Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Inflating the next bubble

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Inflating the next bubble

    good stuff and good precedent for our fearless leaders...

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Inflating the next bubble

      Originally posted by metalman View Post
      i counted a few grammar errors, maybe one or two factual errors, out of 93 facts, several dozen unique insights, and a revelation or two. all in all, a decent article.

      nit·pick Audio Help /ˈnɪtˌpɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[nit-pik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used without object)
      1.to be excessively concerned with or critical of inconsequential details.
      –verb (used with object)
      2.to criticize by focusing on inconsequential details.
      –noun
      3.a carping, petty criticism.
      –adjective
      4.of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a nitpicker or nitpicking.
      Et tu, Metal? Is it not possible to critique research mistakes around here? First Fred and now you? Alternative energy is a core pillar in EJs next bubble thesis. He sited "The Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008" as THE support for its progression. I pointed out that this was incorrect. Not because I need to be right about something, not because I want to "nitpick", because I care about his thesis. It's not a mainstream thesis so it has to be bulletproof. He certainly can't publish this update outside of iTulip with that level of error. It was a key miss.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Inflating the next bubble

        Originally posted by santafe2 View Post
        Et tu, Metal? Is it not possible to critique research mistakes around here? First Fred and now you? Alternative energy is a core pillar in EJs next bubble thesis. He sited "The Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008" as THE support for its progression. I pointed out that this was incorrect. Not because I need to be right about something, not because I want to "nitpick", because I care about his thesis. It's not a mainstream thesis so it has to be bulletproof. He certainly can't publish this update outside of iTulip with that level of error. It was a key miss.
        you win today's 'not paying attention' award...
        'Re-printed with permission of Business Day. All Rights Reserved.'

        that's
        Business Day

        maybe you can get a job as fact checker for business day? except you were wrong... the bill did pass. the bill has 100+ energy related amendments... including a bunch of solar stuff that must be good for your business. you didn't find 'that level of error'. get over it.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Inflating the next bubble

          i agree with santafe2 that fred's remark was condescending, and inappropriate for a moderator.

          i find santafe2's contributions here substantial and always worth reading.

          there is an occasional touchiness on the part of the leader/owner-ship of this site - an unwillingness to brook criticism or correction, and a grasping for credit for ideas - that is unbecoming and, even more important, detrimental to the site's mission and the general culture of the site. most of the time, the site embodies an openness to discussion and ideas that i very much appreciate. but occasionally fred gets snappish.

          on the substantive issue, if the investment credit for solar wasn't in the bill, that's an important fact to point out. if solar companies are hung out to dry because of uncertainty, that's an important fact to point out. if we can usefully distinguish between pay option and subprime and alt-a, between cdo's and cdo-squared, we should be capable of discussing a variety of solar-supporting legislative possibilities, whether the right or wrong ones are being passed, and whether the alternative energy industry will be stillborn in the u.s. and developed instead in asia and europe.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Inflating the next bubble

            Originally posted by jk View Post
            i agree with santafe2 that fred's remark was condescending, and inappropriate for a moderator.

            i find santafe2's contributions here substantial and always worth reading.

            there is an occasional touchiness on the part of the leader/owner-ship of this site - an unwillingness to brook criticism or correction, and a grasping for credit for ideas - that is unbecoming and, even more important, detrimental to the site's mission and the general culture of the site. most of the time, the site embodies an openness to discussion and ideas that i very much appreciate. but occasionally fred gets snappish.

            on the substantive issue, if the investment credit for solar wasn't in the bill, that's an important fact to point out. if solar companies are hung out to dry because of uncertainty, that's an important fact to point out. if we can usefully distinguish between pay option and subprime and alt-a, between cdo's and cdo-squared, we should be capable of discussing a variety of solar-supporting legislative possibilities, whether the right or wrong ones are being passed, and whether the alternative energy industry will be stillborn in the u.s. and developed instead in asia and europe.
            didn't say satafe's contributions aren't valuable. where did i say that? as a professional writer, nit picking bugs me. you and santefe are the head nit pickers here, so it doesn't surprise me to see you defending his nit picking. you guys should try writing thousands words of well crafted original thought and see what it's all about. you'd quickly lose your taste for trying to find the one or two imperfections in a diamond... and you'll get more out of the diamond. i say this as a reformed nit picker myself. really... try writing to come up with your own ideas... it's really hard.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Inflating the next bubble

              Originally posted by metalman View Post
              didn't say satafe's contributions aren't valuable. where did i say that? as a professional writer, nit picking bugs me. you and santefe are the head nit pickers here, so it doesn't surprise me to see you defending his nit picking. you guys should try writing thousands words of well crafted original thought and see what it's all about. you'd quickly lose your taste for trying to find the one or two imperfections in a diamond... and you'll get more out of the diamond. i say this as a reformed nit picker myself. really... try writing to come up with your own ideas... it's really hard.
              i didn't say you said "satafe's [sic] contributions aren't valuable." where did i say that?

              one man's nits are another's useful distinctions. as i said in my previous post, i thought we had usefully distinguished between various types of gimmicked mortgages. we used that information to predict the timing of waves of resets. you thought that useful, iirc, metalman. perhaps, just perhaps, there are some useful predictions that could be made about different kinds of solar developments, if only we had a full discussion of them. can you imagine that?

              i think a more useful response to santafe2's comment would have been to elicit more information from him about what was and what wasn't in the bill relative to solar power [and other alternative power sources if he had knowledge thereof], and what the implications are for companies here and abroad.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Inflating the next bubble

                Santafe2 - Regardless of any uneven solar industry backing within this package, implementation of robust tax credits for solar have an extremely high likelihood of being fully implemented in the US within 4-6 years, simply because the oil price itself will "take care of this" and light a fire under legislator's butts to ensure the outcome. If you have present worries on this account, just watch Cantarell's production declines (as a US primary supplier exemplifying the "major problem" straight ahead) and the notion that US legislators won't receive a swift boot in the rear on this legislation becomes improbable.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Inflating the next bubble

                  Originally posted by Lukester View Post
                  Santafe2 - Regardless of any uneven solar industry backing within this package, implementation of robust tax credits for solar have an extremely high likelihood of being fully implemented in the US within 4-6 years, simply because the oil price itself will "take care of this" and light a fire under legislator's butts to ensure the outcome. If you have present worries on this account, just watch Cantarell's production declines (as a US primary supplier exemplifying the "major problem" straight ahead) and the notion that US legislators won't receive a swift boot in the rear on this legislation becomes improbable.
                  However, if in those 4-6 years people have been laid off, companies gone bankrupt, and IP lost, then that does not serve the purpose of enhancing solar ev cells.

                  But maybe that is the purpose! Kill it in the short run, and acquire assets on the cheap in the belief that cheap help can always be hired later!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Inflating the next bubble

                    Originally posted by Rajiv View Post
                    But maybe that is the purpose! Kill it in the short run, and acquire assets on the cheap in the belief that cheap help can always be hired later!
                    Rajiv - There it is again ... conspiracy and collusion creep right back into your analyses. They are everywhere in your analyses. They may be right in some, or even many cases, but when they become ubiquitous, you might do well to examine the predisposition. Might this predisposition be why you see nothing amiss in the ubiquitousness of this same POV in Sapien's analyses?

                    The excruciating delays in fully backing solar and alt-energy initiatives in the US, when they are conjoined with the critical distress of some fledgling or microcap solar tech startups, could easily lead to a sense of victimization. It is probably not victimization - it is merely our old friend, crass stupidity, lethargy and lack of vision on the part of our legislators. But start meantime keeping a tally of how many of your posts contain a presupposition of conspiracy. You may notice the percentage is high!

                    Friends can disagree. Yes or no?

                    Respectfully.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Inflating the next bubble

                      Originally posted by metalman View Post
                      you and santefe are the head nit pickers here, so it doesn't surprise me to see you defending his nit picking.
                      I don't agree with your point of view regarding the error as being inconsequential but at least now you're using humor which is a great trait of your writing style. I'll drop this one, but it's unlikely I'll ignore the next oversight like this.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Inflating the next bubble

                        Originally posted by Lukester View Post
                        It is probably not victimization - it is merely our old friend, crass stupidity, lethargy and lack of vision on the part of our legislators.
                        This analysis seems correct to me. Just add in a big dose of politics as usual. The Dems are not in a mood to give in any longer and they don't have enough power yet to override a veto. We're not the first industry to be ground through the political meat grinder and we won't be the last. I don't think Rajiv's analysis is correct because most of the product that would be installed in the US under normal circumstances will move to other countries where robust renewable energy programs are in place.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Inflating the next bubble

                          Having been burnt by skillfully manipulative (Lukester.s words!) financiers, and knowing how political favours are done, delaying the solar funding bill to the next House could be beneficial to both parties (pun intended!)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Inflating the next bubble

                            Originally posted by santafe2 View Post
                            I don't agree with your point of view regarding the error as being inconsequential but at least now you're using humor which is a great trait of your writing style. I'll drop this one, but it's unlikely I'll ignore the next oversight like this.
                            you can write businessday and tell them what a crap publication they're running and they'd better hire you to fact check all their future articles if they want to maintain their reputation.

                            frankly, if i were the itulip guys i'd just ignore you.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Inflating the next bubble

                              Originally posted by metalman View Post
                              frankly, if i were the itulip guys i'd just ignore you.
                              although you're not the itulip guys, you have that option.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Inflating the next bubble

                                Rajiv - I can vividly understand your difficulties as to some extent we share them down here in San Diego. My situation is not entirely the same because we are a 100% privately owned corporation funded entirely by our EU sales (and in better years our US ones too, for the fledgeling US subsidiary!). We have resisted the tempation to expand with venture capital, and it is helping us in this admittedly vicious environment of reduced lending. Therefore you have my full understanding. It is entirely possible that in your individual company's case there has been some notable bad faith at the financing end, which incidentally is where most of the potential for bad faith most often is manifest. Your point is well taken here!

                                Originally posted by Rajiv View Post
                                Having been burnt by skillfully manipulative (Lukester.s words!) financiers, and knowing how political favours are done, delaying the solar funding bill to the next House could be beneficial to both parties (pun intended!)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X