Damned Corporate Cocksuckers

[Minimalist]

This is what happens when the foxes guard the hen house.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-05...rades.html

Nobel Laureate Stiglitz Blocked From SEC Panel After Faulting High-Speed Traders

Can't allow anyone who criticizes corporate cocksuckers to have any say over their pending crimes, can we? That isn't the 'murrican way.

[Minimalist]

"The Invisible Hand of The Market" at work, again.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/why-t...your-roof/

Why the Kochs and the Walmart clan are trying to stop you from putting solar panels on your roof

[Heywood]

"The Invisible Hand of The Market" at work, again.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/why-t...your-roof/

Why the Kochs and the Walmart clan are trying to stop you from putting solar panels on your roof

The Koch brothers are not trying to stop you from putting solar panels on your roof. That is an outright lie. The Koch brothers are against corporate subsidies. The are against all subsidies including ethanol subsidies....even though they benefit from them. They are against solar energy subsidies. The Koch brothers want to end all subsidies. They certainly don't want to stop you from putting solar panels on your roof.

One subsidy that people who buy solar panels get is that they also connect to the grid. They get to use power off the grid when the sun doesn't shine. They get the benefits of the grid without having to pay anything to help maintain the grid. The Liberaltards like Minimalist want you to pay for the cost of the grid so the solar users can reap its benefits for free. The Liberaltards like Rachael Maddcow will make claims that people are trying to tax the sun....when the reality is people want solar users pay a fee to be connected to the grid to help offset maintenance costs. And really why shouldn't solar users pay a connection fee? If they don't want to pay it, they can disconnect themselves from the grid.

[Nope]

A new thread dealing with the criminals who infest our allegedly 'free-enterprise' system.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/05...properties

How is this different than say a movie theater banning patrons from bringing in outside food and soda?

Wouldn't it be more comparable if the movie theater said that you could bring in a glass of coke that you bought from somewhere else but couldn't drink it? Guests can obviously bring in their own computers or phones into a hotel but can't use their own device in the way they want. Hotels would have to ban anyone bringing in their phone of laptop to be similar to the movie theater ban on food.

It is a stupid move by the Marriot and will give competitors an edge. The first thing that I would do if I owned a competing hotel chain would bei to make a commercial offering free Wi Fi and point out that Marriot charges for Wi fi

[The Grand Nudger]

What fantasy do you live in where utility companies are running a charity? Solar users pay for the service they consume. If utilities don't like the situation, they can plead to their consumer for a new rate structure - but they don't want to do that, because it will only yield yet more solar consumer/producers...and they know it.

Utilities sell excess power generated by solar to their -other- customers, they just don't like the price they have to pay for it because they're used to getting it cheaper, and then raking the consumer over the coals - literally. Boo-hoo, they've found themselves on the shitty end of the stick they've been beating John Q with for decades. Perhaps they should fold up or get into solar themselves - if it's so damned lucrative, as their complaint would suggest? Someone else will gladly rake in the 360bil in annual sales if it's not worth their trouble. Meanwhile, rooftop solar producers are making $0 dollars off their investment, despite flowery ad copy from those selling the panels (who are also receiving subsidies). The savings over even the theoretical life of the panels is still a break-even proposition relative to the cost of the panels and installation. My hats off to them, they're doing their part - while the utilities are complaining about not being able to profit as egregiously from the destruction of our environment and exploitation of their users.

The subsidy (for solar, in the form of a price control on the excess power generated) exists because power companies have utterly failed to invest in the sort of energy infrastructure we want -and require- but have nevertheless had their hands around the throat of the american citizen for decades...while also availing themselves of subsidies (including price controls..of course) and directly granted monopolies, ostensibly "in the best interests of the public". From 1950 to 2010 oil received $369b, natural gas $121b, and coal $104b...approximately 70% of all energy subsidies in total. These folks have no problem with subsidy or price control whatsoever - except when the check isn't written out to them. Talk about sucking the government tit. In a better future - they don't even exist - and what this recent kaffufle shows is that we're inching closer and closer to that future. Apparently, their bottom line can't handle Billy Bobs rooftop panels. They've actually suggested inefficient orientation of someone else's solar panels as a solution to -their- financial problems.

