PDA

View Full Version : Economics B.O. still talking about "green jobs"


The Mad Crapper
07-03-2010, 05:01 PM
ROFL

Only the Obama administration can take sheer ineptitude and profligacy and champion it as progress. Why does every job Obama wants to "create" cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to "create"? Because there's no market demand for these jobs, that's why. Today in his weekly Saturday diatribe, Obama announced $2 Billion in new spending that, he claims, will "create" 5100 new jobs....but only 1500 of them will be permanent. That comes out to about $392,156 a job, if we're counting the temporary ones along with the permanent ones, and just over a million dollars for each permanent job created.

More:

http://www.evilconservativeonline.com/2010/07/obama-itll-cost-us-400k-to-create-green.html

The Mad Crapper
07-04-2010, 07:58 AM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RRRy-QlQyUw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RRRy-QlQyUw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

J Diddy
07-04-2010, 08:48 AM
ROFL

Only the Obama administration can take sheer ineptitude and profligacy and champion it as progress. Why does every job Obama wants to "create" cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to "create"? Because there's no market demand for these jobs, that's why. Today in his weekly Saturday diatribe, Obama announced $2 Billion in new spending that, he claims, will "create" 5100 new jobs....but only 1500 of them will be permanent. That comes out to about $392,156 a job, if we're counting the temporary ones along with the permanent ones, and just over a million dollars for each permanent job created.

More:

http://www.evilconservativeonline.com/2010/07/obama-itll-cost-us-400k-to-create-green.html

Would you rather him spend $51000 to create the permanent 5100 jobs that are a lemonade stand?

mikey23545
07-04-2010, 10:22 AM
Would you rather him spend $51000 to create the permanent 5100 jobs that are a lemonade stand?

He needs to quit overwhelming the economy with crushing debt so the free market can generate real jobs.

chiefsnorth
07-04-2010, 10:26 AM
He needs to quit overwhelming the economy with crushing debt so the free market can generate real jobs.

He needs to quit ramming though legislation that makes it harder for employers to make money.

The Mad Crapper
07-04-2010, 10:27 AM
Would you rather him spend $51000 to create the permanent 5100 jobs that are a lemonade stand?

You forgot to blame George Bush. No moonbat post is complete without it.

chiefforlife
07-04-2010, 10:34 AM
I agree that the spending has to stop but investing in solar power is long over due. 400 million was allocated to a company here in Colorado, it is going to create 2000 construction jobs and 1500 permanent. The 400 million was a loan not a gift. I dont see the problem with this, at least.

The Mad Crapper
07-04-2010, 10:36 AM
I agree that the spending has to stop but investing in solar power is long over due. 400 million was allocated to a company here in Colorado, it is going to create 2000 construction jobs and 1500 permanent. The 400 million was a loan not a gift. I dont see the problem with this, at least.

LMAO

Only 7.9 million more to go, and we can be back to 6% unemployment.

chiefforlife
07-04-2010, 10:47 AM
LMAO

Only 7.9 million more to go, and we can be back to 6% unemployment.

Unless you have an idea to create 7.9 million jobs at once, 2000 at a time is nothing to laugh at. Especially if you are one of the 2000 that is now grateful to have a job.
These are not just new jobs, this is a new industry in its infant stages. Which means this could turn into MANY more jobs over the next few years. Dont be short sighted just because you dont like Mr. Obama.

Baby Lee
07-04-2010, 10:55 AM
Can someone explain to me how [it seems] the selfsame people who railed against free markets as abusive harbingers of greed flock to them every time the possibility of economies of scale making expensive and unproductive technologies [solar, wind, 35 mpg 'cars' etc] less expensive and more productive come up?

The Mad Crapper
07-04-2010, 11:03 AM
Unless you have an idea to create 7.9 million jobs at once, 2000 at a time is nothing to laugh at. Especially if you are one of the 2000 that is now grateful to have a job.

Obama is awesome!

LMAO

chiefforlife
07-04-2010, 11:07 AM
Obama is awesome!

LMAO

I'm glad you think so but what does that have to do with the conversation?

The Mad Crapper
07-04-2010, 11:12 AM
I'm glad you think so but what does that have to do with the conversation?

