Can the market alone fix the economy?

[Astronuc]

I'm guessing that NY's property taxes pay for the subway?
I don't imagine much property tax would be collected if the alternative was for everyone to drive into Manhattan.

Financing for the subway system is complicated. The subway system collects tolls, but there are various taxes, and someone (preferably who owns real estate) from NYC would have to answer the question. I believe NYCity residents pay an income tax, in addition to property and excise (sales) tax.

In my area, there are state taxes (surtax on capital) on transportation and utility companies, and the proceeds ostensibly are used to support mass transit. I found this out when I looked into starting a short line railroad. The taxes and regulations were a huge impediment. There is a 'transportation' company in Connecticut that did buy the rail service I was interested in, but they were very clever. They formed a holding company which owned the right-of-way and equipment. They are not a 'transportation' or utility company, but essentially a real estate or holding company. They control the railroad that uses the right of way, but the railroad simply leases the ROW and equipment from the holding company, and that means they do not pay taxes that a railroad ('transportation') company has to pay. It's unnecessarily complicated because of stupid government regulations.

 

[mgb_phys]

My point was that rather than the subway being a socialist drain on NY's finances - it subsidizes NY since the city wouldn't be viable without it and then there wouldn't be any city tax to collect.

 

[Astronuc]

My point was that rather than the subway being a socialist drain on NY's finances - it subsidizes NY since the city wouldn't be viable without it and then there wouldn't be any city tax to collect.

The subway is definitely a necessity. The issue for many is - who pays for it.

NY City, like London, has looked into charging surcharges on automobiles and trucks in areas of the city, simply because the traffic congestion is so bad at times (in some cases to the point of paralysis). I believe there are even restrictions on trucks, i.e. what routes/streets they can use and so on.

 

[mgb_phys]

NY City, like London, has looked into charging surcharges on automobiles and trucks in areas of the city, simply because the traffic congestion is so bad at times

The congestion charge appears to be working in London it's reduced the traffic by about 1/3. It's only mon-fri during the day so hasn't had a bad effect on tourism
There are some political rows about extending it into certain suburbs (particular low traffic but rich areas) since people living inside the zone still have to pay. There are also demands to charge SUVs more to punish the owners.
All the money raised is supposed to go to public transport but like all government accounting it's a bit opaque.

The Us government thinks the congestion charge is a good idea - but the US embassy in London refuses to pay (claiming it is a tax rather than a toll), it owes about $2M.

I believe there are even restrictions on trucks, i.e. what routes/streets they can use and so on.

There have been time restrictions on trucks in London for years - so that deliveries to shops were all made before the rush hour.
Then they introduced a scheme so that individual trucks had to be licenced to go into London - this didn't work because the trucking companies only licenced a few vehicles (it was expensive) and so there were many more journeys as particular trucks had to be repositioned to depots.
The biggest effect was probably the M25 - the orbital freeway. Without this the direct route for traffic from the channel to the rest of the country was through the middle of London (as it had been for 2000years).

 

[turbo]

Most cities here in Maine have truck routes clearly labeled and commercial vehicles (with the exception of road-maintenance, trash removal, etc are restricted from driving in residential areas. The road I live on is a lightly-paved 2-lane on an inadequate gravel base. The road is posted to bar commercial vehicles over 60,000 lb GVW, but I routinely see fully-loaded log trucks heaped to the stakes with hardwood - easily hitting 120,000. There is a state trooper living on the other end of this road, but the scofflaws continue to wreck the road.

 

[Al68]

FYI, new legislation that was passed in 2005 makes is much much more difficult for consumers to file for bankruptcy.

FYI, those changes only apply to people making above medium income, and even for them it's only slightly more difficult. This issue was grossly misrepresented in the media.

 

[mgb_phys]

There is a bridge in cambridge labeled "weak bridge, weight limit 5tons - except for deliveries", I always wondered how that worked?

 

[WhoWee]

I remember a bridge in Philly/New Jersey area that said something to the effect of...stay in your car...keep moving...unsafe for pedestrians.

