Dick Berkowitz, has written a booklet entitled:"A Conservative Capitalist Offers: Eleven Lessons and a Bonus Lesson for Raising America's Youth Born and Yet To Be Born" Half The Proceeds Go To "The Wounded Warrior Project!"
By Dick Berkowitz - Non Expert
Dick wrote this booklet because he believes a strong country must rest on a solid family unit and that Brokaw's "Greatest Generation" has morphed into "A Confused, Dependent and Compromised Generation."
He hopes this booklet will provide a guide to alter this trend.
You can now order a .pdf version from www.brokerberko.com/book that you can download and read on your computer, or print out if you want. Cost is $5.99
In several weeks the book will be available in soft cover format at a cost of $10.99.
Booklet illustrations were by his oldest granddaughter, Emma Darvick, who lives and works in New York.
Testimonials:
Dick, I read your book this weekend. I hardly know where to start. You did an excellent job of putting into one short book a compendium of the virtues which only a relatively short time ago all Americans believed. It’s a measure of how far we have fallen that many Americans, perhaps a majority of Americans, no longer believe in what we once considered truisms. I think your father would have agreed with every word, but the party he supported no longer has such beliefs.
I would like to buy multiple copies of your booklet..
You did a great job. I know your parents would have been proud and that your family today is proud.
Mike
You wrote a great book. The brevity is one of its strong points and I know it was hard to include that in and still keep it brief. Your father in haste once wrote an overly long letter to our client, then said in the last sentence, “I’m sorry I wrote such a long letter, but I didn’t have time to write a short one.”
"Dick, I indeed marvel at how much wisdom you have been able to share with so few words. Not too unlike the experience in reading the Bible. I feel that with each read of "A Conservative Capitalist Offers:…." one will gain additional knowledge and new insights…
Regards, Larry"
Dick attended Georgia Military Academy, in Atlanta, graduating in 1950. He attended The Wharton School of Commerce graduating in 1954, served both a stint in the Marine Corps Active reserves and The Army Finance Corps.
Upon completing his tour of service he enrolled in The University of Miami Law School (was an associate editor of The Law Review) graduated in 1960, moved to Atlanta and began his Wall Street career as a stock broker with Courts and Company and became a general partner in 1967. When Courts merged he opened an Atlanta Office for Burnham and Company in 1970 and when Drexel Burnham demised, in 1990, he took the institutional department , he created, to Oppenheimer going into semi-retirement in 2006 (he still manages money for some clients.).
Dick resides with his wife of 40 years - Lynn Rudikoff, At The Landings on Skidaway Island near Savannah.
He has three daughters from a former marriage, a son and daughter with Lynn and 7 grandchildren.
During his working career, Dick was a member of The Board of St John's College for nine years (The Great Books School) served on The President's Commission on White House Fellowships during the elder Bush's Administration, and served on the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Board among many other public activities.
After moving to Savannah in 2003, Dick, began The JEA Speaker Series, continues to serve on the Board of The State of Georgia's Museum (GMOA) located on the campus at Athens, is on the advisory board of Spine and Sport and The Skidaway Island Republican Club. Dick also serves on the investment committee board of the Savannah Jewish Federation.
He recently underwent a knee replacement in the hope that he can continue playing tennis.
Dick also posts to a web page (dick-meom.blogspot.com) on a daily basis focusing on The Middle East, politics and economics.
---
Sowell believes he knows a phony when he sees one. (See 1 below.)
---
This is a far better ad than the one Obama is doing about Big Bird. That ad lays a big turd!
The Obama crowd got in the kitchen, had no experience, have cooked the nation's books and, in the process, singed us all. Now that the heat has been turned up, as a result of their own incompetence, their cruel burneth over! (See 2 below.)
---
I sent some retort points for Ryan to a dear a long time friend and fellow memo reader who is able to reach to the top without a ladder in the hope he might think they had merit and would pass along. This was his response.(See 3 below.)
---
Time line response reveals leadership from the rear. (See 4 below.)
---
And this from my British 'ain't so proper' girl friend.
Lynn and I traveled with her and her husband and they are coming to The States next year and we intend to spend some time with them: "
A SMALL GLIMMER OF HOPE IN THE GLOOM !
'Viagra' is now available
in powder form
for your tea.
It doesn't enhance your sexual performance
but it does stop your biscuit going soft."
"
LATEST NEWS FROM
LONDON,LEEDS, BRADFORD
نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه. ر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما نقش سايه دگر نمي دان نور اگر رفت سايه پيدا نيست نقش ديوار و چشم خيره ما
If I hear anything else, I'll let you know."
---
Been there and heard that - President ECHO!
| |
Dick
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Phony in Chief
When President Barack Obama and others on the left are not busy admonishing the rest of us to be "civil" in our discussions of political issues, they are busy letting loose insults, accusations and smears against those who dare to disagree with them.
Like so many people who have been beaten in a verbal encounter, and who can think of clever things to say the next day, after it is all over, President Obama, after his clear loss in his debate with Mitt Romney, called Governor Romney a "phony."
Innumerable facts, however, show that it is our Commander in Chief who is Phony in Chief. A classic example was his speech to a predominantly black audience at Hampton University on June 5, 2007. That date is important, as we shall see.
In his speech -- delivered in a ghetto-style accent that Obama doesn't use anywhere except when he is addressing a black audience -- he charged the federal government with not showing the same concern for the people of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina hit as they had shown for the people of New York after the 9/11 attacks, or the people of Florida after hurricane Andrew hit.
Departing from his prepared remarks, he mentioned the Stafford Act, which requires communities receiving federal disaster relief to contribute 10 percent as much as the federal government does.
Senator Obama, as he was then, pointed out that this requirement was waived in the case of New York and Florida because the people there were considered to be "part of the American family." But the people in New Orleans -- predominantly black -- "they don't care about as much," according to Barack Obama.
If you want to know what community organizers do, this is it -- rub people's emotions raw to hype their resentments. And this was Barack Obama in his old community organizer role, a role that should have warned those who thought that he was someone who would bring us together, when he was all too well practiced in the arts of polarizing us apart.
Why is the date of this speech important? Because, less than two weeks earlier, on May 24, 2007, the United States Senate had in fact voted 80-14 to waive the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans, as it had waived that requirement for New York and Florida. More federal money was spent rebuilding New Orleans than was spent in New York after 9/11 and in Florida after hurricane Andrew, combined.
Truth is not a job requirement for a community organizer. Nor can Barack Obama claim that he wasn't present the day of that Senate vote, as he claimed he wasn't there when Jeremiah Wright unleashed his obscene attacks on America from the pulpit of the church that Obama attended for 20 years.
Unlike Jeremiah Wright's church, the U.S. Senate keeps a record of who was there on a given day. The Congressional Record for May 24, 2007 shows Senator Barack Obama present that day and voting on the bill that waived the Stafford Act requirement. Moreover, he was one of just 14 Senators who voted against -- repeat, AGAINST -- the legislation which included the waiver.
When he gave that demagogic speech, in a feigned accent and style, it was world class chutzpah and a rhetorical triumph. He truly deserves the title Phony in Chief.
If you know any true believers in Obama, show them the transcript of his June 5, 2007 speech at Hampton University (available from the Federal News Service) and then show them page S6823 of the Congressional Record for May 24, 2007, which lists which Senators voted which way on the waiver of the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans.
Some people in the media have tried to dismiss this and other revelations of Barack Obama's real character that have belatedly come to light as "old news." But the truth is one thing that never wears out. The Pythagorean Theorem is 2,000 years old, but it can still tell you the distance from home plate to second base (127 ft.) without measuring it. And what happened five years ago can tell a lot about Barack Obama's character -- or lack of character.
Obama's true believers may not want to know the truth. But there are millions of other people who have simply projected their own desires for a post-racial America onto Barack Obama. These are the ones who need to be confronted with the truth, before they repeat the mistake they made when they voted four years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)
Picture of a gorgeous black lab!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Dear Dick,
Your comments are right on and actually most of what you said we have already passed on to the Romney advisers. He better come out swinging but not look like a war monger. This President has so many weaknesses and he has to stay on those weaknesses, especially the deaths in Libya.
Here is an article from the Sun Sentinel, a not right wing paper here in FL. You may want to share this with your readers. The author sums it up very articulately how we feel about this President.
