companies, struggling to cope with poor charter rates, are teaming up to improve efficiency and reduce operating costs, besides adding to their fleets.
General Maritime's deal for Navig8 comes less than five months after Frontline Management and Tankers International formed a chartering joint venture called VLCC Chartering Ltd.
Shareholders of Navig8 Crude, established in December 2013, will receive 0.8947 shares of the combined company for each Navig8 share they hold.
Existing shareholders of General Maritime, which emerged from bankruptcy in 2012 seven months after going under, will own 52.55 percent of the new company and Navig8 Crude shareholders will own the remaining stake.
Gener8 Maritime, which will be headquartered in New York, will have a fleet of 46 vessels, the companies said. (Reporting By Manya Venkatesh in Bengaluru)
What was "judgemental" in the statement, Rog?
I merely pointed out that (a) your scriptural reference was incomplete to the point of misleading and (b) you're being hypocritical in demanding of others what you yourself will not do.
Prove me wrong. Donate your FRO shares to charity.
Sin = bad weather?
Please. Rog, your ramblings are the sort of thing that give the **true** followers of Jesus a bad name.
"Even a Jewish lawyer knew who his neighbor was now would he in an unselfish way stop to help him and at a Cost like the lowly Samaritan did?"
You casually skip past that the man took on the PERSONAL responsibility to help his neighbor. He didn't start whining about societal import and lobbying for increased taxation to provide free health care for the individual. He spent HIS OWN resource to help the individual.
If you actually practiced what your preach, you'd stop with the Hawaiian vacations, sell your home, and donate your money to help the poor.
But you won't. You just #$%$ when someone else has more assets than YOU think they should possess and demand that those assets be confiscated to benefit someone else. Someone whom YOU would not sacrifice your assets to help.
Put your religion into practice Rog. Sell your assets to help the poor. Stop using your money to gamble on FRO shares and give it to those who need the money.
But you won't.
Because you're a hypocrite of the first order.
" I am going to do my part is seeing breweries don't go out of business."
"I see where you posted FDR and the new deal had nothing to do with getting us out of the great GOP depression."
Two comments. First, it wasn't a GOP depression. It was a worldwide phenom that had a lot to do with gold standard, exchange rates, etc. There was no FED, so liquidity mechanisms at the time were limited to non-existent.
Second, my comment was that it was war production, NOT FDR / New Deal, that revitalized production and ended the depression. Did ND provide work? sure. But remember that the min wage introduced back then was the equivalent of less than $5 per hour in today's money. Which is enough to prevent starvation, but little more than that. And much of the "work" that was done contributed zero to productive capacity or the creation of national wealth.
General Maritime didn't "go out of business", either.
Not that that was of any benefit to the GMR common holders.
Yeah... wine is the better option.
Beer production is more resource intensive.
At one point in their history, the English banned the establishment of new breweries. It took so much wood to fire the breweries that they were experiencing deforestation.
Martin Luther (the 16th century theologian, not the black civil rights leader) once told his associate Philip Melancthon to "sin bravely". One could make a similar recommendation to our friend Lake.
Poor Philip was in such a constant frazzle about committing sin, even when he tried not to do so, that he was worrying himself into bad health (Luther also recommended that he "take a little wine" to settle the stomach upsets that accompanied the mental anguish).
Modern day Baptists go to the other "extreme" with the "let go, and let God" approach to life. Once has no need to make any conscious or consider decisions in life. One need only pray and wait for God to deliver a detailed life roadmap... sort of a religious version of Mapquest.
Both approaches could, of course, use some refining.
Yes, we're continuing to dump on the environment. The good news is that we have made HUGE reductions in the damage that we once made. There is more to do, of course. And we'll get there. Eventually. But we're doing well, considering where we were at 50 years ago (or earlier).
For now, I'm going to adopt Luther's advice. Not the bit about "sinning bravely" - I do that all the time. It's his "take a little wine" recommendation that I'm going to follow. Religiously.
Those numbers are posted by yahoo finance as well as a variety of other data sources.
As well as the current estimates, you can see estimates as they existed 30, 60. 90 days ago. In consulting these, you'll note that an expected increase in revenue and EPS **is** baked into the current estimate.
The question is whether or not those estimates were correct, or overly optimistic or pessimistic.
Choose your poison.
So have biotechnology businesses. Does that mean GE should acquire those businsses too just because they have done really well?
Is GE a mutual fund that it needs to own multiple disparate businesses? Or maybe Jeff should just dump the industrial parts of the company to focus on other, more profitable, stuff... rather like Warren Buffet shed Berskshire's clothing operations?
Not to enviros it is not "all a matter of economics".
As for your refining argument... we already have facilities that are equipped to refine the stuff. They were built to handle sour Venezuelan crude. That's one of the attractions of sending the stuff south to the US Gulf Coast.
The economic argument you raise is more an issue on the extraction end of the process, rather than on refining. It takes a lot more energy to extract crude from oil sands than it does from more "traditional sources".
But that's the point. Enviros do NOT want heavy crude produced or processed. Anywhere. They're thinking that if they can kill XL, they can effectively shut down Canadian oil sands production... or make it substantially less economic to produce from the region.
The debate is NOT about XL, per se, but about shutting down Canadian heavy crude.
US Industrial run-up to WWII predated OUR mobilization. The allies, particularly Britain, were placing orders for war material in the late 30s.
It was that, not FDR, and not the New Deal, that ended the depression.
It's the Dems who are preventing the bill from coming to the floor for a discussion and a vote.
The Prez can then sign or veto and send it back to congress.
Of course not.
We could still be maintaining a no-fly zone over the Shia areas of Iraq 14 years after 9-11.
You're dead wrong on ALL of your assumptions.
The depression INCREASED under FDR. The worst years were under the auspices of the New Deal. It was the production of war material for the European allies in the run up to WWII that brought the US out of depression.
It was a failure on the part of the Clinton admin to regulate derivatives that poured gasoline onto a financial brush fire that began as far back as Nixon / Carter / Regan.
Dubya certainly added to the financial mess with the Iraq war, the drug benefit, etc. none of which was paid for. But the housing and derivative crises were in motion long before he ran for the presidency.