/dev/null Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/solar-company-bankrupt-despite-win-win-doe-loan/459621 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 (edited) http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/solar-company-bankrupt-despite-win-win-doe-loan/459621 I don't have a problem with government investing in "green" energies as a matter of fact I encourage it. Where I do have a problem is that to my understanding, many of these companies had achieved junk status according to the bond ratings agencies. If you are at junk status that means that more than likely you are viewed by the business community as high risk. I would hope that our elected officials would have enough regard to properly vet and research where our taxpayer dollars are being invested. I don't think that is too much to ask. It's becoming quite clear to me that many of these green projects aren't economically feasible at the moment and that the majority of our " green" allocated dollars should be spent on R&D to help increase efficiency and cost feasibility. Until then it's a losing proposition, and if I may make another point, it's not as if we don't have enough time to research these projects, we have so much oil, coal and natural gas that it is a certainty that at some point we will develop technologies in these green fields that it will become economically viable. Until then let's drill and take advantage of our rich natural resources. I don't know, that just makes sense to me Edited April 3, 2012 by WorldTraveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I don't have a problem with government investing in "green" energies as a matter of fact I encourage it. I like most of your post. This part, I can't get behind, though. They will always do a poor job 'investing', because there isn't real accountability to be 'right'. Since they don't have to be 'right', the 'investments' will ALWAYS end up being political favors rather than the vetting process you've described. Always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I don't have a problem with government investing in "green" energies as a matter of fact I encourage it. Where I do have a problem is that to my understanding, many of these companies had achieved junk status according to the bond ratings agencies. If you are at junk status that means that more than likely you are viewed by the business community as high risk. I would hope that our elected officials would have enough regard to properly vet and research where our taxpayer dollars are being invested. I don't think that is too much to ask. Why would an administration that demonizes Wall Street at every turn decide to use Wall Street measures of risk to "invest" taxpayer dollars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I don't have a problem with government investing in "green" energies as a matter of fact I encourage it. Where I do have a problem is that to my understanding, many of these companies had achieved junk status according to the bond ratings agencies. If you are at junk status that means that more than likely you are viewed by the business community as high risk. I would hope that our elected officials would have enough regard to properly vet and research where our taxpayer dollars are being invested. I don't think that is too much to ask. The answer you're looking for is "they don't care what happens to the money, just as long as they get their cut." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I like most of your post. This part, I can't get behind, though. They will always do a poor job 'investing', because there isn't real accountability to be 'right'. Since they don't have to be 'right', the 'investments' will ALWAYS end up being political favors rather than the vetting process you've described. Always. Well, because at some point, albeit well off into the future, we will run out of these resources, or at least get to the point where the perception tha our resources are dwindling that prices will become too high for economies throughout the world to run efficiently. So it's important to invest in the research and development in these fields to where we don't e er have to reach that point. Again, I'm not advocating to invest in a business that is ready to deliver a green product, nor am I saying we shouldn't, that should be based on the economic feasibility of the business model, what I am saying is invest in advancing green technology R&D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 This one is okay because a Republican liked it. Nothing to see here. Nothing at all. Please move along. "Hey, everyone! Look! A hoodie!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Why would an administration that demonizes Wall Street at every turn decide to use Wall Street measures of risk to "invest" taxpayer dollars? Unfortunately not only would that sort of narrow thinking be their problem but ours as well. I'm guessing you were mocking the present administration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Unfortunately not only would that sort of narrow thinking be their problem but ours as well. I'm guessing you were mocking the present administration Yes, but I'm mocking the present administration for their specifically narrow-minded and unrealistic view of finance and economics, based on a so-far three year track record of shocking financial incompetence. And mockery aside, it's a valid concern. An administration that's ignored basic economics and business principles at every turn, suddenly embracing them? When they're in campaign/reelection mode already, and trying to woo a base that specifically eschews any rational concept of finance in a market-based economy? When are they supposed to be changing their narrow world-view, precisely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Yes, but I'm mocking the present administration for their specifically narrow-minded and unrealistic view of finance and economics, based on a so-far three year track record of shocking financial incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 You can laugh after you learn to manage your piggy-bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Tick, tick, tick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Yes, but I'm mocking the present administration for (fill in the blank)... You have to admit, this administration is a MUCH more target-rich environment than the last administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts