query: Buy on dip when earnings fail?

positive: What is cheap? A stock may fall from $20 per share to $10 per share, but it may have gone from making a $100M profit last year to a $100M loss this year. So now at $10 per share it may still be considered expensive. You need to be very careful when to consider that a stock is cheap or not, you'll have to look at more than just the share price.

negative: "> A corporation should be taxed based on where it does business and not where the corporate headquarters are located.  But... but.. that's the whole point of the inversions. The US government tries to claim taxes on income from revenue generated overseas. So right now if BK repatariates it's overseas earnings, the US government will double dip beyond it's fair share and tax already taxed revenue just because it was taxed by non-US governments. All BK is doing is moving their headquarters to to a more business friendly economy that doesn't do similar double dipping. That way when they repatriate overseas money they are not being forced to pay taxes unjustly like they would be in the US. They will still pay taxes in the US for earnings in the US, they just won't pay US taxes on earnings foreign earnings.   I don't think you Americans get just how fucked up and hostile your tax structure is. It has nothing to do with ""fair share""."

negative: You're missing the point. The US is double dipping as the jurisdiction where the money was earn and taxed too the first dip. It is direct interference in another country's economy and an attack on their sovereignty. Frankly, it smack of typical American conservatism: taking the view that the rest of the world is just an American colony. It's fundamentally undemocratic.

negative: "You are not interpreting the table correctly. The $20K ""base rate"" that you think should have been eliminated is in fact the total tax for the whole bracket. You only dipped partially into the bracket, and the $3K reduction accounts for that. Look at the table again: What it means is that if you earn $100K, you will pay $6897.50 + 25% of (100000-50400) = $12400. If you earn $140000, you'll pay $26835 + (140000-130150) * 0.28 = $2758. So why the difference between $26835 and $6897.50? That's exactly 25% of $79500, which is the difference between $130150 and $50400 - the whole value of the bracket."

negative: For most people, a million dollars is about right. Here's the back of the napkin math that you should consider to find your own estimate: If you take 1 and divide it by 2, that's roughly the size of the nest egg you'll need to live indefinitely. For example, if your retirement investments are earning 5% a year, and you want to live on $50,000 a year, you would need a $1,000,000 nest egg (50,000 / 0.05) Note that you don't have to make any assumptions about how long you'll live. The whole idea of a nest egg is that you live off the interest it earns each year without ever dipping into the principle. It's the gift that keeps on giving! When you die, you can pass it along to children, charities, etc.

negative: Your question boils down to saving for a house or saving for retirement. Why not do both? If you invest in a Roth 401k or Roth IRA you can withdraw any contributions that are at least 5 years old without penalty (assuming you're willing to put off purchasing a little longer than your original 2-3 years). If you qualify as a first time home buyer (i.e. you haven't owned a home in at least 2 years) you can withdraw investment earnings as well if your distribution is earmarked towards the down payment and is no more than $10000. Although you won't be penalized for using investment earnings for a down payment you will still have to pay taxes on them. So this may be more appealing to someone that has enough contributions to avoid dipping into the investment earnings. The only other downside is that contributions to a Roth investment are not tax deductible like Traditional IRA and 401k contributions are. Instead, they grow tax free and distributions are tax free when you reach retirement age.

negative: First thing to note is that contributions (i.e. the total of all the amounts that you directly contributed into Roth IRA at any point in time) to a Roth IRA can be withdrawn at any time, without needing any reason, without any tax or penalty. Early withdrawal (early because you are under 59.5) of earnings, on the other hand, will incur tax and penalty. (I didn't go into withdrawal of conversions as those are a little more complex.) When you withdraw, contributions come out first, so as long as you don't withdraw more than the amount of past contributions, you won't have any tax or penalty. And if it's not going to have tax, it doesn't really matter if you do it this year or next year. If you need to dip into the earnings, however, then maybe it would be better to do this year so it will be taxed at lower rates.

negative: I don't get why someone in his situation doesn't just hire a small team of financial planners, ask them to make the majority of their money as safe as possible, and then receive an allowance you can burn worry free every month. The amount of capital he's earned, his money could be working for him to generate all the disposable income one needs. I guess it still comes back to discipline and habits, if the allowance isn't giving him enough to buy a new fancy car every month he'll probably start to dip into his investments.  I think what is really going to kill Mayweather's fortunes, is his gambling habit. He sinks hundreds of thousands of dollars on bets routinely. Eventually that will catch up with him.

negative: > They deprive the US of valuable income which has been earned through infrastructure, defense, education, etc  It doesn't. The main reason it exists is that the US double dips on taxes. The whole point of these inversions is to deal with how the US treats foreign income. Company still pays US taxes on business done in the US: ie., using US infrastructure. That doesn't change. If the company is head quartered in the US then the US expects the company to also pay taxes on foreign income -- ie., income that can't be referenced back to US infrastructure/education/etc. The company has already paid taxes in the foreign country, but the US feels the need to double dip. This double dipping is very much a US thing. It just makes moral, fiscal, and logical sense for them to do the inversion. The US government should have no rights to overseas money. The reason the move to Canada is simply that Canada, like pretty much all capitalist countries, doesn't tax foreign revenue.   You Americans really really need to look at your tax system. Speaking as a Canadian business owner who deals with US clients, it's just insane. It's easier to deal with the Chinese tax system in my experience.

negative: Proportional is good, but we don't need redistribution. The market mechanism does that on its own when it's free. The bailouts of the banks and auto industry should have shown that the only thing stopping a major, but poorly run business from bankruptcy (and having its assets redistributed) is government intervention.  Maybe the change will light a fire under complacent companies and they'll start earning their profits again, or maybe they'll fail. There's no way to know ahead of time, but with no legal barriers to entry, the playing field will be fair again.

negative: It used to be so easy when they would just cut taxes and pay for it with foreign money. In fact, they can probably still do that but the politics of exploding the deficit again are...troublesome.  In particular now, doing relatively good times, the deficit should continue to narrow and maybe even dip into surplus for a while.

negative: "Its amazing how little users in the business subreddit know or even have a basic understanding of bitcoin/cryptocurrencies when people are literally investing [more than a billion dollars](http://blocktribune.com/september-promises-busy-ico-market/) and as the op article states is worth over a hundred billion dollars in just 9 months.  Some of you are calling it a ""bubble"" and while that may be true for the entire market (leaving some of these startups dead in the water), bitcoin is merely gaining traction as it has done since it was worth pennies. It rises, dips, rises higher, dips, rises to even higher heights. There is revolutionary technology in cryptocurrencies that people in the forefront of business should be paying attention to. Some of the cryptocurrencies are going to succeed, it's just a matter of which ones. Bitcoin is not a bad bet."

negative: "So many complicated answers for a straight forward question. First to this point ""I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund..."" An IRA can be invested in a mutual fund.  The IRA benefit over standard mutual fund is pre-tax contribution lowering your current tax liability. The advantage of an IRA over a 401k is control.  Your employer controls where the 401k is invested, you control where your IRA is invested.  Often employers have a very small number of options, because this keeps their costs with the brokerage low. 401k is AMAZING if you have employer matched contributions.  Use them to the maximum your employer will match.  After that OWN your IRA.  Control is key when it comes to your money. On IRA's. Buy ROTH first.  Contribute the calendar maximum.  Then get a traditional.  The benefit of ROTH is that you already paid taxes on the contribution so your withdrawal is not taxed AND they do not tax the interest earned like they do on a standard mutual fund."

negative: Yes, even during the great depression from 1933-1937 in the USA there was growth, but it just wasn't enough that it mattered.  When historians and economists look back in many years this time we live in will either be called something like the great slowdown, or if we double dip significantly at some point it will be revised into one entire lengthy recession.

negative: There are several issues with paying for furniture and appliances with 0% credit instead of paying with cash. When you pay with 0% credit, you might be tempted to spend more on something than you would have if you paid with cash, because it feels like free money, and you've justified in your mind that the extra you earn will help pay for the more expensive item. Businesses don't offer 0% credit for free, and they don't lose money on the deal.  When you shop at a store that offers 0% credit, you are generally overpaying for the item.  By shopping at a store that does not offer 0% credit, you might be able to get a better price. Your savings account is likely earning very little interest.  You might invest the money you intend for your purchases in a place that gets better returns, but in most of these places the returns are not guaranteed, and you might not do as well as you think. 0% loans typically come with lots of conditions that have very heavy penalties and interest rate hikes for late payments.  You can mitigate this risk by setting up automatic payments, but things can still go wrong.  Your bank might change your account number, making the automated payment fail.  As you mentioned, you might also forget to put the proper amount of money in the account.  A single mistake can negate all of the tiny gains you are trying to achieve. Ultimately, the decision is yours, of course, but in my opinion, there is very, very little to gain with buying something on 0% credit when you could be paying cash.

negative: This becomes a problem of infinite regression.  A person is *lucky* if they have non-abusive parents. A person is *lucky* if they don't get into a car accident at 17. A person is *lucky* if they are born in the United States versus the third world.  A person is *lucky* to be born in the 21st century versus the 8th century. A person is *lucky* to exist at all.  Luck is undoubtedly an important factor in success. It has to be. But how are we interpreting luck? Is luck just another word for things beyond our individual control? Just for complete randomness? I don't think anyone would argue that luck isn't important.  However, we can't have that mean that people who succeed don't deserve their success. One person might start a cupcake bakery and be extremely successful. Another person might work just as hard at their bakery and fail. The former person could have had a better location, better name, better advertising - hell they could just be a better baker period.  The point is that as long as that success is earned through individuals rewarding your value - there should be no problem with *luck* being a factor. The only time luck should be an issue is when a person is *lucky* to know the right political connections so they earn their income through political opportunism rather than market forces. The randomness of luck is actually what makes it fair - nobody truly controls it. It emerges based on the actual wants and actions of other individuals either buying your products, patronizing your store, or paying your wages.

negative: Citizens of Reddit, why must we care about workers making $9/hr when you own [electronics made by workers in Foxconn earning $1.87/hr](http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/01/us-foxconn-idUSTRE6902GD20101001)   Maybe some of you fail to see the point, would you pay more money for your computer, if it meant workers had a wage increase? Would you pay more money for your goods in walmart?  This may seem harsh and some of you may be in denial, but the fact is the american people have spoken with our wallets not our hearts. This post is in /r/business where we know profit margin is the key to successful company

negative: This study fails to note that a higher minimum wage is a significant factor in the stronger seattle economy, which they conveniently cite as the dominant factor in higher earnings. You can separate the two and identify which is the primary effect, but not with their methodology.

negative: It really confuses me how businesses and politicians fail to see how much of a problem this is, even beyond issues is social inequality. An economy in which the middle class is earning less is an economy with less growth potential.   When a company is squeezing employee wages, on par with other businesses, the end result is a smaller pie for them to carve out. The look at their immediate bottom line in which the weight if wages has gone down, but fail to see that they have weakened the market (for broad-based, community serving markets, at least), and so are shrinking demand.   Even if you assume that only 80% of those $93 Billion are for low and middle class wages, that is still $74 billion less demand.   For decades we've heard that the middle class is what fuels the economy, yet the fact that the wages if the middle class are waning are seen as trivial and nothing to worry about...

