Tag Archives: economic

Trump Promised to Kill Billionaires’ Favorite Tax Loophole. Of Course His Economic Adviser Loves It.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Kativ/iStock, Robin Platzer/Twin Images/UPPA/ZUMA

In an economic policy speech at the Detroit Economic Club in August 2016, Donald Trump repeated a promise he’d made many times on the campaign trail: “The rich will pay their fair share.” He went on to explain that his reform “will eliminate the carried interest deduction and other special interest loopholes that have been so good for Wall Street investors, and for people like me, but unfair to American workers.”

Trump’s promises to reform taxes to aid regular Americans undoubtedly helped him win in November. But earlier this month, he announced the appointment of the members of his President’s Strategic and Policy Forum, a group of 16 business leaders who will advise him on government policy regarding economic growth and jobs. The head of that group is billionaire Stephen Schwarzman, the chairman and CEO of the Blackstone investment juggernaut. In 2016, he was ranked the 113th richest person in the world, and Blackstone, in which he holds a roughly 20 percent stake, is one of the largest private equity management firms in America. He also happens to be one of the biggest proponents of the carried-interest deduction that helps create and enrich billionaires—the very loophole Trump vowed to close during his campaign.

The carried-interest deduction works like this: People who manage the investments of others—usually private equity bosses—are often paid with a cut of the investment profits. Under the loophole, they are taxed on those earnings as if they were capital gains, not personal income, which has a much higher rate. Sometimes referred to as the “billionaire’s loophole,” Alec MacGillis for The New Yorker wrote, it “has helped private equity become one of the most lucrative sectors of the financial industry.”

As a private equity heavyweight, Blackstone has been a main beneficiary of the carried-interest deduction. In March 2007, Blackstone earned $4 billion for its managers when it went public. The initial public offering caused a public uproar because it was largely based on the favorable tax treatment of carried interest. A few months later, Schwarzman placed a call to Leo Hindery, a fellow private equity fund manager, the night before Hindery was set to testify before Congress about closing the carried-interest tax loophole. According to Hindery, Schwarzman called him “a traitor.”

Schwarzman later solidified his stance as a staunch proponent of the tax deduction in July 2010, when he compared the Obama administration’s efforts to close the loophole—Obama’s 2010 budget proposal called for changing the carried-interest tax deduction—to the Third Reich. “It’s a war,” Schwarzman said at the board meeting of an unnamed charity. “It’s like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.” Schwarzman was widely criticized for the comments, including by Vice President Joe Biden.

Then in August 2011, billionaire investor Warren Buffett wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in which he called for closing the carried-interest deduction, noting that thanks to the loophole, his tax rate that year had been lower than that of any of his office employees. Schwarzman went on CNBC to counter Buffett’s argument, saying he was paying a combined federal and state tax rate of 53 percent. “I’m not feeling undertaxed,” he said. (The Times pointed out that Schwarzman likely hadn’t received much carried-interest-eligible income that year, since many of the investments managed by his company were still recovering from the financial crisis.) In response to a question about Trump’s promise to close the carried-interest loophole last September, Schwarzman implied that he’d be okay with it—only as part of a general move toward a flat tax, a move that would also disproportionately benefit the uber-rich.

Schwarzman has also long been a generous Republican donor, donating more than $790,000 in the 2016 cycle to down-ballot races and PACs dedicated to maintaining a GOP legislative majority. (He did not donate to the Trump campaign.) But now, he and his compatriots will certainly have Trump’s ear: Their first meeting is set to happen at the White House in February—just weeks into the first term of President Trump.

Original article: 

Trump Promised to Kill Billionaires’ Favorite Tax Loophole. Of Course His Economic Adviser Loves It.

Posted in ALPHA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Promised to Kill Billionaires’ Favorite Tax Loophole. Of Course His Economic Adviser Loves It.

Charts of the Day: Income Inequality Doesn’t Have to Spiral Out of Control

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Over at Equitable Growth, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman provide a look at the latest numbers on income inequality in the United States:

The authors comment:

For the 117 million U.S. adults in the bottom half of the income distribution, growth has been non-existent for a generation while at the top of the ladder it has been extraordinarily strong….In the bottom half of the distribution, only the income of the elderly is rising….To understand how unequal the United States is today, consider the following fact. In 1980, adults in the top 1 percent earned on average 27 times more than bottom 50 percent of adults. Today they earn 81 times more.

