Notices
Results 1 to 49 of 49
Like Tree5Likes
  • 2 Post By inow
  • 1 Post By inow
  • 2 Post By GiantEvil

Thread: Solyndra - Obama-style crony socialism at its finest

  1. #1 Solyndra - Obama-style crony socialism at its finest 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Since we already have a thread ranting against Republicans, I thought we needed one for the other side of the aisle.


    "The true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra, will always be America's businesses. " - Barak Obama
    "Which is why it's so important we invest in Solyndra" - Joe Biden


    FBI agents executed search warrants on Thursday at the headquarters of solar panel manufacturer Solyndra LLC, which received more than $500 million in federal loan guarantees before filing for bankruptcy last week.
    Emails obtained by investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee and released to ABC News demonstrate how deeply involved the White House was at the highest levels in fast-tracking the approval of the politically well connected start-up in direct conflict with numerous private as well as government warnings that the survival of the company was very doubtful.
    Internal emails show the Obama administration tried to rush federal officials for a decision on a $500 million government loan to Solyndra, a politically connected solar panel manufacturer that has since gone bankrupt and is under federal investigation, according to a report on Wednesday.

    The White House hoped to speed federal reviews of the loan so that Vice President Joe Biden could announce its approval at the September 2009 opening of the California company’s factory, the emails obtained by the Washington Post reveal.

    Homing in on one of the several shocking aspects of the Solyndra scandal, lawmakers noted that, a few months before the “clean energy” enterprise went belly-up last week, the Obama Energy Department signed off on a sweetheart deal. In the event of bankruptcy — the destination to which it was screamingly obvious Solyndra was headed despite the president’s injection of $535 million in federal loans — the cozily connected private investors would be given priority over American taxpayers. In other words, when the busted company’s assets were sold off, Obama pals would recoup some of their losses, while you would be left holding the half-billion-dollar bag.

    As Andrew Stiles reported here at NRO, Republicans on the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee say this arrangement ran afoul of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
    Kaiser was a key fundraiser for the 2008 presidential campaign of Barack Obama. In 2008, he contributed more than $50,000 to the campaign.
    The company, which closed last week, laid off 1,100 and filed for bankruptcy Tuesday, was heavily backed by the Tulsa-based George Kaiser Family Foundation. Through one of the foundation's investment arms, Argonaut Ventures, the foundation amassed a 39 percent stake in the company. It was among several hundred investors in Solyndra, which was granted the federal loan guarantees through the Department of Energy.
    Solyndra Loan: Now Treasury Is Launching Investigation - ABC News

    George Kaiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Solyndra Fraud - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online

    FBI searches headquarters of solar panel company Solyndra | Tulsa World

    Emails link Solyndra to Biden office - Page 1 - Bob Beauprez - Townhall Finance

    Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    So, what's your point, exactly? That they made a mistake? That a company which was using thin film technology when the cost of crystalline silicon in the market suddenly decreased substantially was impacted? That China supports solar panel manufacturing about 20x as much as the US does, so companies in the US are struggling to keep up as our government sits with their thumbs up their ass?

    I'm just trying to be clear what you want to discuss. After all, if I'd created this thread like you just did but my target was republicans or christianity, you'd have closed it by now.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    I find it unusual that the moderators here jump into political and religious threads with very biased posts but it seems even more unusual that a moderator would start such a troll-like thread. (I know, I have different ideas on how a science forum should be moderated. )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by inow View Post
    So, what's your point, exactly? That they made a mistake? That a company which was using thin film technology when the cost of crystalline silicon in the market suddenly decreased substantially was impacted? That China supports solar panel manufacturing about 20x as much as the US does, so companies in the US are struggling to keep up as our government sits with their thumbs up their ass?

    I'm just trying to be clear what you want to discuss. After all, if I'd created this thread like you just did but my target was republicans or christianity, you'd have closed it by now.
    A mistake? I think not. It was clearly a big payoff to a campaign supporter. And a violation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

    When did I ever close a thread in the politics subforum?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    I find it unusual that the moderators here jump into political and religious threads with very biased posts but it seems even more unusual that a moderator would start such a troll-like thread. (I know, I have different ideas on how a science forum should be moderated. )
    The Republican trolls are heavily outnumbered by Democrat trolls on this forum. That's why I have to be the Republican troll.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The Republican trolls are heavily outnumbered by Democrat trolls on this forum. That's why I have to be the Republican troll.
    How about you try being a moderator instead? The opposite of bias is not more bias for the opposing viewpoint. It's objectivity, reason, and maturity, and you're demonstrating none of those traits by proceeding in this manner.


    In some vain attempt to obfuscate and sow uncertainty and doubt, you're suggesting that somehow a reward to a $50K contributor is the driving feature of this error. Not only do you have zero evidence to support such an assertion, but it shows how plainly you fail to understand the scale of contributions involved in presidential politics. He raised about $750,000,000, and 50,000 is less than 1 ten thousandth of one percent of that.

    If this is "crony socialism at its finest," then crony socialism sure has taken a negative dive these past few years.


    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/su...p?id=n00009638
    Last edited by inow; September 18th, 2011 at 12:36 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by inow View Post
    In some vain attempt to obfuscate and sow uncertainty and doubt, you're suggesting that somehow a reward to a $50K contributor is the driving feature of this error. Not only do you have zero evidence to support such an assertion, but it shows how plainly you fail to understand the scale of contributions involved in presidential politics. He raised about $750,000,000, and 50,000 is less than 1 ten thousandth of one percent of that.

    If this is "crony socialism at its finest," then crony socialism sure has taken a negative dive these past few years.


    Summary data for Barack Obama | OpenSecrets
    Did you read the articles I posted, and watch the ABC report? It was blatantly obvious that Solyndra was a poor investment. They were making panels for $6 to sell for $3. And I think this is just a drop in the bucket. There was plenty of other pork in the stimulus bill. If I'm not mistaken Kaiser would have been counted as an individual donor (not a PAC) in that opensecrets listing.

    What do you have to say about that last minute deal to give the investors priority over taxpayers when the company went belly up? The deal that violated the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

    Bundlers, Barack Obama | OpenSecrets
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It was blatantly obvious that Solyndra was a poor investment.
    Yes, I agree. It was a poor investment. That does not mean it is crony socialism, though, "Obama-style" or otherwise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    The Republican trolls are heavily outnumbered by Democrat trolls on this forum. That's why I have to be the Republican troll.
    The feeling of being picked on is simply fundamental to these people's character, and is not alterable by physical reality.

