zerohedge.com:
Yesterday Zero Hedge contributor Bruce Krasting had some very insightful and very prophetic words when he asked rhetorically if a "Government investment disaster in the works??" The company in question is (now former) massively subsidized solar energy company Solyndra. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy less than 24 hours after Bruce proposed that the company is nothing but a stimulus black hole. We congratulate him on his investigative efforts. Alas, being private, there was no way to short it and capitalize on this investigative coup de grace. And while there are no winners, there are plenty of losers? Who - why US taxpayers of course. Why? Because as some may recall, Solyndra is one of the "shining examples" of Obama's $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. After all none other than president Obama said that Solyndra is "leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” He also cited it as a success story from the government’s $787 billion economic stimulus package." Alas Solyndra has now become a less than shining example of the complete catastrophe this latest exercise in pointless Keynesianism has been, all on the backs of US taxpayers. But don't worry, Obama is about to bring us a fresh new such fiscal stimulus catastrohpe any minute. This time it will be different.

From ABC:

President Obama visited Solyndra in May 2010, heralding the company as “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” He also cited it as a success story from the government’s $787 billion economic stimulus package.

“Less than a year ago, we were standing on what was an empty lot. But through the Recovery Act, this company received a loan to expand its operations,” Obama said at the time. “This new factory is the result of those loans.”

In 2009, the Obama administration fast-tracked Solyndra’s loan application, later awarding it $535 million in guarantees from the stimulus funds.

The deal later came under scrutiny from independent government watch dogs and members of Congress, which said the administration had bypassed key taxpayer protections in a rush to approve the funds — claims the administration has denied.
All this delightful irony on tape:

So the government shouldn't assist in boosting our country's innovation? Of course they should. In tech, you win some and you lose some. But to help a company that would potentially employ high skilled workers is a good thing.

The private investors of Solyndra sunk $1B into Solyndra; that investor class will definitely lose. Since the government "funding" of the company was basically a loan, most of that debt should be recoverable.

Also, I would like to ask, should the SBA be demolished as well?

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

*length=2:45

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 2:45 - length declared by Boise_Lib.

The WPA (in teh great depression, part of the new deal) provided direct employment. They build the hoover dam, other stuff.

Contrast this to the recovery act, which spends about 80 billion on education, half that on infrastructure, and spreads the rest of the 600 billion all over.

http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-perrys-top-donors-under-scrutiny-for-receiving-texas-sized-benefits-2011-9
This details how Rick Perry's political friends get rich while Rick Perry cuts state-run health care and education.

If I believed that the recovery act went to paying wages, I would support it. But I really doubt it. My own personal idea is for the government to subsidize the minimum wage. It would add $5 in salary to each employee making less than $10. Do the math. for 1 million people, it would cost 10 Billion per year.

I could give numerous example of corporations that receive "Recovery Act" funds that have moved jobs to China this year. Since the Recovery Act is paying off those corporation that "Dey Took Ar Jawbs!" Is it wrong to conclude the recovery act is a product of the Corporate Dominated Politics?

1 more thing. I agree w/ Paul Krugman (who warned on future debt payments). The debt payments will come due, and If RICK PERRY is allowed to borrow money for HIS STIMULUS PACKAGE. Who will be paying off the debt? (I don't assume booming growth in the next decade)

wow, that post turned out better than i hoped. When i started writing it, I really had nothing to stand on.

I think your post and your sentiment is very shortsighted. The US government has a long history of subsidizing high tech. It's why we lead the world in this area. Countries like China are following the US example and gaining fast, since the US seems to be regressing. China's government's investment in private solar companies dwarfs America's, and is one factor in Solyndra's failure; Solyndra found it hard to compete against chinese products.

I could give numerous example of corporations that receive "Recovery Act" funds that have moved jobs to China this year. Since the Recovery Act is paying off those corporation that "Dey Took Ar Jawbs!" Is it wrong to conclude the recovery act is a product of the Corporate Dominated Politics?

What does this have to do with the video? If anything, Solyndra is a counterexample: an american company building a factory and research facilities in the states, opting to compete on innovation rather than cheap overseas labor. Despite its failure, we should invest in 10 more Solyndras. We need a high skill base in this country; not a population of burger flippers and day laborers.

The WPA (in teh great depression, part of the new deal) provided direct employment. They build the hoover dam, other stuff.

Contrast this to the recovery act, which spends about 80 billion on education, half that on infrastructure, and spreads the rest of the 600 billion all over.

This is a very bad comparison, and a flawed summary of what the recovery act does. For example, the 80 billion in education helped to keep teachers employed. Is that a waste?





From the recovery website:
http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx

The Recovery Act intends to achieve those goals by:

•Providing $288 billion in tax cuts and benefits for millions of working families and businesses
•Increasing federal funds for education and health care as well as entitlement programs (such as extending unemployment benefits) by $224 billion
•Making $275 billion available for federal contracts, grants and loans
•Requiring recipients of Recovery funds to report quarterly on how they are using the money. All the data is posted on Recovery.gov so the public can track the Recovery funds.
In addition to offering financial aid directly to local school districts, expanding the Child Tax Credit, and underwriting a process to computerize health records to reduce medical errors and save on health care costs, the Recovery Act is targeted at infrastructure development and enhancement. For instance, the Act plans investment in the domestic renewable energy industry and the weatherizing of 75 percent of federal buildings as well as more than one million private homes around the country.

Construction and repair of roads and bridges as well as scientific research and the expansion of broadband and wireless service are also included among the many projects that the Recovery Act will fund.

While many of Recovery Act projects are focused more immediately on jumpstarting the economy, others, especially those involving infrastructure improvements, are expected to contribute to economic growth for many years.

Nothing wrong with investing in high-tech.

But no one wants that solar crap.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I sure as shit do want that solar crap - and a lot of people I know do too.>> ^lantern53:

Nothing wrong with investing in high-tech.
But no one wants that solar crap.

>> ^dag:

I sure as shit do want that solar crap - and a lot of people I know do too.>> ^lantern53:
Nothing wrong with investing in high-tech.
But no one wants that solar crap.



hear hear

When the government gave free land to railroad companies, we got fraud and theft of historic proportions. We also got the most extensive railroad system in the world.

When the government gave billions to NASA, contractors looted the treasury, but we also got to the moon.

Every year the pentagon wastes our money on $100 toilet seats, but we also get the security of knowing that no one can threaten our way of life by force.

If we want green energy fast (and yes, I know not everyone does), we have to spend a lot of money and accept that waste will happen. That doesn't mean we can't do more to limit waste and fraud. It means we shouldn't let them deter us from doing what it takes to meet our goal.

http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2011/09/01/manufacturing-a-recovery/
decline in high tech is due to lack of manufacturing and exports. Read above.

>> ^longde:
quoting longde:
http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx
The Recovery Act intends to achieve those goals by:
•Providing $288 billion in tax cuts and benefits for millions of working families and businesses
•Increasing federal funds for education and health care as well as entitlement programs (such as extending unemployment benefits) by $224 billion
•Making $275 billion available for federal contracts, grants and loans


Are $288 billion in tax cuts worth going into debt for?
What exactly does $275 billion in contracts, grants and loans buy?

I feel like we're shouting at each other. For me to win this argument, I have to convince you that the "Recovery Act" is worthless and ineffective; For you to win, you have to convince me that the "Recovery Act" actually helps the economy more than it hurts us in interest payments on the national debt.

You asked why this video was relevant. Well it is. After some lobbyist in our government gives out billions of dollars, all we have is some bad loans, and construction workers now on unemployment. Rather than cut into corporate profits making profits on exploited Chinese workers, we've build a lead zeppelin of an empty factory. Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix anything. Don't construe this to say that I'm against funding for R&D.

Economics is "the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses."

Every dollar urinated away on fanciful bull$h1t (per the info in marinara's post, the Golfer Administration ramrodded this through with zero oversight) like this is a dollar that could've landed in someone's paycheck (where it would be taxed) and circulated to buy goods people actually want and use (and taxed again).

That's also another dollar that will never be invested freely by peeps who are a lot more cautious with their dollars than thugverment. And these 'lone' dollars we're discussing are far from alone. Each one also costs many more dollars because government bureaucracies filled with government workers have to move them around.

No one is 'against' solar. they want "viable" (meaning cost-effective) solar systems. And people wanted to fly before the Wright Brothers built a plane in their garage using zero tax dollars.

If I believed that the recovery act went to paying wages, I would support it. But I really doubt it. My own personal idea is for the government to subsidize the minimum wage. It would add $5 in salary to each employee making less than $10. Do the math. for 1 million people, it would cost 10 Billion per year.

It seems like such an easy solution, doesn't it? Just pay people a living wage! Except living wages don't come from government, they come from businesses who have to deal with market demand. The American workforce is roughly 100 million. So with your 10 billion in what is essentially workfare (favoring one burger flipper over another) you've given a whopping 1 percent of low-wage earners a larger paycheck...for doing nothing!

Not only will this money be taxed at a higher rate, prices will rise, just like they do every time some vote-buying slug in office suggests raising the minimum wage. And employers will hire less people at $10 than $5. Supply and demand. Only in liberaland does a forklift driver earn the same as a neurosurgeon, because anything less wouldn't be "fair". It's also why double digit inflation is the norm across Europe.

@marinara, friend, I'm not shouting

You are indeed against R&D. I am in high tech with many years, projects, and products under my belt. One thing I will tell you: even the best, well-thought-out ideas can fail. Risk is part and parcel of effective and innovative R&D. You want to take an example of one failure, and say we shouldn't have taken the risk. If the investors who put $1B into Solyndra shared that attitude, we'd never have a Silicon Valley.

http://alum.mit.edu/pages/sliceofmit/2011/09/01/manufacturing-a-recovery/
decline in high tech is due to lack of manufacturing and exports. Read above.

So, then you agree with me? This article is nothing if not a case for investing in Solyndra. Did you read the article? Hockfield makes a case that directly contradicts your main points. And she even points to examples of the US government subsidizing high tech companies.

Are $288 billion in tax cuts worth going into debt for?
What exactly does $275 billion in contracts, grants and loans buy?

If you go to the website, there are links which give a detailed account of what has been spent. To answer your first question, if the tax cuts can help to stimulate the economy, then they would be worth the debt.

You asked why this video was relevant. Well it is. After some lobbyist in our government gives out billions of dollars, all we have is some bad loans, and construction workers now on unemployment.

So this one example invalidates the stimulus? Then, if I can point to a success story will you change your mind?

Rather than cut into corporate profits making profits on exploited Chinese workers, we've build a lead zeppelin of an empty factory. Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix anything. Don't construe this to say that I'm against funding for R&D.



Why can't we both tax corporations that manufacture overseas and invest in innovative companies that manufacture here? The two are not mutually exclusive.

Moving this video to marinara's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.