4 ms·

You forgot to mention Solyndra : http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-17/taxpayers-recover-0-solyndra http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-17/taxpayers-recove

You forgot to mention Solyndra : http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-17/taxpayers-recover-0-solyndra http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-17/taxpayers-recover-0...

thetabyte 14y ago
So you're telling me risky investments in possibly revolutionary startups can fail? If we go back to writing by PG, failures like this are proof we are making risky a enough investments to actually make a big difference.
- Prophasi 14y ago
  Strategic conduct on the part of businesses isn't the same thing as smart (or ethical, or legal) conduct when it's done by governments. Everything has a context.
  - thetabyte 14y ago
    I agree. Which is why government making the risky investments that more conservative businesses won't in order to create the empowering innovations that will save our environment and improve our economy is a major positive for me.
    - patrickgzill 14y ago
      And if it just happens to benefit major contributors and bundlers to the party of the President that is in power, well, that is entirely a coincidence!
- kbutler 14y ago
  Your "proof" logic is backwards. PG's point was not that failing means you're doing it right, but rather that never failing means you're not pushing hard enough.
  - thetabyte 14y ago
    I understand that. But not everything the government funds fails. I am instead disproving the case presented to me—the failure of Solyndra is not evidence of a failing government effort.
rayiner 14y ago
I worked for a DARPA contractor for years. Nerds all wank over how awesome DARPA is, and how great they are for putting money into all these blue-sky projects that may not pan out, etc. Yet the administration puts some money into technology that doesn't have an immediate benefit in killing people, and people flip their shit. For context: DARPA has a budget of almost $3 billion. The risk-weighted investment into Solyndra was probably on the order of the low tens of millions.
- fr0sty 14y ago
  "The risk-weighted investment into Solyndra was probably on the order of the low tens of millions." What do you mean by "risk-weighted investment"? The loan to Solyndra was for $535 million dollars of which practically none was returned [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra#Shutdown_and_investigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra#Shutdown_and_investiga...
  - rayiner 14y ago
    You have to compare apples to apples. DARPA gives out grants. Solyndra was a loan guarantee. The subsidy represented by a loan guarantee is the value of the loan multiplied by the probability of default.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      Is their justification for the low risk of default? Such as an overall portfolio where other loan guarantees did not flop?

You forgot to mention Solyndra : http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-17/taxpayers-recover-0-solyndra http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-17/taxpayers-recover-0...

thetabyte 14y ago

So you're telling me risky investments in possibly revolutionary startups can fail? If we go back to writing by PG, failures like this are proof we are making risky a enough investments to actually make a big difference.

Prophasi 14y ago
Strategic conduct on the part of businesses isn't the same thing as smart (or ethical, or legal) conduct when it's done by governments. Everything has a context.
- thetabyte 14y ago
  I agree. Which is why government making the risky investments that more conservative businesses won't in order to create the empowering innovations that will save our environment and improve our economy is a major positive for me.
  - patrickgzill 14y ago
    And if it just happens to benefit major contributors and bundlers to the party of the President that is in power, well, that is entirely a coincidence!
kbutler 14y ago
Your "proof" logic is backwards. PG's point was not that failing means you're doing it right, but rather that never failing means you're not pushing hard enough.
- thetabyte 14y ago
  I understand that. But not everything the government funds fails. I am instead disproving the case presented to me—the failure of Solyndra is not evidence of a failing government effort.

rayiner 14y ago

I worked for a DARPA contractor for years. Nerds all wank over how awesome DARPA is, and how great they are for putting money into all these blue-sky projects that may not pan out, etc. Yet the administration puts some money into technology that doesn't have an immediate benefit in killing people, and people flip their shit. For context: DARPA has a budget of almost $3 billion. The risk-weighted investment into Solyndra was probably on the order of the low tens of millions.

fr0sty 14y ago
"The risk-weighted investment into Solyndra was probably on the order of the low tens of millions." What do you mean by "risk-weighted investment"? The loan to Solyndra was for $535 million dollars of which practically none was returned [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra#Shutdown_and_investigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra#Shutdown_and_investiga...
- rayiner 14y ago
  You have to compare apples to apples. DARPA gives out grants. Solyndra was a loan guarantee. The subsidy represented by a loan guarantee is the value of the loan multiplied by the probability of default.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Is their justification for the low risk of default? Such as an overall portfolio where other loan guarantees did not flop?