    Solyndra was of course a capitalistic enterprise, and crony capitalism has of course infected the Democratic Party as it moves ever farther rightwing. Nothing like Halliburton, of course - but then, what is? Enron?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The worse part of this case is the lack of diversification and amount of money given to one company which suggest a severe lack of basic investment savvy. Not really a surprise considering only a quarter of the dems in the Congress have any business experience and it's worse in the Senate.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx Fox
    The worse part of this case is the lack of diversification and amount of money given to one company which suggest a severe lack of basic investment savvy. Not really a surprise considering only a quarter of the dems in the Congress have any business experience and it's worse in the Senate.
    That's how crony capitalism works - again, Halliburton.

    The problem is not lack of business experience - many of the Reps have that, and it makes them even bigger suckers than the Dems and even more inclined to corruption than if they didn't. W had years of experience as a top level executive, an MBA from Harvard, and a lifetime of familiarity with business and businessmen - and his biggest campaign supporter was Kenneth Lay, a personal friend by all accounts.

    After all, normal capitalistic business practice is corruption in the realm of politics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I think we're talking two things here. Putting huge money into one unproven company is and idiotic investing & business practice and it's easy to blame the inexpeienced dems for that because the REb didnt' vote for it.

    I completely agree with you about Halliburton, but it wasn't because of bad business knowledge--it was with full knowledge, for personal electability and in some cases direct gain by the Vice Pres and others. And ya, I'd say that's even worse than simple ignorance.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    The Republican trolls are heavily outnumbered by Democrat trolls on this forum. That's why I have to be the Republican troll.
    The feeling of being picked on is simply fundamental to these people's character, and is not alterable by physical reality.
    I didn't say I was being picked on. Only that this forum is predominately liberal. Do you deny that?
    Solyndra was of course a capitalistic enterprise, and crony capitalism has of course infected the Democratic Party as it moves ever farther rightwing. Nothing like Halliburton, of course - but then, what is? Enron?
    When the government is investing public money in the private sector, I call that a socialist idea.

    Socialist economies are based upon production for use and the direct allocation of economic inputs to satisfy economic demands and human needs
    Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    To iceaura and Lynx_Fox - In addition, Solyndra failed because they were using thin film technologies during a time in the market when the cost of crystalline silicon (a much more efficient energy capture technology based on today's knowledge) decreased. The cost per watt of thin film jumped relative to the cost per watt of crystalline which really decimated the entire thin film market, not just Solyndra. Many very experienced "business minds" did not (and really could not) see that coming.

    Further, based on information which is readily available in nearly every major news outlet right now, Solyndra failed because they could not achieve the necessary operational cost reductions and improved throughput when scaling. This is IMO where the investment in them was most at fault. Leaders in the industry knew this was going to be an issue going in, but those words of warning did not prevent the investment.

    And regardless of all of that... The entire industry is being setup to fail with the (lack of) US policy right now to support clean energy. The investment should have been made in providing broader support to the entire sector, not just this one single company. It was a massive mistake, it's like catnip to the Faux News audience, and they're going to be running around with a hard-on for a few weeks about this while the rest of us continue to focus on finding ways to sustain the renewable energy industry in the long-term.

    Of course they're going to point and laugh and yell "See!! I told you so!!" After all... They're not getting much traction anymore denying global warming or evolution or the fact that the president was born in the US or is not a secret Muslim or whatever other bullshit keeps their hive minds buzzing.



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It was clearly a big payoff to a campaign supporter. And a violation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
    Which specific part of the Energy Policy Act are you suggesting was violated?


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What do you have to say about that last minute deal to give the investors priority over taxpayers when the company went belly up? The deal that violated the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
    Which specific part of the Energy Policy Act are you suggesting was violated?



    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    When the government is investing public money in the private sector, I call that a socialist idea.
    We're a mixed economy, Harold. We have been for years, and for good reason. The only place pure capitalism exists is in the mind of ideologues and sheep. According to your logic here, then oil companies are being supported through some socialist agenda, as are contractors who are helping to fight our wars. Further, you throw around the word socialism like it's some sort of evil to be fought, much the same way you do with the word "liberal," as if that's somehow the end of the discussion and you've just scored some sort of game ending point. It's not. There are parts of our society where it truly is a better approach to look at the collective good, and this Randian objectivism you seem to be putting forth is not only morally bankrupt, but it's also empirically nonsensical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    I didn't say I was being picked on. Only that this forum is predominately liberal. Do you deny that?
    I deny that trolls are predominantly Democrats here.
    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    When the government is investing public money in the private sector, I call that a socialist idea
    Why would you want to be so confused and muddled?

    The first and basic characteristic of socialism is community - "social" - ownership of economic entities; means of production or provisioners of service. Likewise, capitalism refers to ownership by capital. The US Federal Government did not even get voting stock in Solyndra, let alone ownership.

    When the US gave land to the railroad barons back in the 1800s, for example, that was not socialism. Neither were the provisions of the Homestead Act, or the contracting of mercenaries to fight for the US in Iraq.
    Quote Originally Posted by fox
    I think we're talking two things here. Putting huge money into one unproven company is and idiotic investing & business practice and it's easy to blame the inexpeienced dems for that because the REb didnt' vote for it.
    Blame the Dems if you must, but not for inexperience at business - the slightly more experienced Reps have been much bigger suckers (Enron. Worldcom. Trickle down. Reaganomics.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by inow View Post
    Which specific part of the Energy Policy Act are you suggesting was violated?
    I am referring to this:
    The Solyndra Fraud - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online
    The idea is cockamamie, but Congress did at least write in a mandate that taxpayers who fund these “investments” must be prioritized over other stakeholders. The idea is to prevent cronies from pushing ahead of the public if things go awry — as they are wont to do when pols fancy themselves venture capitalists. On the Energy Policy Act, the administration’s malfeasance is significant, but secondary. That’s because the act is not a penal statute. It tells the cabinet officials how to structure these “innovative technology” loans, but it provides no remedy if Congress’s directives are ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    When the government is investing public money in the private sector, I call that a socialist idea.
    We're a mixed economy, Harold. We have been for years, and for good reason. The only place pure capitalism exists is in the mind of ideologues and sheep.
    Then you agree it was crony socialism rather than crony capitalism?
    According to your logic here, then oil companies are being supported through some socialist agenda, as are contractors who are helping to fight our wars. Further, you throw around the word socialism like it's some sort of evil to be fought, much the same way you do with the word "liberal," as if that's somehow the end of the discussion and you've just scored some sort of game ending point. It's not. There are parts of our society where it truly is a better approach to look at the collective good, and this Randian objectivism you seem to be putting forth is not only morally bankrupt, but it's also empirically nonsensical.
    Try to stick to the subject at hand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    I find it unusual that the moderators here jump into political and religious threads with very biased posts but it seems even more unusual that a moderator would start such a troll-like thread. (I know, I have different ideas on how a science forum should be moderated. )
    From what I can tell, this board has become a bit more about pseudo-science than science since the various turn-overs in administrators. That the poor judgment in that area spills over to the political arena is hardly surprising.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold"
    Then you agree it was crony socialism rather than crony capitalism?
    As you noted, the government here was not even given priority over other suppliers of capital in this capitalist business. Also, it went bankrupt - without any agency of government or other community organization running out of money.

