Busy handling estate business...and making money...Grizalltheway wrote:T, how come you're not in Copenhagen lighting tires on fire to protest the climate change conference?
Yeah, that's the type of brilliant response I thought you might come up with considering how quickly you went with the ad hominem argument of age.travelinman67 wrote:No ****!kalm wrote:
But I’m not educationally biased toward capitalism in the least. In fact I never took an economics class in college.
Really?
Ron Paul.kalm wrote:Yeah, that's the type of brilliant response I thought you might come up with considering how quickly you went with the ad hominem argument of age.travelinman67 wrote:
No ****!
Really?
But once you think you're done with showing people how smart you are and how you've figured out the world of economics, you might want to consider reading the many economists, a few of them Nobel Prize winners, who predicted the current fiasco and would side with every word I've written so far in this thread.
Gathering from your objections to my statements that you're a neo-liberal economically speaking and assuming that you're not anywhere close to a nobel prize winner in the field, tell me, which low tax, anti-regulation, privatization economic guru's predicted what is happening?
native wrote:Ron Paul.kalm wrote:
Yeah, that's the type of brilliant response I thought you might come up with considering how quickly you went with the ad hominem argument of age.
But once you think you're done with showing people how smart you are and how you've figured out the world of economics, you might want to consider reading the many economists, a few of them Nobel Prize winners, who predicted the current fiasco and would side with every word I've written so far in this thread.
Gathering from your objections to my statements that you're a neo-liberal economically speaking and assuming that you're not anywhere close to a nobel prize winner in the field, tell me, which low tax, anti-regulation, privatization economic guru's predicted what is happening?
He may have capitalized politically off of it (sort of) but did he actually predict it? Ron Paul is regularly re-elected in his Congressional district, but I don't think it depends on his economic prescience, so you cannot say he has capitalized politically - yet. Although I am a Ron Paul fan, I found many Paulistas to be annoying during the Presidential campaign.Grizalltheway wrote:native wrote:
Ron Paul.
Nobel Laureate, Milton Friedman.kalm wrote: But once you think you're done with showing people how smart you are and how you've figured out the world of economics, you might want to consider reading the many economists, a few of them Nobel Prize winners, who predicted the current fiasco and would side with every word I've written so far in this thread.
Gathering from your objections to my statements that you're a neo-liberal economically speaking and assuming that you're not anywhere close to a nobel prize winner in the field, tell me, which low tax, anti-regulation, privatization economic guru's predicted what is happening?
...it's not an ad hominem if it's true...kalm wrote:Yeah, that's the type of brilliant response I thought you might come up with considering how quickly you went with the ad hominem argument of age.travelinman67 wrote:
No ****!
Really?
But once you think you're done with showing people how smart you are and how you've figured out the world of economics, you might want to consider reading the many economists, a few of them Nobel Prize winners, who predicted the current fiasco and would side with every word I've written so far in this thread.
Gathering from your objections to my statements that you're a neo-liberal economically speaking and assuming that you're not anywhere close to a nobel prize winner in the field, tell me, which low tax, anti-regulation, privatization economic guru's predicted what is happening?
travelinman67 wrote:...it's not an ad hominem if it's true...kalm wrote:
Yeah, that's the type of brilliant response I thought you might come up with considering how quickly you went with the ad hominem argument of age.
But once you think you're done with showing people how smart you are and how you've figured out the world of economics, you might want to consider reading the many economists, a few of them Nobel Prize winners, who predicted the current fiasco and would side with every word I've written so far in this thread.
Gathering from your objections to my statements that you're a neo-liberal economically speaking and assuming that you're not anywhere close to a nobel prize winner in the field, tell me, which low tax, anti-regulation, privatization economic guru's predicted what is happening?
You challenge, without offering alternatives.
You allege knowledge and experience, yet your responses demonstrate neither.
You've labled me a...
...socio-fascist...
...commie...
...and a neo-liberal: All of which you've conjured up not understanding what you're saying, or more importantly, who you're talking to.
You haven't earned this, but I'll offer it...
I've been a proud Galbraith capitalist for the past 23 years.
And in response to a comment to you made about our "country's resources"...
...let me clarify.
The geographic U.S. natural resources are not, "...the country's..." natural resources.
