Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 53

Thread: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

  1. #26
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    Ok staying completely on topic...How do youfigure that the Volt will keep laid off workers on the job when 2/3rds of the jobs supporting the Volt will be based in China, South Korea etc. Also, zero US payroll taxes are collected from those Chinese and South Korean subcontract workers. Yes sales tax will be collected on the sale of Volts, offset by a net tax revenue 'loss' of the $7,500 federal tax credit
    Actually, you are not staying on topic, on topic would have been discussing your contention of how there wouldn't be technological innovation in the future to make the electric cars cheaper and more efficient and also how none of the benefits of those improvements would make it to the U.S.

    That point notwithstanding, I’d like to see the source that confirms that 2/3’s of the workers involved in manufacturing the Volt are from outside the U.S. Even if they were however, 1/3 of the jobs is better than NONE of the jobs. This car was pretty much 100% designed and developed in the U.S., there were hundreds of U.S. companies and thousands of jobs involved in that aspect of the project over the past several years. In addition there are thousands and thousands of U.S. jobs and companies outside of the manufacture of the Volt that will and have directly benefited by the Volt; the advertising companies that will advertise it, the freight companies that deliver those foreign components to the U.S. factory, the sales staff, secretaries and receptionists at sales and service offices, equipment makers who built the equipment to assemble the cars, companies that will maintain and repair that equipment printers to print all the literature, forms and marketing materiels , public relation firms, banks who provided financing, accountants for the company, accountants for the employees tax returns, technicians to do service, pizza places to deliver pizza’s to the various Volt staff for lunch, legal firms, catering companies who will take care of holiday parties, office supply companies for all the desks, chairs, printers computers, paper that will be used in hundreds of Volt related offices, cleaning companies to clean all the offices and showrooms, it’s endless. All those transactions will generate payroll and/or sales tax that is NOT offset by tax-credits.

    The volt only appears to save on fuel costs by avoiding the payment of appropriate road tax and by the de-facto substitution from high priced gasoline to lower priced coal ( at the power plants being used to charge them ). If coal fired power plants are carbon limited, electricity prices based on natgas generation will quickly rise.
    The Volt saves fuel costs by providing a round trip commute of under 35 miles (75% of commuters) on full battery for about $1.50. Electricity isn’t solely generated by coal but also by solar, hydro and other renewable methods. This proportion will increase in the future as technology improves.
    Here is an example. Solar Trees are being manufactured and sold by several U.S. companies and also responsible for hundreds of U.S jobs. These units provide energy that can charge the cars, help power the building and even sell excess power to the utility company.

    http://solarpowerauthority.com/solar-car-ports-and-electric-cars/

    http://www.jetsongreen.com/2008/06/solar-trees-env.html

    http://gas2.org/2009/10/26/dell-builds-solar-trees-for-parking-lot/

    http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/16264

    Here is a solar charger under development by Toyota

    http://green.autoblog.com/2010/08/23...ns-opens-in-t/

    The Volt only appears to protect the environment in the immediate area where it is driven. However, the environmental damage done in China in order to produce batteries and rare earth magnet motors for the Volt is truly horrible.
    First off, it’s better to protect the environment where these cars are than not at all. Secondly, most of the environmental damage caused by rare earth processing is avoidable by preventing the toxic acids used from getting into the water supply. There is a lot more scrutiny on this now and safeguards are increasingly being put into place.

    There are so many 'stealth' subsidies involved in electric vehicles, and so many real world negative factors that are ignored and/or discounted, yet electric vehicles still aren't close to being price competitive with high efficiency gasoline engine
    This has been my point through the whole thread- they are far from perfect right now, but with a little push and some incentives they can easily be improved until the point where they are cheaper and more efficient and with the added benefit of minimizing harm to the environment. We’re not that far off, we’ve already got some pretty well designed cars. All we really need is some more innovations to get costs and consumer prices down and increased technology with items like the solar trees to get the electricity from non-polluting sources. In the process we create a lot of jobs, stimulate the economy and decrease our reliance on foreign oil.
    Here are some other innovations and a taste of what’s on the way:

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007...bishi_unve.php

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/solar_hybrid_ca.php

  2. #27
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    Independent tests of the Volt put its range in the REAL World at 33 miles per charge. GM did its tests on a test track. Independent testers like Popular Mechanics used roads. It promises to be even worse in California thanks to things called "hills".

