|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:15 pm Post subject: Green Bankruptcies |
 |
|
Solyndra Scandal Continues To Grow For White House
| Quote: |
The scandal over the bankruptcy of Solyndra, once touted by the White House as the leading edge of its green jobs program, deepened Wednesday as new details emerged regarding its $527 million in federal loan guarantees.
As the solar panel maker teetered on the brink early this year, the White House OK'd a restructuring giving private creditors the first $75 million, before taxpayers, in any Solyndra liquidation.
That was over objections by the White House's OMB that the deal would put taxpayer funds at risk, according to emails revealed during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing. |
The bulk of the $527 million in Federal money is probably gone.
| Quote: |
"We have ended up with a situation of having to do rushed approvals on a couple of occasions (and we are worried about Solyndra)," said an Aug. 31, 2009, OMB email to the office of Vice President Joe Biden.
The email complained of a lack of "due diligence" and indicated that OMB was being rushed. Four days later, Biden announced the finalized loan at a Solyndra event.
. . .
[I]n January 2009, Bush's final days, a DOE panel put the project on hold. The next month, the Obama administration revived and fast-tracked the proposal.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., previously denounced the Solyndra probe as a "fishing expedition." He cut bait Wednesday, ad mitting the failure was troubling.
Waxman and Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., said they each met with Solyndra this summer and were told it was in good shape.
"Less than two months later, the company announced it would file for bankruptcy," she said. |
Last edited by Kuros on Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This really bothers me. They get tons of money, build a new factory in china, and then go bankrupt. All made possible by the Fed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:03 pm Post subject: Re: Solyndra: Green Bankruptcy |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
The bulk of the $527 million in Federal money is probably gone. |
Multiply that number by 1,000 and send the money to international banks instead of U.S. companies and you pretty much have the Bank Bailout.
The Solyndra case was an unacceptable case of the Federal government shoveling money out of taxpayer hands and into a crap business. The Bank Bailout that both parties supported was 1,000 times worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:17 pm Post subject: Re: Solyndra: Green Bankruptcy |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
The bulk of the $527 million in Federal money is probably gone. |
Multiply that number by 1,000 and send the money to international banks instead of U.S. companies and you pretty much have the Bank Bailout.
The Solyndra case was an unacceptable case of the Federal government shoveling money out of taxpayer hands and into a crap business. The Bank Bailout that both parties supported was 1,000 times worse. |
Comm is talking about this.
But, of course, Solyndra doesn't match the scale of QE2, but people can understand what happened. I cannot imagine a $600 billion stealth bailout. Its beyond my comprehension. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here are two Solyndra articles:
Since Solyndra's launch, prices for conventional solar modules have plummeted 70 percent. The company simply could not increase production fast enough to lower the higher cost of manufacturing its high-tech modules.
And why did prices so fall so fast? Easy -- China's huge state subsidies for solar power manufacturing ramped up the domestic manufacturing capacity with lightning speed, allowing the country's solar power firms to seize global market share.
http://www.salon.com/news/env/energy/index.html?story=/politics/feature/2011/09/16/solyndra
The lessons of Solyndra: The controversy shows what Germany knows: Renewable energy needs to be funded wisely
http://www.salon.com/news/env/energy/index.html?story=/politics/feature/2011/09/16/solyndra
I know we are exceptional--because certain people keep saying it--but can't we just decide to look around for models that work and copy them? (There was a time when it was Americans who pretty much always had the best practices, but that time seems to be behind us.)
I think my point is: We need to work smarter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I think my point is: We need to work smarter. |
 What a profound thought. Yet I can't help but think what you really mean to say is that "we need to do gooder". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I think my point is: We need to work smarter. |
What a profound thought. Yet I can't help but think what you really mean to say is that "we need to do gooder". |
...and I laughed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
^
But what is your point of view?
Should the US encourage green companies and jobs or should we surrender this industry to China? We surrendered semi-conductors to SK, we surrendered TVs to Mexico...at what point do we start trying to compete in the new industries?
My preference is that we declare we are exceptional and that we can kill anyone who disagrees...until that is no longer true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
^
But what is your point of view?
Should the US encourage green companies and jobs or should we surrender this industry to China? We surrendered semi-conductors to SK, we surrendered TVs to Mexico...at what point do we start trying to compete in the new industries?
My preference is that we declare we are exceptional and that we can kill anyone who disagrees...until that is no longer true. |
No Ya-ta, we leave the government and all their incompetence out of it. Everything they touch turns to bankruptcy and ruination in short order. So-called green companies should have to compete on the free market. If there is a demand for their products, they will be able to sell them at a profit (while lowering prices to a level the market can bear). If there is no demand, then we clearly don't need what they're offering.
And of course the same goes for firms in China. And it's not like China has actually invented anything since their civilization was decimated by communism. China today is little more than a captive market for Western firms, with corrupt officials offering freedom to pollute on public lands and access to slave labor... there is very little innovation there compared to the US, or other Asian countries like Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Should the US encourage green companies and jobs or should we surrender this industry to China? |
To start: stop making China into an awesome bogeyman that keeps spurring us into bad policy choices. America should abandon gov't industrial policy. We're a developed country, and picking favorites in the market arena doesn't lead to good results.
Myth: China bankrupted Solyndra
| Quote: |
China does provide hefty subsidies to its solar industry. As Climate Progress�s Stephen Lacey details, the Chinese Development Bank offers cheap long-term loans to domestic manufacturers that dwarf anything Solyndra ever got. That allows Chinese solar companies to offer cutthroat prices and drive competitors out. And yet, as Westinghouse Solar CEO Barry Cinnamon explains, it wasn�t China that caused Solyndra to go belly-up � the company had invented a solar panel that didn�t use silicon, unlike its competitors, and foundered after silicon prices plummeted.
What�s more, the fact that China hurls money at solar isn�t necessarily a bad thing, since cheaper solar prices can benefit the United States too. The Energy Department seems to have recognized that going toe-to-toe with China on direct subsidies may be futile and is instead trying to focus on complementary efforts to bolster innovation, through programs like its Sunshot Initiative. Also, for all China�s subsidy frenzy, the United States still exported $1.9 billion of solar products last year and actually has a trade surplus in solar with China. |
What we should do: put a direct tax on carbon.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2011/09/14/why-china-and-europe-dont-have-a-solyndra-problem/
(But China probably will issue bad loans, too)
| Quote: |
Debates over so-called industrial policy are, of course, decades old and an ideological litmus test for politicians. But the necessity of a federal loan guarantee program reflects the complete absence of political will on the part of either the administration or Congress to enact a cap-and-trade market, a carbon tax or other mechanisms ��� such as a feed-in-tariff (a nationwide premium paid for green electricity) � that would put a price on greenhouse gas emissions and level the playing field between fossil fuel and renewable energy providers.
China and European countries have adopted such economy-wide markets and thus do not have to make Solyndra-like gambles on new technologies in volatile industries. (Though China does provide many billions of dollars in low-cost loans, land and other incentives to a broad swath of its solar industry; inevitably, some of those companies will show themselves to be poorly run and will fail too. And Europe�s inconsistent renewable energy policies have played havoc with its industry.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
To start: stop making China into an awesome bogeyman that keeps spurring us into bad policy choices. America should abandon gov't industrial policy. We're a developed country, and picking favorites in the market arena doesn't lead to good results.
|
I disagree.
We have always done this. We gave away huge chunks of public land to build the railroads. We supported the air conditioning companies. I'm sure ther are other examples.
For the first time in our history, we are faced with a country that has more people, and therefore more money. We have always had an industrial policy...sometimes it was controlled by the Whigs and sometimes by the Democrats. That was back in the 19th Century.
We are now in a new century. How are we to confront the situation? Yes, we can pretend that it is just a new version of the Maysfield Road question of the 1830s...or we can actually look at the world as it exists now and decide on a policy that fits the times.
A true conservative looks back and decides what values from the past are worth saving and how best to do it....a radical reactionary says, "Blimey, this situation looks like something that happened when my granddad was a boy and we should do the same thing because...well, just because." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| We have always done this. We gave away huge chunks of public land to build the railroads. |
Plenty of railroads were built without government assistance. Most of those that were built by government contracts (like the Union Pacific were horribly run and maintained and soon went bankrupt, before being bought up privately). The best railroads were privately developed (like those of James J. Hill).
| Quote: |
| We supported the air conditioning companies. I'm sure ther are other examples. |
You must be joking.
| Quote: |
| For the first time in our history, we are faced with a country that has more people, and therefore more money. We have always had an industrial policy...sometimes it was controlled by the Whigs and sometimes by the Democrats. That was back in the 19th Century. |
Nonsense. China is a captive market. Just like the Soviet Union was. China sends us super container ships full of goods (including those made in factories owned by Western firms) and we send them boat loads of green paper and IOUs.
| Quote: |
| A true conservative looks back and decides what values from the past are worth saving and how best to do it....a radical reactionary says, "Blimey, this situation looks like something that happened when my granddad was a boy and we should do the same thing because...well, just because." |
Values worth saving are those the US was founded on. Those that made it a great country. Everything you espouse (namely handing more and more power over to the state) spells bankruptcy, oppression, war, and general ruination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
To start: stop making China into an awesome bogeyman that keeps spurring us into bad policy choices. America should abandon gov't industrial policy. We're a developed country, and picking favorites in the market arena doesn't lead to good results.
|
I disagree.
We have always done this. We gave away huge chunks of public land to build the railroads. We supported the air conditioning companies. I'm sure ther are other examples. |
Eh. Maybe the US should have set price controls on silicon to protect Solyndra.
Or maybe we should just let these companies take the risks they take without supplying them with taxpayer money?
As I've said, I do want to give green energy an edge: tax carbon. The gov't needs revenue, and carbon supposedly has a negative effect on the atmosphere. Tax carbon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
