11 ms·
"he seems deeply affected that others are so much against him, especially when they aren't playing fair" How exactly is Tesla playing fair? Did all car manufac
by qwanzi77 13y ago
"he seems deeply affected that others are so much against him, especially when they aren't playing fair"
How exactly is Tesla playing fair? Did all car manufacturers receive a $500 million loan to build electric cars or something?
- codeulike 13y agoAny of them could have, if they'd got their act together
- qwanzi77 13y agoNo, they couldn't. There are several small electric car startups that wouldn't have a chance in the world to get those types of loans.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- eightyone 13y agoI think his point is that government shouldn't pick winners and losers with taxpayer money.
- ankitml 13y agolooking at fairness in retrospect. Musk justified the loan. He built the damn thing, an (possibly) eco friendly, not dependent on fossil fuel car that people love. back in my country we have our own electric car company, which have been able to do the thing, but they havent been able to get people support. Musk was able to do that.
- eightyone 13y agoI'm not saying that Musk didn't build a hell of a car. He did. What I'm saying is that government shouldn't be using my tax dollars to give out loans to private companies on the off chance that they might be successful and be able to repay the loan. Plenty haven't been.
- qwanzi77 13y agoSo you should only give $500M loans to rich, well-connected, billionaires, right? Wow. There were quite several car manufacturers similar to Tesla's size before their large taxpayer-subsidized loan who didn't get those loans. I guess you must be a well-connected billionaire to qualify. I guess that counts as "fair" nowadays.
- danesparza 13y agoRemember the word 'loan' designates a debt instrument. It needs to be paid back. If you don't have the capital to secure the loan (and pay it back), no -- you shouldn't get the money.
- bob13579 13y agoFisker and Solyndra and several others couldn't pay back their loans. The government didn't arrest any of them and didn't take any of their personal assets. The debt was simply discharged.
- ngcazz 13y agoPlaying by the rules against incumbent manufacturers. edit: didn't Tesla repay a big federal loan a few weeks ago, many years before they had to? Good citizenship is fair.
- qwanzi77 13y agoIncumbent manufacturers have to go through dealers. Allowing Tesla to bypass dealers wouldn't be fair to other car manufacturers. "Tesla repay a big federal loan a few weeks ago, many years before they had to?" Why does this matter? They were given a large loan. That large loan gave them a large runway to have one profitable quarter, which allowed them to pay back the loan by issuing shares and bonds. Another car manufacturer couldn't do the same if you gave them $500M loans? Why should Tesla get it and not others?
- rainforest 13y agoFor my own benefit, do you have more information about the circumstances of Tesla's loan? Did they get a special deal, or were they just successful applicants to an open-to-all opportunity?
- cstross 13y agoWhy should incumbent manufacturers have to go through dealers? Why can't they sell direct to the end customers via the internet? Do the incantations "disintermediate all supply chains" and "disrupt all mature industries" suddenly lose all their magical HN mojo when confronted with the Kryptonite of the car industry?
- bob13579 13y agoThis is a different argument altogether. The original argument was about Tesla playing on an unfair playing field, which is demonstrably false. Other car manufacturers have to go through the same dealer network. Why should Tesla be allowed to sell directly when other car manufacturers can't?
- 13y ago
- wjk 13y agoDid all car manufacturers try to get a $500 million loan to build electric cars?
- qwanzi77 13y agoNo. And why should it matter? Tesla got the loan. Others didn't. How is that fair?
- hb1742 13y agoTo rephrase this: Did all students get A on the exam? Did all even try to learn to get good grade? No. And why should it matter. Ones who did put some effort into learning got the loan. Others didn't. OMG HOW IS THAT FAIR? Yup, unfair indeed, lol.
- eightyone 13y agoThere shouldn't even have been a loan in the first place. The government has no right to dole out taxpayer money in the form of loans to private companies.
- bob13579 13y agoHow exactly did Tesla earn an "A" up to that point? Every small electric car manufacturer was losing money left and right. Two smaller startups got the loan (Tesla and Fisker) to survive, while the others didn't (Bright Automotive, etc.). The ones that didn't get the loans went out of business. The one that got the other $500 million loan went out of business (Fisker). Only Tesla survived by having one tiny profitable quarter (which was a low single digit profitable quarter where they sold 3000 cars to rich people).