negative: That's fine, I realized 50% in the first couple months of the year, sold.. bought back in when it dipped, and that's gained another 50%. I believe in the overall product, clean energy isn't going away, and Tesla is paving the way in many industries. It will compete with the likes of Amazon in the next 10 years, Elon is showing results in every market he enters.

negative: "The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid).  If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of ""bearer"" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded.  On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money.  You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight.  I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...)  I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were ""too big to fail"" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. ""Heads we win, tails you lose"", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant."

negative: I think the issue here is you're starting with a criteria that doesn't actually exist in reality.  A very small amount of research will uncover a plethora of options for savings accounts that pay far more interest than your basic checking account and don't require you to spend on the balance to earn the interest.   The point of saving is to have a pot of money that you can dip in to when you need it, or when you're ready to spend it for it's intended purpose.  That pot of money is not supposed to experience a lot of transactions.  It shouldn't be commingled with funds that come and go on a daily basis.  It doesn't make sense to have checks or a debit card attached to your savings account, because you shouldn't need access to that money that way; not to mention that those two things open the door to fraud on the money that's supposed to be there for you when you need it. Could you put your savings funds in to a checking account, sure.  If we lived in a world where savings accounts that don't force you to jump through hoops to avoid fees didn't pay 10x more interest than interest bearing checking accounts that have similar ease of administration, more people may choose to house savings funds in checking accounts; but that's not the world we live in.   Thanks to the back and forth in the comments below I'm now more certain of my position that if you want a high yielding checking account you'll have pay fees or initiate a certain number of debit card transactions, or both.  No one wants fees, and you shouldn't be spending on your savings in order to earn interest on the balance. It is very easy to juice your savings account to the best rates available.

negative: So real estate isn't a good investment?  Yeah, it's went down at times.  Still worth more now then say 15, 25 and 50 years ago right?   Is nothing a good investment because it has bad years?    Im not saying bitcoin is the best shit ever and it's perfect and everyone should buy it.  But we've heard time and time again that it was in its death throws. Yet after every dip, it recovers and reaches new highs.

negative: First, talk to your husband about this. You really need to persuade him that you need to be saving, and get him to agree on how and how much. Second, if you husband is not good at saving, work on getting something set aside automatically - ideally deducted from a paycheck or transferred to a savings account automatically. If he is the kind of person who might dip into that account, try to make it a place he can't withdraw from Third, get some advice, possibly training, on budgeting. Buy a book, take a video course: even start by watching some TV shows on getting out of debt.

negative: I liked having HTC as an option but the last smartphone I bought from them failed after 5 months of use (screen completely failed to turn on unlike the rest of the phone) and they wouldn't even honor the warranty because I didn't buy it directly form a carrier. Shitty phones and shitty service is no surprise.

negative: "I don't know, 'death nail' sounds kind of cool.  Imagine it in a mobster movie - ""You have failed us for the last time, Luigi, and earned... *the death nail*.""  (Then the mobster hammers a black nail into Luigi's skull and leaves the corpse in front of the apartment building as a message to the others.)"

negative: They forgot some important steps.  1) Send white guys who speak fluent Mandarin. Have them pretend they only speak english. The Chinese will chatter away in Mandarin right in front of you, talking about how they are going to cut corners and screw you over. Have your guys report back and make the appropriate corrections.  2)Pay a white guy to sit at the factory while your run is being done.  He should spend most of his time at QC. When they build an electronics test rig and 1 out of 10 tests passes, that is not a pass. According to China, fail, fail, fail, fail, fail, fail, fail, pass means it is good.   3)Hire a trade agent! There are people who do this for a living with smaller runs when you can't afford to send a babysitter. China is a tangled web of tiny scams and they are working for you, not the factory. Local contacts go a long way.  4) Overbuy. You need 45,000 products? Order 60,000 or more. The defect rate is higher than you think it is. Plus you are paying for the sea can one way or another. It's easier if it's full.

negative: "As a former professor, I have few questions:  1. When it comes to the things you listed, how to **filter** things, how to **build a structure and methodology** to handle tasks, how to **research and elaborate** on the knowledge needed, **motivation**, **social and personal traits**, and seeking **feedback** (including self-critic), what percentage of this is taught or can be taught in school, and what percentage of this is part of the personality you already have and cannot be taught? Can ""motivation"", for example, be taught in school?  2. When it comes to practical and current knowledge needed in the workplace, is it coming more from what was taught in college, or is it more from self study and experience gained in the first few weeks at a real work environment?   3. Do colleges and universities fail students when needed? When I was teaching, and from professors I currently know, the guidelines are very strict as for the possibility of failing a student. Few of my students should never ever be accepted to college, definitely should have failed my classes as clearly they do not have the capability to handle the real requirements, bad and immature personalities, zero chance to improve, etc. I was prevented from failing few of them.  Lastly, I do think kids should go to college, but traditionally, colleges and universities were mostly(!) to demand high standards, tough acceptance, and fail those who can't handle the requirements. Thus, those fewer who got degrees deserved those degrees and almost always benefited from those degrees as for getting work, good compensation for their work and succeeding in their work."

