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."

10 of 752 comments (clear)

  1. Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let the market decide, not a group of politicians paid off by lobbyists from the money they're lobbying to get.

    1. Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these by BrentH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's socialism if it's what the majority of citizens want. It's fascism if it's only a small minority wants it.

      These bailouts have nothing to do with socialism, it just good ol' fascism at work, the way we're used to in the United States. Corporate greed, lobbyists and a puppet government under the megacorps and all that.

      Now, a bit of real socialism, that's what would be a refreshing change in the US...

    2. Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these by mweather · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let the market decide, not a group of politicians paid off by lobbyists from the money they're lobbying to get.

      Tesla agrees. They've been very public about their opposition to the bailout. But if there is going to be one, Tesla should get money too.

    3. Re:Taxpayers shouldn't be bailing out any of these by john82 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      America's rate of corporate tax is among the highest in the world.

      I wouldn't say that's entirely correct.

      Go back and look at that graph again. Note the magenta line designating corporate income tax. The rate in the US is the second highest in the world. So yes, the parent post is correct.

  2. Yes. by Trillan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Mischaracterized by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Hooray for class warfare! by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    /P

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  5. More than all of Detroit combined by MaizeMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:no by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Fascism vs. Socialism: false dichotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.