- Confusion 13y ago> How exactly did Tesla earn an "A" up to that point? Business plan, business model, customer research, advances already made, further along, ... There are dozens of possible reasons to loan $500M to Tesla, but not to another company. There are dozens of possible reasons why you would loan $1000 to one friend, but not to another. Someone else wouldn't know those reasons, but if the friend complained about you being unfair, you would be quite miffed if someone went on the internet complaining how unfair you were, based on treating two people differently, without considering that maybe these people actually are different. These companies may be alike in trying to sell an electric car. That does not make them comparable for the purposes of giving them a loan.
- waterlesscloud 13y agoGood point. Some, like Nissan, got a lot more.
- qwanzi77 13y agoHonda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, or smaller ones like Think, BYD, Tango, or Venturi? I could name many more. Where are their $500M+ loans to build their electric cars?
- shrikant 13y agoDid they ask, and/or meet the requirements? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Technology_Vehicles_Manufacturing_Loan_Program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Technology_Vehicles_Ma...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- qwanzi77 13y agoMany asked. Only few were given those loans. Why not give the money to research universities instead? Wouldn't that be a lot more fair? We could all exploit the research, instead of just a few well-connected billionaires and corporations with lots of resources.
- akandiah 13y ago> Many asked. Only few were given those loans. Why not give the money to research universities instead? You are not making any sense! First you ask why other car companies weren't given a loan, then you say that universities should have received the funding. Please, if you want to put forward your point, make sure you can argue it properly!
- norswap 13y agoI think the aim was to make electric cars a practical reality, and somehow I don't see academia do that.
- lazyjones 13y ago> Did all car manufacturers receive a $500 million loan to build electric cars or something? Did any other manufacturer build a car like the Tesla Roadster? Any medium to large manufacturer could have done that, noone did. So as a government I'd be wary about the true intentions of those industry players who didn't want to touch electric cars in the past decades, too.
- Confusion 13y agoWhy do you consider obtaining a loan an unfair advantage?
- LekkoscPiwa 13y agois it a Governmet loan? I mean like Government taking money from the competent people who know what they are doing, and giving it to ucompetent, hey here you have money so you can compete with competent guys using their money! I know that's the model in the US banking now. Didn't realize that it works for car manufacturers too.
- justin66 13y ago> s it a Governmet loan? I mean like Government taking money from the competent people who know what they are doing, and giving it to ucompetent, hey here you have money so you can compete with competent guys using their money! Your objection, when applied to the specifics, would seem to make Tesla "ucompetent" and folks like GM both competent and untainted by government support. This thinking has some problems.
- bob13579 13y agoBecause we're subsidizing inefficient actors already, that makes it okay to subsidize other actors? Why subsidize any of the inefficiency at all? Tesla is certainly not curbing carbon emissions. More efficient combustible engines however are doing that, despite the lack of subsidies.
- justin66 13y ago> Because we're subsidizing inefficient actors already, that makes it okay to subsidize other actors? I didn't say that, but I would note that talking about established industries which do not benefit from government intervention in some way is a bit like the dumbed down problems we used to get in high-school physics, where we could just ignore things like friction or inertia when it was convenient. In the real world, all our industries have a relationship with government. It's fair to say that you don't think a new entrant with a seemingly good idea should receive any subsidies like the DOE loans, but what you're really saying is that we won't level the playing field to neutralize the effect of subsidization of the existing players, and there will consequently be less competition. > More efficient combustible engines however are doing that, despite the lack of subsidies. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. The companies making those engines - American, German, Japanese, Korean, whatever - are subsidized and supported by their governments. The companies making the fuel are similarly entwined with government. It's not a comparison that should cause a libertarian-minded person to immediately want to pick on Tesla specifically, which is why this line of argument strikes me as so odd. > Tesla is certainly not curbing carbon emissions. Certainly. Yeah...
- ss6754 13y agoAre u serious??? have you forgotten how the government bailed out all the major car manufacturers? here is the link to remind http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/a/auto_bailout.htm http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/a/auto_bailout.h... tesla got only 500mln while others got BILLIONS
- bob13579 13y agoIt's okay to give them half a billion dollars in loans because others got billions? Why not be outraged at everyone involved? The industry is colossally inefficient.
- enraged_camel 13y agoInefficient when it comes to innovating, yes. In any industry dominated by powerful incumbents and where the startup capital costs are extremely high, you do need outside intervention (I.e. a subsidy in the form of a loan) to help newcomers.
- bob13579 13y agoSo any startup that competes in the pharmaceutical sector or biotechnology industry should be given hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded loans?
- enraged_camel 13y agoNot any startup. Only those who qualify for the stict conditions for the loan. Like Tesla did.
- ss6754 13y agoI am not outraged at anyone, except previous commenter. But to your point, yes it is okay to give them half a billion. I don't see why government should not have supported them. And as time has shown it was a right decision, since they have paid off that loan, which I think is incredible for an only electric cars company.
- joezydeco 13y agoMaybe he's referring to the resistance from states that mandate a dealer network and won't let him sell directly to the consumer?
- enraged_camel 13y agoThis is a complicated topic where your simple notion of "fairness" doesn't quite apply. In any industry where there are powerful incumbents and extremely high startup capital costs, the startups often need to be given outside assistance (i.e. government subsidy in the form of a loan) to have a chance of competing with their innovations. This is not ideal, but it is a necessary evil. Furthermore, the incumbents had plenty of chance to innovate. What many of them did instead was to go bankrupt and ask for bailouts. Tell me: would you trust these companies with another $500 million of taxpayer money? It's like giving more stipend to a child who has proven irresponsible with money.
- w_t_payne 13y ago.. The problem is that the economic "moats" around the incumbents are largely due to state intervention and protectionist policies anyway. How much protection does Detroit get from Washington? A lot. So, you have a bizarre situation where the "solution" to market dysfunction caused by government protectionist policy is ... wait for it .... more government protectionist policy. My goodness, this sounds like your tax dollars are being spent wisely .... Not. And all this from a country that trumpets free-market idealism like the rest of the world doesn't already get it. And practice it. And do a darn sight better at it (than the North-East at least).
- bob13579 13y ago"What many of them did instead was to go bankrupt and ask for bailouts." This is quite astonishing. A few large American car companies with large pension liabilities needed the subsidies (I would have let them failed and let more efficient car manufacturers take over their assets, personally). Every other large manufacturer didn't need subsidies. "Furthermore, the incumbents had plenty of chance to innovate." The combustible engine is more efficient than ever. We're getting many more miles per a gallon of gas than we ever had. The efficiency of the engine has done much, much, much more than electric vehicles to curb carbon emissions. Going forward, making the combustible engine and hybrids more efficient will do magnitudes more to curb carbon emissions than all-electric vehicles.
- 13y ago
- JPKab 13y agoHow is it fair that non-internal combustion transportation has to compete with ICE based companies whose fuel source is heavily subsidized by the U.S. government through military intervention in the Middle East? How much more would oil cost if the U.S. military wasn't propping up the Saudi monarchy and constantly patrolling the supply lines?
- tufyjggbfhry 13y agoWow, I cannot believe your comments along with other comments claiming that it is so that Tesla got a loan. All that negative energy in your comments. You must be really angry or jealous ar Ellon Musk. Thankfully trash like you do not get to decide what the rest of us can do.
- hjhhbbhbbb 13y agoYou are a loser, you know that right? Fu&&cking jealous loser. All that negative energy around you will keep you down forever.
- samolang 13y agoNo, but Fisker got $529 million, Ford got $5.9 BILLION, and Nissan got $1.4 BILLION. https://lpo.energy.gov/our-projects/ https://lpo.energy.gov/our-projects/
- hamburglar 13y agoAnd GM got a $49 billion TARP bailout. Not specifically for making alt-fuel vehicles; just because they were a failure. But we should all be really incensed about those tesla guys getting a loan. Which they repaid already. Because that's not fair.
- samolang 13y agoI am upset that the government is wasting my money like this. I don't think Tesla is being unfair by applying for and accepting the loan though. Tesla didn't tell Bush to tell the DOE to loan $25B to green automakers. They're merely taking advantage of the opportunities that are available.
- samolang 13y agoThat's like asking how is that poor, first generation Harvard student playing fair? Did all Harvard students get a scholarship? No, but a lot of the other kids had parents that went there so they got a leg up in the admission process and their parents are rich enough to pay for it. I find it difficult blaming Tesla for doing what it can to catch up in an industry where the established players have a huge advantage.
- codex 13y agoWell, Nissan took a ~$15B loan from the DoE to build an electric vehicle battery manufacturing facility in Tenesseee.
- snowwrestler 13y agoEvery auto company in the world has received substantial assistance from their national government. In the U.S., it's ludicrous to single out Tesla for special attention less than 5 years after both GM and Chrysler received bankruptcy bridge financing from the federal government.