Slashdot Mirror
Should Taxpayers Back Cars Only the Rich Can Afford?
theodp writes "The NY Times questions the $400M in low-interest federal loans requested by Tesla Motors as part of the $25B loan package for the auto industry passed by Congress last year. 'The program is intended to encourage automakers to improve fuel efficiency, but should it be used for a purpose like this, as the 2008 Bailout of Very, Very High-Net-Worth Individuals Who Invested in Tesla Motors Act?' Tesla says it is assembling about 15 cars a week and has delivered about 80 of its $109,000 base-price Roadsters to date, many of which have gone to the Valley's billionaires and centimillionaires who are Tesla investors as well as early customers. We discussed the company's financial difficulties last month."
Let the market decide, not a group of politicians paid off by lobbyists from the money they're lobbying to get.
Who else is going to improve the technology? If it was one of the companies already in the industry, it'd be done by now. Don't give the entrenched guys anything. Give it to new companies.
Just because the rich get it first doesn't mean we won't get it, too. Look down at the device under your hands as you flame me for proof.
To say that a low interest loan to Tesla is a bailout for billionaires is to seriously ignore what Tesla is doing. While everyone else is either developing low-speed electric cars (e.g. cars that can't run on the highway and don't have to pass all of the safety regulations) or estimating that their electric hybrid will run AT MOST 40 miles off the battery, Tesla has developed the first practical all electric car that can run 200 plus miles on a charge using (mostly) existing technology. You know, something that the big three for the last 20 years has said couldn't be done.
In addition, Tesla is continuing to work to engineer a pure electric car for the masses. This is where most of the money would be applied. It's not to bail out the roadsters already being built/already on order.
Plus, the established auto makers research is primarily still into improving ICEs, which is inherently, horribly inefficient. We've had over a hundred years of research and development into improving the ICE and it's still AT BEST only 25% efficient. We don't need any more ICE development, thank you very much. Considering that the Tesla roadster gets 4 times the fuel efficiency as the best ICE, the money would be applied exactly as it is intended (something that would probably not be the case for GM and company).
Lastly, if we're talking about bailouts, why should taxpayers bail out the Big Three? Their officers are responsible for pitifully shortsighted business decisions for the last 30 years, culminating in the current state of the US auto industry. If we reward businesses for bad business decisions, what's the incentive to do better? Let them be bought out by Toyota, et al. Good riddance, I say.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
We shouldn't be bailing out any of the automakers, but since we are wasting the money anyway, I would greatly prefer the money to go to companies with *vision* rather than to companies that will waste the money making hybrid SUVs.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
Seriously, folks - this has less to do with protecting the Rolls Royces of this world, and more to do with encouraging alternate means of locomotion.
Where would you rather give your money (if you're a US taxpayer, it is your money)... to a bunch of failing and backwards-looking automaking corps, or to a young and hungry company that is looking to change the very way we fuel up our cars?
Forget the politics - the Big Three are in thrall to a wage and compensation plan that is simply unsustainable and way above market value, no matter how the mathematics are applied. Not blaming the unions per se (the corps agreed to it, after all) but seriously - add it up yourself.
Coupled with the dragging and tooth-pulling required to get the likes of GM and Ford to go all-alternative (or to even jack up the fuel efficiency to something near what the competition has right now)? Why bother? They'll simply make a lot of noises about having changed their ways, and 10 years later they'll be right back in Congress again, begging for more money.
This may sound trollish, but screw that - let the innovators of this world get a leg-up, if we're going to be throwing around money in the first place. Let the collapse of the Big Three be an object lesson to those who think they're somehow entitled to continued existence just because they happen to be a big corporation.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
i personally believe that it is a good investment even if the car costs 50k.
Then by all means, invest your money if you think it's worth doing. Using tax money for this is immoral, not to mention unconstitutional.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Should taxpayers back space stations only the rich can afford to visit?
I agree completely.
