Jed, There is a Swedish say; "Venture capital is not for widows and orphans." (Perhaps a little off the political correct scale but has some relevance . . .) If the government gets involved then they actually do involve people who for one reason or the other should not take that kind of risk. As, I am old and was involved in the investment business in the 80is in Sweden, I experienced how the government managed to lose substantial money from a pension fund that all Swedes had to contribute to (mandatory). Who paid in the end? Good guess the retired people after the mid 90is. Your faith in government is disturbing because that kind of mindset is what allows this totally immoral and unaccounted for misuse of the taxpayer's money. You might think the US government is better or the state of Georgia or Atlanta city. No, they are not. The system makes the outcome not only predictable but a self-fulfilling profetia. The say that power corrupts describe part of it, if you prefer an American say.
Hoping we do not need to see any more of those profitable non-scandal Solindra business during 2016. Happy New Year to everybody. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wrote: > > >> The taxpayers will get their money back eventually. The power companies >> are not going to stop buying electricity from this installation. They may >> renegotiate the price . . . >> > > Source: > > I think I read this at Renewable Energy World, but I cannot find the > article. Anyway, that is the usual arrangement. Since the machine is up and > running, and making a profit on current operations, the taxpayers should be > reimbursed. The owners may face bankruptcy. > > http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/index.html > > The article went on to say this is quite different from the situation at > Solyndra. There was no revenue stream when Solyndra went bankrupt. They did > not have anything up and running. > > When a company goes bankrupt, if there are parts of the company which are > making a current profit, the courts are careful to keep those parts in > business. They try not to sell off assets or do anything else which will > disrupt those parts and stop the flow of income. They try not to cause more > unemployment than necessary. On the other hand, they direct the current > profit flow to the creditors, and away from stockholders. When Uncle Sam is > among the creditors or unpaid vendors, he always goes to the front of the > line. That's how it works. > > The Solyndra bankruptcy has been called a scandal. It is not a scandal. > Any investment can go south. Many governments supported ventures have > failed. In this case, the Solyndra portion of the fund failed but overall > the fund did exceptionally well and made a ton of money for the taxpayers. > You might argue that the Federal government should not be investing in > technology. That might appeal to purists who think the government should > play no role in the economy, but as I have often pointed out, the > government has played a leading role since the construction of the Erie > Canal, and in ever major technology since then. If it had not, I expect the > U.S. would have lost the Civil War, WWI and WWII. > > Since most Federal money goes to conventional technology such as coal and > oil, I do not think the industry should complain. > > - Jed > >
