New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Best summary of Solyndra matter that I've heard.

Arkady

President
From Krugman:

The question is not whether the Department of Energy has made some bad loans — if it hasn’t, it’s not taking enough risks. It’s whether it has a pattern of bad loans. And the answer, it turns out, is no. Last week the department revealed that the program that included Solyndra is, in fact, on track to return profits of $5 billion or more.
One of the little joys that life offers in never-ending abundance is the opportunity to laugh at the imbeciles on the right.
 

RickWA

Snagglesooth
From Krugman:

The question is not whether the Department of Energy has made some bad loans — if it hasn’t, it’s not taking enough risks. It’s whether it has a pattern of bad loans. And the answer, it turns out, is no. Last week the department revealed that the program that included Solyndra is, in fact, on track to return profits of $5 billion or more.
One of the little joys that life offers in never-ending abundance is the opportunity to laugh at the imbeciles on the right.
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't judge government agencies for "not taking enough risks". "Some bad loans" is not an acceptable application of our tax dollars - and when a statist kook suggests that stewardship of our tax dollars should be managed in such a way, I am thankful that he languishes in some comparatively harmless institutional combination of academia and the compromised journalist fourth column.

Good grief.

That this sort of idiotic outburst would elicit likeminded 'frivoholic' gloating is disappointing, but unsurprising.

Please don't attempt to claim pragmatism again - at least in a public forum.
:-/
 

Arkady

President
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't judge government agencies for "not taking enough risks". "Some bad loans" is not an acceptable application of our tax dollars - and when a statist kook suggests that stewardship of our tax dollars should be managed in such a way, I am thankful that he languishes in some comparatively harmless institutional combination of academia and the compromised journalist fourth column.
I assume this is because you apply very different standards to the state and to businesses, such that a state is expected to act perfectly or not at all. Being a sane person, I'll have to disagree with that approach. Just as I accept that sometimes a company will lose some of my shareholder value on a bad loan or investment, only to make me even more money when the full portfolio of loans and investments is considered, I accept that with a government as well. I understand that a company that is afraid of ever making a money-losing move will be so risk averse that its returns will be puny. And I understand the same of a government.

Please don't attempt to claim pragmatism again - at least in a public forum.
:-/
Your failure to recognize pragmatism when you see it is due to the way libertarianism has addled your brain. A pragmatic investor realizes that risk and reward go hand in hand, and that a certain willingness to take chances is necessary to have a decent return.
 

RickWA

Snagglesooth
I assume this is because you apply very different standards to the state and to businesses, such that a state is expected to act perfectly or not at all. Being a sane person, I'll have to disagree with that approach. Just as I accept that sometimes a company will lose some of my shareholder value on a bad loan or investment, only to make me even more money when the full portfolio of loans and investments is considered, I accept that with a government as well. I understand that a company that is afraid of ever making a money-losing move will be so risk averse that its returns will be puny. And I understand the same of a government.


Your failure to recognize pragmatism when you see it is due to the way libertarianism has addled your brain. A pragmatic investor realizes that risk and reward go hand in hand, and that a certain willingness to take chances is necessary to have a decent return.
A private entity can assess the field and take economic risks. A public entity, which extracts funds from taxpayers, should adopt no such "gambling" posture. While it is understandable that the statist central planner will seek to re-characterize this as an unrealistic expectation of perfection, in truth it is citizen demand for good stewardship of public funds. The mission is different.

We don't roll the bones with public dollars - or we shouldn't. Government hacks make enough mistakes without introduction of "taking chances". The state has limited purpose, limited function -- and limited length of leash.
 

BobbyT

Governor
A private entity can assess the field and take economic risks. A public entity, which extracts funds from taxpayers, should adopt no such "gambling" posture. While it is understandable that the statist central planner will seek to re-characterize this as an unrealistic expectation of perfection, in truth it is citizen demand for good stewardship of public funds. The mission is different.

