Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Nabs $465M Government Loan To Build Model S
SignalFreq writes "Tesla Motors, based in San Carlos, California, was approved yesterday for $465M in loans from the Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program. Tesla plans to use $365M of the money to finance a manufacturing facility for the Model S (review, Letterman video) and $100M for a powertrain manufacturing plant in the SF Bay Area. 'Tesla will use the ATVM loan precisely the way that Congress intended — as the capital needed to build sustainable transport,' said Tesla CEO and Product Architect Elon Musk. Tesla expects the Model S to ship in late 2011 and the base cost to be $57,400 ($49,900 after a federal tax credit). Ford received $5.9B and Nissan received $1.6B under the same program."
should have been a 25K car cost cap.
That way most people could only barely not afford it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
More bullshit courtesy of the U.S. Gubmint!
I know. Just like those silly Interstate highways, the US Marine Corps, the US Postal Service that'll deliver a package of paper to any door in the US within a day or two for an affordable flat fee, and those terribly inefficient and socialized Firefighters and that neo-communist socialized Police Department. Government. Pah! Who needs it?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
In other words the taxpayers just had half a billion stolen from them and given to some idiot Californicators to waste on building overpriced cars that will only sell if they are subsidized with yet more taxpayer dollars.
Seriously, if these cars were such a great moneymaking venture I don't think California is lacking in venture capitalists even in a recession. You only go to the government with hat in hand if you know it is a losing idea but can be made politically appealing anyway. These days you just have to say "green!" to crack open the piggy bank.
Democrat delenda est
I'm anti-subsidy for luxury car manufacturers. Starting at $49,900 -- bah! How about spending a fraction of this to rip out the engine of a Chevy Aveo and put in an electric motor? How about an electric car people can actually buy? Innovation not required!
Tesla will be out of business ( a.k.a. Chapter 7 Bankruptcy) by Jan. 1, 2012 along with Chrysler and General Motors.
Go China.
Yours In Communism,
Kilgore Trout
Anyone left wondering why our tax dollars are funding a loan for Nissan while U.S. auto companies are struggling?
Obama socialist?
Even the head of the America's Socialist Party doesn't think so. Propaganda rule #1: At least get the disinformation believable. Otherwise it just makes Obama haters appear stupid. Just sayin..
Good grief. This is awesome. What's wrong with you people?
Why are you such knee-jerk ideologues? A government spending money is socialism? Are you that stupid?
This is an honest-to-goodness American technology company building some very cool 21st century vehicles.
I'm really ashamed of America sometimes.
But..... RON PAUL?
(am I doing it right?)
Obama socialist?
People who claim that Obama or the American Democratic party for that matter is socialist needs to take a trip around the globe. In many European countries the Democrats would be considered a right wing party.
Yet... trust me, they will be bankrupt within 3 to 4 months with the current depressed state of new car sales in America.
Ford got in trouble before the depression started, and sold off their assets while they still had value. That was dumb luck, not foresight.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
> I know. Just like those silly Interstate highways
Roads are specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. Pass
> the US Marine Corps
A Navy is specifically mentioned. The Marines are a sub unit of the Navy. Pass
> the US Postal Service that'll deliver
Postal service is permitted. Pass. But note that most packages use private carriers these days, the postal service is mostly for bills and junk mail.
> and those terribly inefficient and socialized Firefighters and that neo-communist socialized Police Department
Those services are not provided by the US government. Federal money for those purposes are unconstitutional. Good luck getting enough literate Supremes to be able to figure that out any time soon.
US Taxpayer money to a private automaker? Fail. Unless you can point me to the clause I missed that specifically grants the US government that power the 10th Amendment forbids it. Again, good luck finding five Supremes who can read.
Democrat delenda est
How is funding a boutique luxury car manufacturer at the rate of half a billion similar to funding interstates, military, postal service, etc.? Tesla does not even hope to provide shared infrastructure or essential services to the country as do these programs. I don't get it.
Seems silly to dump such a large sum into a company that is in fact making luxury cars. Sustainable? Sure, if you're upper-class white America. What about those of us who want a reliable, energy efficient car without sacrificing our children's education to get it? Tesla is doing good work, but I don't think they should be getting taxpayer dollars for something that ultimately I won't be able to afford anytime in the foreseeable future.
"Oh, Florida. Just think, somewhere in this state, right now, Jeb Bush is eating a live puppy."
Yes, and we all know that because of all the privacy issues in Europe mostly because of their more socialist policies we really need to adopt that!
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
More bullshit courtesy of the U.S. Gubmint!
I know. Just like those silly Interstate highways, the US Marine Corps, the US Postal Service that'll deliver a package of paper to any door in the US within a day or two for an affordable flat fee, and those terribly inefficient and socialized Firefighters and that neo-communist socialized Police Department. Government. Pah! Who needs it?
The Republicans are involved at the highest levels of government. If anybody would be in a position to fix it instead of complaining about it then it would be them, or at least them when they had control of all three branches not too long ago. So why didn't they do anything about it? And if it's a system that cannot be fixed and they do not believe in it, why are they still a part of it?
