Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuels
The modern world has been waiting for a time where renewable energy is more cost efficient when compared to natural gases and other non-renewable resources. It seems that this day is finally arrived or, at least, very close. The cost to produce wind and solar energy farms has plummeted over the past year. So much so that it actually is more cost efficient to use these alternative methods over conventional ones.
Utility executives say that the new era has only just begun. There is much progress, but there is also much more to be done, such as, spreading the markets across the globe and pushing the prices even lower. The past year has brought many advancements in the green energy world and now the fruits of the United State's labor are finally present.
As an observer, I am glad to see that this change of energy ways and resources has finally arrived. The world isn't a bottomless pit and some of our resources will run dry, like oil and other natural gases. Now that the day is here where, in some parts of the US, depending on the climate, the cost of wind and solar energy production is actually cheaper than natural gases, the US need to know how to take this technology elsewhere and make the whole world a more suitable place for the future. Location and climate still present issues, but I'm sure it's nothing the United States can't handle.
Friday, December 19, 2014
Kenya to Develop Africa's Largest Wind Project- Oil Price
Kenya to Develop Africa's Largest Wind Projects
Wind Energy company, Vestas, recently won a contract with the Kenyan government, allowing the construction of the biggest wind farm in Africa. The company is looking to build, specifically, 365 wind turbines. Furthermore, the company stated that the location of the farm is quite unique and at a relatively high altitude suitable for wind energy production.
The farm will give Africa a starting point for alternative energy and spark a new era for Africa. The continent has a lot to work on to begin with, but this can be a starting point for the future of energy. Vestas happens to be owned by the Danes, but, still, Africa will now be introduced to a new type of production. All in all, the new farm has a lot of uses. Not only will it produce energy, but it will also aid Africa in starting a revolution and a new era in energy production.
The farm will cost 800 million dollars, but is said to save 186 million dollars per year in energy costs. Therefore, in four years time, the farm will provide Kenya with a profit in energy costs. This farm provides quite a few benefits ranging from costs to an advent of renewable energy in a third world continent. This revolution is something that I believe needs to occur in all parts of the world. We will run out of natural gases and there needs to be a alternative or there will be fatal consequences all around the world.
Wind Energy company, Vestas, recently won a contract with the Kenyan government, allowing the construction of the biggest wind farm in Africa. The company is looking to build, specifically, 365 wind turbines. Furthermore, the company stated that the location of the farm is quite unique and at a relatively high altitude suitable for wind energy production.
The farm will give Africa a starting point for alternative energy and spark a new era for Africa. The continent has a lot to work on to begin with, but this can be a starting point for the future of energy. Vestas happens to be owned by the Danes, but, still, Africa will now be introduced to a new type of production. All in all, the new farm has a lot of uses. Not only will it produce energy, but it will also aid Africa in starting a revolution and a new era in energy production.
The farm will cost 800 million dollars, but is said to save 186 million dollars per year in energy costs. Therefore, in four years time, the farm will provide Kenya with a profit in energy costs. This farm provides quite a few benefits ranging from costs to an advent of renewable energy in a third world continent. This revolution is something that I believe needs to occur in all parts of the world. We will run out of natural gases and there needs to be a alternative or there will be fatal consequences all around the world.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Sweden's Social Welfare System Up Close- GMF Blog
Sweden's Social Welfare System Up Close
In the US, most social welfare recipients are lower income people. Economists are noticing, that in Sweden, quite the opposite is true. From high school principals, to city mayors, to healthcare officials, everyone is finding themselves as welfare beneficiaries. Sweden makes it a point to build an aid system where everyone contributes and everyone benefits.
Studies reveal that public schooling is free, school lunches are free, and university and post-graduate studies are free. These are benefits that are not at all available in the United States. Another outstanding benefit they receive through their omniscient social welfare system is a pension for retirement so citizens do not have to save up before they plan to retire. These advantages are things the US never sees and probably never will see.
The reason Sweden and the US are so different stems from the amount of tax money being given to the government. The people of Sweden understand the benefits that will come from the amount of taxes. This is something the United States, in my opinion, will never be able to understand. They will always live in the fear of taxes and forever miss out on the benefits that could occur.
In the US, most social welfare recipients are lower income people. Economists are noticing, that in Sweden, quite the opposite is true. From high school principals, to city mayors, to healthcare officials, everyone is finding themselves as welfare beneficiaries. Sweden makes it a point to build an aid system where everyone contributes and everyone benefits.
Studies reveal that public schooling is free, school lunches are free, and university and post-graduate studies are free. These are benefits that are not at all available in the United States. Another outstanding benefit they receive through their omniscient social welfare system is a pension for retirement so citizens do not have to save up before they plan to retire. These advantages are things the US never sees and probably never will see.
The reason Sweden and the US are so different stems from the amount of tax money being given to the government. The people of Sweden understand the benefits that will come from the amount of taxes. This is something the United States, in my opinion, will never be able to understand. They will always live in the fear of taxes and forever miss out on the benefits that could occur.
Saturday, November 22, 2014
31 Arrested in Orange County Welfare Fraud Sweep- Time Warner Cable News
31 Arrested in Orange County Welfare Fraud Sweep
31 people have been arrested in the Orange County area for social welfare fraud. Orange County authorities recently began a harsher crack down on the citizens suspected of fraud and the harder investigation paid off with the 31 arrests. "Social Welfare is not chicken feed," says the Orange County Police Sheriff. Authorities say that this will not happen anymore.
The Orange County Sheriff announces that this wasn't a small sum of taxpayer money, like a couple hundred dollars. This was upwards to 400,000 dollars stolen from taxpayers. The 31 men and women were found defrauding Medicare, public assistance, food stamps, and day care programs. Just finding these many cases took several months and in depth planning, but Orange County is not about to stop the hunt on fraud.
There are more cases of fraud than we really can handle in the US and it's a big problem, financially, for our economy. Maybe the more frequent cases aren't as severe as stealing 400,000 dollars, but there is a large amount of people who abuse the welfare system. While I believe welfare is something this country needs to have, I also believe that a solution needs to be found to prevent future abuse in such a large and impactful way.
31 people have been arrested in the Orange County area for social welfare fraud. Orange County authorities recently began a harsher crack down on the citizens suspected of fraud and the harder investigation paid off with the 31 arrests. "Social Welfare is not chicken feed," says the Orange County Police Sheriff. Authorities say that this will not happen anymore.
The Orange County Sheriff announces that this wasn't a small sum of taxpayer money, like a couple hundred dollars. This was upwards to 400,000 dollars stolen from taxpayers. The 31 men and women were found defrauding Medicare, public assistance, food stamps, and day care programs. Just finding these many cases took several months and in depth planning, but Orange County is not about to stop the hunt on fraud.
There are more cases of fraud than we really can handle in the US and it's a big problem, financially, for our economy. Maybe the more frequent cases aren't as severe as stealing 400,000 dollars, but there is a large amount of people who abuse the welfare system. While I believe welfare is something this country needs to have, I also believe that a solution needs to be found to prevent future abuse in such a large and impactful way.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Why Drug Testing Welfare Recipients is a Waste of Taxpayer Money- Time
Why Drug Testing Welfare Recipients is a Waste of Taxpayer Money
Some people in the United States have been accused of taking advantage of this nation's welfare system. Some authorities believe that the government's welfare money have been used for things inappropriate such as drugs and alcohol. As a resolution for this issue, experts have concocted the idea to drug test all welfare recipients to be sure the welfare money will be used for the right reasons.
Recently, Darlena Cunha has stated that this resolution is simply a waste if taxpayer dollars. In Tennessee, where a law was enacted requiring welfare recipients to take a drug test, out of the first 800 tests, only one came back positive. The other 799 people tested negative and, in essence, wasted the money that went into the the testing.
It's been determined that only 8% of welfare recipients actually use any part of the money for drugs. This percentage is far too small to spend the colossal amount of money on trying to prevent it. The only benefit that would result from the testing would be satisfaction from taxpayers who are ignorantly assuming that their money is going to the right cause.
Some people in the United States have been accused of taking advantage of this nation's welfare system. Some authorities believe that the government's welfare money have been used for things inappropriate such as drugs and alcohol. As a resolution for this issue, experts have concocted the idea to drug test all welfare recipients to be sure the welfare money will be used for the right reasons.
Recently, Darlena Cunha has stated that this resolution is simply a waste if taxpayer dollars. In Tennessee, where a law was enacted requiring welfare recipients to take a drug test, out of the first 800 tests, only one came back positive. The other 799 people tested negative and, in essence, wasted the money that went into the the testing.
It's been determined that only 8% of welfare recipients actually use any part of the money for drugs. This percentage is far too small to spend the colossal amount of money on trying to prevent it. The only benefit that would result from the testing would be satisfaction from taxpayers who are ignorantly assuming that their money is going to the right cause.
America's Misguided Approach to Welfare- Foreign Affairs
America's Misguided Approach to Welfare
Economic welfare is defined as the statutory procedure to promote financial gain to people in need. Kimberly Morgan believes that the United States has a very distinct and misguided approach to the welfare system when compared with other world democracies with which the US is usually compared to. The US government does indeed tax less as well as spend less on social programs. In the end, the US spends more than any other country on the health and welfare of its citizens.
Morgan states that the US's system of welfare is "lopsided and incomplete." With people of better paying jobs getting the most benefits and people with lesser paying jobs getting fewer benefits, the government seems to have a unbalance in which some people receive high coverage while others receive hardly any at all.
Even though Morgan believes that a balance is "misguided," I believe that a slight bit of inequality is needed. The US government should be granting more money to the poor and less to the wealthy. With a better financial situation, wealthier households can afford the small amounts of help, but poorer people need the money and, ideally, without abusing the welfare, will live a life that each and every person deserves to live.
Economic welfare is defined as the statutory procedure to promote financial gain to people in need. Kimberly Morgan believes that the United States has a very distinct and misguided approach to the welfare system when compared with other world democracies with which the US is usually compared to. The US government does indeed tax less as well as spend less on social programs. In the end, the US spends more than any other country on the health and welfare of its citizens.
Morgan states that the US's system of welfare is "lopsided and incomplete." With people of better paying jobs getting the most benefits and people with lesser paying jobs getting fewer benefits, the government seems to have a unbalance in which some people receive high coverage while others receive hardly any at all.
Even though Morgan believes that a balance is "misguided," I believe that a slight bit of inequality is needed. The US government should be granting more money to the poor and less to the wealthy. With a better financial situation, wealthier households can afford the small amounts of help, but poorer people need the money and, ideally, without abusing the welfare, will live a life that each and every person deserves to live.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Income Inequality Growing Faster in the UK Than Any Other Rich Country- The Guardian
Income Inequality Growing Faster in the UK Than Any Other Rich Country
Since the mid-1970's, the United Kingdom's income inequality has been growing more than any other developed, first country. British experts say that the gap is increasing due to the working elite who isolate themselves through marriage and education. The isolation these elites put themselves in causes most of the country's wealth to go to a small upper class minority.
We have to remember that the UK is more unequal than any other developed country. This does not include nations such as India, Brazil, and South Africa. Of course, the income inequality is much higher in these developing countries. When it comes to first world, developed countries, the UK is currently at the back of the pack.
Personally, I believe that the UK should attempt to raise the nation's minimum wage so the lower class can make some ground on the upper class who holds so much of the wealth. The upper class should be taxed higher as well. They have the money so they should be paying based off of their earnings. This, in the end, will hopefully lessen the upper class' overwhelming ownership of the wealth and hand some of it off to the lower class by raising minimum wage.
Since the mid-1970's, the United Kingdom's income inequality has been growing more than any other developed, first country. British experts say that the gap is increasing due to the working elite who isolate themselves through marriage and education. The isolation these elites put themselves in causes most of the country's wealth to go to a small upper class minority.
We have to remember that the UK is more unequal than any other developed country. This does not include nations such as India, Brazil, and South Africa. Of course, the income inequality is much higher in these developing countries. When it comes to first world, developed countries, the UK is currently at the back of the pack.
Personally, I believe that the UK should attempt to raise the nation's minimum wage so the lower class can make some ground on the upper class who holds so much of the wealth. The upper class should be taxed higher as well. They have the money so they should be paying based off of their earnings. This, in the end, will hopefully lessen the upper class' overwhelming ownership of the wealth and hand some of it off to the lower class by raising minimum wage.
Economic Inequality Is a Major Obstacle to Growth in South Africa- New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/07/28/the-future-of-south-africa/economic-inequality-is-a-major-obstacle-to-growth-in-south-africa
It has been roughly 20 years since South Africa declared themselves a democratic nation. The process to becoming a self sustaining democracy and the all-around growing process of the country itself is posing to be a bigger task than South Africa predicted. With the Gini Coefficient measuring 0.69, the country's income inequality is actually one of the worst in the world.
South Africa's poverty line is currently at $43 per month. About 47% of South Africans are considered poor. That's an overwhelming percentage. Another shocking statistic hindering South Africa is that their unemployment rate is a whopping 25.4%. Because of these statistics, the country is forced to give out a colossal amount of welfare checks. The amount of welfare given out is so high, in fact, that it makes up for 3% of South Africa's Gross Domestic Product.
From an economic standpoint, it seems that South Africa has a bit to work on. The fact that 3% of their GDP is solely welfare checks is very concerning. When you look at the opportunity costs of these welfare checks, we see that the 3% of GDP taken up could be used for many other things. With the unemployment rate so high and the country battling mass poverty, we have a perfect example of how inequality is worse in other countries than it is here in the United States.
It has been roughly 20 years since South Africa declared themselves a democratic nation. The process to becoming a self sustaining democracy and the all-around growing process of the country itself is posing to be a bigger task than South Africa predicted. With the Gini Coefficient measuring 0.69, the country's income inequality is actually one of the worst in the world.
South Africa's poverty line is currently at $43 per month. About 47% of South Africans are considered poor. That's an overwhelming percentage. Another shocking statistic hindering South Africa is that their unemployment rate is a whopping 25.4%. Because of these statistics, the country is forced to give out a colossal amount of welfare checks. The amount of welfare given out is so high, in fact, that it makes up for 3% of South Africa's Gross Domestic Product.
From an economic standpoint, it seems that South Africa has a bit to work on. The fact that 3% of their GDP is solely welfare checks is very concerning. When you look at the opportunity costs of these welfare checks, we see that the 3% of GDP taken up could be used for many other things. With the unemployment rate so high and the country battling mass poverty, we have a perfect example of how inequality is worse in other countries than it is here in the United States.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Rand Paul Says Income Inequality is Worse in Cities with Democratic Mayors- Tampa Bay Times
Rand Paul says income inequality is worse in cities with democratic mayors
Republican Senator Rand Paul recently spoke out to the public asserting the statement that cities with Democratic mayors have a higher rate of income inequality. To pluck out the validity of Paul's statement, a reporter from the Tampa Bay Times did some digging. The top ten cities with the highest income inequality were juxtaposed with the bottom ten cities. Facts did show that Paul's statement had truth. Nine out of the top ten were Democratic and ten out of the bottom ten were Republican.
It seems as though there is nothing more to discuss now that we know Democratic mayors spawn income inequality. Wrong. I believe that Paul is taking a small fact and embellishing it. When we look at the details, we see that, in reality, mayors aren't all-powerful leaders in local government. Of course the mayors have an important role but not as important as Paul is trying to convey.
Two, income inequality is more than just local leadership. Inequality results from population size, geographic size, and location. It was found by the writer that Paul's statement only holds true in cities, not metropolitan areas. In fact, the results are quite the opposite. Nine out of the ten mayors who govern the most equal metropolitan areas are Democratic.
