Slashdot Mirror


Solyndra's High-tech Plant To Be Sold

Velcroman1 writes, quoting Fox News: "For sale: manufacturing and office facility with 411,618 square feet, state of the art electrical, air, and power distribution systems — and a troubled past. As part of its bankruptcy proceedings, Solyndra is reportedly very close to landing a buyer for its mammoth, high-tech production plant in Fremont, Calif. The listing agent recently gave Fox News a tour of what the new owners will get for their multi-million dollar investment. Now the once-bustling offices, conference rooms, and cubicles are eerily quiet as the facility is 'decommissioned,' according to Greg Matter with Jones Lang LaSalle realty. One wonders about the conversations held, and emails written, in the corner office formerly occupied by CEO Brian Harrison."

233 comments

  1. Sounds like a non-US buyer that hates publicity. by sethstorm · · Score: 2

    About the only entity that would want the place and equipment would be a PRC-controlled entity.

    While the bailout was bad, and I disagree with their funding, anything going out of the country would be worse.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  2. FAILURE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "One wonders about the conversations held, and emails written, in the corner office formerly occupied by CEO Brian Harrison."

    i'll give you the short version: "How can we milk the government for more money?!?"

    What a failure, so many better things that we could have done with that money.

    1. Re:FAILURE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "One wonders about the conversations held, and emails written, in the corner office formerly occupied by CEO Brian Harrison."

      i'll give you the short version: "How can we milk the government for more money?!?"

      More like,
      "This will be easy to milk the people, we have the white house helping us."

  3. but... by alienzed · · Score: 1

    why can't the people in charge be forced to work themselves out of the whole. The whole bankruptcy concept seems way too much like a get out of jail free card.

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    1. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you meant "hole" vice "whole" in the first sentence? English skills akin to this have helped a number of entities, not just Solyndra, go out of business...

    2. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In small/medium companies, the president/ceo provides a personal guarantee for any loans. So if the company claims bankruptcy, that ceo must also claim bankruptcy... which means (s)he may lose everything except certain classes of assets (your house being the big exception)

      In large companies, banks do not require personal guarantees. In the rare case where a personal guarantee is required, the company purchases insurance to cover the potential loss. (insurance makes sense, since the ceo is an employee of the company...)

      So the only reason why a CEO can walk away is because the bank has decided to not to require a personal guarantee, or the company has purchased insurance to cover the risk.

    3. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you meant "instead of" instead of "vice" in the first sentence? English skills akin to this have helped a number of entities, not just Solyndra, go out of business.

    4. Re:but... by Mullen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Contrary to what Mitt Romney thinks, corporations are not people. The whole point of a corporation is to shield the owners (People) from losing everything they own if the company fails. There are benefits to this like not losing your house if your business goes under and negatives, like double taxation (The company pays taxes and then the owners pay taxes on their cut).

      The corporation should get investors to help get the company off the ground, but they don't have any liability in doing so. The Corporation assumes all the liability if it fails.

      --
      Linux O Muerte!
    5. Re:but... by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Informative

      Without bankruptcy society would have no way of cutting losses and moving forward. Much more resources and labor would go into paying off debts that have no hope of ever getting repaid. There would be much less incentives to take risks on new ideas and innovations, and less money to do it with as the majority of money earned would be used for servicing debt. When someone or some entity is so in debt that they'll never be able to repay it all, the best thing for society as a whole is to wipe the slate clean and then not loan any more money to that entity for a time.

      It seems we only apply the last part to natural persons of the working and middle classes.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    6. Re:but... by Calos · · Score: 1

      The use is technically correct, if obscure.

      --
      I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
    7. Re:but... by AmazinglySmooth · · Score: 1

      Without bankruptcy, there would be no interest expectations. Instead of interest, each person would owe their lives.

    8. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good god, do you get your news from SNL? His point was that Corporations are made up of people. Lots of people. People who pay taxes, send their kids to school, invest in their company, invest in others. His point was that Corporations are not faceless entities (which are easier to demonize-- you know, the big boogie man who'll get you if you don't vote for me?).

    9. Re:but... by slew · · Score: 1

      That's why they say if you owe the bank $1,000 the bank owns you, but if you owe the bank $1M, you own the bank.
      Of course the corollary to that old saying that somehow you find yourself owing the bank $500M, you own the government and the government owes the bank... ;^)

    10. Re:but... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Funny

      Good god, do you get your news from SNL? His point was that Corporations are made up of people. Lots of people.

      So, you are saying that what Romeny really meant was that Corporations are Soylent Green?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    11. Re:but... by artor3 · · Score: 0

      He most certainly was not trying to combat the perception of corporations as faceless entities that are easier to demonize.

      Here's the full exchange:

      ROMNEY: We have to make sure that the promises we make — and Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare — are promises we can keep. And there are various ways of doing that. One is, we could raise taxes on people.

      AUDIENCE MEMBER: Corporations!

      ROMNEY: Corporations are people, my friend. We can raise taxes on —

      AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, they’re not!

      ROMNEY: Of course they are. Everything corporations earn also goes to people.

      AUDIENCE: [LAUGHTER]

      ROMNEY: Where do you think it goes?

      AUDIENCE MEMBER: It goes into their pockets!

      ROMNEY: Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People’s pockets! Human beings, my friend.

      It's clear that the audience is complaining that corporate profits go into the leaders' pockets, not to "the people". Romney is equivocating by saying that, "Well, the executives are people!" Technically, Romney is right, but he is using very tricky phrasing.

      When he says "we could raise taxes on people", the implication is that we'd be raising taxes on all, or at least most, people. When he says "Whose pockets? People’s pockets!", now he's using "people" to refer to a very tiny group. That little oratorical trick of using a word one way at first and another way later is a well know slight of tongue, and the crowd called him on it.

    12. Re:but... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      The use is technically correct

      is a meaningless junk phrase in linguistics. If speakers of the language do not understand it, it is not correct. The only question then is whether they are writing in the same language (answer left as an exercise to the reader).

    13. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...The Corporation assumes all the liability if it fails.

      Except in this case, of course, as it was anonymous and ignominous Washington-funded stimulus that will never be seen again. Now, don't you wish these financeers had been people instead of government?

    14. Re:but... by Calos · · Score: 1

      (answer left as an exercise to the reader)

      I don't understand, am I supposed to do jumping jacks or something to unlock the answer? Is it like an achievement?

      Maybe you're just speaking a different language.

      --
      I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
    15. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How is saying that people who own companies are people? Oh wait, because you want to demonize people who aren't like you. People who have bet their ass and worked their asses off and succeeded.

    16. Re:but... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      Without bankruptcy society would have no way of cutting losses and moving forward.

      It's the other way around.

      Originally "entrepreneurs" were a risk sink of the society -- if they fail, they become poor, but no one else is affected, so even if very few of them succeed, there will be enormous empires built with economy of scale, unimpeded by failures of others.

      With bankruptcy, risk is distributed -- personally "entrepreneur" either wins or breaks even, but banks and occasionally government take losses. This, in its turn raises interest rates and devalues currency, thus losses are distributed to every member of society. As the result, the position of "entrepreneur" serves no purpose at all.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    17. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately bankruptcies can have a domino effect. Causing an avalanche of bankruptcies.

      A buyer at a locally owned hardware store had a debt of some $100k plus to the small hardware and lumbar store.
      The guy failed to pay back the store, claimed bankruptcy. So now the lumbar store is out $200k+ from one client.
      Thing is, nearly a dozen people will default on what they own the lumbar story, costing the lumbar store more than $500k per year. The company pretty much runs in the negative hoping things will improve.

      Once the only lumbar store in the area closes dozens, if not hundreds, of jobs will be lost.

      Get this, the guy who claimed bankruptcy has a huge home, giant garage full of new Harleys and other toys.

      Unless the debtor is willing to forgive the debt bankruptcy sounds more like theft than anything else.

    18. Re:but... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 0

      why? Loss is loss. When it's the government the loss is diluted amongst everyone, when it's private it's only people who invested, and they could have been fleeced into it, or the business may have just failed. The government should fund the most risky endevaours because they are most likely to fail, but provide benefits to society as a whole *if* they succeed. That assumes of course that there's a reasonable possibility of payoff and so on, and solyndra particularly might have been a clusterfuck but on the scale of government spending one few hundred million dollar boondoggle is nothing new or particularly scandalous.

    19. Re:but... by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Unless the debtor is willing to forgive the debt bankruptcy sounds more like theft than anything else.

      I guess he found some loophole in the law.

      In my country there is no bankruptcy for humans (though such a law is proposed and may pass), only for companies and it means that the company gets shut down, employees laid off and all property is sold at auctions, the money is paid in the order of priority (IIRC unpaid salaries are first, then unpaid taxes then other debts) and not everyone may be able to get the entire amount of money (since there may not be enough money left to pay all debts in full).

      So, the bankruptcy of a human would probably be the same (with exceptions for some necessary property, like the home).

    20. Re:but... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      The government should fund the most risky endevaours because they are most likely to fail, but provide benefits to society as a whole *if* they succeed.

      Helping to fund basic research for new things, is one matter.....paying to prop up failing private businesses is quite another.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    21. Re:but... by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, what is done in your country if a person owes more money than they can ever hope to repay?

    22. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's look at his response to that. Try the 3rd paragraph...

              MITT ROMNEY: Hold on. It’s my turn. You’ve had your turn. Now it’s my turn, all right? First of all, you’re right it goes to dividends, all right, which is to the owners. But they’re not the 1 percent. All right? They’re not only the 1 percent. I’m sure, among the dividends, go to the 1 percent, but also go to the people who have pensions. All right? There’s a guy. You don’t—are you in the 1 percent? No. He’s got dividends and retirement plans, 401(k)s. They’re filled of the dividends that come out from corporations. That’s number one.

              Number two, you are right, they can go into retained earnings, which then can be used for capital expenditures or growing the business or hiring people or working capital. When a business has profit, it can do good things: give it to the shareholders and grow the enterprise. And by the way, the only way it can hire people is if it grows the enterprise.

              Now, corporations, they’re made up of people, and then, of course, the buildings that people work in. The buildings don’t pay taxes. The only people that—the only entities that pay taxes are people. And so, corporations are collections of people that are trying to have good jobs for themselves and promote the future. And so, corporations are made up of people, and the money goes to people, either to hire people or to pay shareholders. And so, they’re made up of people. So, somehow thinking that there’s something else out there that we could just grab money from and get taxes from, and everything could be better, that doesn’t involve people, well, they’re still people. And what I want to do is make America a place where those corporations that have that money decide to invest here.

              I was with a company—with a guy who runs a big chemical company. He said, "We just announced a $20 billion factory in Saudi Arabia." I said, "Why?" He said, "We wanted to build it in Pennsylvania, but the regulators in this country are not willing to act to allow us to get hold of the natural gas, so we’re going to have to go somewhere else." Tens of thousands of jobs lost, not by the corporations, but by government not doing its job. I want this to be the place where corporations—people—from all over the world want to invest here, grow here, start their businesses.

    23. Re:but... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I differ on this. The fact that so many are uneducated and ignorant does not invalidate the use of the term. His usage was correct even if their understanding was deficient. I know there are often words that I do not understand but instead of complaining I take the time to learn and broaden my knowledge.

    24. Re:but... by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You may not be aware of this but many people who have retirement plans are in fact part owners of corporations. If you have any money invested in a 401K there is a chance you own stock in big oil or other evil corporations. It happens. My retirement money is tied up in several stock funds and over the last 3 decades has grown to be a nice little chunk of change thanks to some rather smart people who invest those funds. I am not rich by any means but thanks to those corporations I may actually get to live out my later years without lining up at the soup kitchen....maybe. Then again looking at the national debt....maybe not.

    25. Re:but... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2, Informative

      I differ on this. The fact that so many are uneducated and ignorant does not invalidate the use of the term.

      Of course not, but it does place it in a different register or dialect (depending on the remoteness from the reader's idiolect). The phrase "technically correct" is meaningless in linguistics. A phrase is either understood or not. If it is not, then it is either incorrect in the speaker & listener's shared dialect (I are fast) or it is not part of their shared dialect (Marunong ka bang mag-Tagalog?). There is no such thing as "technically correct" because languages are not constructed in anything resembling a technical fashion.

    26. Re:but... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Paying to prop up one of your major campaign donors is yet another thing.

    27. Re:but... by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Man am I ever going to be glad when silly season is over.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    28. Re:but... by smellotron · · Score: 1

      If you have any money invested in a 401K there is a chance you own stock in big oil or other evil corporations. It happens.

      Yup, I did some digging in my 401K ETF holdings and discovered that I owned a little bit of Halliburton. Whoops! I did not unwind the ETF position but I was able to redirect new investments to other funds with similar "risk profiles" but with holdings that I was more interested in promoting. Big oil, OTOH, is probably a bit more difficult to avoid. A quick check shows that Exxon and Chevron are in the top 10 for SPY.

    29. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could have told you it would have been a failure before it happened. So with my insight, I'm still as you say required to pay into the failure or face jail time. However, if I see a failing company that needs private money I can go ahead and skip it and only let the idiots lose out.

      With your logic... I have a company I am starting that will save the planet. I need you to invest $1 million, if you disagree I will send IRS agents to your house and have you arrested.

      Do these people even think before they post here anymore?

    30. Re:but... by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      IIRC most of the property is taken away and sold (there are exceptions, for example, some money is left (equal to the minimal monthly salary) and the rest of the debt stays forever, trickling away money the person earns.

      Though it is not very common for people to get into such large debts here - for one, banks do not lend money easily.

    31. Re:but... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      There's a broad spectrum between research and industrialization. Even figuring out how to build something in mass quantity can be highly experimental.

    32. Re:but... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      Doesn't that basically summarize the entire point of campaign spending in the US? Don't get me wrong, I don't live there, but that seems like what they've been doing for years.

    33. Re:but... by artor3 · · Score: 0

      Regular people own such miniscule portions of corporations as to be insignificant. In fact, they generally don't own the shares. The fund manager does. You get to take all the risk, and the manager takes a cut of the profit, or a cut of what's left if he loses your money. And as an added bonus, he gets to vote the shares, so you don't even get a say in how the company is run. And he gets to pay a lower tax rate than you. It's a sweet gig, if you can get it.

    34. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they do, it's just limited to their stake in the business.

      And those acting as agents for a corporation can be exposed to greater liability in certain cases. A court can pierce the veil of liability and extend it to the actor. That's just usually reserved for extraordinary cases (breaking the law, gross negligence, etc).

    35. Re:but... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as "technically correct" because languages are not constructed in anything resembling a technical fashion.

      I felt a great disturbance in the Grammar, as if millions of teachers suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    36. Re:but... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 2

      To quote myself

      "That assumes of course that there's a reasonable possibility of payoff and so on, and solyndra particularly might have been a clusterfuck but on the scale of government spending one few hundred million dollar boondoggle is nothing new or particularly scandalous."

      Though I appreciate you reading the entirety of my post before proclaiming yourself clairvoyant. I'm sure there are a lot of people who envisioned the clusterfuck that was the Iraq war was going to be a disaster, and there were many people insightful as you who proclaimed the auto bailouts doomed to fail, and who proclaimed attempts to put a man on the moon, a satellite in orbit a war with Nazi germany all destined to fail, and everyone was required to pay for those too. That's how governments work, they make a value judgment about the benefit to society, and decide if it's worth spreading the risk around or not. They can be wrong, in fact, they inevitably *will* be wrong some of the time. The question becomes what is the loss rate for government versus the benefits when it does work out.

      Solyndra was funded by the US DOE. They spend 24 billion dollars a year. Of that, they lent 525 million in one year to solyndra, that was a bad loan. How often do banks make bad loans? It happens. No matter how many reviews, no matter how diligent you are, someone will always not pay. That's the risk you take whenever you loan anyone money. That doesn't mean the US government couldn't have done better necessarily, but one needs some perspective on this sort of thing. The US burns about 10 billion dollars a month in afghanistan. Of course at the time it's also blowing 4 billion a month on Iraq. So not even 2 days worth of afghan war, or 3 days of iraq war funding was spent on this scheme. I'm going to guess the US is wasting a lot more money on a lot more serious things than solyndra.

    37. Re:but... by artor3 · · Score: 0

      And how much of the corporate profits go to retirement plans? The crowd was saying we should tax the rich, and he was ducking the question by saying "Hey, the rich are people too!" Well, yes Mitt, they are. But they're people with way more spending money than anyone else. Taxing them doesn't decrease their quality of life the way it does when you tax a regular person. But he doesn't want to face that truth, so he quickly changes the subject to talk about 401(k)s, as if you and I are making some significant portion of corporate profits.

    38. Re:but... by webnut77 · · Score: 1

      but on the scale of government spending one few hundred million dollar boondoggle is nothing new or particularly scandalous.

      It may not be new but it is scandalous. Government waste should not be acceptable.

    39. Re:but... by medcalf · · Score: 2

      I'm totally on board. As a native speaker of English, if I and the dictionary disagree, the dictionary is wrong. People forget that dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    40. Re:but... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      People forget that dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive.

      I for one have never had a dictionary that forbade anything.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    41. Re:but... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Originally "entrepreneurs" were a risk sink of the society -- if they fail, they become poor, but no one else is affected

      Apart from their creditors, you mean?

      personally "entrepreneur" either wins or breaks even

      Not if he's invested some of his own money.

      banks and occasionally government take losses. This, in its turn raises interest rates and devalues currency

      By what mechanism?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    42. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's the funny shit i've read on slashdot in a while. hahaha jumping jacks. you fucking rule

    43. Re:but... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you say the same thing to your compiler if it throws up because you forgot a semi-colon somewhere. Education, and that includes knowing grammar, is a requirement for being able to communicate efficiently and effectively. Making up your own shit might make you cool in your own head, but makes you a communication failure in the real world.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    44. Re:but... by infonography · · Score: 1

      Consider that Bain Capital is in the business of buying corporations gutting them of everything useful and then tossing aside the carcase that would mean that if Corporations were in fact People then Romney is in fact a Cannibal, which is a step up from Republican which is likely why they don't like him.

      --
      Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    45. Re:but... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Grammar changes. Always has, always will. And the change comes not by decree from a language academy, but by popular use. The prescriptivists can't hold back the tide any better than King Canute.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    46. Re:but... by Raved+Thrad · · Score: 1

      languages are not constructed in anything resembling a technical fashion.

      Ah, but proper, intelligent communication, both written and spoken, are. Knowledge of usage, syntax, and grammar are necessary to be able to decode what the other person is saying and contribute intelligently to a conversation, unlike, say, dropping the word linguistics in a totally off-topic, tangential response and using meaningless junk phrases.

      Attacking what someone says as a "meaningless junk phrase" is hardly conducive to fostering discussion, especially when one uses meaningless junk phrases, too. When was the last time you waved your hand in someone's face and said "Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!" and got anything close to resembling a meaningful response? Did your calendar list "idiolect" as your word for the day and made it so that you had to find any way at all to inject it into a conversation?

      If you're trying to get your posts modded Informative or Interesting, the least you can do is use a proper a href reference instead of leaving people wondering if you're using some made-up word from your idiolect and having to use the autodetect feature of the google translator. Oh, and drop the ad-hominem attacks, too. Attacking a poster does not make up for a lack of relevant content in a post.

      --
      Life, ultimately, boils down to the Four Fs: Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding, and Mating.
    47. Re:but... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Ah, but proper, intelligent communication, both written and spoken, are.

      No they're not. That is the delusion of conceited assholes who like to pretend they're better than other people.

      Did your calendar list "idiolect" as your word for the day and made it so that you had to find any way at all to inject it into a conversation?

      The term idiolect is a well-known, well established

      term used in linguistics when discussing exactly this issue.

      To quote one of my parent posters

      The fact that so many are uneducated and ignorant does not invalidate the use of the term.

      The irony of your effort to cast my using a technical term with a technical, specific, and appropriate meaning as somehow not being useful in a post claiming that artificial, technical, specific language is superior to natural language is not lost on me. It'd be amusing if I thought you'd done it on purpose.

      Nice try though.

    48. Re:but... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Apart from their creditors, you mean?

      Their creditors are banks -- if more loans default, they jack up interest rates so other people will pay for it.

      Not if he's invested some of his own money.

      And when does this happen at any significant scale?

      By what mechanism?

      See above. Failures now mean higher interest rates later (unless they are already calculated into risks so it means higher interest rates now).

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    49. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop it with the stupid double taxation baloney. Companies that are not incorporated pay taxes as well. We all pay taxes at multiple transaction points. The double taxation mantra is just a window on the fact that some people will feign injury in order to gain an advantage while other people lack the processing to recognize the behavior as parasitic.That the mention of companies not incorporated is theoretical because practically all companies are now incorporated should be a big clue as to the horrors suffered by the poor unjustly treated corporations. The rabble is holding down the man. Now get back to work.

    50. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they're not. That is the delusion of conceited assholes who like to pretend they're better than other people.

      Conceited assholes like you. Practically every post you make is an ad hominem attack. Does it make you feel better about yourself to put down other people? Maybe you weren't hugged enough as a child. Nah, you're probably just a conceited asshole.

      The term idiolect is a well-known, well established term used in linguistics when discussing exactly this issue.

      You mean the issue you made up a few posts back?

      Perhaps you meant "hole" vice "whole" in the first sentence?

      Perhaps you meant "instead of" instead of "vice" in the first sentence?

      The use is technically correct

      is a meaningless junk phrase in linguistics. If speakers of the language do not understand it, it is not correct.

      "Meaningless junk phrase" is not a technical term in linguistics. It was just your pathetic attempt to put down the poster, who was correct, but throwing around impressive sounding terms, like linguistics. The particular thread was discussing the use of the word "vice" in lieu of "instead of". Vice; preposition: "as a substitute for"; synonyms: "instead of - in place of - in lieu of - for". Of course, since you couldn't counter the correctness of his statement, you instead attacked his phrasing by invoking linguistics. Ooh, big word, now we're all so scared.

      A phrase is either understood or not. If it is not, then it is either incorrect in the speaker & listener's shared dialect (I are fast) or it is not part of their shared dialect (Marunong ka bang mag-Tagalog?).

      If a phrase is not understood, it's also possible that the listener/reader simply hasn't encountered the phrase. Language fluency isn't a binary choice, it's a range of proficiency. Yes, you could be a pedant and be strict about the intersections of shared dialect. That wasn't the point. The point was that the use of the word vice was correct, but you, conceited asshole that you are, just had to interject so you could pretend to be better than other people.

      There is no such thing as "technically correct" because languages are not constructed in anything resembling a technical fashion.

      The most commonly used human languages weren't constructed, but there are many languages that are. However, just because a language wasn't "constructed in anything resembling a technical fashion" doesn't mean one can't have technically correct usage. Languages do have formal, or "technical", components, particularly grammar and syntax, and words do have formal definitions. The grammar, syntax and vocabulary may evolve, but at any particular time, one can come up with a formal description of the language which represents correct usage at that time.

      The irony of your effort to cast my using a technical term with a technical, specific, and appropriate meaning as somehow not being useful in a post claiming that artificial, technical, specific language is superior to natural language is not lost on me. It'd be amusing if I thought you'd done it on purpose. Nice try though.

      Sadly, that post never claimed that artificial, technical, specific language is superior to natural language, so there really is no irony there, except in your rather limited imagination. It'd be amusing if I thought you'd done it on purpose.

      Nice try though.

    51. Re:but... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      As a native speaker of English, if I and the dictionary disagree, the dictionary is wrong.

      Are you inferring that you know better than the writers? Their native speakers to. Are you sure your right irregardless of what is in the dictionary?

      People forget that dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive.

      They *describe* what is generally accepted as correct usage. If you deviate from what is generally accepted correct usage, then you are not de-facto correct just because you're a native speaker. That, and you will look silly, too.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    52. Re:but... by Auroch · · Score: 1

      The use is technically correct

      is a meaningless junk phrase in linguistics. If speakers of the language do not understand it, it is not correct.

