Hilary and coal mining

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

This is the crap that makes me want to punch my monitor
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hope you realize I wrote that just for you

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

and that was before this just the other day...

NEW YORK – SunEdison, a renewable energy company once billed as North America’s largest provider of solar energy, is planning to file for bankruptcy this week in yet another green-energy debacle likely to cost the U.S. taxpayer in excess of $3 billion.

SunEdison fell victim to a bad business strategy, it had nothing to do with the viability of renewable energy. Filing for Chapter 11 doesn't mean they go out of business. They actually have some very good projects in the pipeline, just too much debt. They'll negotiate on debt, probably restructure reducing headcount a lot and come out looking a bit different.

Big picture it's still a blip in the larger shift to clean technologies.

I'd note also that you guys seem fixated on clean energy. Have you ever looked into the much larger subsidies afforded the carbon industry and how many of those businesses have fared?

[Fly Rod]

Spence this contradicts U:

http://www.forbes.com/sites#/sites/t.../#d18274c576c4

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Spence this contradicts U:

http://www.forbes.com/sites#/sites/t.../#d18274c576c4

No it doesn't. The author is just arguing that as these loans have a very low interest rate there are other investments the government could make that would -- if successful -- net a higher return.

For instance if you want to understand the net present value of an investment, you discount the cash flow based on a hurdle rate, say 18%. i.e. you don't get to claim returns that would have otherwise been guaranteed.

The author is glossing over two things I think 1) that the Bush program wasn't ever intended to make an economic profit and 2) the equation here is only looking at money out and money in, he's ignoring all the other benefits like job creation, technology innovation etc...which is the entire purpose for the plan.

The political point though -- how taxpayer resources should be used in regards to risk/return -- is perfectly valid.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

No it doesn't. The author is just arguing that as these loans have a very low interest rate there are other investments the government could make that would -- if successful -- net a higher return.

For instance if you want to understand the net present value of an investment, you discount the cash flow based on a hurdle rate, say 18%. i.e. you don't get to claim returns that would have otherwise been guaranteed.

The author is glossing over two things I think 1) that the Bush program wasn't ever intended to make an economic profit and 2) the equation here is only looking at money out and money in, he's ignoring all the other benefits like job creation, technology innovation etc...which is the entire purpose for the plan.

The political point though -- how taxpayer resources should be used in regards to risk/return -- is perfectly valid.

This socialist trajectory is transitioning from disaster to comedy. The socialists have had field days attacking the evil profiteering of companies like Bane Capital, but are all in for the federal government being their venture capitalist. Apparently, capitalism is bad only in the privater sector.

Really, Spence, do you want the taxpayer being made to gamble? Is it your dream that big government should not only squeeze us out of a nation of shopkeepers (the so-called middle class) into a big business/big government oligarchy, but should become big business itself?

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

I've never heard of Clinton taking money from Monsanto, there have been a lot of lies spread around that she sat on their board. She did hire a lobbyist with ties to Monsanto to run ops in Iowa, which wouldn't be that odd...

I think she views GMO as a solution to some global problems. For instance if we're going to help starving people in Africa, sending over wheat seeds that can't grow in an arid climate isn't going to help them. Of course you do. there are other solutions than screwing up the food chain

To be honest I think a lot of the GMO flap is overblown. I'd be much more concerned with excessive use of antibiotics and hormones in proteins. I am concerned with that also

As for labeling, I like as much information as I can get about my food, but remember from a business perspective this can add tremendous cost...i.e. more government regulation. I thought you didn't like that? I never said that I was against any government regulation, that is silly. I am for common sense regulations that protect people just like liberals want protection. Labeling GMO is not a hardship on industry, just look at how many already label their organic stuff NON GMO And also why do you think the rest of the world labels GMO? They don't have a problem labeling it, why should we?.

I'll stick with my opinion of her backing that corporation with their poison GMO and Round up destroying the water supplies and smaller life on this planet.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Labeling GMO is not a hardship on industry, just look at how many already label their organic stuff NON GMO And also why do you think the rest of the world labels GMO? They don't have a problem labeling it, why should we?.

I think there's a few reasons behind the resistance.

One is that I'm pretty sure the US consumes the most processed food of any nation by a good margin. Crops like corn and soybeans which are primarily from GMO seeds are rampant in these products.

Second, the FDA has very strict regulations, perhaps the most stringent in the world. Currently that bag of non-GMO corn chips is being labeled voluntarily as non-GMO. This means the producer does need to have documentation as to the provenance of the ingredients, but the simplistic ingredients and niche appeal of most of the non-GMO products I see doesn't make this a huge burden. Also, nobody is really watching...

But...If GMO labeling is a regulation, everybody, especially the big food manufacturers are going to have to have solid documentation behind their claims. For a large food producer that actually has a tiered supply chain from raw material to consumable food in a package this is very complicated. For instance, if that jar of non-GMO Jiff peanut butter accidentally sourced non-GMO soybean oil from one country made from mislabeled soybeans in another country it's a recall and huge $$$. All for soybeans that could be genetically identical.

Actually under FDA regulations if the labeling in any way doesn't match what's inside the package you have to recall.

So there is a business impact, and the US market exacerbates it.