How do people here feel about two news items related to Trump in the past few days: the Carrier deal and his phone call to Taiwan?

Carrier, better than zero
Taiwan, grow up China

The whole idea that we simply wouldn't acknowledge talking on the phone with a leader of a country so as to not piss off China... while importing and exporting billions of dollars of goods to them is just ludicrous.

(12-02-2016 10:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Carrier, better than zero
Taiwan, grow up China

The whole idea that we simply wouldn't acknowledge talking on the phone with a leader of a country so as to not piss off China... while importing and exporting billions of dollars of goods to them is just ludicrous.

The Carrier thing is interesting for a few reasons. One, this is the exact thing Republicans screamed about when tax benefits were given to entire industries (like solar) and about picking winners and losers, but this was even more specific and benefited only one company (see Palin's recent comments about this and crony capitalism). Two, Obama proposed a very similar policy that would not have singled out one company, but any who brought back jobs, but that was blocked back in 2012: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/politics/s...l-blocked/ So Ham, I assume you supported Obama's plan back in 2012 which would have encouraged this nation-wide?

On China, I think Trump is trying to show that he is truly a wild card and that China and other foreign leaders aren't going to be dealing with the same kind of President they have for 40+ years. I do wish, however, he at least spoke to the State Department about this, because initial reports indicate that there was no word sent to them. I'd like to have a President who at least recognizes when some people know more about a topic, especially our foreign relations with a Super Power, than they do and that those people can be a valuable resource. We'll see what comes of it.

Instead of dealing with this on a one-on-one, ad hoc basis, why not start get rid of the reasons why companies move jobs overseas to begin with? As someone who has worked on multiple plant location projects, I can assure you that the economics of those deals are hugely altered by tax laws, and ours are among the worst--if not the absolute worst--in the world in that regard.

Right behind that are our regulatory processes. No, I am not advocating dirty water or dirty air or unsafe working conditions. But our regulatory processes are set up to create jobs for bureaucrats, and the more people you can require to review and sign off on a permit application, the more jobs you create. Unfortunately, that makes the review process take far longer than it should, and the inevitable by-product of that approach is that you can't get answers in a timely manner if you are looking to move something here. For the most part, keep the same rules or in some cases even strengthen them, but set up the process so that somebody can give you an answer in a timely manner.

The 2012 Obama proposal had the same problem that a lot of proposals by the left have. The people proposing them are academics and policy wonks, so they don't really understand how business decisions are made, and as a result when they try to incentivize things they don't provide the proper incentives to accomplish what they want. Their tax break wouldn't be big enough to convince anybody to move back and their punishment for moving jobs offshore would be easily avoided. Our laws are full of "incentives" that don't actually incentivize anybody to do anything, but do provide nice little windfalls (emphasis on little) to people for doing things that they were already going to do anyway. Businesses that move operations overseas are a small part of the problem. The bigger part would be businesses that choose to locate operations overseas from the start, for the reasons listed above, and never have a footprint on the US.

(12-03-2016 09:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-02-2016 10:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Carrier, better than zero
Taiwan, grow up China
The whole idea that we simply wouldn't acknowledge talking on the phone with a leader of a country so as to not piss off China... while importing and exporting billions of dollars of goods to them is just ludicrous.

The Carrier thing is interesting for a few reasons. One, this is the exact thing Republicans screamed about when tax benefits were given to entire industries (like solar) and about picking winners and losers, but this was even more specific and benefited only one company (see Palin's recent comments about this and crony capitalism). Two, Obama proposed a very similar policy that would not have singled out one company, but any who brought back jobs, but that was blocked back in 2012: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/politics/s...l-blocked/ So Ham, I assume you supported Obama's plan back in 2012 which would have encouraged this nation-wide?
On China, I think Trump is trying to show that he is truly a wild card and that China and other foreign leaders aren't going to be dealing with the same kind of President they have for 40+ years. I do wish, however, he at least spoke to the State Department about this, because initial reports indicate that there was no word sent to them. I'd like to have a President who at least recognizes when some people know more about a topic, especially our foreign relations with a Super Power, than they do and that those people can be a valuable resource. We'll see what comes of it.