negative: Isn't that why it basically failed in it's beginning?  Most people didn't buy into it.  IMO most products the fail to live up the hype die a horrible death and are never seen again.  Just so happens that the Segway actually has an applicable use, even if the original marketing push was in the wrong direction.

negative: No credit card company would ever give a card with either no credit limit or that was not in credit (for prepaid cards) because they would earn no money from it. The company's income is entirely derived from fees that they charge you for balances and interest on those balances so a 0 limit card would be worthless to them. Getting a prepaid card and letting the balance hit 0 might be a way around this but the fees that you will be charged , and will become a debt in your name, when the billing system tries to take the first paid month's cost from the card and fails will be exorbitant. They may go so far as dwarfing the actual cost but the one thing that they will certainly do is lower your credit rating so this is not a good idea.

negative: blockchain.info has all the most recent stats.  264,360 bitcoins traded in the last 24 hours.  About [16.5 Million](http://moderninvestor.io/how-many-bitcoins-have-been-mined/) exist right now.    Here is how they make more bitcoins   >12.5 [bitcoins per block](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin) (approximately every ten minutes) until mid 2020,[7] and then afterwards 6.25 bitcoins per block for 4 years until next halving. This halving continues until 2110–40, when 21 million bitcoins will have been issued.  None of that is really making the price going up.  There is not a shortage of bitcoins.  There are just more people wanting to buy bitcoin right now then there are people who want to sale.  So on the exchanges people keep offering to buy at a higher and higher price.  Competing with each other causing the price to go up.    It'll probably hit a peak and drop back down to 4k or so.  That seems to be the trend with bitcoin.  Climb real high, dip down to about halfway up that climb, level off, time goes by, peak again.  Repeat.

negative: Like a lot of places I think it matters how you make it. Usually one protein and a little bit of everything ends up tasting good. It also pairs well with Tabasco, and it's delicious eaten as a dip with their chips.

negative: "These types of diagrams appear all throughout Kiyosaki's Rich Dad, Poor Dad book.  The arrows in the diagrams represent cash flow. For example, the first two diagrams of this type in the book are:  The idea being presented here is that an asset generates income, and a liability generates expenses.  According to the book, rich people spend their money buying assets, while middle class people buy liabilities. The diagram you posted above does not appear in the edition of the book I have (Warner Books Edition, printed in 2000).  However, the following similar diagram appears in the chapter titled ""The History of Taxes and the Power of Corporations"":  The idea behind this diagram is to demonstrate what the author considers the tax advantages of a personal corporation: using a corporation to pay for certain expenses with pre-tax dollars.  Here is a quote from this chapter: Employees earn and get taxed and they try to live on what is left.  A corporation earns, spends everything it can, and is taxed on anything that is left.  It's one of the biggest legal tax loopholes that the rich use.  They're easy to set up and are not expensive if you own investments that are producing good cash flow.  For example; by owning your own corporation - vacations are board meetings in Hawaii.  Car payments, insurance, repairs are company expenses.  Health club membership is a company expense.  Most restaurant meals are partial expenses.  And on and on - but do it legally with pre-tax dollars. This piece of advice, like so much of the book, may contain a small amount of truth, but is oversimplified and potentially dangerous if taken a face value.  There are many examples, as JoeTaxpayer mentioned, of people who tried to deduct too many expenses and failed to make a business case for them that would satisfy the IRS."


query: Are solar cell panels and wind mills worth the money?

positive: These are two rather distinct questions; only one of which is relevant to a Money web site. In general, the investment is questionable.  Leaving aside the green feel-good factor, you need to look at a total cost of ownership (TCO) and payback on the asset.  Neither is cheap as such.  There are DIY windmill plans, but you likely still need a commercial battery charger/inverter/controller setup. Government incentives, depending on where you live, may change the story considerably.  Many jurisdictions around the globe have both incentives to install and then power-feed-in tariffs if you sell back excess power. Your latitude also has an impact on your total available solar energy, along with regular weather patterns for both cloud cover and wind. One of the cheapest solar projects can be hot-water.  Particularly if you have a pool, or even for domestic use, if you use a lot. All that said, given the green feel-good factor, if you want a small set of solar panels and have the space/budget, go ahead!  You can add more later. For the second question: it is indeed possible to live off grid.  Some remote houses do just this, and the methods to accomplish it vary.  The number one thing you need to do is work on a power budget; and be both ruthless as well as realistic.  Fridge, freezer, AC, furnace, plasma TV, etc.  Depending on your climate and preferences, these may not all be possible for an off-grid lifestyle.  (Of course, if you get a propane fridge and have a truck come by once a month, does that count as off-grid?)

