The true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra. — 2010

My Take – Is there a place for government subsidization of research?  What about subsidies for manufacturing products that haven’t caught on yet?

To me, there are times when public money can and should be used for research, but they ought to be either something that has a demonstrable impact on the public good, or they ought to be things that the government needs in order to conduct its business.  Research into nuclear energy, or research into disease prevention come to mind.  But direct subsidies to research that is aimed solely at enriching the first organization to develop something is wrong.  There isn’t enough money to give to everyone, so the government by necessity picks winners and losers.  If the government chooses correctly, they’re giving money to people who probably could have succeeded without it. If it chooses poorly, then it’s likely to keep throwing good money after bad, and even if it has the discipline to cut our losses, they still wasted money that could have gone to a better use.

As for the government giving money to industries, if the government has a need for the product being manufactured, I see no reason for it to not purchase it from a new company that could use the business.  Likewise, for something we all agree we need, such as roads or airports, I don’t mind the government spending what is necessary, even if it goes to a new player in the marketplace.  I also don’t have an issue with tax breaks for companies that create new jobs or spend money on research.

But when my money is wasted on companies that have no chance of independent survival, and which just happen to be owned by the President’s cronies and donors, then I have a problem.  The process by which the government spends our money should be transparent, fair, and open to criticism.  If a company can’t demonstrate that it is being well run, then why give it more money?