If us IT geeks went about our jobs like Republicans, we'd be saying stuff like "Bah, stupid computers! Management wants to do another IT project. Just another pointless boondoggle that will get screwed up, mark my words! We'd all be better off going back to paper! Who wants some pencil-necked geek standing between you and your work telling you what you can or can't do with some stupid blinking box?"
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
The kind of people who claim that Obama is socialist aren't the kind of people that travel around the globe. Well OK, Gov. Sanford does, but the REST of them...
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Now, if eeStor's ultracapacitors can ramp up, we might actually have a private transportation sector in 10 years.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I've been watching Tesla since day one. The make cars the way they should be made. You place an order for your car, then the car is built. It was privately financed until this infusion of funds. For what the model S is and does the price isn't to high. I looked at buying a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo and it clocked in at $42,000, while I was shopping I noticed that entry level BMW's and Audi's were also at the $40,000 mark. So I saved $22,000 and bought a 2009 Corolla. My next car will be a Tesla as soon as they start selling them on the east coast. The Model S is as nice a car as an Audi or BMW, without the need to change the oil or pay at the pump. It makes the Chevy volt look like a joke and puts all the hybrids to shame, it is the ultimate commuter car.
What... all that money and no solar panels?
Please keep your conspiracy crap off the Internet.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'll bite. The Interstate Highways, Marines, and post office are all in the constitution. The first is largely funded by the individual states, but promoting commerce is one of the main duties of the feds. Likewise, defense is written in there as well as the post office. All three are hugely expensive and mostly a waste of money, but at least there's a direct mandate for them in the defining document of this republic. Firefighters and police are local, nothing to do with the federal government at all. And neither should throwing money at idiotic ventures, but that's pork spending for you.
And people wonder how we got to have a trillion dollar deficit, and 13 trillion in national debt. Amazing.
I don't know why you're being modded up for this comment... The parent poster never said that Obama was a socialist. Instead, he referred to this program as a socialist program. It's hard to argue that it isn't. It's definitely the government interfering with private enterprise for no good reason.
Besides, I could care less whether or not the leader of the socialist party considers Obama a socialist or not. Many of his policies are in line with socialist viewpoints (for that matter, many of McCain's and Bush's policies were in line with socialist views). He is expanding the government's reach in industry, and this is being done at a remarkably fast pace. It's no wonder the deficit is growing by leaps and bounds and other countries are threatening to stop loaning the US government money. We're on a quick path to either bankrupt the government, or reexamine double digit inflation (there just aren't enough rich people to soak up all the increased pork spending being proposed). Of course it's all good because in 10 years we'll have greener engines that no one can afford to buy. Have fun with that.
Phil
Give that man some mod points. He's right on the mark.
"...Nissan received $1.6B under the same program."
Nissan? Why is the United States government giving money to Nissan? Shouldn't the Japanese government do that and not the U. S. taxpayer?
I know that I'm going to catch hell for this and probably get modded a troll. So be it. However, as a currently unemployed U. S. citizen who has had a job and paying into the system since I was twelve, I have to wonder where the hell is my federal government bailout money? State unemployment doesn't pay hardly anything. The U. S. government gave over a billion dollars to a foreign company, but a hard working citizen like myself, who really wants to work, gets next to nothing.
I apologize for the rant.
If anybody is looking for a systems/network administrator, who has over twenty years of solid experience, in the NE Ohio area, let me know.
SiO2
It's not a handout. It's a loan. You know like the loans you can get for small businesses from the feds and state governments.
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details_new.php?seriesid=2009-B-51905%7C2009-B-69390&semesterid=2009-B/
Lecture 1 - 46 mins in Richard Muller talks about the cost vs pay of an electric vehicle.
Hopefully Fisker can get the same deal from the feds to make the Karma !!! Which would really help me because I am loaded up on QTWW stock ;)
Is this really so hard to understand? This move is to ensure that the US has the best technology in the world for low-energy transportation. It increases US independence, in terms of finance, technology, and energy. That could be a lot more powerful than the interstate system, in the end.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
At $50,000 the Model S is more likely to be used as a fleet car then something you use at home. For those who say this is a waste of money I'd like to point three things out: 1. GM spend 1.2 BILLION to build a PROTOTYPE electric car, which they didn't put into productions. This is money to build a factory that will actually um make cars. 2. Tesla is going to use this money to build electric vehicle components in the US for other companies. Having that kind of production is the US is BIG DEAL for our balance ot trade. 3. Tesla is more likely to pay
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Postal Service is funded by postage, not taxpayer money. All the other stuff is typical government stuff.
A better analogy would be NASA. Most of the work of building an launching things is done by contractors, not the government itself. Having the government pay a company to develop something is not unheard of. The only thing I hope they did is stipulate that the technology is free to all takers since it was funded with public money.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Being less socialist doesn't change anything. That is like saying I am not a murderer if I only kill one person as opposed to that guy over there who killed 10. Give me a break.
That thing looks hot.
