Henry Ford vs. Elon Musk
Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 7 months ago to Politics
Excerpt:
"Henry Ford was the antithesis of Elon Musk. The latter uses government to force people into cars that are more expensive and less practical, thereby diminishing personal mobility. The former designed and built a car that cost less (each successive model year) and was far more versatile and practical than a horse and buggy, that freed people from being largely stuck where they were.
Ford did not use the power of the government to compel his rivals to subsidize his operations, as Musk has done (via the selling of what are styled “carbon credits” to other car companies, who are under regulatory duress to either build a certain number of EeeeeeeeeVeeeeees or buy “credit” – from Elon – for having built them).
The Model T was the antithesis of Tesla’s cars. The latter are designed to be very high-performance and for that reason very consumptive, of both power and raw materials. They are not designed for longevity or owner-serviceability. They are operationally fragile in that extreme conditions – as of high heat and extreme cold – greatly diminish their functionality.
The Model T was specifically designed to be as simple and practical as possible. It had no fuel or water pump. It did not even need a small starter battery in order to run as the engine was designed to be turned over by hand and – once running – magnetos kept it running."
"Henry Ford was the antithesis of Elon Musk. The latter uses government to force people into cars that are more expensive and less practical, thereby diminishing personal mobility. The former designed and built a car that cost less (each successive model year) and was far more versatile and practical than a horse and buggy, that freed people from being largely stuck where they were.
Ford did not use the power of the government to compel his rivals to subsidize his operations, as Musk has done (via the selling of what are styled “carbon credits” to other car companies, who are under regulatory duress to either build a certain number of EeeeeeeeeVeeeeees or buy “credit” – from Elon – for having built them).
The Model T was the antithesis of Tesla’s cars. The latter are designed to be very high-performance and for that reason very consumptive, of both power and raw materials. They are not designed for longevity or owner-serviceability. They are operationally fragile in that extreme conditions – as of high heat and extreme cold – greatly diminish their functionality.
The Model T was specifically designed to be as simple and practical as possible. It had no fuel or water pump. It did not even need a small starter battery in order to run as the engine was designed to be turned over by hand and – once running – magnetos kept it running."
no idea what Musk pays his people
His story changed my perception of him.
The lefties will have to bury me in it.
They all look alike now days...most are downright evil looking. Cars had their own friendly personalities back in the day but these days, they are the sheep that the sheeple drive.
Heads up, IN THE MEME TYME just posted.
to be replaced by the false heroes of sports and movies
My son has a Tesla S. He loves it even with its fuel charging shortcomings. It's pretty cool, I must add.
Also, since NASA is no longer much of an efficient player in space delivery systems, Musk has filled the gap with Space X and is doing so at costs MUCH less than NASA. American is again competing with China, Russia and Germany in space delivery. And this is not because of NASA, but because of private endeavors.. SpaceX and Tesla are employing thousands of people. I assume at competitive labor rates.
However I still have hope. It may take a very bloody revolution but I believe that it will happen.
EVs will not happen with the overall engineering they have now. For them to be widely used, some on the go recharging must be engineered.
He is OWNING the AI that will automate driving.
He will license that, and let car makers make the cars. The profit is in the Technology.
He will work with the government to create AI licensing/testing/validation.
He is collecting and using YOUR cars data to build a master database to train the AIs.
Right now, they can train an AI with over 2 Million HOURS of driving from REAL WORLD situations, and that is growing DAILY. Every Accident will be learned from, studied, and trained into the AI.
At 2-3% density of AI Driven Vehicles. AIs will have everything they need to become near-perfect drivers.
The vehicle is a data collection device, sold to rich people (because it turns out that NOBODY expects EXPENSIVE stuff to work without Hiccups. Ask any BMW owner if they would want to own one that is NOT under warranty! I did. I was surprised EVERYONE who drives newer BMWs said Basically... "Heck No! I'd switch brands first! But under Warranty, they fix everything!"
Eye on the ball... The other side to this data... And the level of control...
Imagine an Amber Alert. (Of course, turned of for Pelosi's Hubby)... They identify the car, the road, the direction, the timing, and they get 2,000 INTERNAL video feeds of the passengers, and quickly DISABLE the vehicle.
Of course, it will work more like Golden Eye, or some such, and be aimed at innocent people with Trumped up Charges...
But this is their Utopia they are building...
And we are funding it!
lying about climate
and using government force
are the issues
Until then I’ll continue driving my 1996 F-250 with a smile on my carbon covered face.
https://youtu.be/14dnrYyTLw4
If you think Ford never made deals with politicians, then go learn the facts.
If you think Teslas don't last, learn the facts.
If you think that by our standard the Model T was a very reliable or easy to drive car, learn the facts.
