Solyndra: Round Three

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Im not sure why people get upset about certain things.
In a business climate, investors risk their money, if it works, they make money, where the government comes and takes some, and where the current admin says they arent taking nearly enough.

Now here, we have a situation where, the current admin thinks its fine to spend our money to do these things, and risk it, and the biggest worry is, who gets the money if its successful?
Do we pay less taxes?
Do the current owners and workers feel more obligated to the current admin and their followers because of this?
Will this buy votes in a backhanded way?

And of course we have to ask, since its no ones and everyones money, are those thatre handing out our money, are they as sharp as those thatd risk their own money?

This is what happens when government does things in a communistic/socialistic way, and is not what the norm has been
 
I've been poking around and if I could rename this thread, I would - to
"Solyndra: Round Three, Four, Five, Six, and ..."

It's worst than I thought:
https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45

Like the late Senator Dirksen said, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money."

The only good thing is that the odds are that some of these projects will be successful.
 


Irony: People who complain about State Investments (including lost investments) all the while typing away on a Personal Computer/Notebook/Tablet or Handheld device.

Yeah... if you want to know why it is ironic I could let you in on a little secret... Capitalism does not promote Revolutionary ideas. Capitalism is hierarchical and therefore hampers Creativity.

Revolutionary ideas tend to come from State Investment because only the State is capable of risking large collective sums of money without going bankrupt.

I spent this whole week listening to how brilliant Steve Jobs was and wanted to vomit. He got his break by scoring an interview with a Xerox team working on a device called a "mouse" and something called a "GUI Interface" for an "Operating System". He stole the ideas (which actually came into being due to Department of Defense contracts with Xerox) and made them his own. He then shared the source code with a fellow programmer who was said to be working on an Office suite for his new MAC OS. That programmer stole the source code and created something called Windows from it.

So what the Capitalists did was steal creativity. And that is what Capitalism does. Steals the creativity from the masses. Sure they pay you a salary while they do it but they make a killing off our collective problem solving ideas.

Now we know the idea of a "state" cannot work (monopoly on power and central point of authority therefore easily and most certainly corruptible). But we know that there are positive attributes to Social Spending. We know what is wrong is that it is not voluntary.

Start from there and you will finally be free from the false left/right dichotomy.
 
Elmo, if all you said is true..... how come the world tech leaders are the United States, Germany, and Japan? Under your Logic, China should be a world leader, yet all they do is steal from other countries, and again, using your logic, that would mean they are the most capitalist society in the world....yet...we all know that isnt true.

PS, why are you using all that high tech stuff in your computer..it was all made and designed by those evil capitalists that stole it from the collective or whatever nonsense you believe it to be.

PSS, youre insane in thinking capitalism doesnt promote new ideas.
 


1. China is more Capitalist than the USA (and likely is the most Capitalistic nation on earth): http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2043235,00.html
2. Tech Leaders home countries /= where the components and technologies are developed
3. Who said anything about "evil Capitalists"... I am talking about Corporatism. Corporatism /= Capitalism. It is the result of the merger between Capitalism and State.
4. You say I am insane so I ask you to show me a revolutionary idea not based on concepts/technology/ideas developed using State (NASA or Military (Defense Dept) contract to private institutions for example)... go ahead.


Capitalism improves and refines already existing ideas and concepts mostly because Ingenuity is achieved absent hierarchy and the Supervisor/Boss to worker relationship is hierarchical ( and varying on environmental/market variables/realities is authoritarian under many instances). We operate under a work or starve system where you can't even produce your own foods anymore without having the Government shut you down. You cannot even take care of yourself anymore and now you don't have a right to free speech? When individuals are allowed to freely create and therefore solve problems... humanity benefits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc (video based on MIT and Harvard Academic Research on the topic). You might also find this article interesting in terms of what drives human ethical and moral values: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=all

The more knowledge the better equipped you will be to fight the ignorant right and left authoritarian camps.
 
Yea, Howard Hughes was a thief, so was Thomas Edison, Fermi, Dave Thomas, Zuckerman, Marconi, Wright Brothers, Roentgen etc etc etc
Or, did they all get "state funds"?
This is but a short list, theres alot of politicians named Rockefellers as well.

