Is it Immoral to Profit From the Poor?

A pair of IPO stories from opposite sides of the globe this week has led some to question the ethics of profiting from the poor. Very few, even among market observers, likely made any connection this week between the IPO stories of U.S.-based Green Dot, a pre-paid debit card company, and SKS Microfinance of India. However, the two have something in common; both are companies that provide services that benefit the poor. And, particularly in the case of SKS, this has caused some to ask the moral question of whether it is moral or ethical to profit from the poor.

Green Dot is a pre-paid debit card company, meaning that buyers of the product can put cash onto it, either at retail locations or often by direct deposit. Pre-paid cards are intended to be a substitute for credit cards, which have higher recurring costs and interest charges. Because of this, they are typically marketed toward, and utilized by, the lower income, or unbanked segment of society, though that is not exclusively the case. SKS is a microfinancier, or a lender which focuses on very small loans to those who would not otherwise have access to banks or other lending resources. This allows people, mostly in rural areas of developing countries, to start small businesses or projects that would otherwise be impossible. Green Dot successfully IPO'd this week, while SKS should follow by the end of the month.

While not many have questioned what Green Dot is doing, perhaps reflecting the attitudes of its home country, SKS has faced some criticism for trying to profit from, rather than help, the poor. Despite Green Dot not facing as much heat, one could submit that, as this is a moral question, and both companies profit from the underprivileged, that both are in the same boat. Which returns us to the moral question itself; namely, is it immoral or unethical to profit off of the poor.

Answers, as with many such questions, are difficult to come by. That is the nature of a question that can only be answered by using not just logic, but gut feelings shaped by environment, years and generations of experiences, religion, upbringing...the list could easily go on almost indefinitely. However, one answer, and one that is undoubtedly shaped by my own life in a mostly free-market country under representative government. That is that it is moral to profit from the poor if you are able to help more of them by doing so and are doing so in a way that provides them with opportunities they would not otherwise have had.

This may be an oversimplification, and could indeed be considered naive or perhaps idealistic. However, there are many people in the world who don't have many options, but do have great work ethic, ideas and potential. No matter how big governments get, this will always be the case to some extent. So why not let capital markets go to work? Whether it is pre-paid debit cards with a fee, but a fee that does not carry the threats of charges, interest rate risk and hurting credit ratings, or it is microfinance, at a cost, but a lesser cost than would otherwise be (or maybe not be) available, both are valid methods to help the underhelped. And if it takes a profit motive to bring people into such areas, is that really so bad?

India Takes a Step Forward on Ed Tech

Kapil Sibal, India's Human Resource Development Minister, unveiled a touchscreen device with internet browsers, PDF readers and videoconferencing abilities this week. The device, which officials hope to put into mass production over the next year, costs only $35 to produce and has stimulated hopes that educational technologies can be brought to poor and rural areas.

Though it is doubtful that Steve Jobs has any huge concerns about competition from the Indians, this would be a tremendous step towards increasing the education levels of a huge population. The potential globally is enormous as well; if a functioning device that facilitates long-distance learning and access is available cheaply, it could benefit African states, Asia and even rural areas of more developed states. Maybe a bit forward looking, but exciting nonetheless.

The device was developed by teams at the Indian Institute of Technology and the Indian Institute of Science.

Macro Considerations Play More Heavily in Uncertain Markets; What's the Lesson?

In an very interesting and well-researched piece in The Financial Times yesterday, authors Anousha Sakoui and Izabella Kaminska described a recent phenomenon (which has also been noted during other recessionary periods) whereby various financial markets have been moving ever-closer in lockstep as economic woes continue. They provide evidence that this is not only occurring within asset classes, such as large cap stocks, but more interestingly between asset classes as well. For example, it seems that there have been close correlations between certain commodities and currencies and even oil and the stock market, assets which have been inversely correlated in the past.

Though several explanations are given, including the rise of ETFs, it is interesting to note that one possible cause, pure macro-economic conditions, probably provides the most useful lesson to shelve for future use.

In an upturn in the business cycle, while it is true that the rising tide of macro-economic factors can catch all ships, it is also true that discrepencies in earnings, increased merger activity, more frenzied hiring activity and hot sectors all produce relative winners and losers. While many investors make money in a bull market, stock pickers have an opportunity to really differentiate themselves as little cash stays on the sidelines and money floods into the markets looking for the next big stock or commodity play.