  3. #28
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    ^^^Wow! you guys do go out of your way to be negative. 75% of commuters drive under 35 miles round-trip. For the very small number of those who have to drive over hills or over 33 miles, they can let the gas/electric feature kick in and probably have to shell out an additional $7 per month or so on fuel.

  4. #29
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    ^^^ this isn't positive or negative. It's about every US taxpayer and every GM conventional car and truck buyer being required to subsidize the Chevy Volt ... at the 'cost' of losing the use of that subsidy money for any other purpose.

    as to your other question .... while GM does not release details, a few things about the 'percentage' of offshore cost content in the Chevy Volt is fairly easy to quantify ...

    (snip)"Make no mistake about it. The Volt is more software and code than anything else. The car, which GM hopes will give it an edge on rivals, has 100 electronic controllers, 10 million lines of software code and its own IP address. A car in the 1980s was roughly 5 percent electronics. The Chevy Volt is 40 percent." (snip) from It's absolutely guaranteed that all of this electronic hardware will be imported from Asia.

    (snip)" the first Volts out the door to get their 1.4 L generator engines from Austria. "(snip) from In point of fact, the engines will be assembled by GM Opel in Austria from components manufactured at GM's new plant in Uzbekistan. In the future, the assembly operation will be moved to Flint MI but the components will still come from Uzbekistan.

    (snip)"And as I sat in the press conference audience here in Detroit today, just moments ago, GM finally announced the contract had been awarded to LG chem of Korea using special large format lithium ion cells. The cells will be made in Korea, and shipped to the battery pack assembly plant in Michigan."(snip) fromhttp://gm-volt.com/2009/01/12/its-official-gm-chooses-lg-chemcompact-power-inc-to-supply-chevy-volt-lithium-ion-battery-packs/

    ... as I posted earlier, the US operations of Volt production will be primarily assembly work ... with the energy intensive, environmentally nasty, labor intensive component manufacture being done overseas both initially and into the future.

  5. #30
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    ^^^Your subsidizing argument doesn't hold any water.

    Also, as already explained here a few times, even if it's only assembling the various components, who exactly will be doing that here? Will it be Americans?. Will American truck and freight companies be delivering those many components to the U.S. factory?. Will American showrooms be staffed with American salespeople to sell the car? Will American advertising and marketing companies get hired to promote the car? Will American tech's be repairing the car? Will American lawyers be doing all contract and paperwork for the company and purchases? Will American banks be providing the financing? Will American secretaries and receptionists be working in sales, marketing and headquarter offices, will American accountants do the financial and accounting work, will American printing companies print the millions of advertising pieces, sales forms, price lists, contacts, office forms etc.

    All those groups and dozens and dozens more will be involved with the Volt. They will all pay payroll tax, sales tax, state and local tax and it will stimulate the U.S. economy in ways that are impossible to calculate.

    There are billions and billions of PRIVATE dollars being invested into all sorts of green and renewable technologies, creating thousands of high paying jobs. If as all it takes is a $7,500 tax credit and some other incentives to give a burgening industry a better chance to grow and thrive than I think it's a great idea. Until Obama we were giving the oil companies $12 Billion a year in subsidies for a long, long time- what did we ever get out of that?.

  6. #31
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    ^^^Your subsidizing argument doesn't hold any water.

