Wind Turbines Sprouting on Elk County Prairie

[flintauqua]

I believe frawin explained that the majority of that trade imbalence is for energy.  Can you not read?  Or do you just continue to turn a blind eye to facts that don't fit your assumptions and view-points.

I guess you don't disagree with the facts I posted about the PILOT amounts?

And I learned my snideness from this Forum, speciffically the level of snideness that has existed since you and Patriot joined it.

[frawin]

Ross a big share of that trade deficit was for foreign manufactured goods in plants Owned all or partially by US companies. Below is the US Chamber of Commerce response on US investment in Foreign Companies.

Secure U.S. Investment Overseas
Americans derive important benefits from U.S. investment abroad. While three-quarters of U.S. multinationals' capital expenditures are in the United States, sales by their foreign affiliates nonetheless topped $5 trillion in 2008. In fact, roughly half of all revenue earned by Fortune 200 companies came from their foreign affiliates in recent years. These earnings provide American companies with a growing pool of capital to help them grow, innovate, and create better jobs at home.

An open investment regime that allows U.S. multinationals to invest abroad does not create a zero-sum game in which a job created abroad is a job eliminated at home. In fact, U.S. companies that invest abroad create 2.3 jobs in the United States for every one they create overseas. U.S. companies with worldwide operations tend to pay higher wages and create more jobs in the United States than other firms do. Earnings from abroad help fund U.S. multinationals' R&D, 80% of which is performed in the United States.

Nor does an open investment regime that allows U.S. multinationals to invest abroad create a race to the bottom. Two-thirds of U.S. investment abroad goes to developed countries with wages and labor standards similar to those in the United States. When U.S. multinationals do invest in developing countries, they often create the best paying jobs around, with the best working conditions.

Most U.S. investment abroad is in sectors that cannot be served by means of exports. More than 93% of the production of foreign affiliates of U.S. multinational companies is sold outside the United States, a fact that belies the myth that foreign investment is all about "offshoring" jobs in pursuit of low wages.

The U.S. Chamber is committed to ensuring strong protection of U.S. investments overseas. The rule of law, sanctity of contracts, and respect for property rights are the touchstones of respect for international investment—and the United States should fight for these principles in markets around the globe.

For three decades, the United States has negotiated bilateral investment treaties (BITs) to protect U.S. investments abroad, and similar provisions are included in bilateral trade agreements. BITs open foreign markets to U.S. investment, uphold contract and property rights, and level the playing field by prohibiting discrimination against U.S. companies and guaranteeing them the same rights and responsibilities as domestic investors. BITs guarantee transparency with respect to investment-related laws and regulations.

BITs also provide recourse to investor-State arbitration in the event of expropriation. These arbitral procedures mirror U.S. Constitutional protections against arbitrary government actions and against taking of property without compensation.

In developing countries where local judiciaries are at times slow, ineffective, or corrupt, U.S. companies have benefited significantly from recourse to investor-State arbitration. Even though these provisions are invoked infrequently, they serve as a positive admonition to governments to avoid arbitrary actions in commercial disputes lest the case wind up before an international arbitration panel.

Unfortunately, the United States badly lags its trade competitors in the race to open foreign markets through BITs. Germany, China, the United Kingdom, and France have each entered into BITs with 100 or more nations, while the United States has done so with just 40. A Chamber analysis recently found that the 10 countries with the most extensive investment treaty networks have entered into BITs with more than 100 countries where the United States has no investment agreement of any kind. As a result, U.S. companies are increasingly placed at a competitive disadvantage in growing markets such as China, India, and Russia.

The substance of these treaties is equally critical. In this context, the Chamber has urged a closer examination of the challenges posed by state-owned and state-influenced enterprises abroad. U.S. BITs have long recognized that some foreign governments skew the playing field to favor national champions and discriminate against U.S. and other foreign companies. Future BIT negotiations provide a unique opportunity to address these growing challenges.

Now more than ever, foreign governments are finding more subtle and damaging ways to evade the spirit of BIT commitments — which a focus principally on governmental rather than private action — by leveraging the state's involvement in commercial enterprises. The Chamber has pressed for meaningful changes to the current model BIT to ensure that state involvement in economic affairs is conducted in a transparent, open, and market-based manner. Otherwise, American workers and businesses may be placed at a competitive disadvantage for years to come.

America's continued prosperity in a highly competitive world demands that we negotiate additional high-standard investment treaties. The Chamber strongly supports negotiating BITs with China, India, and Vietnam, and, when circumstances permit, with additional large economies such as Brazil and Russia. As other countries around the globe pursue their own BITs, decision-makers in Washington should be wary of how these may place U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage should the United States lag in its own negotiations.

In the end, BITs and other measures to protect investment are crucial, but the underlying principles of the rule of law, sanctity of contracts, and respect for property rights are even more so. Their protection should always be at the fore of American international economic policy, even in countries where formal investment protection agreements remain a distant goal.

Chamber Recommendations

The United States should vigorously defend the rule of law, sanctity of contracts, and respect for property rights as central to our international investment policy.
The United States should move forward in already launched bilateral investment treaty (BIT) negotiations with China, India, and Vietnam and open talks with other major markets.
Future BITs should include disciplines on state-owned enterprises and guard against policies that promote them as national champions and discriminate against U.S. and other foreign companies.
.JoinLoginLogoutContact UsTerms & ConditionsPrivacy Policy

[flintauqua]

Thank you Frank for providing that excellent information.