I guess you could fall through the holes if on foot and maybe your tires could touch both sides?

 

[rcgldr]

The economy will likely depend greatly upon the policies this government passes.

More likely to be the spending behavior of the public, which depends somewhat on the perceived state of the economy in spite of the actual effects on individuals.

Employee Free Choice Act, which will remove the workers's right to a secret ballot vote and make it a lot easier to unionize

I don't understand this or why it would make it easier to unionize. In Texas there's right to work law that prevents unions from requiring all employees of a company to be in the union. Would this change?

Taxes may have to double or triple in California. But this is having the nasty effect of sending businesses and high-earning individuals fleeing the state already

Businesses yes, high earning individuals probably like the lifestyle, and can afford to stay in California, despite the taxes. Then again, the desirability of living in California means that some business will need to have facilities there to attract the tech industry workers that prefer to live in California.

California punishes harshly hard work and financial success

Seldomly is financial success related to hard work. In most cases, it's the result of reaping the benefits of the labor of others. The vast majority of "hard workers" are not financially successful if you mean above upper middle class.

The United States may well be becoming one of the most harsh countries for business. Once the Bush tax cuts expire, the top marginal income tax rate goes back up to 39.6%, which will hit many small businesses taxed at that rate, the tax on capital will return to 20%, which is a 33% increase from where it is now (15%), and Barack Obama may raise it even higher, and the tax on dividends will return to 39.6%, an over 100% increase from where it is now (15%).

You mean the tax on capital income. Why should any form of income (other than government bonds) get preferred tax treatment over other forms of income?

Increasing the tax on capital will devalue the stock market and also slow down venture capital investment

Or return the stock market to a truer valuation. Why should investment income be treated differently than other forms of income? If it's a level playing field, investments will continue to follow where the investors feel there's money to be made.

The left like to claim that the capital gains tax cuts only benefit the rich and wealthy, because the wealthy own the majority of the stock

Sounds like a reasonable assessment of the situation.

But capital gains is a tax on capital period, whether it's stocks, a car, home, business, whatever, and whether owned by middle-class, wealthy.

Few cars experience an increase in value over time. Home owners get a one time exemption. The rest has little effect on the vast majority of the midde class. Do the 401K plans that most people have get a capital gains tax rate on the capital gains portion of their 401K plans when they start withdrawing their retirement money?

The dollar will likely stay weak and grow weaker if foreign investment begins fleeing the country fast.

Wouldn't that result in USA products becoming relatively cheaper than "foreign" products?

Healthcare costs currently are exploding because 50% of healthcare is government-provided.

My opinion is that the greed aspect of healthcare crept into the system starting in the late 1950's. Take a look at incomes of the medical community versus the rate of inflation over the last 40 years.

But on net, free trade creates millions more new jobs.

Probably, but few of the unemployed in the USA will care that millions of people in China now have more new jobs.

Increasing the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation as Senator Obama wants to (he wants to raise it to $9.50) will artificially increase the cost of labor to a business, which means they will higher fewer workers.

I don't see an issue here as long as it's a level playing field.

Mom-and-Pop stores can't handle a minimum wage increase like a Wal-Mart can.

Isn't that the point of a free economy, the non-competive business are free to fail?

 

[WhoWee]

Isn't that the point of a free economy, the non-competive business are free to fail?

Do you mean companies with labor agreements that are so expensive they need a bailout to fund operations for the next 3 months?

 

[rcgldr]

Isn't that the point of a free economy, the non-competive business are free to fail?

Do you mean companies with labor agreements that are so expensive they need a bailout to fund operations for the next 3 months?

A lot of republicans in congress feel that way. Considering that the labor related costs represent 7% to 8% of the price of USA cars, I doubt that extra 2% or so on the price of USA cars versus "foreign" cars explains why the USA car companies got into so much trouble. Ford seems to be doing ok compared to the other 2, mostly because they targeted a wider market segment than GM and Chrysler. If you want to blame someone, blame the oil companies for raising gas prices a great amount in a short period of time; which they did back in the 1970's with a similar effect on the USA auto makers. ... or blame who ever thought it was a good idea to let corporate America police themselves and deregulate, such as legalizing gambling in the stock market via derivatives and letting the money lender brokers decide the parameters required to qualify for home loans.

