0230.15z
UNISYS Water Vapor Goes East Satellite (click title to entry - thank you)
Yes, indeed, the Wall Street MIND SPEAK at its best.
The Ontario government (click here) announced this week it will contribute $48-million to help Magna International develop technologies for electric vehicles. For its part, Magna will pitch in $430-million to the research and development effort, which is a sign that it’s probably a fairly safe bet. Case closed, the government has successfully created jobs and prevented global warming in one fell swoop, right?
Not so fast. If this was such a great investment, why isn’t it all being funded entirely with private capital? And would it still be profitable if there weren’t a host of other government subsidies for electric vehicles, such as the $5,000-$8,500 Ontario consumers receive for buying one?
They never asked that about the Space Program though.
Good Governance sometimes requires INVESTMENT to change the face of a failed economy mired in Old World values. But, for media services that like to inspire anger rather than confidence the 'speculation of nonsense' is more important.
They never asked that about the Space Program though.
Good Governance sometimes requires INVESTMENT to change the face of a failed economy mired in Old World values. But, for media services that like to inspire anger rather than confidence the 'speculation of nonsense' is more important.
The biggest problem with subsidizing green technologies is that the subsidy itself shows that people don’t want the product. If there was enough demand, companies could make a profit without the government’s help and would have no issues investing their own money….
That isn't true at all. People in Western Nations have wanted a far greener government and private sector for CHOICES, but, they never got it. It has to start somewhere.If citizens in Canada and the USA were asked if they would prefer a Green Vehicle that runs on sunlight, wind sourced electricity or biofuels rather than fossil fuels, guess what they would say? Then add the ACTUAL 'out of pocket' cost of fuel versus change; would there opinion change.
If consumers were asked if they rather change to a greener economy for the sake of the future of their children, guess what the answer would be?
…And yesterday brought even more bad news for President Obama’s vision of a green economy. In May 2010, he touted a solar panel manufacturer in California that received $475-million in stimulus funds, as being a success story of his environmental strategy…
And that is what I always found GREAT about worshiping Wall Street, the fact the West has to surrender to China.
Absolutely. Makes me proud.
For every two cents of tax subsidies for 'Big Oil,' wind and solar get nearly $1.
...Arlington officials boast the project will save $14,000 in annual electricity costs, but the solar panels have a life span of no more than 10 to 15 years. So the feds spent $300,000 to shave at most $150,000 off the net present value of Arlington's electric bills. Some 3,000 counties across the country received federal funds for the same kind of negative-return energy conservation "investments." This is the kind of "clean energy" program the administration wants to expand....
How much CO2 is NOT created? I think the GOP has Green confused with the color of money not the planet.
Atmospheric CO2 for July 2011 is 392.39 ppm. (click here)
Does Wall Street want to work on that one for awhile? Or perhaps all this drought, flooding and heat is good for business. All that government REBUILDING money now that the USA is out of Iraq.
Often, very often, what is good for Wall Street is not good for people. Now, take for example the Global Economic Banking Collapse...