It was the Puss in Boots eyes.
If you've seen the "Shrek" movies or the spin-off cartoon starring the storybook cat voiced by Antonio Banderas, you know what I'm talking about. Whenever Puss in Boots really needs something from someone, he flashes these enormous kitten eyes that melt anyone in their path. Whenever my daughter really wants something, she tries to lay them on me, and I have to say, "Stop trying to give me the Puss in Boots eyes … you can't have chocolate cake for dinner."
I knew Barack Obama was miserable when he tried to give debate moderator Jim Lehrer the Puss-in-Boots eyes. "You may want to move on to another topic," Obama implored Lehrer, a bit like a motorcycle thief begging a cop to take him into custody rather than let him stay with the surly biker gang that caught him.
I expected Romney to beat expectations and win the debate (though I had no clue how decisive his victory would be), not because I thought Romney was such a fantastic debater, but because Obama is the single most overrated politician of my lifetime.
That's not to say he's a bad politician. He's not. He's fine, even pretty good. But he's not the master so many people claim he is
The Irish have a saying: "Hunger makes the best sauce." And it's true. If you're hungry enough, roadkill will make for a king's feast. Liberals were so hungry for someone like Obama, he seemed like so much more than he really was.
You could hear indications of this fact in the way some of the more crotchety members of the Democratic establishment described Obama.
Sen. Harry Reid was blown away by the potential of this "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
In 2007, Joe Biden said of his then-opponent, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." He added: "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Storybook Man, indeed.
While such comments could be described as racially insensitive, they weren't necessarily racist. They simply reflected the fact that even cynical Democrats understood that the Democratic Party -- and, to be fair, much of the country generally -- craved a mainstream black presidential candidate. Jesse Jackson was too polarizing, some would say too embarrassing, for the job. Obama, meanwhile, was "storybook, man."
For a guy who supposedly gives wonderful speeches, he rarely persuades the un-persuaded or inspires those he didn't already have at "hello." That's partly the fault of his speechwriters, who always did him the disservice of producing the kind of pedantic and clichéd boilerplate that Obama mistook for soaring oratory. He thought he smashed through the Democratic primaries like a battering ram through concrete when he mostly pushed on open doors.
As president, he's convinced himself that he is a policy wonk with a deeper understanding of the machinery of government and the mysteries of the economy than even his advisors. And yet he had to learn on the job that "shovel-ready jobs" were magic beans sold to him by party hacks hungry for pork. He bought a stimulus that only stimulated political cronies. In the debate, he touted windmills and solar power as the energy sources of the future as if he still honestly believes that.
The media's infatuation with Obama and/or their contempt for his critics only served to reinforce his delusions. When the press laughs at all of your jokes and takes your glib excuses as profound insights, the inevitable result is a kind of flabby narcissism. Kings can be forgiven for thinking they are the greatest poets when the court weeps at their clunky limericks.
The Obama who delivered a shockingly lackluster convention speech last month is the same man who walked into that Denver stadium in 2008 to rapturous approval. The man who lost the debate Wednesday night is the same man who never managed to make Obamacare popular after more than 50 speeches and pronouncements on it in his first year.
The key difference now is that the hunger for Obama has been replaced with the indigestion that follows after four unimpressive years in office. In sales, they say you sell the sizzle, not the steak. In 2008, the man was all sizzle, and the ravenous throng was sold. Now he must sell the steak itself, and it's full of gristle, fat and bone. He may yet still close the deal, but only if people fall for his Puss in Boots eyes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4)Obama's Iran Policy: A Timeline
Anne Bayefsky - National Review Online
The mortal threat posed by President Obama’s feeble foreign policy is finally receiving the scrutiny it deserves. The most important lesson emanating from the president’s failure to come clean on the al-Qaeda threat in Libya, and his blind eye to terrorism on the anniversary of 9/11, is what it tells us about his approach to the preeminent danger to world peace — Iran.
Last week at the UN General Assembly the President’s double-speak on Iran included this: “Iran…has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful…time is not unlimited.”
Obviously, Iran “failed to take the opportunity” because its program is not peaceful. And an unspecified, indeterminate limit is not a limit at all.
So given the President is fond of presaging his foreign affairs declarations on Iran with “let me be clear,” let us be even clearer.
