You could have the government spend on actual alternative energy generation capability like solar panels but unless the US Government plans to get into the energy distribution sales business it's not an investment either as that spending won't generate interest, income, or appreciation in value.
So how do you 'invest heavily in alternative energy sources'? If it's putting Treasury money into something like the iShares Global Clean Energy Index Fund (ICLN) then it's an investment - you can calculate an internal rate of return, a mark-to-market value, estimated yield-to-maturity, and other metrics which demonstrate how it actually is an investment.
Compare this to spending on alternative energy sources. There you have a few options. You could fund basic research; if so then it's not an investment because you don't have a shippable product you can calculate revenue (and thus returns against) and thus it's a cost by definition. If you ever did develop a product you could calculate the effective rate of return on your R&D as an integral element of your net profits but otherwise it's still just a cost.
You could have the government spend on actual alternative energy generation capability like solar panels but unless the US Government plans to get into the energy distribution sales business it's not an investment either as that spending won't generate interest, income, or appreciation in value.
Where you may be confused is conflating the idea the government might (theoretically) save money in the long run by incurring current spending in alternative energy capital expenses (the actual purchase of the equipment) which can enable a cost avoidance by the government in future operating costs (the money saved on traditional energy supplies less the operating costs needed to maintain the panels). It's still not an investment by definition but you're at least getting closer.
This again goes back to my point about accuracy, you're attempting to leverage the halo effect and positive connotations of the word "investment" when you actually mean spending that enables policy goals you like. The definition of words don't change though just because you would prefer to use a word you think sounds better to people. It's perfectly fine to pitch benefits to people that are only realized after incurring a cost, don't lie to people and call stuff "investments" when they aren't though.
the action or process of investing money for profit or material result.
Yes, I am highly confident there will be a 'deal' of some sort that comes out of this. I am also highly confident that it will not result in North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons. I am also highly confident that it will be touted by conservatives as some amazing, landmark foreign policy accomplishment regardless of the contents of the agreement. I am finally highly confident that North Korea will abandon the agreement or cheat on it as soon as it becomes inconvenient because they have zero faith in US guarantees.
NK I'm sure learned 2 lessons from the United States. Libya gave up their nukes and Qaddafi wound up dead. Also Trump can't be trusted. He lies almost more then he tells the truth and we will break any agreement to satiate his ego.NK is never going to give up their nuclear weapons program. They believe, and maybe rightfully so, that their only chance at being able to negotiate with the rest of the world resides in being able to field nuclear weapons. It is after all the example the West, and the US in particular, has set. Be a nuclear power and be treated fairly, fail to be a nuclear power and anyone that is will feel free to ignore you as soon as it is convenient for them to do so.
I'm also certain that Trump will give up nearly anything to try to pull a 'win' out of this, although he might just take the easier route and lie to the American people to claim a win out of what is almost certainly going to be nothing.
NK I'm sure learned 2 lessons from the United States. Libya gave up their nukes and Qaddafi wound up dead. Also Trump can't be trusted. He lies almost more then he tells the truth and we will break any agreement to satiate his ego.
So, back to pre-WWII US influence. That's the goal right? LoL that you actually think Europe depends on the US at this point. I guess this is how they get the band back together.
Someone told me there would be winning?
Unlikely. The Saudi's and Russia have been cooperating to keep production levels down to prop up prices. Doubtful they change their strategy and alliance over this.Actually I doubt the oil prices would go higher. Most likely part of this arrangement is that Saudis will increase production
NK I'm sure learned 2 lessons from the United States. Libya gave up their nukes and Qaddafi wound up dead. Also Trump can't be trusted. He lies almost more then he tells the truth and we will break any agreement to satiate his ego.
Unlikely. The Saudi's and Russia have been cooperating to keep production levels down to prop up prices. Doubtful they change their strategy and alliance over this.
The Saudis have said they are prepared to mitigate the impact of Iran sanctions but haven't said how. They could choose to fill the gap left or they could choose to only partially fill it. They have a means for quick production increase to 500K-1M barrels a day. It's anticipated that the impact of sanctions will be about 1M a day."This" is a major blow to Iran. No way Saudis will not cooperate in terms of oil prices. I am sure they would be doing other things too behind the scenes. Some hit in terms of oil is the least they can do
And how the f*ck did that happen?NK I'm sure learned 2 lessons from the United States. Libya gave up their nukes and Qaddafi wound up dead.
Obama was so bad that the rest of the world saw him as a second coming of christ for America.. He is the guy that got me interrested in american politics; hey there may just be hope yet for this axis of alliances, hope for americans, hope for us all. Then you, brandon, you idiot, vote in a downs inflicted horemonger as president so as to confess your own genetic disorder to the world with pride. Not to worry though, we've seen the potential, it will bounce back... might even give you, brandon, singlepayer so you can get the treatment you need.So how bad was Obama then? LOL!
You can blame Trump all you want but if Obama used proper channel for stuff like iran deal and dreamer, Trump can't just sign a paper and get out of it. Obama deal was never a treaty.
You can blame Trump all you want but if Obama used proper channel for stuff like iran deal and dreamer, Trump can't just sign a paper and get out of it. Obama deal was never a treaty.
Except that presidents have withdrawn from treaties before without congressional support or interference. Carter withdrew from the Mutual defense treaty with Taiwan and Bush from the ABM treaty. Those are just two that come to mind. You going to tell us the GOP was going to block his move?You can blame Trump all you want but if Obama used proper channel for stuff like iran deal and dreamer, Trump can't just sign a paper and get out of it. Obama deal was never a treaty.
The Saudis have said they are prepared to mitigate the impact of Iran sanctions but haven't said how. They could choose to fill the gap left or they could choose to only partially fill it. They have a means for quick production increase to 500K-1M barrels a day. It's anticipated that the impact of sanctions will be about 1M a day.
But as I said OPEC and non-OPEC members have been strategizing to keep production down. They may see this as an opportunity to only partially fill the gap.
Actually I doubt the oil prices would go higher. Most likely part of this arrangement is that Saudis will increase production
You can blame Trump all you want but if Obama used proper channel for stuff like iran deal and dreamer, Trump can't just sign a paper and get out of it. Obama deal was never a treaty.
And this is just one industry. Apparently Boeing planned for trump's stupidity so it won't affect them as much but they still lose potential sales and that means less jobs and affecting jobs and materials with vendors who supply them. So bad for the economy but a bigly win for trump's ego.
Boeing, Airbus to lose $39 billion in contracts because of Trump sanctions on Iran
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...b648abe29ef_story.html?utm_term=.9deb57aeebf6
If you allow me to humor you, and hazard a guess as to the outcome of all of this:
Trump will trash this deal. Make one virtually identical to it, so his name can be on it, get all to agree and declare victory.
I don't foresee Iran making another similar deal, at least not with the US. Not only are they going to be reluctant to deal with us again after Trump unilaterally dismissed the last one for partisan political reasons, but in doing so he squandered all the leverage that we had that twisted their arms into accepting that deal. Iran has little reason to want to do a deal with the US anymore. If anything they will look to the EU for a deal, but more likely they will simple re-start their nuclear program and forge ties with China who knows that their oil demand is going to just continue to climb and will be happy to lock in favorable trade agreements with a major oil producer, all with little danger us the US being able to do anything about it.