(12-03-2016 09:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The Carrier thing is interesting for a few reasons. One, this is the exact thing Republicans screamed about when tax benefits were given to entire industries (like solar) and about picking winners and losers, but this was even more specific and benefited only one company (see Palin's recent comments about this and crony capitalism). Two, Obama proposed a very similar policy that would not have singled out one company, but any who brought back jobs, but that was blocked back in 2012:

But it's not at all the same
1) Solyndra is currently an unprofitable business. It is picking a winner/loser among 'alternative scientific breakthroughs' designed to reduce our demand for energy. So while it does 'create' jobs here, it is designed to 'replace' jobs here... Often they are putting jobs in hotspots of one party (say California) and taking them from another (Pennsylvania or Wyoming) California is the winner... Pa or Wy are the losers. In this case, the state is both the winner AND the loser... That's their own call.

2) They are federal dollars(Solyndra). The people aren't leaving the country... only the jobs... and frankly, the US government shouldn't care if they go to Texas or California or Detroit (picking winners and losers)... only that they don't go to another country. If the local economy wants to entice them to stay or come, that is up to them.

3) The issue isn't local 'incentives', it is the lack of a national 'stick' to punish/make things more difficult for those who leave the country. This is what Trump promised... and until he is in office, he has no authority to do anything about that yet. Even once in, I suspect he will need some help in Congress for anything broad.

I understand why they might SEEM the same, but they really aren't.

Quote: So Ham, I assume you supported Obama's plan back in 2012 which would have encouraged this nation-wide?

I am not against it in principle, I suspect there are things in the bill that I would be against. Who in their right mind would be against the 'Affordable Care Act' that reduces the cost of healthcare for all Americans and controls its spiraling costs?

I suspect the biggest resistance to Obama's policy is that his previous efforts (the numerous bail-outs and stimulus) even if the 'heart' was in the right place... didn't result in the desired effects. The result was massive windfalls for the wealthy through balance sheet manipulations, little in the way of long-term investment that would result in higher wage jobs, and more temporary or part-time jobs than were designed/desired. The devil is always in the details, but Trump is on record as wanting to 'punish' companies who move overseas. In principle, that is what that bill purported to do.... though again, I don't recall that Trump was in favor of federal incentives for staying like that bill. I'd be very careful about Federal incentives... and the opposition spoke of procedural issues. Maybe that is what they meant.. Local incentives/carrot to keep them in their state or move to another state... Federal penalties/stick if they leave. It could be as simple a change as that.

Quote:On China, I think Trump is trying to show that he is truly a wild card and that China and other foreign leaders aren't going to be dealing with the same kind of President they have for 40+ years. I do wish, however, he at least spoke to the State Department about this, because initial reports indicate that there was no word sent to them. I'd like to have a President who at least recognizes when some people know more about a topic, especially our foreign relations with a Super Power, than they do and that those people can be a valuable resource. We'll see what comes of it.

Probably, but I understand she called him. What is he to do? Decline the call? I could be wrong having only seen the initial reports... but the only thing he did in terms of 'violating policy' was acknowledge that there was such a call. While I certainly understand your position and you're not wrong in general... I just think the idea that we have to make sure it's okay with China that we took a phone call from Taiwan is ridiculous. It's not like we agreed to sell them weapons. I don't mean to imply you don't agree with that part.

There is diplomacy, and then there is pointless ass-kissing. That goes somewhat to your initial point I think.

To me it strikes of a jealous spouse who doesn't let their partner talk on the phone to 'the other sex'.

Take the call. But don't tweet about it afterwards. If there was no tweet, there wouldn't have been an international incident.

(12-03-2016 07:46 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Take the call. But don't tweet about it afterwards. If there was no tweet, there wouldn't have been an international incident.

I'm 99% sure that the news broke before Trump tweeted about it.

He only tweeted about it after it made the news so that he could defend his actions, as if world leaders just call up other world leaders without carefully scheduling that ahead of time.

I'm not really sure how I feel about this, I think it could be a good way to rebuke China and give them a taste of their own medicine, I just doubt Trump ran this through multiple experts in the field of US-China relations since he did not consult the State Department.