positive: "To answer the investment aspect takes a bit of math. First, solar insolation numbers:  This represents the average sun-hours per day for a given area. You can see the range from 4 to 6, or 1460 hrs to about 2190 hrs of sun per year depending on location. I believe electricity also has a range of cost, but 15 cents per KWH is a good average.  So, a 1KW panel will produce as much as $328 per year of electricity in a high sun-hrs area, but only $219 in a lower sun-hrs area.  If we agree to ignore the government subsidies and look for the stable price unaffected by outside influence, an installed price of even $2500 would produce a return of 13% and a reasonable full payback over an 8 year period.  I call this installed price a tipping point, the price where this purchase provides a decent return. Some would accept a lower return, and therefore a higher price. As duff points out, this should be treated as the post rebate/tax credit price. Those help to push the price below this point. At the price point where the energy cost per panel is below, the government intervention may be unnecessary. The power companies may find consumer owned panels are the cheapest way to clip the peak consumption which tends to be the most expensive power demand.) One can take the insolation numbers and cost of local power to produce a grid showing the return for a 1KW panel in $$/year. (At this point the cost of money kick in. The present value of $100/yr is far higher today than if short term rates were say, 8%)  Once panels drop to where they are compelling for the higher return areas, I'd expect volume to drive continued improvements in cost and better economies of scale. Initially, the need for storage isn't there, as the infrastructure is in place to drive your meter backwards if you produce more than you use. The peek sun coincides with peek demand and the electric companies are happy to have your demand go negative during those times.  Update - the conversation with Duff led me to research 'demand charge' a bit more. You see, the utility company has to have equipment to generate the peak demand, usually occurring in the early afternoon, say 12N-2PM as the sun is brightest and AC use in particular, highest. I found that Austin energy has a PDF describing the fee for this. Simply put, the last kW of demand will cost you $14.03 in summer months and $12.65 in winter. This adds to $160/yr that a 1kW panel might save the owner. Even if one does capture the full power at peak every month, $100 is still non-trivial. This factor alone justifies $1000 worth of panel cost, and as Duff points out, the government may find it cheaper to use this method to clip peak demand than by funding bigger power generators.  To summarize, the question isn't so much ""are they worth it"" as ""what is a xKW panel worth?"" (A function of annual savings and time value of money.) The ever decreasing installed cost for a given system makes solar an inevitable part of the future power technology. I am not a green tree hugging guy, but I do like to breathe fresh air as much as anyone. I'm happy with whatever role solar plays in cutting down pollution."

positive: "I have personally known a family in the hills of Southern Oregon, US who lived off the electricity grid. As far as being ""possible"" yes, but easy is a certain no.  This family was very dedicated to the point of living without grid electricity.  A special built home of native field stones, careful alignment with the sun, location within the valley.  I would assume that making a normal home be off the electric grid is much more difficult.  Not impossible, but pretty darn hard."

positive: "Although this isn't related to homes directly, as an IT professional I know that wind power tends to be cost effective to the point that many data centers (the massive buildings holding the servers that are the backbone of the internet) actually invest in their own wind turbines to slash costs since servers tend to be power hogs. As far as going ""off the grid"" that ultimately depends on how much wind/sun you're getting at your residence, but if you look at places like Dallas, PA, CA, and other areas where  the major hosts place centers, they're typically in areas where there's plenty of sunlight or wind. Going back to small scale thinking however, one of my contacts actually leases a colocation building in PA where he has a few server racks, and while he currently has electric there, he also owns a couple of turbines which have been powering <60% of the demand, and he's actually planning to add solar and also feed that back to the grid at a profit. So overall wind/solar definitely has the potential for a decent ROI, at both large and small levels, but performance will vary greatly from area to area.  I know that Lowes actually started advertising about carrying solar panels, so going in and asking about the performance and if you can arrange an audit of your home might be a good place to start. If you Google ""green audits"" I'm sure you can find a trillion companies ""specializing"" in green power, but as with any sales rep (including at Lowe's) I'd do some due-diligence so you don't get taken for a ride, and also to check references because I don't think ""green audit"" companies have any official certifications/standards."

positive: Solar water heaters are definitely worth the money (if you live in sunny states like South-South-West or Hawaii, at least). In some countries (like Greece, Cyprus and Israel, to name a few) most people use hot water from the solar heaters almost exclusively. I pay $30-$40 a month to PG&E for the privilege. Unfortunately, in the US these heaters are much more expensive than they are in the more advanced European countries, so all the savings go to drain because of the vast price difference ($300 for a gas heater vs $2000 for a solar heater).

positive: Solar water heaters are definitely questionable in the Northeast -- the season when you most need them is also the season when they are least effective. Solar electric isn't a huge moneymaker, but with rebates on installation and carbon-reduction credits (SRECs) -- and a group purchase discount if you can get one, either at a town level or through organizations like One Block Off The Grid -- it can definitely turn a profit. Early estimate was that my setup would pay its initial costs back in 4 years, and the panels are generally considered to be good for a decade before the cells have degraded enough that the panels should be replaced. I haven't had a negative electric bill yet, but I've gotten close, and my setup is a relatively small one (eight panels facing SSE on a 45-degree roof). Admittedly I've also been working to reduce electricity use; I don't think I have an incandescent bulb left in the house.

negative: "Depending on the details of your solar panel setup, the monthly savings may change depending on changes in the law or utility company policy.  This could change how long it will take for the solar panels to ""pay for themselves"".  So your bullet point about the ""payback period""/""break even point"" is not fixed at the moment you buy the solar panels; it depends on costs you will incur over many years, and those costs could turn out to be different from what you originally thought. At least in the US, home solar installations typically work by selling excess power back to the power company.  The power company can change the amount that it pays you for that power.  There is also typically a minimum charge for being connected to the grid, and the power company can raise that charge.  (This article mentions one such possible change.)  The power companies want to keep making money, and as more people start adding solar panels, the power companies may change their rate structure to make that less financially feasible. You can avoid many of these issues if your solar panels are not connected to the public electricity grid, and you, for instance, store power with your own battery.  However (at least in the US) this is very uncommon because it is more complex and expensive."

negative: **Solyndra**  Solyndra was a manufacturer of cylindrical panels of copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) thin film solar cells based in Fremont, California. Although the company was once touted for its unusual technology, plummeting silicon prices led to the company's being unable to compete with conventional solar panels made of crystalline silicon. The company filed for bankruptcy on September 1, 2011.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27

negative: How could the tiny amount of cobalt used in the development of a potential new type of solar cell, that isn't commercially available, be responsible for deaths attributed to existing solar installations?  Why do you think solar panels need lithium batteries to hold the charge?