My only concern is battery replacement. Replacing a UPS battery is roughly half the cost of the UPS. If cars like these get the same battery economy that would mean $25k every 5-7 years according to their FAQ. (I'm just guessing here based on battery life; they made no mention of battery replacement costs)
Their FAQ claims the car is a great lasting investment due to lack of complexity and moving parts, but having to drop $25k every 6 years for a new battery would be a deal breaker.
I do wish them luck though, it's way past time we stopped supporting extremists in the middle east. Not to mention that fact that a complete 300 mile recharge would cost about $4.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
More bullshit courtesy of the U.S. Gubmint!
I know. Just like those silly Interstate highways,
Highway construction is mostly managed by states: Federal subsidy reduces the incentive to keep costs down and effectively eliminates the consideration of other alternatives like rail.
the US Marine Corps,
Needed to maintain the oil supplies that support the fuel-inefficient transportation system. They're not defending the borders.
the US Postal Service that'll deliver a package of paper to any door in the US within a day or two for an affordable flat fee,
They were the best alternative because federal law prohibited competition. FedEx and UPS are doing a pretty good job in niches where they are allowed.
and those terribly inefficient and socialized Firefighters and that neo-communist socialized Police Department. Government. Pah! Who needs it?
Those are local government, not U.S. government.
Just because the Federal government did something which we are now dependent on because the subsidies helped destroy the alternatives, doesn't mean it was a blessing.
Of course government is necessary, and all entrenched power is wasteful, whether its government, corporations, or otherwise. And government does do useful stuff that wouldn't get done otherwise. But it also wastes an enormous amount of resources.
So now luxury cars are being subsidized, paid for by the confiscated earnings of people who can not themselves afford such cars. At least its a loan and not a grant.
Do everyone a favor and just shut the fuck up.
k?
Slightly less socialist than the Socialist Workers Party or Europe.
Noted.
interstate commerce clause??
Being less socialist doesn't change anything. That is like saying I am not a murderer if I only kill one person as opposed to that guy over there who killed 10. Give me a break.
You're equating socialism with murder? Really? That's like saying you're a fascist if your political preference is slightly to the right.
Do you own shares in the company or something? It's awfully hard for me to believe that a boutique car company selling 50k+ vehicles is somehow going to transform the economy and have more impact than the interstate highway system. There is no new technology required to build electric cars. Even the batteries are good enough to provide enough power for most commuters today. If you want electric cars to be delivered next year you just have to do one thing -- increase the price of fuel dramatically. Until that happens none of this matters and no efforts short of that to move to electric cars will work.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare* of the United States" U.S. Const. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.
Libertarians, most. annoying. fanboys. ever.
If they are on "S" now, then the next model in line is "T". The potential confusion cannot be good for marketing. Reminds me of the door company that made a "Commodoor-64".
Table-ized A.I.
There is always the good old general welfare clause. It is not hard to argue that getting us off of oil is beneficial to the general welfare of the nation.
Not even half a gigabuck will convince Americans to ride bikes. *ducks*
Ezekiel 23:20
Before anyone even opened up this article you knew there were going to be idiots who:
1. Didn't bother to read the fucking article
2. Saw a Japanese company name
3. Immediately posted an idiotic 'US loan going to Japanese company? WTF???' post
Were you imagining that you were slurping Ayn Rand's kipperbox while you were posting?
If not then no, you fail it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This ridiculous argument makes my blood boil.
The term "liberal" or "conservative" is relative to what is considered normal for the country. Centerists are right down the middle, liberals are to the left, conservatives are to the right.
Relative to Stalin, yeah, Obama is a hard-line conservative; relative to what is considered normal for American politics, he is an ultra liberal in favor of major social programs OR! wait for it.....a socialist.
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
since i imagine this user is the most lunatic i will ever come across, i should ask here:
as a newbie scum commie, I can't find a way of ignoring posts by specific users.
Can anyone point me to a way of starting an ignore list.
It would be good not to waste bandwidth and screen space with the Fevered Founding Father Fundamentalism of this complete and utter loony.
(I wonder if jmorris's goal is to get left of centre people to waste their mod points on him?)
How is giving a loan to a financially solvent private company that has a market valuation of $550B (at least as judged by Daimler) the same as the sort of giveaway that you portray it as??
I tore these out of your symbol, and they turned into paper.
Well, FYI the government is also supposed to protect its countrymen. This is to include promoting a market for more sensible transportation that is not sourced from fossil fuels (given we change our ways of electricity production as well).
The damage to be incurred by not making serious changes yesterday (said "now") is worth your attention whether you're educated enough to understand it or not. If you don't understand why this is important, get the education and understand, or sit back and trust those that do.
It's pretty easy to believe that the technology they develop will make its way into average joe's cars over the next several decades. In fact, a good chunk of that money is being used to open a manufacturing plant to produce vehicles for commodity car manufacturers from day one. And eventually they'll even fall off the patent train and become (potentially) ubiquitous.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
How dare we invest in technology!
The private corporate environment has given us similar investments in really useful things, like erectile dysfunction cures, flavored cigarettes, ringtones, and the iPhone. Truly world changing technologies!