Now, we all know, theres sales men, theres doers and thinkers etc etc, but claiming governments have driven a goodly portion of invention is ridiculous.

Have they played a part?
Certainly
Point is, the ideas come from us, regular Joes with those ideas, and sometimes government steps in
Its just bad that the current admin hasnt been a winner in economics within its major sphere, and going these side routes, they fail even worse.
Having a wish in one hand and crap in the other.....


Just like the banking lending, they were warned, so too here, and once again, theyre being warned .
Having this wish, to make an impact without foresight shows ego, en large, with no regard for actual success, meaning benefit to all.

Id like to see less ego, more fore/insight
 


How is a better understanding of risk management leading to a better understanding of the modern socio/economic realities "ridiculous"?

It takes Capital Investment to drive R&D. Right now you've got how many Trillions of dollars being sat on by Corporations rather then investing in jobs in the USA?

That is because investing in the USA is risky given the environmental variables at play (socio/economic climate).

This is where the State has traditionally come in and made those investments. Comparing the degree of R&D needed to come up with a Lightbulb with the degree of R&D needed to come up with a transistor is not only illogical but unrealistic a comparison (you list inventors).

Cost is a major hurdle in R&D and the State has always been at the forefront of Investments in R&D. Some people call some of these investments the "Military Industrial Complex"... but nonetheless it is reality.

As for the "less ego and more foresight" remark.. Foresight is the ability to predict or plan for the future and how are you going to foster such an ability when you clearly possess a limited amount of knowledge? Did you even bother clicking the links I shared? Doubtful.

You find this tone insulting? I linked evidence.. read it.

More evidence: http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/china_rd_investment_to_grow_fa.shtml
http://www.industryweek.com/articles/the_competitive_edge_--_is_u-s-_rd_investment_holding_up_21553.aspx
http://fcw.com/articles/2010/01/19/national-science-board-research-and-development.aspx
http://kammen.berkeley.edu//margoliskammenEpolicy.pdf

NASA Investment lead to some inventions we still use... here are a few: http://space.about.com/od/toolsequipment/ss/apollospinoffs.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42384202/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/nasa-space-inventions-benefit-all-our-lives-earth/
http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/physics-concepts-and-definitions/ten-nasa-inventions.htm

I'm not even going to touch Defense Contract spending leading to the Internet.


I am not arguing for Big Government. I have made that clear. I believe that who confuse the message are people who are still stuck in the false left/right dichotomy.
 
OK, so the auto was easy? Sorry Ford et al wasnt on that list.
How about Hughes?
Was it all government?
As far as the socio economic condition, war has poven more profitable in times like these
Im not saying government cant or hasnt, Im saying that corporations and individuals have done the lions share, in good and bad times.

If people want to condemn corporations, theyve done so by color and gender of peoples, nationalities, languages, religions, again, a short list, but saying all this type is wrong...well is simply wrong
Laws, regulations not only have to be followed, but enforced as well, and when our so called "protectors" in these areas just point fingers and say its unfair, knowing theyll get alot of sypathy in these times, its time for the timid poor helpless lads and lasses in Washington or wherever, to move aside, as we need a new sheriff in town
 


Ford obtained his knowledge from others. I am not arguing for The State as I've stated before. I am arguing for collective knowledge leading to revolutionary ideas.

Ford learned about Steam engines after he snagged a job at Westinghouse. So now you need to look at the history of a Steam engine. And it goes on and on and on.

What I mean to say is that large Capital investments are required to secure successes in R&D. Business is not likely to take excess risk if there is little to no chance(s) of success or if any success is in the long term. Capitalism tends to think in the short term (6 month cycles). Ford was able to obtained his initial large capital investment by being lucky enough to have Edison's labs at his disposal. He invented the gas powered automobile while working for Edison's company if memory serves me right. He also had a salary that was exponentially enormous and this was during the height of the industrial boom (which was helped by State investments in railways and infrastructure). This boom led to the roaring 20s and we all know how well that ended. The first mega large Corporatist boom and bust lead to the Great Depression. To be fair the 1800s were filled with Boom and Bust cycles mostly attributable to Classical Liberal economic policies.

So now you can look at NASA investments... they came up with the precursor to the LED, to LCDs etc. couple that with State Department investment in R&D coming up with the Personal Computer, The Internet, Satellite Technology etc. These revolutionary ideas came together to form a Blackberry or iPhone.

So Capitalism tends to build upon existing ideas. Capitalism is great at mass production and therefore reduction of cost. It also works to reduce cost from open market competition. Capitalism is useful.

But when Capitalists are wealthy enough to exert influence on the State... we have a problem. So either we work to ensure that nobody is wealthy enough to influence the State ie regulations (where we need to act like cops and be vigilant etc and which imo is not possible) or we abolish the State.

More leftists would support Regulations. I am not a leftist. I support the Abolition of the State.
 


You make the false assumption that Socio/Economic theory is linear like this - when it is something more like this +.

Socio/Economics are expressed in a Quadrant (two Axis) not a "left-right" linear fashion (single Axis).
 
We all obtain our knowledge from others, theres been but one God

Not wanting to go there, and dont mean to side track, but it is what it is, everyone has had parents, everyone has had friends, jobs, schooling etc etc
He is solely credited for the assembly line tho, an astute observation, which also led to many a mechanical invention as well, including the usage of transistors, as each works to the next, doing its part.
So yea, no government there, and a simple idea, by one man.
Im reminded of the 6 day war, where many Israelly jets were being shot down from behind, as they simply couldnt see behind them.
One man came up with the idea of mounting mirros on the aircraft, and saving many airmen.
I think where youre heading is the wrong direction.
Heres a list
http://gotopatentlawfirm.com/wordpress/2010/03/15/forty-40-simple-inventions-that-made-inventors-or-companies-residual-wealth-or-millions/
Now, can we live without these? Yes, as we did before computers, but comparatively, add up all these little inventions, and theyd devour the larger ones, the ones generally using government help, or simply needing large R&D monies for completion.
Its about jobs, and yes, having green, or cheap and bountiful energy is great, but take away electricity, and all those high costing inventions are dead, whereas someone whos invented a way to grow crops without a total test lab, a guy who can make a fireplace heat better is arguably, in the end, more secure than any, if were only talking about an end to energy as we know it.
In our original constitution, the 13 colonies, the reps elected then werent given the monies to be self supported in congressional pay, and had to prove they had other means of support, or jobs, where they wouldnt rely upon such payment by the state.

Once that barrier was transgressed, it obviously allowed for corporations, the rich et al to gain such influence, as many pols were the "they" if you will

There are many people today wanting what the original constitution back, where local government was the most powerful government, where your official was your neighbor.

Thru pride, we gave our freedoms away, allowing for pols to do as they do, giving them the power to do as they do, wanting "our" side to win, making sure they get good money, making sure they stomp our neighbor we disagree with, etc etc
The government that governs best, governs least, but some want more and more, while others want less intrusion, while all acknowledge some is needed
Obama says, the constitution limits what the governement can do for you, while Kennedy said, ask not what the government can do for you, but what you can do for your country
 

so if not capitolism. what promotes the revolutionary ideas since the opposite of capitolism, communism does not?
 
@ Elmoisevil: From reading your posts and as you develop your argument, it is difficult to get a feel for whether you are for or against American Capitalism, or just pendantically pointing out the failures of a capitalistic system. In short, to help me better understand, what exactly is your point? Your insight would be appreciated.

The following are some comments on your posts, not intended to argue, but just comments not being sure (as stated above) exactly what your position on American Capitalism is.

Capitalism DOES promote revolutionary ideas. American history is littered with inventors and inventions that, literally, were unique, never been invented before, revolutionized production, and that were also developed, built, and sold to society's benefit without government intervention and subsidies.

The statement that capitalism is hierarchical is true, but then again, any system of production and labor is hierarchical; it is only in theory (NEVER in practice, throughout all of Human history) that production and labor are not implemented in some form of hierarchical system. Painting the capitalist hierarchical system in a bad light borders on Marxist theory and is the anti-thesis to the fundamentals of American Capitalism.

This is bogus. It is easy to claim that there are no new ideas and one idea is built of another; but in that sense, there have been no new ideas throughout the history of Man, that one idea has always been built upon another idea and to make a blanket statement that capitalism does not promote new/revolutionary ideas is counter-intuitive and contrary to the history and reality of American Capitalism.

The State is only able to "create" revolutionary ideas ONLY IF the State owns the means of production. The notion that only the State can risk the large sums of money necessary to R&D is against the fundamentals of American Capitalism and again, is counter-intuitive and contrary to the history and reality of American Capitalism.

This reads like borderline Marxism. It seems a fundamental principle missed in this argument is the fact that the laborer IS NOT a slave to the means of production and the laborer IS FREE to create their own wealth. The notion of the laborer can not exercise their own creativity simply because they work for someone else is ridiculous. In a free market with free labor, the laborer is FREE to do what they please with their own ideas and create their own wealth.

Here's where you begin to lose me...
Again, all pragmatic means of production and labor is hierarchical regardless of whether someone works for a company or for themselves. The concept that simply because a laborer works for someone else they are unable to create for themselves and are not in control of their own labor is the anti-thesis of the Free Market and of American Capitalism. There are millions of "cottage industries" and part time "garage factories" where the owners work for someone else but use their own means, capital, and creativity to achieve and create their own wealth independent of the production owner. A fundamental principle of American Capitalism is that the laborer is FREE to choose who and what he puts his labor in to and what is a fair trade for that labor. The private ownership of the means of production requires the owner to provide a fair trade for labor. Fair trade for their labor does not mean the laborer is entitled, at the expense of the production owner, for a certain or specific lifestyle; it is the responsibility of the laborer to create their own wealth and create their own lifestyle. It IS NOT the responsibility of the production owner, the production owner is only responsible for providing the means for the laborer to achieve their own goals; i.e.; the company/government works for me, I do not work for the company/government. In a free market and in American Capitalism, the laborer truly does have the power and is a key determining factor as to whether a production owner or government succeeds or fails.

The "work or starve" theory is an outcome of the decline of american manufacturing that has been replaced by a consumer society and an example of misdirected government regulation. But american capitalism does not preclude or prevent the laborer from NOT working for someone else and using their own means, creativity, and capital to achieve their own wealth. The "work or starve" theory only applies to those who allow themselves to be caught in the "I am a slave to the corporations" mentality. Again, it is the responsibility of the laborer to create their own wealth and create their own lifestyle.

I agree that corporations are sitting on trillions of bail out tax dollars and also agree it is reflective of the current uncertain economic policies and stagnant economy.

The "tradition" of the government investing tax dollars into R&D is actually a phenomena of the 20th century and the result of the liberal social policy (i.e.; the New Deal) and is not in the tradition of American Capitalism.

Be careful what you wish for, Marxists also argue for the same thing. Marxists have latched onto the "marketplace of ideas" and have perverted the intent of the marketplace of ideas laid out by Jefferson, Milton, and Justice Brennan. Given that America is a republic with a free market system, I would hope that you advocate "collective knowledge leading to revolutionary ideas" within the confines of and following the principles of the American republic and American Capitalism.

I totally agree, corporatism has become the new political paradigm. But again, we must be careful what we wish for and consistently refer to the fundamentals and principles of the American Republic and American Capitalism.

Again, not arguing against you Elmo, but looking to get a better idea of where you are coming from.

Cheers!
 
Excellent positions and explanations.

I believe whats happened is, because of the current situation, many have given up on these ideals both you and Elmo have stated, and while many think in this vacuum, many an oportunist is currently running amok, there are 2 sides to this, and while both are somewhat right, both are somewhat wrong.
Its not only the corporations, and not all of them, that have become the opportunists, but also governement as well, but again, not all pols either.
To me, changing now is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and those thatre supposedly telling it like it is, them, their friends and cronies, are all set up to gain hugely from a change.
Leaving it is it is, well, that depends upon the public
Are we willing to break a sweat? Have we come so far that weve earned some mystical allowance of middle income without sacrifice?
There are laws, there are regulations, there can be more, better ones, ones that fit these times, not the good times ones
You can steer a horse by pulling on one side or the other, but if you pull too hard, itll rear up on you, and youll end up on your backside
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom