By now just about everyone has heard about Solyndra. Solyndra is a producer solar panels, mostly roof mounted solar power systems typically for large commercial buildings. The Obama administration made sure that Solyndra received government backed loans totaling 535 million dollars even though there was disagreement within the administration over whether or not Solyndra was financially stable. Now the administration is trying to make sure that the blame is shifted away from Obama and onto Energy Secretary Chu.

This is an example of what happens when the government tries to interfere with the marketplace. If Solyndra were competitive in the market there would be no need for a large government backed loan. Solyndra can't produce it's solar systems cheaply enough to compete on the world market, or with existing energy sources. Also Solyndra was backed by the government so it could operate without the financial constraints which exist with no government backing. Solyndra could waste money knowing that the government was there to prop them up. Solyndra was supported by the wishful thinking of politicians and the taxpayer's wallets.

The situation gets worse though. There seems to be a trend with government backed ventures. These government backed companies receive more assistance as performance decreases. In other words, why would any government backed company try to succeed when it can be more successful financially by either maintaining or slightly decreasing performance. If Solyndra actually succeeded it might have to run on it's own. Solyndra has benefited from the ultimate corporate welfare program.

The waste the company exhibited is absurd. Take a look at some of the things within the facility alongside Interstate 880 in Fremont, California.

It wasn’t just any factory. When it was completed at an estimated cost of $733 million, including proceeds from a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee, it covered 300,000 square feet, the equivalent of five football fields. It had robots that whistled Disney tunes, spa-like showers with liquid-crystal displays of the water temperature, and glass-walled conference rooms.

“The new building is like the Taj Mahal,” John Pierce, 54, a San Jose resident who worked as a facilities manager at Solyndra, said in an interview.

Amid the still-unfolding postmortems, the factory stands as emblematic of money misspent and the Field of Dreams ethos that seemed to drive the venture, said Ramesh Misra, a solar-industry analyst in Los Angeles for Brigantine Advisors.

“When you don’t have the demand, you can’t go into something with the attitude, ‘Build it and they will come,’” Misra said. “You have to make sure the customers are already there when you build it.”

When will the socialist government types get it? People buy things they want or need. You can't fabricate a need. You don't artificially increase prices to drive people away from one product and towards another, it never works as planed. For all the talk of alternative sources of energy there have been none that are competitive cost-wise to what we have now.

Until someone comes up with a way to produce energy that is at least as cheap as we have now, these ventures are always going to fail. People aren't looking for "alternative energy sources" in the real world; they are looking for energy, if it's competitively priced and works people will buy it. So far that hasn't happened yet.

In the mean time the government is throwing money into ridiculous ventures like Solyndra instead of allowing the private market come up with something. The government is eating up capital and directing it without regard for results. When results are negative, the answer is always more money.

There was a very good reason that private sector investors didn't fund this venture. Government obviously didn't share their foresight.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

I recently had an interesting conversation with a few people commenting on a BBC article (I'm jefff1979). We were discussing the riots in the UK. I posted a link to a Max Hastings article. It's at the end of the exchange that things get creepy.

You might find this enlightening.

Comment number 400.
jefff1979
26 Minutes ago

I agree with an article by Max Hastings. The social system has created a large underclass of people who show contempt for any form of authority while simultaneously biting the hand that feeds them. The rioters are the product of having all of the basic needs of life provided them without any need of returning the favor. A lot of the rioters are probably just bored...

Comment number 401.
jefff1979
22 Minutes ago

Check out Max's article...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024284/UK-riots-2011-Liberal-dogma-spawned-generation-brutalised-youths.html

Comment number 402.
Richard
17 Minutes ago

"jefff1979

I agree with an article by Max Hastings. The social system has created a large underclass of people who show contempt for any form of authority while simultaneously biting the hand that feeds them. "

I think that's far too simplistic a view. As a member of that underclass (created by politicians) in economic terms, I can understand the frustrations (but not condone their actions).

Comment number 403.
jefff1979
12 Minutes ago

Richard:

Of course I didn't mean that everyone thinks or acts that way, but it's understandable how one becomes that way in those circumstances.

Some people have the convictions to do what is right, some people don't. Still some people actually don't have any concept of right and wrong because they have been without guidance their whole lives.

Comment number 404.
jefff1979
5 Minutes ago

Richard:

Without a time machine; the government can't fix these sorts of social problems. The politicians' lack of foresight is indeed the reason these economic positions exist in the first place. They can; however, start to demand more from those who live on the government's dole.

When people are provided for without demand you can't expect them to prescribe to your rules. Laws allow for this.

Comment number 405.
Chemical-Mix
4 Minutes ago

@401.jefff1979
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024284/UK-riots-2011-Liberal-dogma-spawned-generation-brutalised-youths.html

The problem with the article is that, other than classroom discipline, he hasn't given any real solutions. Also, the effects he describes are actually symptoms of a root cause(s) he fails to discuss. Why are youth so disconnected from the national syllabus? Is it bland/unengaging? Why the compulsion to steal a pair of trainers? Ceasless marketing?

Comment number 406.
Richard
3 Minutes ago

"jefff1979" 403

True in an ideal world, but youngsters where there is high unemployment see no future from a very early age, they give up and are given up on - they feel they have nothing to lose. They probably shouldn't, but if the government keeps kicking them while getting away with being caught with their hands in the till the line gets blurred.

Comment number 407.
Chemical-Mix
5 Minutes ago

...Modern life, new freedoms, societal expectations and the absolute requirement to submit to a worker-wage-slave system has consequences. Youth described in the article don't see any difference between the perpetual misery of working 45 hours a week in a job they hate and; their current miserable situation of doing nothing and not caring. Come 2012 when the cuts hit, things could get much worse

Comment number 408.
jefff1979
4 Minutes ago

Richard:

That's in part my point. Why is it that the youngsters have to look to government for guidance. If there's one thing in politics that most people can agree on, it's that politicians are NOT good role models.

Where are the parents to explain these things? It's as if they are forever doomed because they are never going to get a wake-up call from politicians.

Comment number 409.
Richard
7 Minutes ago

"jefff1979

They can; however, start to demand more from those who live on the government's dole."

The riots were *not* about people on the dole, or any one age group. Many were employed. Ages run between 11 and late 30's.

That's what's being missed by most commentators, they comment solely based solely on their prejudices, and that's why they have no solutions, or understanding.

Comment number 410.
jefff1979
4 Minutes ago

Chemical-Mix:

The solution he mentioned is family. As he said, he wouldn't have done those things (rioting and the like) for fear of his parents not the police. But the current legal system stands against honest parents who try to discipline their kids. They can call and have their parents arrested.

The viability of families must again be realized, because current practices are not working.

Comment number 411.
Chemical-Mix
11 Minutes ago

And to top it off, it is beat into them that they will have to work longer, harder, save more with less payoff to fund the retirement of the previous generation, while putting up with less disposable income and; higher taxes to pay for the mistakes of a few bankers who by the way, proved to the youth you can get away indebting the Earth to the tune of $40trillion. I'd be demotivated and; lose faith too

Comment number 412.
jefff1979
10 Minutes ago

Chemical-Mix:

"Come 2012 when the cuts hit, things could get much worse"

Indeed. That's why government dependance is so dangerous. It's all based on the presupposition that those at the top are going to make the right decisions. When they don't you are all the more at their mercy.

That is why I take issue with an overbearing government support structure. When it falls it takes even more down...

Comment number 413.
Richard
11 Minutes ago

"jefff1979" 408

I don't think it's government they look too, it's society. The riots weren't about the unemployed, but about the disaffected. Thatcher created an underclass, and the current underclass is often second generation. The poverty creates dysfunctional families (many causes, poverty always has), and so the circle is complete - they join a gang that becomes their 'family'.

Comment number 414.
Richard
7 Minutes ago

"jefff1979
That's why government dependance is so dangerous. "

But what is the alternative?

Comment number 415.
Chemical-Mix
6 Minutes ago

Jeff:
"That's why government dependance is so dangerous"

The problem is that this is almost required to a great extent. In a profit-based model, if there is no profit in a benevolent, system of looking after the lower rungs of society, it won't happen. And with just under 500k job vacancies with 2.45million unemployed, approx 80% of those on the dole literally have no choice in the matter.

Comment number 416.
peter Baston
6 Minutes ago

Super-cop might want to remember that the LAPD insignia and credo says " To Protect and Serve " and not " To Scare the crap out off "

Any beat cop will tell you that when you lose the respect of the people on your beat that's where the rot starts and the riot begins

Respect is totally different to fear or are we going to study Syrians crowd control and bring in Tanks and Warships

Comment number 417.
jefff1979
14th August 2011 - 19:12

Chemical-Mix:

"The problem is is that this is almost required to a great extent."

It is, in a sense, required. That was done by design, that is my point. It's not like the politicians did this with the idea that these people would actually be happy. The politicians created this underclass to insure votes. Now that it's in motion, it will be up to individuals and families to get out.

Comment number 418.
Chemical-Mix
14th August 2011 - 19:19

@417.jefff1979
"it will be up to individuals and families to get out"

Very chilling thought. So along with everything else that poverty and opportunity disequilibrium throws at these people, they are also faced with societal abandonment at the most fundamental level. If they think their is no hope, perhaps they believe there is nothing to lose by opportunistically taking what they can...

Comment number 419.
Richard
14th August 2011 - 19:22

"jefff1979" 417

I think this where our two societies start to diverge. We talk about keeping the rich rich, whereas you talk about votes. It might amount to the same thing, but up to the mid 80's we had true left vs. right (we now have 2 x centre right). We lost 100% employment in the late 60s and dealt with it, I don't think the US has realised that it has yet to address that issue.

I can only hope that Richard is wrong.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

I've decided to start posting a screen shot of random amusing comments each week. Sometimes I see things that just make me laugh...

These comments are in response to an article about something seen flying through the sky in California. Nobody knows what it could have been, but this guy does...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

The White House has another creepy Internet site asking for information on people opposing Obama's views.

This is sad. I can't imagine that anyone will take this seriously. It's an Internet site that will be advertised freely because of its pure silliness. Comedy Central couldn't come up with something better than this.

This is like the story from the UK Guardian warning of social networking leading to loneliness. Then there are links to social networking sites just to the right of the article title. That way lonely people can talk about their loneliness with other people, making them even more lonely? This is ground breaking research because it proves that "academics" are even more lonely than those they are researching.

Got to love it!

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

I find it interesting that the New York Times even reported this. So, what went wrong? Of course the article is filled with the obligatory, "e-mail led to an ever decreasing amount of conventional mail" excuse. I wonder how much of an effect the telephone had on conventional mail usage? The real problem is usually avoided by most media.

The United States Postal Service has long lived on the financial edge, but it has never been as close to the precipice as it is today: the agency is so low on cash that it will not be able to make a $5.5 billion payment due this month and may have to shut down entirely this winter unless Congress takes emergency action to stabilize its finances.

The post office’s problems stem from one hard reality: it is being squeezed on both revenue and costs.

As any computer user knows, the Internet revolution has led to people and businesses sending far less conventional mail.

At the same time, decades of contractual promises made to unionized workers, including no-layoff clauses, are increasing the post office’s costs. Labor represents 80 percent of the agency’s expenses, compared with 53 percent at United Parcel Service and 32 percent at FedEx, its two biggest private competitors. Postal workers also receive more generous health benefits than most other federal employees.

So there is only a 20% operating budget for anything other than labor? That's ridiculous; with numbers like that it would seem that the Post Office exists as a method of employment first, if they get the mail delivered that would be nice too.

This is a glaring example of the of government idiocy. Many postal workers are going to end up without jobs at the end of this. If the operating budget is 80% labor; how will the USPS decrease costs when union wages are non negotiable. It's simple math really, the USPS must reduce their labor costs because it's largest single expense they have. Their only other option would be to decrease the time that employees are on the clock. The effect is the same, labor costs will go down, and USPS employees will take home less in wages. The American Postal Workers Union, APWU, and the National Association of Letter Carriers, NALC, have effectively priced their employer out of the market.

I think this is a very telling story of how the "The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs" can't always keep giving. Government is going broke because of excess spending and lack of insight. The USPS is no different.

What exactly will happen? Who knows. I suspect that Congress will step in and allow the USPS to maintain some ridiculous amount of debt. After all, how can Congress criticize; they just raised the entire country's debt limit while ignoring the causes of debt. The USPS will do the same.

There is no reason for the USPS to change because its oversight is provided by those who are in the same boat.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!