If the internet had been a sure fire moneymaker, it could have had private funding. Just like computers. We know what those stupid government investments have wrought.
Or maybe large energy players like Shell and Exxon actively seek out to destroy any competition to their products and have warped the market place due to their anti-competitive business practices... nah! Sounds like hippy speak to me!
Set them as a foe, then set foes to -6. I think you can still do this.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
So what? That's like saying that a guy who only killed one person is no big deal; if you want to see a REAL killer, you have to look at Ed Gein, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Not nearly as liberal or socialist as FDR or JFK. And they are still praised to this day for what they have done for this country. Sorry to burst your distortion bubble.
Get educated.
Line 10 - Complain that the U.S. Government is not doing enough to help us lead in the Tech sector.
Line 20 - Complain when the U.S. Government actually risks money putting it into a technology, industry and with a US company that is making headway in a technological field.
Line 30 - goto 10.
And the U.S. Government, stuck in the perpetual tug of war between Line 10 & Line 20, executes the program perfectly and comes in second best. A mediocracy where trying to be in first place is to much of a risk, but heck, we also ensure we don't come in last.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
One, it's Alice IN Wonderland.
Two, definitions don't think.
Three, it seems they aren't alone.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Isn't that like asking a pedophile if Miley Cyrus's photo shoots are too racy?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
$100M for a powertrain manufacturing plant in the SF Bay Area
How on earth can that be the cheapest place to manufacture something?
I suspect the factory location is more political than practical ("I've love to help you get that loan, but you know, it'd sure be nice if you located that factory in my state").
Advice: on VPS providers
IIRC the DeLorean company got almost as much cash from the Brits to build a factory in Northern Ireland.
Turned out with all the lack of infrastructure and suppliers, it would have been cheaper to build the factory in Beverly Hills.
Looks like Tesla is going one step further and actually building the factory right away in a high-cost area. .... And aren't there dozens of GM car factories just sitting idle?
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Say what you will about that being to vague, but a loan to a car company to produce affordable, clean transportation definitely qualifies for general welfare... Transportation has become critical for economic success.
Telephone service in areas where capital expense is to high is treated the same way: http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/telecomact/act.htm
Calling Obama a socialist has as much to do with classification as Macarthy calling his enemies communists.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Yah, seriously. The internet was like, made for conspiracy crap.
Ingredients: Turkey, Mechanically Separated Turkey, Water, Salt, Flavour.
I don't think you understand what "investment" means.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
So what? That's like saying that a guy who only killed one person is no big deal; if you want to see a REAL killer, you have to look at Ed Gein, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc.
What? How many people has Obama killed? How is your analogy relevant?
Not to be a dick, but JFK left office (forcefully, because he was dead) in 1963.
tip: this was 46 years ago, meaning not relevant for deciding how liberal or conservative an individual is.
If the people claiming Obama is liberal prefaced it by saying "Relative to JFK, Obama is a liberal", then let the bashing begin, because, you're right, they would be making asses out of themselves.
This is not what they're saying.
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
Like everything else, you get what you pay for. If Americans want to continue buying cut-throat cheap goods from third world manufacturing plants, they are going to find out in the next 5-10 years that they themselves have become a third world state. I don't think protectionism is good, but America is the only country that is nailed to the wall for these policies. Say nothing of China limiting exports of coke, iron, zinc and other materials needed to make steel (thereby increasing the cost to steel factories worldwide), or devaluing their Yuan to give their manufacturers a foot up on the world..
One, it's Alice IN Wonderland.
It was a simple communication error. My brain told my fingers what to type and they must have misheard.
Two, definitions don't think.
5-6th grade english teaches the literary device "Personification." They do still teach literary devices in grammar-nazi camp; don't they?
Three, it seems they aren't alone
Then, perhaps, I should have said "Gulliver's Travels" rather than "Alice and Wonderland."
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Good thing we have government funded public schools so that anyone can eventually become a literate Supreme Court judge, not just rich kids whose parents could send them to a private school their whole life(which is still a form of socialism, since the kids themselves are relying on someone else [in this case, their parents] to pay for their education).
I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
"Roads are specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. Pass"
the federal highways is specifically mentioned? wow!
However the poster was pointing out that is was a major government program that was done very well, and saved people money.
"A Navy is specifically mentioned. The Marines are a sub unit of the Navy. Pass"
Still missing the point. The Marine are run quit well, like the Air Force. Good luck finding that in the constitution.
"Postal service is permitted. Pass. But note that most packages use private carriers these days, the postal service is mostly for bills and junk mail."
Irrelevant, it's a government program that can get a piece of paper from your house, across the country and to someone elses house in a few days.
The fact that there are less letters is a product of modern communications, not a failure on the government.
". Federal money for those purposes are unconstitutional. "
No, it's not. Do you even have a basis for your argument?
Here is the tenth:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The state do not have to take the money from the government, they chose to do so. I fact, they don't have to pay many of the taxes to the feds that they do, they choose to. Usually becasue there is something for them in the deal.
The people don't seem to mind either.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I fail to see how a $50,000 car that isn't even built yet provides for the general welfare of the country.
If you want electric cars to be delivered next year you just have to do one thing -- increase the price of fuel dramatically. Until that happens none of this matters and no efforts short of that to move to electric cars will work.
I believe that the oil companies tried that already. It didn't work as well as was hoped. All that happened was a lot of people who couldn't afford an electric car or the high fuel prices went bankrupt. Now we're gonna try something new that doesn't involve half the country choosing between food and fuel.
I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
$50000 is affordable?
It's not even scheduled to be ready for 2 fucking years.
Clean transportation? If that were a factor, we'd have a national rail by now.
$550B ? I sure hope B stands for bullshit.
The electric car will need to be cheaper, more convenient, and easier to maintain by a very, very large margin before Joe Sixpack will buy them in quantity.
Another reason why subsidising their development is good: it will speed the arrival of a feasible electric pickup truck. Probably a fair while off yet, but if that became realistic, it would be very useful to many US citizens.
The thing I find very telling about American thinking re cars and oil is this:
you would still rather send money to Saudi Arabia than use a faggy, Hollywood Liberal Elite electric car.
Even the South Park guys hate people who drive electric cars.
There are a lot of minds to change. I think many of them are extremely irrational, it's going to be hard work.
for angst-ridden yuppies. *YAWN* Wake me up when the base price is $20k without a gov't subsidy (a.k.a. taxpayer robbery).
Funded by postage, and subsidized by taxes.
And people wonder how we got to have a trillion dollar deficit, and 13 trillion in national debt. Amazing.
You mean it didn't have anything at all to do with going to war with two countries(with no real gameplan in either), giving tax breaks to the super rich, mismanaging various government entities, and confusing a democracy with a theocracy(while being on vacation half the time anyway)
People who claim that Obama or the American Democratic party for that matter is socialist needs to take a trip around the globe.
I think you need to take a trip around the globe, or at the very least read more about what others in the world are saying about Obama.
It's not that you don't know anything, it is just that you know so much that isn't true.
Respect the Constitution
I know a couple of people who work at Tesla. Their goal is to bring the prices down. Right now the most expensive part is the batteries, and the price of batteries is dropping. They can't just use laptop batteries since the batteries must meet specific requirements for reliability and performance. Their manufacturing cost is also fairly high, especially for the roadster. The costs will go down for the new car since they can apply what they learned from the roadster to the manufacturing and design of the new car plus they will have their own manufacturing plant, but their cost will still be fairly high. The price dropping from $100K to $60K is fairly significant. I imagine their price will continue to drop as they mature and get more experience and when the cost of the batteries drops.
If you're going to spend a lot of money on a car you generally expect it to have all the cool gizmos and options, hence the luxury model. Costs will continue to go down as they improve their design and manufacturing and as the cost for batteries decreases. They also have a lot of NRE to recover. They're basically making a brand new car from the ground up with significant changes from the roadster.
I can't imagine that all the luxury features and options add a significant amount to the cost of the car, probably no more than 25% of the cost of the car.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
How is funding a boutique luxury car manufacturer at the rate of half a billion similar to funding interstates, military, postal service, etc.? Tesla does not even hope to provide shared infrastructure or essential services to the country as do these programs. I don't get it.
I am so sick of this argument! They are NOT just a boutique luxury car manufacturer, they started that way to get enough money for their company but they are now working on selling the first truly viable all electric family sedan, that is within the range of most other nice sedans like Audis, etc, which many familys have.
They are the first company with the balls to say FU to the oil companies and actually do some real innovative work, and they deserve every fucking penny of what they got.
While every other automaker in the world has treated electric cars like a curiosity, Tesla came right out and saw them as the future. If anyone *doesn't* deserve the money, it's the major automakers that ignored anything efficient until oil blew up and being green became fashionable.
-Taylor
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
...yet.
Sorry, but you have no idea what socialism is.
Socialism is about working class owning the means of production (for example workers of a car factory all own equal amount of shares of the car manufacturer).
Using tax payer's money for funding failed businesses has nothing to do with socialism. This procedure is called "corporate welfare" and is pretty much the opposite of socialism.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
http://www.hightechscience.org/Sparrow_for_Goldmember_1b.JPG
One question. If the 'general welfare' clause were intended to be as open ended as you guys believe it to be, why did they feel a need to carefully enumerate the powers and limitations in the lines directly under that header?
So we have two competing theories:
1. The 'general welfare' clause, along with the other all purpose commerce clause, grant unlimited powers to the Federal government making the 9th and 10th Amendments (passed as Amendments btw which can override the original document) null and void.
2. The words 'general welfare' appear in the section heading describing the general flavor of the more specific defined powers granted in the section which taken together define the limits of Congress's powers to 'provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.'
But since you posted as an AC it is doubtful you will man up and even try to answer.
Democrat delenda est
Your poster certainly does not have a liberal viewpoint, but his manner of making his point is tolerably civil and directly relates to the parent post's points. In other words, he's not being a Troll or Flaming anyone so why would he be modded down?
Actually, if left of center people are modding him down, that would be abusive moderation, and I promise you, if I find anyone doing "disagree moderation" while I am meta-moderating, verily I shall smite them and they shall go "Ouch". I don't moderate that way when I get my points every few days, and neither should any other mod.
You will note that there is no -1 Dsagree or -1 Strict Constructionist or -1 Right/Left-Wingnut. Some people use Overrated for that, but that's abusive as well. There's a reason for that. Read the moderation guidelines if you care to know what it is.
That said, you do have a right to ignore him and there is a way to do that.
Find the little graphic next to his Nick and UID and click on it. It looks like a clear circular button, at least initially. When you mouse over it, it says Alter Relationship.
You will then get a new page that allows you to mark him as a "Foe" (or "Friend").
Once you have made your selection, go into http://slashdot.org/my/comments and you can scroll down and there is a place where you can set a comment modifier level of a foe or friend or whoever. If you set it to -6, then you will never ever see that person no matter how high they are modded up (because the highest mod points is +5). So basically your Foe list becomes a ban list. Alternately, +6 means you see that person even if they are marked as a -1 Troll or whatever.
Congratulations, you have now ignored the poster whose opinion you dislike.
Actually, equating socialism with murder is more like saying you're a Nazi if your political preference is slightly to the right.
There is no new technology required to build electric cars.
But there is a lot of engineering work that needs to be done in order to build them at prices that can compete with gas-powered cars.
If you want electric cars to be delivered next year you just have to do one thing -- increase the price of fuel dramatically.
Yes, a hefty gas tax would help a lot. Unfortunately, it's politically a non-starter in the US, and it's not going to happen, so there's little use discussing it.
Until that happens none of this matters and no efforts short of that to move to electric cars will work.
Don't you think that when the inevitable gas shortage arrives and prices spike up again, it would be nice to have decent mass-produced electric cars already available for sale? Or should we wait until the crisis occurs, and only then say "okay! Start designing electric cars! We should have them ready to buy in, oh, five years!"
In my opinion, it's nice to see the US government exercising a little foresight, for once, and not just overreacting after it's already too late to do anything.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I'm so tired of this Bullshit! I don't need to take a trip around the world. I don't care how socialist the rest of the worlds governments are. I CARE about our government.
And since I voted for the fucking guy I can call him what I want. And yes, he's a socialist. Car companies, banks, insurance companies, and now healthcare. Am I forgetting any? What more evidence do you want?
He might not be as socialist as say, Hugo Chavez, but he's only been in office about 6 months, give him some time.
I would have never voted for him had I known then what I know now.
I will most certainly rectify that decision in 2012 unless he changes some of his policy decisions.
And no, I wont be holding my breath. He pretty much has carte blanche right now and doesn't have any reason to tone it down.
Henry Ford didn't need a government loan to figure out how to make a more sensible transportation than the horse and buggy, and he was able to sell a premium product also that only the wealthy could afford.
I will agree that options in high-end cars often find their way down to less expensive cars, such as anti-lock brakes and power steering. Economies of scale often do that. But the government should be funding research where the results are available to all. If they were creating the 'Manhattan project' version of electric cars and were going to give the results away, or sell them to recover our tax dollars, I would have no disagreement. NASA used to publish a monthly magazine about all the cool discoveries they were making in all kinds of areas.
But I can't agree with funding a private enterprise that will likely keep any patents to themselves unless one condition of the loan is that the government owns the resulting IP.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
And eventually they'll even fall off the patent train and become (potentially) ubiquitous.
I expect there will be lobbying with success to extend patent protections soon enough to solve that problem.
We have state and local funded schools that the government weaseled their way into via blackmail, i.e. do it our way or you won't get federal funds. Then the US Congress kept increasing the federal income tax so that states and local government are unable to tax their citizens an appropriate amount to fund them without the funds.
All under the guise of general welfare, but really to allow the US government to force it's will upon the states IN DIRECT CONFLICT with state rights. Our 50 states are the ultimate experiment in free market, if you don't like the state you live in, move to one that you do like or try to adopt their policies in your home state, without all that messy patent business that keeps commercial businesses from doing the same thing. The federal government has for the most part eliminated this experiment because some states weren't as good at it as others.
And now the federal government is doing the same thing to commercial enterprises. All under the guise of 'general welfare'. They can't have loans unless they conform to federal rules about pay and benefits. They can't import any of their cars from overseas anymore. No check on whether or not the loan is viable, just imposing rules from a man who has never run a business in his life. Meanwhile, thousands for dealers are closing their doors forcing thousands more unemployed out onto the street so the government can impose it's version how how a business should operate on those that today can't afford to live without it. Just like they did the schools, one school system at a time.
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Using tax payer's money for funding failed businesses has nothing to do with socialism. This procedure is called "corporate welfare" and is pretty much the opposite of socialism.
Socialism is not a made-up world that only exists in theories and fairytale lands. There are states [countries] that practice it, and those same states [countries] agree with my definition, in their practice; not yours. I've lived and worked in a socialist country. I've seen tax dollars [Euros] keeping businesses alive when they hadn't made a sale in months. You've read a pamphlet on utopean socialism that is mutually exclusive with international stock exchanges.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Want to find any other crap quotes to share?
