• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Market Loser Is a Political Winner

    President Obama has picked another “winner” among green technologies meant to portend an energy revolution. This time it is a Korean-owned battery factory in Michigan, part of a $2.4 billion government investment in electric car battery technology in spite of a global glut of battery supply. However, the question is not really whether the technology is a good or bad idea but rather why the federal government is making these investment choices in the first place.

    Perhaps it is because the government has a valuable role to play in spotting and investing in the companies that can deliver the technologies of the future. Looking at the recent record suggests that the government is less adept at picking winners and losers than just picking losers.

    A case in point is Solyndra, a California solar panel manufacturer. The company was one of the early beneficiaries of loan guarantees under the stimulus bill, to the tune of $535 million. Vice President Joe Biden said that the investment was “exactly what the [stimulus bill] is all about.” Given Solyndra’s record, that statement is an admission of what a raw deal the bill may turn out to be.

    Solyndra, in spite of government largesse, was forced to cancel a $300 million initial public offering because of a bad audit by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which raised concerns about the firm’s viability. The concerns are understandable given that Solyndra’s production costs are six times those of other producers.

    So, what’s a firm to do when private capital markets give it a thumbs down twice? How about asking the government to double down on their losing bet and ante up another $469 million in government loan guarantees? Yes, a firm that recorded a net loss of $172.5 million in 2009 and couldn’t raise $300 million in equity wants to have taxpayers guarantee over $1 billion in loans.

    According to some in Washington, it’s not so important whether spending is efficient. They say government spending, even on companies with dubious business models, is beneficial because it has a stimulating effect on the economy. This argument is also at odds with reality. The government doesn’t earn money; it redistributes it. So when it spends money to subsidize a company like Solyndra, some private spending is foregone. This is called opportunity cost. Public spending and lending necessarily crowds out private spending and investment.

    The effects of this crowding out are substantial, which is in large measure why the Obama stimulus plan has thus far failed to create jobs and foster recovery. Recent Heritage Foundation analysis shows that current unemployment is actually higher than Obama’s economic advisors predicted it would be without the stimulus. The Obama Administration had predicted it would stay below 8 percent with the stimulus and reach 9 percent without. With the stimulus, the unemployment rate peaked at 10.1 percent and is 9.5 percent even now. Job growth will only be slowed by continued misallocation of capital by trillion-dollar stimulus plans.

    The fact of the matter is that public dollars are doled out according to political rates of return, not economic rates of return. This is why battery factories without a market and solar panel manufacturers that cannot post a profit can receive substantial sums. Solyndra apparently spent $140,000 on lobbyists in the first quarter of this year alone—and it’s very clear why. Firms need government investment only when they cannot pass the first market test of revenues versus costs. Private markets judged that Solyndra, which has posted net losses in excess of $400 million in the past two years alone, fails this test. It is a striking example of how a firm can sustain exorbitant economic losses while posting political profit. Don’t expect it to be an isolated incident as the government continues to increase its investment in the private sector.

    Co-authored by Cameron Parker. Parker is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to Market Loser Is a Political Winner

    1. Krankankor, Central says:

      There are 11 solar projects in California under consideration at this time and none of them are in production. Two of them in the Mohave Desert are stalled because environmentalist organization and the BLM want a sufficient amount of land set aside for the habitat of the Desert Tortoise, an endangered animal. A proposal to re-locate the turtles at a cost of $millions was rejected. As the size of the required land for these projects increases, the delays mount up and the cost of the time increases it will just add to the ultimate cost of solar energy in the future.

    2. Pingback: Market Loser Is a Political Winner

    3. LibsAreCommies PA/US says:

      Every single thing Obama says is a calculated lie. He and his Commie henchmen need to be removed from power, today, "By any means necessary", before they can do any more harm to our nation.

    4. mike says:

      Will the authors David and Cameron please write an article on the use of natural gas for , cars, personal trucks, big rig trucking, generators, farm equipment…

      The USA is the largest producer of Natural gas.

      I drive a bi-fuel car and pay .95 for a gallon of gas while reducing pollution and my car will last longer using natural gas.

      Trucking companies can save millions of dollars a month using natural gas, farmers can save billions, power plants trillions.

      Please do not be discouraged by the need to create the infastrucure for trucks and cars and storage vessels… challenges etc. These challenges are nothing compaired to solar, wind, etc.

      People are using NGV cars now. Cars are converted to bi-fuel in other countries for hundreds of dollars. With politics it costs 2,000 to 13,000 to convert in the USA.

      Oil companies actually use natural gas from land based drilling platforms to power drilling operation on sites miles away…

    5. Jonathan says:

      what do you expect? This is a guy who doesnt have the papers certifying his place of birth, nor the school records to prove that he graduated in the US. Of course he doesnt know a thing about ECON 101.

    6. michael, LA says:

      You forget that the current price is based on current demand.

      Increase the demand, expect the price to go up too.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×