negative: Okay, so you give the subsidy to the person buying the solar panel, who would then give that subsidy to the company selling the solar panel.  Isn't that effectively exactly the same as giving the subsidy directly to the company selling the solar panel?  Both would result in exactly the same cost for the consumer, and same profit for the company.

negative: "If you sell the property before the ten years are up, the panels might have declined in value more than the amount you owe declined.  In the original post's situation, this is a negligible risk. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that each year's panels are 10% better than the previous year's panels.  Even if the panels lasted forever, and even if the price you could sell the power for stayed the same, then the value of your panels should decline 9% per year.  If the panels are financed at a 4.5% APR for 10 years, your principal should decline by 8.1% in the first year. A second risk is that the solar panels might be ugly, or might go out of fashion.  When selling a home, ""curb appeal"" matters.  If potential buyers do not like how your home looks with the solar panels, you might not be able to get as much money for the house if you have to sell it. A third risk is that the loan might harm your credit rating, or otherwise restrict your ability to borrow.  Even though this deal does not impinge on your disposable income, a bank might think that it raises your debt-service-to-income (DTI) ratio.  This could theoretically prevent you from refinancing your home, or raise the interest rates on potential loans you might want to take out. A fourth risk is that the installation process might damage your home in a way that causes expensive damage.  Water leakage and electrical fires can potentially destroy homes.  You need to have the solar system competently installed. A fifth risk is that the solar power system might make it harder to maintain or replace your roof.  Will your roof need to be replaced during the life of the solar power system?  If so, consider options that do not force you to throw away the solar power system prematurely."

negative: >You can't throw 90% of energy subsidies to one part of the industry which produces a fraction of the rest of the industry without negatively affecting consumers (everyone).  This assumes the money/subsidies given to domestic solar/wind energy companies would be allocated to multi-national energy companies.  They're not equivalent, one is a cutting edge domestic industry; the other is a mature global industry.  We've jumped in leaps and bounds in terms of solar cell efficiency vs. cost in the last ten years as a result of R&D, likely funded by these subsidies.  OAG is necessary and shouldn't go away anytime soon.. but nuclear and renewables are the future, they're growth, they're national security -- we shouldn't be wasting money on pumping that shit out of the ground faster.  If anything, you should be bitching about nuclear regulations since the US should be building next generation nuclear, instead of wasting metric shit tons of cash running bullshit baby boomer built nuclear plants.

negative: I'm not sure those are as directly correlated as you make it appear.  Wouldn't capacity refer to the ability of solar panels to store energy, while production refer to how much is actually generated? If true, then generation could have extreme variance based on where it is installed (i.e. how much access the panels have to sunlight). A person installing a solar panel in Minnesota will have drastically different power generation than a person installing that same panel in the middle of an Arizona desert, but wouldn't their capacity for storage be equal?

negative: It's good that you can still use the area solar panels are placed because the space requirements will be extremely large compared to nuclear.  Recycling solar panels makes a lot of sense though.  Not saying they are a bad idea. Energy storage is a tough problem to crack though.

negative: If you are looking for commercial solar financing company for your Solar Panels then you are at the right place. We provide secure, up-to-date and reputable financial advice, guidance, and support to our clients. For more you can call us or visit our website.

negative: which is why I said EVs aren't as clean as they're made out to be. however, you can use land that has solar panels on it and it doesn't become radioactive, thus you don't have to build big cooling storage facilities to store them, where they have no use.   edit: to my knowledge you can recycle solar panels. can't recycle used fuel rods.

negative: Same here. I think wind and solar can play their part, but to be viable in a large scale you need enormous amounts of storage to cover times with no sun and wind. Solar and wind itself is cheap. But the amount of storage required is expensive.  Nuclear is very high tech and elitist as few people understand it well. It is extremely regulated and new developments are difficult to due to this and the huge costs incurred. People are afraid of it, so politics are against it as this is politically feasible there. China looks at technological facts, not peoples emotions when deciding what to invest in.  I can very well imagine that modern nuclear tech will come from China in a decade, because it is one of the few countries still developing it.

negative: "[Link 1] (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-12/two-chinese-provinces-falsified-economic-data-inspectors-say)  [Link 2] (https://www.ft.com/content/a5bf42e2-03cf-11e7-ace0-1ce02ef0def9)  [Link 3] (https://www.ft.com/content/0361c1a4-bcfe-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080)  China has been cooking their books, just like the U.S. has been doing it the past few years.  Just google ""U.S. Central banks buying stocks and bonds"", then connect the numbers.   **Insider Information:** At my previous company we sold solar manufacturing equipment.  I went to said Chinese city that bought our equipment.  They were producing ton loads of solar panels, I asked one of the manager's where all of the panels were being sold (domestic, or international?).  To my surprise, he said they warehoused the panels they produced; because, there weren't enough customers.   And, why were they warehousing the panels?  Because, the Chinese government needed to show numbers that jobs were plenty, and manufacturing was still strong."

negative: Ok, the point you're missing is that installed base is irrelevant.  Yes, there's much more total installed natgas than solar/wind, but that's not important for calculating the impact on coal retirements.  To displace coal, you need to install something new.  That new generation means coal needs to be less profitable or get turned off.  So the real question is how much solar/wind have been installed in the last 5 years compared to natgas.  These new installations replace coal that used to be burning.  Again, early in the thread you stated that solar/wind had very little effect.  That's not true, they have a very significant effect.  Natgas deserves significant credit, but certainly not all of it.

negative: "I think that all else being equal, if more people have solar panels on our roof, we keep our military in FEWER countries, instead of planning on RAMPING up the number (see: Nigeria). Furthermore, the initial question wasn't whether installing solar panels is going to stop the action. **The conversation started by being about whether solar is actually cheaper when you factor in the amount used to subsidize both sources of energy. Not whether switching to solar would stop subsidies to oil.** What you did is called ""moving the goalposts"".  The word 2016 doesn't show up in the article or in the study it cites. That was a typo. I understand it was about 2013, I was trying to saying that it was about the same year as yours. That was my bad. I read the whole thing originally, and I even read the study. I accept responsibility for the typo though.  ANYWAYS, neither set of data is manipulated, my study just includes more things, like foreign tax credits, cleanup subsidies for both coal and oil, tar sands exemption from cleanup funds, Power Africa (a five year, 7 billion dollar program that was only ANNOUNCED in 2013). That overseas stuff that goes on is a HUGE part of the equation.   And okay, so they aren't equivalent. Then your point is moot. Yes, both sides have off the book subsidies, but one side's off the book subsidies are so unfathomably bigger that it's laughable to even put them in the same category. Not to mention the costs of war in the middle east stretch beyond money (think lives), and recycling programs actually come with benefits (think smaller landfills)."

negative: "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-15/solar-power-will-kill-coal-sooner-than-you-think) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Natural gas will reap $804 billion, bringing 16 percent more generation capacity and making the fuel central to balancing a grid that&#039;s increasingly dependent on power flowing from intermittent sources, like wind and solar.  > Onshore wind, which has dropped 30 percent in price in the past eight years, will fall another 47 percent by the end of BNEF&#039;s forecast horizon.  > By 2040, wind and solar will make up almost half of the world&#039;s installed generation capacity, up from just 12 percent now, and account for 34 percent of all the power generated, compared with 5 percent at the moment, BNEF concluded.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6hwl1b/solar_power_will_kill_coal_faster_than_you_think/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~146897 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **percent**^#1 **Energy**^#2 **capacity**^#3 **fuel**^#4 **BNEF**^#5"

negative: A lot of people who own Teslas also own solar panels and can charge their car from solar power. For now, our power grid still relies on archaic technologies for energy creation, but Tesla and other auto makers are pushing towards more renewable energy sources being added to our homes and the grid.

negative: "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-15/rooftop-solar-boom-set-to-spread-worldwide-as-costs-plunge) reduced by 68%. (I'm a bot) ***** > G&#039;day indeed! By 2040, rooftop solar panels will supply about one-quarter of Australia&#039;s electricity as declining costs and ample sunlight make photovoltaics the continent&#039;s cheapest source of energy.  > Thanks to large utility-scale solar farms and commercial solar gardens, power derived from the sun is rapidly expanding as cost reductions continue to spur demand.  > Because solar energy is produced only during daylight hours, homes with rooftop panels will increasingly come equipped with batteries to store excess supplies.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6hinrz/rooftop_solar_boom_set_to_spread_worldwide_as/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~145431 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **solar**^#1 **energy**^#2 **percent**^#3 **system**^#4 **rooftop**^#5"

negative: "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.uslifeinsurance.ml/2017/07/chinese-solar-industry-making-25.html) reduced by 74%. (I'm a bot) ***** > China&#039;s solar industry is expected to produce 25 percent more panels in 2017 than last year, supported by domestic sales and demand from the United States and emerging markets, the head of a Chinese industry association said.  > China was expected to produce solar panels with a combined capacity of 60 gigawatts this year, said Wang Bohua, secretary general of China&#039;s photovoltaic industry association.  > Environment group Greenpeace said solar curtailment rates across China rose 50 percent in 2015 and 2016, with more than 30 percent of available power in northwestern province Gansu and Xinjiang failing to reach the grid.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6orer4/chinese_solar_industry_making_25_percent_more/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~172582 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **China**^#1 **industry**^#2 **solar**^#3 **produce**^#4 **Wang**^#5"

negative: Correct.  What exactly is Uber spending its money on? Their platform service has no inherent capital costs. They're not renting a fleet.  Amazon is creating distribution centers and cutting prices in order to undercut existing distributors. Tesla is creating gigafactories and supercharging stations, as well as reinvesting in innovation for solar panel tiles and electric 18 wheelers.   Uber beat taxis a long time ago. Their prices were good since at least 2014. What are they spending money on? Software dev?

negative: When is the right time to buy a new/emerging technology? When it's trading at a discount that allows you to make your money back and then some. The way you presented it, it is of course impossible to say. You have to look at exactly how much cheaper and efficient it will be, and how long that will take. Time too has a cost, and being invested has opportunity cost, so the returns must not only arrive in expected quantity but also arrive on time. Since you tagged this investing, you should look at the financial forecasts of the business, likely future price trajectories, growth opportunity and so on, and buy if you expect a return commensurate with the risk, and if the risk is tolerable to you. If you are new to investment, I would say avoid Musk, there's too much hype and speculation and their valuations are off the charts. You can't make any sensible analysis with so much emotion running wild. Find a more obscure, boring company that has a sound business plan and a good product you think is worth a try. If you read about it on mainstream news every day you can be sure it's sucker bait. Also, my impression that these panels are actually really expensive and have a snowball's chance in Arizona (heh) in a free market. Recently the market has been manipulated through green energy subsidies of a government with a strong environmentalist voter base. This has recently changed, in case you haven't heard. So the future of solar panels is looking a bit uncertain. I am thinking about buying solar panels for my roof. That's not an investment question, it's a shopping question. Do you actually need a new roof? If no, I'd say don't bother. Last I checked the payoff is very small and it takes over a decade to break even, unless you live in a desert next to the Mexican border. Many places never break even. Electricity is cheap in the United States. If you need a new roof anyway, I suppose look at the difference. If it's about the same you might as well, although it's guaranteed to be more hassle for you with the panels. Waiting makes no sense if you need a new roof, because who knows how long that will take and you need a roof now. If a solar roof appeals to you and you would enjoy having one for the price available, go ahead and get one. Don't do it for the money because there's just too much uncertainty there, and it doesn't scale at all. If you do end up making money, good for you, but that's just a small, unexpected bonus on top of the utility of the product itself.