I'll tell you what it means, it's not complicated----

The spectre of Cap and trade, and Obamacare have done more to destroy private job creation than anything else. How many millions of jobs has Obamacare alone destroyed?

But the needle neck boy king prints up billions of dollars to "create" 2,000 "green jobs" and we're on the right track?

patteeu
07-04-2010, 11:15 AM
Would you rather him spend $51000 to create the permanent 5100 jobs that are a lemonade stand?

If I have to choose one or the other, yes.

patteeu
07-04-2010, 11:17 AM
I agree that the spending has to stop but investing in solar power is long over due. 400 million was allocated to a company here in Colorado, it is going to create 2000 construction jobs and 1500 permanent. The 400 million was a loan not a gift. I dont see the problem with this, at least.

Why was this government infusion (over a $ quarter million per permanent job, btw) necessary? What hurdle was overcome that the private sector wasn't willing to climb over?

chiefforlife
07-04-2010, 11:23 AM
I'll tell you what it means, it's not complicated----

The spectre of Cap and trade, and Obamacare have done more to destroy private job creation than anything else. How many millions of jobs has Obamacare alone destroyed?

But the needle neck boy king prints up billions of dollars to "create" 2,000 "green jobs" and we're on the right track?

I would never defend Obamacare.

LOANing a new industry money to create jobs and cleaner energy is a GOOD thing. No matter how you slice it. This will turn into many more jobs as time goes on.

chiefforlife
07-04-2010, 11:27 AM
Why was this government infusion (over a $ quarter million per permanent job, btw) necessary? What hurdle was overcome that the private sector wasn't willing to climb over?

This company would NOT have been able to secure a 400 million dollar loan to expand. That is a huge hurdle. Again, this is a LOAN not a gift. It is an investment not money down a hole. Many more jobs will come out of this and the money will be paid back.
I would love to have 8 million jobs open up at once but they wont, we have to start somewhere, this seems like a decent, small, start.

J Diddy
07-04-2010, 11:52 AM
You forgot to blame George Bush. No moonbat post is complete without it.

My bad. It's George Bush's fault there ain't enough lemons.

InChiefsHell
07-04-2010, 12:13 PM
This company would NOT have been able to secure a 400 million dollar loan to expand. That is a huge hurdle. Again, this is a LOAN not a gift. It is an investment not money down a hole. Many more jobs will come out of this and the money will be paid back.
I would love to have 8 million jobs open up at once but they wont, we have to start somewhere, this seems like a decent, small, start.

The operative phrase is "This company would NOT have been able to secure a 400 million dollar loan to expand." That means that it's not worth it. If the free market will not support it, then it's not fiscally worth doing. So, the government steps in to force the issue. This is not a sustainable thing if the free market doesn't call for and support it.

J Diddy
07-04-2010, 12:21 PM
The operative phrase is "This company would NOT have been able to secure a 400 million dollar loan to expand." That means that it's not worth it. If the free market will not support it, then it's not fiscally worth doing. So, the government steps in to force the issue. This is not a sustainable thing if the free market doesn't call for and support it.


So..............



You're saying lemonade stands are out then?

:)

The Mad Crapper
07-04-2010, 01:14 PM
I would never defend Obamacare.

LOANing a new industry money to create jobs and cleaner energy is a GOOD thing. No matter how you slice it. This will turn into many more jobs as time goes on.

No it won't.

LMAO

chiefforlife
07-04-2010, 01:16 PM
The operative phrase is "This company would NOT have been able to secure a 400 million dollar loan to expand." That means that it's not worth it. If the free market will not support it, then it's not fiscally worth doing. So, the government steps in to force the issue. This is not a sustainable thing if the free market doesn't call for and support it.

This is a different environment, business lending is at a stand still. Government has subsidized oil? Does that mean its not sustainable?
All the government did was loan a start up industry some working capital, why is that so wrong?

chiefforlife
07-04-2010, 01:23 PM
No it won't.

LMAO

Oh really? You know this? No way, a clean alternative energy business could survive and grow...