Federal subsidies on cars sold through 2019 $3.4 billion
Covid federal support subsidies $600 million
Federal Regulatory credits $5 billion
State and local subsidies $2.1 billion
Tesla and SpaceX would have been bankrupt without federal subsidies and timely contracts.
Many other companies' managements are just as guilty of feeding at the unconstitutional federal trough as Musk.
Tesla benefited from the same electric car subsidies as other companies. But when Tesla no longer qualified for the subsidies, they still far outsold their competitor who still got the subsidy, and Tesla delivered over 50% per year growth despite being at a massive subsidy disadvantage.
Tesla benefits from Carbon pollution trading credits, which other companies buy from Tesla, but that has never been essential to their business model.
Elon Musk is on record as opposed to subsidies. He actually comes off as more libertarian than the vast majority of CEOS.
I suppose you will refuse to take Social Security (or perhaps you already do refuse to take it). And I suppose that you refused to deduct interest payments from your taxes. After all, how dare you suck from the government teat!
Ayn Rand said that, in a welfare state, it's not wrong to take the subsidies that your taxes pay for, as long as you don't endorse them. Tesla's actually been pretty good on this score.
Tesla's sales of carbon credits far exceeds Tesla's net "profits".
Without them and the other government subsidies Tesla would have been bankrupt. (Musk admitted this.)
"Participants" are forced to pay into social security. The payments from social security are a return of the
money previously taken by force, not a subsidy to support a business for profit. (That is why Rand
accepted them and made her statement. She was not referring to a business that had not paid any
taxes like Tesla.) Your comparison makes no sense except to excuse Musk and others from feeding
on the rest of the public.
So if Musk says he hates subsidies, his actions in taking subsidies (that are theft from other people
without their consent) should not be held against him. That makes subsidies just fine according to your ethics.
According to your ethics, Musk's thefts are no worse than other looters,
and that makes those thefts just fine with you.
I don't agree.
Tesla's profits have far exceeded carbon credits for quite a while now. Even when carbon credits were the margin, it just didn't matter. It was Tesla's trajectory investors were buying, not a few cents per share of GAAP profits in any quarter.
Again, the carbon credits have never mattered for Tesla's business model, and without any per-unit subsidies (as in all 2022) their margins per car far exceed carbon credits per car.
Why investors buy Tesla shares is not relevant to the discussion. Neither is social security.
Tesla has received more than $11 billion in subsidies and that amount increases with every day.
He say's he hates subsidies and takes all he can get. What ethics! What a hypocrite!
Musk's actions in that respect are those of a thief and looter.
If Musk hadn't received those subsidies Tesla would not exist.
You can't blame a company for taking what they didn't lobby for. They have a duty to maximize profits.
You may keep up your Musk hate all you like.
One thing about Ford, though: the creation of the Model T happened when the US was much more free-market than it is now, at least in the ways that were relevant to Ford. So you are comparing companies in quite different legal and cultural contexts.
I don't hate Musk.
I admire his early successes.
I don't approve of his looting.
I agree the market is not as free, but Musk could have built his car company without looting.
They made the decision to take federal subsidies.
Would Hank Rearden have done that? No.
James Taggart? Yes.
I guess Dagny's efforts weren't heroic then?
Dagny didn't seek out the government funds, and Taggart wasn't built using government assistance. Dagny's character and ethics are displayed primarily in building the John Galt Line.
Musk's early success didn't result from government assistance, but he turned to the dark side with Tesla voluntarily taking looter funding like the 2nd-handers in AS.
I am an Objectivist, but there are way too many libertarian purists in the world who blame anyone who succeeds in our mixed economy. Please look at essentials.
There are lots of successful businesses that do not take government loot and succeed.
Because there are lots of white collar thieves and looters does not make the action ethical.
You appear to be saying that everyone should sacrifice their principles and feed from the federal trough (which is theft from others) because looting exists.
Is this an example of Objectivist principle ?
Musk admitted Tesla nearly failed even with all the government assistance they received.
You claim the business model never depended on government assistance (aka looting), but he did take the loot and Tesla still almost failed.
Tesla adjusted their vehicle pricing higher when government rebates were available, and lower when the government assistance expired.
That is hardly an example of the business model not being dependent. Actual business actions provide evidence of dependence.
You say the business model doesn't depend on assistance to succeed. That's easy to say but the facts don't support that.
If you have a rational financial analysis to support that assumption, please provide it.
I think the government wanted to drag evryone down into the mire of a great reset, the car mfrs wanted aomething new and "cool" to get people to buy ever more expensive new cars, and no one cared to actually think about what a transition would look like.
The last thing I want is an electric car for at least 5-10 years. I can foresee that they will cost upwards of 100K and electricity will cost 2-3 times as much as it does not after this great reset