patrick.net

Nah they just going to drop the "DRA" and manufacture human kibble.

The other GREEN industry.

Manufacturing anything in California doesn't make sense.

Tenouncetrout says

Nah they just going to drop the "DRA" and manufacture human kibble.

The other GREEN industry.

Not Funny. That movie "Soylent Green" must be a subliminal motivator of mine. After seeing what Hitler's Generals, soldiers and other followers did, and they were later just judged as spineless careerists. Look what Jim Jones did, Jim & Tammy Faye, Enron, Bernie, Ben, I think it's becoming a sport. Really, What could we expect of our own RULERS,,, I mean government ? Anybody seen "Wag the Dog" ?

I have long considered investing in yet another solar company to be too risky. It just proves they also Would have invested in WebVan. They don't have to think about risk. It is NOT their monies.

TMAC54 says

It just proves they also Would have invested in WebVan. They don't have to think about risk. It is NOT their monies.

I find conservatives posting about wasteful & silly gov't R&D spending TO THE FUCKING INTERNET to be highly humorous.

You guys don't have a self-aware bone in your bodies.

The reason the $535 million is significant is the mistake was 1. totally preventable 2. totally predictable 3. totally un-American, i.e. American taxpayers do not want to be forced to become the investors of any business enterprise here. If it needs a subsidy to succeed, this is not a viable business. Creating jobs is baloney, they could send home 20 million illegal aliens and this would create a lot of jobs for Americans.
Apple, HP, Dell, Google started with very little capital and grew.
The fact that these green jobs never would exist despite the politicians wishing it so and paying hundreds of millions of dollars proves that the notion of central government job planning is absurd.

The internet was invented for defense, which is one area of government spending where sometimes an invention has other practical uses. NASA also produced many more of them

The claim by Obama and the others was not the invention of new technology, it was the creation of "millions of 'green jobs'". The fools like Pelosi, Obama and their ilk thought they could transform the US workforce. Nonsense, it's going to transform itself as market forces dictate.

After WWII, japan did some pretty amazing things in a coordinated effort with government. Why would this not be proof that such transformation can occur from a coordinated government and industry effort ?

I know they were obviously in a far different place than where we are. But still, it seems to prove that it is possible. But it would take a large and long term commitment, even bigger than our space program and goal of getting to the moon. But look at all the indirect benefits that eventually came from that. IT's fairly clear we would not be where we are technologically if it weren't for our space program of the 60s and 70s. Certainly military technology wouldn't be where its at.

What government supported industry is good for is long term investment and planning where the real profit and resulting GDP growth is much further out than the time horizons of the myopic corporate world.

clambo says

The reason the $535 million is significant is the mistake was 1. totally preventable 2. totally predictable 3. totally un-American, i.e. American taxpayers do not want to be forced to become the investors of any business enterprise here

1. In hindsight, everything is totally predictable
2. Speak for yourself. I am 100% behind government investing in new technologies/industries to help create jobs. And, yes, I'm an American.

Bellingham Bob says

I find conservatives posting about wasteful & silly gov't R&D spending TO THE FUCKING INTERNET to be highly humorous.

Getting past the continued use of your underlying strawman argument (and its variations) would probably make it less humerous. Although in your case, I don't think it is a matter of getting past anything - you're smart enough to know exactly how you are arguing this.

Paralithodes says

Getting past the continued use of your underlying strawman argument (and its variations) would probably make it less humerous. Although in your case, I don't think it is a matter of getting past anything - you're smart enough to know exactly how you are arguing this.

It's not a strawman at all. When you invest in emerging/new technologies the expected success rate will be small. But the rewards can be huge. The internet is an obvious example.

If you want to argue in hindsight about specific investments, fine. It seems a little silly to me.

TMAC54 says

I am also outraged our children will have a lower standard of living because of the risky mistakes of our elected leaders.

What exactly are you refering to? Which risky mistakes?

TMAC54 says

I am outraged the people fall for and forget ALL the lies.

I am not outraged, just disappointed. Most people are stupid, and when you get people together they become even stupider.

You think government limiting business is a bad thing, I think it is a necessary thing, since I think business is worse than government.

Businesses acquire power through accumulating wealth and market power. That was the story of the 19th century, businesses evolving from sole proprietorships (like Paul Revere's and Samuel Adams") to continent-spanning vertical and horizontal monopolies like Standard Oil and the railroads.

Of course, the 18th century did see abusive monopolies created BY government -- namely, the East India Company -- but that abuse demonstrates the importance of democratic control over all businesses.

Theoretically, when businesses get too abusive there is a pushback at the ballot box and balance is restored. That is the history of the Progressive Era (1900-1910ish) and the massive Democratic majorities of 1930-1966.

But these days the corporate plutocracy is finding success bullshitting people about so much.

The true problems this country faces are the trade deficit, energy independence, the massive rent-seeking in health care, and the imbalance between government spending and government revenue.