    Or to quote your own quote:
    The idea is to prevent cronies from pushing ahead of the public if things go awry — as they are wont to do when pols fancy themselves venture capitalists.
    Venture capitalism is not socialism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    It dont surprise me, some "business people" gave Obama 100's of millions of dollars to pay for his campain . Your avarage person in America does not even know whats going on, they just dont get the infomation.
    5 years ago I got satalite tv and freespeech and link tv. They showed me things I never knew were going on. Heres a few things I learned from them. 30? years ago GE and other corps. got control of all of our TV stations, and they created an atmosphere were they never said anything bad about their companys. And in all those years they also have been giving $ to our politicians. and now its 30? years later, and what happened ????
    Those same corporations are now pysically writing our laws. Well their lawyers write the laws, then they give (hand) them over to our Congressmen. I also learned that D. Cheny and D. Rumsfeld were in a neo-conserative think tank called the (project for the new american century.) that had plans to invade Iraq many,many years before sept 11, then sept 11 happened and cheny and rumsfelds were finally able to get their think tanks dream done. (and sadam had nothing to do with sept 11). Link tv told me about a book crimes against nature, G.W.Bush got a 100 million dollars from some corporations, when he got in office he passed laws so they could let out a bit more smoke at their powerplants, this then caused asma in 10,000s or 100,000s? of children to the point were they were too sick to go out and play.
    In the book the auther said " thousands of little children cant go outside to play, just because some one gave a politician some money."
    But you just dont hear these storys on corporate tv.
    And the democrats are in it too, real soon these corps. will be able to more accurately throw tv commercials and the (corp.)tea party at smart politicians, and its just gonna be $ following idiots in washington.
    On freespeach and link tv a lot of people say this "our government has been highjacked".
    Last edited by chad; September 20th, 2011 at 04:31 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by inow View Post
    Which specific part of the Energy Policy Act are you suggesting was violated?
    I am referring to this:
    The Solyndra Fraud - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online
    The idea is cockamamie, but Congress did at least write in a mandate that taxpayers who fund these “investments” must be prioritized over other stakeholders. The idea is to prevent cronies from pushing ahead of the public if things go awry — as they are wont to do when pols fancy themselves venture capitalists. On the Energy Policy Act, the administration’s malfeasance is significant, but secondary. That’s because the act is not a penal statute. It tells the cabinet officials how to structure these “innovative technology” loans, but it provides no remedy if Congress’s directives are ignored.

    So, obviously the assertion still requiring further evidence (read: much less assumption, much more data and facts) from you is this:

    The Obama Energy Department signed off on a sweetheart deal. In the event of bankruptcy — the destination to which it was screamingly obvious Solyndra was headed despite the president’s injection of $535 million in federal loans — the cozily connected private investors would be given priority over American taxpayers. In other words, when the busted company’s assets were sold off, Obama pals would recoup some of their losses, while you would be left holding the half-billion-dollar bag.
    Right now, that's a rather opinionated subjective claim from a biased website based on a partisan subcommittee. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm just saying that has not yet been made clear, and I'm less inclined to accept the claim as valid without further details and evidence given the over the top melodramatic hyperbole which was used when making it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    the cozily connected private investors would be given priority over American taxpayers. In other words, when the busted company’s assets were sold off, Obama pals would recoup some of their losses
    So we have private investors, a bankruptcy, allegations of campaign cash corruption of government, and the taxpayer owning nothing.

    Dunno where the socialism is hidden, but there sure isn't any visible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    You know, if the same amount of money got spent on a cure for cancer and it failed, nobody would blink an eye. The search for affordable solar and wind isn't a fundamentally different pursuit. Lots of problems in the world would be resolved if we could achieve that.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Harold; Sometimes it's difficult to offer threads, opposed to the bias/sentiments of the members/staff and here you have the added problem of direct "gang banging" (hit from all directions) which has caused more than a few member and several moderators (several forums) to simply quit posting. Frankly, I've never seen a OP Thread so well backed up with evidence, yet one that the reply's seem to be directed at the author. They have no argument, not even an decent excuse and frankly Solyndra, is just the latest in scandal, coming from this administrations. I hope this serves as encouragement for you and you keep up your good posting, maybe even more in the "political" sub-forum, possibly bringing back members or encouraging new participation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson
    Frankly, I've never seen a OP Thread so well backed up with evidence,
    The evidence is of possible crony capitalism in the Obama administration, on a relatively small scale (compared to what we have seen recently, minuscule).

    There is no visible socialism, or evidence of it, and that was the central term of the OP. The OP is therefore a crude and apparently propaganda addled error, or if deliberate an attempt at such propaganda addling itself. It has an agenda, and requires falsehood and spurious claims to further that agenda.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
     
    The evidence is of possible crony capitalism in the Obama administration, on a relatively small scale (compared to what we have seen recently, minuscule).

    There is no visible socialism, or evidence of it, and that was the central term of the OP. The OP is therefore a crude and apparently propaganda addled error, or if deliberate an attempt at such propaganda addling itself. It has an agenda, and requires falsehood and spurious claims to further that agenda.
     
    Noun: socialism 'sow-shu,li-zum
    A political theory advocating state ownership of industry

    An economic system based on state ownership of capital
    - socialist economy
    Derived forms: socialisms
    Type of: ideology, managed economy, mythos, political orientation, political theory
    Antonym: capitalism
    Encyclopedia: Socialism
     
    Noun: managed economy
    A non-market economy in which government intervention is important in allocating goods and resources and determining prices
    Derived forms: managed economies
    Type of: non-market economy
    http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=socialism

     
    While I opposed the Bush/Paulson TARP plan, they were loans without certain demands. When followed up by this administration, demands became daily orders from Washington (GM/Chrysler/Banks). Capitalism, which happens to still be what the American Economy is based on "market driven" is and has been overwhelmed, with Federal involvement, regulations and demands. That to me is socialism, if not direct certainly in disguise and the central theme of the thread.

     
    On crony capitalism, don't go to Chaney and Haliburton, the usual liberal suspect, as Haliburton, was the only US Corporation capable of getting the jobs done, in a timely manner, having the manpower and financing (w/o Government) to take charge immediately.