The best way to develop the technology and bring the cost down to something affordable is to have it in production. And right now Telsa is producing 15 MORE zero emission cars a week than all of the Detroit automakers combined.
Given that poor people pay a higher proportion of fuel tax than rich people fuel taxes are a good example of regressive taxation
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
You're a god damn twit. How do you think Tesla is paying for the R&D needed to make cars for average folks? Through selling cars that are marketed to people who don't care about paying $109K for a car.
I don't know about you, but it looks like Tesla is trying to push the costs down. Yes, right now, they are making a pretty pricey car. They next project will be a sedan which they're looking to charge half the price, which puts it in reach of a lot more people. If they can get a loan to push the development more quickly, I'd say they are at least as deserving as the incumbent carmakers. Hopefully the production scale-up will allow for more innovation in battery research, mostly in cheaper high capacity batteries.
A similar question could be asked about computers, in the 1950's. Electric cars are very likely something that will be needed in the future. The more that gets done on them now, the cheaper they will be in the future. These first few cars will be expensive, yes, but that goes for most prototype cars.
My business partner and I both reserved '09 Tesla Roadsters. Why? Not because it's a hot car, or it drives like a rocket, but because we want to see electric car research pushed faster. And it was the next best thing to investing in the company. It drives me nuts when some fool comes out and says "Tesla can have help when their car is priced for the average person". They won't need help by than. They need help getting to that point.
So you're saying that taxation is immoral?
Taxation is moral only to the extent that the revenues raised are used to secure our rights. As soon as government steps beyond the powers that we have granted to it, it is immoral.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Then the solution is to give them loans at the going rate of interest. Not low-interest loans, which are really a handout.
So helping General Motors to build a new hybrid Cadillac is going to be a better way for the government to throw its money around than letting Tesla be able to invest into their "Whitestar" vehicle that is targeted for around $50k for around 1/10th the cost that GM is asking for?
I don't get what you are saying here. This isn't Tesla asking for money by itself, but asking to be included with the other companies that also claim to be "American Automotive Manufacturers" and for the Feds to maintain a level playing field. Are you sure the feds should subsidize Ford and Chrysler at the expense of taxing Tesla out of existence?
Tesla Motors is in direct competition with General Motors and the Volt. Indeed, there are many places where GM executives have openly stated (including on 60 Minutes and other major media outlets) that they wouldn't have even started the Volt if it weren't for Tesla showing it could be done.
So tell me, why should GM get a special subsidy for building the Volt and Tesla be told to "get lost" and build their car on their own?
The $400m check isn't just a grant, it is a loan that must be repaid. What getting it from the government will do is provide basic capital to build the factories, finance the R&D, and get built the next generation of Tesla vehicles. Tesla even has the manufacturing facility picked out and some of the preliminary designs for that vehicle.
All that Tesla is doing here is to insist that they be treated as an American automotive manufacturer. If GM is getting the subsidy, why not Tesla as well?
Had it not been for Hitler's bizarre obsession with genocide [...]
Stalin, Lenin, and Mao were all mass murderers. In case with Stalin, a case could be made for genocide. I basically agree with you, but I think that Hitler only needed to tie the war with Russians and then he would be safely on his way to join the pantheon of great leaders of antiquity. To History, his only mortal sin was loosing.
Did you even read what you posted? That document is a conservative dream come true.
We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
"The government's primary role is to keep the economy strong, not to provide social programs."
It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. ... The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
"No welfare for anyone. If you can't do work then you starve."
... personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation.
"Only those with special connections in the government will get war contracts."
We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.
"The Death Penalty shall be used frequently. We're tough on crime."
I see nothing in there about liberal ideals: human rights, equality before the law, right to conscientious objection, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, environmentalism, peace. Read some Marx.
It's a logical fallacy to assume that an evil genocidal bastard like Hitler is incapable of saying or supporting anything that is good just because he is an evil genocidal bastard.
