Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Trump's solar tariffs would cripple an entire industry at the request of two companies, one of which is in bankruptcy   ( latimes.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, tariffs, solar industry, International trade, solar energy industry, American solar companies, U.S. International Trade, U.S. solar industry, S. trade officials  
•       •       •

2460 clicks; posted to Business » on 22 Sep 2017 at 4:50 PM (11 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



31 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-09-22 05:21:20 PM  
Energy independence is freedom. Can't have that in the market place.
 
2017-09-22 05:24:25 PM  
I used to work at said bankrupt company so I'm getting a kick...etc.

Yeah, I was laid off.
 
2017-09-22 06:12:38 PM  
This was Plan B. He had another plan that he saw on TV but the science guys told him it wouldn't work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyjJbhuwGkU

(not a Rickroll, I promise)
 
2017-09-22 06:18:48 PM  
Man, fark this guy. My liver's gonna rage quit pretty soon.

Where's the benefit? Trump's ego and two CEOs. fark this guy and his defective brain.
 
2017-09-22 06:27:36 PM  
Gotta keep those folks in Houston and Florida from leaving the grid.
 
2017-09-22 06:29:37 PM  
And if there's anyone who knows about bankrupt companies, it's Trump.
 
2017-09-22 06:31:13 PM  
This is what I don't get.  Farkers will preach up and down in minimum wage threads, "Pay your people a livable wage, ill gladly pay more for your fast food!"  Yet, when anything is attempted to stop the import of products made possible by practically slave labor, its totally different.  As long as they are yellow or brown people its fine to be payed nothing and worked to the bone with no protections, as long as it producing something you agree with or want?

For the record, I love solar, and cheap burgers. Just attempting to understand thy hypocrisy.
 
2017-09-22 06:36:40 PM  
Tell the sunlight to go back where it came from!
 
2017-09-22 06:46:31 PM  

Cuyose: This is what I don't get.  Farkers will preach up and down in minimum wage threads, "Pay your people a livable wage, ill gladly pay more for your fast food!"  Yet, when anything is attempted to stop the import of products made possible by practically slave labor, its totally different.  As long as they are yellow or brown people its fine to be payed nothing and worked to the bone with no protections, as long as it producing something you agree with or want?

For the record, I love solar, and cheap burgers. Just attempting to understand thy hypocrisy.


Enjoy your $2500 iPhone
/Let's be real here
 
2017-09-22 06:51:35 PM  

Cuyose: This is what I don't get.  Farkers will preach up and down in minimum wage threads, "Pay your people a livable wage, ill gladly pay more for your fast food!"  Yet, when anything is attempted to stop the import of products made possible by practically slave labor, its totally different.  As long as they are yellow or brown people its fine to be payed nothing and worked to the bone with no protections, as long as it producing something you agree with or want?

For the record, I love solar, and cheap burgers. Just attempting to understand thy hypocrisy.

Imported solar panels already face ~30% tariffs. This would slap a minimum price floor that's 2x's the going rate of imported PV panels and give them roughly a 120% tariff.

A 120% tax is pretty rough.

Plus the fact that no US owned solar companies were a part of this complaint - only two companies, one owned by a Hong Kong corp and the other is based in Germany.
 
2017-09-22 07:11:43 PM  
From the article - if the tariff is implemented, about 88,000 people in the solar industry could lose their jobs.

How is this a good thing?
 
2017-09-22 07:13:20 PM  
Solar tariff?

WTF is wrong with him?
 
2017-09-22 07:14:03 PM  
Cuyose;

Living wage is a complicated topic, partly because the minimum wage is not tied to inflation nor any other measure. Some of the people arguing for a raise are arguing that it should be higher, because it would be had it been tied to inflation. Consider the original minimum wage at $.25/hr (one quarter per hour). Clearly this would be ineffective after a while.

Other people are in those high cost areas, where bumping people to $15 or a "livable" instead of "minimum" would have a negligible impact. Things like burgers, which are cranked out by the dozens in an hour, would not cost much more than they do now.

You are making a comparison with solar products, assuming apparently that the only difference in production is worker wages. Otherwise your comparison would be invalid. So let's pay people in other countries more. And the price doesn't move significantly. Why?

Overseas solar manufacturing has been in place heavily for a very long time. American solar hasn't really gone anywhere until recently, with abundant oil and natural gas resources. So, while some of the research and technology to make more efficient panels may come from America, the less efficient but still useful solar plants overseas are being built in great numbers.

If we paid workers the same, used the same technology, and spread capitol over decades to build the manufacturing infrastructure necessary to build in the bulk needed, we would see similar numbers. Except for the environmental damage. Solar is really quite dirty, it's just dirty in a different way.