    If it's OK with you, I'll stand by my post and hope Harold, as a moderator/poster and not a liberal/socialist can be of interest to the average American, center right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33 View Post
    I hope this serves as encouragement for you and you keep up your good posting, maybe even more in the "political" sub-forum, possibly bringing back members or encouraging new participation.
    You're right, Jackson. I may need to start a thread on Fast and Furious, and one on LightSquared. That's the one where Obama was an investor in LightSquared, which wanted to launch a wireless internet service, but may interfere with GPS. They got the White house to pressure a 4-star general to change his testimony to Congress.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33 View Post
    Harold; Sometimes it's difficult to offer threads, opposed to the bias/sentiments of the members/staff and here you have the added problem of direct "gang banging" (hit from all directions) which has caused more than a few member and several moderators (several forums) to simply quit posting. Frankly, I've never seen a OP Thread so well backed up with evidence, yet one that the reply's seem to be directed at the author. They have no argument, not even an decent excuse and frankly Solyndra, is just the latest in scandal, coming from this administrations. I hope this serves as encouragement for you and you keep up your good posting, maybe even more in the "political" sub-forum, possibly bringing back members or encouraging new participation.
    The problem is that Solyndra is exactly the kind of spending people want to see, failed or not. It's not like the Department of Defense hasn't ever backed a project that promised to advance their weaponry and ended up delivering bumpkiss. That's just the way tech R&D works. A lot of our modern technology owes to projects that would never, ever, in your wildest dreams, been attractive to a private investor.

    Solar power initiatives should be treated in the same way. They're R&D designed to get rid of dependency on foreign fossil fuel imports. They serve a useful purpose even if we try 10 times and only succeed once. That one commercial success (if we ever have one) could be the catalyst that eventually shifts the entire US power grid over to a primarily solar one. Taken together with Methanol production, it could destroy OPEC. Just imagine how the "War on Terror" would change if Saudi Arabia didn't have the ability to bully us with crude oil prices anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33 View Post
    I hope this serves as encouragement for you and you keep up your good posting, maybe even more in the "political" sub-forum, possibly bringing back members or encouraging new participation.
    You're right, Jackson. I may need to start a thread on Fast and Furious, and one on LightSquared. That's the one where Obama was an investor in LightSquared, which wanted to launch a wireless internet service, but may interfere with GPS. They got the White house to pressure a 4-star general to change his testimony to Congress.
    That actually would be better.

    By focusing on Solyndra you're bringing both the solar power question and the government-funded R&D question into this, which complicates the discussion quite a bit.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33 View Post
    you have the added problem of direct "gang banging" (hit from all directions)
    I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,910
    Quote Originally Posted by inow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33 View Post
    you have the added problem of direct "gang banging" (hit from all directions)
    I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.
    Princess Bride. Inigo's response to Vizzini after Vizzini says "inconceivable" for like the billionth time. Although Inigo said "word" not "phrase".
    Paleoichneum and inow like this.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson
    Capitalism, which happens to still be what the American Economy is based on "market driven" is and has been overwhelmed, with Federal involvement, regulations and demands. That to me is socialism, if not direct certainly in disguise and the central theme of the thread.
    What some term you don't understand "means to you" is beside the point. Your lack of education is a separate issue.

    To better yourself, and prevent the spewing of further nonsense, read the definitions of "socialism" you posted above, and try to fit them to the Solyndra situation. Notice that no government ownership was involved, and the private investors had complete control throughout, and the bankruptcy was a classic venture capital failure.
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson
    On crony capitalism, don't go to Chaney and Haliburton, the usual liberal suspect, as Haliburton, was the only US Corporation capable of getting the jobs done, in a timely manner, having the manpower and financing (w/o Government) to take charge immediately.
    That's called "bid rigging", and it's a common feature of crony capitalism. It's a felony, btw: Cheney has never even been subpoenaed for testimony under oath - although he did establish a residence in Dubai, which like W's residence in Patagonia is a haven from extradition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33 View Post
    Capitalism, which happens to still be what the American Economy is based on...
    As noted already above, this foundational premise of yours is broken. We're a mixed or hybrid economy with both capitalistic and socialistic elements, and for good reason.



    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33 View Post
    If it's OK with you, I'll stand by my post and hope Harold, as a moderator/poster and not a liberal/socialist can be of interest to the average American, center right.
    Sorry, but despite how often it gets repeated, repetition alone does not add to the truth of a claim, and that one too is false (as shown by the below data from just last year).


    Party ID: Despite GOP Gains, Most States Remain Blue

    These results are based on aggregated data from Gallup Daily tracking in 2009, including interviews with more than 350,000 adults in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Gallup conducted at least 1,000 interviews in every state except Wyoming (878), North Dakota (968), Delaware (997), and the District of Columbia (632). Gallup interviewed more than 20,000 residents each in California, Texas, New York, and Pennsylvania.

    <...>

    Overall, 49% of Americans in 2009 identified as Democrats or said they were independent but leaned to the Democratic Party, while 41% identified as Republicans or were Republican-leaning independents. That 8-point Democratic advantage compares to a 12-point, 52% to 40%, Democratic advantage in 2008.

    <...>

    Despite the modest shift toward a decreased affiliation with the Democratic Party and an increased affiliation with the Republican Party in 2009 compared to 2008, the United States remained a Democratically oriented nation last year. In all, 33 states and the District of Columbia were either solidly Democratic or leaning Democratic in terms of the political party leanings of their residents. Twelve states were fairly evenly balanced between Democratic and Republican supporters, and 5 states were solidly or leaning Republican.

    I know that facts can be irritating, and often get in the way of your mythologies and ideologies, but they remain facts all the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
     

    The problem is that Solyndra is exactly the kind of spending people want to see, failed or not. It's not like the Department of Defense hasn't ever backed a project that promised to advance their weaponry and ended up delivering bumpkiss. That's just the way tech R&D works. A lot of our modern technology owes to projects that would never, ever, in your wildest dreams, been attractive to a private investor.

    kojax; People are NOT that stupid, but SOME people do want everything provided for them and others simply take advantage of Governments stupidity.
    Do you honestly believe producing an item for 6.00/unit, selling it for 3.00 is a good business model, worthy of Federal support? Do you think any private business in the US can compete with Chinese labor, where there are 100's of millions of people wanting jobs, that pay anything and by the way finances 40% of US Federal spending? I won't even bother you, with what it takes (cost/time), even Green Projects, to go though to get permitted, zoned, built and fight the legal battles, that are not required, virtually anyplace in Asia.

    Nor am I going to argue motivated Government R&D, which has long been corrupted by groups with an agenda, compared to the private sector, which ALWAYS, explores from all angles. After all GM sold 206 Volt's last month, the USPD only lost 8B$ last year, we've only added 4T$ to the National Debt in three years, what argument is there?

     
    You're right, Jackson. I may need to start a thread on Fast and Furious, and one on LightSquared. That's the one where Obama was an investor in LightSquared, which wanted to launch a wireless internet service, but may interfere with GPS. They got the White house to pressure a 4-star general to change his testimony to Congress.
    Harold, those issues, Solyndra, GM/Chrysler, even the misuse of Executive Office (Joint Session of Congress for a political SPEECH), and others, are all being address by main stream media or have been, will be addressed in Congressional hearings and in the General Elections 2012. What pundits that remain for Obama/Administration Policy are really sounding like rambling idiots (my opinion).