negative: On a personal income tax return home improvements are generally not deductible on a federal level.  There might be some exceptions made for special tax programs, such as solar panels, but they tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

negative: There's a difference between funding and paying. We will build it and then either sell them the energy created from the solar panels or levy against monies being sent to Mexico. However the money is recouped it is a penalty for their failure to police their border towns and stop the influx of drugs along with illegal immigrants. The cost of social benefits for illegal immigrants alone will recoup the cost in one year. I can get you sources for that math too or you can just google it.

negative: There are different types of the renewable energy available such as solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy, bioenergy, and others. Our experts provide the best solution and quality craftsmanship. Most of the renewable energy comes with directly and indirectly from sunlight. The sunlight is used for heating and then lighting the home, office and other buildings to generate the electricity. Tomorrow 2009 Brazil renewable energy company has qualified the energy professionals who have the scope of ability and information in services. They provide the services regarding the solar energy and maintainability services.

negative: "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/09/17/why-china-is-crushing-the-us-in-solar-energy.aspx) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > By any objective measure, China is crushing the U.S. in the business of solar energy.  > Canadian Solar, JinkoSolar, JA Solar, and Hanwha Q-Cells are among the largest solar module suppliers in the world and are publicly traded in the U.S. Trina Solar, LONGi, and GCL-Poly are also major manufacturers with operations in China, but they&#039;re private or not traded in the U.S. The public companies give an illustration of how they fund expansion.  > China has made the solar industry a priority and is giving government support to develop manufacturing and push for solar power plant installations.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/70u3x3/why_china_is_crushing_the_us_in_solar_energy/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~211963 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **solar**^#1 **China**^#2 **U.S.**^#3 **plant**^#4 **manufacturing**^#5"

negative: > I don't understand what all the fuss is about  a LOT of people are heavily vested in extracting American money, e.g. The Musker and taxpayer subsidies for his cars and solar.  Al Gore became super wealthy trading carbon and corporations that feed the frenzy like GE and their bird killing wind turbines

negative: "Not ""these"" batteries, they will still be using a mixture of solar, wind, gas and oil, nuclear and coal. Maybe a generation or two, but definitely not these batteries.  I honestly don't care how cheap these things get, until we have an infrastructure to support it,  we will be struggling."

negative: Whether you need integrated data services, telephony services, network cabling, IT infrastructure, new wiring systems, grid solar panelling or just general repair work. We provide a full range of electrical services at competitive rates, with excellent quality and our trademark professional customer service.

negative: A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[28] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.   Oh look the US has always subsidized energy in general to maintain a strong stable energy position and now they want to move from CO2 producing dirty tech to more green renewables. Personally I'm glad my tax money is being used for it.  While subsidizing it costs have fallen by leaps and bounds, long term it's a great move. Do you think Europe and china would be building solar and wind if it wasn't ?

negative: It is considered a powerful antioxidant that prevents damage to the DNA of cells, always exposed to free radicals and solar radiation. Another function of vitamin c benefits against skin aging is the ability to increase the synthesis of collagen, a very abundant protein in the skin that decreases over the years. It is also non-irritating bleach that at the same time reduces fine lines and wrinkles, minimizes redness and restores flexibility.

negative: Anyone have any recommendations for a long term investment? I’m thinking like holding for 30 years, Iv got a bunch invested already but they are all only from my view. Lots are in the renewable energy sector such as solar wind and hydro. But I’m looking for 1 or two more maybe to put an extra 5k down on and just sit for 30 years and hopefully it grows

negative: They have fought renewable clean energy since the 1970s. I'm 52.  I remember it. The very first thing Reagan did was take he solar panels off the White House that Jimmy Carter installed. We lost 20 years of development under Reagan and both Bushes.

negative: "nuclear plants + nuclear fuel rod storage facilities together take up a lot of space.   also to go back to one of your earlier points, I tried looking up the comparison in mining between nuclear and solar panels, but couldn't find anything. however I think they are similar, not one being more or less than the other. the processes are not too dissimilar, you have to get what you're mining for then wash it down and purify it with chemicals. But if you saw the amount of land that was displaced to get one piece of uranium that wouldn't even make up an entire fuel rod you might not think solar had the heavier mining load. besides, solar generates electricity while the fuel rods have a set amount of energy, so solar will end up paying for itself rather than having to mine for more of a radioactive element once your fuel rods are spent.   not sure I explained that last part too well but solar starts at 0 and goes to ""infinity"" in terms of how much electricity is generated while nuclear fuel rods start at 100 and go down to 0. so I think solar is the better bet  edit: I also agree that energy is really hard to solve. every source has their drawbacks unfortunately. except cold fusion lol"