« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Ener1 and Barack Obama: If You Own Masterlock Stock, Sell

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  January 26th, 2012 at 01:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

In 2010, Barack Obama touted Solyndra’s solar panels in his State of the Union speech. We know what happened to Solyndra.

In this week’s State of the Union, Barack Obama touted Ener1′s electric car batteries. Today, Ener1 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Also in Barack Obama’s State of the Union this week, he touted Masterlock and the high productivity of its unionized workforce.

Given the odds, if you own stock in Masterlock, you might want to sell.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mikefromny

    Why do conservative, self-proclaimed pro-business types get giddy with excitement when American startup companies fail?

  • Locked and Loaded

    *new troll

  • mikefromny

    I asked a serious question and the only response is calling me a troll? So I’ll ask again, why are you cheering about the failure of two American companies?

  • JohnFLob

    Reaction(s) to failures of American start-ups is not what you so callously term “getting giddy”. The reaction(s) merely emphasize the ineptness of the current administration and its radical czars to allow the free market system to determine effective solutions to society’s needs.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    …that the endorsemenet of Obama for a company is a sign that the company is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent, because Obama’s endorsement is a virtual “kiss of death” on any corporation.

  • http://www.helpawhiteguy.com livefreenh

    This is a false premise for starting a conversation. The answer to your pseudo-question is: “we don’t.” We might ask you in return why you need to label everyone, but that would get us farther off-topic than you have already taken it. The point of the article is that Obama “helping” a company is the kiss of death. You are the one who injected grade-school debating tactics into the discussion. I mean this with all due respect, but please don’t try to insult people as your opening move. No one will take you seriously (unless that is what you are trying to do to this discussion).

  • qualityguy

    but our tax dollars in the form of “stimulus” bail-outs is the issue. Let the market decide winners and lossers – survival of the fitest if you will. Stop throwing our money into Titanics!

  • bobguzzardi

    are likely to fail because they are not responding to market forces, that is, a demand for the services at an affordable price, or that the buyers sees a benefit commensurate with cost. The State makes a ‘top down’ approach that does not reflect consumer preference.

    Compare Netflix’s response to a bad decision with government’s response to one failure of green company after another.

    The State forces a taxpayer is to “invest” in a company that is, likely, as recent history shows, to fail.

    Every free market business that fails is a vision that failed. One moves on but there is sense of personal loss beyond money.

    Apparently, mikefromny does not have his own business.

  • duncer

    If even one of these companies succeeded, obama would point to it as justification for more tax payer $billions being squandered on hair brained schemes that private investors are too smart to put their own money into. Our country is full of educated experienced businessmen that under the free enterprise capitalist system take new ideas and give us great products that work like the iphone. Sometimes they fail but most often they succeed like another example Amgen that produced medical break through cutting edge products. When they we are not out a dime but when they succeed our economy grows and jobs and opportunities are created. They have been doing this since our nation was founded and made this country great. The cotton gin did not get invented with a no recourse loan from the govt..

  • annarbor

    As a devote conservative, the people behind Enron should have been shot and hung on a fence post as an example that others not do the same. (Texas tradition for cattle rustlers)

    Under Obama, Enron is child’s play.

    Have you not noticed that it is hundreds of millions disappear to his “bundlers”, “union enforcer contributors”, “Mr. Global Warming”, and so on under the guise of faux businesses? (Never mind the millions spent PER vacation.)

    Have you not noticed that hundreds of billions (yes billions) are lent to “favored” financial institutions, in essence, for FREE? When these firms are not playing speculative shell games with the money, they lend it back to the taxpayer in the form of credit cards (14-23%).

    As a conservative, I am no more surprised that these faux businesses fail than I am of the businesses spawned of Enron embezzlement.

    Whereas Enron clearly stole from investors, this Adminsitration has used the public treasury and credit to do the same.

  • malvernpa

    There is no joy from conservatives when start ups fail. Many of us, I included, have started our own business and only when one has been down that road can one truly understand the risk and difficulty associated with the American start up small and large. The resentment stems from government selecting one or a group of businesses for success. In that scenario government helps clear the playing field of obstacles like lack of seed money or regulation waivers or tax breaks others do not get. If the start up has such potential but cannot get traction or the regulations so difficult to reduce the viability of the start up then one could look for what is it that is in the way of this success, all to often it is government itself that creates the obstacle then they ride in to a start up offering help. That is not help, it is the bully in the school yard thinks you are cool and lines up with you. It may well be that the concept is viable but the current management/owner is a dolt, in which case no amount of investment will save the start up. It may be that the government regulations drain away needed capital and time resources to comply. If the latter is the case then those issues need to be removed from all businesses operating in that arena, (that is how you get lobbyists). That is the issue with conservatives. We resent government sticking its nose into the business arena to support or malign business. We look at those who apply to the government for help as weak either in ideas or courage of their own conviction, kind of like lingerie football. Sorry but that is not football and having the tax payer covering your bets is not business. Worse yet when government covers the bet they do so with my grand childs money. Not their own. So we are not giddy we are vindicated, but my guess is that you would not know of what I speak..

  • jakeofalltrades

  • scmom

    You have seriously misunderstood the comments that have been made about failed companies. We are not cheering, we are apalled, disgusted, and outraged that tax dollars were wasted in this way. Every week there seems to be another one and the Obama Administration just keeps doing it over and over again. We just want to stop the bleeding and get back to doing business the responsible way.

    I remember when a business owner really didn’t want to go the SBA for a loan because they were harder to deal with than the bank, and even if you had to declare bamkruptcy, you couldn’t write-off the loan. The rules have changed, and NOT for the better.

  • Duke

    that “The One” has a reverse Midas touch? Like instead of everything turning to gold, it turns to brown, the color of…, well you know.

  • Juggernaut

    with such nonsense because conservatives celebrate all private enterprises but we frown on wasting taxpayer dollars on risky investments. Private industry including banks, brokerages and Venture Capital firms are better suited to evaluate new businesses than any politican. Your question was dumb and so obvious that its no wonder people think you are a liberal.

    No one is cheering, you’d know that if you stopped drawing inferences from other peoples words…….that’s your problem. You translate what conservatives say into thoughts you have then you attack the messenger with nonsense.

  • mikefromny

    I’m all for there being a debate around whether or not the government should provide subsidies for certain buisnesses, but at the same time, those on the right have to realize that oil and fossil fuel subsidies are 6 times as high as renewables in this country (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-09/fossil-fuels-got-more-aid-than-clean-energy-iea.html). I’d respect the argument more if your side proposed removing the subsidies paid out to Exxon and the like.

  • mikefromny

    No, I don’t have my own buisness. In fact, im currently in grad school working towards a PhD in Computational Physics. Booooo academia, right? (I’d actually like to start my own software startup one day, but that’s besides the point)

    But I’ve seen that the investments the government has made in science and emerging technologies, most notably GPS, the Internet, and even the iPhones Siri (yes, that was DARPA project http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/siri-darpa-iphone/), and they’ve all turned out to be huge industrial boons. That is why I personally think it’s dangerous for the government to stop making these risky investments.

  • mikefromny

    No, I’m not trying to offend anyone.

    It’s just odd the fixation that the right has with Solyndra and now Ener1, and the only explanation I can find is excitement that a green company sponsored by the Obama administration fails. You can even see it in Erick’s post, he automatically assumes that MasterLock is going to fail due to the Obama connection.

  • liveforadrenaline

    There are problems too numerous to mention vis-a-vis with government getting directly involved in businesses, and the major problems we have with the “Obama businesses” are:

    Prior to the last few Administrations, I can’t recall any President bailing out or directly becoming involved financially in a business, save for Chrysler a couple of decades ago.

    Sure, the government has always paid businesses for services, but the government has never spent huge sums of money financing businesses, and even the modest Small Business Administration was always rather short on significant funds for business.

    The government has always paid for research and development, too, whether within universities or agencies or businesses, but never have we directly thrown money willy nilly at businesses for business operations, expansion, or employee hires. This is where we are now hopelessly mired in crapola. R&D is a definable subject with worthy goals and whatnot, but spending money on outlandish employee perks is not.

    It makes us uncomfortable that some government schmuck can decide what is a worthy business while ignoring other businesses with taxpayer dollars which are, no doubt, outrageously huge.

    My experience is that there are almost no people in government who can analyze a company effectively enough to determine what the result of that infusion of cash will produce, and hence, it almost always goes into the toilet, whether by going to the leadership of said business, or just being pissed away in new perks.

    This is happening all the time now, and it usually is just a redistribution of funds to the friends of the President. No one can call this anything but corruption.

    The cheering here is because anything with failure is deemed to be unworthy of future consideration, and hopefully this practice of giving grossly large sums of money to preferred companies will stop. Although I’m not holding my breath.