Finally, solar in America is about way more than just the people building the panels. With 90% of the panels being foreign made, we still have a huge infrastructure building the arrays and connecting the power. We care more about that industry, and about it not being replaced by old energy, and we do about a few failing solar panel companies.

Finallyer, unless you can name names, it's generally not the same people arguing for this position and for that position when they disagree. It's usually an overlapping crowd of individuals with disparate reasons for supporting each. Especially when the underlying economics affect individuals very differently depending where they are in the chain. And their own reasons tend to be self consistent.

I have oversimplified to limit the number of words used.
 
2017-09-22 07:36:03 PM  
So here's a few more words.

The federal solar tax credit, also known as the investment tax credit (ITC), allows you to deduct 30 percent of the cost of installing a solar energy system from your federal taxes. The ITC applies to both residential and commercial systems, and there is no cap on its value.

Doesn't it work against the goals of the ITC to put a tariff on solar panels, making them more expensive?

Also, libby libs are very happy to point out that a Republican is happy to ignore the free market and capitalism, not just for the good of the country, but for a small and failing part of the industry. As much as Republicans hated the Solyndra deal because it was spending taxpayer money on clean energy, taxpayers will have to foot the bill for this tariff in pretty much the same way, just not via the treasury. With additional money going to the ITC. An argument that isn't self consistent isn't one that works in any situation. Republicans are fine with propping up solar now, but hated any form of propping it up before. Excluding Solyndra.

FTFA: The president has been eager to use tariffs in a bid to revive flagging U.S. manufacturing industries

Well, it will help manufacturing, but hurt the rest of the market. It's a net negative, and only an idiot would think otherwise.

The action was filed by Georgia-based Suniva, a firm that is in bankruptcy. Joining Suniva in requesting the levies was Oregon-based SolarWorld Americas, a struggling subsidiary of the bankrupt German firm SolarWorld AG.
"we employ hundreds of Americans at our facility in Oregon"

http://www.solarworld-usa.com/why-choose-solarworld/american-solar-pan​el-manufacturing

I don't know how many employees Suniva has, but the number in the article was "Nationwide, the association projects 88,000 jobs would vanish" due to lower demand of imported panels. I can't see a net gain to workers if you support the tariffs.

Suniva filed for bankruptcy on April 18 and filed trade complaints against its Chinese competitors under Sections 201 and 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 with the ITC eight days later. It asks for "global safeguard relief" from imports of crystalline silicon solar PV cells and modules, despite being majority-owned by Shunfeng International Clean Energy, a Chinese company. Naturally, Shunfeng - which also owns Suntech - opposes Suniva's petition.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2017/05/25/breaking-solarworld-joins-suniv​as-trade-petition/
 
2017-09-22 07:51:32 PM  

recondite cetacean: So here's a few more words.

The federal solar tax credit, also known as the investment tax credit (ITC), allows you to deduct 30 percent of the cost of installing a solar energy system from your federal taxes. The ITC applies to both residential and commercial systems, and there is no cap on its value.

Doesn't it work against the goals of the ITC to put a tariff on solar panels, making them more expensive?

Also, libby libs are very happy to point out that a Republican is happy to ignore the free market and capitalism, not just for the good of the country, but for a small and failing part of the industry. As much as Republicans hated the Solyndra deal because it was spending taxpayer money on clean energy, taxpayers will have to foot the bill for this tariff in pretty much the same way, just not via the treasury. With additional money going to the ITC. An argument that isn't self consistent isn't one that works in any situation. Republicans are fine with propping up solar now, but hated any form of propping it up before. Excluding Solyndra.

FTFA: The president has been eager to use tariffs in a bid to revive flagging U.S. manufacturing industries

Well, it will help manufacturing, but hurt the rest of the market. It's a net negative, and only an idiot would think otherwise.

The action was filed by Georgia-based Suniva, a firm that is in bankruptcy. Joining Suniva in requesting the levies was Oregon-based SolarWorld Americas, a struggling subsidiary of the bankrupt German firm SolarWorld AG.
"we employ hundreds of Americans at our facility in Oregon"

http://www.solarworld-usa.com/why-choose-solarworld/american-solar-pan​el-manufacturing

I don't know how many employees Suniva has, but the number in the article was "Nationwide, the association projects 88,000 jobs would vanish" due to lower demand of imported panels. I can't see a net gain to workers if you support the tariffs.

Suniva filed for bankruptcy on April 18 and filed trade complaints against its ...


How about that we agree that both sides are rather often hypocritical when it comes to things which they support?
 
2017-09-22 08:07:40 PM  

MrSteve007: Cuyose: This is what I don't get.  Farkers will preach up and down in minimum wage threads, "Pay your people a livable wage, ill gladly pay more for your fast food!"  Yet, when anything is attempted to stop the import of products made possible by practically slave labor, its totally different.  As long as they are yellow or brown people its fine to be payed nothing and worked to the bone with no protections, as long as it producing something you agree with or want?