      Yo DAWG, I herd you like Words inside your Words, so I made you this: Wro-YOUR-STATEMENT-IS-VERY-INCORRECT-ng.

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
    53. Re:but... by Auroch · · Score: 1

      I'm totally on board. As a native speaker of English, if I and the dictionary disagree, the dictionary is wrong. People forget that dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive.

      You are correct, sir. And by sir, I mean "Complete idiot". See, the dictionary and I disagreed, and since my view of the english language is more correct than the millions of people upon whom the descriptive dictionary is based ... you're now a complete poopy-head. And by poopy-head, I mean "Incompetent Asshat".

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
    54. Re:but... by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Their native speakers to.

      The writers own native speakers who are coming to the rescue? You can't just cut short a sentence like that! The suspense is killing me!

    55. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, those bastards!! Taking a cut for doing basically nothing at all! Why, any chimp could do what those fund managers do. We should all pull our retirement money out of those giant funds and just invest directly in the Good, Not-Evil, Green Companies ourselves! /sarcasm

    56. Re:but... by Bigby · · Score: 1

      That only hurts a society based on credit. We didn't use to be that way.

    57. Re:but... by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Obviously that dictionary is wrong, when he says it "proscriptive" means "tells you what the word actually means"


      grin

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    58. Re:but... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      "We" didn't have painless bankruptcies before, either.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    59. Re:but... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Their creditors are banks

      Except for all of the times when they're not. Venture money comes from all sorts of places. And that money is at risk for the investors who put it on the line. If you buy shares in a start-up, you're risking that money. Very few banks will loan money to a start-up business that isn't already well funded by private (completely at risk) equity.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    60. Re:but... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Except for all of the times when they're not. Venture money comes from all sorts of places.

      And into all those places, money come mostly from credit.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    61. Re:but... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      And into all those places, money come mostly from credit.

      This is factually incorrect.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    62. Re:but... by kisak · · Score: 0

      Corporations are made out of people where one of those people is a CEO who had installed a friend as director of the board and then get milliions in pay and bonuses if the corporations does well or bad and also got himself a contract that gives him millions in a golden parachute if the corporation fails miserable because of its miserable CEO which it will finally have to fire. This CEO then lobbies / bribes "business friendly" politicians with the corporations money so that the corporation is allowed to pollute unlimited and bust unions so that the people who actually work for the corporation gets peanutes in pay and no job security, and since these people do not live in the nice neighborhoods of the CEO will have to drink their water unleaded. When these people who actually does the work get sick or burned out and the corporation starts to struggle some corporate raider like Mittens Bain buys the majority of shares in the corporations, then Mittens loads the corporations with debt while taking huge salaries and then leaves the corporation to die after they have robbed the pension money from the people in the corporation who has worked there for 40 years or more. After the corporation finally goes broke the federal government have to use taxpayers money to help the people in the corporation who actually did work while Mittens and the failure of a CEO live a marvelous life and give all the money they made from people who actually work for corporations but did not have time to waste to their spoiled brat children who get a Harvard education so that they can become CEOs and corporate raiders and corupte politicians.

      So, yes, corporations are people.

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    63. Re:but... by Quila · · Score: 2

      Solyndra was funded by the US DOE. They spend 24 billion dollars a year. Of that, they lent 525 million in one year to solyndra, that was a bad loan. How often do banks make bad loans?

      How often do banks determine that a particular loan would be a bad idea, yet go through with it anyway? That's what happened here. The OMB -- the beancounters in charge of vetting these loans --did not want to loan the money to Solyndra because they knew Solyndra was a poor risk. That is the system that was set up under Bush to prevent exactly these clusterfucks.

      But Solyndra had investors who were heavy Obama donors, and even had friends in the administration. Thus the political wing of the administration pushed it through over the objections of the OMB. So to use your bank analogy, we'd probably be putting some bank execs in jail for malfeasance. We need to do that with the administration too.

    64. Re:but... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      And into all those places, money come mostly from credit.

      This is factually incorrect.

      Where else does it come from?
      Don't say individual savings from mattresses.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    65. Re:but... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Where else does it come from?

      Venture capital is exactly that - capital. It's some for of asset piled up through other activities. When you see guys like Amazon's Jeff Bezos or Virgin's Richard Branson putting millions (billions!) of dollars of their own money into funding the start-up of things like the space-related comapnies they're launching, it's just that. Money. Cash they actually do have, essentially, under their mattresses. There are trillions of dollars of cash waiting in the sidelines, right now, with nowhere compelling enough to invest it. Compelling, in the sense that the investment is likely to not be a total washout and loss for having been made on an obviously bad risk.

      Take Solyndra, for example. Hundreds of millions up in smoke (even worse, since so much of it was our tax dollars). People who are betting their own money, rather than tax money, on such ventures lose all of their investment when things like that happen. So they're looking for sensible start-ups with lower risk. Those are very hard to come by. Most investments lose, and a few turn out well - and well enough to make up, for the investor, for all of the ones that were total losses. But guys like Bezos (or Buffet, etc) don't go into debt to fund the start of a new company. And when you or I put a little money into a mutual fund or buy a few shares of stock, we don't do that either. At least, I hope you're not using cash advances on a credit card to invest in stocks!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    66. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smart people my ass. Compare the returns on your 401K to any index and see how brilliant they really are. Hint, the majority of those "rather smart people" will not beat any of the major domestic indexes. Haha, then take a look at the fees they charge you for this wizardy =)

    67. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will wager that green ETFs will outperform most fund managers and the major domestic indices over the next decade. Care to gamble?

    68. Re:but... by thejaq · · Score: 1

      You are correct. Americans get the politicians and the society that we deserve. It's pretty shitty.

    69. Re:but... by medcalf · · Score: 1
      I'm inferring that the post I was agreeing with was correct in that there may be dialectical differences, but what makes a language "correct" is whether it's understood by the hearer. If a native speaker is talking, and a native listener is hearing, and the listener understands the speaker, then the speaker's language was "correct" to whatever degree that term is meaningful in this context. The reason that dictionaries change over time is that usage changes over time. Even grammar changes over time. (If you don't believe that, go look at studies of comma usage in English over the last couple of hundred years.)

      The thing is, I'm very much in favor of strict grammar and careful definition of terms, and I hate it when people redefine words on the fly. Nonetheless, it is still true that if you understood the meaning and are fluent in the language, then the original speaker might have been able to say it better, or might have been speaking in dialect or slang, but their usage was not inherently incorrect. Dictionaries and grammars follow usage, not the other way around.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    70. Re:but... by medcalf · · Score: 1

      Compilers are not working with natural languages. They are working with constructed languages. In that case, the language definition is absolutely correct. Either I or the compiler could be wrong, if one or both of us misinterprets the language definition, but the language definition is (by definition, actually) correct.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    71. Re:but... by medcalf · · Score: 1

      Would it have been clearer if I had said "prescriptive, not proscriptive"? Dictionaries catalog common usage, specifically common pronunciations of and meanings for a term, as opposed to forbidding odd usages which are, nonetheless, clearly understandable. Or maybe I'm missing your point, and you were amplifying what I said, rather than mocking incorrectly.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    72. Re:but... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Not me. I can see the government investment coming. Lots more taxpayer money to dis...ah...fund growth in green initiatives.

    73. Re:but... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      My 401K is outperforming almost all the major stock funds. I have been mostly amazed at how well it's done, especially since 2008.

    74. Re:but... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Venture capital is exactly that - capital. It's some for of asset piled up through other activities.

      And that capital is mostly taken from clients who in their turn invest money they borrowed on margin on stocks they bought from other borrowed money that they [maybe] already paid off by selling part of those stocks. It's not one fat guy surrounded with bags with dollar signs on them.

      Take Solyndra, for example. Hundreds of millions up in smoke (even worse, since so much of it was our tax dollars).

      Government also borrows its money. Then part of that is paid back from taxes. Then it borrows more. Why do you think, national debt is growing?

      But guys like Bezos (or Buffet, etc) don't go into debt to fund the start of a new company.

      This is exactly what they do. Their money are in stocks that they believe, are liquid. They don't sell those stocks, they just borrow money for their new companies, and guarantee the loan by liquidity of stocks they own.

      At least, I hope you're not using cash advances on a credit card to invest in stocks!

      Have you noticed the difference between interest rates on credit cards and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_funds_rate ?

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    75. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you are saying that what Romeny really meant was that Corporations are Soylent Green?

      Solyndra Green.

  4. Re:Sounds like a non-US buyer that hates publicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    With a topic like Solyndra Poe's law should be in full effect on the threads to follow.

  5. Investing is inherently risky by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In this case the company got dumped on by the Chinese.

    Investment is inherently risky. But we have to invest in our future. Some of those investments will go bust. The ones that don't , like the internet, pay for the ones that do many many many times over.

    The only people making a whipping boy of this company are people who 1) reflexively hate anything the President has done or 2) work for oil and gas companies.

    1. Re:Investing is inherently risky by medcalf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Investing is inherently risky. When you invest other people's money, you are passing the risk to them. In this case, a successful investment would have enriched the owners, while what actually happened soaked not the owners, nor the politicians, but the taxpayers. This is why it's a bad idea to have politicians "invest" public funds: there is no risk to them, and potentially the gain of having helped out their financial and political supporters. Moral hazard is vast in such situations. If you are having a problem seeing it, imagine Mitt Romney investing public funds in Koch Brothers companies, and I'm sure it will be more clear.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    2. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ironically, this investment failed largely because China is more effective at subsidizing their industries with public funds than we are. And it looks like their strategy in this case is going to win them the lion's share of the market going forward.

    3. Re:Investing is inherently risky by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      You mean like the former administration funnelling millions to corporations like Halliburton? Very few right wing commentators harping on about "government waste" and "risky investment" back then, not that it makes it any better.

      Either way, the current administration provided a $500 million loan guarantee that was unfortunately unable to be paid back - still a drop in the bucket compared to the tax breaks given to oil companies, but still not something you really want to lose. The market, flooded with below-cost Chinese panels simply beat them down.

    4. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that investing in Solyndra is nothing like what FDR did with the New Deal, right? FDR was all about trickle up - getting money into the hands of the people. Even though I don't agree with those methods, at least we got something out of it (parks, bridges, post offices, books, you name it).

      The Solyndra debacle was corporate cronyism and trickle down. What did we get out of it? An empty bag.

    5. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that the GP was bringing up Romney to illustrate why the entire idea is bad to an Obama supporter, right? He wasn't whipping out a red penis to measure against a blue penis like you're doing. If the best defense you've got for Obama is that the previous administration did the same thing... well that's a new low for Obama I guess.

    6. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ironically, this investment failed largely because China has only fictional environmental regulations, an endless supply of powerless disposable workers and no tariffs or duties to pay on US exports (until recently). And it looks like their strategy in this case is going to win them the lion's share of the market going forward.

      FTFY

    7. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the best defense you've got for ___ is that the previous administration did the same thing

      Insert any president for the last couple of decades or so, and you'll find people who used this defense for one thing or another.

    8. Re:Investing is inherently risky by artor3 · · Score: 1

      You don't think there's a gain for the average American to have wildly successful tech companies with factories on our shores?

      Solyndra was a reasonable investment. Had it succeeded, it would have been good for the country. Unfortunately, it failed, and we lost some money. As any successful businessman can tell you, the proper response to a failed investment is not "give up and never invest again".

    9. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, but what do you expect from a Republican idea? They created the fund which Solyndra accessed as part of their energy policy plan.

      I would have chosen to buy out older coal plants to replace them with newer, better options, nuclear, solar, wind, even new coal facilities, but instead of that we got a loan plan.

      Oh well, at least incandescent bulbs will be phased out regardless.

    10. Re:Investing is inherently risky by jo_ham · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You do realize that the GP was bringing up Romney to illustrate why the entire idea is bad to an Obama supporter, right? He wasn't whipping out a red penis to measure against a blue penis like you're doing. If the best defense you've got for Obama is that the previous administration did the same thing... well that's a new low for Obama I guess.

      You've completely missed my point.

      I'm not opposed to government funding and loan guarantees at all, by either party. (I'm not an American, and both "sides" are a little too right wing for my tastes).

      My point is that the Solyndra "debacle" has been seized upon by the right wing media as a way to push their small government agenda, when, of course, it's nothing new at all for the government to be backing business ventures, as witnessed by Halliburton.

      You'll note that I didn't do any "dick waving" or criticise the administration for those contracts (I could - they were awarded no-bid under the table, but I'm not against the principle of funding support from government per se), merely that there's a double standard that goes into the discussion about it.

      I'm not "defending" Obama for this move - if anything it was lowballed. He should have given them a couple of billion to match the sort of ballpark figures given to the oil industry, so in that sense I'm criticising him for not going far enough. I'm not defending him for doing what the previous administration did because *that's what government should be doing anyway*. In other words, I think it's a good thing. Unfortunate when it doesn't work out, like this case, but that's what happens to risky investments sometimes.

    11. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the best defense you've got for Obama is that the previous administration did the same thing... well that's a new low for Obama I guess.

      A new low? When has 0 ever had any other defense?

    12. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already had them; they outsourced and offshored. Why wouldn't this company have done the same thing down the line? I don't know what the solution to this problem is, but setting more people up to be downsized seems myopic to me.

    13. Re:Investing is inherently risky by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I love it, a truly insightful post at last. People act like we can actually compete with a country that doesn't have to deal with the EPA, OSHA and Social Security or the FLRA.

    14. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solyndra was a reasonable investment. Had it succeeded, it would have been good for the country. Unfortunately, it failed, and we lost some money.

      Bullshit. Solyndra was shopping around for government money prior to the Obama administration and were told that their plan would fail and were even told on what quarter of what year they were going to fail.

      Guess when the failed? The fucking quarter of the year that was fucking predicted.

      Only two kinds of people claim that it was a reasonable investment... the fuckers that looted tax payer money and gave it to their fucking solyndra buddies, and assholes that swallow democrat cock.

    15. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that the GP was bringing up Romney to illustrate why the entire idea is bad to an Obama supporter, right? He wasn't whipping out a red penis to measure against a blue penis like you're doing. If the best defense you've got for Obama is that the previous administration did the same thing... well that's a new low for Obama I guess.

      I didn't know that what its all about. I should go Republican. I prefer having a red penis over a blue penis.

    16. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Pulzar · · Score: 2

      People act like we can actually compete with a country that doesn't have to deal with the EPA, OSHA and Social Security or the FLRA.

      The whole point is that a country that doesn't have those things will have unhappier populace with a lower standard of living, and therefore less time and inclination to innovate and go the extra mile to make something of their own work.

      That's why we can't compete in mindless assembly and raw materials, but we're still doing pretty damn good in everything else.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    17. Re:Investing is inherently risky by feepness · · Score: 1

      I'm not "defending" Obama for this move - if anything it was lowballed. He should have given them a couple of billion to match the sort of ballpark figures given to the oil industry,

      Comparing one company vs an entire industry is somewhat disingenuous.

      And regardless of that, the US is simply broke, and doesn't have the money to be spending on either, or a host of other things.

    18. Re:Investing is inherently risky by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      And China's domestic growth is predicated on US consumption of goods and other foreign investments to provide employment. In a global economy it's a two-way street. If we fall, so will they. Their inflation due to the devaluation of the dollar is proof of that as their currency has historically been pegged to the US dollar. It's also why they've been divesting of it lately. The solution is for both the CCP and the US Feds to stay the hell away from investing or subsidizing in goods and services. This is how trade wars start. And honestly, the only reason it hasn't begun is because both sides don't want to play that game of chicken as both realize how stubborn each side can be.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    19. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Kreigaffe · · Score: 2

      There's a difference between the gov't giving money to Haliburton and Solyndra.

      In the former, the government was paying them for services rendered. An existing company was contracted to do a job they said they could do and they were paid for their work.
      In the latter, the government handed a company money in the hopes they could some day do something with it -- not payment for goods delivered or services rendered, just money and hope that it'd pay off, somehow.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    20. Re:Investing is inherently risky by adiposity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As someone who works near the Solyndra plant (and at a firm that supplied Solyndra with products), and who knows a former employee of Solyndra, I can say there was more of an issue than the Chinese. Yes, the Chinese dumped on the market, and yes, this made it difficult for Solyndra to survive...but, there was a culture of incredible waste at Solyndra. Everything purchased had to be top dollar. As is often the case when a company has too much money, many things were bought that were unnecessary, and problems were usually fixed by throwing more money at it. My friend is an engineer and observed many times designs had to be reworked because of incompetence and lack of attention to detail. But this was accepted, because there was plenty of money. When the money ran out, it was too late to change.

      Solyndra probably couldn't have survived, anyway, but they did themselves no favors. And the huge investments made into Solyndra only encouraged them to be wasteful. Sometimes a budget results in a better product.

    21. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the Chinese economic bubble is showing the first signs of a burst, and when it does (and it will, they always do), now that they have some sort of iphone loving middle class who have a taste of affluence, things are going to become veeeerrrrryy interesting with respect to internal politics over there in the near future. Hold onto your hats!

    22. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Its a lie because you say it is, or because you can't believe its true? I like how you try to distract from reality by yammering on about Fox News... (who brought up Fox News? You did!)

      Try ABC news, jackass.

      "Even after Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, analysts in the Energy Department and in the Office of Management and Budget were repeatedly questioning the wisdom of the loan. In one exchange, an Energy official wrote of "a major outstanding issue" -- namely, that Solyndra’s numbers showed it would run out of cash in September 2011."

      ""This deal is NOT ready for prime time," one White House budget analyst wrote in a March 10, 2009 email, nine days before the administration formally announced the loan.:

      This is members of the administration, not Fox News, reported by ABC, not Fox News. The DoE etc said this was a bad deal, and predicted when it would fail. The White House insisted that Solyndra get the money anyways, because Obama was pushing "green jobs" while paying off his campaign contributers at Solyndra.

      Why don't you know this?

      Obviously everyone involved knew that it wasn't a good deal, and everyone paying any attention at all knows that what you are calling lies are actually facts reported by the mainstream media, with Fox News nowhere in sight. Facts which apparently got right by you somehow amazingly, even though you profess to being enough of an expert on the subject to declare the deal a good one.

      Now we both know that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about, yet here you are acting like an expert and having it handed to you so simply and trivially. The shit you are saying doesnt even pass a simple google search, which would have taken you all of 3 seconds. Anonymous coward must be right, you ARE sucking on the democrat sausage because you couldnt even be bothered to do a simple Google search while you knowingly just made shit up out of nothing to support your beloved party.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    23. Re:Investing is inherently risky by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      We both offered reasoned arguments and examples to buttress our diametrically different POV. So far, both our arguments have gotten 5 stars. Let's see if we can pick this apart.

      You argument depends on the concept of "other people's money". One set of people pony up the cash, another set merrily invests, yet another profits - the owners- if things go well.

      This description is fallacious in this circumstance for a number of reasons, which I'll point out just below, but also, and even more interesting, is the fallacious mental model you used to construct your argument from. That model is what is especially instructive.

      About your description of the three separate players. First, the taxes invested are not "other people's (the taxpayer's) money". It is the government's money. That what a tax is. Taxes are not optional, they are the mutually agreed upon - through your legislature- revenue stream of the US government and you never "owned" that money. It's not now nor ever was "your" money, apoint elaborated on by Dean Baker here:

      http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/cns.html#9

      (More on Dean Baker here: http://bigthink.com/ideas/15481 )

      Secondly, the amount of money the government spent on Solyndra was a vanishingly small part of the federal budget, yet the financial payoff to the federal government in advances of either solar technology or the deployment economics of solar energy would be enormous, making this exactly the small-risk/ big-payoff type of investment any wise investor looks for.

      The government has bills it pays in a million ways for necessary remedial action as a result of fossil fuels. it pays to protect and undo damage to the environment, to support foreign war wars, to cover the health consequences to the population of burning coal, in the destructive effects of acid rain on buildings and estuaries and rivers and lakes on and on and on.

      Three, considering the savings the government would incur if more people used solar, the real winner would not be Solyndra's owners but the government itself. Suppose Solyndra makes its investors a handsome yearly 10% profit on their investment. That 10% is the least of the government's payback for investing because of the nationwide, permanently repeating reduction in the above cited ongoing costs.

      Your perspective came from the misinterpretation of the relationship between the government and the people. Your mental model is we are opposing sides in some zero-sum game over a pot of gold. We are not two separate entities. We have a government for, of and by the American people. The government is We The People, for better or for worse. I don't complain about the government in say, Tennessee allowing creationism into the classrooms there. I complain about the stupid Tennesseans who form that majority opinion.

      Ditto the tar sands in Alberta and the Federal government.

      If you're really worried about the corrupting influence of election money on politicians, then why don't you support publicly funded elections instead of the Citizen's United sewer we live in presently?

      Your example of Mitt Romney has built into it the belief that all politicians are and always will be as venal as they can possibly be, harboring no real interest in the public good. There would be no reason to invest in Koch industries given how profitable they are and the economic model - no charge for externalities they impose on society- that's currently working in their favor. So there is no real world upside to such an investment the way there is to investing in solar. Such an investment would indeed be objectionable but only a mind that models the world as only competing political ideologies, a world from which any objective measure of goodness has been removed can possibly equate those two examples.

      Finally, as if another argument is needed, you have no

    24. Re:Investing is inherently risky by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I really fail to see how the success of one entity can rationally depend on another entity enjoying the benefits of its effort.....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    25. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PRCs policies not only won the solar war, but it also won over what little loyalty US hedge funds might have had. Now their bets have to win, even if the US loses.

    26. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Solyndra was such a great investment, private money from Bain-like investors would have been pouring into the company. The reality is that the private-investment market realized that Solyndra was a loser and not worth the risk.

    27. Re:Investing is inherently risky by jo_ham · · Score: 2

      The US is not broke. Don't believe that right wing talking point - it has plenty of money, just a political unwillingness to collect it. It's broke if the current economic policies continue, but a repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts here, some slight trimming of defence spending there, a little tweak to social security over there and there's no more deficit.

    28. Re:Investing is inherently risky by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1
      See my later post for what we stood to get out of it.

      Sure, Roosevelt put money directly in the hands of workers but in this political climate it's not possible to create a government solar company and employ people. The closest thing to that is funding researchers directly, which we do do.

    29. Re:Investing is inherently risky by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      No problem with that .. I as the lone voice of frugality in a startup I was in and I would say that our burn rate made the dot-com flu everyone caught near-fatal for us, along with a bunch of other things of course.

    30. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no. Halliburton did not render its services in that way, they skipped out much more than Solyndra, they actually got billions which they did not deliver on, and there was not even competitive bidding for it, and Solyndra, contrary to your presentation had an actual product, and a factory, and numerous customers.

      The factory they did build was an expanded larger one. It was a reasonable business plan and might well have worked, except the cost returns became unsustainable thanks to Chinese dumping of their own solar products.

      I'm sure you're simply ignorant of the facts, not willfully misrepresenting things.

    31. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, am unwilling to live in a country where I drink from my neighbor's septic tank to compete with those who will. We definitely should be mindful of the costs, but that doesn't mean those organizations are worthless.

    32. Re:Investing is inherently risky by digitalsolo · · Score: 2

      I am being completely earnest here; I'd really like to see the numbers for that. Remember, we need to start paying BACK the debt as well, simply ending the deficit does not resolve the issue.

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
    33. Re:Investing is inherently risky by digitalsolo · · Score: 1

      First, the taxes invested are not "other people's (the taxpayer's) money". It is the government's money.

      Your point, while valid the way you have stated it seems to ignore that the government of this country belongs TO the people, thus the money in question IS the money of the people by definition. All state buildings belong TO the people as a whole, as do national parks, etc. Now, whether the money was spent wisely or not is not something I really care to argue about, I feel there are valid points either way, but the concept that the government is some type of separate entity from the people it governs is simply not correct.

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
    34. Re:Investing is inherently risky by digitalsolo · · Score: 1

      This is consistent in MANY US businesses. I have a good friend who works in a union shop and has been verbally reprimanded for working too quickly (if the work gets done too fast, they cannot properly spread the work around and keep all the union workers employed). The parent company is currently struggling financially, I cannot imagine why...

      Perhaps it is like this worldwide, but I really rather doubt that.

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
    35. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Dick Cheney investing government funds in Halliburton?

    36. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously?
      Yea' if services rendered was stealing money, living off the tax payers tit like the corp welfare queens they are. Oh, and don't forget the gulf spill.
      And you compare that to a loan deal in a emerging industry of economic and strategic interest to the united states? One that would have worked out if it were not for illegal Chinese dumping?

      "But the Houston-based conglomerate once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney is neck-deep in allegations of waste and fraud involving millions of taxpayer dollars, reports CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson."
      http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-636644.html

      "Four former finance employees at the Halliburton Company contend that a high-level and systemic accounting fraud occurred at the company from 1998 to 2001, according to a new filing in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of investors who bought the company's shares."
      http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/06/business/suit-accuses-halliburton-of-fraud-in-accounting.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

      "U.S. appeals court erred in rejecting class certification in a securities fraud lawsuit filed in 2002 on behalf of all buyers of Halliburton stock between June 1999 and December 2001." "The alleged misstatements artificially pumped up Halliburton's stock price, the lawsuit said, adding that the Houston-based company eventually made corrective disclosures that caused its stock price to fall."
      http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-halliburton-lawsuit-idUSTRE75532D20110606

      "Government officials have raised many questions about KBR's fulfillment of its contracts, everything from billing for meals it didn't serve to charging inflated prices for gas to excessive administrative costs. Government auditors have noted that KBR refused to turn over electronic data in its native format and stamped documents as proprietary and secret when the documents would normally be considered public records.

      Over the course of several years, the Defense Contract Audit Agency found that $553 million in payments should be disallowed to KBR, according to 2009 testimony by agency director April Stephenson before the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan."
      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/09/arianna-huffington/halliburton-kbr-and-iraq-war-contracting-history-s/

      "He said that serving expired food ration was "an everyday occurrence, sometimes every meal." He explained that Halliburton systematically overcharged for the number of meals as well, saying, "they were charging for 20,000 meals and they were only serving 10,000 meals." Dorgan later commented, "obviously there's no honor here, by a company that would serve outdated food to our troops in Iraq."" http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Civilians_testify_to_Halliburton_fraud,_coercion

    37. Re:Investing is inherently risky by khallow · · Score: 1

      The whole point is that a country that doesn't have those things will have unhappier populace with a lower standard of living, and therefore less time and inclination to innovate and go the extra mile to make something of their own work.

      You go on hoping that. The US had less than China currently does and it went from a innovation parasite to the leading innovator of the time on that.

    38. Re:Investing is inherently risky by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      There are numerous "balance the budget yourself" website with interactive calculations and so on all over the web.

      The one I used last time was the one here: http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/budget-hero which uses numbers from the CBO. It allows you to change all sorts of things and it provides projections and calculations for the future depending on what you select.

      The biggest thing you notice about these sorts of things is just how expensive the Bush Tax Cuts are - certainly more than twice the cost of "obamacare" for example (which is often held up as "too expensive" by the Republicans, but could easily be paid for by repealing the Bush cuts, but then such is the nature of cut, cut, cut). It also shows how expensive social security is, and the issues affecting the future of the nation given that everyone is living longer - it's something that also needs to be addressed.

    39. Re:Investing is inherently risky by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

      the government is some type of separate entity from the people it governs is simply not correct

      Actually if you read the exchange I am making that point to you so let's see if we can sort this out.

      When you're talking about money and taxes, then you're talking about an accounting perspective and from that perspective the government's money is not your and your money is not the governments. You can't say to an IRA agent "I am the government !" by way of explaining why you didn't pay taxes. So this is the sense in which the government and youa re clearly separate entities.

      Now when it comes to the actions of the government, the government and the people are in the realtionship of represented and representer. However, they're not representing any one individual, they're representing and acting for the aggregate Amerrican population. Even this representation is not direct. We don't have a direct democracy and further, the oath various office holders take is to an even more abstract thing, the welfare of the nation itself. This isn't some theoretical handwaving, this is built into the Constittution itself and deliberately designed into the way our government works. There's more than a little something of the leaders of the nation being thought fo as more far sighted and temperate than the people. You can read the papers of the Framers where they argue about this kind of thing.

      One of the concerns is the tyranny of the majority which is what majoritarianism would yield to.

      We ARE the government, but the government is not a puppet of individual citizens. If someone doens't like X, say , a war or a policy, then they can try to change it but that's not the same as saying that the government policy is illegitimate.

      Most people who objected to Solyndra also object to government involving itself in R and D and social programs and really anything. They want the government to just do defense and not involve itself with social issues.

      Most Americans disagree with that strongly as Ron Paul's barely double digit showing at the Republican primary showed. He could have swept the primaries; Democrats dont' like him less than the other candidates which held leads in that process including Rick Santorum who is a lunatic IMO and Herbert Cain who is a narcissist and Newt Gingrich, who is a sociopath.

      So it is simply not a view most Americans hold. I hold that view in utter contempt and if it looks like it's gaining ground to me, i do what I can to smack it down, un paid, unbidden and unthanked because I love my country and I consider Ron Paul to be a real fool and his theories and philosophy to be little more than just-so fairy tales on subjects he knows exactly nothing about, say for instance his stance on Civil Rights or his understanding of the environment and his take on gay marriage.

      Paul has also said that at the federal level he opposes âoeefforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.â He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism."[143] He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996. The act allows a state to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The act also prohibits the U.S. Government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage.

      Especially with the environment, he has no point of tangency with reality. Property rights is the WRONG framework to try to graft onto the problems pollution and global warming bring.

      He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between the states or regions concerned. "The people of Texas do not need feder

    40. Re:Investing is inherently risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, we need to start paying BACK the debt as well, simply ending the deficit does not resolve the issue.

      Why bother paying it back? What happened to the Republican election mantra of "grow the economy" (which gov't can't do of course, according to the same GOP)?

      If we have a $100 Trillion dollar economy, $15 Trillion in debt doesn't matter much. If we have a $1 trillion dollar one, we can't pay it back without cratering the economy, which makes it impossible to pay back.

      Why didn't we raise taxes to pay for wars instead of cutting them? Where were the deficit hawks then? Oh yeah, they were kooks and weirdo's (Paul and Kucinich) or those cowardly traitorous "Democrats".

      The Republican Rand Paul "austerity" budget doesn't even cut spending, it just sends it all to the military/prison/industrial complex. Check the actual figures, they don't even stop the GROWTH of defense spending, much less cut it, much less play to pay any of the debt down.

      If you want to follow the stereotypes:
      The Republicans want to tax me and give the benefits to billionaire industry owners.
      The Democrats want to tax me and give it to the poor, the lazy, or worse the "brown" people as reparations.

      F them both, but I've got a lot more in common with a thousand kids from Harlem than I do with the couple dozens of Wall Street penthouse corner office guys.

    41. Re:Investing is inherently risky by digitalsolo · · Score: 1

      Interesting point. Thank you for a well thought out response, I appreciate that you didn't just go off like all too many people on this site anymore.

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
    42. Re:Investing is inherently risky by digitalsolo · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the link. I'm with you that the taxes need adjusted and definitely that Social Security is in a bad away right now. If we just cut the pork and inefficiency out of 50% of government we'd be miles ahead as well.

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
    43. Re:Investing is inherently risky by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I agree but you have to realize that buerocracies can go mad after a while. The idea is to manage risk, not eliminate it since elimination is impossible. If you try to do away with any risk you will kill your businesses. Some of the OSHA regulations are mind numbingly stupid causing tens of thousands of dollars to be wasted where I work every single day. Then the EPA who once had Bigfoot on the endangered species list. It goes on and on. No, I want protection but something has to be done about runaway stupidity in government.

  6. Fun fun fun by Vladius · · Score: 0

    The right wingers are gonna be all over this one. After all any time anything Obama fails at is good for America. It must be nice that we have someone who's fault everything is.

    1. Re:Fun fun fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's the chief exec. It's his fault by definition. Same was true when Bush was in charge. I won't even get into the irony of your last sentence.

    2. Re:Fun fun fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if the President is an autocrat. Which, I will grant you the Republicans profess to believe, but it is not true, and their insistence on that even while they dig in their heels to avoid doing anything except what they demand.

      As long as their idea if bipartisanship is getting their way and their agenda is to make Obama a one-term President, they are the wannabe tyrants.

      They don't even want to admit Solyndra wasn't a fraud. Apparently they never saw Tucker. It's no crime to try and fail.

    3. Re:Fun fun fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but no. At best you could say there are instances where Congress acts (or refuses to act) on its own, but the question then is: Why was that politically possible? Answer: it's the President's fault.

    4. Re:Fun fun fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then clearly everything good that happens goes to the President's credit.

      Or at least anything that the US government has a hand in, right? Because Solyndra wasn't a USG agency, it just received money from the USG. Following your logic, if the USG paid for part of something, BHO can take whatever credit/blame there is to be had.

      I therefore propose that Obama take credit for the following in the upcoming election:
      - GM and Chrysler's recoveries
      - SpaceX's recent successes
      - That DARPA plane going mach 50 for half an hour
      - The wonderful pasta dinner I had last night (farmers get subsidies!)
      - Slashdot (via the Welfare Department's support of CmdrTaco lo these many years)

    5. Re:Fun fun fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you have any doubt that he will...?

    6. Re:Fun fun fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, he shoulda used summa that there Unitary Executive Power to do whatever the hell he wanted.

    7. Re:Fun fun fun by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The right wingers are gonna be all over this one. After all any time anything Obama fails at is good for America. It must be nice that we have someone who's fault everything is.

      Yes! When you have bad ideas and you fail at trying to implement them, that is a good thing. Why is that so hard for people to understand? When Obama succeeds with his policies, America loses. That is what the saying means.

      And to be fair, it's not all Obama's fault. I'd say that very little of it is Obama's fault. Americans don't realize how little power the President actually has. The lion's share of the fault belongs to Congress. It was that way when Bush was president. It's that way now. The difference is that when Bush a Republican Congress, things went very well. When Clinton had a Republican Congress, things went very well. When D's took control of Congress in Jan, 2007, unemployment was at 4.7% and the deficit was about $250 billion. Two years after D control of both houses, the unemployment rate was 7.6% and climbing and the deficit was about $1600 billion. The only blame Bush and Obama deserve is for not vetoing every piece of shit bill that passed their desks. Although, Obama does share much of the philosophy with the Democratic Congress.

      Fact is, it doesn't matter who wins the White House this November. What matters is which party gets Congress. God help us if it's a mixed result because then both houses will have to bribe eachother with our money to get anything passed!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    8. Re:Fun fun fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, very grave doubts. In all honesty, I don't think he'll take credit for my pasta dinner. Seriously, I just don't see it happening. Even the SpaceX thing... he'll probably pawn that off to sappy inspirational entrepreneurship or some tripe.

    9. Re:Fun fun fun by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The right wingers are gonna be all over this one. After all any time anything Obama fails at is good for America. It must be nice that we have someone who's fault everything is.

      Funny, seems to me that four years ago everything was Bush's fault.

      What goes around comes around, as they used to say....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:Fun fun fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that's the Republican meme, that you were so horribly persecuted by unfair criticism of Bush that now they're entirely justified in doing the same thing...

      But it's not true.

      Even if it were, it'd be a terrible logic from a group that prides itself on its vaunted virtues of personal responsibility. Yes, the Republican party does present itself as being holier-than-thou.

      While cheering on delusions of Birth Certificate conspiracies.

    11. Re:Fun fun fun by joocemann · · Score: 1

      So the republican congress we are staring at is responsble for the weak economy? H wait, I bet you cant wait to join your friends and blame Obama.

      Eat your words.

    12. Re:Fun fun fun by RoccamOccam · · Score: 2

      I know that's the Republican meme, that you were so horribly persecuted by unfair criticism of Bush that now they're entirely justified in doing the same thing...

      But it's not true.

      Study of US media bias, October 29, 2007 http://www.journalism.org/node/8197, looks at coverage of the early stages of the 2008 Presidential Campaign.

      Newspapers have a pro-Democrat bias:
      59 percent of stories about Democrats were positive. 11 percent were negative.
      26 percent of stories about Republicans were positive. 40 percent were negative.
      TV networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) have a pro-Democrat bias:
      40 percent of stories about Democrats were positive. 17 percent were negative.
      19 percent of stories about Republicans were positive

    13. Re:Fun fun fun by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      Obama did inherit the inbox from hell - but this was not in the in-box. This mess was more or less created by the current administration. They were looking for some fast action and immediate results, so they failed to do some research and took a bit too much risk. If this was a private company - well - the investors knew what they were doing right? I hold the government to a higher, more conservative standard.

      Look - judging a president on a single action is silly. But we have to put this one in the loss column.

    14. Re:Fun fun fun by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Informative

      So the republican congress we are staring at is responsble for the weak economy?

      Wow! I don't believe I have to explain this. But, here we go:

      Congress is made up of two houses: The House of Representatives and the Senate. The House members are supposed to be closer to their constituents and all of them are elected every two years. The Senate holds elections every two years, but each term is six years with 1/3 of the Senate up for election every two years. Of course, as you know, the President is elected every four years for a max of two terms.

      Now, Republicans held the House of Representatives from 1995 until 2007. The Senate was more or less under Republican control through most of the Bush years, but during this time, Senators had a habit of switching sides to get what they wanted. This would either tilt control over the Dems or force a balanced Senate. However, in 2007, both houses of Congress, the US House of Representatives and the US Senate both fell under the control of Democrats. This continued through the final two years of Bush AND THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF OBAMA.

      Then, in the most recent election held in 2010, Republicans took control of the House and Democrats maintain control of the Senate. When this happens, very little actually gets done. Bills must pass both houses of Congress before the President may sign them into law or veto them. If the president vetoes a bill, it does not become a law unless 2/3 of the Senate vote to override the veto. If the Senate the House can't agree on legislation, then nothing reaches the President's desk.

      Why am I telling you this? Well, I assume you are either from another country and don't know how the US political system works, or you are simply a moron who was too stoned on Saturday mornings to understand the meaning behind School House Rock. The point being that you have have a basic grasp of the political system before you can understand what it means when I tell you...

      wait for it...

      Republicans only control the House of Representatives. Democrats still control the Senate and the White House.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    15. Re:Fun fun fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your selective quoting is telling. You only picked the statistics you wanted.

      Besides, the real problem you have is presuming an imbalance is biased. What if there's just more negative and less positive?

      I know the Republicans like to think of themselves as martyr heroes standing against the forces of evil, but that presentation would be done by the most evil themselves. Evil is not dumb.

    16. Re:Fun fun fun by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      I bet you cant wait to join your friends and blame Obama.

      Um... Please allow me to quote myself from a the very comment you responded to:

      And to be fair, it's not all Obama's fault. I'd say that very little of it is Obama's fault. Americans don't realize how little power the President actually has. The lion's share of the fault belongs to Congress.

      Any questions?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    17. Re:Fun fun fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that might have been one of the most ignorant and idiotic screeds I've ever read.

      The Democrats taking over in 2007 had NOTHING to do with the recession.. it was already well on it's way.. in fact the act of congress most responsible for it was the repeal of glass-steegall by the REPUBLICAN congress in 1999.

      Can you name even ONE law passed by the democratic congress that somehow caused the recession.

    18. Re:Fun fun fun by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Democrats still control the Senate and the White House

      But as you mention, bills have to pass both houses. So all a party needs is just one of the House, Senate, and Presidency. With only one they can't really pass anything radical, but they can be obstructionist. They can be obstructionist very well.

      And I don't really believe the "democrats control the Senate" line either. It's technically true, but doesn't explain the reality of the situation, which is that the Democrats are a pretty Big Tent party and have no sense of unity and cohesion. Obama can rarely get anything from his agenda through the Senate, which supposedly "his party" controls, to say nothing of the House!

      It's a formula at the moment for gridlock, or notions so popular no one opposes it.

    19. Re:Fun fun fun by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The lion's share of the fault belongs to Congress.

      Given Congress's approval rating is typically well below the President's (any president), maybe the public has the right idea after all.

    20. Re:Fun fun fun by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are correct. Republicans are in a position to obstruct. But the GP said "So the republican congress we are staring at is responsble for the weak economy?"

      Um... no. First, the economy was bad before the Repubs retook control the House. Next, it hasn't gotten worse since they took the House. So, no. They are not responsible for the weak economy.

      As for controlling the Senate, it is true that you pretty much need 2/3 control to get absolutely anything passed. However, Obama had this for the first two years of his term. That's how his health care bill got passed. For two years, Obama literally had everything he wanted and there was nothing Republicans could do to stop him. So, blaming Republicans is a lie.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    21. Re:Fun fun fun by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Obama wanted to announce the funding for the plant.. part of his "green jobs" bullshit. Thats why in spite of the DoE/etc already having vetoed the loan under Bush, suddenly found it in their heart to give Solyndra a chance.

      Solyndra then ran out of money, the same month they were predicted to run out of money 2 years earlier by the DoE.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    22. Re:Fun fun fun by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      It wasn't selective at all. Just cut and pasted the first several lines from a summary. I'm sure that it makes you feel better to believe that there really isn't a strong bias among journalists (and journalism schools) toward Democrats, but it has been shown to be there in study after study.

    23. Re:Fun fun fun by digitalsolo · · Score: 1

      Your tendency to group people together stereotypically is telling.

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
    24. Re:Fun fun fun by joocemann · · Score: 1

      I know how all of it works. The issue is that you use your 'argument' selectively, and yet in actuality it is irrational/nonsensical. You don't hear yourself saying two things at the same time right now? Oh wait, maybe you should point at one more spurious circumstance, claim it is absolutely responsible (without reference), and 'prove' your point one more time!

      I'll wait while I laugh at how stupid you sound. You're just like Bill O'Reilly, ad hominems, worthless fallacy, some sort of 'appeal to authority' in your tone... What a joke.

      You just spin it how you like and say its that way... lol. Too bad you probably vote, and also the ignorant peeps that surround you probably eat up your irrational arguments all day just like O'Reilly fans...

    25. Re:Fun fun fun by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      However, Obama had this for the first two years of his term.

      He didn't though, that was his biggest problem. Just because a senator is a Democrat doesn't mean that person will vote for Obama's proposals, nor will they cave under party pressure. The Republicans are good about whipping their members into line, the Democrats are terrible at it, and that's why the health care bill was an over-compromised mess that no one from either side is happy with.

    26. Re:Fun fun fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but
      0.) Democrats have never been as uniform or as disciplined as Republicans, and
      1.) You need a super-majority of 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate, so we really don't control it

    27. Re:Fun fun fun by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      so they failed to do some research and took a bit too much risk

      You mean they didn't do the research where the government employee said that the company was going to run out of money in September, so they renegotiated the loan so that Obama's campaign donor would get paid back in a bankruptcy before the taxpayer, even though it was against the law sort of research?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    28. Re:Fun fun fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The country is in the hole due to four distinctly Republican policies. Namely, two unpaid for (and unnecessary wars), two mammoth tax cuts for multi-millionaires and a medicare giveaway (at least Obama's health care plan attempts to pay for itself). I don't think anyone with a brain larger than a walnut thinks Gore would have gone down any of those utterly disastrous paths. Now people are screaming for Bush II. Amazing...as always.

    29. Re:Fun fun fun by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      The country is in the hole due to four distinctly Republican policies. Namely, two unpaid for (and unnecessary wars), two mammoth tax cuts for multi-millionaires and a medicare giveaway (at least Obama's health care plan attempts to pay for itself). I don't think anyone with a brain larger than a walnut thinks Gore would have gone down any of those utterly disastrous paths. Now people are screaming for Bush II. Amazing...as always.

      If what you say were true, the average deficit under Bush, with the Republican controlled Congress he had for the first six years of his term, would have been more than $250 billion. Instead, it was around $250 billion. Obama's average deficit is around $1250 billion. So it's not the wars. It's not the tax cuts. You are full of shit.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    30. Re:Fun fun fun by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Namely, two unpaid for (and unnecessary wars),

      Come now, the Democrats would have invaded Afghanistan too, don't think they wouldn't.
      It's the closest the US has come to a "just" war since WWII.
      It might have gone a lot differently though without the distraction of Iraq.

    31. Re:Fun fun fun by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      If what you say were true, the average deficit under Bush, with the Republican controlled Congress he had for the first six years of his term, would have been more than $250 billion. Instead, it was around $250 billion. Obama's average deficit is around $1250 billion. So it's not the wars. It's not the tax cuts. You are full of shit.

      It's all of the above, plus the Keynsian notion that you spend your way of a recession/depression.

    32. Re:Fun fun fun by gambino21 · · Score: 1

      If what you say were true, the average deficit under Bush, with the Republican controlled Congress he had for the first six years of his term, would have been more than $250 billion. Instead, it was around $250 billion.

      Are you saying that the extra military spending and Bush tax cuts somehow kept the deficit lower than it would have been otherwise? I find this hard to believe. What are your sources/reasoning for this?

      Obama's average deficit is around $1250 billion. So it's not the wars. It's not the tax cuts. You are full of shit.

      To be sure Obama (and Congress during his term) has been very fiscally irresponsible. He extended the tax cuts (after promising to veto them), and has continued the high military spending. I believe most of the increase in deficit under Obama was caused by the bailout/stimulus.

  7. Google or Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the prime location (just across 237 or Dumbarton) from Facebook and Google HQ, I'd expect one of the two to snap up this premium building.

    We'll see soon enough. I just drove past the "FOR SALE" sign hung prominently above Solyndra on the building's trendy facade.

    If only Solyndra paid as much attention to their bottom line as they did their decor, they might still be around...

    1. Re:Google or Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Solyndra facility is definitely setup for manufacturing, not good for a cube farm. Google or Facebook would be better off buying the buildings built by Sun in Newark near the Dumbarton Bridge.

    2. Re:Google or Facebook by penix1 · · Score: 2

      If only Solyndra paid as much attention to their bottom line as they did their decor, they might still be around...

      Ummm.... No. China was, and is, doing the same to the solar panel industry that it did to the steel industry. It is massively dumping solar panels on the country at highly reduced rates because they are subsidized by the Chinese government at a far greater rate than the US is subsidizing the industry here.

      Make no mistake about it. There is nothing the US government can do about Chinese dumping or Chinese manipulation of their currency because China holds so much of our debt. Armageddon is coming soon when the Chinese economy falters and the Chinese government calls in those loans. This is another reason the US needs to do something drastic to reduce its debt that China holds. But as long as there remains manipulation by the Chinese government, we will never crawl out of that hole.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    3. Re:Google or Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From reasonable post to debunked bullshit (China doesn't hold a more then 12% or so of your debt, and that's not even the government itself) in a single paragraph. /. really is trying to become digg, isn't it?

    4. Re:Google or Facebook by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Its International Anti-Trust anticompetitive at its most obvious.... but we dont stop it with tarriffs.... why? International corps own us, too. No american citizen can get any respect close to a large financial entity.... Money is God in the USA... what a shame.

    5. Re:Google or Facebook by apcullen · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think our economy is only afloat as much as it is because China holds so much debt. They have to prop up the dollar because, if the dollar collapses, all the debt that they hold becomes essentially worthless.

    6. Re:Google or Facebook by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Actually, they can't call in that debt. But a faltering of the Chinese economy is still bad news for everyone however.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re:Google or Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no loans.. there are bonds.. they can't be called in.

      I swear to god this country is full of retards

    8. Re:Google or Facebook by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think our economy is only afloat as much as it is because China holds so much debt. They have to prop up the dollar because, if the dollar collapses, all the debt that they hold becomes essentially worthless.

      and that's the real joke on the chinese.

      it's also why americans should just print more dollars, to devalue their debt measured in dollars.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  8. I couldn't have said it better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It frustrates me that China has such a huge lead in solar technology. Shit, even Saudi Arabia is getting in on green energy - for themselves.

  9. this makes me itchy by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When something like this happens, I have to wonder if it isn't a shell game, to wit:

    1) Company A builds a big expensive ultra modern plant, using investor and/or tax monies.

    2) Company A is run into the ground, files for bankrupcy

    3) Assets are sold at fire-sale prices to company B, which is ultimately, through very complicated and difficult-to-trace machinations, owned by the same people who originally owned company A.

    4) The owners essentially get to keep what they've managed to squirrel away while the company was crashing, and then buy back their facilities for a song, just coincidentally free from any loan or investor obligations.

    5) Profit!

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:this makes me itchy by alexander_686 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can find a lot of real life examples of this. However, you have to find places of weak corporate governance and / or government officials you can bribe. I am thinking modem day Russia or America's Gilded Age of stock operators (1870 to 1920).

      Today, most bankruptcy sales are either public auction or a court appointed official - the official being selected by the debit holders. The only modern day case in which the politicians interfered with a bankruptcy was G.M. (The banks don't count - that was a bail out.)

    2. Re:this makes me itchy by Seakip18 · · Score: 1

      6) Company B, having successfully fleeced the public initially, now set out a way to fleece the public....again/
      7) Company B, reusing same political connections under Company A, convince gov't to buy Company B's wares.
      8) Profit!
      9) Use new monies to get policy makers to write restrictions that put your product/industry in a legalized monopoly.
      10) Profit!
      11) Become overleveraged and essential that you can then afford to make bad decisions without fear of recourse.
      12) Hold industry/public hostage using "If we aren't saved, the public suffers greatly".
      13) Get public monies again b/c you are too big to fail.
      14) Profit!

      Ok, that example is mostly a joke....mostly.

      --
      import system.cool.Sig;
    3. Re:this makes me itchy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the mechanism keeping that in check is: there is no way to guarantee that you will be the purchaser at said "fire-sale". auctions are open to all.

    4. Re:this makes me itchy by fermion · · Score: 1
      In the real estate market, and the energy market, such investments are risky. It is hard to say how much value is actually going to be placed on a building. Many, who do not understand the free market, say the value is based on input costs, but of course this is a naive point fo view.

      Take the building Enron build around 2000. It costs some 200 million dollars. Some of this was likely government money direct or indirect. Enron was given a monopoly on some energy trading, and back in 2002 Fox reported that Enron received at least a billion in government loans.

      In any case by the time it was finished, Enron was gone and this government financed build was unoccupied and sold off for 100 million, presumable to pay creditors that were not the taxpayers or the consumers defrauded by the sociopaths that worked for and ran the company.

      The building remained empty for a few years. It remains a blight on the real estate market in downtown houston as Chevron, the company that occupies it, simply moved from one building to another.

      Which is to say this is a non story as firms fail all the time, most large firms depend on government money, and buildings get build whether we need space or not.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    5. Re:this makes me itchy by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      The debit holders in this case is the American tax payer. Nobody is going to be representing them at any auction for this property.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  10. Fox News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF is Fox News? Don't you mean Fox Opinions? Fox Right Wing Propoganda? Fox Spoonfeeds "Information" To Right-Wing Religio-Morons?

    I do not know of this "Fox News" of which you speak.

    1. Re:Fox News? by bhlowe · · Score: 2

      Well done! Now go back to the HuffPost to get more talking points.. (But next time, don't forget the crowd pleaser "Faux News")

  11. It was effective, but you don't agree? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That type of absurdity does more harm every day than any Solyndra "debacle" could ever.

  12. Writing home for cash....ahh, that takes me back.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    "One wonders about the conversations held, and emails written, in the corner office formerly occupied by CEO Brian Harrison."

    Dear Mr. "O"....err, Mom and Dad,

    Things are going great. Need money for food and rent...please send some soon,

    Love Solyndra

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  13. Re:more importantly the only reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong, 0bama has spent way more than Bush ever did.

  14. Tempest in a teapot by riverat1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The whole program that Solyndra got the loan guarantee from was over $16 billion. The Solyndra default is 3.3% of that. The program had a budgeted default rate of over 12%. So far there have been 2 defaults, Solyndra and Beacon Power that amounts to a total default rate is only 3.6%. 90% of the loan guarantees went to wind and solar projects that have contracts with utilities and are unlikely to default.

    It's just a made up controversy being used to make political hay.

    1. Re:Tempest in a teapot by DerekLyons · · Score: 0

      It's just a made up controversy being used to make political hay.

      Yeah, half a billion of my taxpayer dollars vanish - and that amounts to "just a made up controversy".

    2. Re:Tempest in a teapot by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 2

      The total default rate is 3.6%, out of an expected 12% - that's better than expected, and that's what matters. If you want to be shocked by big numbers you need to look elsewhere. On a national level a measly $0.5B is nothing.

    3. Re:Tempest in a teapot by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      It's not YOUR half billion tax dollars, at most you have contributed ~$5.00, I'd dare say you have lost more than that behind the couch during the same time period.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:Tempest in a teapot by DerekLyons · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, losing money never matters. Especially when one can handwave irrelevant statistics as a smokescreen.

    5. Re:Tempest in a teapot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's your statistics that are the irrelevant smokescreen.

      It's not that losing money never matters, but that sometimes losing money isn't that big a deal. It's like the old story about it not being worth Bill Gate's time to stop and pick up a hundred dollar bill off the ground.

      His time is worth far more.

      You can't grasp that. You've personalized it, and think "OMG, this huge sum of money has been lost, and we must get up in arms about it" but all you're doing is falling for a charade. This isn't even a case of fraud. All of the effort you are expending on this, or expecting the government to spend to rectify it, could be more productively directed to other endeavors that would have more society benefit.

      But you won't realize that, because you've been fooled by a smokescreen.

    6. Re:Tempest in a teapot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wind and solar contracts are written that the utility is required to buy at inflated prices. So it looks like the utility is struggling with profitability, not green energy.

    7. Re:Tempest in a teapot by hey! · · Score: 1

      It's just a made up controversy being used to make political hay.

      Speaking as a Democrat, I think that's not *entirely* true. There is the question of whether Solyndra received favorable treatment because of its connections to the Obama campaign, something I would not dismiss out of hand. I think it beggars belief that lobbying didn't have something to do with the expedited loan guarantee, although I suspect the proximate cause was the desire to have a photo op of the president encouraging high tech manufacturing jobs.

      The problem is that when something like this happens people form up into two groups depending on whether they are in the same party as the person who got caught this time: those who say absolutely nothing improper happened, and those who say it was out-and-out bribery, *but don't want to change anything so they can get their share next time around*.

      It all comes down to the absurd notion that "paying for access" is a perfectly benign practice. Nobody pays for "access"; they pay for *results*. Access is simply the means by which they obtain results that others with less money to burn can't get. I'll even grant both Republicans and Democrats who sell "access" the benefit of the doubt and assume they aren't selling favors -- not because I believe that, because it makes no practical difference. Even if all they are selling is access and openness to the buyer's idea, the system is still corrupt and undemocratic.

      Here's something to consider: while Congress is in session, your representative spends more time each day lining up donations for his next election than he does working on government business. Listen to this: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office. A typical representative in a competitive district has to go to *400* fundraisers a year.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:Tempest in a teapot by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      According to PolitiFact the Bush administration tried to get the loan guarantee through before they left office but the Energy Departments credit committee held it up for more analysis. I think it's difficult to make the case that it's all the Obama administration's fault.

      I agree with you that money in politics is a bad problem that neither party seems to want to tackle. It's ridiculous that congresscritters have to spend so much of their time raising money rather than doing the peoples business.

    9. Re:Tempest in a teapot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you never see comparisons made to the failure rates for the far-seeing, Vulture Capitalists many of us are supposed to worship...failure, frequent failure, is built into the model.

  15. Fremont, CA fail by Animats · · Score: 1

    Fremont CA is home of the failed Solyndra plant, the failed NUMMI auto plant, the failed Sun Microsystems campus, the failed Apple Macintosh factory...

    1. Re:Fremont, CA fail by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Solyndra was a failure, no getting around that. Something will have to be done about China, but people should have recognized that and accounted for it.
      NUMMI failed? GM imploded so they pulled out. You can hardly blame NUMMI for that. The plant reopened and is making super-expensive Tesla Motors cars. Whether that will win out in the long term is up for debate.
      Sun Microsystems was a leader in the field for years for years, and they were eventually bought.
      Don't know about the Mac factory, I'll take your word for it.

    2. Re:Fremont, CA fail by Animats · · Score: 1

      Don't know about the Mac factory...

      Apple was once very proud of the Apple Macintosh factory in Fremont, CA. Then they discovered the advantages of outsourcing to a low-cost labor area. Their manufacturing in the 1990s was much more automated than it is now.

  16. CORRUPTION !! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    What a failure, so many better things that we could have done with that money

    Truth to be told - this is not the only failure that the American government has funded

    Trillions and trillions of American Tax Dollars had been wasted in pet projects favored by politicians

    Those precious tax dollars gone to cronies of those politicians

    In other words, it's CORRUPTION in practice, but unfortunately, according to the American laws, it's not counted as "corruption"

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:CORRUPTION !! by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uhhh...dude? you might want to Google "Solyndra tip of iceberg" to see that while Bush paid lip service (and gave VERY little money) to "green" projects Obama used the green projects to do his his own little payback parade. We are talking billions of dollars to several different groups with only ONE thing in common....they all gave large sums of money to Obama during his campaign in 2008.

      So I'm sorry but replacing a shitty president with an R after his name with a shitty president with a D after his name still leaves you with the shitty president part. hell Bush and Obama have been pretty damned interchangeable when it comes to shittiness, the only difference is...well not much.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:CORRUPTION !! by dave420 · · Score: 2

      I don't know how you can forget the wars...

    3. Re:CORRUPTION !! by Auroch · · Score: 1

      What a failure, so many better things that we could have done with that money

      Truth to be told - this is not the only failure that the American government has funded

      ... yeah, I'm thinking your education could have used a little more money invested in it - especially considering the blatantly incorrect views you hold.

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
    4. Re:CORRUPTION !! by Auroch · · Score: 1

      So I'm sorry but replacing a shitty president with an R after his name with a shitty president with a D after his name still leaves you with the shitty president part.

      Well, yeah. That's kind of a no-brainer. Fortunately, that's not what happened.

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
    5. Re:CORRUPTION !! by Bigby · · Score: 1

      Because they have been happening under both?

    6. Re:CORRUPTION !! by TigerTime · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is why I am for reducing the funding of the federal government by about 75% and giving power back to the states. Washington is a fucking disaster, and that's both sides of the party lines. Let the states handle just about every issue except for national security and upholding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    7. Re:CORRUPTION !! by Quila · · Score: 1

      You mean the wars that Obama is drawing down according to the timeline set by Bush? If Bush had a third term, we'd be about where we are now in terms of the wars. As far as nailing Osama goes, the established intelligence and military apparatus did that. All it took was a president with the sense to give the OK, and we know Bush had that.

      You wanted change, you got about the same.

    8. Re:CORRUPTION !! by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      No one forgot Libya.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  17. Banruptcies usually have multiple creditors by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Bankruptcy isn't just about "moving on" and "getting closure", though accountants do like to acknowledge such things as much as divorced New Agers do. A more significant concern is that when a person or business goes bankrupt, they've usually got some assets left, and multiple creditors that they owe money to, and bankruptcy law is fundamentally about allocating the assets fairly among the creditors. There's also some social policy (because we don't want people starving on the streets), and some incentive to the bankrupt party to cooperate.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Banruptcies usually have multiple creditors by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0

      There's also some social policy (because we don't want people starving on the streets), and some incentive to the bankrupt party to cooperate.

      But the whole point of Capitalism is that people we don't care about should starve on the streets, so people we do care about, get rich and build empires. For every John Rockefeller there were thousands of people who thought exactly what he thought and did exactly what he did -- but they starved on the streets, so no one knows about their failures, and fruits of their work were picked up by Standard Oil for free, contributing to its enormous power. They acted as a risk sink because their misery was not propagated to other members of society.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  18. Dude, Pentagon pisses away almost $1.5B a day by melted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dude, Pentagon pisses away $1.5B _a day_ these days. If you're looking to save some of "your" taxpayer dollars, this is where it needs to come from, not from forward looking investments that did not pan out because another country subsidizes their solar panels industry more.

  19. Failures labelled as "Success!" by billstewart · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A lot of those failures have been projects that were labelled as "Success!", because they worked out well for the people receiving the money, regardless of whether they did any good for the taxpayers. It's not just the bombs that didn't explode or the ships that sank or airplanes that couldn't fly, it's also the bombs that successfully blew up targets they shouldn't have been dropped on, battleships we didn't need, and airplanes designed to fight the Cold War.

    This project really annoys me, though. My commute takes me right by the plant, usually at slow speeds waiting for the freeway exit, so I've been able to watch the construction from the beginning. At first there was no obvious work, just picketers complaining about non-union labor, then construction starting, then the building frame going up and the skin going on, and presumably work happening inside as well. And then instead of opening it's closed. I hope the potential buyers actually go through with it and do something useful with the factory.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  20. Re:Sounds like a non-US buyer that hates publicity by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A Chinese firm bought up an old car plant in the UK a few years back. Rather than taking over the site they just packed up all the equipment and assembly lines and moved them to China.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  21. sad news by Max_W · · Score: 1

    There is so much sun in California, there is water to clean panels, social stability to build large generators.

    This failure, it does not sound right.

  22. Let me summarize for you: by Raved+Thrad · · Score: 1

    Ah, but proper, intelligent communication, both written and spoken, are.

    No they're not. That is the delusion of conceited assholes who like to pretend they're better than other people.

    Did your calendar list "idiolect" as your word for the day and made it so that you had to find any way at all to inject it into a conversation?

    The term idiolect is a well-known, well established

    term used in linguistics when discussing exactly this issue.

    To quote one of my parent posters

    The fact that so many are uneducated and ignorant does not invalidate the use of the term.

    The irony of your effort to cast my using a technical term with a technical, specific, and appropriate meaning as somehow not being useful in a post claiming that artificial, technical, specific language is superior to natural language is not lost on me. It'd be amusing if I thought you'd done it on purpose.

    Nice try though.

    TL;DR: Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak! Whoosh!

    --
    Life, ultimately, boils down to the Four Fs: Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding, and Mating.
  23. Very sad. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    They had some interesting technology they just made a lot of mistakes.

    They built in california... should have done it in a state that likes manufacturing. They allowed their company to get political. Never a good idea. And they didn't hedge against the price of silicon.

    Big airlines buy oil futures to hedge against rises in jet fuel prices. It's just good business. if your business model is controlled by the price of silicon, then buy some insurance against that price going down. It's very easy to do this... I don't think you can buy silicon as a commodity but there are many businesses that track it's value. There are ways to hedge.

    Anyway, very sad. I had hopes for those guys. Hopefully someone will buy their tech and implement it. It would be very sad if it just died on the factory floor.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  24. 1975 all over again! by AlleyTrotte · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the greenhouse built in my area which would use 'waste steam' to power and heat the production of tomatoes. There was mucho federal dollars flying around for 'stimulus' back then just as now. Providing you had the right political connections. The unit was first built by a Dutch conglomerate with all kinds of federal and state grant monies. Bankrupt within 3 years. This greenhouse has since been reinitialized at least 3 or 4 times with federal grant dollars and has fallen into bankruptcy as soon as the grant monies are spent. HISTORY DOES REPEAT ITSELF. Will we ever learn. The local construction company I worked for at the time only lost about 50 large. Some local business's lost much more. No grant dollars for the local economy. It was not political hay back then and it isn't now. John

  25. How much by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

    How much of the money from this sale does the governmnet get? After all we the people funded part of this company and thus the building. I don't care if the other creditors get their money. The people demand their money back. Like that will actually happen! /sarcasm

    --
    "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
  26. Re:Sounds like a non-US buyer that hates publicity by Auroch · · Score: 1

    While the bailout was bad, anything going out of the country would be worse.

    Perhaps you could elaborate? Why would we want to retain unprofitable business (nevermind that solyndra was undercut by massive government subsidies in china)?

    The fact that something isn't profitable generally means that it won't produce... stuff. So why would we want to keep it around? What long term benefit would be gained, by competing in a market that has investors and developed products?

    --
    Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
  27. NUMMI by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 1

    Check out the installment of "This American Life" (the NPR radio show) on the history of NUMMI, and how GM completely failed to capitalize on it, long before their implosion. Seriously, it's a fascinating installment, and one that echoes lessons from business school, particularly in the areas of operations and strategic transformation. I really really recommend it.

    --
    --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
  28. Partisan Mods by coinreturn · · Score: 1
    Okay, so he went off-topic. However, his opening sentence:

    fox news is touring this old factory is because it helps further their agenda of demonizing the president and the democratic party

    was dead on. Touring that old factory is simply partisan news. No one wants to see some empty warehouse. It's all about keeping Solyndra in the news.

  29. It was a Bush program by Quila · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, this was passed by Congress during Bush and signed by Bush. Bush supporters are wrong when they roast Obama over the concept of these green energy loan guarantees under the mantle of "smaller government," because they weren't even his idea. They should look to their own party.

    The idea -- wrong or right -- was to help boost this country's position in manufacturing these technologies. By law there was a process established that basically way mirrored the standard due diligence that any smart investor would do. Solyndra's application for funds started under the Bush administration using this process. But the program not being Obama's idea didn't mean he couldn't capitalize on it, making it the centerpiece of "his" green initiative.

    But the problems did start with Obama. The government beancounters in charge of vetting applicants, the OMB, basically said that Solyndra was a bad deal as is. When pressed, they asked the administration for more time to do proper due diligence, refusing to sign off on the deal. But because Solyndra was a high-point of Obama's administration, he had approval rushed through over their objections. IMHO, right there some administration officials need to be going to jail.

    But that's the innocent part, you could almost forgive them for being too fervent in their push for green energy. The problem is that crony capitalism and conflict of interest also permeate this deal. Billionaire Obama supporter and Solyndra investor George Kaiser helped push through the deal. An Obama official who was trying to push this through, his wife was a lawyer representing Solyndra in the deal. Solyndra execs and investors went to the White House several times before the approval.

    For the icing on the cake, early last year Solyndra told the government it was about bankrupt. The OMB basically said good, let them go bankrupt, it would save taxpayer money. But the Obama admin pushed through an unprecedented refinancing and released another 60+ million in financing. Then the Obama-supporting execs took their fat bonuses and let the company go bankrupt.

    We can debate subsidies and loan guarantees somewhere else, because when it comes to Solyndra, the only real issue is the corruption of this administration.

    I'm not "defending" Obama for this move - if anything it was lowballed. He should have given them a couple of billion to match the sort of ballpark figures given to the oil industry

    The administration was already pushing to up the guarantees to a billion dollars, but the company went bankrupt first. It was a bad deal according to the OMB. Pouring more money on it would have just meant more money for them to burn through. Sadly, Obama still says the Solyndra deal was a "good bet" when his accountants told him it was a financially unsound bet from the beginning.

  30. Obama didn't fail, he succeeded by Quila · · Score: 1

    The goal was to funnel money to his big campaign donors who had heavy stakes in Solyndra.

    Bush failed, because this program set up during his administration was designed to invest money in renewable energy technology.

  31. The Washington Post even came out by Quila · · Score: 1

    They analyzed their own coverage from the 2008 election and found they had been heavily biased towards Obama. They admitted to more column inches and to more favorable stories for Obama as opposed to McCain. They admitted not looking into questionable aspects of Obama's past, such as Tony Rezko and his missing undergrad years. They admitted to allocating serious investigative resources to go through Palin with a fine-toothed comb as soon as she was announced, while doing nothing on Biden.

    And this is one of the less liberal news outlets in the country.

  32. Quite simply, you are wrong by Quila · · Score: 1

    here is nothing the US government can do about Chinese dumping

    The US has filed scores of WTO actions against China for dumping products, debt or no debt.

    Solyndra failed because they had the spending habits of a 90s dotcom startup. The OMB knew it. The OMB even predicted the month they'd run out of money. But Obama insisted on investing the money in order to funnel it to his large donors.

  33. There's a side sequence to this by Quila · · Score: 1

    1) Company A investors and execs seek to take advantage of a government loan program to fund the company

    2) Investors and execs contribute heavily to the election campaign of a presidential hopeful

    3) Thusly elected president rushes through approval of the loan over the objections of the beancounters who say it's a bad bet

    4) Profit! as the investors rape the company for all its worth and execs give themselves fat bonuses as the company slides into bankruptcy

    Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

    1. Re:There's a side sequence to this by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      1) Company A investors and execs seek to take advantage of a government loan program to fund the company

      2) Investors and execs contribute heavily to the election campaign of a presidential hopeful

      3) Thusly elected president rushes through approval of the loan over the objections of the beancounters who say it's a bad bet

      4) Profit! as the investors rape the company for all its worth and execs give themselves fat bonuses as the company slides into bankruptcy

      Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

      Right, and then -- bonus! -- the company doesn't exist anymore, so there's nothing to revile. And if, as I suspect, the same people end up owning these "cutting edge" facilities, they get to go back into business with no baggage.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  34. It is a legitimate controversy by Quila · · Score: 1

    No, the program isn't much of a controversy, and Solyndra failing isn't a controversy either. As you say, some rate of failure was expected.

    The controversy is that the financial backers of Solyndra were also some of the biggest financial backers of Obama's 2008 campaign. That in itself isn't evil, but the newly-installed Obama administration then rushed through approval of the loan guarantee over the objections of the OMB, who said it was not a financially sound investment. The OMB even accurately predicted the month and year that Solyndra would run out of our money and go bankrupt, and Obama didn't care. In fact, he gave them MORE of our money.

    Basically, it was an Obama payoff of fat-cat campaign donors using our tax money. That is a legitimate controversy.

    1. Re:It is a legitimate controversy by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Do you have any evidence to back that up? That it was approved over the objections of the OMB? This PolitiFact article says the Bush administration was as eager as the current one to approve the loan guarantee.

    2. Re:It is a legitimate controversy by Quila · · Score: 1

      Even Wikipedia makes it pretty clear that the Obama administration rushed this through for political reasons over the objections of the beancounters. The article is well-sourced, especially from the original Washington Post article.

  35. It's the other way around by Quila · · Score: 1

    Their products used no silicon. A drop in price of silicon made their products less attractive, although not worthless. Overall, bad management killed the company.

    1. Re:It's the other way around by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I know, it doesn't matter... you can hedge against a rise or fall in a commodity. If you need silicon to be expensive, then you could hedge against it going down.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  36. Everythings going oversees. by Voogru · · Score: 1

    It will be amusing to watch all of this stuff bought up, then shipped overseas. You are absolutely nuts if you want to actually start a business with all of these neat toys in the United States. One of my customers used to own a lumber yard, a single rookie OSHA inspector that didn't even know what the machines were called required them to make so many impossible 'fixes' that they just closed up shop and shipped everything to Costa Rica. It was cheaper to ship everything and start up in Costa Rica than it was to pay all of the fines and ‘fix’ the machines (which were not broken). Oh yeah, and before anyone says they were unsafe, 1 major injury and 3 minor injuries in 20 years, no deaths.

  37. Re:Sounds like a non-US buyer that hates publicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you should buy it to make sure it never leaves. Put your money where you mouth is.