That Fisker mess :(

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512396/Taxpayers-lose-139m-failed-bid-save-electric-California-car-maker-Fisker.html

Everything Tim O'Reilly said about Solyndra bears repeating here, too
https://plus.google.com/+TimOReilly/posts/5eQacBJD5wA [yes, READ IT!!!]

He's one of the people saying that the government should not be betting on winning and loosing companies. Instead, research money should be devoted to creating new technology that our companies can use as they compete with each other. I like this idea.

I wouldn't call it a loss when they developed a car that is capable of burning under water. That's quite an accomplishment.

The government does dump billions into various research projects, then dole out the results to favored companies to run with. That's how it has worked for probably the last 50 years, maybe more. 20 that I have direct observation of. The fisker/solyndra disasters are just an attempt to go full fascist.

Dr. Hess wrote: The government does dump billions into various research projects, then dole out the results to favored companies to run with.

It wasn't always that way. As O'Reilly said in the linked post:

Here are some US government strategic interventions in the market that paid off big-time: the US interstate highway system in the 1950s, the research funding that led to the internet, the spinoffs from the space program (including satellite launch capabilities, weather forecasting improvements, crop monitoring from space, not to mention the usual suspects cited like Teflon pans), the GPS satellite system that has fueled tens of billions of dollars in private enterprise, making possible all the "local" frenzy that is driving additional investment. Ideal targets for government intervention are "platforms" or platform technologies that enable the market as a whole, rather than bets on individual companies.

Both interesting reads.