John Stewart: "That Custom-Tailored Obama Scandal You Ordered Is Finally Here"

[emindead]

https://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-15-2011/that-custom-tailored-obama-scandal-you-ordered-is-finally-here

Bailout lovers, Obama lovers, unite! Sometimes John Stewart takes it out of the park.

[rumborak]

Hot damn, that truly was a crap investment
Sounded like a high-risk/high-payoff kinda company, banking on a lot of factors that didn't happen.
Loved the FOX News part

rumborak

[XJDenton]

I cant watch this, what is the issue?

[rumborak]

As part of the investment in green industries, this company called Solyndra received a whopping $500 million from the government. Well, they folded a few days ago and it turns out Solyndra was kinda a doomed enterprise right from the start. And, Obama used Solyndra as the backdrop for his pushing for the green investments etc. So, it's embarrassing for him and a big loss of tax money that the company folded.
Stewart also made a comment that FOX News should call their doctor, because the erection over this scandal will last for more than 4 hours.

rumborak

[XJDenton]

Ah right. Yes I can see how that would be a problem.

[Sigz]

 

[Orthogonal]

Love John, he skewer's them like no other.

[jsem]

That's what happens with subsidies...

[Scheavo]

That's what happens with subsidies...

Really? By looking at one company? There's plenty of other examples.

Though, to be clear, I don't really support subsidies to companies, but consumers. Let the people decide which company is best, but let the country pay for it.


*edit*

Oh, I should just state that this does seem like a fairly legitimate scandal to me. Surprising? No; our governments corrupt, and until we do something about that, and not just vote in the other corrupt party, we should expect things like this.

Also, $500 million is like.. a $1.50 a person. This is nothing compared to the war-profiteers like Haliburton.

[Super Dude]

I just hope this isn't the end of promoting green industry.

[Nick]

I was fucking rolling when I watched this on TV.

[AngelBack]

So many people so easily fooled.   As always a small percentage of the population is smart enough to keep the rest from utter decay. 

[Super Dude]

So many people so easily fooled.   As always a small percentage of the population is smart enough to keep the rest from utter decay.

Funny, considering how easily that applies to people on the other side of the political spectrum as well.

[El Barto]

Hell,  I wouldn't even consider that the bigger of the two current scandals.  That's really more akin to a shitty investment.  LightSquared on the other hand actually has real ramifications.  To be fair,  he's still got a long ways to go before he reaches a Bush/Cheney level of corruption,  but it certainly appears that he isn't wasting any time trying to get there. 

[Super Dude]

Hell,  I wouldn't even consider that the bigger of the two current scandals.  That's really more akin to a shitty investment.  LightSquared on the other hand actually has real ramifications.  To be fair,  he's still got a long ways to go before he reaches a Bush/Cheney level of corruption,  but it certainly appears that he isn't wasting any time trying to get there.

What is this other scandal?

Although I'd like it rather more if this was publicized more than any scandal: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/politics/obama-tax-plan-would-ask-more-of-millionaires.html

[El Barto]

Hell,  I wouldn't even consider that the bigger of the two current scandals.  That's really more akin to a shitty investment.  LightSquared on the other hand actually has real ramifications.  To be fair,  he's still got a long ways to go before he reaches a Bush/Cheney level of corruption,  but it certainly appears that he isn't wasting any time trying to get there.

What is this other scandal?

A company called LightSquared is looking to deploy super-duper high speed wireless over the entire country.  Their technology sits on the wireless spectrum immediately next door to GPS.  The DOD is looking to block deployment until they can figure out if it'll interfere with GPS, which they think is highly likely.  It's now come out that Obama's administration pressured the head of the Air Space Command to fudge his testimony to Congress, which he refused to do.  Naturally,  LightSquared has spent a gazillion dollars on Democratic campaign contributions, and their guys were apparently pretty tight with Obama. 

[Sigz]

  Yeah that's way worse than this.

[rumborak]

Reading about a counter statement by LightSquared though I'm not convinced it's really as the news paint it. At this point one can expect the Republicans to start operating the mud machine. We'll see what comes out of this. A Republican Congress spewing vitriol is not an indicator really.

rumborak

[livehard]

this just goes to show how inept they are at spending money.  There's no doubt the market can allocate resources in a more efficient manner.  Obama admin seemed a little too caught up in romanticising the green energy movement.

[jsem]

That's what happens with subsidies...

Really? By looking at one company? There's plenty of other examples.

Yeah, I wasn't looking at this as a general proof. Even i Keynesian economics theory, there's going to be government waste when the government spends in order to boost aggregate demand - so the fact that there's waste when the government subsidizes is practically impossible to avoid.

I do believe that subsidies are terrible though, look no further than corn for that. The corn subsidies in the US are absolutely vomit-inducing.

[rumborak]

this just goes to show how inept they are at spending money.  There's no doubt the market can allocate resources in a more efficient manner.

Err, the majority of Solyndra's capital came from non-government sources, i.e. "the market". The market had to pay for this, which eventually trickles down to the consumer in a slightly different way.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

That's what happens with subsidies...

Really? By looking at one company? There's plenty of other examples.

Yeah, I wasn't looking at this as a general proof. Even i Keynesian economics theory, there's going to be government waste when the government spends in order to boost aggregate demand - so the fact that there's waste when the government subsidizes is practically impossible to avoid.

I do believe that subsidies are terrible though, look no further than corn for that. The corn subsidies in the US are absolutely vomit-inducing.

Even in a libertarian, free-market world, there's going to be companies that go under, and which effectively waste money / resources.

Corn subsidies are bad, but food subsidies as a general concept is something we I think is rather too important not to have.

[jsem]

Even in a libertarian, free-market world, there's going to be companies that go under, and which effectively waste money / resources.

Obviously yes, due to malinvestment. But that is not a reason for the government to do the same, as the free market allocates resources more efficiently than any planned economy over time. (At least imho, socialists will obviously dispute that)

[Scheavo]

Even in a libertarian, free-market world, there's going to be companies that go under, and which effectively waste money / resources.

Obviously yes, due to malinvestment. But that is not a reason for the government to do the same, as the free market allocates resources more efficiently than any planned economy over time. (At least imho, socialists will obviously dispute that)

So if investment will happen, regardless of what kind of economy there is, then how does a company failing in the market place say anything at all about the government's inefficiency? If we were sticking with the company, keeping them in business even now, that would be wasteful and stupid. This isn't a "planned" economy, it's trying to help the market do what it wants to do - because the "free-market" does not allocate resources the most efficiently. If it did, we would be on a green economy already, we'd be driving cars that run on compressed air, and we wouldn't spend more money on health care than any other country in the world.

I mean, I'm not arguing for a "planned" economy - would you consider it socialist if we gave tax-payers the option of choosing solar panel companies themselves, but we made it fiscally possible for those consumers to make that choice?

[livehard]

this just goes to show how inept they are at spending money.  There's no doubt the market can allocate resources in a more efficient manner.

Err, the majority of Solyndra's capital came from non-government sources, i.e. "the market". The market had to pay for this, which eventually trickles down to the consumer in a slightly different way.

rumborak

the private sector put so much money in because the whole industry is so publicly subsidized.  I heard someone talk about these financials, and they sounded completely redic.  Besides people losing investments can be good.  You learn who knows how to allocate resources and who can't...  Unfortunately that doesn't seem to stick with govt investment.  we cant fire obama or the energy secretary like pension funds can fire an analyst or a investment manager.

[livehard]

Even in a libertarian, free-market world, there's going to be companies that go under, and which effectively waste money / resources.

Obviously yes, due to malinvestment. But that is not a reason for the government to do the same, as the free market allocates resources more efficiently than any planned economy over time. (At least imho, socialists will obviously dispute that)

So if investment will happen, regardless of what kind of economy there is, then how does a company failing in the market place say anything at all about the government's inefficiency? If we were sticking with the company, keeping them in business even now, that would be wasteful and stupid. This isn't a "planned" economy, it's trying to help the market do what it wants to do - because the "free-market" does not allocate resources the most efficiently. If it did, we would be on a green economy already, we'd be driving cars that run on compressed air, and we wouldn't spend more money on health care than any other country in the world.

I mean, I'm not arguing for a "planned" economy - would you consider it socialist if we gave tax-payers the option of choosing solar panel companies themselves, but we made it fiscally possible for those consumers to make that choice?

No this is wrong.  We wouldnt be running on compressed air beacuse the costs of creating that would be ENORMOUS.  Thats why we are generally running on the cheapest fuel, because the costs are low.  Let people decide how they want to spend their resources.

[livehard]

That's what happens with subsidies...

Really? By looking at one company? There's plenty of other examples.

Yeah, I wasn't looking at this as a general proof. Even i Keynesian economics theory, there's going to be government waste when the government spends in order to boost aggregate demand - so the fact that there's waste when the government subsidizes is practically impossible to avoid.

I do believe that subsidies are terrible though, look no further than corn for that. The corn subsidies in the US are absolutely vomit-inducing.

This is the problem with Keynesian economics though, this is the fundamental flaw- people are looking at inducing demand, they are looking to induce spending.  Thats not what we should be concerned about primarily, what we care about is OUTPUT.  We could easily spend a 100 trillion dollars to create a demand to dig ditches in their backyard.  Everyone would have a job, there'd be a ton of demand for these jobs.  But things would be awful because its not doing anything.

This is essintially whats happening with green energy, were paying people to do things that are less productive.  Its obviously more productive than digging ditches, but its going to be less productive than spending half that money to drill a hole and pull out oil, and then spending another 100 mil to spend in investing in movie production, and maybe 50 mil for a company that creates sofas, etc...

The free market participants understand where money should be allocated beause they are the ones that are creating the demand.  They are voting with their dollars about what the most efficient allocation of money is.

[Scheavo]

Even in a libertarian, free-market world, there's going to be companies that go under, and which effectively waste money / resources.

Obviously yes, due to malinvestment. But that is not a reason for the government to do the same, as the free market allocates resources more efficiently than any planned economy over time. (At least imho, socialists will obviously dispute that)

So if investment will happen, regardless of what kind of economy there is, then how does a company failing in the market place say anything at all about the government's inefficiency? If we were sticking with the company, keeping them in business even now, that would be wasteful and stupid. This isn't a "planned" economy, it's trying to help the market do what it wants to do - because the "free-market" does not allocate resources the most efficiently. If it did, we would be on a green economy already, we'd be driving cars that run on compressed air, and we wouldn't spend more money on health care than any other country in the world.

I mean, I'm not arguing for a "planned" economy - would you consider it socialist if we gave tax-payers the option of choosing solar panel companies themselves, but we made it fiscally possible for those consumers to make that choice?

No this is wrong.  We wouldnt be running on compressed air beacuse the costs of creating that would be ENORMOUS.  Thats why we are generally running on the cheapest fuel, because the costs are low.  Let people decide how they want to spend their resources.

Lol, no it wouldn't. I could retrofit my car to run on compressed fairly easily. You just have to time a burst of compressed air with when the spark plug would fire, and a tank for compressed air. In high school, another student made a lawn mower engine run off compressed air, my teacher made a big point about how easy it is to do. There's a car being marketed in India that runs off compressed air.

The reason we don't have such technology is becuase of the way big car and oil companies dominate the market. They'll buy out patents to never use them, they'll buy out companies to get rid of competition, they'll fund tons of faux science to try and convince people something else is true. Big companies do not let a market be free, because a big company benefits from a market being distorted in their favor.

[Perpetual Change]

I'm amazed at the hoops people are going through to try and paint this in a better light.

[livehard]

Even in a libertarian, free-market world, there's going to be companies that go under, and which effectively waste money / resources.

Obviously yes, due to malinvestment. But that is not a reason for the government to do the same, as the free market allocates resources more efficiently than any planned economy over time. (At least imho, socialists will obviously dispute that)

So if investment will happen, regardless of what kind of economy there is, then how does a company failing in the market place say anything at all about the government's inefficiency? If we were sticking with the company, keeping them in business even now, that would be wasteful and stupid. This isn't a "planned" economy, it's trying to help the market do what it wants to do - because the "free-market" does not allocate resources the most efficiently. If it did, we would be on a green economy already, we'd be driving cars that run on compressed air, and we wouldn't spend more money on health care than any other country in the world.

I mean, I'm not arguing for a "planned" economy - would you consider it socialist if we gave tax-payers the option of choosing solar panel companies themselves, but we made it fiscally possible for those consumers to make that choice?

No this is wrong.  We wouldnt be running on compressed air beacuse the costs of creating that would be ENORMOUS.  Thats why we are generally running on the cheapest fuel, because the costs are low.  Let people decide how they want to spend their resources.

Lol, no it wouldn't. I could retrofit my car to run on compressed fairly easily. You just have to time a burst of compressed air with when the spark plug would fire, and a tank for compressed air. In high school, another student made a lawn mower engine run off compressed air, my teacher made a big point about how easy it is to do. There's a car being marketed in India that runs off compressed air.

The reason we don't have such technology is becuase of the way big car and oil companies dominate the market. They'll buy out patents to never use them, they'll buy out companies to get rid of competition, they'll fund tons of faux science to try and convince people something else is true. Big companies do not let a market be free, because a big company benefits from a market being distorted in their favor.

Lol cmon, you think we're gonna have our 18 wheelers running on compressed air.  Wait what? Are you saying that people aren't creating them because they will get a fat check from oil companies? lol I doubt that. I have a feeling its just not as fiesable as oil, gas, electicity, etc...

edit just took a quick look:

"Early tests have demonstrated the limited storage capacity of the tanks; the only published test of a vehicle running on compressed air alone was limited to a range of 7.22 km.[9]"

also, it seems theres a bunch of companies looking into the technology, including honda... I dont think worrying about oil comapnies buying up patents and having a monopoly on the technology is a reasonable worry at this point.

Think of the enorumous cost to society if they had to stop every 7.22kms... But I think if it will be good, than the cars will be made, like you said they were in india.  If its a great idea, than it will boom over there!

[livehard]

I'm amazed at the hoops people are going through to try and paint this in a better light.

Yes I agree, this thing smells super fishy.  There are a lot of campaign donors, white house visits, etc...

[Scheavo]

Even in a libertarian, free-market world, there's going to be companies that go under, and which effectively waste money / resources.

Obviously yes, due to malinvestment. But that is not a reason for the government to do the same, as the free market allocates resources more efficiently than any planned economy over time. (At least imho, socialists will obviously dispute that)

So if investment will happen, regardless of what kind of economy there is, then how does a company failing in the market place say anything at all about the government's inefficiency? If we were sticking with the company, keeping them in business even now, that would be wasteful and stupid. This isn't a "planned" economy, it's trying to help the market do what it wants to do - because the "free-market" does not allocate resources the most efficiently. If it did, we would be on a green economy already, we'd be driving cars that run on compressed air, and we wouldn't spend more money on health care than any other country in the world.

I mean, I'm not arguing for a "planned" economy - would you consider it socialist if we gave tax-payers the option of choosing solar panel companies themselves, but we made it fiscally possible for those consumers to make that choice?

No this is wrong.  We wouldnt be running on compressed air beacuse the costs of creating that would be ENORMOUS.  Thats why we are generally running on the cheapest fuel, because the costs are low.  Let people decide how they want to spend their resources.

Lol, no it wouldn't. I could retrofit my car to run on compressed fairly easily. You just have to time a burst of compressed air with when the spark plug would fire, and a tank for compressed air. In high school, another student made a lawn mower engine run off compressed air, my teacher made a big point about how easy it is to do. There's a car being marketed in India that runs off compressed air.

The reason we don't have such technology is becuase of the way big car and oil companies dominate the market. They'll buy out patents to never use them, they'll buy out companies to get rid of competition, they'll fund tons of faux science to try and convince people something else is true. Big companies do not let a market be free, because a big company benefits from a market being distorted in their favor.

Lol cmon, you think we're gonna have our 18 wheelers running on compressed air.  Wait what? Are you saying that people aren't creating them because they will get a fat check from oil companies? lol I doubt that. I have a feeling its just not as fiesable as oil, gas, electicity, etc...

edit just took a quick look:

"Early tests have demonstrated the limited storage capacity of the tanks; the only published test of a vehicle running on compressed air alone was limited to a range of 7.22 km.[9]"

also, it seems theres a bunch of companies looking into the technology, including honda... I dont think worrying about oil comapnies buying up patents and having a monopoly on the technology is a reasonable worry at this point.

Think of the enorumous cost to society if they had to stop every 7.22kms... But I think if it will be good, than the cars will be made, like you said they were in india.  If its a great idea, than it will boom over there!

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but there have been cars that have much greater range than 7.22kms.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/preview-concept/4251491

Zero Pollution Motors (ZPM) confirmed to PopularMechanics.com on Thursday that it expects to produce the world's first air-powered car for the United States by late 2009 or early 2010. As the U.S. licensee for Luxembourg-based MDI, which developed the Air Car as a compression-based alternative to the internal combustion engine, ZPM has attained rights to build the first of several modular plants, which are likely to begin manufacturing in the Northeast and grow for regional production around the country, at a clip of up to 10,000 Air Cars per year.

Read more: Air-Powered Car Coming to U.S. in 2009 to 2010 at Sub-$18,000, Could Hit 1000-Mile Range - Popular Mechanics

You have a feeling that it's not as feasible, or you have proof? Your "proof" relies upon the fact that the market hasn't met the demands, but that proof relies upon unproven presuppositions that the market will be able to respond to efficiency. The market responds to profits, entrepreneurial go after what is profitable, and usually the most profitable. Many, many times those things align, but not always. When they don't, consumer's are left in a powerless position.

I'm amazed at the hoops people are going through to try and paint this in a better light.

Yes I agree, this thing smells super fishy.  There are a lot of campaign donors, white house visits, etc...

Oh, I agree that this is a great example of corruption. But to take that and say that this means the government cant' do anything to help green innovation, make our economy more efficient, etc, is completely ridiculous.

[soundgarden]

The free market participants understand where money should be allocated beause they are the ones that are creating the demand.

Yes, exactly.  This relationship is as fundamental as  self adjusting population balance in the animal kingdom (ie wolf and rabbits), as obvious as supply and demand, as omnipresent and unavoidable as is the attractive force between two masses, etc.  A completely free market will adjust itself due to its self-sustaining nature; a vacuum in demand will be filled and any excess of demand will be trimmed.  Any fundamental law of the universe, however simple, cannot be disputed, including the one you mentioned above.  The beauty and simplicity of this law is what makes Libertarianism so appealing.  HOWEVER, to stop the thought process at that alone ignores the very critical variable that render these laws imperfect; humanity.  Namely, our need for survival and the fact that through millennia we discovered that a community is best to achieve this. 

A wolf/rabbit population balance ignores the deaths of both species during the adjustment process because it is irrelevant to both nature and us.  But replace the wolf and rabbit with, say, wolf and human than the deaths of humans become unacceptable.  The natural relationship which would have corrected itself if one population became too large is no longer apt.  The failure of Libertarianism does not lie in its economic idea (because they are mathematically obvious), rather in a neglect of the consequences of its means of its operation.

Lets dismantle the FDA, for example.  Corporate America no longer have massive government mandates on work shop cleanliness, no mandates on import inspections, no mandates on the minimum test samples required, etc.  Company A decides to drastically lower their food inspection prior to shipment.  An outbreak occurs and and as a result some people die.  Company A is now ruined.  Company B comes in with a new and more efficient corporate structure which allows for great quality inspections.  Company B thrives.

Are we to ignore the deaths of those folks?  If so, then yes; let ultimate free-market thrive.  However, you effectively negate the need of any and all government because the creation of the FDA, the EPA, even smaller arms such as the New York City Buliding's Inspectors division, were made ESPECIALLY because of critical failure of Libertarianism when it comes to human health and rights.

[Scheavo]

Are we to ignore the deaths of those folks?  If so, then yes; let ultimate free-market thrive.  However, you effectively negate the need of any and all government because the creation of the FDA, the EPA, even smaller arms such as the New York City Buliding's Inspectors division, were made ESPECIALLY because of critical failure of Libertarianism when it comes to human health and rights.

But what do you mean here? You mention a critical failure of libertarianism regarding human health and rights, so does that mean you support governmental action in those area's? Because us "liberals" think wonderfully of the market, we just think that there are area's of critical failure.

[antigoon]

I'm amazed at the hoops people are going through to try and paint this in a better light.

apologists gon'...apologize