Well, that’s the modern world for you, right? It’s all about skills and education and greater returns to rock stars. There’s really not much we can do about—oh wait. Here’s another chart:

Huh. Apparently you can run a thriving modern economy that benefits the working class as well as the rich. And note that this is pre-tax income. If social welfare benefits were included, the working class in France would be doing even better compared to the US:

The diverging trends in the distribution of pre-tax income across France and the United States—two advanced economies subject to the same forces of technological progress and globalization—show that working-class incomes are not bound to stagnate in Western countries. In the United States, the stagnation of bottom 50 percent of incomes and the upsurge in the top 1 percent coincided with drastically reduced progressive taxation, widespread deregulation of industries and services, particularly the financial services industry, weakened unions, and an eroding minimum wage.

We could do better for the working class and still maintain our economic dynamism if we wanted to. The only thing stopping us is that, apparently, we1 don’t want to.

1For a certain definition of “we,” that is.

Originally posted here – 

Charts of the Day: Income Inequality Doesn’t Have to Spiral Out of Control

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Charts of the Day: Income Inequality Doesn’t Have to Spiral Out of Control

North Carolina has been hit by rare late-season wildfires.

If you’ve ever followed a climate conference — no? just me? — you know that they involve a lot of different coalitions coming together to push climate action. But the partnership announced Tuesday at COP22 is an especially notable example.

The partnership, named for the Nationally Determined Contributions that countries have pledged to meet Paris Agreement goals, features 23 countries — including Morocco, the U.K., and the Marshall Islands — and four international institutions.

The plan involves a three-pronged approach: creating and sharing tools and technology, providing policy and technical expertise, and working on raising money for implementation of country programs. Basically, it’s a central collaboration space for private investors, technical experts, international institutions, and countries. Anyone is welcome to join.

The launch of the partnership coincides with the release of an essential tool that allows countries to search for funds available to implement the individual country plans that form the backbone of the Paris Agreement.

“The intention behind the NDC Partnership is that we can best tackle climate change and support climate adaptation by pooling our strengths and our knowledge,” says Dr. Gerd Müller, German Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development. “If we try to go it alone in limiting global warming, we will fail.”

Originally posted here: 

North Carolina has been hit by rare late-season wildfires.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, Green Light, LAI, ONA, Ringer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on North Carolina has been hit by rare late-season wildfires.

Countries announced a new global partnership to deliver on their Paris Agreement goals.

If you’ve ever followed a climate conference — no? just me? — you know that they involve a lot of different coalitions coming together to push climate action. But the partnership announced Tuesday at COP22 is an especially notable example.

The partnership, named for the Nationally Determined Contributions that countries have pledged to meet Paris Agreement goals, features 23 countries — including Morocco, the U.K., and the Marshall Islands — and four international institutions.

The plan involves a three-pronged approach: creating and sharing tools and technology, providing policy and technical expertise, and working on raising money for implementation of country programs. Basically, it’s a central collaboration space for private investors, technical experts, international institutions, and countries. Anyone is welcome to join.

The launch of the partnership coincides with the release of an essential tool that allows countries to search for funds available to implement the individual country plans that form the backbone of the Paris Agreement.

“The intention behind the NDC Partnership is that we can best tackle climate change and support climate adaptation by pooling our strengths and our knowledge,” says Dr. Gerd Müller, German Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development. “If we try to go it alone in limiting global warming, we will fail.”

Taken from:

Countries announced a new global partnership to deliver on their Paris Agreement goals.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, Green Light, LAI, ONA, Ringer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Countries announced a new global partnership to deliver on their Paris Agreement goals.

The Bundy bros are back at it.

The Republican candidate on Monday promoted his plan to purportedly save the government $100 billion over eight years. It involves cutting all federal spending on climate change programs, both domestic and international.

“We’re going to put America first,” Trump said at a Michigan rally. “That includes canceling billions in climate change spending for the United Nations, a number Hillary wants to increase, and instead use that money to provide for American infrastructure including clean water, clean air, and safety.”

