This is what happens when government gives a "visionary" company subsidies and tax breaks in return for promises of job growth and revenue.
All Comments
2
Posted by $jdg 7 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
SpaceX's biggest problem is that even with NASA relatively dormant, both ESA/Arianespace and Russia are offering subsidized satellite launches. If private space operators can't charge enough to cover their costs, they can't operate and effectively get re-nationalized. That's what's happening here.
Posted by $jdg 7 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
First, Tesla is a milk-the-taxpayers company first and a technology company only second. If Musk had to raise all his capital privately, he might still be in business, but not nearly as big as he is. In effect he is buying on margin with the taxpayers being forced to buy his bonds.
Second, while the idea of EVs is not evil, building them now (as production models, not just prototypes) is waste to the point of idiocy -- because if you consider their entire life cycle including manufacturing, no EV has yet achieved either energy or money break-even. What's more, the cheapest Tesla, even after the subsidy, costs over $60k. We should not be subsidizing anybody who is in a position to spend $60k for a car.
Third, subsidies and utilities with controlled prices are evil, and using the excuse that "the neighbors did it too" is pathetic. And trade imbalances don't matter. If there aren't enough jobs in the US it's not foreigners' fault; it's because the US is taxing and regulating job creators to death. To fix it we've either got to make them stop, or go off-the-books and defy them.
You didn't read the post clearly, the airlines don't get any 'subsidies' (that I am aware of), in order to get an FAA commercial passenger license and permit to operate, they have to meet various requirements - such as saturation of service.
Those rural people put food on your plate without it costing you $100 for an ear of corn on the cob. I would recommend you treat them with more respect, considering they also put conservatives in office, because if you live in the urban centers that you seem to think are the only elitists deserving of convenient access to air travel, you would certainly be in shackles by now with the types they would elect if unchecked.
And what the fuck is up with accusing me of having any "connection" or whatever. I don't, I just happen to be very well-read. I do the research, unlike most here, which blindly parrot some quotes out of Atlas Shrugged and assume it as fact.
The fact that he (the airline owner) didn't invent the subsidies is irrelevant to the fact that I should not have to subsidize his failing idea. As far as mandating that transportation should be available for a congressman it should not. If he doesn't like driving for four hours to get to an airport. . . .Move! Any business that hooks up with the government to survive and might fail if it had to succeed on its own is a business that should fail. The fact that it is difficult and requires work to accomplish the feat does not indicate a need or that the government should even be purchasing those services. Eliminate the bureaucracies and you will eliminate 70% of the "needs" of the government. If an airport needs to be subsidized so the people in a small rural area can have access then they need to accept the choice they made and not steal money from me to make their life more convenient. Since the system is corrupt any connection to it is corrupt just because you didn't bribe someone to get the contract does not indicate that the contract was necessary.
Let's see if I got this right. You disparage Fox and Blaze and then try to weave a story that seems to allude if the taxpayer or someone else doesn't subsidize solar or Tesla, then Lake Erie suffers a risk of catching fire again. Uh-huh. Also, I'd love to have a wind turbine put up on my property to satisfy all my energy needs. Except I would only need to get you to pay for it and then I'd be good to go.
If we had a limited government, subsidies would not be needed. People would have more money to invest in these ideas. The people that believe in a product would subsidies them. The ones that don't wouldn't be forced to pay for thing they don't want to. This would be a true, Free Market.
People keep thinking this is complex... Electric cars are the most basic of any automobile, they have like 1/10 of the moving parts. Every diesel locomotive is an electric vehicle, the diesel only turns a generator that charges a battery that turns the electric motors.
The only challenge Nikola has to deal with is the hydrogen distribution, but they are doing it the right way, with 1500 mile ranges, the distribution gets pretty easy because you don't need one on every street corner. Especially if you can ultimately plug the thing in and get a 100 miles down the road after a few hours of charging, I suspect they will do fine. Electric motors have gobs of torque and towing power compared to gas or diesel, it's not even a close horse race.
I agree the big rig companies/drivers should be interested if the Nikola rigs deliver. So when is Musk paying back the loot to the taxpayers? Has GM paid back their bailout yet? ;^)
Energy and Infrastructure is really hard, investors are always wary of returns, it takes longer to develop new oil reserves than 2 or 3 business cycles will last.
Public money has unfortunately always been ears-deep in this stuff.
To answer your question about Tesla - Actually, I think they would do ok without the subsidies, they don't have any problem raising capital and it would really only force them to license some intellectual property. I understand Elon's disinterest in doing that, because they are so far ahead than other car companies -not only on the EV thing, but on battery technology, self-driving, the "summon" thing that pulls the car out of the garage or valet on it's own, etc.
