Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (4703)	1/30/2009 6:39:44 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 86356

Not true. Better Place is building a global company out of it. If Better Place is building a global company from alternate energy subsidies it doesn't support your argument at all. 1 - Building a company is rarely a case of rapid payback. 2 - Building a company, doesn't mean that the company has to be profitable. 3 - Building a profitable company, doesn't mean the subsidies paid back at all, let alone rapidly. Hand me enough cash, and I can build a global company. Keep the subsidies going, and I might make a good profit. If the subsidies are large enough I could even have high costs, and low quality, and still make a profit. Sure they pay well for the person receiving the subsidies. Welfare checks are "profitable" to those who receive them as well. 4 - Building a global company that rapidly receives profits, that exceed the amount of the subsidy, doesn't mean that the subsidies where necessarily well applies. The money might have had a higher rate of return elsewhere. 5 - 3-5 years isn't rapid in the same sense as the IPhone payback. The subsidy for the Iphone is probably less than a years worth of payments on the cell plan. 6 - "some as short as 3-5 years", even if one is to accept all the criteria and definitions to get such a result (and these criteria and definitions are often very problematic), doesn't imply "all withing 3-5 years", or "most withing 3-5 years". 7 - One example (even if your example was a good one, which I doubt) doesn't cut it. I said "doesn't apply to most alternative energy subsidies" not " doesn't apply to any alternative energy subsidies.