 

[WhoWee]

I am responding to your comment that non-competitive businesses should be allowed to fail...and I agree.

Anyone that agrees to compensate production employees at $70 per hour is not being competitive. If you want employees to share in the profits...pay minimum wage to start, cap at $12 per hour and ISSUE THEM STOCK.

http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2162.cfm

http://www.knowyourpension.org/pensions/UAWpensions/UAW_pension_updates.aspx

http://briansullivan.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/12/21/uaw-pensions-retirement-the-black-swan-reveals-the-sacred-cow/

http://www.uaw.org/barg/07fact/fact02.php

http://www.uaw.org/barg/03/barg05.cfm

http://www.uaw.org/about/itpays/pays05.html

When a company backs itself into a corner the way GM has...it can only mean that they were hoping for some big and special event to happen in the future (maybe a bailout?) to solve their problems...or maybe they were watching government and decided to just keep rolling the big debt ball forward. It really doesn't matter WHY they've shot themselves in the foot.

If a small business selects a location because it is the very best location...everyone says OHHH location, location, location...what a smart operator...but if the small business is under-capitalized (can't pay the rent or mortgage) or sells an unwanted or unacceptable product, or pays the manager and employees too much...the business fails and everyone says...too bad...next?

I think the UAW membership (including retirees) along with the dealers and suppliers and parts companies and trucking companies and everyone else with a vested interest should BUY INTO GM, acquire Chrysler...hire new management and restructure their own agreements...don't expect Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or even President Obama to solve your problems.

 

[rcgldr]

Anyone that agrees to compensate production employees at $70 per hour is not being competitive. If you want employees to share in the profits...pay minimum wage to start, cap at $12 per hour and ISSUE THEM STOCK.

Why not pay the CEO's in the same manner then? Is a CEO really worth more to a company than 100 or more employees that actually do the labor? I would assume the $70 per hour would attract the best possible workers. Also again note that labor related costs represent 7% to 8% of the price of a USA made car.

 

[WhoWee]

Somehow I don't think the the CEO would be guaranteed $millions if the vested parties owned the company...I agree that executive pay should be tied to profitability (and I don't mean smoke and mirrors profitability).

Only government and health care live in the world where cost doesn't matter.

 

[mheslep]

Why not pay the CEO's in the same manner then? Is a CEO really worth more to a company than 100 or more employees that actually do the labor? I would assume the $70 per hour would attract the best possible workers. Also again note that labor related costs represent 7% to 8% of the price of a USA made car.

Given the recent highly visible evidence that the decisions of a single executive can create or destroy billions of dollars, create or destroy thousands and thousands of jobs, then such a person that can correctly analyze a complex business and its market, and then lead an organization is worth more than any 100 other line employees, at least at moments.

 

[rcgldr]

Given the recent highly visible evidence that the decisions of a single executive can create or destroy billions of dollars, create or destroy thousands and thousands of jobs, then such a person that can correctly analyze a complex business and its market, and then lead an organization is worth more than any 100 other line employees, at least at moments.

Except those people seem to be the exception when it comes to the quality of CEO's. The track record for startups in the USA is about 1 in 10 succeeds, and a significant part of the sucesses are dumb luck in cases of having the right product at the right time. I've seen a significant number of high level managers move from job to job, and their success or failure has little to do with the decisions they've made. Most of the time, they've simply inherited a situation, and/or it's a few key employees or staff that have more impact on how a company does.

update - The other issue with CEO's is that there's little personal risk. They get paid the same regardless if their decisions are good or bad, and sometimes get rewarded with huge severances if their bad decisions result in them getting fired. One issue with corporations is that the interests of the individuals often conflict with the interests of the company itself, its stock holders, its employees, or its customers.

Getting back to the earlier point, wouldn't the big 3 be attracting better line workers because of the better pay and benefits, noting that it has a small overall affect to the price of the cars they sell? If relatively high pay is good for the CEO's, then why not the line workers?

 

[WhoWee]

I've always thought we should make some changes to the terms and pay of our elected officials.

First, limit House terms to 10 or 12 years total...then they would be eligible for the Senate...where they could stay as long as re-elected. If the President only had 1 term...say 6 to 8 years...he/she wouldn't need any time off to campaign for re-election and might be less distracted.

Then, because we're hiring the best possible candidates, pay the President about $150 Million for their term (then they wouldn't need to do "side work" when they leave office), Senators $5 to 10Million per year and House Reps at least $1Million per year. They would of course need to be docked the appropriate amount of pay for the days they didn't show up to (work) vote.

I think 2 things would happen as a result...1.) people MIGHT take elections more seriously, and 2.) we MIGHT hold the politicians more accountable.

 

[WhoWee]

As for CEO's and other "HIRED" managers...they don't share the risk.

When was the last time a CEO bought his way into a company...invested his own money to buy the company or lead a group of investors?

I'm not suggesting we need Robber Barrons or anything, but look at our most successful people...Bill Gates and Warren Buffet for instance. I doubt they could have relied on other people to outperform their accomplishments.

 

[mheslep]

Except those people seem to be the exception when it comes to the quality of CEO's. The track record for startups in the USA is about 1 in 10 succeeds, and a significant part of the sucesses are dumb luck in cases of having the right product at the right time. I've seen a significant number of high level managers move from job to job, and their success or failure has little to do with the decisions they've made. Most of the time, they've simply inherited a situation, and/or it's a few key employees or staff that have more impact on how a company does.

Well we are bouncing around a bit here. We were discussing highly paid CEOs, who make something like 100x more than a line employee? That rules out the vast majority of startups, and rather makes the point, that part of the reason for success in business is professional management. In most cases, the founders of a startup that lives long enough and grow enough to warrant more investors in most cases face demands that the founders step aside for professional management to take the reins.

update - The other issue with CEO's is that there's little personal risk. They get paid the same regardless if their decisions are good or bad, and sometimes get rewarded with huge severances if their bad decisions result in them getting fired.

As a matter of degree that might be arguable, but as an absolute statement that is certainly not true, as many CEOs have stock in a company or performance related bonuses, which in the case they tank the company they lose money too. Also, I am not aware that many high level CEOs of failed companies enjoy great job prospects. And though they won't starve or even sell the yacht, I think most often it is off to the consulting circuit for that crowd. As a general statement, I'd agree that more CEOs should be forced to take more of an equity stake in their firms. (Edit: but forced by their boards, not the government) For instance, I believe the Detroit CEO's have stated they are 'all in' on company stock now?

One issue with corporations is that the interests of the individuals often conflict with the interests of the company itself, its stock holders, its employees, or its customers.

? What individuals?

Getting back to the earlier point, wouldn't the big 3 be attracting better line workers because of the better pay and benefits, noting that it has a small overall affect to the price of the cars they sell? If relatively high pay is good for the CEO's, then why not the line workers?

Well it might, but clearly the problem is not that Detroit needs better line workers, AFAIK they're no better or worse than the line people working in Tennessee Toyota plants. What Detroit needs is better management.

 

[Proton Soup]

i get the impression that to get your payscale up as a CEO, the goal is not to be more profitable. the goal is to make the company bigger. so you merge and acquire. and every time you knock out another CEO, your pay jumps a few million.

 

[WhoWee]

The key for the CEO is the share price. Most acquisition attempts are structured with an exchange of stock. Growth, whether through market share (sales) increases or acquisitions, along with (often times projected future) profitability help determine share price.

It's all relative.

 

[Skyhunter]

The era of unfettered capitalism is over. It is obvious now that the corporate world can not police themselves. We are now seeing the true social cost of what happens when you let capitalism run wild with no restrictions.

That is what Alan Greenspan admitted to Congress October 23, 2008. He was no longer the Federal Reserve Chairman at the time.

In the words of Henry David Thoreau; "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government"

This latest disaster of unregulated capitalism will likely be a death blow.

People are looking for and expecting big changes. Mitch McConnell was sounding almost bi-partisan yesterday. Even though he claimed the Republican Senate represents 50% of America, he knows better and is worried about that number shrinking in 2010. I think Obama will get bi-partisan support. He won 53% of the vote and has a very good approval rate. It is even difficult for Sean Hannity to spin that into "not a mandate".

Immediately what needs to happen is to keep people in their homes to stabilize housing prices. Put some teeth in the oversight board and get tough with the banks. Use the other $350 of the $700 billion to find a 3-way solution to as many of these foreclosures and distressed mortgages as you can. $700 billion is enough money to give 15 million homeowners, which is ~4 times the foreclosure rate, about $50,000 each. Not suggesting we do that just making the point that solving the mortgage problem from the bottom would be at least as effective a solution as giving it to bankers has been. A three way solution includes interest rate and principal reduction.

Put people to work immediately by fixing existing roads and bridges, not by building new ones unless it is replacement infrastructure.

For the longer term a strategy of rebuilding our cities for efficiency by increasing public transit and dedicated bicycle thruways. Install a new smart underground electric grid in the cities and encourage renewable home energy as well as other local generation sources nearby. Increase density and neighborhood planning so that services are blocks away not miles away. And make the streets safe by lowering the speed limits to 15mph in most neighborhoods. And most importantly, plant living roofs. Cover our rooftops with plants. It is fantastic insulation and membrane protection. I helped work on an assessment of a neighborhood's rooftops. The study concluded that 1/3 to 1/2 of the neighborhoods food could be grown on the roofs of existing buildings, although with some major retrofitting due to the seismic codes. Producing food locally reduces transportation costs. Reducing transportation costs is key to sustainability. And in the short term is essential.

Someday when Tesla's dream of free power from the air to power our personal transporters then transportation will not be such an issue. Until then I would like to encourage people not to drag around an 8000lb SUV everywhere they go.

With solar panels just now reaching $1.00 a watt retail, a big investment in manufacturing facilities to produce these panels will pay off in the long run. http://www.nanosolar.com/" is producing 1 gigawatt a year of solar panels. If we built 1000 of these factories it would still take 1000 years to meet the worlds energy demand. So there is plenty of opportunity for mining companies to shift from oil and coal to finding and extracting the raw materials these factories will need.

Aggressive recycling. Everything has value. This concept has been lost to a generation. Those old enough to remember the "Great Depression" have not forgotten. Instead of demolishing we deconstruct, recycle, or abate. Less and biodegradable packaging. Bring your own bag and cup etc. Zero waste is the goal and it is possible.

The scope and scale of rebuilding the worlds infrastructure to be sustainable will provide a better economic stimulus than a world war ever could. We can rebuild the cities without blowing them up first.

 

[rcgldr]

Except those people seem to be the exception when it comes to the quality of CEO's. The track record for startups in the USA is about 1 in 10 succeeds, and a significant part of the sucesses are dumb luck in cases of having the right product at the right time. I've seen a significant number of high level managers move from job to job, and their success or failure has little to do with the decisions they've made. Most of the time, they've simply inherited a situation, and/or it's a few key employees or staff that have more impact on how a company does.

Well we are bouncing around a bit here. We were discussing highly paid CEOs, who make something like 100x more than a line employee? That rules out the vast majority of startups, and rather makes the point, that part of the reason for success in business is professional management. In most cases, the founders of a startup that lives long enough and grow enough to warrant more investors in most cases face demands that the founders step aside for professional management to take the reins.

Professional managers for day to day activities, such as accounting, genereally do good jobs. The track records of CEO's in many cases seem be inconsistent, but perhaps I have a squewed view being in a tech industry (firmware programmer, mostly computer peripherals), where success or failure seems to be independent of the decisions made by the CEO's. Quite often, a fey key employees are responsible for the success or failure of a company.