Ask ourselves how many tractor-trailer drivers are going to stick with $3.00 / gallon diesel fuel, and probably $200k a year in fuel expenses, versus switching to Nikola fuel-cells with 3x more torque, double the towing capacity, and keeping up with 65 mph traffic on steep grades instead of driving 25 mph for hours. My guess is, quite a few of them will. Tesla is way ahead on batteries, and Nikola (the truck guys) are going to buy their batteries from Tesla. The Fuel Cells are great for long duration, but they still need a big battery as a capacitor to moderate the output. Between the two, that's about a 1500 mile range on 10 cent a gallon hydrogen.
How many vehicles on the road are big rigs? Quite a few of them actually... and most of them are pretty old. $200k in fuel savings equals a lot of room to finance a replacement with.
Well, there's that. I bought a two-bedroom condo in San Francisco in 1991 for $137,000 -- ground floor, no parking, no yard -- and in 2002 I moved to Idaho and bought a two-bedroom, one bath house with an acre of land, chicken house, barn, outbuildings, irrigation, garden, fruit trees, for the same price.
ME:"The thing I respect is the free market, no subsidies to anyone." YOU respond:"because you don't have a choice with the others, those are ok to not criticize as well" Your conclusion has no basis in anything I have written. You want to discuss Chevy and GM feeding at the trough, start a thread and post some links to supporting data. GM has been at the trough feeding right alongside Musk at the taxpayers expense. GM was roasted for their bailout and Musk gets a pass ? Rubbish.
To be honest, coming from one of the (now) highest-priced areas of California (after 20 years in the same house), I won't be terribly price sensitive. It was pretty pricey here when I bought long ago, but it's gone rather stratospheric over the 20 years I have lived here. I probably won't have a mortgage on the house here when we sell it.
So, because you don't have a choice with the others, those are ok to not criticize as well?
Incidentally, Chevrolet has sold far more Chevy Volts than Tesla has sold - almost more annually than the total Musk has sold in several years of Model S production. Chevy gets the same $7500 tax credit. Just saying.
I'm not "falling" for any narrative. The thing I respect is the free market, no subsidies to anyone. Musk is a looter. I won't support him since I do have a choice.
I like Coeur d'Alene, just don't see a lot of property options, I need a couple of acres, motorhome type garage, ideally backed up to some hunting land or at least some rifle target shooting.
Seems like Boise and CDA had more of the subdivision stuff. I'm open to suggestions, spent a couple of days in Boise and Mountain Home as well, just like all the valleys around Pocatello. Sun Valley seemed very lefty.
I happen to agree, but it's not a level playing field unless the gigantic subsidies to oil companies and other car companies are ended at the same time.. Ever happen to notice that GSA recycles their fleet when the car manufacturers are a little soft on sales? What about Hummer selling a very basic truck to a consumer for $100k that the taxpayers paid for the R and D and manufacturing of. The taxpayers spent billions on shit Relient K cars from Chrysler in the 80s to save the company.
The system existed long before Elon Musk came along, he's just very good at pulling every lever.
You are just kind of falling for the wrong narrative. Teslas are not built with United Auto Worker labor, soo.... Sure they got a dilapidated plant in the Bay Area from Toyota/GM for cheap, but they were never going to make $15k Matrix minivans there again where the cost of living demanded at least $80k a year per worker. It was home plate for Tesla, Pontiac went bye-bye and Toyota didn't care - just moved to a cheaper state. Tesla taking it over meant no hazmat for the taxpayers to clean up.
Don't know what the Fox or Blaze narrative is or if it has any relevance. I favor free markets and individual liberty. Musk and his looting is the topic of discussion. His looting is not defensible because others do the same.
All of the Idaho cities are starting to turn blue, or at least bluish, as they grow, though. Be warned. I expect you'll find people more like what you're looking for in Coeur d'Alene.
Your entire argument continues to be that it's fine to sidle up to the trough because others are doing the same. I do not agree. So by your reasoning, Tesla is great for taking from the taxpayers and so are all the other looters. It's just a hidden cost to all the customers because customers might not continue to use the same amount (or buy the car) if they could see the real price of what they are buying. Better not let them know, and government can act as the conduit for the cost, after taking out their sizable graft. I'd rather see Tesla compete in the free market without stealing from the taxpayers to line his pockets.
We love Pocatello, go there quite often. Have also spent some time in Bear Lake, but I can't picture actually "living" in Bear Lake. I like to elk hunt, and we want to spend some summers in Alaska with the RV, maybe go a little further south in summers, Pocatello is kind of ideal for both.
Better political climate than I have been trapped in as well for the last 20 years... California used to be rather politically conservative, and if you look at it on a map, 90% of it is very, very deep red. We just can't overcome the lefties in LA, Sacramento, and San Francisco though.
Second, while the idea of EVs is not evil, building them now (as production models, not just prototypes) is waste to the point of idiocy -- because if you consider their entire life cycle including manufacturing, no EV has yet achieved either energy or money break-even. What's more, the cheapest Tesla, even after the subsidy, costs over $60k. We should not be subsidizing anybody who is in a position to spend $60k for a car.
