Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (156622)	9/7/2011 9:28:59 PM
From: Bearcatbob	7 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206110

Solyandra's technology has nothing to do with other solar companies. People know what caused Solyandra's failure. We are talking past each other. I am not against funding research and perhaps even an early demonstration. In this case any partial due diligence would have saved the tax payers a half a billion. This project was political IMO and hence corrupt. Much of the Obama "stimulus" money was in the form of payoffs to interest groups. This is simply another example. I think it would be wise to shut off politically based funding of "green (as in the color of money) projects" until we understand what went wrong. All of this aside, how does our nation spend our very limited funds to help end this recession. I believe priority one is jobs. I wonder if that is the number one priority of the green movement? I am sure you agree we should not be spending a half a billion $ on political projects. Bob

To: Sam who wrote (156622)	9/8/2011 9:54:28 AM
From: Tommaso	12 Recommendations Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 206110

>>> The fact is there are no major sectors out there that didn't get a boost in their infancy and usually their adolescence and sometimes even in their maturity from the government in one way or another.<<< Except for maybe Henry Ford's, J. D. Rockefeller's, the founders of Google and Facebook, Bill Gates with Microsoft. Is that enough?

To: Sam who wrote (156622)	9/8/2011 5:59:23 PM
From: whitepine	4 Recommendations Respond to of 206110

Sam: "The fact is there are no major sectors out there that didn't get a boost in their infancy and usually their adolescence and sometimes even in their maturity from the government in one way or another. None. Zero. Nada. OK, maybe that is an exaggeration. Maybe you can name one--try it. I'd be interested in hearing about it. For every one that you name, I'll name three. Or more. Airlines. Railroads. Autos. Electronics. Pharmaceuticals. Medical equipment. Mining. Agriculture. They all have gotten--and many still get--government aid in one way or another. =============== Sam, that is a mis-reading of history. "...in one way or another" is so universal as to be pointless. How many of the early auto companies needed direct financial assistance, capital inputs, direct loans, government technological expertise, etc.? Sure, under your broad blanket of 'one way or another,' you can argue all the early car companies need the externality of roads, but that misses the point of capitalism. There were 20-50 early car companies that did NOT need or use government assistance. In the main, under capitalism, not CRONY capitalism, private interests risk capital on ideas. Sometimes they fail; sometimes they succeed. Either way, public funds are not put at risk for silly, uneconomic ideas. That is what primarily differentiates capitalism from Stalinist decision-making, where what gets built is a function of crony personal relationships, party affiliation, or apparatchik intrigue. Allowing the market to determine winners and losers has consistently produced better goods for consumers and stronger businesses. Those that are insulated from market pressures, either by government restrictions on trade, or by government aid (Amtrak), produce inferior products and services, and usually at higher prices. If you're interested, you can review the vast collection of articles in the Financial Post on one of the most glaring and wasteful recent boondoggles --- solar power initiatives of the Ontario government. As to your claim that government has always been needed ---- that also is at odds with the history of the hundreds of railroad and canal companies in the US. The 19th Century witnessed hundreds of examples of small rail and canal companies that sold bonds to local residents to bring a better transportation links to local economies. These local endeavors often failed, or they failed to produce desired outcomes, but direct government subsidies and loans were not needed. In the main, taxpayers were spared from failure by capitalism. Doubt this? The legacy remains today for all to read....see examples of old RR, steamship, and canal bonds >>>http://www.collectorsweekly.com/us-paper-money/stock-certificates Massive government aid to TV stations -- cable TV...internet fiber....cell towers...even personal computer companies? Were you an adult in the early '80's? Massive government assistance for Compaq, Gateway, Atari, Dell, Micron, Franklin pc's? Do you remember when Computer Shopper was over 400 pages, most of which were filled with ads from start-up companies like Xenon computers? Or, how about the snowmobile industry in the 60's; the archery industry; the outboard industry; the manufacturers of game/trail timers? I have neither the time or patience to construct list of these and countless other examples. Point is, your assumption that government aid (aka socialism) is necessary for progress is simply WRONG. Solar and Solyndra is an example of Stalinist decision-making. At least under past administrations, the US didn't follow that model to sustain failing businesses. I'm thankful Gremlin's and Hudson's no longer populate our roads. Market forces crushed them........and as alternatives, we're better served with Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai's. zerohedge.com