    What's been interesting for me, having lived down here near the Border, most my life, is fast and furious, the possible use of a real problem to promote a 2nd Amendment change. Furthermore, down here real life and what's being said by Government, just don't match.

     
    I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.
    inow; Really!!! Aside from the fact I've used that term, maybe 50 times when referring to one poster being literally and personally attacked, by like minded ideologues, I feel it's the MOST appropriate term, sorry but often led by you.

    I'll address your post #31, after the 2012 Elections, but as of today your living in the same dream world as Obama, Reid and the DNC.
    Since Socialism is the antonym of Capitalism and all economies are based on "degree of", the US still has a Capitalist Economy.


     
    ice: I'm sure your just trying to impress your "pen pal's", but I no longer have any interest in defending my own opinions. Socialism doesn't require ownership and while regulations are advisable in some cases, there are limits.
     
     
     
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson
    Do you think any private business in the US can compete with Chinese labor, - -
    They used to, for generations. That was back in the days of government tariffs and other protective regulation of international trade. The corporate interests that took power with Reagan got rid of all that government interference with private enterprise.

    Quote Originally Posted by jackson
    Nor am I going to argue motivated Government R&D, which has long been corrupted by groups with an agenda, compared to the private sector, which ALWAYS, explores from all angles.
    Uh, hello?, it's the private sectors that corrupted the Government; they're the ones with agendas making the big campaign contributions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Do you honestly believe producing an item for 6.00/unit, selling it for 3.00 is a good business model, worthy of Federal support? Do you think any private business in the US can compete with Chinese labor, where there are 100's of millions of people wanting jobs, that pay anything and by the way finances 40% of US Federal spending? I won't even bother you, with what it takes (cost/time), even Green Projects, to go though to get permitted, zoned, built and fight the legal battles, that are not required, virtually anyplace in Asia.

    Most venture companies run at a loss for years--that's what make them so risky. A knowing loosing position but potential for great profit in the future as they become productive or get swallowed by a larger company.
    Yes American's have to be far more productive per person to compete. If that means an American has to produce more than 5 Chinese than so be it--he's got to be smarter, have a better tool, or some combination of the two.
    Nothing new there either.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    The problem is that Solyndra is exactly the kind of spending people want to see, failed or not. It's not like the Department of Defense hasn't ever backed a project that promised to advance their weaponry and ended up delivering bumpkiss. That's just the way tech R&D works. A lot of our modern technology owes to projects that would never, ever, in your wildest dreams, been attractive to a private investor.
    I thought this might be a relevant and interesting graphic. Enjoy.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Useful graphic. There's also this:

    Bloomberg September 19, 2011 - First Solar

    First Solar Inc. (FSLR), which achieved record efficiency for a thin-film solar cell, will incorporate the advance into its manufacturing technology next quarter to outpace cost reductions by Chinese rivals and compete against fossil fuels without government aid.

    First Solar developed a cell that converts 17.3 percent of sunlight into electricity and applying those techniques may yield conversion rates of 15.3 percent in mass production, said Chief Technology Officer David Eaglesham. That compares with 11.7 percent the company averaged in the second quarter.

    <...>

    That would be a victory for President Barack Obama, who is under fire for supporting Solyndra LLC, a competing company that received $535 million in U.S. loan guarantees before filing for bankruptcy on Sept. 6. First Solar has $5.35 billion in federal loan guarantees.
    There aren't too many on the right talking about the federal loan guarantees for First Solar. Gosh. I wonder why... It was, after all, an order of magnitude larger at $5.3 Billion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by inow View Post

    There aren't too many on the right talking about the federal loan guarantees for First Solar. Gosh. I wonder why... It was, after all, an order of magnitude larger at $5.3 Billion.
    They haven't gone bankrupt yet. Give them time. They also aren't profitable yet, so what are you crowing about?
    Feifer, that graphic is pointless. Did those projects go bankrupt? Are there FBI agents executing search warrants?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Did those projects go bankrupt? Are there FBI agents executing search warrants?
    It is pointless. Most got chopped after lingering as contractor led self-licking ice cream cones for years. The F35, Loiteral combat ship and mine resistant APV went on...
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    Did those projects go bankrupt? Are there FBI agents executing search warrants?
    Republican and military boondoggles don't get investigated or go bankrupt - the cost-plus contracting and friendly committee heads in Congress see to that.

    The sum of the various related and sequential frauds surrounding the oil war in Iraq, taken as a whole, was probably the largest defrauding of a body of taxpayers in the history of the world. And Cheney is still a free man - on a government pension.

    Solar energy corporations have a long way to go to match that - all of them together.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33 View Post
     

    The problem is that Solyndra is exactly the kind of spending people want to see, failed or not. It's not like the Department of Defense hasn't ever backed a project that promised to advance their weaponry and ended up delivering bumpkiss. That's just the way tech R&D works. A lot of our modern technology owes to projects that would never, ever, in your wildest dreams, been attractive to a private investor.

    kojax; People are NOT that stupid, but SOME people do want everything provided for them and others simply take advantage of Governments stupidity.
    Do you honestly believe producing an item for 6.00/unit, selling it for 3.00 is a good business model, worthy of Federal support? Do you think any private business in the US can compete with Chinese labor, where there are 100's of millions of people wanting jobs, that pay anything and by the way finances 40% of US Federal spending? I won't even bother you, with what it takes (cost/time), even Green Projects, to go though to get permitted, zoned, built and fight the legal battles, that are not required, virtually anyplace in Asia.
    Breaking into any new tech field, it is never the case that the new tech is cheaper than its predecessors right out of the box. The first computers were not cheaper than hiring a clerk to hand type all your paperwork. The first cell phones were "car phones" the size of a backpack that you had to be pretty wealthy to afford. The first automobiles well.... let's just say Henry Ford didn't invent them (just came up with the idea to make the first cheap ones).

    If you expect solar to compete with coal, gas, or even nuclear at this point in time, then you are either ignorant of the entire history of technological advancement, or just trying to be obtuse. The question is not how much does it cost now? That's short sighted. The question is how much could it potentially cost later? We haven't seen these things come off of efficient assembly lines yet. We haven't seen an economy of scale sufficient to drive private R&D. If you spread 50 million dollars of research over 2 million units, that's 25 bucks per unit. If you spread the same money over just 10,000 units, that's 5,000 bucks per unit. Think about which volume level we're selling at right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Do you honestly believe producing an item for 6.00/unit, selling it for 3.00 is a good business model, worthy of Federal support? Do you think any private business in the US can compete with Chinese labor, where there are 100's of millions of people wanting jobs, that pay anything and by the way finances 40% of US Federal spending? I won't even bother you, with what it takes (cost/time), even Green Projects, to go though to get permitted, zoned, built and fight the legal battles, that are not required, virtually anyplace in Asia.

    Most venture companies run at a loss for years--that's what make them so risky. A knowing loosing position but potential for great profit in the future as they become productive or get swallowed by a larger company.
    Yes American's have to be far more productive per person to compete. If that means an American has to produce more than 5 Chinese than so be it--he's got to be smarter, have a better tool, or some combination of the two.
    Nothing new there either.

    That's not realistic. That's like pitting the NBA up against a league that allows steroids and then expecting our players to just be so insanely good that they can beat their opponents in spite of it. I'm sure it would make for an interesting competition, but it's a form of arrogance, and if anything is actually at stake then you're letting down the people who depend on you by letting your ego play to a false sense of superiority.

    Nations with different wage levels simply shouldn't trade. Why give up a fat market for a lean one? Where's the logic in that?

    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
     

    They used to, for generations. That was back in the days of government tariffs and other protective regulation of international trade. The corporate interests that took power with Reagan got rid of all that government interference with private enterprise.


    OK Ice, I'll respond hoping you'll consider Capitalism, Corporations and Rich People, are not the problem in the US.

    When that dirty rascal Reagan took office in 1981, US, GDP stood at 2.78T$ and when he left in 1989 it had nearly doubled to 5.1T$, then doubling again by 2000, despite the Carter recession, misery index, and the rest. It continued to rise to over 14T$ by 2007 were it has stalled at around 14.4T$. Now if Reagan's open trade agreements, approved by Democratic Congress's were the cause for today's problems, it's going to take some explaining.
    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_gdp_history

    We have three pending trade agreements, South Korea, Columbia, Panama, setting on Obama's desk, while he is telling Congress to pass them which will certainly help American Farmers and other industry. Why??? My guess like you Unions are isolationist and believe prices caused by their membership, should be supported by tariffs and no trade agreements or at least targeted.
    http://www.hpj.com/archives/2011/jun11/jun20/0615Exportsjmlsr.cfm

     
    Uh, hello?, it's the private sectors that corrupted the Government; they're the ones with agendas making the big campaign contributions.
    If I agree to the point they both have an agenda, which would be worse. To show a profit, create jobs, pay dividends or get voted into office, power???
     
     
    Most venture companies run at a loss for years--that's what make them so risky. A knowing loosing position but potential for great profit in the future as they become productive or get swallowed by a larger company.
    LF, most start up companies require some financing, normally using their own collateral to finance loans. Yes, Venture Capital Companies, those investing in questionable ventures, don't always require a solid business model, but NONE of them would have invested in Solyndra or did they, without the Federal Government Guarantee and the agreement they would be paid back first.

    Yes American's have to be far more productive per person to compete. If that means an American has to produce more than 5 Chinese than so be it--he's got to be smarter, have a better tool, or some combination of the two. Nothing new there either.
    Well your close*, the average Chinese wage is around 10K/Y probably few if any benefits and the average American with benefits would be around 65-75K$/Y, somewhat more if in a Union or working for the Government. I might also suggest menial jobs, those without skills or can be easily taught have millions in waiting, whom are making little of nothing.

    The problem, already mentioned is the cost of the first produced item, after getting what's needed in place is much more in the US, prohibitive to a good share of business, already selling in areas where labor and start up cost are cheaper. You might want to calculate legal cost!!!

     
    *
    Annual average income for employees in Shanghai reached around 65,000 CNY (10,000 USD) in year 2011. Average salary for software engineer/developer in China is around 100,000 CNY (15,400 USD). More experienced software senior developers receive around 150,000 CNY (25,000 USD) and more.
    http://www.averagesalarysurvey.com/article/average-salary-in-china/15201531/income.aspx

     
    Feifer; As with the NASA, some things under defense are US Federal Responsibilities, with little motive by the private sector to attack. I'm not sure developing and maintaining the single unit "US defense capabilities" is on par with all those different (multiple units) COMPETEING for the best product.

     
    Breaking into any new tech field, it is never the case that the new tech is cheaper than its predecessors right out of the box. The first computers were not cheaper than hiring a clerk to hand type all your paperwork. The first cell phones were "car phones" the size of a backpack that you had to be pretty wealthy to afford. The first automobiles well.... let's just say Henry Ford didn't invent them (just came up with the idea to make the first cheap ones).
    kojax; Correct and all those products were subsidized by the private sector, they had some buyers. GM in the early 60, put in a large room size IBM Computer (don't remember cost) and I actually worked with the first C&NW RR Co, IBM Computer, which simply maintained a record of where rail cars were, some purpose and worth the cost, replacing hundreds of people. Now and to your point those same functions can be performed by a chip in a small computer. I may be wrong, but I don't believe Government has been involved with many advancements and/or failures (which are plentiful) that the private sector attempted to or successfully developed.

    If you expect solar to compete with coal, gas, or even nuclear at this point in time, then you are either ignorant of the entire history of technological advancement, or just trying to be obtuse. The question is not how much does it cost now? That's short sighted. The question is how much could it potentially cost later? We haven't seen these things come off of efficient assembly lines yet. We haven't seen an economy of scale sufficient to drive private R&D. If you spread 50 million dollars of research over 2 million units, that's 25 bucks per unit. If you spread the same money over just 10,000 units, that's 5,000 bucks per unit. Think about which volume level we're selling at right now.
    Well it's had 30-40 years of trying to compete and has not developed a market and has not to date produced a profitable market. I fossil fuel increase in price or alternative decrease in cost of convenience and efficiency the markets will reward their efforts.

    Back to Solyndra, the Bush administration refused to guarantee there loans, before they left and the current administration was advised, the Company would be bankrupt by SEPT 2011, but still made the guarantees. Purposely throwing tax payer dollars, into a losing venture is simple not acceptable, in my feeble mind.
     
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33 View Post
     
    Back to Solyndra, the Bush administration refused to guarantee there loans, before they left and the current administration was advised, the Company would be bankrupt by SEPT 2011, but still made the guarantees. Purposely throwing tax payer dollars, into a losing venture is simple not acceptable, in my feeble mind.
     
    Well I'm glad you at least mentioned Bush who started the whole Solyndra mess except that Bush DID guarentee loans to the same company in 2007. You'll also note from the timeline below that they raised over 200 million in venture and other private capital. In context the Obama DOE involvement was in large part just a continuation of Bush DOE policies.
    Exclusive Timeline: Bush Administration Advanced Solyndra Loan Guarantee for Two Years, Media Blow the Story | ThinkProgress
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson

    When that dirty rascal Reagan took office in 1981, US, GDP stood at 2.78T$ and when he left in 1989 it had nearly doubled to 5.1T$, then doubling again by 2000, despite the Carter recession, misery index, and the rest. It continued to rise to over 14T$ by 2007 were it has stalled at around 14.4T$. Now if Reagan's open trade agreements, approved by Democratic Congress's were the cause for today's problems, it's going to take some explaining
    Simple. The problems of the US are not closely coupled to the GDP.

