[Built4Sin]

The hate is strong in this thread.

It seems like a lot of you possibly just scrape headlines and then build unsupported theories about Tesla.

It's ok, in a decade you'll have forgotten how much you hate them, when that technology starts to permeate into the rest of the auto world.

Matter of fact, I bet you'll retell the story about how you where the only forward thinking guy on your block that could see how Tesla was making the right moves!

 

[Built4Sin]

Maybe you guys have forgotten how industry works. There is inherently a lot of government subsidy in everything fuel wise. Ethanol anyone? Great idea to subsidize a fuel made from corn... Of which comes from nutrients in soil that we already globally have a depleting problem with.

As for the talk about powering the cars nationally off a dirty grid. Well that can change if we're able to get back to nuclear and change over to that carrying the base load. From there you can add in the other renewable options to your hearts desire.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8937984
(Skip over the talk of Cruz)

Fact is that while your cutting down Tesla for taking handouts you seem to be forgetting what saved GM a few years ago to the tune of 50 billion.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA3T0MR20140430

Tesla, SpaceX, and solar city have combined cost he government only 4.9 billion. (Now we could get creative and say did we lose that when you take in the workers added and value? That's for another topic.)

https://www.rt.com/usa/264065-musk-tesla-government-subsidies/

So while your getting all high and mighty just remember they all take the edge where they can find it.

 

[Built4Sin]

Spiegelglatt,

I hear that and that's exactly my take away. But that isn't something you hold against a single company when all diesel and EVs are taking tax credits (subsidies).

It's no different than anything else in life. Hey I see you put up a solar system on your house; you know I helped you pay for that. (Tax credit)

Or Hey congrats and the more efficient windows and machines; you know I helped you pay for that. (Tax credit)

Lol, hey how's your kid doing in school? You know I care because I helped you pay for that. (Property taxes)

It's endless; welcome to society.

 

[Built4Sin]

the point is there's no 30k Tesla to buy...

Fixed it for you.

 

[Built4Sin]

Actually, the government did not save GM. If the government had stayed out of it, GM have gone through the normal reorganization bankruptcy process, and would have come out as an operating company with less debt. GM would have survived. What the government saved through its interference in the normal bankruptcy process was the UNIONS involved, at the expense of GM's creditors. In other words, the government picked the winners and the losers, and with a Democratic administration that meant the winners would be the unions. That's almost always the result when the government picks. Politics drives the answer.

Have you taken a look at GM's debt? Not big deal @ 173 Billion, right? As for the unions and how that affected their business, who's fault is that? You picked a bad company to pan against Tesla.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization

GM was losing money because Lutz "thought" he knew what the customers wanted. GM was pushing cars that weren't selling, thats the reason. It had been that way since 2004 when they started accumulated debt in the billions because of it. They went under before the collapse, the collapse just accelerated the proceedings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/business/01auto.html?_r=0

What about Space X?
Musk is launching rockets into space at 57 Million each.
The US was previously paying around 380 million each on the average.

History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Air & Space Magazine

Sounds like the investment is paying off according to your view of GM.

 

[Built4Sin]

Governments shouldn't manage anything business wise! I'll agree with that; but they can invest / back emerging technology.

Electric cars are not new. However the storage capacity that they have and are gaining is. So the question is should something like that be subsidized? I say yes, because historically we all benefit from it.

Now as you've previously said Solyndra failed, but that had to more to do with outside factors like China flooding the market and falling silicone prices. So did they fail because the tech was bogus? Not by a long-shot.

Technology is always risky, but hey look at me chatting with you on my cellphone from the beaches of Florida!

 

[Built4Sin]

This thread apparently isn't reality based.

Beamermike therefore is right, nothing that has been partially, marginally, or completely bankrolled by the US government has been of technological use.