4 ms·

This article is wrong. He wasn't calling them losers he was saying that politicians in general don't have the ability to pick the winners, they can only pick t

This article is wrong. He wasn't calling them losers he was saying that politicians in general don't have the ability to pick the winners, they can only pick the losers through their policies. He was basically saying that Obama was trying to pick the winners in green but that it wasn't working because the market isn't ready (basically claiming he is failing because government can't make an industry a winner through policy). He was also probably implying that Obama was purposely choosing Oil as the loser.

rayiner 14y ago
Not even close! Romney's statement was in the context of his reference to someone's joke making fun of Obama for picking losing companies. He was clearly calling Tesla a loser.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  That's certainly consistent with conservative tech skeptics. I think the grandparent post offers a worthwhile alternative interpretation, but I think the majority of people would go with yours. That said, the majority of people probably found both candidates too wonkish and abstract in this debate for many minds to be changed. As a policy guy, I enjoyed it, and I thought Romney did well for himself although I prefer Obama. But the candidates talked past each other to a large extent, and both were pulling their punches a little.
possibilistic 14y ago
If the government is bad (or simply worse than the free market) at developing new industries, should it stay out of the business of giving subsidies to groundbreaking companies? Should this be left to chance? I suppose a more direct question is this: should we just sit it out and wait for green tech to be right? (Or for oil to be so costly that any alternative is better?) What about the numerous areas in which government investment/research has paid off (eg. computing)? Could or should the free market today replace this type of public investment? Just curious.
- protomyth 14y ago
  Yep, it probably should. Subsidies are just tax breaks in a different form. If the government really wants to get something, it should offer a contract to the first who can provide it. This worked in a couple of DoD instances and worked in civilian life with the XPrize. Funding individual companies is not the way. As to green tech, if it does not become more cost effective and as easy / easier to deploy than current energy generation, we have lost anyway. China and India are following the path the 1st world took (coal / oil). I expect the rest of the 3rd world to do the same. Nothing short of force will stop that.
wwweston 14y ago
> This article is wrong. He wasn't calling them losers He pretty clearly is rattling off a list and then naming them as (a) Obama/gov't picks and (b) losers. Really, the best defense you can get of his comment is "well, that's what Romney said his friend said, not what he personally said." > He was basically saying that Obama was trying to pick the winners in green but that it wasn't working because the market isn't ready (basically claiming he is failing because government can't make an industry a winner through policy). Is he correct? Over in a parallel discussion, someone pointed at this piece: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/what-abound-solars-bankruptcy-says-about-the-doe-loan-program/ http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/what-abound-sola... which seems to indicate that the DOE loan program is actually pretty good at loaning to if not outright producing successes.
mistercow 14y ago
Looking at the context, there is simply no reasonable way you can interpret what he said that wasn't calling Tesla a loser.

rayiner 14y ago

Not even close! Romney's statement was in the context of his reference to someone's joke making fun of Obama for picking losing companies. He was clearly calling Tesla a loser.

anigbrowl 14y ago
That's certainly consistent with conservative tech skeptics. I think the grandparent post offers a worthwhile alternative interpretation, but I think the majority of people would go with yours. That said, the majority of people probably found both candidates too wonkish and abstract in this debate for many minds to be changed. As a policy guy, I enjoyed it, and I thought Romney did well for himself although I prefer Obama. But the candidates talked past each other to a large extent, and both were pulling their punches a little.

possibilistic 14y ago

If the government is bad (or simply worse than the free market) at developing new industries, should it stay out of the business of giving subsidies to groundbreaking companies? Should this be left to chance? I suppose a more direct question is this: should we just sit it out and wait for green tech to be right? (Or for oil to be so costly that any alternative is better?) What about the numerous areas in which government investment/research has paid off (eg. computing)? Could or should the free market today replace this type of public investment? Just curious.

protomyth 14y ago
Yep, it probably should. Subsidies are just tax breaks in a different form. If the government really wants to get something, it should offer a contract to the first who can provide it. This worked in a couple of DoD instances and worked in civilian life with the XPrize. Funding individual companies is not the way. As to green tech, if it does not become more cost effective and as easy / easier to deploy than current energy generation, we have lost anyway. China and India are following the path the 1st world took (coal / oil). I expect the rest of the 3rd world to do the same. Nothing short of force will stop that.

wwweston 14y ago

> This article is wrong. He wasn't calling them losers He pretty clearly is rattling off a list and then naming them as (a) Obama/gov't picks and (b) losers. Really, the best defense you can get of his comment is "well, that's what Romney said his friend said, not what he personally said." > He was basically saying that Obama was trying to pick the winners in green but that it wasn't working because the market isn't ready (basically claiming he is failing because government can't make an industry a winner through policy). Is he correct? Over in a parallel discussion, someone pointed at this piece: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/what-abound-solars-bankruptcy-says-about-the-doe-loan-program/ http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/what-abound-sola... which seems to indicate that the DOE loan program is actually pretty good at loaning to if not outright producing successes.

mistercow 14y ago

Looking at the context, there is simply no reasonable way you can interpret what he said that wasn't calling Tesla a loser.