    Also, as already explained here a few times, even if it's only assembling the various components, who exactly will be doing that here? Will it be Americans?. Will American truck and freight companies be delivering those many components to the U.S. factory?. Will American showrooms be staffed with American salespeople to sell the car? Will American advertising and marketing companies get hired to promote the car? Will American tech's be repairing the car? Will American lawyers be doing all contract and paperwork for the company and purchases? Will American banks be providing the financing? Will American secretaries and receptionists be working in sales, marketing and headquarter offices, will American accountants do the financial and accounting work, will American printing companies print the millions of advertising pieces, sales forms, price lists, contacts, office forms etc.

    All those groups and dozens and dozens more will be involved with the Volt. They will all pay payroll tax, sales tax, state and local tax and it will stimulate the U.S. economy in ways that are impossible to calculate.

    There are billions and billions of PRIVATE dollars being invested into all sorts of green and renewable technologies, creating thousands of high paying jobs. If as all it takes is a $7,500 tax credit and some other incentives to give a burgening industry a better chance to grow and thrive than I think it's a great idea. Until Obama we were giving the oil companies $12 Billion a year in subsidies for a long, long time- what did we ever get out of that?.
    What is the $7500 Tax Credit ? Chopped Liver ? It's NOT a deduction. It's a credit which is even worse from a fiscal pov.

    As for all the new jobs this lemon is supposedly creating, as Mel has pointed out, a lot of them exist overseas. GM's payroll is radically smaller now than it was before they were designing and building these things.

    Let it not go unsaid that I AGREE with you and would LOVE to see ALL corporate welfare and crony capitalism eliminated.

    What we have is a government substituting its judgement for that of the market.
    I sarcastically have named Obama "Automotive Engineer in Chief" because that is NOT his job.

    What FINALLY drove Detroit to build smaller, more fuel efficient cars ? Not the first but it was really the SECOND oil crunch in 1979 .
    To build safer cars ? Private lawsuits.
    To build better quality cars ? Foreign competition especially from Germany and Japan.

    If people want Volts, they will buy them. They shouldn't be "bribed" into doing so.
    People in states where Volts are not available should not have subsidize sales in the six (6) states where they are.

    What purpose does this mobile junkpile serve ? Cleaner air ? The electricity needed to recharge it is generated mostly by COAL.
    Jobs ? Where ? Here or overseas ?
    Let's suppose we all started driving Volts to and from work tomorrow. It would have ZERO environmental impact. How much more coal would we have to burn to generate the electricity needed to recharge our cars ? Inter alia, China has become a net coal IMPORTER. What do you think they are doing with that coal ?
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 11-23-2010 at 10:18 AM.

  7. #32
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    People in states where Volts are not available should not have subsidize sales in the six (6) states where they are.
    And as I have repeatedly pointed out to apparently non-functional cochlear implants, this is NOT confined to the additional federal tax revenues collected from taxpayers in the other 44 states to pay for the $7,500 per Volt tax credit / loss of tax revenues from Volt buyers in the 6 ( blue ) states where they will be sold and supported. It also extends to an extra $200-300-500- whatever that must be added by GM to the price of every gasoline / diesel engine GM vehicle sold in order to cover ( actually, subsidize ) the Volt's future warrantee repair costs ( 8 years 100,000 miles will absolutely result in at least one $10,000 battery pack replacement under GM's warrantee ).

    Also, it turns out that the Volt will only be sold through particular big city GM dealers who will be provided with the expensive test equipment, the even more expensive replacement parts inventory, and the extensive electronically trained GM repair technicians. Thus ALL of the GM dealers in the 44 states that don't get Volt distribution, plus most of the GM dealers in the 6 states that do get Volt distribution but aren't in a big enough market, get zero benefit from the Volt. But they get the negative of the $200-300-500 whatever higher wholesale price of all GM gasoline / diesel engine vehicles in order to subsidize future Volt warrantee costs, which makes them less competitive versus domestic and foreign car dealers located further down the same road. Thus for every Volt sold requiring super specialized test equipment and super technically trained factory technicians, Joe's garages and small town dealerships lose a 'conventional' auto to repair.

