6 ms·

Did all car manufacturers try to get a $500 million loan to build electric cars?

by wjk 13y ago

qwanzi77 13y ago
No. And why should it matter? Tesla got the loan. Others didn't. How is that fair?
- hb1742 13y ago
  To 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 ago
    There 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 ago
    How 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.
      - bob13579 13y ago
        So the government is now a venture capitalist or investment bank and should be encouraged to pick winners and losers now? It's quite funny that these Tesla Roadsters are being bought by rich Americans, and being subsidized by average Americans, and yet there seems to be no outrage from those purportedly upset about inequality. The average American isn't benefiting by enriching billionaires and millionaires with their $100,000 roadsters.
        scythe 13y ago
        >So the government is now a venture capitalist or investment bank and should be encouraged to pick winners and losers now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employment,_Interest_and_Money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employmen... We've come a long way since the 1930s, haven't we? Yes, the government can do these things, and -gasp- it works, on a small scale, under certain conditions (economic depression). The "$500m subsidy" to Tesla costs taxpayers zero after being repaid -- but represents a loan from the median taxpayer of about, oh, I dunno, seventy-five cents.
        bob13579 13y ago
        The federal tax credit of $7,500, plus any state subsidies, for each Tesla sold doesn't ring a bell to you?
        scythe 13y ago
        I should perhaps note that that isn't a subsidy to Tesla: it applies to every electric car manufacturer. It's not relevant to the question, which is, "did Tesla succeed "unfairly" w.r.t. other makers?". It's also a red herring for your previous argument about inequality: "Both the Nissan Leaf electric vehicle and the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid, launched in December 2010, are eligible for the maximum $7,500 tax credit." -- these are cheap vehicles. But yes, now that you've successfully moved the goalpost, I might have to revise my estimate of seventy-five cents.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- hhabgood 13y ago
  WAIT I didn't get a loan to build an electric car, and I might have tried if someone gave me $500 million. HOW IS THAT FAIR?!?!?!?!?
- kybernetyk 13y ago
  > How is that fair? Life's not fair. Better you get used to it and take every advantage you can get. It's not like it was free money anyway. It still was a loan and had to be paid back. You're acting like the US government would have gifted that money to Tesla.
  - bob13579 13y ago
    How do you explain the $7,500 subsidy for each Tesla sold? Also, the government would have gifted them the money regardless of their ability to pay it back. Fisker couldn't pay back theirs, as did many other energy companies that went bankrupt. No one was arrested and no personal assets were taken.
    - RHSeeger 13y ago
      The same way I explain the $7,500 subsidy for each ANY all electric car sold; as the government trying to promote alternatives to ICE because (in theory) it's good for the planet and economy.
- scythe 13y ago
  Tesla qualified. Their application was reviewed by a board of People Who Know Things. I know this because my aunt, a respected physicist, sat on such a board. They're not throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks; they know what they're doing, and they're not picking winners and losers, they're playing the same game every investor plays: trying to decide who is going to win or lose before it happens. Tesla got the loan because they won it. Which is fair to the same degree as any other investment process. Unless, that is, you have some additional knowledge of corruption in the review process. Solyndra should have proven that the government cannot "pick winners and losers" even if it wants to -- as long as the government isn't the primary player in the market, which is unfair, but also isn't what happened with Tesla. Or GM, for that matter. As for dealerships, the reason Tesla doesn't have to go through them is because they don't have any preexisting agreements with the dealerships, in the same way that, for example, someone who agreed to take out a student loan has to pay that back, but someone who didn't go to college, or went to a cheaper school, doesn't have to. There's nothing unfair about that either. Sure, dealerships are a pain: let's drive them all out of business, please. I'll be first on board.
  - bob13579 13y ago
    "they know what they're doing, and they're not picking winners and losers, they're playing the same game every investor plays: trying to decide who is going to win or lose before it happens." The government should be in the venture capitalist business funding companies based on the recommendations of the board of People Who Know Things, now? "As for dealerships, the reason Tesla doesn't have to go through them is because they don't have any preexisting agreements with the dealerships." Other smaller car manufacturers are having to go through dealerships, even with zero pre-existing relationships. Why should Tesla, which has a market cap that far exceeds those aforementioned manufacturers, get special rules?
    - scythe 13y ago
      >Other smaller car manufacturers are having to go through dealerships, even with zero pre-existing relationships. Why should Tesla, which has a market cap that far exceeds those aforementioned manufacturers, get special rules? I don't believe you. Show me some evidence that they have to, and that they're not merely choosing to.

Did all car manufacturers try to get a $500 million loan to build electric cars?

by wjk 13y ago

Did all car manufacturers try to get a $500 million loan to build electric cars?

qwanzi77 13y ago

No. And why should it matter? Tesla got the loan. Others didn't. How is that fair?

hb1742 13y ago
To 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 ago
  There 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 ago
  How 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.
    - bob13579 13y ago
      So the government is now a venture capitalist or investment bank and should be encouraged to pick winners and losers now? It's quite funny that these Tesla Roadsters are being bought by rich Americans, and being subsidized by average Americans, and yet there seems to be no outrage from those purportedly upset about inequality. The average American isn't benefiting by enriching billionaires and millionaires with their $100,000 roadsters.
      - scythe 13y ago
        >So the government is now a venture capitalist or investment bank and should be encouraged to pick winners and losers now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employment,_Interest_and_Money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employmen... We've come a long way since the 1930s, haven't we? Yes, the government can do these things, and -gasp- it works, on a small scale, under certain conditions (economic depression). The "$500m subsidy" to Tesla costs taxpayers zero after being repaid -- but represents a loan from the median taxpayer of about, oh, I dunno, seventy-five cents.
        bob13579 13y ago
        The federal tax credit of $7,500, plus any state subsidies, for each Tesla sold doesn't ring a bell to you?
        scythe 13y ago
        I should perhaps note that that isn't a subsidy to Tesla: it applies to every electric car manufacturer. It's not relevant to the question, which is, "did Tesla succeed "unfairly" w.r.t. other makers?". It's also a red herring for your previous argument about inequality: "Both the Nissan Leaf electric vehicle and the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid, launched in December 2010, are eligible for the maximum $7,500 tax credit." -- these are cheap vehicles. But yes, now that you've successfully moved the goalpost, I might have to revise my estimate of seventy-five cents.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
hhabgood 13y ago
WAIT I didn't get a loan to build an electric car, and I might have tried if someone gave me $500 million. HOW IS THAT FAIR?!?!?!?!?
kybernetyk 13y ago
> How is that fair? Life's not fair. Better you get used to it and take every advantage you can get. It's not like it was free money anyway. It still was a loan and had to be paid back. You're acting like the US government would have gifted that money to Tesla.
- bob13579 13y ago
  How do you explain the $7,500 subsidy for each Tesla sold? Also, the government would have gifted them the money regardless of their ability to pay it back. Fisker couldn't pay back theirs, as did many other energy companies that went bankrupt. No one was arrested and no personal assets were taken.
  - RHSeeger 13y ago
    The same way I explain the $7,500 subsidy for each ANY all electric car sold; as the government trying to promote alternatives to ICE because (in theory) it's good for the planet and economy.
scythe 13y ago
Tesla qualified. Their application was reviewed by a board of People Who Know Things. I know this because my aunt, a respected physicist, sat on such a board. They're not throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks; they know what they're doing, and they're not picking winners and losers, they're playing the same game every investor plays: trying to decide who is going to win or lose before it happens. Tesla got the loan because they won it. Which is fair to the same degree as any other investment process. Unless, that is, you have some additional knowledge of corruption in the review process. Solyndra should have proven that the government cannot "pick winners and losers" even if it wants to -- as long as the government isn't the primary player in the market, which is unfair, but also isn't what happened with Tesla. Or GM, for that matter. As for dealerships, the reason Tesla doesn't have to go through them is because they don't have any preexisting agreements with the dealerships, in the same way that, for example, someone who agreed to take out a student loan has to pay that back, but someone who didn't go to college, or went to a cheaper school, doesn't have to. There's nothing unfair about that either. Sure, dealerships are a pain: let's drive them all out of business, please. I'll be first on board.
- bob13579 13y ago
  "they know what they're doing, and they're not picking winners and losers, they're playing the same game every investor plays: trying to decide who is going to win or lose before it happens." The government should be in the venture capitalist business funding companies based on the recommendations of the board of People Who Know Things, now? "As for dealerships, the reason Tesla doesn't have to go through them is because they don't have any preexisting agreements with the dealerships." Other smaller car manufacturers are having to go through dealerships, even with zero pre-existing relationships. Why should Tesla, which has a market cap that far exceeds those aforementioned manufacturers, get special rules?
  - scythe 13y ago
    >Other smaller car manufacturers are having to go through dealerships, even with zero pre-existing relationships. Why should Tesla, which has a market cap that far exceeds those aforementioned manufacturers, get special rules? I don't believe you. Show me some evidence that they have to, and that they're not merely choosing to.