Those resources belong to the citizens (the private sector), not the government.
Following your implication that citizens do not possess the right to "exploit" natural resources for profit or personal use...
...how do you reconcile agriculture?
Are they not exploiting the land for profit and personal use?
Not all "exploiters" leave "permanent" scarring to the environment. Furthermore, what right does Congress (govt.) have to restrict exploitation of natural resources/mineral rights, when those who benefit from said "exploitation" are the lawful OWNERS of those natural resources?
Joltin Joe leave you with a sore ass this weekend, again?D1B wrote:travelinman67 wrote:
...it's not an ad hominem if it's true...
You challenge, without offering alternatives.
You allege knowledge and experience, yet your responses demonstrate neither.
You've labled me a...
...socio-fascist...
...commie...
...and a neo-liberal: All of which you've conjured up not understanding what you're saying, or more importantly, who you're talking to.
You haven't earned this, but I'll offer it...
I've been a proud Galbraith capitalist for the past 23 years.
And in response to a comment to you made about our "country's resources"...
...let me clarify.
The geographic U.S. natural resources are not, "...the country's..." natural resources.
Those resources belong to the citizens (the private sector), not the government.
Following your implication that citizens do not possess the right to "exploit" natural resources for profit or personal use...
...how do you reconcile agriculture?
Are they not exploiting the land for profit and personal use?
Not all "exploiters" leave "permanent" scarring to the environment. Furthermore, what right does Congress (govt.) have to restrict exploitation of natural resources/mineral rights, when those who benefit from said "exploitation" are the lawful OWNERS of those natural resources?
Tman, getting his ass handed to him yet again. Thanks Kalm!
Tman = Kalm's new bitch
The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.
The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.
The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.
The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.
The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".
A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:
• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;
• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";
• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;
• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.
Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.
"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.
Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."
Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints in developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."
Nice, creative, reply.travelinman67 wrote:Joltin Joe leave you with a sore ass this weekend, again?D1B wrote:
Tman, getting his ass handed to him yet again. Thanks Kalm!
Tman = Kalm's new bitch
You're just envious you weren't *chosen* for abuse by a priest when you were young...D1B wrote:Nice, creative, reply.travelinman67 wrote:
Joltin Joe leave you with a sore ass this weekend, again?
You're a glutton for punishment. Which newbie is gonna step up, again, and waste your pathetic ass?
Simply pathetic Tman.travelinman67 wrote:You're just envious you weren't *chosen* for abuse by a priest when you were young...D1B wrote:
Nice, creative, reply.
You're a glutton for punishment. Which newbie is gonna step up, again, and waste your pathetic ass?
...ya missed your ship.
Now, you just sit around and lament about all the men who are collecting millions in hush money.
Gotta hurt knowing you were never "cute enough"...even for a child molester...
You used to be hilarious, now we all just feel sorry for you, like Reagan when he became a veg or W during his last 3 years in office. travelinman67 wrote:You're just envious you weren't *chosen* for abuse by a priest when you were young...D1B wrote:
Nice, creative, reply.
You're a glutton for punishment. Which newbie is gonna step up, again, and waste your pathetic ass?
...ya missed your ship.
Now, you just sit around and lament about all the men who are collecting millions in hush money.
Gotta hurt knowing you were never "cute enough"...even for a child molester...
D1B wrote:
"Hey! Father Dunnigan. Look at what I can do. Father Dunnigan! FATHER DUNNIGAN! LOOK, LOOK AT ME! HEY!!! LOOK AT ME!!!!!!"
travelinman67 wrote:travelinman67 wrote:
You're just envious you weren't *chosen* for abuse by a priest when you were young...
...ya missed your ship.
Now, you just sit around and lament about all the men who are collecting millions in hush money.
Gotta hurt knowing you were never "cute enough"...even for a child molester...D1B wrote:
"Hey! Father Dunnigan. Look at what I can do. Father Dunnigan! FATHER DUNNIGAN! LOOK, LOOK AT ME! HEY!!! LOOK AT ME!!!!!!"
Oh good god man, are you still stinging from my accusation in another thread? Turn up your satire detector.travelinman67 wrote:...it's not an ad hominem if it's true...kalm wrote:
Yeah, that's the type of brilliant response I thought you might come up with considering how quickly you went with the ad hominem argument of age.
But once you think you're done with showing people how smart you are and how you've figured out the world of economics, you might want to consider reading the many economists, a few of them Nobel Prize winners, who predicted the current fiasco and would side with every word I've written so far in this thread.
Gathering from your objections to my statements that you're a neo-liberal economically speaking and assuming that you're not anywhere close to a nobel prize winner in the field, tell me, which low tax, anti-regulation, privatization economic guru's predicted what is happening?
You challenge, without offering alternatives.
You allege knowledge and experience, yet your responses demonstrate neither.
You've labled me a...
...socio-fascist...
...commie...
...and a neo-liberal: All of which you've conjured up not understanding what you're saying, or more importantly, who you're talking to.
You haven't earned this, but I'll offer it...
I've been a proud Galbraith capitalist for the past 23 years.
And in response to a comment to you made about our "country's resources"...
...let me clarify.
The geographic U.S. natural resources are not, "...the country's..." natural resources.
Those resources belong to the citizens (the private sector), not the government.
Following your implication that citizens do not possess the right to "exploit" natural resources for profit or personal use...
...how do you reconcile agriculture?
Are they not exploiting the land for profit and personal use?
Not all "exploiters" leave "permanent" scarring to the environment. Furthermore, what right does Congress (govt.) have to restrict exploitation of natural resources/mineral rights, when those who benefit from said "exploitation" are the lawful OWNERS of those natural resources?
kalm wrote:Oh good god man, are you still stinging from my accusation in another thread? Turn up your satire detector.travelinman67 wrote:
...it's not an ad hominem if it's true...
You challenge, without offering alternatives.
You allege knowledge and experience, yet your responses demonstrate neither.
You've labled me a...
...socio-fascist...
...commie...
...and a neo-liberal: All of which you've conjured up not understanding what you're saying, or more importantly, who you're talking to.
You haven't earned this, but I'll offer it...
I've been a proud Galbraith capitalist for the past 23 years.
And in response to a comment to you made about our "country's resources"...
...let me clarify.
The geographic U.S. natural resources are not, "...the country's..." natural resources.
Those resources belong to the citizens (the private sector), not the government.
Following your implication that citizens do not possess the right to "exploit" natural resources for profit or personal use...
...how do you reconcile agriculture?
Are they not exploiting the land for profit and personal use?
Not all "exploiters" leave "permanent" scarring to the environment. Furthermore, what right does Congress (govt.) have to restrict exploitation of natural resources/mineral rights, when those who benefit from said "exploitation" are the lawful OWNERS of those natural resources?
You said:
"Until they resolve the regulatory impediments which have been driving manufacturing/agriculture/natural resource industries to relocate elsewhere, this mess will NEVER improve."
We've regulated clean air, clean water, and higher wages here because it's the right thing to do. But then we didn't penalize our industries for moving the production overseas while still taking advantage of our markets. The Soviet Union by contrast, absorbed the environmental costs of their production, hence all the soot stained little black faces. I don't really think you're a commie, but surely your smart enough to see the irony.
As for your private property beaf, I'm hip to that argument. But resource extraction that negatively affects your neighbors and/or the public or is conducted on public lands is another story. And remember, the air we breath, the water we drink etc, belongs to all of us.
So my ulitmate answer to your anti gov'mint sentiment is "We the People..."
BTW, which Galbraith Capitalist are you a disciple of?
Neither the Framers nor Federalists provided for governmental interference with the landholders use of of THEIR lands.kalm wrote: Oh good god man, are you still stinging from my accusation in another thread? Turn up your satire detector.
You said:
"Until they resolve the regulatory impediments which have been driving manufacturing/agriculture/natural resource industries to relocate elsewhere, this mess will NEVER improve."
We've regulated clean air, clean water, and higher wages here because it's the right thing to do.
The ignorance of that remark does not warrant a response. Study the Western industrialization era.kalm wrote: But then we didn't penalize our industries for moving the production overseas while still taking advantage of our markets. The Soviet Union by contrast, absorbed the environmental costs of their production, hence all the soot stained little black faces. I don't really think you're a commie, but surely your smart enough to see the irony.
...and the mineral rights belong to the landowner, unless stipulated in the deed. If I want to mine my 10 acres...that's MY business: Not yours, not my neighbor's, not the government's.kalm wrote:As for your private property beaf, I'm hip to that argument. But resource extraction that negatively affects your neighbors and/or the public or is conducted on public lands is another story. And remember, the air we breath, the water we drink etc, belongs to all of us.
Look it up, junior.kalm wrote:So my ulitmate answer to your anti gov'mint sentiment is "We the People..."
BTW, which Galbraith Capitalist are you a disciple of?
We're in agreement with most of what you said in this post. I will add that the framers didn't provide for a number of things and if I'm not mistaken, there was a constitutional argument against the Louisiana Purchase which is interesting in the context of this argument as that aquisition involved the sale without consent of land, mineral rights, water rights etc. of the continent's original land owners who just settled a multi-billion dollar lawsuit with the feds over this issue.travelinman67 wrote:Neither the Framers nor Federalists provided for governmental interference with the landholders use of of THEIR lands.kalm wrote: Oh good god man, are you still stinging from my accusation in another thread? Turn up your satire detector.
You said:
"Until they resolve the regulatory impediments which have been driving manufacturing/agriculture/natural resource industries to relocate elsewhere, this mess will NEVER improve."
We've regulated clean air, clean water, and higher wages here because it's the right thing to do.
Just as with the Polar Bears, Congress has dug deep into the nethers of law to justify their interference via federal law.
The ignorance of that remark does not warrant a response. Study the Western industrialization era.kalm wrote: But then we didn't penalize our industries for moving the production overseas while still taking advantage of our markets. The Soviet Union by contrast, absorbed the environmental costs of their production, hence all the soot stained little black faces. I don't really think you're a commie, but surely your smart enough to see the irony.
...and the mineral rights belong to the landowner, unless stipulated in the deed. If I want to mine my 10 acres...that's MY business: Not yours, not my neighbor's, not the government's.kalm wrote:As for your private property beaf, I'm hip to that argument. But resource extraction that negatively affects your neighbors and/or the public or is conducted on public lands is another story. And remember, the air we breath, the water we drink etc, belongs to all of us.
If I choose to deplete my property of all the precious metals and commodities I find in the soil, I can. I bought them. I can mine them. I can sell them.
And when I'm finished, so long as I don't **** into my neighbors air and water supplies, I can resell the property...or not...and walk away. And whether or not I leave a hole in the ground where the commodities once existed, is my business...not yours, not my neighbor's, not the government's.
Look it up, junior.kalm wrote:So my ulitmate answer to your anti gov'mint sentiment is "We the People..."
BTW, which Galbraith Capitalist are you a disciple of?
Soro's bet...George Soros has funded a wide variety of efforts to propagate the view that Climate Change poses perils to the planet and that this mandates measures that include so called clean fuels.
His efforts include his sponsorship of think tanks, for example, The Center for American Progress (CAP) - easily the nation's most powerful think-tank - that serves as Barack Obama's "Brain". The CAP has served as an employment agency to fill important government positions, including those that push the climate change story (Van Jones, for example). Of course, Soros is the sugar daddy of the Democratic Party whose members also promote "clean energy", "cap and trade", the end of King Coal, and the evisceration of our nuclear power industry. Soros was an early backer of Barack Obama's and employed his phalanx of 527 groups, of which he is the largest single funder, to work to get him elected.
Clean fuels does not just encompass renewables such as wind and solar power. Those are inadequate and uneconomic to meet our needs. The biggest source of clean fuels is natural gas - the one carbon-based fuel that many environmentalist can at least tolerate. Therefore, it is the one carbon fuel that would benefit disproportionally if the climate change cultists have their way.
I found it quite interesting that Soros Fund Management, the hedge fund founded and controlled by George Soros, owns a huge stake in at least one company sitting on a monumental treasure trove of natural gas - InterOil corporation. His fund is the fourth largest holder; in turn, it is one of the top holdings in his hedge fund.
Interoil (stock symbol IOC) is an energy company that has made huge natural gas finds in Papua New Guinea that look so large that they been described by industry professionals as unnatural and staggering.
One well after another has been breaking world records in terms of flow.
The New Guinea government is also quiet flexible when dealing with oil companies (no pesky activist groups of the same kind Soros supports here). The government has been amenable to approving Liquefied Natural Gas projects to allow exports. Papua New Guinea may become the second largest LNG producer in all of Asia, as well as a major supplier to other Asian nations, and perhaps America as well.
Interoil will benefit enormously from changes being promoted by Climate Change promoters - among them Barack Obama, the Center for American Progress, and a wide swath of democrats who have been beneficiaries of George Soros. Now his payoff seems assured. The huge stake in Interoil will be paying Soros huge dividends for many years in the future, as will his own investments in the politics of climate change.
For a further view of how Soros has bet a billion to clean up from climate change see this concise and informative article: (follows)
Soros benefitting from dubious market manipulation?Billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros recently spoke up on climate change financing.
According the The Wall Street Journal, billionaire hedge fund manager and political activist George Soros is pushing for a $100 billion "Green" fund to be financed by special drawing rights (SDRs). Created by the IMF in 1969, SDRs are what The New York Times called a "virtual currency." They are the based on a basket of four key international currencies, and are normally used as a source of liquidity. Soros suggested the funds could be put to work planting new forests, expanding farming methods, and helping with adaption and energy programs in poor countries.
Back in October, Soros announced plans to invest $1 billion of his own capital in clean energy. He told Bloomberg that the investments "should be profitable but should also actually make a contribution to solving the problem."
As of the most recent regulatory filings Soros' top-15 U.S.-listed equity holdings included just one alternative energy play, waste to energy firm Covanta (NYSE: CVA - News). However his sizable stakes in fertilizer plays Potash (NYSE: POT - News) and Monsanto (NYSE: MON - News) could see an uptick if billions were invested in the agricultural segment of developing nations.
Elsewhere Soros was invested in oil stocks Hess (NYSE: HES - News), Brazilian Petroleum (NYSE: PBR-A - News, PBR-B - News), Suncor (NYSE: SU - News), and Interoil (NYSE: IOC - News).
Tony Blair is set to earn millions of pounds advising an American businessman on how to make money from tackling climate change.
The former prime minister will be paid at least £700,000 a year to act as a “strategic adviser” to Khosla Ventures, a venture capitalist firm founded by Indian billionaire Vinod Khosla.
The Californian company bankrolls businesses hoping to profit from technology that helps reduce global warming and carbon emissions.
Mr Blair secured the job thanks to his “influence” and high level international contacts, whom he will be expected to lean on to open doors.
He has told friends he needs £5 million a year to fund his lifestyle.
Khosla Ventures confirmed it was hiring him, but declined to confirm his salary, which was estimated by industry sources.
Khosla said that “with Tony's advice and influence we will create opportunities for entrepreneurs and innovators to devise practical solutions that can solve today's most pressing problems."
In a statement yesterday, Mr Blair said: “Solving the climate crisis is more than just a political agenda item; it's an urgent priority that requires innovation, creativity and ambition.”
He has taken up several lucrative posts since leaving office three years ago. He has a £1 million deal to advise the ruling royal family of Kuwait and has been paid a £4.6 million advance for his memoirs.
Public speaking engagements, which earn him £100,000 a time, are estimated to have brought in another £9 million.
George Soros -- whom we're always told is not serving his own economic interests at all by promoting liberal politicians and big-government policies -- is launching a new investment fund that plans to profit off of the "green energy" boom, which is entirely dependent on government subsidies supported by the groups Soros funds.
As the press release puts it, this fund will "leverage technology and business model innovation to improve energy efficiency, reduce waste and emissions, harness renewable energy, and more efficiently use natural resources, among other applications." As Soros puts it in the same release: “Developing alternative sources of energy and achieving greater energy efficiency is both a significant global investment opportunity and an environmental imperative.” Cadie Thompson at CNBC's NetNet flagged this.
So, yeah. The big-government policies advanced by the liberal outfits he funds -- like Center for American Progress -- will enrich the companies in which Soros is investing.
But this story gets better.
The press release casually mentions whom Soros is hiring to run this new fund: Cathy Zoi. As Cadie Thompson at CNBC's NetNet (edited by my brother John Carney), puts it,
"Zoi was Barack Obama's "Acting Under Secretary for Energy and Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy." An Al Gore acolyte, Zoi was Obama's point-woman on subsidizing green tech. Now she's going to work for George Soros to profit off of subsidized green tech."
