The real problem with Solyndra
Yes, this whole Solyndra is quite predictable. A govt program to help this our that. It fails miserably to achieve anything close to what it was heralded to achieve. It is discovered that cronysim is rampant.
Nothing new. Both dems and republican wit the hand in the cookie jar,. Nothing new.
If you have not yet come to expect this from every off-track govt program, wake up.
If you believe the democrats are the magnanimous virtuous advocates of the little guy, and would never partake in suhc shenanigans, you have really been sold.
If you have not paid attention because we democrats keep foaming at the mouth about the evil republicans, or the evil Christians, or the evil home-schoolers, or the evil low-tax advocates, or the evil conservatives, or the evil business-leaders, then the dem strategy has succeeded: the elected dems can so whatever they want because you have no intimation to be critical of your own party.
Sure, Solyndra is a tired story: govt fails, cronies get rich, and the campaign war chests are re-stocked.
But here is the real problem with Solyndra: they deprived someone of their civil rights. The essense of civil liberties is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I get to do what I want, until I move into the range of interfering with your civil rights.
I can play my stereo loud until it interferes with the ability of my neighbor to enjoy their peaceful home. Then, the law can step in to make things work for both of us.
I can set up a hamburger stand if I want. As long as iti is in some parameters, such as not being a health hazard, fire hazard, and so long as I turn over my business taxes.
Here is the probvlem with solyndra: the govt, in loaning half a billion dollars into an apparently propsepctive investment, stole the opportunity for some private individual or group to invest in Solydra.
Me opening my burger stand is what I get to do simply because I am here on Planet Earth, and get to do what I want. An investor investing in Solyndra for a billion dollars is simply that investor, or investor group, doing what they want to do simply because they are here on Planet Earth.
we get to do what we want for our livelihood, and with our money, that we choose.
This is freedom, and liberty. If you don’t like it, move to Cuba.
The govt scouted around and found an opportunity to make an emotional, persuasive statement about energy. The govt invested in Solyndra as a way to be a cheerleader. Simply for the promotional value.
The govt was not in it to get a return on their investment. That is not their business. They wanted Solyndra to work so that 1 solar energy could be promoted, and 2 so that the govt could get tax revenue from yet another indivudual enterprise.
Somewhere, there is an investor or investor group who lost the ability to invest in Solyndra. That opportunity was stolen by a competitor. Not another group of investors, but the long arm of the law.
That private investor, or investor group, had the chance to win or lose. Instead, I lost. I lost the tax dollars the govt took from me to give to Solyndra. So, I am complicit in stealing the freedom of the investors to invest in a seemingly promising business opportunity.
Each of us taxpayers lost about $3. (Divide the 500 million by how many taxpayers.)
The counter-argument is that the govt was playing its proper role: governments need to do things where the “market” fails, and markets need to do things where the government fails.
The “market” cannot provide thorough fire department coverage. Too many ppl would decide they were not at risk, and would never contribute regularly, no matter how reasonable the fee. So, we get taxed, and the fire dept gets set up by the govt.
So, a reason to give govt support to Solyndra is because it needs to be done, but the “market” is not workign to provide the capital for them to go create 1,000 (temporary contruction) jobs and 80 permanent jobs.
But that is not the case: Solyndra had maybe a billion in private investment lined up. That just shows that, yes, people would have been at liberty to invest, if only the opportunity were not stolen by the govt.
What next? WE need more healthy fast food, so the govt invests in the nation’s biggest chain of fast food, and undercuts price on competing restaurants?
Whether the invetment pays off or not?
Why not is because 1 they would be stealing business from us indivuduals, and so depriving us of our liberty, and 2 running businesses is not the business of the govt.
What could the govt have done? Well, through higher ed, the govt does support research in technologies. That system helps, although an argument can be made that those efforts eventually steal opportunities unfairly.
This might be the coolest thing: line up Solyndra with potential investors. Rent a floor of a hotel and a conference room for a week. Let investors come visit for free, and watch a sales pitch in the conference room.
Like Shark Tank: be the tank, not the shark.
This is a huge problem in our govt nowadays. It rarely gets talked-about. The technical term for this is “crowd-out:” the govt takes over some area of the free market, and with its bully-like abilities and powers, crowds out regular business opportunity that would provide jobs and tax revenue, and most importantly provide liberty.