Solyndra goes bankrupt, taxpayers wasted $500 million

[careinke]

Can we have just a tiny bit of perspective here.

Bush and company got us into two wars for no very good military reasons. And three years after Obama took over, we are still there.

They are costing us more than a billion dollars every week. That is over 138 Billion Obama has spent on these wars since taking over!

That is the corrupt expense that is destroying America (along with the fact that the 400 richest Americans now control more wealth than the 150 million least wealthy Americans). Then why hasn't he fixed it yet?

China is vastly outspending us in supporting their solar industry. If we were a communist country, we could do that too

Investment go bad all the time. The problem isn't that we invested in this company, its that we didn't invest in fifty other companies as well. The problem is he went against the warnings and paid off his cronies

But there is only one thing that repugs Dems want to do

over over

and and

over over

and and

over over

And that is to bash Obama. And that is to blame Bush

It really gets tiring, folks. It really gets tiring, folks

Give it a rest. Give it a rest

[Sixstrings]

And that is to bash Obama.

It really gets tiring, folks.

Give it a rest.

I just posted this because Solyndra is energy related. People were more than welcome to talk more about the broader issue of solar power and why Solyndra failed.. one guy upthread from Germany had good info. Something about this Solyndra design being no good, leaves get stuck in it or something.

I can't help it what direction people want to take a thread..

I'm not an energy expert.. if people want to talk solar I'd like to read it.

[Plantagenet]

Obama promised in 2008 to create millions of "green jobs.----Instead in one of his first acts as President his administration steered hundreds of millions of dollars of stimulus funds to one of his closest political cronies. Instead of creating green jobs, Obama wasted hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money on green scams like Solyndra.

YES---the US and the world need to switch to alternative energy.

NO----the US doesn't need incompetent politicians like Obama who give alternative energy a bad name by diverting precious dollars that should be used to develop the alternative energy industry in the US to hopeless uneconomic scams like Solyndra.

[Outcast_Searcher]

By the way.. I haven't heard this mentioned on either CNN or MSNBC. They really should be more objective and not totally pro-Obama.. this should have been reported, if they carried every photo-op Obama did at Solyndra they should have covered this.

Yup. If FOX News omitted some coverage about a big negative story about some GOP heavyweight -- then there would be all kinds of screaming from the left and the MSM.

Yet MSNBC behaves like this, and then WITH A STRAIGHT FACE claims they're not biased, unlike FOX News.

(I hate both channels BTW). And lately, watching things like "Your Money" on CNN gets pretty sickening with how anti-GOP the staff talking heads clearly are. There is clearly PLENTY of idiocy in the GOP -- I just want the reporting to be either reasonably objective -- OR the source to openly admit their political leanings.

Yeah, like that will happen... At least with the internet you can get many slants on a given story.

[Pops]

Lets try to move this toward peak oil a little...

The whole idea of "prepare 20 years before PO" pretty well means that government must make an investment because obviously the market isn't going to. Alternative energy is called that because it can't compete with FFs in the marketplace - so who is going to do the required investing in a money losing business?

China is spending $30B/yr to develop PV according to an NPR story and the US is spending how much? China and the EU are heavily promoting other alt power as well all the while the US is busy goring Al Gore and yelling 'Drill Baby Drill" and "gimme tax breaks"

No doubt government is not good at handling money, especially when the spending needs to happen fast, a report just out said $60B went to waste and fraud in Iraq so obviously this isn't a partisan problem. When there is a lot of money involved some is gonna get siphoned off and I'm sure some more is just squandered.


So O has his tit in the wringer on this and he should take responsibility but the bigger question to me is what exactly is the option to the US government doing the backing when any sane investor would run?

[Oakley]

The whole idea of "prepare 20 years before PO" pretty well means that government must make an investment because obviously the market isn't going to. Alternative energy is called that because it can't compete with FFs in the marketplace - so who is going to do the required investing in a money losing business?

...

So O has his tit in the wringer on this and he should take responsibility but the bigger question to me is what exactly is the option to the US government doing the backing when any sane investor would run?

