Political Posturing - Case Study Example

?Although there are a litany of laws which govern the means by which business can be conducted within the United s, and elsewhere throughout theworld for that matter, any time that a private business entity takes loans or receives funding from the federal government, a necessarily higher level of oversight and law governs the means by which such an entity can operate. The situation with Solyndra is one that is highly complex and nuanced by political posturing. However, regardless of the level of political posturing that is currently taking place with regards to this failed entity, the reality of the fact is that the former firm and its decision-makers/executives are facing a litany of different charges based upon the accusation that the firm itself misrepresented its finances as a means of accruing a higher level of funding and loan guarantees from the federal government. However, the legal ramifications that surround Solyndra are not specifically contingent upon the firm itself. What is meant by this is the fact that there is also an investigation with regards to the level of collusion that took place within the higher levels of Pres. Obama’s administration with regards to whether or not the level of malfeasance on the part of the government was affected. Although seeking to determine the political aspects that are involved in the ongoing investigation would necessarily require a much different scope of research, this particular analysis will seek to be solely neutral and concentric upon perceived and possible violations of law that have taken place as well as seeking to explain these to the reader. Finally, as a means of analyzing the Solyndra debacle within the terms of economic thought, this particular analysis will consider the words and philosophy of Milton Friedman. With regards to the first potential law that could very well apply to the Solyndra collapse and actions preceding this, the reader can and should understand that unlawful and unethical accounting practices have been evidenced within businesses and corporate entities for as long as government has been in existence. Such unethical and illegal accounting practices have been the cause for the collapse of such corporations as Enron and Lehman Brothers. Ultimately, the desire to engage in such a process is born out of two distinct factors (Antle, 2012). The first of these is with regards to representing an unfavorable economic situation as a favorable or neutral one. Similarly, the secondary reason for engaging in such an unethical and illegal practice is due to a hope that by affecting such a slight of hand, the firm will be able to turn around its fortunes and proved to be profitable in the very near future. Accordingly, individuals within the decision-making structure of Solyndra are accused by the federal government of accounting fraud due to the fact that federal prosecutors believe they misrepresented key profitability and earnings data as a means of securing further federal aid and loans. Although it is not the purpose of this particular analysis to seek to judge Solyndra based upon the accusations which have been elaborated upon bus far in the analysis, it can and should be inferred that although these charges are distinct and severe, it is not unheard of within the corporate world to engage in such practices as have been defined. This does not make them better in any way shape or form; however, this is said to present an overall level of understanding within the mind of the reader that such an unethical and unlawful set of actions falls well within perceivable and expected outcomes that such a firm might have engaged in. If indeed such accusations are true, and ethical framework which could have helped Solyndra to steer clear of such a disastrous course of action would necessarily have been with regards to refusing any further loans based upon faulty or incomplete information. Ultimately, if the information is true, the stakeholders within the very upper reaches of management for the firm was keenly aware of the process they were engaging in and chose to take the unethical and unlawful path in the hopes that it can somehow yield a positive result within the near future. It should be noted that although coming down hard on Solyndra is an easy option for the analyst, the same level of unethical personal decisions ultimately translated to unethical corporate decisions within the firm (Herrick & Elias, 2011). What is meant by this is the fact that each and every day within the private economic life of millions of Americans, choices are made based upon financial margins. Although operating at the margin is a distinct economic term that is understood and appreciated by many entities within the corporate world, when and acted within both personal and corporate actions, this particular traits encourages a level of panicked and “last resort” decision-making. Although it is true that a higher level of profitability within the corporate world can be engaged by operating at the margins, the ultimate threat that this entails is with regards to the fact that the corporate entity is oftentimes faced with make or break decisions that ultimately make the temptation for unethical behavior extraordinarily tempting. Another particular law that was possibly broken with regards to the Solyndra debacle is with respect to whether or not the government, specifically the Obama administration, had any part in the legally promoting and lobbying elements of the Department of Energy with regards to providing these lucrative loans that kept the company afloat for as long as it was (Grunwald, 2012). Whereas it is understandable and expected that the Obama administration would be keen on furthering domestic jobs and promoting an industry that sought to help the United States achieve at least a certain degree of energy independence, it is not allowable under any of the laws of governance that any particular administration, political candidate, or branch of government can or should be allowed to lobby or interfere with the process of monetary allocation under the terms and conditions of the separation of powers and the means by which commerce is supported and defined under the United States government (Scherer, 2011). Again, although the Obama administration would not be the first presidential administration that would find itself in hot water over providing a degree of support and possibly illegal/preferential lobbying on behalf of the specific private business entity, the scope of this illegality is compounded due to the massive amount of taxpayer funding that is tied up with regards to the bankruptcy that ultimately resulted (Keegan, 2011). However, the analyst should be aware of the fact that the level of lobbying and potential illegal support that Solyndra received from the Obama administration is not limited to the dispersal of the original loan amount specifically. Rather, it is also concentric upon the delay of payments and renegotiated loan terms that took place. Whereas many private entities regularly receive a level of government funding and/or loans, Solyndra was unique due to the fact that it was one of only a handful of companies that was able to renegotiate its loan terms and conditions without necessarily defaulting and/or going into bankruptcy protection (Lesser, 2011). Within such an understanding, it is easy for the reader to understand why seeking to define the ultimate level of government collusion and/or malfeasance with regards this particular issue is of the utmost importance. One of the most staunch defenders of the free market system of economics is necessarily the modern day economic philosopher Milton Friedman. Whereas many economists within the past several decades have sought to integrate an understanding of the current world based upon a nuanced and oftentimes neutral approach as to whether or not specific degrees of socialism should be included within the economic structure of the business world, Milton Friedman has maintained the belief that socialism in all of its forms is ultimately harmful and disruptive to the free market. Within such an understanding and context, the analyst and seek to appreciate the fact that Milton Friedman would necessarily be wholly and entirely against any government sponsorship or direct interference such as has taken place with Solyndra. As a means of helping the reader to gain a more full and complete view of specifically how Freidman views government interference within the private sector, one can consider the following quote by Milton Friedman: I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned "merely" with profit but also with promoting desirable "social" ends; that business has a "social conscience" and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are--or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously--preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades” (Macleod, 2007). Within such a quote, the reader is engaged with an understanding that Friedman ultimately sees any form of government interference within the private sector as wholly and completely unjustified. Moreover, Friedman appears to put forward the understanding that few stakeholders that society, or the government for that matter, should ultimately be surprised that the firm sought to engage in an unethical approach as a means of leveraging any and all possibilities to continue to derive profitability. Due to the fact that the almighty dollar defines the way in which businesses operate, Friedman presents the reader with something of a jaded interpretation of how business ethics and socialism combined to create a type of perfect storm. From the analysis that has been presented, the reader can and should come to an appreciation for the fact that the decisions that Solyndra is accused to have engaged upon are both ethical and legal in nature. Moreover, from the interpretation that Milton Friedman has provided, it can be understood that business and the government sector oftentimes have a negative influence upon one another; encouraging a degree of activities and oversights that would not typically take place within a world that would otherwise be wholly defined and constrained by the free market. However, regardless of the understandings that have herein been presented, it is the understanding of this particular author that the ethical oversights and possible illegalities that have been discussed are merely indicative of the risks and dangers of government involvement within the private sector and are not indicative of the path in which any and all government interference within he private sector must necessarily take. References Antle III, W. (2012). Solyndra Nation. (Cover story). American Spectator, 45(3), 14-18. GRUNWALD, M. (2012). Yes, More Solyndras. Time, 180(8), B4. HERRICK, J. A., & ELIAS, C. S. (2011). FEDERAL INCENTIVES FOR CLEAN ENERGY AFTER SOLYNDRA: A POST-RECOVERY ACT PRECIPICE. North Dakota Law Review, 87(4), 625-690. Keegan, P. (2011). What's Behind the Solar Scandal?. Fortune, 164(6), 34-36. Lesser, J. A. (2011). Sunburnt: Solyndra, Subsidies, and the Green Jobs Debacle. Natural Gas & Electricity, 28(4), 30-32. Macleod, A. M. (2007). INVISIBLE HAND ARGUMENTS: MILTON FRIEDMAN AND ADAM SMITH. Journal Of Scottish Philosophy, 5(2), 103-117. Scherer, M. (2011). The Solyndra Syndrome. Time, 178(14), 42-45. Read More