As Bloomberg BNA reports, Trump didn’t give a precise tally for how he got to $100 billion:

[The] campaign press office said that the figure combined an estimate of what the Obama administration had spent on climate-related programs, the amount of U.S. contributions to an international climate fund that Trump would cancel, and a calculation of what Trump believes would be savings to the economy if Obama’s and Clinton’s climate policies were reversed.

That math, however, doesn’t work out: According to a 2014 report from the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, a global temperature increase of just 3 degrees C would cost the United States 1 percent of GDP, or $150 billion a yearby damaging public health and infrastructure and battling sea-level rise, stronger storms, declining crop yields, and increased drought and wildfires.

Original link – 

The Bundy bros are back at it.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Bundy bros are back at it.

President Obama says the Dakota Access pipeline could get rerouted.

The Republican candidate on Monday promoted his plan to purportedly save the government $100 billion over eight years. It involves cutting all federal spending on climate change programs, both domestic and international.

“We’re going to put America first,” Trump said at a Michigan rally. “That includes canceling billions in climate change spending for the United Nations, a number Hillary wants to increase, and instead use that money to provide for American infrastructure including clean water, clean air, and safety.”

As Bloomberg BNA reports, Trump didn’t give a precise tally for how he got to $100 billion:

[The] campaign press office said that the figure combined an estimate of what the Obama administration had spent on climate-related programs, the amount of U.S. contributions to an international climate fund that Trump would cancel, and a calculation of what Trump believes would be savings to the economy if Obama’s and Clinton’s climate policies were reversed.

That math, however, doesn’t work out: According to a 2014 report from the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, a global temperature increase of just 3 degrees C would cost the United States 1 percent of GDP, or $150 billion a yearby damaging public health and infrastructure and battling sea-level rise, stronger storms, declining crop yields, and increased drought and wildfires.

Read More: 

President Obama says the Dakota Access pipeline could get rerouted.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on President Obama says the Dakota Access pipeline could get rerouted.

New Research Confirms Guns on College Campuses Are Dangerous

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Eight states currently have laws that allow people to carry guns on college campuses. In 24 others, individual colleges can decide whether to allow firearms on the premises. The primary rationale for these laws, according to their supporters, is safety: School shooters, they say, are less likely to succeed in their attacks if students and teachers are armed and able to fight back.

But a new study from Johns Hopkins University shows that campus carry laws are unlikely to deter rampage shooters and may in fact lead to more injuries and deaths. Here are the main takeaways from the research:

Concealed-carry laws do not deter mass shootings

Advocates for looser gun laws have popularized the idea that armed criminals are more likely to attack in “gun free” zones where nobody can fight back against them. Colleges that ban students from carrying weapons are consequently more dangerous, according to proponents of campus carry laws. But this theory is not supported by data, the Johns Hopkins study found. From 1966 to 2015, only 12 percent of 111 high-fatality mass shootings in the United States—at college campuses or elsewhere—took place in “gun free” zones, and only 5 percent took place in “gun restricted” zones, where security guards were armed but civilians were banned from carrying weapons. Another analysis, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, drew similar conclusions: Only 13 percent of mass shootings from 2009 to 2015 occurred in gun-free or gun-restricted zones. What’s more, allowing people to carry concealed weapons has been connected with an increase in violent crime, according to researchers at the Brennan Center for Justice. They noted a 10 percent average increase in violent crime in states that adopted right-to-carry laws.

Armed civilians are not likely to stop a rampage shooter

When a mass shooting does occur, campus carry advocates say, it helps to have responsible gun-toting civilians in the area, so they can thwart the attacker. Pro-gun economist John Lott and other advocates point to 39 incidents where they say armed civilians have helped stop gunmen. But when the Johns Hopkins researchers looked into the cases, they found that only 4 of 39 actually involved an armed civilian stopping a rampage shooter. What about the other 35 alleged incidents? As with various past cases debunked by Mother Jones, they did not stand up to scrutiny: Twenty-two of them weren’t actually mass shootings—sometimes a gun was never even fired. In two mass-shooting incidents, an armed security guard or a law enforcement officer, not a civilian, intervened. In two other incidents, armed civilians helped detain a perpetrator after the shooting had already ended, and they didn’t use guns to do so. In five mass shootings, armed civilians tried but failed to stop the attacker—and three of them were shot in the process.