Third, subsidies and utilities with controlled prices are evil, and using the excuse that "the neighbors did it too" is pathetic. And trade imbalances don't matter. If there aren't enough jobs in the US it's not foreigners' fault; it's because the US is taxing and regulating job creators to death. To fix it we've either got to make them stop, or go off-the-books and defy them.
Those rural people put food on your plate without it costing you $100 for an ear of corn on the cob. I would recommend you treat them with more respect, considering they also put conservatives in office, because if you live in the urban centers that you seem to think are the only elitists deserving of convenient access to air travel, you would certainly be in shackles by now with the types they would elect if unchecked.
And what the fuck is up with accusing me of having any "connection" or whatever. I don't, I just happen to be very well-read. I do the research, unlike most here, which blindly parrot some quotes out of Atlas Shrugged and assume it as fact.
The only challenge Nikola has to deal with is the hydrogen distribution, but they are doing it the right way, with 1500 mile ranges, the distribution gets pretty easy because you don't need one on every street corner. Especially if you can ultimately plug the thing in and get a 100 miles down the road after a few hours of charging, I suspect they will do fine. Electric motors have gobs of torque and towing power compared to gas or diesel, it's not even a close horse race.
So when is Musk paying back the loot to the taxpayers?
Has GM paid back their bailout yet? ;^)
Energy and Infrastructure is really hard, investors are always wary of returns, it takes longer to develop new oil reserves than 2 or 3 business cycles will last.
Public money has unfortunately always been ears-deep in this stuff.
To answer your question about Tesla - Actually, I think they would do ok without the subsidies, they don't have any problem raising capital and it would really only force them to license some intellectual property. I understand Elon's disinterest in doing that, because they are so far ahead than other car companies -not only on the EV thing, but on battery technology, self-driving, the "summon" thing that pulls the car out of the garage or valet on it's own, etc.
Ask ourselves how many tractor-trailer drivers are going to stick with $3.00 / gallon diesel fuel, and probably $200k a year in fuel expenses, versus switching to Nikola fuel-cells with 3x more torque, double the towing capacity, and keeping up with 65 mph traffic on steep grades instead of driving 25 mph for hours. My guess is, quite a few of them will. Tesla is way ahead on batteries, and Nikola (the truck guys) are going to buy their batteries from Tesla. The Fuel Cells are great for long duration, but they still need a big battery as a capacitor to moderate the output. Between the two, that's about a 1500 mile range on 10 cent a gallon hydrogen.
How many vehicles on the road are big rigs? Quite a few of them actually... and most of them are pretty old. $200k in fuel savings equals a lot of room to finance a replacement with.
YOU respond:"because you don't have a choice with the others, those are ok to not criticize as well"
Your conclusion has no basis in anything I have written. You want to discuss Chevy and GM feeding at the trough, start a thread and post some links to supporting data. GM has been at the trough feeding right alongside Musk at the taxpayers expense. GM was roasted for their bailout and Musk gets a pass ? Rubbish.
Incidentally, Chevrolet has sold far more Chevy Volts than Tesla has sold - almost more annually than the total Musk has sold in several years of Model S production. Chevy gets the same $7500 tax credit. Just saying.
Seems like Boise and CDA had more of the subdivision stuff. I'm open to suggestions, spent a couple of days in Boise and Mountain Home as well, just like all the valleys around Pocatello. Sun Valley seemed very lefty.
Glenn Beck has always had some less-than-baked opinions.
The system existed long before Elon Musk came along, he's just very good at pulling every lever.
You are just kind of falling for the wrong narrative. Teslas are not built with United Auto Worker labor, soo....
Sure they got a dilapidated plant in the Bay Area from Toyota/GM for cheap, but they were never going to make $15k Matrix minivans there again where the cost of living demanded at least $80k a year per worker. It was home plate for Tesla, Pontiac went bye-bye and Toyota didn't care - just moved to a cheaper state. Tesla taking it over meant no hazmat for the taxpayers to clean up.
I favor free markets and individual liberty. Musk and his looting is the topic of discussion. His looting is not defensible because others do the same.
So by your reasoning, Tesla is great for taking from the taxpayers and so are all the other looters. It's just a hidden cost to all the customers because customers might not continue to use the same amount (or buy the car) if they could see the real price of what they are buying. Better not let them know, and government can act as the conduit for the cost, after taking out their sizable graft.
I'd rather see Tesla compete in the free market without stealing from the taxpayers to line his pockets.
Better political climate than I have been trapped in as well for the last 20 years... California used to be rather politically conservative, and if you look at it on a map, 90% of it is very, very deep red. We just can't overcome the lefties in LA, Sacramento, and San Francisco though.
Load more comments...