Here is a timeline of the Obama administration’s Iran policy, as the world’s most dangerous nation and leading state sponsor of terrorism moves inexorably towards acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapon.
- “My expectation would be that if we can begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections, we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction…” President Obama, May 18, 2009, Washington, D.C.
- “The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely.” Secretary Clinton, July 15, 2009, Washington, D.C.
- “[W]e are not going to keep the window open forever.” Secretary Clinton, July 22, 2009, Bangkok, Thailand
- “[T]he Iranians may simply try to run out the clock.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates, July 27, 2009
- “Our patience is not infinite. We’re not willing to let this go on forever.”State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly, September 14, 2009, Washington, D.C.
- “If Iran does not take steps in the near future to live up to its obligations, then the United States will not continue to negotiate indefinitely… Our patience is not unlimited.” President Obama, October 1, 2009, Washington, D.C
- “We are in what we hope is an intensive diplomatic phase now. It will not be open-ended.” Office of the Press Secretary, October 1, 2009, Geneva, Switzerland
- “I don’t think that there’s a hard-and-fast deadline…What we have said all along is that this is not an open-ended process, we are not in this just to talk for talk’s sake…[W]e expect prompt, concrete steps to be taken over the next couple of weeks.” State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly, October 2, 2009, Washington, D.C.
- “We are running out of time” President Obama, November 15, 2009, Shanghai, China
- “Time is running out for Iran to address the international community’s growing concerns about its nuclear program.” Press Secretary Gibbs, November 29, 2009, Washington, D.C.
- “Iran has to live up to its international obligations…The president has said that our patience is not unlimited. State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly,” November 30, 2009, Washington, D.C.
- “[T]he window is closing.” National Security Advisor Jim Jones, December 2, 2009, Washington, D.C.
- “Iran’s nuclear program…there was going to be a time limit…” President Obama, March 30, 2010, Washington, D.C.
- “We’ve said to the Iranians all along…we still remain open to diplomacy. But it’s been very clear that the Iranians don’t want to engage with us.”Secretary Clinton, September 19, 2010
- “We want to see the Iranians engage, and as you know, we have attempted to bring about that engagement over the course of the last three-plus years. It has not proven effective.” Secretary Clinton, December 12, 2011, Washington, D.C.
- “To resolve this issue will require Iran to come to the table and discuss in a clear and forthright way how to prove to the international community that the intentions of their nuclear program are peaceful. … [T]he question is going to be whether in these discussions they show themselves moving clearly in that direction.” President Obama, March 6, 2012, Washington, D.C
- “[T]hat window is closing.” President Obama, March 25, 2012, Seoul, Republic of Korea
- “[T]ime is short.” President Obama, March 26, 2012, Seoul, Republic of Korea
- “Iran’s window of opportunity…will not remain open forever.” Secretary Clinton, March 31, 2012, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
- “They assert that their program is purely peaceful… We want them to demonstrate clearly in the actions they propose that they have truly abandoned any nuclear weapons ambition.’ Secretary Clinton, April 12, 2012, Washington, D.C.
- “[T]hat window is closing…Now, the clock is ticking…[W]e're not going to have these talks just drag out in a stalling process… [W]e haven't given away anything — other than the opportunity for us to negotiate ” President Obama, April 15, 2012, Cartagena, Columbia
- “We will not engage in an endless process of negotiations.” UN Ambassador Susan Rice, September 20, 2012, New York
- “Iran…has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful…time is not unlimited.” President Obama, September 25, 2012, New York
No leadership from in front, from behind, or even from the armchairs of television talk shows. Little wonder that under President Obama our enemies are quite clearly emboldened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
|
One of my missions in following the solar industry is to help educate investors about the industry and inform them about how they should look at solar investments. In this fast moving industry it's difficult to stay on top of all of the changes and the key factors we should be watching.
Today, I want to look at two concepts that are commonly misunderstood, but are key to investing wisely in the industry.
Cost per watt vs. cost per kW-hr
One of the misconceptions of many casual industry observers is that cost per watt is the number that matters most. Cost per watt for Company A is lower than the cost per watt of Company B, so they must be better, right? That statement may be true, but it's only meaningful when you put the numbers into context.