Separate research from the FBI shows similar results. The bureau looked at 160 active-shooter situations from 2000 to 2013 and found only one case where an armed civilian intervened to stop an attack that was underway. (And that civilian was a US Marine.) In 21 cases, an unarmed civilian interrupted the attack and restrained the gunman. In other words, unarmed civilians were far more likely than those with guns to stop an active shooting in progress.

Respond effectively in an active-shooting situation requires extensive training, the Johns Hopkins researchers noted. “There is no reason to believe that college students, faculty and civilian staff will shoot accurately in active shooter situations when they have only passed minimal training requirements for a permit to carry,” they wrote.

Campus carry could lead to more suicides and other gun violence

College students are much less likely to stop a rampage shooter than they are to use firearms to inflict harm on themselves or others, the researchers found. The brains of young adults are still developing, they explain, and that can compromise impulse control and judgment—both of which “are essential for avoiding the circumstances in which firearm access leads to tragedy.” That could be one reason why 19- to 21-year-olds have the highest rate of homicide offenses, according to FBI data. The risk of violent confrontations increases when you throw alcohol and binge-drinking into the mix, the researchers added.

The risk of suicidal behavior, which peaks at age 16, is also high through the mid-20s, the researchers wrote, noting the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and other mental illnesses on college campuses. “Research demonstrates that access to firearms substantially increases suicide risks, especially among adolescents and young adults, as firearms are the most common method of lethal self-harm,” they explained. In one study of 645 college campuses, guns were used in about a third of suicides by male students.

The Johns Hopkins study also broke down gun violence on campuses another way: Of 85 shootings or “undesirable discharges of firearms” on colleges from 2013 to June this year, only 2 percent involved rampage shooters. Much more common were interpersonal arguments that turned into gun violence (45 percent), premeditated attacks on a single person (12 percent), suicides or murder/suicides (12 percent), or unintentional discharges (9 percent).

Link: 

New Research Confirms Guns on College Campuses Are Dangerous

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New Research Confirms Guns on College Campuses Are Dangerous

What the Heck Is Up With California’s Recycling Program?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Few states have a greener rep than California, and for good reason. The state has a cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions, solar-energy production exceeding that of all other states combined, and, at the behest of Gov. Jerry Brown, it’s now mulling new targets that would slash greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. The state has proved itself a national leader in environmental policy.

All of which makes California’s latest waste and recycling report, issued yearly by state Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), so bewildering. It reveals that landfill waste in the state jumped to 33.2 million tons in 2015, a one-year increase of 2 million tons, contributing to last year’s release of 200,000 extra metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Per capita, each Californian now tosses 4.7 pounds of stuff into the landfill.

The state’s rate of recycling also dropped to 47 percent in 2015. That’s the lowest rate since 2010, and the first time since the state began measuring that the number has gone below 50 percent—not the greatest news, given California’s 2020 goal of recycling 75 percent of all consumer waste.

CalRecycle spokesman Mark Oldfield points to a recovering economy as a primary contributor to the setback. Economic growth boosts consumption and construction, which necessarily results in more waste, he says: “All of a sudden people are buying new stuff and getting rid of the old.”

There are other elements at work, too. The low price of oil, combined with other plummeting commodity prices, has largely eliminated financial incentives for companies to use recycled materials. Thanks to cheap crude, points out Californians Against Waste, a Sacramento-based advocacy group, producers are using more petroleum-based plastics than before, and less (easily recycled) aluminum.

A four-year decline in the prices manufacturers are willing to pay for recycled materials has proved deadly for many for-profit recycling centers. In part, that’s because it’s a subsidized business. CalRecycle pays up to half of the centers’ operating expenses, depending on the amount of materials they collect, to encourage recycling centers to accept plastic containers alongside the more lucrative aluminum cans. The deposits consumers pay on beverage containers provide an incentive for individuals and companies that do curbside pickup to bring cans and bottles to the centers (and pocket the deposits). But CalRecycle’s payments to the centers are based on scrap prices over the previous 12 months, with a three-month time lag. Which means, when prices are in decline, the payments come up short, and the centers struggle to stay profitable. Statewide, the bulk recyclers have faced a cumulative shortfall of more than $50 million.

Susan Collins, president of the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), says this has led to a rash of closures. Per her group’s estimates, more than 800 recycling centers have shut down in the past 16 months, unable to compete thanks to the low prices and insufficient subsidies. All told, nearly one-third of California’s recycling centers have gone out of business.

