cahomeown456

4 ms·

1.
by cahomeown456 8y ago
This is good as an alternative take: https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-Economics-Revised-Expanded-...
2.
by cahomeown456 8y ago
An economics Nobel is not the same thing as a Nobel in (for example) Physics, and citing it as an appeal to authority is intentionally misleading.
3.
by cahomeown456 8y ago
This is a mitigation required because of the terrible housing situation in California. If normal people could afford to buy a home, they could install chargers themselves and this massive public construction effort would be unnecessary.
4.
by cahomeown456 8y ago
Where did the money go? To the academic establishment (USC in this case): tenured professors, deans/administrators, etc. Where did the money come from? The US taxpayer. The whole rotten system is a thinly-veiled massive government subs
5.
by cahomeown456 8y ago
For anyone stumbling across this thread, the above is wrong (possibly intentionally so). The cost of the panels and related hardware are roughly 30-50% of the total installed job cost (for me, roughly $6-8k of the $15k total). The rest is s
6.
by cahomeown456 8y ago
What this does is force new homeowners to make an iffy investment that they probably wouldn't otherwise make given a choice in the free market, but cleverly hides it in the price of new construction. If it was such a slam-dunk great id
7.
by cahomeown456 8y ago
I'm a homeowner in southern California. I've looked into it and a solar system would cost me about $15k and it would pay itself off after about 8 years. However that assumes constant price conditions. If there's a glut of sol