But thus far We The People have not shown any indication of being able to handle the truth about these things. We want to hear fairy tales instead.

tatupu70 says

What exactly are you refering to? Which risky mistakes?

the dude speaks truth, tat.

Operations Enduring Freedom & Iraqi Freedom have cost us an inconceivable $1.2T in just 10 years.

This is equivalent to almost TEN Apollo programs!

For absolutely nothing in the wealth-accretion department.

And this just counts the cost of the operations, the defense budget as a whole has risen from $360B of 2001 to $960B today. In the ten years since 9/11 we've spent around THREE TRILLION more than the $360B/yr baseline of 2001.

Since this was all borrowed money (except for a couple of years during the bubble), at 3% interest rates that's $800 per household of wealth we're going to have to give up, going forward, a $27,000 debt per household.

Paralithodes says

Although in your case, I don't think it is a matter of getting past anything - you're smart enough to know exactly how you are arguing this.

I see a useful purpose for government to support R&D that is not immediately profit-producing.

The internet is the best example of this. The internet was non-commercial, and attempt to do what was best without having to worry about monetizing the damn thing.

We had several walled gardens competing with the internet. I was too young to get on them, but I remember Compuserve and The Source as two of them.

By the time I finally got online in 1993 I got to see the end of these walled gardens. Removing the content locks the original networks relied on to retain revenues from their users took time but was necessary to bring network communications to the masses.

As for solar, the main problem is the same problem we're seeing in every other industry, the yuan is so weak against the dollar that US-based manufacturing just can't compete with the Chinese.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

shows YTD $50B in imports and $180B in exports, nearly a 4:1 imbalance.

Given the Triffin Dilemma (China needs dollars to run its own trade), it's tough to say what this "should" be to be in balance, but that's way out of whack.

Canada: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c1220.html shows a 1.1:1 trade imbalance -- giving China 5X that would result in their 4:1 imbalance falling to 1.5:1, which would require the dollar weakening significantly against the yuan, to about 2.5 from the 6.3 it is now.

This favorable yuan rate we've enjoyed is giving us short-term benefits at long-term costs. Now, I don't mind being in an integrated economy with China, the problem is they only make $400/month.

Our economy is not based on a $2/hr wage rate! But that's where we're going.

Bellingham Bob says

the dude speaks truth, tat.
Operations Enduring Freedom & Iraqi Freedom have cost us an inconceivable $1.2T in just 10 years.

If that's his answer, I agree 100%. I just wanted to see what he thought was the waste...

The opening two words of this topic "Yet Another" imply the issue is inclusive, not comparative. My reason for writing about "Yet Another" Gubmint failure is to show government entities do not use the same investment criteria as say an investment banker or a venture capitol firm. I would compare government officials running your business to Doctors running Kaiser insurance. (they DON'T) Would you hire a seamstress to wrench on your Ferrari. Government needs to do what it does best and allow free enterprise to do what it does best or worst. Gubmint made it's choice ! We the people paid too much for our investments and Lending institutions paid too much for that same real estate. WHO IS THE GUBMINT SAVING ?
On state of the art solar technology, We will continue using the CHEAPEST source of energy. Hydrogen will be the next cheapest. Solar is hype ! Ask any contractor how long to break even installing solar on a house. tatupu70 says

What exactly are you refering to? Which risky mistakes?

Lets start with solyndra and work backwards. QE3, QE2, QE1, Tarp, Fannie, Freddie, War on drugs, Middle east efforts,Viet Nam etc. I love my Country, I want my kids to love their country, I hate the deceit. I hope they have a solution.

TMAC54 says

My reason for writing about "Yet Another" Gubmint failure is to show government entities do not use the same investment criteria as say an investment banker or a venture capitol firm.

Of course they don't. That's the point. If an investment banker would invest in a company, then there's no need for the government, is there?

The government's goal isn't to earn a high return on investment. It's to create new industries.

tatupu70 says

The government's goal isn't to earn a high return on investment. It's to create new industries.

You mean like Gore inventing the internet ? You mean like Obama creating an agency that will protect us from the financial industry ! Why doesn't he create an agency to stop the reduction in Real Property prices ? Gubmint is an anchor to industry ! The word govern means control, restrict, hinder. NOT create, promote, prosper. Granted, A few of gubmint's BY PRODUCTS are G.P.S., NASA, Slick 50.

tatupu70 says

then there's no need for the government, is there?

Governments reason for being there is to protect it's people from people.

TMAC54 says

The word govern means control, restrict, hinder. NOT create, promote, prosper.

Actually the word govern means to "steer". Same greek root as "cyber".

TMAC54 says

Governments reason for being there is to protect it's people from people.

Democratic government protects the powerless many from the powerful few.

http://news.yahoo.com/house-probing-528m-loan-failed-solar-company-125931197.html
as Bellingham Bob says

Actually the word govern means to "steer".

That is the P.C. way of putting it. They sure are making some big decisions without our input.

stated on NPR today; Obama may have been a little too cozy with Solyndra.