The setbacks are costing the state in additional ways: Recycling typically generates $8 million to $9 million in tax revenues annually and results in at least 3,000 full-time jobs. And income from collecting and redeeming recycled materials helps keep scores of desperate people off public assistance. Cities such as San Francisco have been hit particularly hard by the recycling-center closures; the city now has just six active recycling centers, down from 35, for 900,000 people. The vast majority of the city is now an “unserved zone.”

CalRecycle’s Oldfield preaches patience. “I don’t think we thought it was going to be easy to begin with,” he says of the 2020 goal to recycle 75 percent of all consumer waste. “I don’t think we mind running the risk of criticism if we fall short of a number on a time scale.” He points to AB 939, California’s Integrated Waste Management Act. The 1989 legislation mandated that 50 percent of solid waste be diverted from landfills via recycling, composting, and incineration by 2000. That goal wasn’t achieved until 2006, but it now stands at 63 percent.

As for the 75 percent number, which is not a mandate, CalRecycle is looking at new technologies it hopes will increase recycling rates for construction materials and organic matter, although there is no deadline for these developments.

Mark Murray, executive director at Californians Against Waste, bristles at the notion that the goal needn’t be met on time. Murray was disturbed by the startling dip in the recycling rate, and that the state remains so far from 75 percent: “I don’t want to make excuses in 2016 when there’s still four years to go.”

If the state is serious about reaching its goal, there is plenty of precedent. “We know exactly what needs to happen, it just isn’t happening,” Murray says. In the past, the state has set minimum standards for the amount of recycled content certain goods must contain. Newsprint must be 50 percent post-consumer materials; for glass containers, it’s 35 percent. Such standards also exist in California for electronics and paint.

Regulating plastic packaging the same way could have a big impact, Murray says, and would help reverse this troubling course. Legislation requiring producers to buy recycled content could also help. By Murray’s estimation, packaging accounts for 35 percent of the overall waste stream, and companies need to be called to task for their wasteful packaging. Collins, of the CRI, agrees that the state needs urgent, binding legislation, but given the scale of the closures, she’s worried it’s too late to flip the script quickly: “This is a devastating loss to the recycling infrastructure in California.”

Continue reading: 

What the Heck Is Up With California’s Recycling Program?

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What the Heck Is Up With California’s Recycling Program?

Why Solar Financing Truly Is An Art Form

A decade ago, a residential solar system was a relatively elite product available only to homeowners with the means to finance the installation. Banks were still a little shy about investing in this new technology and solar financing programs were relatively rare. Solar energy was more expensive than electricity from the power grid in most markets, and solar energy prices were much higher than today. So what’s changed? The market for one  and one company has crafted solar financing down to a digital art form.

Solar financing – a retrospective

Solar financing hasn’t always been the easiest to obtain. Image Credit: InnervisionArt / Shutterstock

Solar financing hasn’t always been the easiest to obtain.

Then, the cost of solar PV fell 50% in five years, according to a 2015 report and the federal tax credit was increased to 30%.
The total cost of installing a solar system has fallen dramatically, and over the same period of time — retail electricity rates have climbed across much of the country.
In fact, solar energy has reached grid parity in 20 states, according to a recent report from GTM Research, U.S. Residential Solar Economic Outlook: Grid Parity, Rate Design and Net Metering Risk.

What does it all mean? It means that solar power electricity is cheaper than retail electricity in much of the nation.

Homeowners in many states can save money with solar energy, thus financing the upfront cost is often the missing ingredient to solar system ownership. Now that solar power has proven itself as a reliable technology and a sound financial investment, solar financing programs are becoming hot. One of the most noteworthy is the Mosaic PowerSwitch loan program, a peer-to-peer loan initiative for affordable solar loans.

This online solar marketplace connects investors with aspiring solar system owners. The platform has crowd sourced numerous solar installations, including university housing projects, conference centers, and single-family homes. Mosaic started out with commercial and non-profit solar systems and has expanded to also serve homeowners. This California start-up was launched in 2010, right when solar leases were becoming really popular.

Why not just lease a solar system?

Solar leases emerged as a popular way for people to have a solar system with as little as no money down and they took the industry by storm several years ago. Suddenly many more homeowners had the means to go solar with billions in institutional money. The leasee can have many of the benefits of solar energy, but not all. Although lease agreements vary, many involve locking in electricity rates from the solar energy. As the cost of retail electricity grows, the savings from the solar system also increase.

The downside is that some home shoppers are shy about purchasing a home with a leased solar system on it and the homeowner is not entitled to the federal tax credits associated with the solar system. Solar system owners experience double the utility savings with solar energy because they aren’t sharing the profits generated by the system and they own their solar system outright at the end of the loan period. On the bright side, the solar leasor is responsible for solar system maintenance and repairs, but most solar systems require little if any maintenance over time. Some solar installers also offer an additional warranty that products solar system owners.

Solar leasing seems to have peaked in 2014 at 72 percent of the market and is likely declining. Now many large solar companies have started offering loan programs in addition to solar leases and they are growing in popularity. In fact, Sungevity and NRG Home Solar both offer loans through Mosaic. The business model is shifting behind solar, and Mosaic entered the market just at the right time to take advantage of this.

How do Mosaic loans work?

The Mosaic loan was specifically designed for solar energy. The idea behind it is that if the loans are structured properly, they will remove the barriers stopping many homeowners from going solar.

Investors can lend money to people, businesses and organizations wishing to install solar panels.

The loans are considered to be low-risk because people are saving money by using solar energy, thus failure to make monthly payments puts this in jeopardy.
The homeowner is entitled to the 30% federal tax credit (unlike with a leased solar system), and they can either use this money to pay down the Mosaic loan or keep the tax credit.
When they keep the tax credit, it doubles the rate of the loan after 18 months.

What is peer-to-peer lending?

Peer-to-peer lending matches investors with borrowers using an online platform. The fees for such services are often lower than with a brick and mortar bank because the overhead for such companies is lower. Peer-to-peer lending serves as an alternative way for borrowers to seek credit and can pay higher returns for investors.

Image Credit: Mosaic

Peer-to-peer lending has been around for roughly a decade, but it really took off during the financial crisis. It became very difficult for borrowers to access credit, encouraging the growth of peer-to-peer lending. This alternative model serves a customer base that could otherwise be excluded or be poorly served with high rates. The peer-to-peer model can also be more nimble to changes in the business environment, like we saw during the financial crisis.

Many banks have been slow to see solar as a cash-generating asset with proven, reliable technology. Most solar panels have a 25-year production warranty while solar inverters (which converts the DC solar electricity to AC current) typically have 12 to 25-year warranties. With no moving parts, solar systems are practically maintenance free.

Solar energy has become a mainstream way to save on utility bills and hedge against rising electricity rates and has wide appeal beyond the green consumers niche. Due to the upfront cost of the solar equipment and installation, financing the system is often the largest hurdle, especially for people and organizations that would like to purchase instead of lease the system. This hurdle is rapidly shifting now that solar is more widely seen as a wise financial investment, in addition to being far more sustainable than fossil fuels.

Mosaic’s solar financing model is helping to fuel the clean energy movement by matching investors and borrowers. This is a win-win arrangement that allows investors to help further solar energy use, creating a very green investment opportunity. Now that the federal tax credit for solar systems has been extended, the solar energy market is ripe for further growth.

Feature image credit: Rawpixel / Shutterstock

About
Latest Posts

Sarah Lozanova

Sarah Lozanova is a renewable energy and sustainability journalist and communications professional, with an MBA in sustainable management. She is a regular contributor to environmental and energy publications and websites, including Mother Earth Living, Earth911, Home Power, Triple Pundit, CleanTechnica, Mother Earth Living, the Ecologist, GreenBiz, Renewable Energy World, and Windpower Engineering.Lozanova also works with several corporate clients as a public relations writer to gain visibility for renewable energy and sustainability achievements.

Latest posts by Sarah Lozanova (see all)

Why Solar Financing Truly Is An Art Form – August 24, 2016
Deconstructing Construction Waste – August 22, 2016
This Is One Sweet DIY Kombucha Recipe – August 12, 2016

Connect with us:

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

Sign up for our newsletter for exclusive updates on contests, new products, and more.

Recent Posts

7 Companies Proving Triple Bottom Line Is Possible
Fear Vs. Facts: An In-Depth Look At Synthetic Turf Fields
Donate A Computer And Help Students
How To Start A School Garden
Solar Powered Jacket Heats Without The Usual Bulk
The Ultimate Guide To Creating A Greener Kitchen
Why Solar Financing Truly Is An Art Form
Seeking Sustainable Living? 5 Inspiring Ideas
Deconstructing Construction Waste
4 Creative Eco-friendly Transportation Options
Light Bulb Moment? Researchers See Bright Idea
How To Create Your Own DIY Duvet Cover

Read

Connect With Us

Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Pinterest
Google Plus

Advertise With Us

Copyright ©. 2016 Earth911. All Rights Reserved.

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

Sign up for our newsletter for exclusive updates on contests, new products, and more.

earth911

Read More – 

Why Solar Financing Truly Is An Art Form

Posted in A Greener Kitchen, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, solar, solar panels, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Solar Financing Truly Is An Art Form

Yes, Economic Anxiety Really Does Explain Some of Donald Trump’s Appeal

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Matt Yglesias says it’s ridiculous to attribute Donald Trump’s support to economic anxiety:

While plenty of people, including plenty of Trump fans, certainly have concerns about the economy, it’s racial resentment that drives who does and doesn’t support Trump….Adding an economic anxiety factor to your account doesn’t actually help to explain anything. Trump’s supporters, for example, are considerably whiter and considerably older than the American population at large. If the economic problems of the past decade had been unusually hard on the white and the old, then an economics-focused explanation could be valuable. In reality, things have been rougher on nonwhites and rougher on younger cohorts.

Generally speaking, I agree. There’s been an endless amount of research, including endless splicing and dicing of poll internals, that tries to explain what’s different about Trump supporters. And every time, the answer is pretty clear: racial resentment. This is so clear that it’s become a joke on Twitter. Every time a Trump supporter (or Trump himself) does or says something racist, it will get linked with a snarky comment about the latest bit of “economic anxiety.”

And yet, I do think that genuine economic anxiety has something to do with Trump’s popularity. The chart on the right, which I posted a couple of weeks ago, tells the basic story. Over the past few decades, women’s incomes have made great strides. Blacks have improved their economic position a bit. Hispanics too. The only group that’s failed to make any progress at all is white men. Maybe it’s not right to call this “anxiety,” but it’s certainly something that helps explain why white men are angrier than most people about their economic position.

Nor do I really buy this:

By contrast, the idea that Donald Trump is going to usher in a new era of broadly shared prosperity based on a revival of coal mining and labor-intensive methods of steel production is patently ridiculous. Under guise of being respectful of Trump voters’ concerns, pundits attributing his appeal to his economic “policies” are in effect attributing a remarkable degree of foolishness to his supporters. The more parsimonious and simple explanation is that there is a basic divide over values and cultural identity.

One of the remarkable things about presidential elections is the extent to which voters simply believe whatever candidates tell them. It doesn’t matter if it’s impossible. It doesn’t matter if the candidate changed his mind about this the day before yesterday. It doesn’t matter if there’s no plausible policy behind the claim. If Trump says he’s going to build a wall, then he’s going to build a wall. If he says he’s going to renegotiate all our trade treaties, then that’s what he’s going to do. This is not something specific to Trump fans. It’s true of all voters.

Personally, I find it sort of remarkable. But then, I’m basically half-Vulcan. Most people aren’t.

Presidential campaigns are mostly just an exercise in finding someone whose heart is in the right place. The fancy term is “mood affiliation.” Most voters don’t really care if either Trump or Hillary Clinton can do what they say. They just want to know what they consider important. Trump has very loudly signaled that he considers the plight of blue-collar workers important, both economically and culturally—and that’s really all that matters.

Now, there’s a metric buttload of racial and sexist angst wrapped up in that word “culturally.” Yglesias is right about that. But there really is an economic component too.

POSTSCRIPT: Of course, this whole argument might be moot. There’s considerable evidence that blue-collar whites don’t actually support Trump any more strongly than they’ve supported any other Republican candidate for president. Some of them may be louder than usual this year, but Trump doesn’t actually seem to have moved the needle much in terms of raw numbers.

Visit site:  

Yes, Economic Anxiety Really Does Explain Some of Donald Trump’s Appeal

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Yes, Economic Anxiety Really Does Explain Some of Donald Trump’s Appeal