Obviously, Paul's statement has some truth but I believe it's missing crucial details. I think the article was written well and realistically dissects Paul's assertion. It seems pretty at first, but once we delve deeper into the facts, flaws are revealed in the point Paul is trying to convey.
Republican Senator Rand Paul recently spoke out to the public asserting the statement that cities with Democratic mayors have a higher rate of income inequality. To pluck out the validity of Paul's statement, a reporter from the Tampa Bay Times did some digging. The top ten cities with the highest income inequality were juxtaposed with the bottom ten cities. Facts did show that Paul's statement had truth. Nine out of the top ten were Democratic and ten out of the bottom ten were Republican.
It seems as though there is nothing more to discuss now that we know Democratic mayors spawn income inequality. Wrong. I believe that Paul is taking a small fact and embellishing it. When we look at the details, we see that, in reality, mayors aren't all-powerful leaders in local government. Of course the mayors have an important role but not as important as Paul is trying to convey.
Two, income inequality is more than just local leadership. Inequality results from population size, geographic size, and location. It was found by the writer that Paul's statement only holds true in cities, not metropolitan areas. In fact, the results are quite the opposite. Nine out of the ten mayors who govern the most equal metropolitan areas are Democratic.
Obviously, Paul's statement has some truth but I believe it's missing crucial details. I think the article was written well and realistically dissects Paul's assertion. It seems pretty at first, but once we delve deeper into the facts, flaws are revealed in the point Paul is trying to convey.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
A Look at Income Inequality, Hour by Hour- The Wall Street Journal
A look at income inequality
Income inequality has been an ever increasing problem lately in the United States. Theorists say the difference in income would not be so bad if the gap would stop increasing. Unfortunately however, data shows that the lower 70th percentile's wages are decreasing fairly rapidly and the upper 30th percentile's wages, though gradual, are increasing.
The numbers show that the highest earners in the US make, on average, 52 dollars an hour and that number is rising 0.2% annually. On the lower end, the average wage is around 8 dollars an hour and that number is decreasing 0.75% annually. As the data is analyzed the primary goal to be completed is to understand and discern why this all is happening.
When we look at the facts, inflation has been down lately but so has the nation's wages. Even the slightest bit of inflation will severely affect many lesser earning workers because their income is so low and getting lower. When I first read the article and analyzed the graphs, my first impression was quite surprised. I didn't realize how different and unequal the nation's incomes are. One thing I had trouble understanding was that inflation was low but still wages were low as well. I figured that wages would be higher since the value of the dollar is higher. However, after I did some outside research I found that some theorists say that the reason the wages are lower is because the value of the dollar is higher, meaning the workers do not need to be paid as much. I'm not quite sure how I feel about this theory, as it does sound slightly invalid, but of course, nothing is for sure and economists are scrambling and arguing over the causes of the income inequality.
Income inequality has been an ever increasing problem lately in the United States. Theorists say the difference in income would not be so bad if the gap would stop increasing. Unfortunately however, data shows that the lower 70th percentile's wages are decreasing fairly rapidly and the upper 30th percentile's wages, though gradual, are increasing.
The numbers show that the highest earners in the US make, on average, 52 dollars an hour and that number is rising 0.2% annually. On the lower end, the average wage is around 8 dollars an hour and that number is decreasing 0.75% annually. As the data is analyzed the primary goal to be completed is to understand and discern why this all is happening.
When we look at the facts, inflation has been down lately but so has the nation's wages. Even the slightest bit of inflation will severely affect many lesser earning workers because their income is so low and getting lower. When I first read the article and analyzed the graphs, my first impression was quite surprised. I didn't realize how different and unequal the nation's incomes are. One thing I had trouble understanding was that inflation was low but still wages were low as well. I figured that wages would be higher since the value of the dollar is higher. However, after I did some outside research I found that some theorists say that the reason the wages are lower is because the value of the dollar is higher, meaning the workers do not need to be paid as much. I'm not quite sure how I feel about this theory, as it does sound slightly invalid, but of course, nothing is for sure and economists are scrambling and arguing over the causes of the income inequality.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)