However, in the midst of a long-term bear market, it is more difficult to pick winners, particularly in the short-term. Continuing the analogy, a falling tide strands all ships. Today's environment provides a good example. Almost all employers (except for the federal government, a different article for a different day) have hiring freezes on. Investors, both of the institutional and retail variety, have collectively parked trillions of dollars in investible assets in money market and other short-term funds. The heads of the US economy have shown little enthusiasm for the prospects of the short-term recovery. And when people are gloomy in the near term, longer term issues, such as pension entitlements, government spending, and trade deficits seem to loom a little larger.

So is the true lesson simply that assets move together when markets are down? Is it that stockpicking is difficult in a down market? While those are certainly helpful, there is a bit more that can be extrapolated from this data. It is worth noting that the lessons below have different time focuses...a critical factor that avoids contradictions.

Firstly, and with a touch of the new-age spirituality so often lacking on Wall Street; investors should avoid getting frustrated during future downturns and focus on the macro signals. If things are so bad that everyone is on the sidelines, it might be worth staying on the sidelines, at least short-term. In these situations, even doing homework and due diligence can fail to protect investors from the broader macro-environment. When the global economy contracts, stock charts, earnings reports and divination rods can all be dispensed with. In other words, and with the help of a mixed pair of cliches, don't fight the market; sometimes being a sheep doesn't lead you to, but actually away from, slaughter.

Despite this, and here is the more bullish lesson; if macro-economic conditions mean that good assets are being pulled down with poor ones, it could be a tremendously strong buy opportunity for those who have the stomach for it and are ready to do some homework. Indeed, it could be the best time possible to be buying best in class assets. This may mean shifting investment horizons as it could take some time for bets to pay off. However, even the most cynical bears believe that the market will recover at some point. It could pay to get ahead of that wave.
 
Therefore, I supposed that the ultimate lesson, simple indeed, but so often ignored, is this; listen to the markets, then buy low and sell high. If it were only so easy...

Job Alert: SEC to Hire 800

In the midst of a poor job market, it is always encouraging to hear that prospects are brightening. In that spirit, the recent financial industry overhaul signed by the President may be able to provide a few rays of sunshine, at least for some.

Although financial regulatory reform may be causing some uncertainty among securities market participants, one group that it appears to be providing some clarity to is folks who work in securities law. This is due to the new mandates the Securities and Exchange Commission has been handed which require it to create rules rather than merely enforce them. Due to this change, Chairman Mary Schapiro has spoken to Congress about appropriating the funds necessary to hire over 800 new employees.

One would hope that the fate of the financial system would be put into more capable hands than those of students with one corporate law class under their belts who would rather be doing pro bono work on death row. However, for the sake of the sanity of some of my classmates, here's hoping that in addition to senior jobs, some junior positions have been listed on Ms. Schapiro's spreadsheet...

The List: Forbes' Best Cities for Young Professionals

Someone once told me that you can never have enough good lists of best cities for young professionals. Ok, maybe nobody has ever said that to me; let's just meet in the middle and say you just caught me in what politicians call a 'misquote.'

In any case, Forbes produces another of its eponymous lists (albeit a bit delayed to this page), this time representing the best cities for some of the less settled of my law school colleagues to seek their fortunes in.

Even in 'Special' Relationships, Money Talks

It is telling that a relationship borne of shared history, mutual business interests, allied action in two World Wars and the shared burden of administering over the least popular war since Vietnam is being strained, not by the aforementioned Iraq War or political issues, but by money.

David Cameron is visiting Washington today and is expected to vigorously defend national champion BP against the scorn of US politicians, including President Obama. Though Americans would perhaps expect the same if the roles were exactly reversed, it is a move that is sure to rankle some, and is put into especially stark contrast next to some of the things that have failed to put this 'special' relationship under strain in the past.

Though the US/British alliance has become a less powerful one as England's fortunes have, over time, faded, it is no less important in a world of rising threats to US military and economic hegemony. If the losses of young lives and mutually declining global reputations are not factors enough to put strain on the pairing, here's hoping that the interests of a company clearly at fault for a tragedy are not the wedge that leads to a split. Not only would it be unfortunate for the two long-time friends, it would be an unfortunate and very obvious sign of priorities gone by the wayside.

Snippets...

Welcome to Snippets, Blawgconomics' semi-regular attempt at covering a lot of topics in a little time. Some would call this lazy; economists prefer the term 'efficient.'

- Starting things off on the sordid side, Hugh Hefner has made an offer to take his Playboy empire private. He has offered $185 million to do so, which he believes is a good enough offer to purchase the approximately 30% of outstanding A-shares which he does not own. Not so, according to Penthouse CEO Marc Bell, whose company made a rival bid.. The Financial Times helpfully points out that Mr. Bell also owns an interest in the largest Christian dating service in the world...

- Apparently some investors believe that chocolate is the new oil. While many hedge funds will trade futures in an attempt to gain exposure to certain assets, and hopefully short-term profits, hedge fund Amajaro has held a number of July cocoa contracts to expiration and has taken delivery of the commodities themselves. London-based Amajaro now controls about 7% of global cocoa production, the result of a move many see as incredibly bullish on the commodity. 

- Though celebrations may still be in progress in Spain, the World Cup is already a fading memory for many, particularly those fans whose nations crashed out early. There are a few others who would like to put the World Cup behind them, but for much different reasons. One such group would be the up to 5,000 people that were just arrested for illegal World Cup gambling operations.

- The Obama administration's Department of Justice took advantage of the powers of a three-year old inter-agency task force to take down nearly 100 individuals across five states guilty of over $250 million in Medicare fraud. There are many things that remain unclear about health care reform. However, if a renewed commitment to combating incredibly costly fraud is one of the fruits of that epic battle, there may be some hope for the system yet.

- Even Steve Jobs has a bad day once in a while. The Apple chief was forced to make a public appearance to address issues with dropped calls for the latest version of the iPhone. Despite problems however, my first-adopter friends have nothing to fear. Apparently a special case, which the company is providing gratis, is all you need to make sure the contraption is able to do what its name implies; be a phone.

- Goldman Sachs will look ahead at repairing its image after reaching a $550 million settlement with the SEC over allegations of impropriety in its mortgage-backed securities business. You know things are relatively good when analysts report on your $550 million SEC settlement by pointing out that it wasn't the billion dollar settlement that the company anticipated it might have to handle.

- Finally, some good news for the Gulf as BP's latest fix appears successful in early times. Here's hoping that the latest cap holds...

Potential Success for BP, But What Took So Long?

Nice to see that BP has managed to gain control of the Gulf spill situation. One has to wonder why putting a functioning cap on took so long. Maybe 'successful solution' just didn't sound as sexy as alternative but failed fixes which included 'top kills', 'junk shots' and the thankfully avoided nuclear detonation option.

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act - Uncertainties Remain

Among certain Washington circles, about the nicest thing you can say about a controversial bill is that you haven't read it yet. It is safe to say that most people would tell you that they haven't read The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in its finalized form yet, whether due to aforementioned niceties or the simple fact that it runs 848 pages. However, even without reading it, taking cues from administration officials and members of Congress would lead one to believe that the only thing that is clear is that it is still unclear what exactly the bill will do.

This is partly because it leaves much of the heavy lifting to committees and agencies. This is, of course, standard practice in Washington. Congress typically provides the framework of laws, while agencies fill in the pieces, often after consultation with individuals and industry, through regulations.

However, there are so many new committees in the bill, with so many interconnections between existing groups and agencies, that it is difficult to know what, exactly, the bill means for everything from consumer protection to bank rules. Though only time will tell what the exact impact of this legislation will be, it is almost certain that business as usual, for better or worse, is over.

The List: Counting the Czars

Love him or hate him, almost everyone can agree on at least one thing about Glenn Beck; he does do a good job of noting what he believes are objectionable practices by people he doesn't like. And it is pretty clear that President Obama is on his naughty list.

Therefore, it is not surprising that he has spent a lot of his time noting how many people with connections to the Administration from the Chicago days have become 'czars' in Washington. Not only this, but he has spent a lot of time decrying the idea of czars in the first place.

Despite this, and despite the wild rants that czars seem to lead to, there is clearly a place in any administration for experts. For example, few would argue that qualified experts on AIDS, drugs or health are important. However there is not a ton of evidence that any of the people on the list above have qualifications above and beyond being Democrats and big contributors to Democrats. It is also not clear why such experts could not fit into existing agencies unless the whole purpose of czars is to avoid oversight (a claim often made by opponents).

Despite being able to find some curiosities in the above list, the latest addition to the lineup may take the cake (pun intended, but only after catching it in editing...); President Obama has named his personal chef from Chicago 'health food czar.' Though it is important for Americans to take better care of themselves (this is particularly true now that we have taken on the collective burden of ensuring and insuring the health of the nation), and though the First Lady has rightly pointed out the risks of a epidemically out-of-shape public, one has to feel that there might have been better qualified people for this job. Then again, the Obamas are in pretty good shape...

Back to the Future for Obama on the Economy

President Obama has apparently recruited President Bill Clinton to play the Doc Brown to his Marty McFly in an attempt to remind people of the good old days. Clinton was invited to a closed-door meeting of top business leaders to discuss job creation and investment, particularly in green energy.

However, it seems that many business groups are more concerned with the overall economy than green investment or what they perceive to be a White House focus on healthcare and regulation rather than the economy. It is not likely that these views will be meet in the middle any time soon unless the economy shows real signs of recovery. Until then, the rhetoric on both sides will likely continue to (Mc?)fly.

Playing on the Third Rail Could Ease Current Deficit Issues

The Washington Post had an excellent article up yesterday about a topic loyal readers will recognize; social security reform. In the past, Blawgconomics has advocated for an increase in the retirement age for social security benefits (and at its own detriment it should be added). As a political football, the 'third rail' of politics has long been seen as untouchable. Regardless of how reform plans are structured, people are simply terrified by the coupling of the word reduction with the term benefits.

However, in an incredibly difficult economic environment and with the general public seemingly exhibiting an unprecedented level of comprehension that things need to change, the time may be ripe for reform. That is good, as the system as it is currently configured is unsustainable, and as its potential collapse has implications for the health of the broader economy which must be addressed proactively if success is the ultimate goal.

Luckily it appears that both sides of the aisle are behind the idea of raising the retirement age, a critical ingredient if change is to occur, particularly in an election year. Reform as it is being discussed in the press seems to be headed down the right path. For example, current benefits would not be impacted, and the retirement age would only be raised for citizens who are under a certain age, most likely 50, currently. These key points produce the dual benefits of not creating political pressure against reform by groups like the AARP while giving younger people a chance to plan ahead for a higher retirement age. This only makes sense as overall life spans increase and as it is the only hope for the plan to exist at all by the time Generations X and Y are ready to tap into it.

With stimulus spending and health care reforms, it sometimes seems that new and entrenched liabilities are created at two or three times the rate that they are eliminated. Therefore, reform is no small feat. However, here's hoping that political squabbling can be put aside. Changing the retirement age for social security benefits is a worthy endeavor that would help provide a solution to some of the problems of both today and the future.

The List: The Best Political Cartoons of The Month

U.S. News provides a strong list of some of the more amusing political cartoons of the month. Unfortunately, with topics such as Afghanistan, the Gulf Spill and the recovery (or lack thereof) providing much of the fodder for cartoonists this month, most of the smiles that readers will have may be of the wry variety...

Bargaining Chip or Disaster Scenario?

Budget cuts have hit many municipalities hard the past few years, but administrators in Oakland, CA have taken reductions to a whole new level. By threatening to cut about 10% of the police force, the Oakland City Council has put the city in a precarious position...at least according to the Police Chief, Anthony Batts.

Batts has listed 44 situations that the police department will no longer respond to, a list which includes grand theft, burglary and vehicle collisions. Batts claims that this is because there will not be enough boots on the street to handle such situations. Victims will instead be responsible for reporting crimes through an internet-based system.

Hopefully this is merely a negotiation tool, because Oakland will soon look more a frontier town than a metropolitan area with three major sports teams otherwise. If not, perhaps a simple cost/benefit analysis would help the Council to look elsewhere for cuts. This is because logically, a lack of response will stimulate an increase in crime, and increases in crime have costs of their own.

Avoiding increases in the three situations mentioned above alone would provide enough reason to avoid cutting headcount. For example, when theft and burglary rates increase, citizens leave the area, reducing property taxes both immediately and in the future when properties are revalued down. Those citizens are also no longer in the neighborhood spending money at grocery stores and other businesses. They are also unavailable to staff those same businesses. Auto collisions provide another easy to follow example. If police don't respond to collisions, people are more likely to leave the scene, whether with malice or in a state of shock. Insurance rates will climb, leading to another reason to leave the area and creating the same problems noted above.

It will soon become apparent that any costs saved by cutting headcount are more than lost by the resulting increases in crime. Therefore, let's join the citizens of Oakland (at least the law-abiding among them) in hoping that the 'list of 44' is merely a bargaining chip. Otherwise, a tough town is about to get a lot tougher...

Problems Persist for Google

If you Google 'Google Problems' an interesting and varied array of the company's conundrums are returned. One of the foremost among such issues recently has been criticism of the company's Street Maps function. Though people are very impressed with the ability to check out the backyards of local and global neighbors alike, those same people and the governments representing them appear to be less fond of the information Google's camera trucks have been collecting while snapping the street level photos that appear in the application.

While Google has been under fire for some time in regards to information collection, one area that is should perhaps be facing greater scrutiny for is the targeted advertising that appears during various user searches. Though it is sometimes annoying, it is often useful when, for example, an Orbitz logo appears when something like 'cheap flights' is punched in. However, it seems less relevant, at least for the law abiding, to have locksmith ads pop-up when the aforementioned Google Maps function is in use...

Immigration Poll Results Suggest Feds Have Work To Do

The good folks over at Rasmussen released the interesting results of their latest poll on immigration, with many questions directly addressing the Obama administration's handling of the Arizona immigration law. Among other headline-worthy numbers, it appears that 56% of those polled disagree with the Administration's handling of the issue. Rasmussen also reported that 61% of those polled would favor a similar law in their home states. The survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted on July 6-7, and has a margin of sampling error of +/- 3 percentage points.

Blawgconomics has noted its fondness in the past for the old cliche about lies and statistics. It is quite possible that at least some of the folks in the pro-Arizona camp were merely expressing dissatisfaction with the Administration in general. Additionally, the category 'likely voters' may capture folks who will hit the polls this November, but it is also very likely for obvious reasons to miss some of the millions who are most dissatisfied with the law, giving slightly skewed results. There might also still be a lot of people out there who merely hold the idea of 1700's-era states' rights in such high esteem that they would side with Arizona no matter what the law was. As is so often the case with statistics, they can be misleading. Ultimately, the different sides of any debate will be able to paint different pictures using whatever numbers from whatever polls are most amenable to their conclusions.

Maybe there is some relevance to the numbers however; maybe there are some conclusions which can be drawn. For all of the hot air about the legality of the Arizona bill, many average Americans might be surprised to see that many of its provisions cite directly back to existing federal law. Additionally, despite the numbers suggesting support for the bill above, Rasmussen notes that, '...59% of all voters favor a welcoming immigration policy that excludes only national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off the U.S. welfare system. Twenty-five percent (25%) disagree with such an immigration policy, and 15% more are undecided.'

This could lead one to the conclusion that Americans, a vast majority of whom are in the country as a direct result of a historic familial visit to Ellis Island, are in favor of immigration, so long as it is regulated. Essentially, if the federal government were doing a better job of enforcing its own laws, protecting the borders from criminals and drug smugglers, laws like Arizona's would not be necessary, an ageing population could be replenished by hungry and hard working neighbors from the south, and the country could continue to prosper. Too often Washington-types intermingle the terms 'immigrant' and 'illegal immigrant.' Apparently average Americans are better able to make that distinction.

In an era of 24 hour news networks, the internet, global newspapers and globalized media, it is not difficult to get statistics from a reputable source to back up just about any conclusion one wants to make on nearly any topic. However, one conclusion is clear from the above poll numbers; Americans feel that their government should spend less time worrying about lawsuits and more time taking the type of action that would have made Arizona's law unnecessary in the first place. Immigration is, and always has been, a critical ingredient in the melting pot of America, and will continue to be critical in a future that will be marked by an ageing demographic and the resulting rise in entitlements. However, immigration needs to be regulated. If the federal government doesn't want states to be responsible for that regulation, then, by all means, get on with it.

The List: The Costs (Benefits?) of Illegal Immigration

In what is assuredly an extraordinarily good bit of timing a group calling itself FAIR has found that illegal immigrants are costing the country over $110 billion per year. Additionally, the group claims that states like California and Texas would not have their current budgetary issues if the immigrants weren't there.

This contrasts fairly (no pun intended) significantly with the findings of an outfit calling itself The Perryman Group which outlined in a 2008 study that the economy would immediately collapse if illegals were all removed.

It would be nice to be able to draw conclusions from these studies, but it is far more likely that they will simply be rolled up and used by members of Congress to hit each other over the heads with.

Op-Ed: When Branches Collide Democracy Happens

Another tip from a loyal reader led to this article on the potential for big battles ahead between President Obama, he of the progressive agenda, and a decidedly conservative Supreme Court.  Interestingly, each branch of government has been accused of running rampant over democracy for various reasons by various political opponents and pundits over the past year and a half, obviously for much different reasons. However, maybe a different view of the situation is more appropriate. Perhaps these collisions represent the best hope America has of approaching a democratic government.