Saul Good
07-04-2010, 01:39 PM
Oh really? You know this? No way, a clean alternative energy business could survive and grow...

I agree that it will create jobs. More collection agents and repo men will have to be hired once this company fails.

Saul Good
07-04-2010, 01:41 PM
I agree that the spending has to stop but investing in solar power is long over due. 400 million was allocated to a company here in Colorado, it is going to create 2000 construction jobs and 1500 permanent. The 400 million was a loan not a gift. I dont see the problem with this, at least.

Why didn't the government have to loan Apple a bunch of money to create the IPad? Maybe it's because people realized that it was a product that was in demand enough to cover it's own cost. You know...the opposite of this situation.

J Diddy
07-04-2010, 01:42 PM
I agree that it will create jobs. More collection agents and repo men will have to be hired once this company fails.



Yep, because there's such a huge energy surplus I'm sure nobody will want that crap.

We don'tz wantz no soLar energy, we's only uzing the cole kind.

The Mad Crapper
07-04-2010, 01:48 PM
Yep, because there's such a huge energy surplus I'm sure nobody will want that crap.

We don'tz wantz no soLar energy, we's only uzing the cole kind.

:rolleyes:

You really suck at this.

J Diddy
07-04-2010, 01:57 PM
:rolleyes:

You really suck at this.

LOL, I mean come on really. Are you saying there won't be any demand for electricity from which this comes.

Damn it's too bad california is so far away.

The Mad Crapper
07-04-2010, 02:02 PM
LOL, I mean come on really. Are you saying there won't be any demand for electricity from which this comes.

Damn it's too bad california is so far away.


What about California? You mean the state that Arizona supplies all their electricity?

J Diddy
07-04-2010, 02:03 PM
What about California? You mean the state that Arizona supplies all their electricity?

So um they wouldn't want any of this "solar energy" action. If so then that's demand.

J Diddy
07-04-2010, 02:04 PM
What about California? You mean the state that Arizona supplies all their electricity?

Turn your sarcasm meter on there Spike.

Saul Good
07-04-2010, 02:05 PM
LOL, I mean come on really. Are you saying there won't be any demand for electricity from which this comes.

Damn it's too bad california is so far away.

Thanks for proving the point. Few things generate such guaranteed demand as energy, particularly clean and renewable energy. The fact that this company couldn't get private funding for something as highly sought after as this should tell you something about their likelihood of succeeding.

J Diddy
07-04-2010, 02:12 PM
Thanks for proving the point. Few things generate such guaranteed demand as energy, particularly clean and renewable energy. The fact that this company couldn't get private funding for something as highly sought after as this should tell you something about their likelihood of succeeding.


I haven't seen anything in that article that remotely said having sought private funding.

That being said if you were gonna start a new business wouldn't you go after fed loans and grants first.

Seems they would be cheaper to repay.

I don't really get your connection between the two.

Saul Good
07-04-2010, 02:13 PM
I haven't seen anything in that article that remotely said having sought private funding.

Please tell me that my sarcasm meter is broken.

The Mad Crapper
07-04-2010, 02:16 PM
Please tell me that my sarcasm meter is broken.

We don'tz wantz no soLar energy, we's only uzing the cole kind.

The Mad Crapper
07-04-2010, 02:25 PM
Turn your sarcasm meter on there Spike.

You and Direkshun sit together on the cheese bus, don't you.

J Diddy
07-04-2010, 02:25 PM
Please tell me that my sarcasm meter is broken.

No kindly point out anywhere in that article that states their first stop wasn't the fed.

Secondly you'd have to be kinda dumb not to want to invest in a company that is creating energy from the sun----in a desert. In a state that's already providing the energy for the 8th largest economy in the world.

J Diddy
07-04-2010, 02:25 PM
You and Direkshun sit together on the cheese bus, don't you.

They got cheese buses in Jersey?

The Mad Crapper
07-04-2010, 02:27 PM
They got cheese buses in Jersey?

Are you and Direkshun planning on moving here?

J Diddy
07-04-2010, 02:31 PM
Are you and Direkshun planning on moving here?