  • oneirishman

    If your not a “Troll” than why do you start your comment with ” why do conservative, self proclaimed business types…”? Like every liberal out there you were sniffed out. Conservatives believe these companies would be started with private monies if it was deemed viable. The risk should lie within the private sector, not the government! And Obama is a jerk!

  • oneirishman

    Well said my friend!

  • oneirishman

    Of course you must feel your the only one here with a degree. Maybe when you leave the bussom of your liberal professors and get a taste of the real world. Than the snarky tone everyone here has picked up on may change. I’m sure you have a really cool tent a OWS. WE R THE 99%!!! Go luck with all that.

  • johninohio

    It is now a subsidiary of Fortune Brands Home and Security, inc., stock symbol FBHS. I have no idea how big a part of the parent company it is. But that’s the one to be sold.

  • johninohio

    because you have swallowed the narrow minded views of those who you respect and curry favor to in “academia”.

    1. No, we don’t dislike all of academia, only the professors and their teaching assistents who push a socialist, ultimately totalitarian philosophy on a captive audience of uninformed youth.

    2. We are not blindly pro-business. We know some regulation is necessary, but what we face with this administration is an attempt co-opt business decisions for political purposes.

    3. We are not Republicans, per se. We are conservatives first, and Republican when dealing with conservative Republicans. We view the Republican establishment as almost as dangerous as the Democrats.

    4. None of the products and processes funded in their R&D phases by government were intended for public sale or use. They all had military or security purposes, which is a legitimate function of government. That they spilled over into the private sector was purely serendipitous. What we object to is government injecting itself into the private sector with the attitude that it knows what businesses should succeed and which should not, what products and services we need and don’t need, and spending huge sums of tax money propping up failures for no other purpose than to save face and gain political advantage.

  • mikesandolo

    Mike,

    GPS, Internet and Siri all began as military projects with defense applications that were later opened up to the private sector. That is a world of difference from bureaucrats and politicians, beholden to special interests and donors, using tax dollars to pick winners in the private sector.. especially against the advice of financial advisors (as in the Solyndra scandal).

    A lot of people on this forum say they’re sad when any business fails. I’m not. Solyndra was a disaster from the beginning and only limped along on public funds. Total waste of tax dollars. I am happy they closed.

    Bureaucrats and politicians, GOP and Dems, can’t be allowed to pick the winners and losers anymore. Is it a coincidence that the principle investor in Solyndra was a big Dem donor? This is a problem with both parties – politicians enrich themselves by controlling the money and who gets access to it.

    So yea, I am very happy that Solyndra bit the dust – the more government-subsidized companies that fail, the more negative attention this corrupt practice receives. I would say that a true conservative wants the end of most, if not all subsidies, let demand and the market sort it all out.

    Don’t worry. Someone else with a better plan will step up and take Solyndra’s place, when the technology is viable, and be a success without government intervention. Tha’s capitalism and conservative.

  • funwithknives

    and the failure clearly proves Gov’t cannot pick winners and losers, it becomes an object of justified derision. Especially when they do it with our money, lose it for many*unforeseen* { to them} reasons and do not have a Constitutional mandate to do so.
    If the start-up uses private dollars , Se La Vie.

    Just what part if New York are you from? Obviously, nowhere near Wall Street or an Economics school of any repute.
    I suggest “Economics in One Lesson “, for the uninitiated rube.

    {Poker’s not your Game,EHH?}

  • funwithknives

    were both funded through the Defense Dept. for our Nation’s protection.The risk was absorbed for a common purpose , {that would be your and my hiney’s }and GPS was spread out to many different budgets( Air Force,Army etc., NASA,NRC,CIA,ad.infinitum)
    Why do you think there are few, if any, non-Gov’t funded companies “Not Eating It” {$, that is}, where solar energy is concerned? They can&could see , what your Gov’t cares little about. After all, it’s not their money, is it?
    Suggested for your consideration:
    1) Gov’t proposes a program {Pick one, 10-4?} and fixes a fee for stated goals.Build to the outline and get paid. No more and no less. No cost-plus, No gold-plating and modularity wherever possible to minimize obsolesence.
    2) Otherwise ,research only, state the reason, and fix the cost/ payment based on proven, independently peer-reviewed results. Get out completely of Venture Capitalism, or barring that Make it Legal by Our Process.{You know!, Legislation,and all that really tiring stuff}

  • wingnut43

    It has been around for at least 7 decades.