[frawin]

Foreign Direct Investment in the United
States: An Economic Analysis
James K. Jackson
Specialist in International Trade and Finance
February 1, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS21857
Foreign Direct Investment in the United States: An Economic Analysis
Congressional Research Service
Summary
Foreign direct investment in the United States declined sharply after 2000, when a record $300
billion was invested in U.S. businesses and real estate. [Note: The United States defines foreign
direct investment as the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one foreign person
(individual, branch, partnership, association, government, etc.) of 10% or more of the voting
securities of an incorporated U.S. business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an
unincorporated U.S. business enterprise. 15 CFR § 806.15 (a)(1).] In 2008, according to
Department of Commerce data, foreigners invested $325 billion. Foreign direct investments are
highly sought after by many state and local governments that are struggling to create additional
jobs in their localities. While some in Congress encourage such investment to offset the perceived
negative economic effects of U.S. firms investing abroad, others are concerned about foreign
acquisitions of U.S. firms that are considered essential to U.S. national and economic security.

[Varmit]

$350 million in property and improvements and we only get $1 million a year in taxes? Really??  And thats not until they get up and running?  Employ Elk Countians?  Any guess in how many out of state license plates there are running around?

Elk county got screwed plain and simple.

Not to mention those things are butt ugly to look at.

[Diane Amberg]

Animal House.

[Lookatmeknow!!]

I am not hiding a blind eye to nothing. Would I like the US to get out of the red, you bet you I would. But plain and simple, in all things you start off small. If we get any sort of income from the Wind farms it's a good thing if you ask me. I believe to many people look at the negative in everything and not positive things. We are fortunate that the workers that are coming into Elk County are as nice as they are. Everyone that I have met are nice and friendly. The guys that we rent from are paying us in a timely manner, are not tearing up our property, and work usually 7 days a week.

I don't like that the Towers are not US built, but what are we to do? Honestly? Got the answers?? Please do tell!!!

[Ross]

quote author=frawin link=topic=12802.msg179330#msg179330 date=1320787790]
.JoinLoginLogoutContact UsTerms & ConditionsPrivacy Policy
[/quote]
I see you copied and pasted but where is the link?

quote author=frawin link=topic=12802.msg179330#msg179330 date=1320787790]
Ross a big share of that trade deficit was for foreign manufactured goods in plants Owned all or partially by US companies.
Below is the US Chamber of Commerce response on US investment in Foreign Companies.
[/quote]

I believe, I was discussing the Trade Deficit for the Country of the United States of America. I was not talking about private investements.  If you invest a few dollars over seas and put it in your account, just as the foreign companues do that has nothing to do with the trade deficit idoes it?

If US companies own the plants, that would decrease our trade deficits by bringing the profits home to the US, unlike the wind farm that makes our deficit much larger by shipping dollars to foreign country. In escense exporting our dollars.

Ross a big share of that trade deficit was for foreign manufactured goods in plants Owned all or partially by US companies. Below is the US Chamber of Commerce response on US investment in Foreign Companies.

Yes, we import more than we export that's why the deficit. That is the reason for the trade deficit. so good point on your part.
We even invest tax dollars in these foreign owned wind farms and allow them to export the profits in dollars to their countries.

I am not hiding a blind eye to nothing. Would I like the US to get out of the red, you bet you I would. But plain and simple, in all things you start off small. If we get any sort of income from the Wind farms it's a good thing if you ask me. I believe to many people look at the negative in everything and not positive things. We are fortunate that the workers that are coming into Elk County are as nice as they are. Everyone that I have met are nice and friendly. The guys that we rent from are paying us in a timely manner, are not tearing up our property, and work usually 7 days a week.

I don't like that the Towers are not US built, but what are we to do? Honestly? Got the answers?? Please do tell!!!

As long as it lines your pocket, it is a positive thing. But is it good for our and your country? What happens after all the workers leave in a few short months. Who will you rent to then?

Personally, I am all for good things, especially when they are presented honestly and truthfully. Ignoring the truth for profit is what has been going on in this country for at least thirty years.

Show me something positive for the deficit about taxpayers dollars going into build the wind farm for Italy?

Show me something positive  for the deficitabout all the profits from this wind farm going to Italy?

Where is the patriotism in supporting other countries over our own country?

As I have said I don't know the answers or I would not ask the questions.

Oh yea, let's think positive and ignore the reality of the trade deficit.

The United States reported a trade deficit equivalent to 45.6 Billion USD in August of 2011.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade

When do we wake up and face the music when the deficit is  45.6 Trillion?

[srkruzich]

Damn i just figured out what they'll make off of elk county when in full operation and Yall got F******* badly! 

THey'll pull in 83million a year, NO TAXES, and only paying yalll a piddling 900k 

THATS CHUMP CHANGE!

[flintauqua]

Again, how is it the fault of anyone in Elk County?  This wind farm could have been built anywhere in Kansas and it would not have become part of the tax base; not county, city, school, state, watershed district, extension, or any other taxing authority.  The 1998 state legislature and then Governor Graves created that situation, not anybody local.

The meaning of Payment In Lieu Of Taxes is a bit of a misnomer, as the entity paying the PILOT has no legal obligation to pay anything, as there is no tax owed.

A PILOT is not a locally negotiated tax break, it is a locally negotiated tax GAIN.  Again I reference the Elk River wind farm at Beaumont.  Butler County will only receive $150,000 a year for 20 years, or $1000 per MW.  Elk County will receive $4500 per MW per year, and that amount increases by 2% per year for the length of the 20 year agreement.

The Meridian project, in Cloud County, is 201 MW, the same size as Caney River.  Yet their local government coffers will only receive a total of $450,000 for the first three years combined, and then only $300,000 a year thereafter for the next 17 years.

So tell me how Elk County got screwed or f'd or whatever word you want to use?