We don't roll the bones with public dollars - or we shouldn't. Government hacks make enough mistakes without introduction of "taking chances". The state has limited purpose, limited function -- and limited length of leash.
Huh. Good thing Government backed away from betting on getting the atomic bomb before Germany then. Whew.

Oh .... wait.
 
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't judge government agencies for "not taking enough risks". "Some bad loans" is not an acceptable application of our tax dollars - and when a statist kook suggests that stewardship of our tax dollars should be managed in such a way, I am thankful that he languishes in some comparatively harmless institutional combination of academia and the compromised journalist fourth column.

Good grief.

That this sort of idiotic outburst would elicit likeminded 'frivoholic' gloating is disappointing, but unsurprising.

Please don't attempt to claim pragmatism again - at least in a public forum.
:-/
I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest. That this nation would be better off without people pitching in to make it the nation it was when at the peak of its influence in many fields of endeavor based on things like the following as well as such things as "Seward's Folly" and the Louisiana Purchase. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and much more?

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/technology/report/2012/12/10/47481/the-high-return-on-investment-for-publicly-funded-research/

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass-high-tech/2010/03/government-funding-drives-inventions-to.html?page=all

What about the Transcontinental Railroads?
The Erie Canal?
The list goes on....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcontinental_railroad

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406400290.html


Does the lack of acknowledgement by some Americans go on?
 
From Krugman:

The question is not whether the Department of Energy has made some bad loans — if it hasn’t, it’s not taking enough risks. It’s whether it has a pattern of bad loans. And the answer, it turns out, is no. Last week the department revealed that the program that included Solyndra is, in fact, on track to return profits of $5 billion or more.
One of the little joys that life offers in never-ending abundance is the opportunity to laugh at the imbeciles on the right.
krugman gets this one wrong

the question isn't whether the DOE is making bad loans or good.

the question is whether or not the government should be picking winners and losers in the marketplace, and subsidizing favored constituencies by the party in power when legitimate banks and private investors won't touch their "business plans" with a ten foot pole.

with all the other challenges facing our government, and money being a finite resource, why we would burden the taxpayer to subsidize solyndra rather than improve education, work on cures for intracable diseases, or fix the road/bridge infrastructure is beyond me. (where'd that shovel ready money go anyway - they haven't done a damn thing in baltimore in the 4+ years since it was funded)
 

Arkady

President
A private entity can assess the field and take economic risks. A public entity, which extracts funds from taxpayers, should adopt no such "gambling" posture. While it is understandable that the statist central planner will seek to re-characterize this as an unrealistic expectation of perfection, in truth it is citizen demand for good stewardship of public funds. The mission is different.

We don't roll the bones with public dollars - or we shouldn't. Government hacks make enough mistakes without introduction of "taking chances". The state has limited purpose, limited function -- and limited length of leash.
Any action is necessarily, a gamble, of some degree. Even if the state were limited to only those functions allowed it by the most obtuse of libertarians -- defending the status quo of property rights with its police and military -- even that is going to require some appetite for risk and tolerance for error. Not every battle will be a victory, nor will every investigative lead arrive at the culprit. Not every weapon idea pursued will prove to be effective. Sometimes you just have to take your shot. I don't think your position is intellectually maintainable on a consistent basis. It's just an effort to keep government away from areas you don't want it in, by imposing an impossible standard of perfection on it in those areas, even as you tacitly admit that a tolerance for at least some risk in areas you want the government in is necessary.

Yes, we absolutely should roll the bones with public dollars and every government in history has done so..
 

Arkady

President
krugman gets this one wrong

the question isn't whether the DOE is making bad loans or good.

the question is whether or not the government should be picking winners and losers in the marketplace, and subsidizing favored constituencies by the party in power when legitimate banks and private investors won't touch their "business plans" with a ten foot pole.

with all the other challenges facing our government, and money being a finite resource, why we would burden the taxpayer to subsidize solyndra rather than improve education, work on cures for intracable diseases, or fix the road/bridge infrastructure is beyond me. (where'd that shovel ready money go anyway - they haven't done a damn thing in baltimore in the 4+ years since it was funded)
They didn't pick winners and losers. Solyndra went under and the government didn't dictate that they come out a winner. They just loaned them some money, as part of a package of loans that apparently are going to earn the American taxpayer billions of dollars of profits.

As for the shovel-ready money, it's easy to track:

http://www.recovery.gov/arra/Pages/default.aspx
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
Here's the result that actually matters:

On September 1st 2011, Solyndra filed bankruptcy and closed its doors. No product being produced, no jobs, no return on investment. Period.

Some folks like to believe good intentions are more important than results. In my opinion, that's dumb. But if they really, really believe that, then I invite them to sink their money, not mine or ours, into stuff like Solyndra. How much of their own dough do you reckon folks like Krugman want to dump into projects like Solyndra? It's only a great idea if it's someone else's money.

Someone once described Obama as a venture socialist. Witty and accurate. It would be nice if these folks who always "know what's best" put their own money where their big mouths are and leave the taxpayer out of it. They won't of course, but it would be nice.
 
From Krugman:

The question is not whether the Department of Energy has made some bad loans — if it hasn’t, it’s not taking enough risks. It’s whether it has a pattern of bad loans. And the answer, it turns out, is no. Last week the department revealed that the program that included Solyndra is, in fact, on track to return profits of $5 billion or more.
One of the little joys that life offers in never-ending abundance is the opportunity to laugh at the imbeciles on the right.
Wow, you'll really believe literally anything they tell you...LOL.
 

Arkady

President
Here's the result that actually matters:

On September 1st 2011, Solyndra filed bankruptcy and closed its doors. No product being produced, no jobs, no return on investment. Period.

Some folks like to believe good intentions are more important than results. In my opinion, that's dumb. But if they really, really believe that, then I invite them to sink their money, not mine or ours, into stuff like Solyndra. How much of their own dough do you reckon folks like Krugman want to dump into projects like Solyndra? It's only a great idea if it's someone else's money.

Someone once described Obama as a venture socialist. Witty and accurate. It would be nice if these folks who always "know what's best" put their own money where their big mouths are and leave the taxpayer out of it. They won't of course, but it would be nice.
I'm an investor. I understand that anyone who wants a decent return has to take risks, and that means accepting that there will be misses as well as hits. One company I've been investing in heavily for a long time is Apple. Sometimes it takes risks and they don't pan out. The Apple Newton, for example, was basically looking to fill what would become the iPhone or iPad niche, but the technology wasn't there yet and it flopped. But the same attitude that took that risk also took the risk of taking Apple into the highly-competitive, extremely risky cell phone market a few years later, and that gave my Apple stock some mind-blowing gains. Speaking of Apple, it had arguably the most well-regarded CEO in history. He almost single-handedly popularized personal computers in the 70s and early 80s, turned Pixar into a company that churned out one mega-hit classic after another, starting in the mid-90s, then took a dying Apple and rebuilt it into the most successful company on the planet in a few short years. Yet, he also was behind NeXT, and its doomed foray into hardware. No matter how brilliant an investor, if someone takes the chances needed to have big paydays, there are going to be some misses. I don't expect anything better from the government than I'd expect from a Steve Jobs or Warren Buffet.

Right-wingers, of course, aren't happy to learn that we taxpayers made a big profit on these investments. They'd rather hear that taxpayers lost billions than to hear they gained billions, if there's any risk of Obama getting some credit for that. So, since reality didn't cooperate with their desire for failure, they will zoom in on whatever portion of the overall investment plan shows a loss, to keep their delicate sensibilities intact.
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
I'm an investor. I understand that anyone who wants a decent return has to take risks, and that means accepting that there will be misses as well as hits. One company I've been investing in heavily for a long time is Apple. Sometimes it takes risks and they don't pan out. The Apple Newton, for example, was basically looking to fill what would become the iPhone or iPad niche, but the technology wasn't there yet and it flopped. But the same attitude that took that risk also took the risk of taking Apple into the highly-competitive, extremely risky cell phone market a few years later, and that gave my Apple stock some mind-blowing gains. Speaking of Apple, it had arguably the most well-regarded CEO in history. He almost single-handedly popularized personal computers in the 70s and early 80s, turned Pixar into a company that churned out one mega-hit classic after another, starting in the mid-90s, then took a dying Apple and rebuilt it into the most successful company on the planet in a few short years. Yet, he also was behind NeXT, and its doomed foray into hardware. No matter how brilliant an investor, if someone takes the chances needed to have big paydays, there are going to be some misses. I don't expect anything better from the government than I'd expect from a Steve Jobs or Warren Buffet.

Right-wingers, of course, aren't happy to learn that we taxpayers made a big profit on these investments. They'd rather hear that taxpayers lost billions than to hear they gained billions, if there's any risk of Obama getting some credit for that. So, since reality didn't cooperate with their desire for failure, they will zoom in on whatever portion of the overall investment plan shows a loss, to keep their delicate sensibilities intact.


I don't care about how you invest your money anymore than you should care about how I invest mine. I simply don't want my money invested by others for me. To you, that seems unreasonable.

I do know that money invested in Solyndra was money flushed down the proverbial commode. It was not a wise investment. Period.

You risk your money as you see fit. Leave mine alone.
 

ya-ta-hey

Mayor
From Krugman:

The question is not whether the Department of Energy has made some bad loans — if it hasn’t, it’s not taking enough risks. It’s whether it has a pattern of bad loans. And the answer, it turns out, is no. Last week the department revealed that the program that included Solyndra is, in fact, on track to return profits of $5 billion or more.
One of the little joys that life offers in never-ending abundance is the opportunity to laugh at the imbeciles on the right.
Mr. Arkady,

You do realize that most of the monies lent went to pre-Obama programs, such as a successful loan to Tesla (paid back early) and a huge loan to Ford, and loans to the US Nuclear industry. If it hadn't been for the bad loan to Solyndra, the program would have been more than $600M in the black, instead of barely breaking even.

Then you consider that a good chunk of the Obama part of the program ($2B) went to the cash for clunkers program, that is monies that will never be recovered.
 

Arkady

President
I don't care about how you invest your money anymore than you should care about how I invest mine. I simply don't want my money invested by others for me. To you, that seems unreasonable.
I'd characterize it as "unwise" to have that as a general rule. In some situations, such as a deep recession associated with too little aggregate demand, the government is in a unique position to do good. There are also other times that a government investment makes sense, such as when the benefit created is so generalized as to leave such investments neglected by the private sector (e.g., government investments in building highways, or a military), or where the benefits are so distant that the next-quarter/next-year mentality of the private sector won't do it (e.g., early government investments in space technology).

I do know that money invested in Solyndra was money flushed down the proverbial commode. It was not a wise investment. Period.
Perhaps this will be easier to think of in a sports context. If you're playing football, and your QB gets sacked, you can say it was unwise to pass on that particular down. Fair enough. But it would be far more unwise to be so concerned with QB sacks that you never pass. To play well, you need to take the risk of passing, and that means there are going to be sacks and interceptions. You can zoom in on the particular play, with 20/20 hindsight, and say that one play was a bad one. But then you should zoom back out and look at the big picture and see if that play was part of an overall game plan that won the day. In the case of the government's green energy loans, they made the taxpayer billions of dollars, while almost certainly helping to advance green energy. A willingness to risk a few sacks like Solyndra was a necessary part of that winning game plan.
 

