Bob Lutz thinks the Tesla electric car business model is unworkable economically as a stand-alone company. Pretty much all I need to know.
Because it is a huge drain of tax revenues on a dead-end technology.Not sure why anyone would root for Tesla to fail.
But we're not giving government subsidies to fossil-fuel burning cars. And Tesla is not really developing "advanced" technology to allow the 100% electric car to be the replacement for the fossil-fuel car. What Tesla is doing is developing/building really cool and stylish electric cars. If some folks in the market want such cars, then they should pay for them, and not the taxpayer.Is electric any more dead-end than direct-burning of fossil fuel? At least electric can be sourced from non-fossil-fuel.
Yes, we did a lot of stupid ****e after the 2008 collapse and to provide government (taxpayer) support for anything that is labelled "green". We should have learned that the government is not good at picking winners and losers (Solyndra?). However, I can't fault Elon for feeding at the government trough if they slop it up for him.My 2009 Jetta TDI was covered by an "alternative fuel" tax credit. I think it was $750 but I could be misremembering.
EDIT: The tax credit on the 2009 Jetta TDI was $1300
Yes, that Bob Lutz. The same Bob Lutz who's forgotten more about the auto industry than anybody here will ever know.The same Bob Lutz that did such a bang up job @ GM in the 2000's?
^ This. I wish Tesla the best in developing a workable, affordable, stylish electric car. I might even buy one. But unless Elon is trying to develop compact nuclear fusion to power his electric cars, then my tax dollars should be used to subsidize Tesla buyers.Most I think are bothered by Tesla because the purchase of their product is subsidized by the masses when the people purchasing them are generally significantly above the median income / net worth level. These vehicles are also likely third or fourth cars in these households. If you take out the tax subsidies and we the people have nothing to do with subsidizing them, then I would be fine with them.
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.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.
And understanding is even shorter. Look at who REALLY benefited from the GM bailout.Ahem - memories are short - U.S. government says it lost $11.2 billion on GM bailout | Reuters
Sorry. Typo. "Should NOT be used to subsidize Tesla buyers."^ This. I wish Tesla the best in developing a workable, affordable, stylish electric car. I might even buy one. But unless Elon is trying to develop compact nuclear fusion to power his electric cars, then my tax dollars should be used to subsidize Tesla buyers.
No, this is not a "unions" issue in general. It was just a unions issue (and a little bit "green" issue) in the GM situation. The fundamental problem is the government trying to pick winners and losers when that selection should be made by the marketplace. If Tesla electric cars are economically viable then the marketplace will let us know, without the need for the government to put the taxpayer's thumb on the scale to help Elon.Not surprised by this at all, same problem here in Canada, it's been going on from the beginning of the unions, it's called corruption and it's always the taxpayers who end up with the bill at the end..
For shorter, daily commuting where you can recharge at home overnight, an e-car probably makes sense. Just don't ask the taxpayers to subsidize your e-car purchase.Anyways that damn E-Golf isn't even available where I live, This would perfectly fit my daily commute needs..
I'm not panning GM against Tesla. I'm refuting the idea that the federal government "saved" GM.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.
So, you agree that when the government manages and controls, it costs more than when private industry manages and controls? No argument from me.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.
Then invest in/subsidize the R&D to develop battery storage capacity that may not be funded otherwise by private industry, and not in subsidizing a product that may or may not be using it.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.
And the role of the federal government in developing that cell phone was what exactly?Technology is always risky, but hey look at me chatting with you on my cellphone from the beaches of Florida!
Not what I said.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.
Because folks are talking about how great e-cars are, but customers don't seem to want to really buy them unless taxpayers help them pay for it. :-kTell you what, how about we take the BS Libertarian political aspect out of this thread, and focus on the topic?
Then why do we have subsidies for e-cars?Believing that Tesla wouldn't sell any cars without tax credits is just one of many flavors of KoolAid to choose from. ;-)
Oh, I'm open. Please tell me why we're giving subsidies to people to buy an e-car?Honestly I don't think you're open to any point of view except the one you've formed. Or if you prefer, I've selected a different flavor of KoolAid. Don't take it personally!
"General agreement"? By whom? No, this is the government picking winners and losers, thinking they can predict technology better than the free market (E good, IC bad), and using the taxpayer's money to push their choice (the taxpayer is the "someone else's dime"). Other innovators with their ideas are on their own.I think we're all in a kind of general agreement that betting on e-cars is just that: Placing a wager. It's a long game of changing the public's perception and demand; building out infrastructure; perfecting the tech itself. Using someone else's dime to do all that if possible.
Meanwhile we hope we're betting on the best technology and beau coup public money's are involved.
That's how our system works.