(12-03-2016 07:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The Carrier thing is interesting for a few reasons. One, this is the exact thing Republicans screamed about when tax benefits were given to entire industries (like solar) and about picking winners and losers, but this was even more specific and benefited only one company (see Palin's recent comments about this and crony capitalism). Two, Obama proposed a very similar policy that would not have singled out one company, but any who brought back jobs, but that was blocked back in 2012:

But it's not at all the same
1) Solyndra is currently an unprofitable business. It is picking a winner/loser among 'alternative scientific breakthroughs' designed to reduce our demand for energy. So while it does 'create' jobs here, it is designed to 'replace' jobs here... Often they are putting jobs in hotspots of one party (say California) and taking them from another (Pennsylvania or Wyoming) California is the winner... Pa or Wy are the losers. In this case, the state is both the winner AND the loser... That's their own call.

Solyndra is currently a shell company reduced to an IP holding company and the holder of a claim of unfair competition in the courts. In fact all US solar manufacturers are "unprofitable". The only profitable concerns are typically the Chinese firms, and mainly because of the massive governmental support they received on the way up in many different forms.

Quote:2) They are federal dollars(Solyndra). The people aren't leaving the country... only the jobs... and frankly, the US government shouldn't care if they go to Texas or California or Detroit (picking winners and losers)... only that they don't go to another country. If the local economy wants to entice them to stay or come, that is up to them.

Actually the economics of pretty much all the domestic solar plays was not so much as to "replace WV and Detroit" as to keep the bulwark of solar production a US concern as opposed to a German one (a feared player-to-be at the time) or a Chinese one (the major player now due to massive govt intervention, and the reason why Solyndra currently exists i.e. to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit)

Your attempt to make the domestic solar industry a boogeyman really isnt the best vehicle for the point you want to make.

(12-04-2016 03:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 07:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The Carrier thing is interesting for a few reasons. One, this is the exact thing Republicans screamed about when tax benefits were given to entire industries (like solar) and about picking winners and losers, but this was even more specific and benefited only one company (see Palin's recent comments about this and crony capitalism). Two, Obama proposed a very similar policy that would not have singled out one company, but any who brought back jobs, but that was blocked back in 2012:

But it's not at all the same
1) Solyndra is currently an unprofitable business. It is picking a winner/loser among 'alternative scientific breakthroughs' designed to reduce our demand for energy. So while it does 'create' jobs here, it is designed to 'replace' jobs here... Often they are putting jobs in hotspots of one party (say California) and taking them from another (Pennsylvania or Wyoming) California is the winner... Pa or Wy are the losers. In this case, the state is both the winner AND the loser... That's their own call.

Solyndra is currently a shell company reduced to an IP holding company and the holder of a claim of unfair competition in the courts. In fact all US solar manufacturers are "unprofitable". The only profitable concerns are typically the Chinese firms, and mainly because of the massive governmental support they received on the way up in many different forms.

Quote:2) They are federal dollars(Solyndra). The people aren't leaving the country... only the jobs... and frankly, the US government shouldn't care if they go to Texas or California or Detroit (picking winners and losers)... only that they don't go to another country. If the local economy wants to entice them to stay or come, that is up to them.

Actually the economics of pretty much all the domestic solar plays was not so much as to "replace WV and Detroit" as to keep the bulwark of solar production a US concern as opposed to a German one (a feared player-to-be at the time) or a Chinese one (the major player now due to massive govt intervention, and the reason why Solyndra currently exists i.e. to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit)
Your attempt to make the domestic solar industry a boogeyman really isnt the best vehicle for the point you want to make.

So solar is a basket case without massive government intervention. Maybe that's not where we should be putting our money.