    Reagan drastically cut taxes on the rich, and deregulated key financial and manufacturing industries. The result was bubble based economic growth (that "GDP" you find so important), the first serious banking crisis since 1933, a tripling of the US debt, falling wages and increasing debt for most US citizens, and the export of millions of jobs overseas. The amplification of the Reagan agenda under W amplified those bad things - another Reaganomic mess, amplified to disaster.

    We are currently in the middle of that disaster, and facing years of diminished resources and opportunities.

    I may be wrong, but I don't believe Government has been involved with many advancements and/or failures (which are plentiful) that the private sector attempted to or successfully developed.
    The real problem would be finding any taht the government was not key to and heavily involved with. The computer, chip, and internet business (since you mention them) were almost completely Government supported in the early going.
    Last edited by iceaura; September 23rd, 2011 at 05:29 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I may be wrong, but I don't believe Government has been involved with many advancements and/or failures (which are plentiful) that the private sector attempted to or successfully developed.
    I'm currently working on two such development projects funded by the DOE. Yes, my salary is being paid, partly, by the taxpayers - thank you very much. One of those projects is a technology being pursued, so far unsuccessfully, by a number of European firms with government support. Without the DOE funding the US would not have a horse in this potentially very lucrative race.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    The Republican trolls are heavily outnumbered by Democrat trolls on this forum. That's why I have to be the Republican troll.
    The feeling of being picked on is simply fundamental to these people's character, and is not alterable by physical reality.
    I didn't say I was being picked on. Only that this forum is predominately liberal. Do you deny that?
    Solyndra was of course a capitalistic enterprise, and crony capitalism has of course infected the Democratic Party as it moves ever farther rightwing. Nothing like Halliburton, of course - but then, what is? Enron?
    When the government is investing public money in the private sector, I call that a socialist idea.

    Socialist economies are based upon production for use and the direct allocation of economic inputs to satisfy economic demands and human needs
    Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    So all "defense" spending is therefore "socialism"? Actually, government investment in business is pretty much standard operating procedure and has been for decades. Examples include Hoover Dam, the Interstate highway system, NASA and Manhattan project contractors, the list goes on. So could you clarify what your objection is a bit, dotcomrade?
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33 View Post

     
    Breaking into any new tech field, it is never the case that the new tech is cheaper than its predecessors right out of the box. The first computers were not cheaper than hiring a clerk to hand type all your paperwork. The first cell phones were "car phones" the size of a backpack that you had to be pretty wealthy to afford. The first automobiles well.... let's just say Henry Ford didn't invent them (just came up with the idea to make the first cheap ones).
    kojax; Correct and all those products were subsidized by the private sector, they had some buyers. GM in the early 60, put in a large room size IBM Computer (don't remember cost) and I actually worked with the first C&NW RR Co, IBM Computer, which simply maintained a record of where rail cars were, some purpose and worth the cost, replacing hundreds of people. Now and to your point those same functions can be performed by a chip in a small computer. I may be wrong, but I don't believe Government has been involved with many advancements and/or failures (which are plentiful) that the private sector attempted to or successfully developed.


    You're right, at least half way. Each of those items entered the luxury market before it tried to break into the consumer market. When cell phones were the size of TV set and had to be installed into your automobile to be practical, buying one was still the only way to own a portable phone of any kind. Some with automobiles and computers. The trouble for solar is that there is no luxury market. The final result of a solar panel is the same result as that of a generator.

    However, the other half of history is still valid here. Once enough wealthy people had bought enough super expensive cell phones to get the industry a foothold, economy of scale, together with accumulated industry knowledge and manufacturing capital, made it possible to lower the price per unit dramatically, and now even very poor people own cell phones.

    What evidence suggests to you that history will not repeat itself and solar will not go down the same road once a sufficient investment has been made?


    If you expect solar to compete with coal, gas, or even nuclear at this point in time, then you are either ignorant of the entire history of technological advancement, or just trying to be obtuse. The question is not how much does it cost now? That's short sighted. The question is how much could it potentially cost later? We haven't seen these things come off of efficient assembly lines yet. We haven't seen an economy of scale sufficient to drive private R&D. If you spread 50 million dollars of research over 2 million units, that's 25 bucks per unit. If you spread the same money over just 10,000 units, that's 5,000 bucks per unit. Think about which volume level we're selling at right now.
    Well it's had 30-40 years of trying to compete and has not developed a market and has not to date produced a profitable market. I fossil fuel increase in price or alternative decrease in cost of convenience and efficiency the markets will reward their efforts.

    Back to Solyndra, the Bush administration refused to guarantee there loans, before they left and the current administration was advised, the Company would be bankrupt by SEPT 2011, but still made the guarantees. Purposely throwing tax payer dollars, into a losing venture is simple not acceptable, in my feeble mind.
     
    It's made it a lot further than when it originally started, which is surprising when you consider how little real effort has been put into it.

    Solar cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    LF; From your article;
    January 2009:In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE
    without prejudice because it wasn't ready for conditional commitment
    .

    March 2009; The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.


    It was remanded for cause and not challenged by Bush. I see nothing in their financial history that should change the committees opinion, other than the Administration, for guaranteeing the loans. I'll leave it to you and the investigating Congressional committee, but it's been suggested the new "WEST WING" wanted to proceed, for political reasons.

     
     
    You're right, at least half way. Each of those items entered the luxury market before it tried to break into the consumer market. When cell phones were the size of TV set and had to be installed into your automobile to be practical, buying one was still the only way to own a portable phone of any kind. Some with automobiles and computers. The trouble for solar is that there is no luxury market. The final result of a solar panel is the same result as that of a generator.

    However, the other half of history is still valid here. Once enough wealthy people had bought enough super expensive cell phones to get the industry a foothold, economy of scale, together with accumulated industry knowledge and manufacturing capital, made it possible to lower the price per unit dramatically, and now even very poor people own cell phones.



    kojax; Energy of all issues, has the longest history of natural evolution and acceptance by the people/consumer. The overwhelming cause, convenience to cost and accessibility. Humans at one point dug little holes planting a seed, then ox driven plows and have progressed to machinery that plant 20-30 rows of seeds simultaneously, none of which was government driven. Horse or horse drawn buggies/wagons were at one point the only means to transport people and stuff over land and as motors were being developed all sorts of ideas played a role. Steam, Electric and Gasoline were all early options, along with an estimated 100,000 patents filed and granted, none of which by any Government.
    http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventions/a/Car_History.htm

    Government didn't invent solar power, most certainly NOT the US Government, in fact the idea has been around since the 7th Century and kojax, that's B.C. or 2600 hundred years ago. I'm not saying that harnessing the sun's energy is not a viable objective or that World Government couldn't play a role, in the future, but until there is a perceived need or practical/economical motive, it's simply not going to represent much of the total energy used, world wide.


    http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/solar_timeline.pdf

     
    What evidence suggests to you that history will not repeat itself and solar will not go down the same road once a sufficient investment has been made?

