Solyndra's Collapse Means ______.

The collapse of California-based solar panel maker Solyndra, LLC is old news by now, but the political ramifications of its bankruptcy are not. With many conservatives using Solyndra's $535 million federal loan guarantee as evidence to argue that the federal government stop funding renewable energy, and the mainstream media investigating what this means for the future of solar and other emerging energy technologies, right now is an excellent time for conservatives and liberals alike to air beliefs about energy, innovation, new technology, and the role of government in supporting all three. After Stephen began last week's debate with a stirring call to eliminate federal higher education subsidies, it's Matt's turn to lead off.

Posted by Matt, 12/19/11:

The easy answer to this week's question is that Solyndra's collapse means absolutely nothing. Actually I should clarify that - it should mean absolutely nothing.

Alas, therein lies the problem. Combine a rabidly conservative congressional majority desperate for any excuse to discredit the clean energy industry with an electorate that remains particularly sensitive to any perceived government waste, and you have a toxic political brew that threatens to seriously undermine the future growth of the renewable sector, one of the few industries currently adding jobs in a down economy.

The conservative take on Solyndra, and argument against renewable energy in general, is two-fold: number one, they argue, the government shouldn't be "picking winners and losers" through federal subsidies, loan guarantees, tax incentives, or any other sort of investment. The other argument, of course, is that it's a waste of money - and here's where Republicans have seized upon the $535 million in Department of Energy loan guarantees given to Solyndra to summon the righteous outrage of the anti-spending conservative grassroots.

More Solyndra after the jump...

Should Higher Education Be Free?

The first topic CONFLICT REVOLUTION will tackle is one relevant to every young person currently navigating their way through a competitive job market and economy: in a world where college is increasingly common (even necessary), what role should government play in subsidizing its high - and growing - cost? A remote coin toss has determined that Stephen gets to go first this week; Matt responds below.

Posted by Stephen, 12/8/11:

Should higher education be free? Well it would certainly be nice if it were. But that would require professors to stop demanding pay for their time (which would most likely make all but the most dedicated change their career path - as well as starving all those who foolishly do become professors); mandate that administrators do the same; ditto for all those who are the support staff at universities. Or we can ignore this ridiculous scenario and head to what our topic really means, since education does cost money, someone must pay. Thus our topic really becomes: Should the taxpayer subsidize higher education? Further, since subsidizing ALL higher education would be far too costly, let us focus on just subsidizing a segment of the population that I’m sure my leftist companion will define the"99%" or everyone minus "millionaires and billionaires” i.e.families making $250,000 or more.

One, it turns out that government subsidizes in education doesn’t do much to control cost, but I doubt there was any shocker there. In fact, government subsidies have done nothing more than to push prices up. As Virginia Postrel in Bloomberg Business Week writes:

It’s a phenomenon familiar to economists. If you offer people a subsidy to pursue some activity requiring an input that’s in more-or-less fixed supply, the price of that input goes up. Much of the value of the subsidy will go not to the intended recipients but to whoever owns the input.

Two, government intervention has spurred an industry of “for profit colleges” which charge high prices and provide low quality educations. These colleges target lower income demographics and look to pump them through the system with government debt. When they graduate, employment prospects are not much higher.

More on paying for college after the jump...