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."
Think about it. Even though a Tesla costs 100k, every one on the road is one less gas car on the road, crudding up the atmosphere and using up irreplacable oil. Not only that, but Tesla's future success relies on selling cars at a fraction of that price at some point. Early adoption is expensive, but without it, there can be no commodity market for the same product. Look at DVD players, for example. Early models were $1000, and there were only a few titles available for the first Christmas season. Now, players can be had for $30, and stores don't even stock VHS any more. If we don't support this technology now, while it needs subsidies, at what point will the market decide that it IS worth it? When gas is $10 a gallon? $20? $40?
You should learn the full history of the period before posting comments like this. The manifesto you cite was written in 1920 during Hitler's early involvement as a subordinate member of the NSDAP. While the party did start out with socialist ideas, Hitler mainly used them to pander to the working class. Fast-forward a decade to see Hitler suppressing both socialists and communists. In between there were plenty of backroom meetings with wealthy businessmen whose support Hitler also needed to rise to power. Neither Hitler nor his Germany were socialist.
This is mostly irrelevant, though, since the key element of fascism(s) is extreme nationalism (and in Hitler's case, racism). Socialism, on the other hand, is an international ideology. It's not a false dichotomy.
However, the GP comment is still incorrect. Spreading around the risk of corporate failure is a form of socialism. It is the nature of unregulated corporate capitalism that risks are socialized while profits are privatized.
Visit the