For the record, I love solar, and cheap burgers. Just attempting to understand thy hypocrisy.
Imported solar panels already face ~30% tariffs. This would slap a minimum price floor that's 2x's the going rate of imported PV panels and give them roughly a 120% tariff.

A 120% tax is pretty rough.

Plus the fact that no US owned solar companies were a part of this complaint - only two companies, one owned by a Hong Kong corp and the other is based in Germany.


This is the type of informed response I was looking for. Without any knowledge, I would think 30% tariff would be about right.  Is that the same kind of tariff that the US is exposed to on their exports to countries with the same active industries?

There are a lot of factors in play obviously, like how much do we want to encourage the product/behaviour vs what impact it has locally on those from our own country in the industry.  It just seems to me that if McDonalds could somehow find a way to only hire undocumented workers and DACA status individuals and pay them under minimum wage, fark would not have a problem with that, seeing that the agg business  gets away with it.  That doesn't seem consistent to me.

Either its a consumer driven market, for which you pay what you are willing to pay for a given product under how you wish the producers of that product are to be compensated and treated, or else you pay what you want and don't care about "how the sausage gets made".

Having separate morals and ethics based on the end product is disingenuous.
 
2017-09-22 08:18:52 PM  

recondite cetacean: Cuyose;

Overseas solar manufacturing has been in place heavily for a very long time. American solar hasn't really gone anywhere until recently, with abundant oil and natural gas resources. So, while some of the research and technology to make more efficient panels may come from America, the less efficient but still useful solar plants overseas are being built in great numbers.


I appreciate your response, however I really disagree with the premise of your main point.  While the opportunities in America given the availability of cheap solar panels is immense.  Something I totally love.

The article is about making the raw product itself more expensive, so that manufacturing locally can be sustainable. I think its a cop out to brush aside the environment and pay the workers overseas experience in the total cost of the technology.  China mines heavy elements, glass, steel, etc.  All of the workers in those industries overseas, by any objective account, have drastically less pay and protections as we would want our own citizens to have.

Why is that ok just because we benefit from it, but when a company locally benefits from vastly less violations of human decency, "ie, not a lot more than minimum wage", those entities get treated like they are literally importing people to a life of indentured servitude?
 
2017-09-22 08:26:58 PM  
I appreciate your response, however I really disagree with the premise of your main point.  While the opportunities in America given the availability of cheap solar panels is immense.  Something I totally love.

I wanted to amend this a bit with what SolarSteve commented on, also Steve, that should be your username.  If indeed the 2 companies involved are as you say than, that is crap on its face.  It doesn't change the point I was making, but this policy adoption based on who screams the loudest is ridiculous.

The pragmatist in me assumes someone has a damn good argument on the problem meant to be solved, the impact of doing nothing to the identified problem, the benefit of addressing the problem per the proposed solutions, and finally the impact of those solutions extraneous of the intended benefit.  ie.  the possible unintended consequences, or consequences to those not in the intended solution population.

Its a lot like the 1st law of matter.  Matter can not be created nor destroyed.  We can move it around however.
 
2017-09-22 08:45:43 PM  

Cuyose: This is what I don't get.  Farkers will preach up and down in minimum wage threads, "Pay your people a livable wage, ill gladly pay more for your fast food!"  Yet, when anything is attempted to stop the import of products made possible by practically slave labor, its totally different.  As long as they are yellow or brown people its fine to be payed nothing and worked to the bone with no protections, as long as it producing something you agree with or want?

For the record, I love solar, and cheap burgers. Just attempting to understand thy hypocrisy.


You mention the same argument that I hate about illegal farm labor.  They say, "I hope you like how much more produce is going to cost if you get rid of illegals!"

Sooo... You're in favor of maintaining an exploitable underclass at piece-rates where the whole family has to work to equal one legal hourly wage?  You're fine with substandard and dangerous working conditions that the illegals can't complain about?

So slaves are OK so you can have cheap lettuce?
 
2017-09-22 09:58:17 PM  
Not sure I want to trust a President to make a rational decision on solar power when he's known for keeping his head where the sun don't shine.
 
2017-09-22 10:11:05 PM  

Brandi Morgan: From the article - if the tariff is implemented, about 88,000 people in the solar industry could lose their jobs.

How is this a good thing?


Well, most of those jobs are in California, and the people there come in lots of different skin  tones and they mostly didn't vote for Trump.  I fail to see any reason why we should worry about those people losing their jobs.

Besides, fewer PV panels means more demand for coal.
 
2017-09-22 10:16:23 PM  
I do appreciate the tongue in asshole replies. They are closer to an answer than I was.
 
2017-09-22 11:07:29 PM  

GDubDub: Cuyose: This is what I don't get.  Farkers will preach up and down in minimum wage threads, "Pay your people a livable wage, ill gladly pay more for your fast food!"  Yet, when anything is attempted to stop the import of products made possible by practically slave labor, its totally different.  As long as they are yellow or brown people its fine to be payed nothing and worked to the bone with no protections, as long as it producing something you agree with or want?

For the record, I love solar, and cheap burgers. Just attempting to understand thy hypocrisy.

You mention the same argument that I hate about illegal farm labor.  They say, "I hope you like how much more produce is going to cost if you get rid of illegals!"

Sooo... You're in favor of maintaining an exploitable underclass at piece-rates where the whole family has to work to equal one legal hourly wage?  You're fine with substandard and dangerous working conditions that the illegals can't complain about?

So slaves are OK so you can have cheap lettuce?


Well, yes, of course they are, because that benefits them.

He's never going to install solar panels though so he doesn't give a shiat about that.
 
2017-09-22 11:34:05 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Solar tariff?

WTF is wrong with him?


img.fark.netView Full Size


"You'll pay for this!"
 
2017-09-23 12:39:05 AM  
As a huge fan of solar, this pisses me off. Politicians are universally bad at economics, but Republicans are willingly so. They're all about the free market until the invisible hand gets ready to beat their asses. Then they run to big daddy government for help while calling anyone else who does the same a socialist.
 
2017-09-23 02:11:18 AM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Enjoy your $2500 iPhone


Even Steve Jobs said making iPhones in the US would only ad about $50 to the price.
 
2017-09-23 07:53:39 AM  

Cuyose: MrSteve007: Cuyose: This is what I don't get.  Farkers will preach up and down in minimum wage threads, "Pay your people a livable wage, ill gladly pay more for your fast food!"  Yet, when anything is attempted to stop the import of products made possible by practically slave labor, its totally different.  As long as they are yellow or brown people its fine to be payed nothing and worked to the bone with no protections, as long as it producing something you agree with or want?

For the record, I love solar, and cheap burgers. Just attempting to understand thy hypocrisy.
Imported solar panels already face ~30% tariffs. This would slap a minimum price floor that's 2x's the going rate of imported PV panels and give them roughly a 120% tariff.

A 120% tax is pretty rough.

Plus the fact that no US owned solar companies were a part of this complaint - only two companies, one owned by a Hong Kong corp and the other is based in Germany.

This is the type of informed response I was looking for. Without any knowledge, I would think 30% tariff would be about right.  Is that the same kind of tariff that the US is exposed to on their exports to countries with the same active industries?

There are a lot of factors in play obviously, like how much do we want to encourage the product/behaviour vs what impact it has locally on those from our own country in the industry.  It just seems to me that if McDonalds could somehow find a way to only hire undocumented workers and DACA status individuals and pay them under minimum wage, fark would not have a problem with that, seeing that the agg business  gets away with it.  That doesn't seem consistent to me.

Either its a consumer driven market, for which you pay what you are willing to pay for a given product under how you wish the producers of that product are to be compensated and treated, or else you pay what you want and don't care about "how the sausage gets made".

Having separate morals and ethics based on the end product is disingenuous.


First, the very idea that you have numbers like 30% in mind without having any reference point or information leading you to those numbers speaks volumes.

Second, illegal immigrants are generally paid over minimum wage for their work, they are simply hired to do work that would otherwise be valued even higher (construction and hard labors).

Third, DACA recipients are working legally, so why would they be paid below minimum wage?

Your posts here are some combination of Dunning Kruger and strawman bullshiat gotcha nonsense.
 
2017-09-23 08:46:25 AM  

GDubDub: You mention the same argument that I hate about illegal farm labor.  They say, "I hope you like how much more produce is going to cost if you get rid of illegals!"

Sooo... You're in favor of maintaining an exploitable underclass at piece-rates where the whole family has to work to equal one legal hourly wage?  You're fine with substandard and dangerous working conditions that the illegals can't complain about?

So slaves are OK so you can have cheap lettuce?


Based on your comment, it seems that you are the one who supports the laws that create many of those conditions.

I'd rather they be free to come here, work and get to go home when they're out of season without worrying about having to sneak back in.
 
2017-09-23 09:49:32 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Solar tariff?

WTF is wrong with him?


Nothing wrong with him. It's a perfectly rational move if you want to double the price of solar energy and make coal and gas a more economical choice in comparison. "Manufacturing jobs" is just a cover. The real beneficiaries are industries that donate heavily to Republicans.
 
2017-09-23 11:40:09 AM  
I could almost go for it but 1 of the 2 US based companies it would help isn't even American owned,  its German.
 
2017-09-23 06:45:33 PM  

Rueened: Solar panels are using up the Sun's energy. Only President Trump has the vision to protect the Solar System from this menace!


If said in earnest, this would be among the smartest things you've ever said here.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report