Tesla is a bonfire of the vanities

From David Stockman, a former congressman, budget director under the Reagan administration, and partner of private-equity firm Blackstone Group. Today, Stockman is an outspoken opponent of the current monetary policy. He argues that Tesla and its sky-high valuation are a product of a money-printing Federal Reserve.

 He wrote an essay for our friends at Casey Research. Excerpts from the essay below…

The Wall Street casino is now festooned with giant deadweight losses waiting to happen. But perhaps none is more egregious than Tesla – a crony capitalist con job that has long been insolvent and has survived only by dint of prodigious taxpayer subsidies and billions of free money from the Fed’s Wall Street casino…So raptured were the day traders and gamblers that in the short span of 33 months between early 2012 and September 2014, they ramped up Tesla’s market cap from $2.5 billion to a peak of $35 billion.

 Stockman notes Tesla’s inability to make a profit…

Since 2007, [Tesla] has booked cumulative sales of just $6.1 billion, and that ain’t much in autoland; it amounts to about one week of sales by Toyota and two weeks by Ford. Its cumulative bottom line has been a net loss of $1.4 billion, and the losses are not shrinking – having totaled nearly $300 million for 2014 alone.More significantly, during its entire seven years as a public filer, Tesla has failed to generate any net operating cash flow (OCF) at all and has, in fact, posted red ink of $500 million on the OCF line. During the same seven-year span ending in Q4 of 2014, its [capital expenditures] amounted to a cumulative $1.8 billion.

So go figure. Combining OCF and cap-ex, you get a balance sheet hemorrhage of nearly $2.4 billion. The real question, therefore, is not why Tesla was worth $35 billion, but why it wasn’t bankrupt long ago?

 Stockman says that Tesla only exists because it got a $500 million bailout from the U.S. government… and it’s taking advantage of low interest rates and the Fed’s money manipulation to raise more and more capital (like the startups Gurley discussed above).

 But can you blame investors for shifting their capital into these types of companies? When governments debase currencies, the people lose faith in their money. They spend recklessly. They gamble. How would you characterize Fidelity investing in Silicon Valley startups anything other than gambling?

Liberals fly 1,700 private jets to Switzerland so they can PRETEND to care about global warming and income inequality

I guess pigs can fly?!

Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog

Perhaps someday, these global warming conferences will be done using environmentally friendly Skype instead of the current policy of burning massive amounts of fossil fuel on 1,700 private jets.

View original post 71 more words

Google billionaires request $539 million federal bailout after spending $1.6 billion of “stimulus” funding on failed solar power project

google ivanpahThis is all about Obama and his kickbacks to his campaign donors. Ivanpah is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the billions of taxpayer funded stimulus dollars spent on failed Greentech. You can blame CEOs of corporations for their greed but in the end they have to answer to their stockholders. I would expect no less from corporations, but a whole lot more from our POTUS.

ROMNEY to OBAMA in 2012 Presidential debate: “…you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers…”

romney

Romney – click on Romney to hear video

Romney said i n the debate, “And in one year you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 year’s worth of what oil and gas receives and you say Exxon Mobil, actually this $2.8 billion goes to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth. If we get the tax rate from 35% to 25%, why that $2.8 billion is on the table.  Of course it’s on the table. That’s probably not going to survive to get the rate down to 25% but don’t forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years worth of breaks into solar and wind to solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and I had a friend who said you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers. This is not the kind of policy you want to have to get America energy secure.

Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog

Ivanpah is a solar power company owned by Google, BrightSource Energy, and NRG.

In April 2011, as part of Obama’s “stimulus,” Obama gave Ivanpah a $1.6 billion loan guarantee to build a solar power plant.

In November 2014, when the plant was up and running, Associated Press reported that it was producing only “about half of its expected annual output.” The California Energy Commission blamed this failure on “clouds, jet contrails, and weather.”

In November 2014, Ivanpah asked Obama for a $539 million bailout.

Google is owned by Larry Page and Sergey Brin. At the time they requested this $539 million bailout, Page was the 19th richest person in the world, with assets of $30.4 billion, and Brin was the 20th richest person in the world, with assets of $30 billion.

View original post

A former White House science advisor speaks out about “settled science”

stossel beach.1.583 (1) houseCelebrities are afraid their Taj Ma-hall homes will slide int the ocean.  Hollywood personalities and the mainstream media monopolized every avenue of opportunity to get Barrack Obama elected and their global warming agenda imposed on the public through every media outlet available.

“Rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is ‘settled’ (or is a ‘hoax’) demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences.”  Computational physicist Steven E. Koonin*, Director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.  *Formerly undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama’s first term, professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, and chief scientist of BP.

Freedom of speech is precious.  Paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of brave fighting men and women and a country of people who believe in truly democratic society, freedom is priceless.  Unfortunately freedom of speech has been compromised and severely curtailed due to lack of media coverage and unfair public commentary from over-zealous celebrity sound bites.  Their man-made climate change agenda (claims) paid for by influence peddlers.

Real people look up to people they have invited into their hearts and into their living rooms. The media outlets represent a modern-day, overwhelmingly effective form of communication and persuasion.  For this reason, as a person of influence, the mainstream media and celebrities should hold themselves to a higher standard, both in temperament and by example.  As people of influence and public figures, they’re responsible for their words and their actions in public.  For that very reason, there should be a real debate over the science of global warming, not a simple consensus of like minded liberals, the mainstream media and the Obama Administration and EPA.  News Flash! Man-made climate change is not settled! Read more below…

 

Watts Up With That?

Feeling unsettled? Try new Climate Science™, now with extra certainty!
HistoryOfSettledScience-big1[1]

Climate Science Is Not Settled

We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy, writes leading scientist Steven E. Koonin

The idea that “Climate science is settled” runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.

My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don’t know, about…

View original post 975 more words

%d bloggers like this: