fuh2 wrote: 
That's not my lane.  We are a designer of power systems (mostly for boats, but other applications as well). We integrate the best available components with our own equipment. There used to be a vast variety of panels from all kinds of manufacturers. Sure there were some cheap imports being dumped here, but the idea that it was suppressing the market is laughable when you look at what my clients are willing to pay for a good system. 

Now we really only have 3 choices in manufacturers, and that is soon to be two. They are limiting what they make because they can no longer sell overseas due to retaliatory tariffs. So the industry as a whole is losing out.  But this is what I (and many others) believe was the real intent. Solar was at a point where it was making some real scale impacts, and becoming a viable competitor to traditional power sources in niche markets.  Even if you turned the tap back on, it would be a year and change of lost progress and time to restart and regain consumer trust.

So no, we are worse off, and the industry is worse off, and the consumers are worse off. There is no upside here, unless you support the fossil fuel industry. 

Trump NASA Pick No Longer Wants 'Expansion Of Human Knowledge' To Be A NASA Objective

Thanks Donnie!

 islander wrote: 
Has your company or  others  thought about manufacturing panels here in the US as a  result of the tariff?  

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
The solar panel bit from January is really hurting some industries (mine included). It's ham handed and not doing anything to help the market.  I've lost out on at least two sales that could have been fairly decent because of lack of availability. I can't even quote some of these because I the manufacturers won't bother to even bring panels in.

Thanks Donnie!

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
I've been putting out fire with gasoline...

#fuckingidiot

 R_P wrote: 

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
I got distracted by the deep state!

 Lazy8 wrote: 
There's probably no one who knows as much about the law as Trump does...

Trump’s problem isn’t that he has bad lawyers. It’s that he’s a bad client.

How hubris causes legal trouble.

 R_P wrote: 
ahem... 

Trump lied to me about his wealth to get onto the Forbes 400. Here are the tapes.

 sirdroseph wrote:
True enough.  I wasn't referring to the idea or suspicion that "unseen forces" etc. control what goes on, it was just the use of the term "deep state" for referring to it.  It's the etymology I was bumbling around with.  Of course, many people all over have had such suspicions to varying degrees.

 Proclivities wrote: 





Hey, that's their problem. If they want to have their little sandbox and try to associate to the bigger issue of a legitimate deep state, those are 2 different things. Snowden is sitting in Russia now because he gave us a little peek, but really no one cares unless they can score points for their team.

 Proclivities wrote: 
Still not new. Same concept, new recruits.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
It's not the notions of a "shadow government", "government intelligence conspirators", or "military industrial complex" which are new.  The term "deep state" as it is now incessantly used by Sean Hannity and other right-wing pundits is something different and new - the idea that all of these government intelligence acronyms are all somehow controlled by Obama or Hillary, (or Democrats in general) is what is the new notion.

 VV wrote:
It predates Trump. I guess you could say it went "mainstream" in 2014 or 2013 (NYT), but it was already in use long before that.

 VV wrote: 








All of us libertarians are screaming at the screen now. lol Believe me there has been plenty of talk about a deep state regardless of the sitting President since the 50s at least. Kennedy challenged it and look where it got him.







Here is an article from 2014 just to show you plenty of people have been aware of the deep state well before Trump became President and this is from the Bill Moyer website: https://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/