Some of stuff you quoted seems very logical to me, other stuff isn't. I'm definitely against nationalization of industries, but are you honestly going to tell me that we shouldn't prohibit child labor?
Argue against the points, individually, on their merits. Don't label it as fascism just because "Hitler said it."
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
No True Scotsman, good sir. You're saying that so long as we accept your definitions, why, there's no argument at all!
But that's silly, when we let one party dictate all the definitions, so that when I say socialism and fascism they always mean what you want, and not what I intended, well... What information has really been expressed?
You can't define the terms other people are using. If there's a disparity in definitions you have to agree to disagree and continue on in the argument and attempt to not taint your opponent's views with your preconceived notions.
Once upon a time, computers were the size of rooms and could only be afforded by governments and very large corporations.
Yet, after half a century of investment by the British at places like Bletchley, the US on ENIAC and the Third Reich on IBM products... plus things like the government funded ARPANET, we now have computers for everyone, internet for everyone, medical and scientific research advancing as people are capable of helping fold proteins or search the stars in their own homes.
Yes, right now, a Tesla roadster costs a lot of money. But, by investing in the technology, by establishing a market, by drawing interest, it won't do in ten or twenty years time.
Pretty much every invention that's improved human life or reduced our burden on the planet has been expensive at first. But that's never yet been a good reason not to help advance things up front, knowing it'll trickle down many times over, over time.
where were you, when the term "Bushitler" was passed around?
Actually, that's the first time I've heard the term, so that may be a good question.
Face it, a mere allegation of any similarity with Hitler is a powerful assault and I don't remember much opposition to that before.
Valid similarities to Hitler's actions and policies are, of course, a powerful assault. Stuff like what you've posted are called "jokes." I won't bother to explain it, though...in the words of Saavik, "Humor. It is a difficult concept."
I have no idea why you didn't hear the opposition to comparisons of Bush with Hitler. They were there, and calls that the thread had been godwined were everywhere.
That's not to say that comparisons to Hitler are automatically invalid, but you need to justify the comparison with examples of the similar reprehensible actions. Not just any action that Hitler took, but the actions that caused him to be labeled "evil." Obviously Hitler took a shit every once in a while, but a comparison between you and Hitler because you also take a shit every once in a while doesn't tell anybody anything about what type of person you are. Other than admitting that Hitler was actually human, which is pretty offensive to the rest of us who are part of the same species, I suppose.
The point here was to simply remind, that Fascism and Socialism (whatever their merits) are no different from each other.
I know that's what you were trying to do, but my point was that not everything Hitler did or say was fascist or socialist just because he was pushing that agenda. So quoting him to make that point is an invalid argument.
In fact, Hitler's party was called "National Socialism Party". Thus pitching them as some sort of opposites is just that: a false dichotomy.
Oh please, that's called marketing. The Democratic Party call themselves democrats so the party can't POSSIBLY do anything undemocratic, huh? Google's motto is "do no evil" but that doesn't stop them from censoring web pages in China, right?
Well, honestly, what stronger evidence of something being Fascism can there be, than "Hitler said it"?
Ok, let me help you out. First, use the accepted definition of Fascism. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, it is a political philosophy that places the nation and/or race above the individual, with a centralized government, often a dictatorship, with strong control over social and economic aspects, and which forcefully supresses opposition.
Let's now take the accepted definition of a Socialism. According to Merriam-Webster that's a political philosophy that advocates collective or state ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Let's examine one of your Hitler quotes, "We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class." That would obviously fall under Socialism, because the government is supplying the distribution of goods necessary to maintain the healthy middle class. That would not fall under fascism unless it is satisfy the other requirements, namely "silencing the opposition" and valuing the nation or race over the individuals. If "maintaining a healthy middle class" means confiscating every profit you make that place your worth above what is considered "middle class" that would fascism because it would be valuing the "good of the nation" over your rightfully earned money.
Also, this really doesn't need to be said, but I suspect you might bring it up. Confiscating your profits that place you over the middle-class does not mean you can't b
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.