Arkady

President
Mr. Arkady,

You do realize that most of the monies lent went to pre-Obama programs, such as a successful loan to Tesla (paid back early) and a huge loan to Ford, and loans to the US Nuclear industry. If it hadn't been for the bad loan to Solyndra, the program would have been more than $600M in the black, instead of barely breaking even.

Then you consider that a good chunk of the Obama part of the program ($2B) went to the cash for clunkers program, that is monies that will never be recovered.
Where did you get the idea that it is "barely breaking even." Bloomberg is reporting expected earnings of $5 billion to $6 billion:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-12/u-s-expects-5-billion-from-program-that-funded-solyndra.html

That's serious money. According to that story, they disbursed about half of the $32.4 billion allocated. So, if we we say a $16.2 billion investment in exchange for earnings of $5.5 billion, that's about 34% return on investment, which would be an outstanding return even if one didn't consider the ancillary benefits of keeping the economy moving at a critical time and promoting green energy technology development.

Check out the quotation from an analyst with a private venture capital firm:

“People make a big deal about Solyndra and everything, but there’s a lot of VC capital that got torched right alongside the DOE capital,” Morosi said. “A positive return over 20 years in cleantech? That’s not a bad outcome.”


Basically, you have Democrats, independents, environmentalists, and venture capitalists praising the investment, while Republicans attack it, because, for strictly partisan reasons, they wanted it to fail.
 
Last edited:
From Krugman:

The question is not whether the Department of Energy has made some bad loans — if it hasn’t, it’s not taking enough risks. It’s whether it has a pattern of bad loans. And the answer, it turns out, is no. Last week the department revealed that the program that included Solyndra is, in fact, on track to return profits of $5 billion or more.
One of the little joys that life offers in never-ending abundance is the opportunity to laugh at the imbeciles on the right.
Just bothering the world by quoting Krugman deserves a demerit.
 

fairsheet

Senator
A private entity can assess the field and take economic risks. A public entity, which extracts funds from taxpayers, should adopt no such "gambling" posture. While it is understandable that the statist central planner will seek to re-characterize this as an unrealistic expectation of perfection, in truth it is citizen demand for good stewardship of public funds. The mission is different.

We don't roll the bones with public dollars - or we shouldn't. Government hacks make enough mistakes without introduction of "taking chances". The state has limited purpose, limited function -- and limited length of leash.
I'm not getting how "good stewardship" should be defined differently for guvmint, than it is for private enterprise. In both cases, it seems that the concept of "net profit" should rule. However, I think that perhaps "do no harm" may apply more so in the context of guvmint, than private enterprise. On that note though, it would be hard to make the case that Solyndra "did harm".
 

ya-ta-hey

Mayor
Where did you get the idea that it is "barely breaking even." Bloomberg is reporting expected earnings of $5 billion to $6 billion:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-12/u-s-expects-5-billion-from-program-that-funded-solyndra.html

That's serious money. According to that story, they dispursed about half of the $32.4 billion allocated. So, if we we say a $16.2 billion investment in exchange for earnings of $5.5 billion, that's about 34% return on investment, which would be an outstanding return even if one didn't consider the ancillary benefits of keeping the economy moving at a critical time and promoting green energy technology development.

Check out the quotation from an analyst with a private venture capital firm:

“People make a big deal about Solyndra and everything, but there’s a lot of VC capital that got torched right alongside the DOE capital,” Morosi said. “A positive return over 20 years in cleantech? That’s not a bad outcome.”


Basically, you have Democrats, independents, environmentalists, and venture capitalists praising the investment, while Republicans attack it, because, for strictly partisan reasons, they wanted it to fail.
Mr. Arkady,

$30M out of approximately $32.4B loaned is barely breaking even.

But the projections are serious money, the majority of which will be earned from the Bush Era portions of the program, not from the Obama redirection of the program that lost $600M on Solyndra alone.

As for your attacking the program contention, you speak with facts not in evidence. Republicans are attacking the loans made after 2009 to political allies of the President that eventual resulted in the lose of $600M.
 
Top