    With such specialized electronics, and with the huge cost of battery pack replacement, the Volt is being designed and marketed as an 8 year life vehicle ... because nobody in their right mind is going to purchase a second hand volt without warrantee coverage and face $150 per hour GM technician charges plus a $10,000 'sword of damocles' battery replacement at the customer's expense !!! Also, so far, nobody has talked about who is going to pick up the tab for disposing of battery packs and rare earth components when the Volt's are 'scrapped' after their 8 year warrantee expires.

    Again please don't read me wrong about opposing 'green energy' development for political or other reasons. I oppose CERTAIN 'green energy' subsidies because A. nobody is looking at the overall subsidy costs and unintended consequences as I just described, nobody is looking at the actual amount of US 'added value' jobs / GDP contribution generated versus the 'paper' contribution that is actually originating in China or Korea or Uzbekistan, C. nobody will talk about the overall global environmental impact ( i.e. strip mines, radioactive waste from mining operations, coal / oil / gas fired electric generators charging Volt batteries ) that is arguably worse than that of an efficient new gasoline / diesel engine vehicle, etc. And perhaps most important of all, absolutely nobody is asking what Americans are 'giving up' in exchange for paying out Volt subsidy money ( i.e. 'losing' the new Constellation nuclear plant that couldn't get gov't financing guarantees ).
    Last edited by Melonie; 11-22-2010 at 02:15 PM.

  8. #33
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    As for all the new jobs this lemon is supposedly creating, as Mel has pointed out, a lot of them exist overseas.
    What "supposendly"???? Everyone of the related jobs I listed in the previous post are already created- there is billions of dollars being circulated in the economy right now because of the Volt. The truckers have been delivering the components for over a year, adverstising companies have and will continue to put together big campaigns, design firms and engineers have been working for years, there are repair techs, secretaries, receptionists, salesman, lawyers and dozens and dozens of different job and groups in and out of G.M. that are spending money, hiring, paying payroll and sales taxes right now as a result of the Volt.

  9. #34
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Again please don't read me wrong about opposing 'green energy' development for political or other reasons. I oppose CERTAIN 'green energy' subsidies because A. nobody is looking at the overall subsidy costs and unintended consequences
    And you are not paying any attention to the "intended" consequences like not sending $trillions to the middle east for oil and spending hundreds of $billions on our military to make sure we have a fuel supply and the unwanted byproducts of terrrorism that often result from our actions to protect that fuel supply.

    nobody will talk about the overall global environmental impact ( i.e. strip mines, radioactive waste from mining operations, coal / oil / gas fired electric generators charging Volt batteries )
    The trend is already underway for innovation in this field and the conversion of parking lots into solar arrays like Google, Dell and Kyocera have already installed. They pay for themselves in five years. These "solar lots" will power the building, power the cars parked there and the owner can sell the excess power to the utility company. That's what's already here- in two years there will be things available we can't even imagine.

    Constellation nuclear plant that couldn't get gov't financing guarantees ).
    We covered this in another topic already, it had little to do with not being able to get financing, they couldn't get the financing "they" wanted and pulled out while the government was still working with them AND for other reasons.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...155178010.html
    "The economics of building a multibillion-dollar nuclear reactors have deteriorated with a sharp drop in the price of natural gas—a common power-plant fuel—and a pullback in electricity demand during the recession."

    "A spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget said it was surprised by Constellation's decision, adding the federal government was working with the company up until being notified of its withdrawal. The office urged Constellation to look at a new set of terms and continue working on the project."

    "A fight also has developed between Constellation and EDF over whether the French company is required to buy 12 power plants"

  10. #35
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    What "supposendly"???? Everyone of the related jobs I listed in the previous post are already created- there is billions of dollars being circulated in the economy right now because of the Volt. The truckers have been delivering the components for over a year, adverstising companies have and will continue to put together big campaigns, design firms and engineers have been working for years, there are repair techs, secretaries, receptionists, salesman, lawyers and dozens and dozens of different job and groups in and out of G.M. that are spending money, hiring, paying payroll and sales taxes right now as a result of the Volt.
    I said "supposedly" because I was trying to look at the "Big Picture". The billions spent on the Volt could have been re-directed into making more fuel-efficient vehicles, for one thing. Advertising dollars and other funds spent on the Volt could easily have been spent elsewhere.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 11-24-2010 at 08:31 AM.

  11. #36
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    The trend is already underway for innovation in this field and the conversion of parking lots into solar arrays like Google, Dell and Kyocera have already installed. They pay for themselves in five years.
    I'm glad you brought this up because it illustrates my point about the 'relative' return on investment versus the cost to US taxpayers of providing the subsidy.

    OK for discussion purposes let's say that one of these big projects involved a $1,000,000 installed cost of hardware. Right out of the gate, these companies are going to file for a 'green energy' stimulus grant ... which between federal and state money typically results in the grant covering 50% of the solar project cost. Thus ...

    Cost to corporation $500,000 Cost to US federal / state taxpayers $500,000

    With a $1,000,000 new asset in hand, the corporation will then elect to take a first year tax write off. At an effective 25% federal + state corporate tax rate, this results in a $250,000 tax savings for the corporation / loss of tax revenues to the gov't. Thus ...

    Cost to corporation $250,000 Cost to US federal / state taxpayers $750,000

    Based solely on this $250,000 actual out of pocket cost for the corporation, net of gov't grants and corporate tax reduction, the claim to a 5 year payback can be made.

    Now let's flip to the other side of the equation to see where this money is actually winding up. Let's assume that of the 1 million cost, $800,000 was for the solar hardware and $200,000 was for installation at the corporate facility. However, since the solar cells, steel for the solar cell frames, plastic for enclosures, converter electronics etc. all come from offshore sources, with assembly in America, of the $800,000 solar hardware purchase cost perhaps 25% or $200,000 actually gets paid to American workers and the American distributor, with $600,000 actually being passed through to the Chinese solar cell maker, steel supplier, plastic molder, electronics builder etc. Thus ...

    Project dollars spent outside USA $ 600,000 Project dollars spent inside USA $ 400,000

    So US federal / state taxpayers have 'spent' $750,000 worth of grant money and foregone tax revenue in order to subsidize the corporate solar project. Of that amount, 60% is actually subsidizing Chinese solar cell, steel, plastic and electronics subcontractors !!!! Similarly, of the $250,000 that the corporation actually spent toward the solar project net of grants and tax reduction, 60% is actually flowing to the same Chinese solar cell, steel, plastic and electronics subcontractors !!!

    I would also add that US federal / state taxpayers get ZERO payback on their own $750,000 'investment' since all of the supposed direct 'benefits' of the solar power generated flow to the corporation. 'On paper', the $1,000,000 total expenditure gets booked as an additional $1 million of official GDP. However, in terms of the real domestic economy, only $400,000 of real economic growth actually takes place.

    Thus US federal / state taxpayers get $400,000 worth of real US economic stimulus from the $750,000 they borrowed to subsidize the solar project. That's 53 cents on the dollar ... actually less since the taxpayers will also be picking up an annual tab for interest costs on the $750,000 that was borrowed. At even 4% this amounts to $30,000 the first year and over the next 20 years adds up to something like $300,000 in total interest charges over the 20 year life of the gov't bonds used to finance the grants and foregone tax revenues for this solar project.

    Thus in the final analysis, the total cost to US federal / state taxpayers to subsidize this nominal $1,000,000 solar project will be $ 1,050,000 with ZERO return on investment. And the net stimulative effect on the US economy will amount to 38 cents on the dollar ( assuming that the interest charges are being paid to Chinese bondholders ).

    Circling back to the claimed 5 year payback on the corporations's actual $250,000 out of pocket expenditure ( net of grants and tax reduction ), the actual total expenditure to implement this project was $1,300,000 over 20 years. Pro-rating the payback on that basis results in a payback of 26 years. Unfortunately, the equipment itself only has a 20 year useful life, thus in total dollar terms there is no actual payback whatsoever for this project !!!
    Last edited by Melonie; 11-23-2010 at 11:08 AM.

  12. #37
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    ^^^ What about the fact that Google not only didn't take the stimulus grant for the project listed below but in fact put up $25 million of their own PRIVATE funds for grants for electric cars and renewable projects?. There are many companies doing the same thing and there is $Billions of PRIVATE funds that are being invested into U.S. firms to develope and implement these technologies.

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/13306...ns_grants.html

    http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-01-1...oll-foundation

    http://gigaom.com/cleantech/google-d...to-geothermal/

    Your equation has a fundamental flaw as it's hightly unlikely that a company could get the 25% state tax deduction on the full $1,000,000 if $500,000 was in grant or subsidy form.

    Also, despite your desire to make everything compartamentalized- there are, as has been listed in two other posts- hundreds of jobs associated with implementing this technology besides the jobs strictly producing or assempling them here in the U.S. Even if your analysis and numbers are correct (they are not) that $400,000 spent in the U.S., goes out to hundreds of different companies and individuals and gets re-spent over and over again and stimulates further spending- almost all of it non-subsidied and fully taxes at the state and local level.

    Every gallon of oil that we don't have to buy from a foreign country because of this technology gets us a little closer to removing our dependence on them. This keeps $billion from leaving the U.S. and will allow us to make massive cuts in military, foreign aid and also exponentionally lower our threat level from terrorism that relates to our policies as related to protecting our sources of foriegn oil.

    We've been subsidizing coal and oil with $billions per year for decades. At least with the renewable we don't have to KEEP buying it. No matter how much we've subsidized oil and coal or how efficient our extraction has become we still have to keep buying and buying (sending a lot of money overseas with oil). With renewable, once the infrastructure is in place, we don't need to keep buying and buying because the sun is free and we don't have to dig, transport or refine it.

  13. #38
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    What about the fact that Google not only didn't take the stimulus grant for the project listed below but in fact put up $25 million of their own PRIVATE funds for grants for electric cars and renewable projects?.
    Actually this was done for purely economic reasons ...

    (snip)"To reduce its overseas tax bill, Google uses a complicated legal structure that has saved it $3.1 billion since 2007 and boosted last year's overall earnings by 26 percent. While many multinationals use similar structures, Google has managed to lower its overseas tax rate more than its peers in the technology sector. Its rate since 2007 has been 2.4 percent. According to company disclosures, Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL - News), Oracle (Nasdaq: ORCL - News), Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT - News), and IBM (NYSE: IBM - News) -- which together with Google make up the top five technology companies by market capitalization -- reported tax rates between 4.5 percent and 25.8 percent on their overseas earnings from 2007 to 2009. "It's remarkable that Google's effective rate is that low," says Martin A. Sullivan, a tax economist who formerly worked for the U.S. Treasury Dept. "This company operates throughout the world mostly in high-tax countries where the average corporate rate is well over 20 percent." The corporate tax rate in the U.K., Google's second-largest market after the U.S., is 28 percent.

    In Bermuda there's no corporate income tax at all. Google's profits travel to the island's white sands via a convoluted route known to tax lawyers as the "Double Irish" and the "Dutch Sandwich." In Google's case, it generally works like this: When a company in Europe, the Middle East, or Africa purchases a search ad through Google, it sends the money to Google Ireland. The Irish government taxes corporate profits at 12.5 percent, but Google mostly escapes that tax because its earnings don't stay in the Dublin office, which reported a pretax profit of less than 1 percent of revenues in 2008."(snip) from

    In other words, by voluntarily choosing to spend millions on 'green energy', Google successfully avoided the potential loss of BILLIONS to additional corporate taxes as a result of rising pressure from Washington to expand the UBS / offshore tax loophole closings for US individuals to US corporations as well. I obviously don't need to elaborate on the multi-billion dollar loss of tax revenue that US federal taxpayers must pay for in exchange for Google's 'altruistic' $25 million or whatever 'green energy' expenditures - which placed Google in the good graces of liberal media and contributed to the demise of the US corporate offshore tax loophole crusade.

  14. #39
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    ^^^Maybe I missed it but could you please show some evidence on exactly how their $25 million in grants relates to anything you posted above. If they could offer $millions in grants and save $billions in taxes, I'd be very interested in doing the same thing- on a much smaller scale or course lol.

  15. #40
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    ^^^ all you need is some high powered international bankers plus some high powered Washington lobbyists plus some friendly news coverage by the NY Times, Washington Post, Huff Post etc. that emphasizes your politically correct 'green' commitments while burying coverage of your offshore US tax avoidance !

  16. #41
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    ^^^Thanks, but that's not evidence of how their $25 million in grants directly translates into saving $billions in taxes. Can you provide that information?

  17. #42
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    ^^^ anybody that could is probably vulnerable to indibtment !!!

  18. #43
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    ^^^^So in other words no hard evidence, just speculation. Also, just to be clear, are you saying that they're doing all these "legal" manuevers to avoid (not "evade") paying taxes and then using the grants as kind of a pr move for their image?, or is there a direct way in which these grands allow them to write off massive amounts of tax liability?

  19. #44
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    ^^^ no the politically correct 'green friendly' mainstream media publicity changes the political climate ... such that those who successfully called for shutting down now illegal offshore individual tax shelters ( remember UBS / Switzerland turning over financial info on 50,000 US clients ? ) and who are now calling for shutting down the still legal offshore corporate tax shelters get zero mainstream publicity thus zero effectiveness in Washington towards actually closing those offshore tax loopholes. As a result, US taxpayers wind up losing tens of billions of dollars worth of corporate tax revenue, and Google and similar corporations get to pocket additional billions of dollars worth of profits. From Google's viewpoint, 'investing' 25 million in high profile green energy projects in order to insure 2.3 billion in legal offshore tax avoidance is a hell of a cost-effective investment, albeit an investment that has absolutely nothing to do with the virtues of green energy.

  20. #45
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    ^^^^^ No offense Mel, but there is no other way to respond besides saying that- that's delusional. That will be it for me in this thread.

  21. #46
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    ^^^ Hey, you asked and I answered. You're completely free to think that I am delusional and that Google made the $25 million 'green energy' investment purely out of altruistic intentions / environmental concerns ... with absolutely no quid-pro-quo attached. Who knows, maybe they did ... and maybe the gov't's decision to suddenly drop pursuit of closing down offshore corporate tax shelters ( after aggressively pursuing the closing down of offshore individual tax shelters and widely publicized intentions to go after corporate tax shelters next ) was pure and total coincidence. Of course this also means that Obama's hefty campaign contributions from Google, Obama holding a town hall meeting at Google etc. are pure coincidence as well.

  22. #47
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    ^^^Yes, definately a coincidence. It's kind of ludicrous to suppose that the government would forgoe $billions in revenue for a $25 million grant to green energy. Google is owned by young idealistic people with social consciousness- they give away hundreds of millions to hundreds of causes and charities. Besides all that if you check the date on the article you'll notice that Bush was in office when these particular grants were offered.

    I would also have to speculate that the dropping of the foriegn tax issue has more to do with Republican influence then Obama's- I don't have info. on that and may well be wrong. What I do have information on though and I'm sure you as a fellow ex-pat as well, is that the Obama administration is diligently going after funds of Americans overseas to get as much revenue into gov't coffers as possible. It's a huge nightmare now with banking etc. For this reason I find it unlikely that he would chase hundreds of $millions so aggressively and then leave hundreds of $billions on the table for no reason. Like I said, I haven't looked into any of that, but when big business and big benefits for them are on the scene I always assume the Republicans are involved.

  23. #48
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    ^^^ Indeed there must be a reason ... but the two best sources of information ( President Obama and Nancy Pelosi ) aren't saying a word ! They are however sucking in major campaign contributions from Google, Apple, etc. They are however meeting face to face with Google, Apple etc. principals. They have also dropped previously publicized ( in reference to hedge funds ) calls to close offshore tax loopholes for US corporations. But I'm sure you're correct that this is total coincidence !!!

  24. #49
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    ^^^^It's always tricky discussing things with you Melonie because topics always seem to switch and meander to all kinds of different areas. I'm not sure how we got into an argument over this from debating "green energy" but whatever. All the searching I've done turns up nothing but Obama's attack on overseas loopholes, so if you could provide me with some links or evidence of the contrary I'd be very curious to check it out.

    Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats receive large donations from thousand and thousands of groups, companies and individuals as do the Republicans. They also meet with thousands and thousands of groups, companies and individuals for hundreds of reasons. To date I've only seen Obama attempt to reign in big business/special interests (under obstruction from the Republicans) and looking out for the best interests of the American people and the country itself. If you have some evidence (not speculation) to the contrary, I'd be curious to see that as well.

    As stated, I do not know what is happening with overseas corporate tax loopholes, but I can tell you as an individual living overseas I'm currently experiencing the the points in this article below and that he is making an unprecedented effort to keep track of all money outside the U.S.. I'll also say that while I support most of his policies and understand the basis behind this one, it's a real pain in the neck.

    Think about this – the U.S. government is attempting to strong arm foreign financial and non-financial institutions (think banks and law firms) to either withhold 30% of the transactions in a U.S. individual’s account (and presumably remit this to the U.S. Treasury) or disclose the account details to the U.S.. The language of the bill addresses both bank accounts and any foreign trusts (ie- Private Interest Foundations).
    http://primapanama.blogs.com/_panama...-accounts.html

  25. #50
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: weekend commentary - future oil prices versus 'green energy'

    Since this forum is ultimately supposed to be at least 51% economically related, all I will say is that Obama and the principles of Google, Apple, Microsoft etc. seem to have an extraordinarily 'personal' relationship. And as a fellow ex-pat, indeed it amazes me that the zeal with which Obama drove the IRS and US state dep't to close down offshore tax loopholes for US INDIVIDUALS, the same zeal that Obama initially brought to bear to begin closing down offshore tax loopholes for US corporation hedge funds etc. suddenly evaporated when it came to addressing the offshore US corporation tax loopholes being employed by the above Silicon Valley corporations !!!

    And yes we have gotten bogged down in discussions of 'green energy's actual economic 'value' and actual economic 'costs' ... which at the very least are murky and involve significant subsidies by US taxpayers in one form of another. However, in terms of the 'bigger picture', even if worldwide efforts toward 'green energy' continue at the planned pace, it is still a certainty that Chinese / Indian / 3rd world economic growth is going to increase worldwide demand for oil at a faster rate than 'green energy' implementation is going to reduce demand for oil over the next 10 years at least. This in turn guarantees that, as a worldwide commodity, prices for oil / gasoline / diesel will continue to rise in every country regardless of that country's 'green energy' implementation rate. And future oil prices are obviously the 'second half' of the thread's central premise.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. weekend commentary - oil prices are going higher
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-23-2010, 01:41 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-10-2010, 01:11 PM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-29-2008, 03:19 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-22-2008, 04:00 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-06-2006, 07:03 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •