[anamax]

> In this case, they lost circa 400x the lifetime median income of a US worker.

Why is that relevant?

> It's hard to imagine the upside that would have justified that kind of risk.

Actually, it's easy to imagine such an upside. Consider 800x the lifetime median income of a US worker.

Solyndra lost far more of the US taxpayer's money. Are you really suggesting that Solyndra shouldn't have been considered because the amount of money was too large?

How about CA's high speed rail project? Are you really saying that it's a bad idea just because of the amount of money involved?

I'm not claiming that Solyndra or high-speed rail are good investments, I'm just them to demonstrate that the $500M at risk isn't a show stopper. You must consider the return.

There are lots of bets that are that large or larger. For example, every time a company sells for >$400M ....

[wpietri]

> Why is that relevant?

Because it means that there's no "we couldn't afford to do it right" excuse.

> Actually, it's easy to imagine such an upside. Consider 800x the lifetime median income of a US worker.

Double or nothing on a company that size is a stupid bet.

[anamax]

> Because it means that there's no "we couldn't afford to do it right" excuse.

No, 400x the average lifetime salary of a worker doesn't mean that.

> Double or nothing on a company that size is a stupid bet.

Wrong again. Double-or-nothing is often an extremely good bet. You're ignoring odds of each outcome.

Then again, you're just spewing soundbites and getting details right doesn't help with that.