Showing posts with label investments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label investments. Show all posts

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Price of green energy electricity

JÜRGEN KRÖNIG: ENERGY POLICY IN GERMANY – BIG PROBLEMS IN EUROPE’S POWERHOUSE

  •      http://www.thegwpf.org/jurgen-kronig-energy-policy-in-germany-big-problems-in-europes-powerhouse/   




  • I did read else where that Germans are paying 21 billion to receive green power that is only worth 2 billion. Begs the question just who is getting the rest of the money  in the video     
  • This hilarious video from a German national TV broadcast instantly disproves both:   http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/23/Germany-discovers-sense-of-humour-loses-faith-in-green-energy

  • Date: 27/03/14
  • Jürgen Krönig, Policy Network

The coalition agreement between the German Social Democrats (SPD) and the Christian Democrats (CDU) has seen SPD leader Sigmar Gabriel become Minister for Economy and Energy in the Merkel cabinet. In a country with spiralling energy costs, he faces a daunting challenge to balance industrial competitiveness, social justice, green goals and energy security.

 
[...] Sigmar Gabriel, the SPD leader in charge of the Economy and Energy portfolio, is without doubt the most important minister in the cabinet of Angela Merkel but he is facing the most difficult task too. His job is to secure the competitiveness of Germany and its industries and he has to reform the German energy revolution, the “Energiewende”, which cannot be done without upsetting what the scientist James Lovelock in his book “The vanishing face of Gaia – a final warning” called the “green – industrial complex” that has established itself over the last twenty or so years and is determined to defend its vested interests, not least the enormous subsidies for wind turbines. Lovelock predicted then that “Europe’s massive use of wind for baseload electricity will be remembered as one of the great industrial follies of the twenty first century”.
Energiewende is committed to Germany’s energy transition to 100% renewables.Furthermore, Sigmar Gabriel will have to find a way to explain how the architects of the Energiewende came to ignore its flawed design based on miscalculations, lack of realism and wishful thinking. This uncomfortable task might be slightly easier because the Energiewende has many political parents, Greens, Social Democrats and Christian Democrats.
One especially disastrous element of the Energiewende, the rushed nuclear exit after Fukushima, was furthermore the responsibility of Merkel’s coalition with the Liberals.Business as usual is no longer an option. Without drastic changes the Energiewende will be even more threatening for Germany’s industrial base. German exports would have been €15bn higher last year if its industry had not paid a premium for electricity compared with international competitors, according to a recent analysis by the Energy Consultancy IHS.Germany’s manufacturing suffered already €52bn in net export losses for the six-year period from 2008 to 2013. The figure was calculated by linking changes in the net volume of German manufacturing exports to changes in energy costs, using an economic model that accounted for other variables such as exchange rates. Almost 60 per cent of the total loss (or €30bn) came in energy-intensive industries: paper, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, non-metallic mineral products and basic metals.
Smaller companies were disproportionately affected. Unlike heavy energy users such as BASF and Thyssen/Krupp, small companies are not eligible for exemptions from the energy bill surcharges that cover the costs of the move to clean energy. Even more worrying for Germany is a clear trend for investment to go abroad. IHS found that direct investment abroad has accelerated at the expense of domestic investment and the cost of energy was the most important driver of this shift. [...]
The utopian dream of an economy powered by renewables is more and more turning into a nightmare. In his recently published book “Klare Worte”, which means “blunt words”, ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, under whom the “green energy revolution” started, is now calling for a revision of this policy; he warns of more damaging and unachievable targets for renewable energy and for CO2 reduction by the EU Commission and advocates a longer life for Germany’s remaining nuclear power stations that according to the official time table will have to shut down in 2022, thus increasing the fear of blackouts in Germany.
But the present coalition government, despite its intention to lower the burden for consumers and industries, is still determined to double the amount of renewables till 2030. So far it does not show any willingness to consider prolonging the life of the remaining nuclear reactors, despite now facing the Ukrainian crisis that should have alerted Berlin and other European capitals to the risk of diminished energy security and growing dependency on Putin’s Russia. [...]
Germany is not alone
Germany is not alone in Europe. The UK and other EU countries are facing similar problems in regards to the price of energy and the competitiveness of industries. But for Germany it is more difficult to turn around and admit mistakes. So much money has been spent, so much prestige and pride is at stake, and, in contrast to the more pragmatic British and the less easily frightened French, green convictions are much more deeply embedded in institutions, in culture, in the media and in politics – and Germany is a country with a strong, long established tradition of anti-modernism, nature worship and suspicion of technological and scientific progress.
During the heyday of climate fears in the last decade, centre-left politicians in Britain and Germany were united in the belief that climate change would be the new mass mobilising topic that would help save their parties. A more likely outcome is that this strategy will neither save the centre-left nor will it help to prevent climate change. The fate of the SPD may serve as an interesting lesson for other centre left parties. It is telling that according to the latest survey only 24% of Germans feel confident about their countries energy policy while 73 percent are dissatisfied and are ill at ease. This may be a warning that Sigmar Gabriel should heed. It is unlikely that most of those 73% demand even more wind turbines that blight so many landscapes of their country already without delivering the life blood on which an industrial nation depends.


Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Pension/Welfare funding @ risk

Warning to all police, firefighters, schoolteachers: Most government pensions to be confiscated within a decade
Sunday, July 21, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
Tags: unfunded liabilities, retiree pensions, government confiscation

http://www.naturalnews.com/041298_unfunded_liabilities_retiree_pensions_government_confiscation.html


6,361
  34
Share this Article
(NaturalNews) Last week, Detroit declared bankruptcy, becoming the largest city in U.S. history to take such drastic action in the face of financial insolvency. A declaration of bankruptcy isn't what most people think it is, though: it's not just a statement of "we're broke!" It's actually a way for the city to clear its slate of all financial obligations and not pay the retirees it owes.

What are the largest financial obligations the city facing? Pensions. $3.5 billion worth of pensions, to be exact.

Yes, Detroit owes former government employees -- teachers, firefighters, cops and more -- a whopping $3.5 billion in current and future payments. Except Detroit doesn't have $3.5 billion to pay the pensions. The city is in a state of economic collapse. Remember, the U.S. government used billions in taxpayer money to help General Motors move its manufacturing offshore to countries like China. As a result of economically-insane actions and criminal mismanagement, a city that used to be the hub of industrial output in America has become a ghost town of abandoned buildings, crumbling infrastructure and financial destitution.

But even as all this was becoming apparent, the government workers there continued to collect fat paychecks and pensions, all based on the promise that endless population growth would out-pace the rise in pension obligations. Many pensioners are owed over $100,000 a year from the government, and this is true across California, Illinois and many other states as well.

Chicago, for example, owes $19 billion in pension payments that it doesn't have, and the city of Los Angeles is more than $30 billion in the hole. The story is much the same in every major U.S. city.

As the Detroit Free Press now reports:

Early this year, the Pew Center released a survey showing that 61 of the nation's largest cities -- limiting the survey to the largest city in each state and all other cities with more than 500,000 people -- had a gap of more than $217 billion in unfunded pension and health care liabilities. While cities had long promised health care, life insurance and other benefits to retirees, "few ... started saving to cover the long-term costs," the report said.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Derivatives Gamble


It has been a question about derivatives  that I have been trying to learn from over 5 years ago and it has taken me quite a while to learn and sort of understand.  After asking university students studying economics  to investigate and no real answers. This article does close some of the gaps, though I think there is a lot more to  figure out all the effects. Particularly to all of the world and just why have other countries as early as 2008 had set things up to hair cut depositors.

It also seems to a part of man's greed and machinations to hide things.


The Wall Street Ticking Time Bomb That Could Blow Up Your Bank Account

Derivatives turn the financial system into a casino. And the House always wins.
Photo Credit: Jean Lee/ Shutterstock.com
Cyprus-style confiscation of depositor funds has been called the “new normal.”  Bail-in policies are appearing in multiple countries directing failing TBTF banks to convert the funds of “unsecured creditors” into capital; and those creditors, it turns out, include ordinary depositors. Even “secured” creditors, including state and local governments, may be at risk.  Derivatives have “super-priority” status in bankruptcy, and Dodd Frank precludes further taxpayer bailouts. In a big derivatives bust, there may be no collateral left for the creditors who are next in line.  
Shock waves went around the world when the IMF, the EU, and the ECB not only approved but mandated the confiscation of depositor funds to “bail in” two bankrupt banks in Cyprus. A “bail in” is a quantum leap beyond a “bail out.” When governments are no longer willing to use taxpayer money to bail out banks that have gambled away their capital, the banks are now being instructed to “recapitalize” themselves by confiscating the funds of their creditors, turning debt into equity, or stock; and the “creditors” include the depositors who put their money in the bank thinking it was a secure place to store their savings.
The Cyprus bail-in was not a one-off emergency measure but was consistent with similar policies already in the works for the US, UK, EU, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, as detailed in my earlier articles here and here.  “Too big to fail” now trumps all.  Rather than banks being put into bankruptcy to salvage the deposits of their customers, the customers will be put into bankruptcy to save the banks.
Why Derivatives Threaten Your Bank Account
The big risk behind all this is the massive $230 trillion derivatives boondoggle managed by US banks. Derivatives are sold as a kind of insurance for managing profits and risk; but as Satyajit Das points out in Extreme Money, they actually increase risk to the system as a whole.

