When an analyst is "shocked", is that usually a good sign?

[memphis]

I find analysts to be easily shocked.

This is because they are almost always wrong. Especially economic soothsayers.

[memphis]

The economy cannot be predicted, pretty much by definition. There is nothing wrong with economists who predict things wrongly.

If, by definition, something cannot be predicted, why would somebody try to predict it?

[memphis]

Government faces the same risks and rewards as anybody else. The fact that government suffers losses (Solyndra) doesn't make it any worse than any private sector actor that occasionally suffers losses. The main difference is that economics does not allow for consideration of distributional questions, while such questions are at the center of governmental behavior.

Yes, but anyone underwriting a loan to Solyndra would have realized they would not get their money back. It was that bad.

As opposed to Countrywide's subprime loans from 2006?

[memphis]

There is an underlying problem somewhat specific to the solar energy field. Solar technology is very much still in the experimental stages.

This is not true at all. President Carter had solar panels installed on the White House more than 30 years ago. The technology is advancing. But this is true of all energy forms. Is natural gas still experimental because we've only been fracking for a few years? And contrary to your claims, Solyndra didn't fail because too many people wanted a warranty. It failed because, like with so many other businesses, they were undercut by the Chinese.