The other issue with CEO's is that there's little personal risk. They get paid the same regardless if their decisions are good or bad, and sometimes get rewarded with huge severances if their bad decisions result in them getting fired.

As a matter of degree that might be arguable, but as an absolute statement that is certainly not true, as many CEOs have stock in a company or performance related bonuses, which in the case they tank the company they lose money too. Also, I'm not aware that many high level CEOs of failed companies enjoy great job prospects. And though they won't starve or even sell the yacht, I think most often it is off to the consulting circuit for that crowd. As a general statement, I'd agree that more CEOs should be forced to take more of an equity stake in their firms. For instance, I believe the Detroit CEO's have stated they are 'all in' on company stock now?

For the big 3, that's unsual. Most CEO's stand to make a lot of money regardless of how the stock does. If the stock does well, it's a big bonus, but when you're making an 8 figure salary, does it really matter? I haven't seen a lot of CEO's in action, but I've personally witnessed a high rate of turnover of of both good and bad upper management at many tech companies, their success or failure often based on circumstances they inherited or were beyond their control or simply wrongly perceived. Even the truly bad ones usually find jobs, and continue to work until their poor decision making ends up having a perceived negative impact on a company and then they move on.

One issue with corporations is that the interests of the individuals often conflict with the interests of the company itself, its stock holders, its employees, or its customers.

What individuals

At all levels. Call it hidden agendas. For example, individuals often have a stake in a particular product or process of a company and often defend that product, and attack competing products, even when it's clear that the continuing development of the current product or process as opposed to the new product or process is an overall detriment to the company, and only a benefit to the group involved with the particular product or process.

Another example are the lies and coverups that occur between layers of managment (common in many tech companies). New product or process programs are often "sold" to upper management with unrealistically short schedules and man power requirements, counting on the fact that once committed, the process will be allowed to continue. It seems that only a few upper management types are able to see through these lies, it's rare that upper managment will covertly interview the actual workers on a project to get a true picture of the "cost" of implementation of a product or process.

Another issue is that short term profits are often sought at the expense of long term profits in a coportation, because the incomes of individuals are more closely tied to the short term profits, even when these decisions represent a long term detriment to the company. There have been cases where personal gain came at the expense or the demise of a company.

Individual interests often conflict with corporate interests, but it's the individual interests influencing the decision making process.

Getting back to the earlier point, wouldn't the big 3 be attracting better line workers because of the better pay and benefits, noting that it has a small overall affect to the price of the cars they sell? If relatively high pay is good for the CEO's, then why not the line workers?

Well it might, but clearly the problem is not that Detroit needs better line workers, AFAIK they're no better or worse than the line people working in Tennessee Toyota plants. What Detroit needs is better management.

In fact, it would appear that the higher paid CEO's of the big 3 are doing a worse job than the lower paid CEO's of "foreign" coporations. Part of this has to do with consumer behavior beyond the control of the corporations (the general economy and gas price spiked changed consumer behavior). Sales of "foreign" autos in the USA are also way down, but those corporations aren't as dependent on the USA market. Somehow, Ford seems to be doing the best of the big 3. As a small example, the Mustang has been very successful compared to competing products.

 

[mheslep]

That is what Alan Greenspan admitted to Congress October 23, 2008. He was no longer the Federal Reserve Chairman at the time.

That is misinformation. I saw the testimony, and he said nothing even approximately describing the current situation as 'unfettered capitalism' or 'run wild with no restrictions'.

 

[mheslep]

...In fact, it would appear that the higher paid CEO's of the big 3 are doing a worse job than the lower paid CEO's of "foreign" coporations.

Agreed.

Part of this has to do with consumer behavior beyond the control of the corporations (the general economy and gas price spiked changed consumer behavior). Sales of "foreign" autos in the USA are also way down, but those corporations aren't as dependent on the USA market. ...

The US market is not the main issue; auto sales are down world wide. The problem is that, in the US, the domestic companies spend more to make comparable cars than their foreign owned domestic competitors. Also, the foreign owned seem to have a more flexible production process and have very nimbly turned to making, say, fewer SUVs and more small cars in a short time.

 

[mheslep]

...
With solar panels just now reaching $1.00 a watt retail, ...

Can you please provide a source? Just one?

 

[rcgldr]

The era of unfettered capitalism is over. It is obvious now that the corporate world can not police themselves. We are now seeing the true social cost of what happens when you let capitalism run wild with no restrictions.

That is what Alan Greenspan admitted to Congress October 23, 2008. He was no longer the Federal Reserve Chairman at the time.

That is misinformation. I saw the testimony, and he said nothing even approximately describing the current situation as 'unfettered capitalism' or 'run wild with no restrictions'.

I think this subject, but not that exact wording, was brought up in an interview with Greenspan on a show like 60 minutes. I also seem to recall it was the interviewer making a similar statement (about deregulation, specifically derivatives) and Greenspan simply agreeing.

Regardless of who made the statement, in hindsight, it's apparent that self policing of the corporate world doesn't work. I still wonder who thought that allowing derivatives, essentially legalized gambling without any true investment, was a good idea. It was clear to the legislature that created the derivative laws, since it specifically excluded states from being able to treat derivatives as an illegal gambling activity.

 

[WhoWee]

Skyhunter,

NanoSolar has made a breakthrough with their new technology. They have achieved 1 GW production at the test speeds of 100 ft/min. However, the equipment is rated at 2,000 ft/min and they claim the process works better at the higher rate...very exciting!

I borrowed this from their web site: Nanosolar Achieves 1GW CIGS Deposition Throughput
June 18, 2008
By Martin Roscheisen, CEO

As we are busy ramping our operation, we want to recognize achieving a major milestone in solar technology: The solar industry’s first 1 gigawatt (GW) production tool. Here it is:

[Also: Higher-resolution download of video (6.5MBytes)]

Most production tools in the solar industry tend to have a 10-30 megawatt (MW) annual production capacity. How is it possible to have a single tool with gigawatt throughput?

This feat is fundamentally enabled through the proprietary nanoparticle ink we have spent so many years developing. It allows us to deliver efficient solar cells (presently up to more than 14%) that are simply printed.

Printing is a simple, fast, and robust coating process that eliminates the need for expensive high-vacuum chambers and the kinds of high-vacuum based deposition techniques sometimes used in industries where there are a lot more $/sqm available for competitive manufacturing cost.

Our 1GW CIGS coater cost $1.65 million. At the 100 feet-per-minute speed shown in the video, that’s an astonishing two orders of magnitude more capital efficient than a high-vacuum process: a twenty times slower high-vacuum tool would have cost about ten times as much.

Plus if we cared to run it even faster, we could. (The same coating technique works in principle for speeds up to 2000 feet-per-minute too. In fact, it turns out the faster we run, the better the coating!)

 

[mheslep]

I think this subject, but not that exact wording, was brought up in an interview with Greenspan on a show like 60 minutes. I also seem to recall it was the interviewer making a similar statement (about deregulation, specifically derivatives) and Greenspan simply agreeing.

No. It is wrong to attribute the '...unfettered' statement to Greenspan, or to call it 'similar'. Argue that view yourself if you like but do not attribute it to people who said nothing of the kind. Greenspan has made statements that 'mistakes' were made, and that the current regulation framework was flawed. That in no way is the equivalent of saying capitalism has been running around 'unfettered' or 'unregulated'.
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20081023100438.pdf

Regardless of who made the statement, in hindsight, it's apparent that self policing of the corporate world doesn't work. ...

There are http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/bg2116.cfm#_ftn14" page of federal regulations, and that is just federal. How does this qualify as unfettered or self-policing?

 

[WhoWee]

Good news for Big 3?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090105/ap_on_bi_ge/auto_sales