If you remember Zoi's name, it's because of another green-tech conflict of interest: Zoi's husband is an executive at a window company, Serious Windows, which the White House regularly held up as a "poster child of green industry."
The Freedom Foundation of Minnesota put it this way:
"Ms. Zoi is married to Robin Roy, a top executive at Serious Materials, a privately held manufacturer of 'sustainable green building materials' located in California. On the Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure submitted by Ms. Zoi to the White House Ethics office as part of her confirmation, Ms. Zoi disclosed ownership with her spouse of 120,000 vested and unvested stock options in Serious Materials, a company her office regulates and that she may profit from."
Oh yeah, Serious Materials pocketed federal stimulus money, too.
But as NetNet's Thompson puts it:
"But we can put all that behind us, because now Zoi has left the Obama Administration and will go back to work making an honest living in the private sector, where she can put all the knowledge she gained from working for the Department of Energy to work for the private equity firms. Thata girl Zoi!"
Written by T. P. Carneytravelinman67 wrote:Damn! Never saw this coming...
New Soros investment fund, profiting off Obama's 'green energy' push, hires top Obama energy aide
Timothy P. Carney 02/24/11 3:47 PM
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel ... hires-top-
George Soros -- whom we're always told is not serving his own economic interests at all by promoting liberal politicians and big-government policies -- is launching a new investment fund that plans to profit off of the "green energy" boom, which is entirely dependent on government subsidies supported by the groups Soros funds.
As the press release puts it, this fund will "leverage technology and business model innovation to improve energy efficiency, reduce waste and emissions, harness renewable energy, and more efficiently use natural resources, among other applications." As Soros puts it in the same release: “Developing alternative sources of energy and achieving greater energy efficiency is both a significant global investment opportunity and an environmental imperative.” Cadie Thompson at CNBC's NetNet flagged this.
So, yeah. The big-government policies advanced by the liberal outfits he funds -- like Center for American Progress -- will enrich the companies in which Soros is investing.
But this story gets better.
The press release casually mentions whom Soros is hiring to run this new fund: Cathy Zoi. As Cadie Thompson at CNBC's NetNet (edited by my brother John Carney), puts it,
"Zoi was Barack Obama's "Acting Under Secretary for Energy and Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy." An Al Gore acolyte, Zoi was Obama's point-woman on subsidizing green tech. Now she's going to work for George Soros to profit off of subsidized green tech."
If you remember Zoi's name, it's because of another green-tech conflict of interest: Zoi's husband is an executive at a window company, Serious Windows, which the White House regularly held up as a "poster child of green industry."
The Freedom Foundation of Minnesota put it this way:
"Ms. Zoi is married to Robin Roy, a top executive at Serious Materials, a privately held manufacturer of 'sustainable green building materials' located in California. On the Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure submitted by Ms. Zoi to the White House Ethics office as part of her confirmation, Ms. Zoi disclosed ownership with her spouse of 120,000 vested and unvested stock options in Serious Materials, a company her office regulates and that she may profit from."
Oh yeah, Serious Materials pocketed federal stimulus money, too.
But as NetNet's Thompson puts it:
"But we can put all that behind us, because now Zoi has left the Obama Administration and will go back to work making an honest living in the private sector, where she can put all the knowledge she gained from working for the Department of Energy to work for the private equity firms. Thata girl Zoi!"
Cleets, this has nothing to do with this thread but I'd like to let you know that I don't mind being dis'd on the board. Hell, I kind of enjoy it!Chizzang wrote:Written by T. P. Carneytravelinman67 wrote:Damn! Never saw this coming...
New Soros investment fund, profiting off Obama's 'green energy' push, hires top Obama energy aide
Timothy P. Carney 02/24/11 3:47 PM
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel ... hires-top-
The man who had inside information on ENRON and the BUSH administration but wouldn't talk... Why does he chose to write about one crook and not another - oh that's right - he profited from the other scandal
I'm sure Soros is doing the nasty (as usual) but lets not pretend this is new and different
And let's not pretend that T.P. Carney isn't getting paid to shovel dirt for his masters
in 2 years he'll be on the inside of the next scam - and be as quiet as a mouse