(12-04-2016 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 03:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 07:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The Carrier thing is interesting for a few reasons. One, this is the exact thing Republicans screamed about when tax benefits were given to entire industries (like solar) and about picking winners and losers, but this was even more specific and benefited only one company (see Palin's recent comments about this and crony capitalism). Two, Obama proposed a very similar policy that would not have singled out one company, but any who brought back jobs, but that was blocked back in 2012:

But it's not at all the same
1) Solyndra is currently an unprofitable business. It is picking a winner/loser among 'alternative scientific breakthroughs' designed to reduce our demand for energy. So while it does 'create' jobs here, it is designed to 'replace' jobs here... Often they are putting jobs in hotspots of one party (say California) and taking them from another (Pennsylvania or Wyoming) California is the winner... Pa or Wy are the losers. In this case, the state is both the winner AND the loser... That's their own call.

Solyndra is currently a shell company reduced to an IP holding company and the holder of a claim of unfair competition in the courts. In fact all US solar manufacturers are "unprofitable". The only profitable concerns are typically the Chinese firms, and mainly because of the massive governmental support they received on the way up in many different forms.

Quote:2) They are federal dollars(Solyndra). The people aren't leaving the country... only the jobs... and frankly, the US government shouldn't care if they go to Texas or California or Detroit (picking winners and losers)... only that they don't go to another country. If the local economy wants to entice them to stay or come, that is up to them.

Actually the economics of pretty much all the domestic solar plays was not so much as to "replace WV and Detroit" as to keep the bulwark of solar production a US concern as opposed to a German one (a feared player-to-be at the time) or a Chinese one (the major player now due to massive govt intervention, and the reason why Solyndra currently exists i.e. to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit)
Your attempt to make the domestic solar industry a boogeyman really isnt the best vehicle for the point you want to make.

So solar is a basket case without massive government intervention. Maybe that's not where we should be putting our money.

That depends on what role you believe that our various government institutions (like DOD and DOE) should play in the development and advancement of technology. Should the government provide programs that help to encourage innovation and the potential creation of technologies that could greatly benefit others? Or should be rely solely upon private citizens to fund that?

Also, I do believe that a lot of the funding for solar comes from loans, and not outright gifts (that was the case with Solyndra at least, which defaulted on said loan).

(12-04-2016 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 03:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 07:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The Carrier thing is interesting for a few reasons. One, this is the exact thing Republicans screamed about when tax benefits were given to entire industries (like solar) and about picking winners and losers, but this was even more specific and benefited only one company (see Palin's recent comments about this and crony capitalism). Two, Obama proposed a very similar policy that would not have singled out one company, but any who brought back jobs, but that was blocked back in 2012:

But it's not at all the same
1) Solyndra is currently an unprofitable business. It is picking a winner/loser among 'alternative scientific breakthroughs' designed to reduce our demand for energy. So while it does 'create' jobs here, it is designed to 'replace' jobs here... Often they are putting jobs in hotspots of one party (say California) and taking them from another (Pennsylvania or Wyoming) California is the winner... Pa or Wy are the losers. In this case, the state is both the winner AND the loser... That's their own call.

Solyndra is currently a shell company reduced to an IP holding company and the holder of a claim of unfair competition in the courts. In fact all US solar manufacturers are "unprofitable". The only profitable concerns are typically the Chinese firms, and mainly because of the massive governmental support they received on the way up in many different forms.

Quote:2) They are federal dollars(Solyndra). The people aren't leaving the country... only the jobs... and frankly, the US government shouldn't care if they go to Texas or California or Detroit (picking winners and losers)... only that they don't go to another country. If the local economy wants to entice them to stay or come, that is up to them.

Actually the economics of pretty much all the domestic solar plays was not so much as to "replace WV and Detroit" as to keep the bulwark of solar production a US concern as opposed to a German one (a feared player-to-be at the time) or a Chinese one (the major player now due to massive govt intervention, and the reason why Solyndra currently exists i.e. to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit)
Your attempt to make the domestic solar industry a boogeyman really isnt the best vehicle for the point you want to make.

So solar is a basket case without massive government intervention. Maybe that's not where we should be putting our money.

We don't. We lost.

China bootstrapped their industry and they now own the area with 3 out of the top 4 manufacturers.

The sole US "major" manufacturer is hemorrhaging freely. And the Chinese are doing quite nicely as standalone at this point. The US sector was strangled while the industry itself was still in the crib.

Not advocating for governmental intervention (then or now), as I am a true Chicago school type economy guy. But, I sat at the front lines of the US solar industry at the "start up" phase, and saw how the investment the Chinese government made to bootstrap their manufacturing industry has allowed the Chinese to (rightfully or wrongfully) literally seize the industry.

(12-04-2016 05:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That depends on what role you believe that our various government institutions (like DOD and DOE) should play in the development and advancement of technology. Should the government provide programs that help to encourage innovation and the potential creation of technologies that could greatly benefit others? Or should be rely solely upon private citizens to fund that?
Also, I do believe that a lot of the funding for solar comes from loans, and not outright gifts (that was the case with Solyndra at least, which defaulted on said loan).

And the difference between defaulted loans and gifts is?

(12-04-2016 05:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  We don't. We lost.
China bootstrapped their industry and they now own the area with 3 out of the top 4 manufacturers.
The sole US "major" manufacturer is hemorrhaging freely. And the Chinese are doing quite nicely as standalone at this point. The US sector was strangled while the industry itself was still in the crib.
Not advocating for governmental intervention (then or now), as I am a true Chicago school type economy guy. But, I sat at the front lines of the US solar industry at the "start up" phase, and saw how the investment the Chinese government made to bootstrap their manufacturing industry has allowed the Chinese to (rightfully or wrongfully) literally seize the industry.

There's a difference between investments to bootstrap industries and payoffs to political cronies. I'm all for helping bootstrap the manufacturing base. But base it own performance instead of political connection.

You invest the time and money to develop a working prototype. Then we will invest to help you get it to market. Something like that.

(12-04-2016 06:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 05:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  We don't. We lost.
China bootstrapped their industry and they now own the area with 3 out of the top 4 manufacturers.
The sole US "major" manufacturer is hemorrhaging freely. And the Chinese are doing quite nicely as standalone at this point. The US sector was strangled while the industry itself was still in the crib.
Not advocating for governmental intervention (then or now), as I am a true Chicago school type economy guy. But, I sat at the front lines of the US solar industry at the "start up" phase, and saw how the investment the Chinese government made to bootstrap their manufacturing industry has allowed the Chinese to (rightfully or wrongfully) literally seize the industry.

There's a difference between investments to bootstrap industries and payoffs to political cronies. I'm all for helping bootstrap the manufacturing base. But base it own performance instead of political connection.

You invest the time and money to develop a working prototype. Then we will invest to help you get it to market. Something like that.

Care to elaborate on the "payoffs to political cronies"? (that is beyond the Fox news tag blurd....) No offense but I am/was very well versed with Solyndra. Was actually employee #18 there and was there for about 5 and a half years.

But I would be happy to discuss that idea, as I am sure you will be able to elucidate with new impelling information that I don't have already.

And nice pithy follow up lines in the second paragraph. But somewhat divorced from reality. And, hate to tell you, the Solyndra product went far beyond the "working prototype" stage that you state or imply there.

But please keep repeating the "not really well based in fact" one liners. If you want to have a rational, beyond pithy one liner quip discussion about Solyndra I'll be happy to oblige. But, if what you really want to do is market political one-liners then I would suggest we just agree to disagree at this early juncture....

(12-04-2016 07:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 06:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 05:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  We don't. We lost.
China bootstrapped their industry and they now own the area with 3 out of the top 4 manufacturers.
The sole US "major" manufacturer is hemorrhaging freely. And the Chinese are doing quite nicely as standalone at this point. The US sector was strangled while the industry itself was still in the crib.
Not advocating for governmental intervention (then or now), as I am a true Chicago school type economy guy. But, I sat at the front lines of the US solar industry at the "start up" phase, and saw how the investment the Chinese government made to bootstrap their manufacturing industry has allowed the Chinese to (rightfully or wrongfully) literally seize the industry.

There's a difference between investments to bootstrap industries and payoffs to political cronies. I'm all for helping bootstrap the manufacturing base. But base it own performance instead of political connection.
You invest the time and money to develop a working prototype. Then we will invest to help you get it to market. Something like that.

Care to elaborate on the "payoffs to political cronies"? (that is beyond the Fox news tag blurd....) No offense but I am/was very well versed with Solyndra. Was actually employee #18 there and was there for about 5 and a half years.
But I would be happy to discuss that idea, as I am sure you will be able to elucidate with new impelling information that I don't have already.
And nice pithy follow up lines in the second paragraph. But somewhat divorced from reality. And, hate to tell you, the Solyndra product went far beyond the "working prototype" stage that you state or imply there.
But please keep repeating the "not really well based in fact" one liners. If you want to have a rational, beyond pithy one liner quip discussion about Solyndra I'll be happy to oblige. But, if what you really want to do is market political one-liners then I would suggest we just agree to disagree at this early juncture....

If you are seriously questioning the political payoff element of Solyndra, then I'm afraid you were so close that you couldn't see the forest for the trees. And my information is coming from a lot of sources, none of them named Fox.

I'm actually a huge proponent of solar energy, but Solyndra was not the way to do it. Going that route took our eye off the ball, and that's a large part of how China got ahead of us. You need more of a skunk works atmosphere, and not such a well-funded bureaucracy. You don't pay the executives anything until the product is up and running. That way, you get people who care about building a successful product, not leeching money from the taxpayers.

If you disagree, then yes, we will just have to agree to disagree.

(12-04-2016 06:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 05:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That depends on what role you believe that our various government institutions (like DOD and DOE) should play in the development and advancement of technology. Should the government provide programs that help to encourage innovation and the potential creation of technologies that could greatly benefit others? Or should be rely solely upon private citizens to fund that?
Also, I do believe that a lot of the funding for solar comes from loans, and not outright gifts (that was the case with Solyndra at least, which defaulted on said loan).

And the difference between defaulted loans and gifts is?

That not every single loan that is granted is defaulted. Yes, in the end a single defaulted loan = a "gift", however should a majority of the loans be paid off, with interest, the US gov't could actually come out ahead. Or, even if they come out with a net loss, there are potential positive externalities that may make that loss worth it.

(12-04-2016 07:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 07:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 06:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 05:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  We don't. We lost.
China bootstrapped their industry and they now own the area with 3 out of the top 4 manufacturers.
The sole US "major" manufacturer is hemorrhaging freely. And the Chinese are doing quite nicely as standalone at this point. The US sector was strangled while the industry itself was still in the crib.
Not advocating for governmental intervention (then or now), as I am a true Chicago school type economy guy. But, I sat at the front lines of the US solar industry at the "start up" phase, and saw how the investment the Chinese government made to bootstrap their manufacturing industry has allowed the Chinese to (rightfully or wrongfully) literally seize the industry.

There's a difference between investments to bootstrap industries and payoffs to political cronies. I'm all for helping bootstrap the manufacturing base. But base it own performance instead of political connection.
You invest the time and money to develop a working prototype. Then we will invest to help you get it to market. Something like that.

Care to elaborate on the "payoffs to political cronies"? (that is beyond the Fox news tag blurd....) No offense but I am/was very well versed with Solyndra. Was actually employee #18 there and was there for about 5 and a half years.
But I would be happy to discuss that idea, as I am sure you will be able to elucidate with new impelling information that I don't have already.
And nice pithy follow up lines in the second paragraph. But somewhat divorced from reality. And, hate to tell you, the Solyndra product went far beyond the "working prototype" stage that you state or imply there.
But please keep repeating the "not really well based in fact" one liners. If you want to have a rational, beyond pithy one liner quip discussion about Solyndra I'll be happy to oblige. But, if what you really want to do is market political one-liners then I would suggest we just agree to disagree at this early juncture....

If you are seriously questioning the political payoff element of Solyndra, then I'm afraid you were so close that you couldn't see the forest for the trees. And my information is coming from a lot of sources, none of them named Fox.

I'm actually a huge proponent of solar energy, but Solyndra was not the way to do it. Going that route took our eye off the ball, and that's a large part of how China got ahead of us. You need more of a skunk works atmosphere, and not such a well-funded bureaucracy. You don't pay the executives anything until the product is up and running. That way, you get people who care about building a successful product, not leeching money from the taxpayers.

If you disagree, then yes, we will just have to agree to disagree.

1) On the political payoff --- sorry you are just pretty much not informed very well. My information is first hand and having first hand knowledge at a fairly high level of the business, the operations, and investors.

2) on the lack of skunk works -- I suggest you actually look at the Solyndra product on a multitude of fronts -- all of which occurred prior to the government loan guarantee. As for a "well funded bureaucracy" -- again dead wrong.

3) as for "paying executives until the product is up and running" -- two items here in fact. a) look at the restrictions on the use of the loan and the use of the funds. b) look at the amount of private capital put into Solyndra and the accounting of its uses. Your implication is that somehow the govt backed loan was used to fund "paying executives" which is just dead wrong per both the loan agreement and the end forensic accounting. Second, you seem to imply that Solyndra had neither private equity funding from which to operate ( a huge falsehood) or had had somehow excess executive pay (again another falsehood, and irrelevant given that the operations capital had to connection whatsoever to the loan funds)

Love your implied and express issues, but factually and impliedly you would be operating from what are not correct statements or assumptions, with all due respect.

I suggest we agree to disagree mainly because most of your comments are so far off base it is obvious that it will not be worth neither your time, nor my time, let alone bothering the board here with these issues.

Be good sir.

Solyndra got $500 million in government loans and employed a maximum of 1100 people. Where did the money--both government loan and private equity--go?

(12-04-2016 08:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Solyndra got $500 million in government loans and employed a maximum of 1100 people. Where did the money--both government loan and private equity--go?

Well, a quick Google search sent me to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

With a really minimal amount of research I found that the loan was used to help fund a $733 million fabrication facility which was expected to produce 610 megawatts of solar panels by 2013 (should things have gone as planned).

Turns out, what doomed Solyndra was a drop in the price of polysilicon from '09-'11 which was the key ingredient in competing technologies, which meant that Solyndra was unable to compete with the new prices. So despite Solyndra having a novel approach to the solar problem (using tubes to collect energy), the free market killed them when raw material prices changed (very similar to what we're seeing with the O&G sector right now).

Now, some of the loan went to some pretty extravagant expenditures at the plant (including spa showers), but I imagine that the vast majority of the $733 million spent on the facility went to things like production robotics.

(12-04-2016 09:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 08:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Solyndra got $500 million in government loans and employed a maximum of 1100 people. Where did the money--both government loan and private equity--go?

Well, a quick Google search sent me to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

With a really minimal amount of research I found that the loan was used to help fund a $733 million fabrication facility which was expected to produce 610 megawatts of solar panels by 2013 (should things have gone as planned).

Turns out, what doomed Solyndra was a drop in the price of polysilicon from '09-'11 which was the key ingredient in competing technologies, which meant that Solyndra was unable to compete with the new prices. So despite Solyndra having a novel approach to the solar problem (using tubes to collect energy), the free market killed them when raw material prices changed (very similar to what we're seeing with the O&G sector right now).

Now, some of the loan went to some pretty extravagant expenditures at the plant (including spa showers), but I imagine that the vast majority of the $733 million spent on the facility went to things like production robotics.

Spa showers aren't a good description. And the descriptions of the other "extravagances" that I have seen have been dodgy ones at best. But that is the fun with reporting with political agendas.....

For example with the "spa showers", the issue is that that showers had digital controls associated with them. The long and short is that in the building process, you spend x dollars for showers that broadly define hot, warm, and cold. You spend about 1.35 x for digital fine control. No more than 7k was spent on this.

Tort law requires that when you are working with bad chemicals that require specific temperatures for flushing, that a fab that has these chemicals cannot justify spending the lesser amount at the expense of worker safety.

The fab cost involved not just "the fab", but all aspects from the ground up" purchasing the plot, design, construction, and outfitting with highly unique machinery. Solyndra not only had highly unusual approach in the tubes, but developing a process for those surfaces was the first time it was done. And the tubes were 4.2 feet long. And the material was a material that had never been made in commercial quantities before.

All in all it was a *****.

And the final cost of Fab 2 was closer to 780 million from finding the parcel to panels rolling out.