Hilary and coal mining

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

What she was getting at is she proposes to shut down coal mines and push to get the people who loose their jobs hired into the green energy sector. It came out all wrong obviously. Crazy loon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe they could go work for Solyndra
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Maybe they could go work for Solyndra
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually that energy department loan program ended up turning a profit, but you care about that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually that energy department loan program ended up turning a profit, but you care about that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many bankruptcies?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

How many bankruptcies?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not many, I believe the default rate on 34 billion in loans was under 3 percent. It was a Bush era program intended to be revenue neutral but ended up turning a nice profit after the interest payments offset the losses.

You did know all this right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually that energy department loan program ended up turning a profit, but you care about that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

After doing a little research it appears you are wrong again. In 2014 it looked like it would turn a $5 billion profit.,but by 2015 it was 2.2 billion in the hole .
And don't forget those bankruptcies and how many people they hurt .
But you wouldn't care about that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

After doing a little research it appears you are wrong again. In 2014 it looked like it would turn a $5 billion profit.,but by 2015 it was 2.2 billion in the hole . Obama Math
And don't forget those bankruptcies and how many people they hurt .
But you wouldn't care about that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think another failed recently

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

After doing a little research it appears you are wrong again. In 2014 it looked like it would turn a $5 billion profit.,but by 2015 it was 2.2 billion in the hole .
And don't forget those bankruptcies and how many people they hurt .
But you wouldn't care about that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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.

[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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

After doing a little research it appears you are wrong again. In 2014 it looked like it would turn a $5 billion profit.,but by 2015 it was 2.2 billion in the hole .
And don't forget those bankruptcies and how many people they hurt .
But you wouldn't care about that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, you're reading it wrong or whomever you're reading read it wrong. I'd like to see the source.

The 2.2B refers to credit servicing costs that were factored into the program...because of improved credit among some of the loaners the credit service cost was half of what was expected.

The 5B in profit was a misinterpretation by the media according to the GAO...

DOE provides information related to the costs of its loan programs in
reports, financial statements, and budget documents. Other entities,
including Congress and the public, rely on this information to weigh the
benefits of these programs, but the complexity of this information can lead
to confusion if users of this information are not aware of the context. For
example, DOE reported in November 2014 that the loan programs had
earned more than $810 million in interest and that DOE expected to earn
$5 billion in interest payments over the life of the loans and loan
guarantees.3 However, in part because this report did not include the
interest that DOE pays the government to finance its lending, the
information on expected interest earnings has been misinterpreted in
several media accounts as projecting $5 billion in profits for the DOE loan
programs.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675595.pdf

[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?