In a nutshell, their gripe is this. "When they feed power into the grid, we should only have to pay the wholesale rate - when we feed power into the grid...they should have to pay the retail rate."



http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf

[Heywood]

How is this different than say a movie theater banning patrons from bringing in outside food and soda?

Wouldn't it be more comparable if the movie theater said that you could bring in a glass of coke that you bought from somewhere else but couldn't drink it? Guests can obviously bring in their own computers or phones into a hotel but can't use their own device in the way they want. Hotels would have to ban anyone bringing in their phone of laptop to be similar to the movie theater ban on food.

It is a stupid move by the Marriot and will give competitors an edge. The first thing that I would do if I owned a competing hotel chain would bei to make a commercial offering free Wi Fi and point out that Marriot charges for Wi fi

I don't know what Marriot charges, if anything, for their Wi-Fi. What they want to prevent people from doing is setting up their own Wi-Fi. Suppose you are staying at a Hotel and set up your own Wi-Fi hotspot. People log into it thinking it is free and secure and you spy on them stealing their credit card info an such.

[Minimalist]

Fuck you, Woodie. Their object is to destroy solar so they can go back to sucking you dry for their fossil fuel business model. Stop thinking with your dick and try using your fucking brain for a change.

This story is not news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinio....html?_r=0

The coal producers’ motivation is clear: They see solar and wind energy as a long-term threat to their businesses.

Just once in your life try not to be a fucking asshole.

[Nope]

Wouldn't it be more comparable if the movie theater said that you could bring in a glass of coke that you bought from somewhere else but couldn't drink it? Guests can obviously bring in their own computers or phones into a hotel but can't use their own device in the way they want. Hotels would have to ban anyone bringing in their phone of laptop to be similar to the movie theater ban on food.

It is a stupid move by the Marriot and will give competitors an edge. The first thing that I would do if I owned a competing hotel chain would bei to make a commercial offering free Wi Fi and point out that Marriot charges for Wi fi

I don't know what Marriot charges, if anything, for their Wi-Fi. What they want to prevent people from doing is setting up their own Wi-Fi. Suppose you are staying at a Hotel and set up your own Wi-Fi hotspot. People log into it thinking it is free and secure and you spy on them stealing their credit card info an such.

Couldn't you just make your own Wi Fi private? I admit to being a bit illiterate when it comes to such issues but I thought that people could set up a password for their Wi Fi?

[Heywood]

What fantasy do you live in where utility companies are running a charity? Solar users pay for the service they consume. If utilities don't like the situation, they can plead to their consumer for a new rate structure - but they don't want to do that, because it will only yield yet more solar consumer/producers...and they know it.

Solar users expect the grid to be there 24/7 but only want to pay for it to be there when they use it. They aren't paying their fair share to maintain it. They are being subsidized.

You are seeing new rate structures come in as a way to end the subsidies to solar producers. Instead of raising rates for everyone, including non solar users, customers are now getting charged a fee each month to be connected to the grid.

The Solar lobby doesn't like this because without the subsidy, there product looks less attractive. Really that is the way it should be. Pay to be connected to the grid and then pay for each kilowatt you use in excess of what you produce.

[The Grand Nudger]

The subsidy requires that utilities pay them whatever retail rate -the utility has set- for producing the power that said utility then has the opportunity to sell to someone else. That the grid is there when they need it is part of the rate the utility has set (if their rates don't factor that in, too bad, shitty business model..no ones problem but their own). More than this..because they are producing electricity -they are part of the grid- and the utility didn't have to pay for their panels, or the maintenance on them.

Apparently, they don't think that the product they produce is worth the price they charge for it. Gee, wonder why that is?