    Government motivation/incentive/efficiency, comes to mind and most people in Government, including the leaders, have no understanding of what cost-efficiency even means and for some reason, as in Solyndra, motivation always comes into play.

    What's troubling to me, with this seemingly strong desire to eliminate fosill energy, opposed to sequestering seemingly questionable emmisions, are the end results. As with Spain, UK and other countries that have interferred with their "private sector" or if you prefer promote Green Energy are the net lost jobs. I've been told today up to 25 Million Americans are out of work or under employed and I have no idea how many are currently employed working with that nasty fosill fuel industry, that just happened to have built this Nation.
    http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/news/2011/for-every-green-job-created-3-7-jobs-are-lost-united-kingdom/
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson
    Humans at one point dug little holes planting a seed, then ox driven plows and have progressed to machinery that plant 20-30 rows of seeds simultaneously, none of which was government driven. Horse or horse drawn buggies/wagons were at one point the only means to transport people and stuff over land and as motors were being developed all sorts of ideas played a role.


    All of that was government driven. The key invention there was the road, but the domesticated draft animal (useless without a larger field than an individual can work), the political organization of large scale pastoral economies, things like the stirrup (Mongol military innovation) and chariot, and so forth, also appear.

    In addition to government drivings, we have government failures - especially, failure to rein in exploitation and curb abuse. The Romans deforested most of a continent to make coal (charcoal), as did the Aztecs, and the price of this ecological damage for cheap energy was high.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33 View Post

    You're right, at least half way. Each of those items entered the luxury market before it tried to break into the consumer market. When cell phones were the size of TV set and had to be installed into your automobile to be practical, buying one was still the only way to own a portable phone of any kind. Some with automobiles and computers. The trouble for solar is that there is no luxury market. The final result of a solar panel is the same result as that of a generator.

    However, the other half of history is still valid here. Once enough wealthy people had bought enough super expensive cell phones to get the industry a foothold, economy of scale, together with accumulated industry knowledge and manufacturing capital, made it possible to lower the price per unit dramatically, and now even very poor people own cell phones.



    kojax; Energy of all issues, has the longest history of natural evolution and acceptance by the people/consumer. The overwhelming cause, convenience to cost and accessibility. Humans at one point dug little holes planting a seed, then ox driven plows and have progressed to machinery that plant 20-30 rows of seeds simultaneously, none of which was government driven. Horse or horse drawn buggies/wagons were at one point the only means to transport people and stuff over land and as motors were being developed all sorts of ideas played a role. Steam, Electric and Gasoline were all early options, along with an estimated 100,000 patents filed and granted, none of which by any Government.
    http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventions/a/Car_History.htm

    Government didn't invent solar power, most certainly NOT the US Government, in fact the idea has been around since the 7th Century and kojax, that's B.C. or 2600 hundred years ago. I'm not saying that harnessing the sun's energy is not a viable objective or that World Government couldn't play a role, in the future, but until there is a perceived need or practical/economical motive, it's simply not going to represent much of the total energy used, world wide.


    http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/solar_timeline.pdf
    There's a difference between inventing something and finding a way to get it out onto the market at a low price. Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile, just got the idea to use assembly lines to bring down the price.

    The trouble with energy is it's all the same. Energy from a coal plant has exactly the same quality as energy from a solar panel or hydroelectric dam. The only possible difference is price. That's very different from other markets. If you wanted to start building a new kind of automobile, your initial product would certainly be more expensive than those of your established competitors. You can get around that by branding it skillfully. If it's trendy, or tailored to a certain niche market, people will ignore the price just to have your specific kind of product.

    How do you do that with energy? You don't. It all has exactly identical traits. There's no way to break into the market unless the initial stage gets done for you. Something has to prop up the product long enough for you to hammer out all the production details, so you can get your assembly line up and running. No assembly line == not cheap.


     
    What evidence suggests to you that history will not repeat itself and solar will not go down the same road once a sufficient investment has been made?

    Government motivation/incentive/efficiency, comes to mind and most people in Government, including the leaders, have no understanding of what cost-efficiency even means and for some reason, as in Solyndra, motivation always comes into play.

    What's troubling to me, with this seemingly strong desire to eliminate fosill energy, opposed to sequestering seemingly questionable emmisions, are the end results. As with Spain, UK and other countries that have interferred with their "private sector" or if you prefer promote Green Energy are the net lost jobs. I've been told today up to 25 Million Americans are out of work or under employed and I have no idea how many are currently employed working with that nasty fosill fuel industry, that just happened to have built this Nation.
    http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/news/2011/for-every-green-job-created-3-7-jobs-are-lost-united-kingdom/
     

    Has it occurred to you that petroleum bottleneck might be why they're unemployed to begin with? If the price of a basic necessity goes up from $1.00/gallon (pre 2000), all the way to $3.65 gallon (when I filled up yesterday) for the exact same product, that's going to eat up a lot of consumers' cash so they can't spend it to buy other things.

    The amount of jobs is exactly the same at $1.00/gallon as it is a $3.65/gallon. How do I know that? Think about it. It's the same product. It can't have suddenly gotten to need $3.65 worth of labor in the years in between. How would the number of man-hours needed to create it go up by that amount? So, spending increased in an area where it didn't create more jobs, but diminished in a number of other areas where it would cost jobs.
     
    The thing about renew-ables is: most of the cost is the labor. That's right. If we shift to renewables, we will certainly be putting people to work. If we stay with fossil fuels we will not be putting people to work. The money ends up in the hands of Saudi Royals to motivate them to sign over mineral rights. It's a job they can do from their couch.

    (Sorry about the huge text.... I don't know how to change it back or I would)

    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. What is the best mix of Capitalism and Socialism?
    By kojax in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: August 24th, 2010, 01:39 PM
  2. Democratic Socialism (US)
    By Cosmo in forum Politics
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: August 21st, 2008, 08:37 AM
  3. New Board Style
    By sderenzi in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 7th, 2008, 02:41 AM
  4. The finest moment in all of civilized history?
    By That Rascal Puff in forum History
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: August 9th, 2006, 09:23 PM
  5. Some style changes
    By (In)Sanity in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 29th, 2004, 12:05 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •