Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if you are familiar at all with the US government, most agencies offer grant programs. the bigger the grant program, the bigger the potential for political influence.
this has nothing to do with whether the government is/was acting like a "venture capitalist" and taking/hedging a bet on an tech sector....
this happens 100's - 1000's of times a year.
it's called government sponsored R&D.
go ahead, blame the obama admin, the libs, the dems...it won't stop and it can't.
Why? because without government grant funding, most companies are unwilling to take the leap into million(s) in investment dollars. there just is not enough private sector capital to do it all.
the real problem here is why the government provides massive amounts of capital to say....the pharmaceutical industry...and yet Americans have some of the most expensive drug costs of any developed nation and many developing nations?
so i say, keep funding these potential grant partners but then require either (1) a cut of the profit to return to the government and/or (2) the ability to regulate the price of the final good produced.
The fact that they were obama buddies or campaign bundlers just makes it worse and more dirty. If that's what you want as president the by all means vote for him. Many seem to not mind having their money thrown to garbage pails. Many however do.
The stimulus was crony capitalism at its worst. Whether it was paying back campaign bundlers or political friends or just funneling money into teachers unions, it was just corruption. The "jobs" bill is just more of the same.
Why? because without government grant funding, most companies are unwilling to take the leap into million(s) in investment dollars. there just is not enough private sector capital to do it all.
There would plenty of capital for companies like Solyndra if solar was economically viable but it isn't. We don't subsidize R&D in the renewable sector, we subsidize production. Large companies with the capital are unwilling to invest simply because the government can pull the rug out from under them at any time and they are left holding the bag.
For example the government has subsidized ethanol for decades. You have billions of private dollars invested in this failed industry that only survives because of subsidies and mandates. If the subsidy and the mandate for ethanol is removed this industry will collapse overnight.
There is no question that renewable energy is getting a lot of love from the federal government.
“If I wanted to kill [tax subsidies], the thing to do is for Exxon Mobil to go and invest heavily in them and then Congress would immediately cancel the tax subsidy. Actually what they would do is they would just cancel it for us,” said Mr.Tillerson, during the annual analyst meeting at the New York Stock Exchange.
He added: “In reality, that is what I fear would happen. So we are not going to go into investments that are dependent on a government providing a tax system to make them viable.”
The stimulus was crony capitalism at its worst. Whether it was paying back campaign bundlers or political friends or just funneling money into teachers unions, it was just corruption. The "jobs" bill is just more of the same.
Is that what he meant when he kept reading "Hope" and 'Change" off of his teleprompter during the campaign????
if you are familiar at all with the US government, most agencies offer grant programs. the bigger the grant program, the bigger the potential for political influence.
this has nothing to do with whether the government is/was acting like a "venture capitalist" and taking/hedging a bet on an tech sector....
this happens 100's - 1000's of times a year.
it's called government sponsored R&D.
go ahead, blame the obama admin, the libs, the dems...it won't stop and it can't.
Why? because without government grant funding, most companies are unwilling to take the leap into million(s) in investment dollars. there just is not enough private sector capital to do it all.
the real problem here is why the government provides massive amounts of capital to say....the pharmaceutical industry...and yet Americans have some of the most expensive drug costs of any developed nation and many developing nations?
so i say, keep funding these potential grant partners but then require either (1) a cut of the profit to return to the government and/or (2) the ability to regulate the price of the final good produced.
Negotiations directly out of the White House -- BS .... This was corrupt political payback to people that donated big $$ to the Obama campaign
There would plenty of capital for companies like Solyndra if solar was economically viable but it isn't. We don't subsidize R&D in the renewable sector, we subsidize production. Large companies with the capital are unwilling to invest simply because the government can pull the rug out from under them at any time and they are left holding the bag.
For example the government has subsidized ethanol for decades. You have billions of private dollars invested in this failed industry that only survives because of subsidies and mandates. If the subsidy and the mandate for ethanol is removed this industry will collapse overnight.
oil wasn't economically viable when it 1st started. neither was big time coal mining.
both required substantial gov't investment to get them off the ground.
and if I'm not mistaken...both still get massive subsidies and tax breaks.
why? over the past decade petro-chem companies like Shell, Exxon, Mobil, etc have posted the largest quarterly and annual profits of any company...EVER!
call it political payout if you want. prove it. no one can prove the vast majority of college boosters paying players, what makes you think that they can prove something even more obscure....
point of my OP was that grants (similar to VC work) have been around for decades and are not going away.
if you are familiar at all with the US government, most agencies offer grant programs. the bigger the grant program, the bigger the potential for political influence.
this has nothing to do with whether the government is/was acting like a "venture capitalist" and taking/hedging a bet on an tech sector....
this happens 100's - 1000's of times a year.
it's called government sponsored R&D.
go ahead, blame the obama admin, the libs, the dems...it won't stop and it can't.
Why? because without government grant funding, most companies are unwilling to take the leap into million(s) in investment dollars. there just is not enough private sector capital to do it all.
the real problem here is why the government provides massive amounts of capital to say....the pharmaceutical industry...and yet Americans have some of the most expensive drug costs of any developed nation and many developing nations?
so i say, keep funding these potential grant partners but then require either (1) a cut of the profit to return to the government and/or (2) the ability to regulate the price of the final good produced.
What happened, folks, is simple.
A big-time Obama "bundler" (bundles campaign contributions) got his payoff courtesty of US (Uncle Sam, aka you and I).
Same thing with RFK Jr. $1.5B
Wake up and smell the corruption of the most corrupt, Chicago-style administration in history.
Last edited by Lahaina Lopaka; 11-29-2011 at 01:53 PM..
oil wasn't economically viable when it 1st started. neither was big time coal mining.
both required substantial gov't investment to get them off the ground.
and if I'm not mistaken...both still get massive subsidies and tax breaks.
why? over the past decade petro-chem companies like Shell, Exxon, Mobil, etc have posted the largest quarterly and annual profits of any company...EVER!
call it political payout if you want. prove it. no one can prove the vast majority of college boosters paying players, what makes you think that they can prove something even more obscure....
point of my OP was that grants (similar to VC work) have been around for decades and are not going away.
Dave, you say that grants have been around for decades. How many decades would that be. The first successful oil well was drilled in 1854 and that would be over 150 years (15 decades). Coal had been used very widely even before that. I have a feeling that you have selected to industries to use in comparison to Solyndra and other "green" businesses getting their government money these days.
Hey, is Solyndra still in business? I thought they had shut down almost immediately after getting their grant.
Dave, you say that grants have been around for decades. How many decades would that be. The first successful oil well was drilled in 1854 and that would be over 150 years (15 decades). Coal had been used very widely even before that. I have a feeling that you have selected to industries to use in comparison to Solyndra and other "green" businesses getting their government money these days.
Hey, is Solyndra still in business? I thought they had shut down almost immediately after getting their grant.
Amazing isn't it how they shut down, so quickly after receiving that grant? Deciteful!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