One of the misconceptions of many casual industry observers is that cost per watt is the number that matters most. Cost per watt for Company A is lower than the cost per watt of Company B, so they must be better, right? That statement may be true, but it's only meaningful when you put the numbers into context.
The number that really maters in solar is cost per kW-hr because a kW-hr is a measure of the energy produced by solar and it's the unit of measure we use to pay for electrical energy. Cost per watt can be a proxy for cost per kW-hr but they aren't the same thing.
To demonstrate the difference, I have three example project costs below. I've laid out systems of the same physical size built with panels that have very different efficiency. The 10% efficient module is a proxy for thin-film, 15% a proxy for Chinese panels, and 20% a proxy for high-efficiency modules like SunPower's (Nasdaq: SPWR ) . I've used the 15% efficiency case as my baseline and used a total cost per watt of $4 (below the national average but in line with costs in more mature markets) and assumed that a total of half of that cost is variable in other scenarios. Some of the variable cost comes from the panel itself, some from other parts. The fixed costs would be things like permitting, labor, and other costs that would vary little in this example.
10% Efficient Module
|
15% Efficient Module
|
20% Efficient Module
| |
|---|---|---|---|
System Size
|
2 kW
|
3 kW
|
4 kW
|
Module Cost per Watt
|
$0.65
|
$0.75
|
$1.00
|
Total Module Cost
|
$1,300
|
$2,250
|
$4,000
|
Variable BOS Cost
|
$2,500
|
$3,750
|
$5,000
|
Fixed BOS Cost
|
$6,000
|
$6,000
|
$6,000
|
Total Installation Cost
|
$9,800
|
$12,000
|
$15,000
|
Annual kW-hrs
|
3,154
|
4,730
|
6,307
|
Cost per kW-hr (assuming 8% ROI)
|
24.9 cents
|
20.3 cents
|
19.0 cents
|
As you can see, using these assumptions the most efficient module actually leads to the lowest cost per kW-hr even though it has by far the highest cost per watt.
This is why First Solar has struggled mightily despite having the lowest cost per watt. It's one of the reasons the company may have to change its strategy, a risk I detail in our in-depth report on the company. Click here for more details about this report.
Cost per watt and cost per kW-hr are clearly not equal. The model above is only an example and the numbers will change based on a number of factors around the world, but it's clear that understanding efficiency and balance of system costs are just as important as cost per watt.
Cell efficiency isn't module efficiency
One of the most common mistakes people make when looking at solar products is not understanding the difference between cell and module efficiency. Companies like to advertise cell efficiency in press releases because it's higher than module efficiency and investors often make apples to oranges comparisons as a result. Even a company's own efficiency pronouncements and production can vary wildly.
One of the most common mistakes people make when looking at solar products is not understanding the difference between cell and module efficiency. Companies like to advertise cell efficiency in press releases because it's higher than module efficiency and investors often make apples to oranges comparisons as a result. Even a company's own efficiency pronouncements and production can vary wildly.
SunPower is touting its Maxeon cell technology, which supposedly can make a 24% efficient cell. Right now, the company's datasheets tell us that 22.5% cell efficiency and 20.1% module efficiency are the best modules in production.
First Solar (Nasdaq: FSLR ) said a year ago that it had made a 17.3% efficient CdTe solar cell. Six months ago it translated the technology to a 14.4% efficient module. But look at the company's average module efficiency last quarter and it only reached 12.6%.
On Canadian Solar's (Nasdaq: CSIQ ) ELPS module datasheet the company advertises a 21.1% efficient cell but the most efficient module is 16.5% efficient.
Suntech Power (NYSE: STP ) and Trina Solar (NYSE: TSL ) are also touting cells that are 20% efficient or more but don't make modules that are anywhere near that efficient.
As you can see, no matter what company you're talking about cell efficiency and module efficiency don't line up. What we need to do is talk about module efficiency, which is comparable (although not quite equal) across all solar modules.
What's next?
The other big differentiator in solar is the balance sheet. I'll be back on Thursday to discuss why the balance sheet is so important and who stands out in the industry.
The other big differentiator in solar is the balance sheet. I'll be back on Thursday to discuss why the balance sheet is so important and who stands out in the industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment