I can't buy your analysis because you offer no valid supporting evidence. A few -- very few -- anecdotal examples of companies failing after receiving government grants or loan guarantees proves nothing. How many businesses recieved government assistance and became successful? That has to be part of the conversation.

Estimates of the failure rate of businesses receiving private venture capital are as high as 90 percent. Did the government perform worse?

There may be other good reasons that government shouldn't be investing in business, but you failed to make a case that government "has an especially lousy track record."

I could not have said it better myself.  Government is not in the business of venture capital, and should not be.  One of the many problems is that the choice of which companies to support gets decided through a political system.  So many of the failed companies were supported by Obama supporters, who had acces to the White House, and an opening to make their case.  "milions of green jobs" was what the president promised, but it just enriched his supporters, who took large risks with your money.

Government only steps in when entrepreneur's backers in the private sector rather shift paper around to earn a profit rather than build an industry that increases their wealth as well as those employed. Instead too many so called venture capitalist depend on low cost wages, few benefits, and almost valueless products. In short they play a zero sum game, I win, you lose. If the landscape of business is surveyed today the larger corporations manage by austerity to make a profit. They are not in the better mousetrap mode so Americans will pay for a decent product along with supporting their own fellow citizens. It is not government versus private sector that is important. It is a change in attitude that results in a positive sum game, namely, I win, you win. Until zero sum games are abandoned, I win, you lose boom and bust cycles will continue and middle class wages will decline.

Most of the people who are against investing in green energy technologies don't understand the differrnce between investing in a company like A123 and federal dollars being used for scientific research. If this article helps to explain that, then great. 

I still believe one of the main functions of government is to provide for the general welfare. One of the very biggest problems with living in cities around the world, and the U.S. is no exception, is the problem of air pollution from cars and trucks. Try jogging in Somerville while actually being outdoors. This problem will only go away with government intervention. Private interests are too entrenched. But it is a national health crisis. The technology is now available and China will get there first. They have now put in a higher bid for A123 than Johnson Controls. People will suffer here because of corporate greed.

My lawdie, what a smash upside the heads of guys named Obama and Patrick. Both those Chicago based leader wannabes are directly linked to "investments" of hundreds of millions of public dollars to "green" energy companies that have gone overseas, bellyup or bankrupt. And that cost taxpayers those hundreds of millions of dollars along with lingering suspicions that the managers/owners of the gonzo battery or solar panel makers were closely linked to Obama or Patrick or their closest cronies. The best response to this article is a hearty thanks to Mr. Syre for an honest appraisal - in fact a kind honest appraisal in that no political hacks' names are mentioned in an accusatory way - of policies that the Chicago hacks have tried to ignore as they proceed along their merry paths to getting Obama . . . . well, they keep trying, now don't they.

The lousy track record is that of the Obama - Biden administration: The A123 Systems Inc. is just another bad example of Obama's failed economic policies.

On the other hand, what can we expect from a community organizer and his Campaign leader. OOOps, forgot the family friend & baby-sitter, Jarrett.

I am surprised that this has not been said earlier, more often, and louder.

Government putting money into business is nothing new. Companies in the defense industries nad oil production have been recieving money for years. The question is, if you are in a leadership position, how to wean the country away from oil. Oil reserves are finite, costing more to extract. Yes, there is more in different locations, but eventually those sources will be dry. Also, imported oil creates serious foreign policy problems. Alternate sources of energy must be pursued. Other countries are in the same race, and if they're there first, more trouble for the US. Choices may have been made in a better fashion, but the race is on.

It is true that a government investor is looking for something different than venture capitalists.  In my opinion, that's not always a bad thing.  Investments in companies that expand fossil fuel energy are profitable only because the externalities they produce: health problems, global warming etc are not counted.  Having a carbon tax that would factor such things in is politically unfeasible currently.  Investments in green energy instead would seem to be something the government could do without getting too much criticism.  Afterall, in this business climate green energy has a lot going against it: entrenched interests, competition against providers who can pollute etc, and there are certainly some benefits that won't end up in investors pockets.  When you say that government has "an especially lousy track record" I need more than examples if you want to convince me.  I want to know the relative overall performance of private venture capitalists that can point to as many potential benefits.  If the private venture capitalist market is producing the same kind of benefits with less waste perhaps the government investment isn't needed.  I suspect the governments investment failures have been overstated and the function they provide: investment in an area that I believe is critical, would not be adequately serviced by the private sector.

who-cares-1940 (below) makes a valid point and gets an inadequate response.  It seems to me that the private-versus-government investment argument as here presented is pretty sterile.  It is clear to most that to let the Chinese dominate the alternative energy market would not be in the interests of the US.  We have the intellectual wealth to win this contest, but how do we get the other resources working tegether?  As one who watched rocket after rocket crash and burn in the early 60s and then watched Neil Armstrong land on the moon and return, it seems clear that we can accomplish great goals even after initial failures.  It's a tricky proposition and would benefit from bi-partisan cooperation.  Time Magazine's Michael Grunwald commented recently, "A review led by John McCain's finance chairman found that overall, the $40 billion (stimulus) loan portfolio is doing fine; it's got reserves to cover half a dozen Solyndra-style failures, and it's financing the world's largest wind farm, a half dozen of the world's largest solar farms, America's first cellulosic biofuel refineries, and much more."  He also pointed out, " The stimulus poured $10 billion in NIH, and already driving some exciting breakthroughs in cancer research, Alzheimers, genomics, and much more. But it's not like Obama is getting any credit. You invest in research because it's the right thing to do."  The answers to the question of achieving public good for health, clean energy and other issues should transcend the us-vs-them political mentality.