Nah, I was watching John Adams last night on HBO and the delegate from Jersey was sort of unlikeable. I figured all Jersey folks must be like that. However, it would appear that I could finally be in the political majority if I did.

The Mad Crapper
07-04-2010, 02:32 PM
Nah, I was watching John Adams last night on HBO and the delegate from Jersey was sort of unlikeable. I figured all Jersey folks must be like that. However, it would appear that I could finally be in the political majority if I did.

Let's trade places.

Saul Good
07-04-2010, 02:35 PM
No kindly point out anywhere in that article that states their first stop wasn't the fed.

Secondly you'd have to be kinda dumb not to want to invest in a company that is creating energy from the sun----in a desert. In a state that's already providing the energy for the 8th largest economy in the world.

It didn't say that the CEO wasn't a crab person from the center of the Earth, either. Certain things don't have to be said.

Why don't you invest in said company? I mean, so many companies have become profitable by selling electricity generated by the sun, right?

J Diddy
07-04-2010, 02:39 PM
It didn't say that the CEO wasn't a crab person from the center of the Earth, either. Certain things don't have to be said.

Why don't you invest in said company? I mean, so many companies have become profitable by selling electricity generated by the sun, right?

To my knowledge they haven't released a public offering. When they do I will definitely look at it.




Furthermore, I respectfully request proof that said CEO isn't a crab person from the center of the earth.

You're pretty much 0-2 on the proof meter.

patteeu
07-04-2010, 03:33 PM
This company would NOT have been able to secure a 400 million dollar loan to expand. That is a huge hurdle. Again, this is a LOAN not a gift. It is an investment not money down a hole. Many more jobs will come out of this and the money will be paid back.
I would love to have 8 million jobs open up at once but they wont, we have to start somewhere, this seems like a decent, small, start.

Maybe. If there was no way for this company to secure a private loan, I think it remains to be seen whether this in an investment or just money down a hole.

J Diddy
07-04-2010, 03:39 PM
Maybe. If there was no way for this company to secure a private loan, I think it remains to be seen whether this in an investment or just money down a hole.


Believe it or not that's precisely my point but from a different view.

Just cause the evil man secured a loan to fund the largest solar energy plant in the world (he did campaign that he was going to put money into the environmental infrastructure to create jobs), in a place that's virtually no lack of sun, next to the 8th largest economy in the world, whom that state is already providing electricity for and that doesn't seem to be enough, automatically makes it a bad idea?

patteeu
07-04-2010, 03:49 PM
It didn't say that the CEO wasn't a crab person from the center of the Earth, either. Certain things don't have to be said.

Why don't you invest in said company? I mean, so many companies have become profitable by selling electricity generated by the sun, right?

They may be counting on an indirect government subsidy in the form of punitive taxation on fossil fuel based energy to "level the playing field" in their direction.

patteeu
07-04-2010, 03:52 PM
Believe it or not that's precisely my point but from a different view.

Just cause the evil man secured a loan to fund the largest solar energy plant in the world (he did campaign that he was going to put money into the environmental infrastructure to create jobs), in a place that's virtually no lack of sun, next to the 8th largest economy in the world, whom that state is already providing electricity for and that doesn't seem to be enough, automatically makes it a bad idea?

It's not automatically a bad idea, but if it's dependent on a heavy dose of government involvement to make solar viable by driving up the cost of coal and natural gas, there's a decent chance that it's a bad idea.

J Diddy
07-04-2010, 04:02 PM
It's not automatically a bad idea, but if it's dependent on a heavy dose of government involvement to make solar viable by driving up the cost of coal and natural gas, there's a decent chance that it's a bad idea.


How exactly is solar energy (renewable resource) less cost effective than (nonrenewable resources) coal and gas. Isn't the sun light free?

patteeu
07-04-2010, 04:09 PM
How exactly is solar energy (renewable resource) less cost effective than (nonrenewable resources) coal and gas. Isn't the sun light free?

How is anyone going to make money off of it if the product is free? The answer, of course, is that it isn't.

Sunshine is free, but electricity from sunshine costs money. And right now, it costs more money than electricity from coal in most circumstances. If it didn't, solar powered electricity would be commonplace.

J Diddy
07-04-2010, 04:54 PM
How is anyone going to make money off of it if the product is free? The answer, of course, is that it isn't.

Sunshine is free, but electricity from sunshine costs money. And right now, it costs more money than electricity from coal in most circumstances. If it didn't, solar powered electricity would be commonplace.

Ok, tbh, didn't really approach it from that angle. Didn't realize that it isn't up there cost efficiency wise yet, but is projected to be so within the next few years.

Thanks for straightening that out

ClevelandBronco
07-04-2010, 05:10 PM
Ok, tbh, didn't really approach it from that angle. Didn't realize that it isn't up there cost efficiency wise yet, but is projected to be so within the next few years.

Only if you're willing to ignore the massive subsidies in the equation.

chiefforlife
07-04-2010, 05:10 PM
Its still a new technology and like any new technology, its expensive at first. Remember what a microwave cost when it was new?
Just because the resource itself is free (the sun) doesnt mean there isnt money to be made, but it does make more sense to build the future around it.

chiefforlife
07-04-2010, 05:12 PM
Only if you're willing to ignore the massive subsidies in the equation.

So far, we are talking about a Loan. Once repaid, it should be ignored. There isnt any business that hasnt taken a loan to help it succeed.

Baby Lee
07-04-2010, 05:16 PM
How exactly is solar energy (renewable resource) less cost effective than (nonrenewable resources) coal and gas. Isn't the sun light free?

Sunlight is free, but the tech to convert sunlight to electricity is prohibitively more expensive than the tech to convert coil, oil, natural gas, and nuclear to electricity. And that's not because it's new tech, it's because it's tech that utilizes much more sophisticated engineering than the heating of water for the running of turbines, and because it extracts so little energy on a per cell basis compared to the energy extraction from nuclear and fossil fuels.

Baby Lee
07-04-2010, 05:18 PM
Its still a new technology and like any new technology, its expensive at first. Remember what a microwave cost when it was new?
Just because the resource itself is free (the sun) doesnt mean there isnt money to be made, but it does make more sense to build the future around it.

OK, looks like someone who has faith in the markets to make inefficient means of production efficient through economies of scale. So do you hold similar faith for other markets. If not, could you answer my question above?

chiefforlife
07-04-2010, 05:35 PM
OK, looks like someone who has faith in the markets to make inefficient means of production efficient through economies of scale. So do you hold similar faith for other markets. If not, could you answer my question above?

I do understand that its not the most efficient way to produce energy. The more efficient ways are not unlimited and are not good for the environment. Therefor we must develop some alternatives. They will need help to become competitive with the others. The market will not do this on its own.

Is that what you are asking?

J Diddy
07-04-2010, 05:51 PM
Only if you're willing to ignore the massive subsidies in the equation.which subsidies are you referring to

The Mad Crapper
07-05-2010, 10:44 PM
Green jobs.

LOL

You gotta be an imbecile

RaiderH8r
07-06-2010, 09:55 AM
Its still a new technology and like any new technology, its expensive at first. Remember what a microwave cost when it was new?
Just because the resource itself is free (the sun) doesnt mean there isnt money to be made, but it does make more sense to build the future around it.

Government subsidies and interference didn't make the microwave, or the cell phone, or the flat screen tv cheap. The market did.

If gov't really wants an area where it can do some good with respect to energy it will re-up on the Rural Electrification Act model and get states to begin agreeing to the framework and interstate rights of way that will be necessary to upgrade and future proof one of the greatest scientific achievements of man kind, the American power grid. We will need a modernized grid that has on/off ramps for small, independent power sources, as well as the ability quickly and efficiently switch power sources. One of the problems facing wind energy is that wind mostly blows at night, when demand is low. Mandating a renewable portfolio standard means that areas power down traditional (coal) plants quickly at night so they can go to wind power and then have to power back up when the wind dies down. Studies have shown that this power down/power up cycle uses more coal and energy and results in greater emissions than if they coal plant had been left to operate normally. But because of the mandate that can't happen.

Lastly, look for Congresscritters to do an energy tax next week. They'll call it a "Green Jobs" bill, but they'll be paying for those jobs by taxing energy. Book it.