President Obama was elected without so much as a hanging chad controversy. He clearly had a majority of Americans backing him, and he was likewise handed majorities in both Houses of Congress. Despite being given two opportunities to name Justices since, however, he was not handed a majority on the Supreme Court. And, it seems unlikely, based on ages alone, that he will ever have one. This has led to potential situations over the next few years which could see laws or sections of laws overturned by the court, thus erasing certain legislative victories for the White House and Congress. Some argue that this is bad for the country, and that it impedes progress.

Isn't this how our democracy works however? Wasn't it the intent of the Founders that the equal, yet varied, powers of each branch would be required to, at times, protect the rights and values, sometimes of the majority and just as often the minority? I think the answer to both is yes. Therefore, the looming battles between branches, rather than be viewed as negative, should be embraced as an important part of a democratic political system that should, in reality, be labelled as no better than representative, and will certainly hardly ever be able to capture the exact mood of the country.

America will never be a true democracy (interestingly Dictionary.com did a piece on this for the holiday). However, despite the near impossibility of capturing the mood of a clearly fractured electorate, competing branches seem to be the best hope for laws and rules to at least come close to representing the views and values of the nation. And that is exactly what the Founders intended.

Loan Guarantees...Good or Bad for Solar Development?

A good friend and loyal reader sent me a link over the holiday weekend regarding President Obama's announcement of nearly $1.5 billion in loan guarantees to a Spanish company, Abengoa Solar, which will be used to build a solar plant in Arizona. Also included in the statement was the announcement that Abound Solar, a closely held company based in Loveland, Colorado, 'will receive a $400 million loan guarantee to expand a solar-panel manufacturing plant in Longmont, Colorado, and to open a new plant in Tipton, Indiana.' According to White House documents, the loans are anticipated to create about 3,000 short-term jobs, as well as approximately 1,600 long-term jobs.

Different people on various points of the political spectrum could of course find a number of distasteful facts hidden in the above paragraph. Some would gripe about spending federal funds on solar development at all. Others might protest giving guaranteed loans to a foreign company. Still others might point out that pledging nearly $2 billion in guaranteed loans for what amounts to be 1,600 jobs in an economy beholden to foreign investors and with record trade and current account deficits is not necessarily the most efficient use of funds. Since Blawgconomics happens to be (in some mind's paradoxically) firmly in both the green development and globalization camps, the first two points are non-starters. However, considering previous research and postings, the third point provides fertile ground for discussion.

Whether you are more Al Gore or Glenn Beck on the global warming debate is inconsequential when it comes to green development. It is an area that will provide jobs, has potential to reduce reliance upon continuously declining and foreign-held resources, and nearly no one could honestly argue that turning sunlight into electricity is worse for the world than burning compressed dinosaur and plant matter. Additionally, some of our presumed competitors for the crown of the world's great economic superpower are already far ahead of America in this growth area. However, there are better ways to promote the growth of the green development sector than throwing money at it. In cases like this and in a Tea Party era of politics, it may even be worse for the green development movement when the government provides statistics revealing that it is financing jobs at a cost of about $1.2 million a pop.

If it were true that solar development was an important leg of the future energy platform and this were the only way to finance its development, that would be one thing. However, there are other potential solutions which take advantage of existing structures and which would incent developers to build large-scale arrays without costing the government anything but tax revenue. No small consideration to be sure. However, when the current solution is to print money financed by oil powers and China, foregone tax revenue for job creation and reduced reliance upon those same foreign powers doesn't seem so bad. One such solution would be the aforementioned Solar, or S-REIT, developed by yours truly and recommended to the Government by the GW Solar Institute. Without rehashing the whole S-REIT model here, it is enough to say that by giving solar developers certain tax benefits to develop solar arrays, the same benefits currently given to more common real estate investments like malls, office buildings and apartment complexes, development would be stimulated even at today's costs and prices.

America is running out of resources and money. It is time to innovate and advance creative solutions. Throwing money at the economy, and specifically at green development, is not the best way out of economic malaise or energy problems. The Solar-REIT is a solution to green development problems that would cost the government nothing but marginal tax revenues. It would promote growth, jobs and the entrepreneurial spirit that seems to be so lacking these days. And the potential of it becoming a viable solution is reduced every time another loan guarantee is made.