Friday, August 3, 2012

purloined taxpayers money under who's command ? ?


Is this is what happened to the money??
So does this answer where the blame should lie??
So was GW Bush just a lame duck President and scape-goat??

HOW WALL STREET HIJACKED TARP
By Jon Christian RyterAugust 1, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
Neil Barofsky, a lifetime Democrat, was picked by then-President George W. Bush (on the advise of his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson) to police how the banks spent the $700 billion in TARP economic stimulus funds that should have helped the United States avert the recession that all Americans now suffer under. Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee on April 20, 2010, Barofsky said: "To declare TARP a success is revisionist history. TARP was supposed to restore lending, and that didn't happen."
TARP, according to the political rhetoric, was supposed to buy up the foreclosed mortgages that were strangling credit and bankrupting both small business entrepreneurs and working class stiffs who were impacted by the lack of financial liquidity in the United States that was caused, initially, by the collapse of Indonesia's largest financial institution, Bank Century when it lost 6.7 trillion rupiah ($720 million). That bank failure came on the heels of the insolvency of Indonesia's central bank, Bank Indonesia a decade earlier. The money Bank Century lost was owed to—you guessed it—America's Wall Street banks who advanced them massive loans to modernize their infrastructure: roads and critical services to prepare them for the transnational princes of industry bringing the third world into the 21st century—with American factories and American jobs.
The exporting of US jobs to the third world that began with the never constitutionally ratified North American Free Trade Agreement enacted by the 103rd Congress (which can be repealed since it's a law and not a treaty), created the economic mechanism that, combined with another Clinton-era law orchestrated by then community-organizer Barack Obama in Chicago that forced Illinois banks to make bad mortgage loans to minorities that Fannie Mae had agreed to underwrite. In 1999, Bill Clinton's Republican-controlled 106th Congress amended Public Law 95-128, 12 USC § 2901, Jimmy Carter's 1977 Community Reinvestment Act to reduce what that legislation called discriminatory credit practices against minorities in impoverished areas—a banking practice known as "red-lining." The Clinton law, actually concocted by Republicans to curry favor from minorities voters, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, was officially known as The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. It forced banks to make home loans guaranteed by Fannie Mae to low income families who were not "sound financial risks" for mortgages. It should have been called "The Mortgage Industry Implosion Time Bomb Act of 1999" because the 106th Congress lit the fuse. It took six years for the economic time bomb to explode and for the American mortgage industry to implode.
TARP would have repaired the economy had the funds allocated to get the damaged

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Export Jobs by the American taxpayer


Can this be true ? ?

GENERAL MOTORS, GENERAL ELECTRIC: GUILTY OF ECONOMIC TREASON?

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
July 15, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
You, like me, may be tired of the presidential political ads – from both sides. The one that is fingernails on a blackboard for me is Barack Obama’s accusations that Mitt Romney has been for sending jobs to China. This entire television ad is a lie – and at its end the familiar voice of the man known as President Obama that tells me he approves the lies.
It was Barack Obama who gave TARP money to General Motors (which now builds 70 percent of its cars in China) and it was Barack Obama who appointed Jeffrey Immelt, General Electric CEO, his Chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Mr. Obama evidently didn’t realize Immelt was so stupid he needed to explain he meant American, not Chinese, jobs. Immelt calls China “GE’s second home.” I think Americans should make China GE’s only home.
It is Barack Hussein Obama, not Mitt Romney, who had the nerve to make this television ad about sending jobs to China when two men who belong to Obama – GM’s Dan Akerson and GE’s Immelt –

Thursday, July 19, 2012

renewable energy record with government money

Can all this be true  ? ? ? Are there any successes ??
DUST
Solar Trust of America: Filed Bankruptcy in Oakland, CA, April 3, 2012 – On April 2, 2012.
Bright Source: On the verge of bankruptcy. Lost millions, waiting for WH loan guarantees.
Solyndra: Solyndra shut its doors and laid off 1100 workers in August 2011 After Billions in losses.
LSP Energy: LSPEnergy LP  filed bankruptcy protection and a sale of its assets in Feb 2012
Energy Conversion Devices: On February 14, 2012 Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. and its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy.
Abound Solar: Abound Solar received a $400 million loan guarantee from Barack Obama announced in June, 2012 that it would file for bankruptcy.
 SunPower: SunPower stopped producing solar cells last year at near bankruptcy restructured with help of oil giant TOTAL who owns 60% stake. Still losing money.
Beacon Power: Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy Oct 2011 just a year after Obama approved $43 million loan Government loan guarantee.
Ecotality: ECOtality, a San Francisco green-tech company that never earned any money on the verge of bankruptcy after receiving roughly $115 million in two loan guarantees from Obama.
A123 Solar: A123 received $279 million from taxpayers thanks to President Obama’s Department of Energy loan guarantees and after Solyndra bankruptcy is getting another $500M from Obama and it has lost $400M.
UniSolar: Uni-Solar filed for Ch 11 bankruptcy in June 20 this year laid off hundreds got more Obama money still failing but still in business.
Azure Dynamics: Azure Dynamics files for bankruptcy in June after millions in Obama “Stimulus”.
Evergreen Solar: Evergreen Solar received $527 Million in Taxpayer money from Obama filed bankruptcy.
Ener1: received more than $100 million in government funding from the Obama administration  filed for bankruptcy January 2012.
Data compiled by dividedstates.comhttp://www.dividedstates.com/l...


RCODEY
Hey John Nolte,
You missed something.    Amonix was backed by the Angeleno Group.  Angeleno's Co-Founder, Zeb Rice is on the board of Amonix.   Zeb Rice is ...surprise surprise.....an Obama Bundler.
http://www.opensecrets.org/PRE...

BROOKLYN_DODGER
The friends of Obama have happened on a great idea, though not an original one. Funnel government money through a company involved in technology they know doesn't work and has no market, then use that to launder the money and keep it. The idea was originally

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Basic Banking



THE WAY BANKING USED TO BE

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
July 1, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
People assume because we’ve had fractional-reserve banking around for many years that it’s always been that way. It hasn’t. This article is about the way banking used to be – the way it should be.
This sound like a really dull topic, doesn’t it? Fractional-reserve banking? Who in the world wants to know what it is and how it works? You might want to consider the fact that this thing called “fractional-reserve banking” is at the heart of America’s financial woes and if you want to see new jobs being created, if you want to see our banks on firm ground again, you need to know what it is. You cannot effectively fight a faceless, invisible opponent.
In the “good old days,” commercial banks made loans from the deposits customers placed in checking and savings accounts (and certificates of deposit, etc.). The general consensus was that if you loaned only 70 percent of deposits, you would always have enough cash on hand to deal with the daily needs of people who needed cash. That consensus proved to be true. Other transactions – like clearing checks so people could pay their bills – was a computer transaction that could be cleared at the end of the month. Daily cash wasn’t absolutely necessary for that function.
Regulations were strict and they were enforced… those last three words are key to understanding one of the major reasons for our current financial mess. Today, regulations are not enforced. That is especially true during times the government wants to implement new regulatory controls. They ignore the regulations that are on the books and when things fall apart they demand new regulations be created. Why do they do this? In my opinion, they use this ruse when they need to cover something up… need to pass new regulations that will prevent the public from finding an error or an unlawful action taken – I believe that the Dodd Frank Bill was passed to cover up unlawful foreclosures and all of the actions taken that made foreclosures possible in the first place. Or, like the time the Federal Reserve gave its permission for investment banks to join with commercial banks on Wall Street when the Fed had absolutely no authority over the investment banking community and legally could not take such an action. When they passed legislation to allow the Fed to do what it had done six months earlier, they grandfathered the law to the date of the occurrence.
In other words, when you hear “new regulatory controls,” it should send a shiver up your spine, not provide you with a sense of security or that someone who knows what he or she is doing is in control. If someone who knew what he or she was doing was in control, there would be no need for new regulatory controls.