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."
Heads up, IN THE MEME TYME just posted.
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 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.
Until then I’ll continue driving my 1996 F-250 with a smile on my carbon covered face.
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 guess Dagny's efforts weren't heroic then?
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.
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 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
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.
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.
Load more comments...