When a business uses more value than it creates, i.e., when it loses money, there is a net loss of resources. If it is an individual or business that makes the wrong decisions, the loss is his and his creditors; if the government steps directly into the role of business or indirectly by subsidizing or making loan guarantees, and that turns out to be the wrong decision, we all must bear the burden of this bad decision. When you place the burden of bad decisions on innocent bystanders rather on those who make those bad decisions, you create a disconnect between cause and consequence. You create mal-investments. You punish the wrong people. You do not discourage bad decisions.

Wouldn't you and I be better off if we were not burdened with the consequences of the poor decisions of someone else? We would have more of our own money to follow our own paths in dealing with the end of the oil age.

Your argument that government should do what no sane person would do does not make sense to me. You are attempting to substitute your own judgement about what does or should have economic value for the collective judgement of the market place. You are attempting to burden others to implement your own view of the world, when it is the collective judgement of us all as expressed through the market place that brings us what we want. There is no perfect economic system, but there are those which history has demonstrated are less effective than others, and centralized planning has repeatedly failed. If one were to look closely at the current economic problems, I think he would find that the rigging of the markets by corporate/government collusion has a lot more to do with it than free markets. Politicians and bureaucrats do not have the ability to know what investments should or should not be made to solve the energy problem, if it even does have a solution; they are principally motivated by their own best interest, and cannot possibly know what the best allocation of resources is.

So the bigger question is if we are better off having where resources are invested dictated by politicians and bureaucrats (a dictatorship so to speak) or are we better off being free to privately decide what risks we judge worthy or risking our wealth and what is insane. If there is a solution to the energy/resource scarcity problem, I can pretty much guarantee that it will no arise from the minds of the dullards who occupy the seats of power.

[careinke]

So O has his tit in the wringer on this and he should take responsibility but the bigger question to me is what exactly is the option to the US government doing the backing when any sane investor would run?

Why do you want the government to back insane investments? All those govt bean counters, who warned this was not going to pencil out, just to be overruled willy nilly in favor of cronyism should be let go. After all, if you don't listen to them anyway, why do you need them.

To answer your question, the govt option should be to run. Just like any sane investor.

[AdTheNad]

if the government steps directly into the role of business or indirectly by subsidizing or making loan guarantees, and that turns out to be the wrong decision, we all must bear the burden of this bad decision.

When you decide to sit on the side lines and let the free markets act, and those free markets burn through precious finite resources that are then no longer available to anyone else - we all must bear the burden of that bad decision.

Yes governments make bad decisions, but they also make good ones. The free market answer to peak oil is ignore it, and hope for some future miracle while you keep burning finite resources as quickly as possible. Don't ration it. Don't attempt to charge a price that reflects its real value. Just burn for whatever frivolous reason you can think of. The free market has people driving to their marketing job, to convince other morons to buy SUVs, so they too can burn ever more finite resources. How can you look at the world and think it would be better with even freer markets?

You're clearly an eloquent and pretty smart guy. Do you really believe you couldn't come up with a better system than we have at the moment? Do you foresee a crash coming? Do you not think the crash could be managed better than by running at full speed doing what we are currently doing?

If a system isn't being run sustainably, then all the externalities are not being fully paid. It's as simple as that. Free market systems try to avoid as many externalities as possible and pass them onto other people, and even the future. This is not sustainable and clearly is not optimal for human welfare.

Lets try and put this into the Easter Island analogy to see what would have worked best there:
Do you think that if Easter Island had completely free markets they would have staved off collapse? I think they would have cut down ever single tree just as they did do. The trees could not be priced high enough in a free market system to make the cost higher than the discount rate applied to the future.

How could Easter Island have worked out better for maximum societal welfare?
The trees should have been priced at a level whereby they were only used at a sustainable rate. This is clearly far higher than the cost of simply cutting down a tree. The additional cost, lets call it a "sustainable added tax" could then have either been redistributed evenly amongst the population giving everyone a chance at being able to buy the sustainably available trees, or invested in ways to try to increase the total sustainable goods available.

Easter Island didn't have to collapse. Commodity pricing by free markets couldn't have stopped it.

[Expatriot]

A company of this size doesn't just "go bankrupt" and lock the doors one day without any warning. They knew well in advance, that's why there's a law called the WARN Act in the first place.

Are you kidding again? Or are you being serious? If it's wit, it's very dry humor.

Of course they knew well in advance. All businesses that fail have advance warning.

I'm guessing that you are unfamiliar with how bankruptcy works.

Regarding WARN, it's got nothing to do with Chap. 11 or Chap. 7 cases. It's about layoffs, not bankruptcy.

Surely you don't believe that the WARN act was implemented to force companies going bankrupt to issue a 60 day warning to the world so that there can be a massive creditor pile up at the court houses?

[Expatriot]

Can we have just a tiny bit of perspective here.
Bush and company got us into two wars for no very good military reasons.
They are costing us more than a billion dollars every week.

You Republicrats with your red/blue bickering are freaking hilarious.
When Bush was in office your team blasted him for 8 years.
Now your guy is in office and their team is blasting him.
But you don't think you do the same thing they do. Hilarious.

Are you honestly suggesting that Obama is not responsible, currently, for the wars? Are you honestly suggesting that it's not his active choice to 1. Spend the money. 2. Continue the wars. 3. Expand them into Libya (and probably soon beyond that). Are you actually attempting to argue that Obama is bound to continue the wars, and has no choice?

[Expatriot]

Yes governments make bad decisions, but they also make good ones.

Very few good ones. The ration may be a thousand to one.

Clearly there is need for govt. involvement in some aspects of life - criminal law, mutually important resource protection (water, air), defense.

The big question is always, "how much?"

I suppose if your opinion is that government often makes good decisions, then it's easier to be on the "bigger" govt. side of the spectrum.

I look at Govt. like my retarded cousin Adam. He occasionally makes a good decision, like picking "That 70s Show" over "Jersey Shore," but that doesn't mean I'd put him in change of investing the family fortunes.

[Expatriot]

Easter Island didn't have to collapse.

Idealistic theory.
Of course it did. It was populated by people. People are inherently selfish and myopic.

You seem to be suggesting that, IF ONLY the Easter Islanders had the right form of govt./social organization, THEN it could have worked out.

Problem with that theory is that it would require a genetic change. Not possible over a short period, such as during the collapse of EI.

Perhaps you'll get your wish in a few thousand, or hundred thousand years. Perhaps the self-centered, greedy, destructive, short sighted humans will be replaced by a more highly evolved, communal, long view breed of humans.

But the smart money is on selfish propagation, not the obverse.

[Oakley]

if the government steps directly into the role of business or indirectly by subsidizing or making loan guarantees, and that turns out to be the wrong decision, we all must bear the burden of this bad decision.

When you decide to sit on the side lines and let the free markets act, and those free markets burn through precious finite resources that are then no longer available to anyone else - we all must bear the burden of that bad decision.

This is a completely false conclusion. The burden is on the person or business who makes the poor decision. These are not your resources that are lost; they belong to someone else. And even if one were to accept your flawed logic that resources are collectively owned and use by one man deprives another, why would you choose the proven most ineffective way to allocate resources, that being government dictates?

Yes governments make bad decisions, but they also make good ones. The free market answer to peak oil is ignore it, and hope for some future miracle while you keep burning finite resources as quickly as possible. Don't ration it. Don't attempt to charge a price that reflects its real value. Just burn for whatever frivolous reason you can think of. The free market has people driving to their marketing job, to convince other morons to buy SUVs, so they too can burn ever more finite resources. How can you look at the world and think it would be better with even freer markets?

It is true that sometime governments accident on good choices. But there is no mechanism to punish bad government decisions and reward good ones. If a bad decision is made, the cost is simple borne by taxpayers and the government does not go out of existence as would happen to a business that makes fatal decisions. The failure of businesses that make bad decisions takes capital away from these bad decision makers, and they lose the power to perpetuate their influence on resource allocation, while governments, if it is allowed to interfere in the markets and make resource allocation decisions, retain their power to again mis-allocate resources. When you say that the free market ignores peak oil you are in error. There are countless efforts of people to profit from alternatives to fossil fuels; currently the efforts of Andrea Rossi with his ecat machine, whether successful or a failure is a prime example. There is an unsubsidized business in my area where the owner designed his own windmill blades and sells wind systems and solar panels. If you just search the internet, you will find many people involved in developing and promoting alternatives.

You ask how I could favor the free market. You have certain judgements about what will work and what will not. I have certain judgements about what will work and what will not. If the force of government is used to decide instead of people competing in the marketplace to show who is correct, then we only get the judgement of those who have successfully gained control of the seats of power. If you are not favored by their decisions then your view is excluded. This is why centralized management of the economy works poorly and why free markets work much better. I think you are prejudiced by thinking that the current system of government/corporate collusion is the free market, which it is not, but rather economic fascism. The free market is producers exercising their individual judgements and testing them against one another with the market place deciding which of them is exercising the better judgement, yielding a more effective use of resources as judged by those who have needs and satisfy them by making their own choices. You attempt to substitute your judgement about what should be produced and what should be consumed when you demand that government make the choices.

You're clearly an eloquent and pretty smart guy. Do you really believe you couldn't come up with a better system than we have at the moment? Do you foresee a crash coming? Do you not think the crash could be managed better than by running at full speed doing what we are currently doing?

Thank you for the compliment. I do think I can come up with a better system than the current government/corporate collusion that rigs the markets against the average person so that those in power can take a disproportionate share of the economic pie; that better system is freedom, both in our personal behavior and in our economic lives. And as far as foreseeing the future, I think I am quite attuned to what is developing. Why should we rely upon government force to manage our economic lives any more during bad times than in good times? They only mute the good times and add to the suffering during bad times. And as far as running at full speed doing what we are doing, again I point out that it is not free markets that we are doing, but rather government controlled, managed, restricted, plundered markets that we have, not free markets, so I think you argue against yourself.

If a system isn't being run sustainably, then all the externalities are not being fully paid. It's as simple as that. Free market systems try to avoid as many externalities as possible and pass them onto other people, and even the future. This is not sustainable and clearly is not optimal for human welfare.

Lets try and put this into the Easter Island analogy to see what would have worked best there:
Do you think that if Easter Island had completely free markets they would have staved off collapse? I think they would have cut down ever single tree just as they did do. The trees could not be priced high enough in a free market system to make the cost higher than the discount rate applied to the future.

How could Easter Island have worked out better for maximum societal welfare?
The trees should have been priced at a level whereby they were only used at a sustainable rate. This is clearly far higher than the cost of simply cutting down a tree. The additional cost, lets call it a "sustainable added tax" could then have either been redistributed evenly amongst the population giving everyone a chance at being able to buy the sustainably available trees, or invested in ways to try to increase the total sustainable goods available.

Easter Island didn't have to collapse. Commodity pricing by free markets couldn't have stopped it.

I suggest that if the people of Easter Island had property rights and individually had owned the resources on the island, instead of them being collectively owned and exploited by the tribe, that each would have had an interest in managing and preserving his property. The result might well have been different than the destruction of their environment. All you point out by using the Easter Island example is that there is currently a significant imbalance between population and the ability of the earth to sustain that population. The discussion between you and me is how best to solve that problem or to mitigate the damage, and the collectivist solution on Easter Island argues against your position that politicians and bureaucrats should command a solution instead of the inventiveness that exists in individual human minds freely competeing without government attempting to choose the winners and losers.

[Plantagenet]

The Solyndra scandal shows that Obama is both out of his depth AND corrupt. Its a bad combination.

WSJ editorial---Solyndra scandal shows Obama is both incompetent AND corrupt---a bad combination for country

The new emails being released from the investigation of the White House shows that the Obama White House KNEW in advance that Solyndra was a financial scam, but went ahead with the half a billion dollar loan because they wanted a good photo-op for Obama.

[Pops]

You are attempting to substitute your own judgement about what does or should have economic value for the collective judgement of the market place.

You completely ignored my argument, the market is rigged. Countries all around the world are investing their tax dollars in alt energy manufacturing and infrastructure and your only concern seems to be that you gotta pay taxes.

China has taken the ball and invested their societies capital into building a PV manufacturing base - 30-40-50 times the amount blown on this fiasco per year. Same with France and Nukes, the EU and wind, etc.


The collective judgement of the marketplace for 150 years is that cheap FFs are the best thing going and you appear just fine with that. I realize you are a partisan and 'the market is always right' is the party line but perhaps peak oil is a little different. Maybe this time waiting for the market to make a profit is waiting too long, or don't you think peak oil is that big of a problem?

[Oakley]

You are attempting to substitute your own judgement about what does or should have economic value for the collective judgement of the market place.

You completely ignored my argument, the market is rigged. Countries all around the world are investing their tax dollars in alt energy manufacturing and infrastructure and your only concern seems to be that you gotta pay taxes.

China has taken the ball and invested their societies capital into building a PV manufacturing base - 30-40-50 times the amount blown on this fiasco per year. Same with France and Nukes, the EU and wind, etc.


The collective judgement of the marketplace for 150 years is that cheap FFs are the best thing going and you appear just fine with that. I realize you are a partisan and 'the market is always right' is the party line but perhaps peak oil is a little different. Maybe this time waiting for the market to make a profit is waiting too long, or don't you think peak oil is that big of a problem?

I fully agree the market is rigged, and who is it that does the rigging? It is the collusion of government and corporations to rig it in their own favor so as to transfer wealth to them out of the pockets of the majority. So what is the answer, more rigging of the market or stopping the rigging?

If the federal and state governments cease to rig the markets here in the US, and the Chinese, EU countries, etc. continue to rig and subsidize their own markets, then we benefit even more because foreigners are selling us products even cheaper than we would produce them, and we can use our energies and capital to just produce something else of value. What is it that you find so offensive that the manufacturing plants for these products you personally value so highly are being built on foreign soil? They need to sell their products somewhere and we need to sell the products we produce in the US somewhere. I think that if it becomes prudent for investment to be made in US based production facilities, then there will be plenty of willing investors; until then it is insane, to use your description, for the government to direct resources where no sane business person would.

As far a not wanting to pay taxes, I find that a much more rational response to the foolishness of government plunder and control than not only embracing the status quo, but suggesting more of the same.

As far as being fine with FF's being what the market place chooses, you read me correctly. And I am fine with individuals and businesses making their own decisions instead of having government dictate to us what decisions we make, so long as we do not commit aggression against our neighbors. Those who endorse government dictating our activities are advocating government force be substituted for individual choice. You discount the ability of producers and consumers to make the decisions which are in their own best interest. How would you like me showing up at your house and forcing you to purchase with your own money the things I judge you should buy? If you think I shouldn't have that power, then why would you think that my neighbors and I, acting collectively, should be able to authorize someone else to do that on our behalf?

I think the proof is in the pudding. Government interference with ethanol had serious consequences both to those forced to fund this failure and those who suffered the consequences of removing large quantities of corn from the food supply. The boondoggle of Solyndra is yet another example.

[Cog]

Bottom line is that Pops is perfectly comfortable with a Democrat wasting money on failed ideas but is outraged when Republicans do the same thing.

[dohboi]

"I fully agree the market is rigged, and who is it that does the rigging? It is the collusion of government and corporations"

Easy solution--outlaw corporations.

Governments are voted in. Corporations are not. And many are essentially immune from customer boycott (just try to boycott Koch Refineries, for instance).

The screed about 1000 to one gov projects being boondoggles is pure right wing bs propaganda, of course. Even most of your current crop of rabid right wing pres candidates don't want to scrap social security, a program that has eased the lives of hundreds of millions of elderly Americans.

And guess what--it is essentially socialism. And it is wildly popular with nearly all Americans.

And Cog, man, if you are trying to paint Pops as some kind of narrow minded partisan, you are really barking up the wrong tree, buddy, from what I have seen of his posts, at least.

Really, there is no one so thin skinned as a died in the wool repug. Any suggestion that there may be a different position or that their side did something bad, and they immediately jump to accusing YOU of being one sided.

I really think that political discussions have gotten essentially toxic in this country, mostly because of rightwing extremist (almost the only sort that gets any air time) rhetoric.

It all seems very Weimar to me.

[Cog]

Well I knew someone would involve Godwin's Law at some point.

[dohboi]

If the shoe--or rather the jackboot--fits