Chavez loves ripping the USA, and pravda is the type of paper to print bigfoot stories. In fact here is one they just put on the webpage:
http://english.pravda.ru/society/anomal/17-12-2008/106840-weird_females-0
I disagree.. it is good for the Government to gamble a bit on loans as long as overall they have more success stories than failures.
Even failures can pay off in the long run by producing new technology and new know-how. Otherwise, why invest in education?
Telsa has a good idea and has shown some ability to execute. If they succeed the taxpayer will benefit in more ways than just monetary.
If we were to follow what you suggest then you might as well just give all your money to banks and let them do the lending.
It's a loan. They aren't 'backing a race horse'. The give loans to companies all the time.
"...deliver an actually return. "
In many cases, that is in no way practical.
If the company could build a fleet of these cars, then they wouldn't need the loan at all.
They have shown viability, and need a large chunk of change to get to the next stage.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The term "liberal" or "conservative" is relative to what is considered normal for the country.
Ok, with you there.
Relative to Stalin, yeah, Obama is a hard-line conservative; relative to what is considered normal for American politics, he is an ultra liberal in favor of major social programs OR! wait for it.....a socialist.
Wait. Are you saying that "socialist" is relative? It sounds more like an incorrect pejorative thrown about by the "conservatives" against "liberals" when they know quite clearly that they are lying in the sense that they are using words in direct contradiction of their dictionary definition. I can accept "liberal" and "conservative" to be relative. However, socialism is an economy type, like capitalism. It's not relative. And the Republicans are socialists as much as the Democrats. It's just the Republicans borrow and spend and the Democrats tax and spend. The Republicans spend the money on "defense" (and apparently the only good defense is a good offense) and subsidies for the rich, and Democrats spend it on welfare and subsidies for the poor/middle class. And even that is only what they say, put them in power and they are indistinguishable.
I'm a "liberal" because I believe that if you are going to spend money (and I think the government should spend much much less money) that they need to actually have that money to spend. If you aren't going to cut spending, then you must raise taxes to cover the bill. And for some reason, being a small-government believer, because I'm also fiscally responsible, I'm a liberal. Go figure.
Learn to love Alaska
So in 25 years we will finally get our hands on that battery patent. Just in time to stave off all the global warming.
... the government could have funded a research project like the Manhattan Project and just made all findings available, similar to what NASA already does.
Or
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Henry Ford had no idea that using fossil fuels could lead to dire consequences of worldwide magnitude.
In all honesty, we should have made these serious changes over a decade ago.
Me, and many people like me, will never give another dollar to GM or Chrysler. You don't just seize a private company, screw the bond holders, and hand it over to your Union cronies without suffering any fallout.
Firstly, thankyou very much for your pointers.
I think that the above user's tendency to make almost everything a US constitutional issue would justify people calling him flamebait.
Or troll might be more accurate, in that they seem to be looking for a fight.
Having seen them before, nearly everything is made to be about encroaching government and socialists. The post was not merely "strict constructionist", it was very, very fundamentalist.
With an almost religious fervour, one could say.
(I bet the US Air Force isn't specifically allowed in your constitution, unlike the your Navy.)
S/he asserted that it would be "unconstitutional" for fire services to be funded by your central government, this is just mental.
Before you point out that s/he could be factually correct, bear in mind that when he/she says "unconstitutional" s/he almost certainly means something like "an intrinsic evil"
Re: moderation. I suggest there is a grey area among flamebait, troll and disagree anyway.
(re the last line: I will choose to ignore him because I consider s/he doesn't help the discussion, not because I merely "disagree")
thankyou for the pointers! You should get +1 informative, but I have no points.
I was born and raised in the USSR and I still call bullshit. Corporate welfare is a well-defined term and has nothing to do with socialism whatsoever. What you describe is pure corporate welfare. You use the wrong term.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Ahhhh.. Well I read the words being used as if liberalism or socialism is a bad thing, and then finger pointing at Obama and delivering the terms in that manner... This was regarding the concept of political relativism and the use of liberal/conservative.
I'd hate to tell ya, but aside from a few years of irrational response to fear mongering, the US has only become more and more liberal (as the previous post mentions the norm to be centrist) since FDR and JFK.
If the economy continues its downward spiral, in two years of inflation $50000 will buy you either a Tesla car or two loaves of bread.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
I find it amusing that nobody even mentioned this? Do they really polute less - or are the emmissions just happening somewhere else? ;) (*Cough* Coal, Natural gas, etc.)
which is still a form of socialism, since the kids themselves are relying on someone else
I don't think socialism means what you think it means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Stop Koolaid Politics
Socialist does not mean in favour of social programs. It refers to ownership and control of the "means of production". So state ownership and control over the majority of the civil economy could be socialist, but a welfare state on top of a mostly private economy is not.
Whether or not Obama's policies are socialist when compared to the rest of the world is irrelevant. He's a socialist by American standards.
MG
> They can't have loans unless they conform to federal rules about pay and benefits. They can't import any of their cars from overseas anymore. No check on whether or not the loan is viable, just imposing rules from a man who has never run a business in his life.
And the businesses do not have to accept those loans if those terms are unacceptable... what's your point?
> No check on whether or not the loan is viable, just imposing rules from a man who has never run a business in his life.
You mean congress? There's more than one man in congress.
> Meanwhile, thousands for dealers are closing their doors forcing thousands more unemployed out onto the street so the government can impose it's version how how a business should operate on those that today can't afford to live without it.
Umm... wouldn't all the dealers have closed if the government wouldn't have given them a loan?
This application of what you call "Corporate Welfare" is a 20-year-old term for an old face of corrupted socialism. The worst kind of socialism. Saying it's not socialism is equal to saying "Cut-throat laissez faire" isn't capitalism, because there are different degrees of capitalism. I know that some people think that calling this socialism is some "right-wing conspiracy" but it's about the mildest, least offensive term someone can call it. If anything, I hope you're considering the turn of events an insult to the word "Socialism" rather than thinking it's mudslinging to call the current administration "socialist"
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
They have to get the price below $20,000 per car. The technology does in fact exist to do this.
These are the main groups that receive fantastic favors from the government. The rest of us just pay for it all.
You may think I'm full of shit, a conspiracy-theorizing lunatic, or just some slashdot crank. Maybe so. Check your data before you get too smug about it, though.
Welcome, Comrades!
Welcome to the Union of Soviet Capitalist Republics!
Are just a few of the pertinent questions that weren't even brought up in that lousy clip. Instead they showed us a bunch of people drinking (some of them seemed a bit tipsy on camera) and talking in vague generalizations.
That ad video was so bad, I can't help but wonder if it was done by IBM employees.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"Pass"? That's your argument? It's written on an old piece of paper, therefore you don't need to mount a logical defense of the criticism of privatizing all goods and services in a modern global economy? Since when does any theory, economic or otherwise, get a pass? Oh I know - it's like when Copernicus and Galileo said "The Earth goes around the Sun" and the Church pointed to what was written on an old piece of paper and said "pass".
The truth is, tabloid (i.e. neoclassical) economic theory does a shite job of arguing for privatization of a whole range of public goods and services, particularly those that were traditionally under common property rights regimes.
Any real economist will tell you that most markets must be regulated or else they tend toward inefficiency, that profitable markets are inefficient by definition (because economic rents, aka net profit, can only be extracted from an uncompetitive and opaque market), and many markets - like the ones mentioned by the parent poster - are too inefficient for private ownership at all.
A-Bomb
Obama socialist?
People who claim that Obama or the American Democratic party for that matter is socialist needs to take a trip around the globe. In many European countries the Democrats would be considered a right wing party.
Used to be so....Obama changed that. Besides, Obama is not a Democrat
However, a 1991 law review paper by Gary Schwartz[9] argued that the case against the Pinto was less clear-cut than commonly supposed. Twenty-seven people died in Pinto fires. Given the Pinto's production figures (over 2 million built), this was no worse than typical for the time.
So if they amended the constitution, you'd suddenly feel like it's the kind of thing that IS the government's business?
Property is theft.
"The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States." Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.
Really, I'm not trying to be clever with my signature.
I know this is a tangential question, but I've been wondering about this for a while, and this seems like the best forum to get a decent answer from intelligent people:
Why is all the development on electric and electric-hybrid cars going into fancy new systems with lithium ion batteries or hydrogen fuel cells and (for hybrids) complicated switching between a conventional drive train and electric motors, instead of using and improving upon the time-tested diesel-electric technology which has efficiently powered many trains for quite some time now?
Build a simple all-electric car - just a body, steering rack, four wheels with a dynamo on each (there's your propulsion and your regenerative brakes), some circuity to control them all, and a small battery that holds just enough charge to get you up to speed, maybe twice that for a safety margin. Then stick the most efficient diesel or gas generator you've got in it to provide electricity to keep the battery charged. You lose a bunch of weight and mechanical complexity by ditching most of the drive train and transmission system for some simple wiring between the generator and the dynamos; the alternator and the standard car battery become redundant with the generator and main battery; heck you could even replace the radiator with a small steam engine for still increased efficiency, turning that excess heat into electricity instead of just disposing of it to the air.
Yes, it still uses some fossil fuels, but in the end most of our electricity comes from coal anyway (even for a wall-charged all-electric vehicle like the Model S here, which I am very excited about). This just seems like it would have been far cheaper, more efficient (in terms of both money and thermodynamics), and simpler a solution than the complicated hybrids they've been building for a while now; plus the technology has already existed in widespread use on trains for decades!
So why isn't anybody doing it in cars? Is there a good technical or economic reason?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
While there is a *possibility* that OP meant 'intrinsic evil' when s/he says 'unconstitutional', I think it is absolute *certainty* that you mean 'disagree' when you say 'doesnt help the discussion', and when you say 'fundamentalist' and 'religious' you mean 'asshole'. You confess that OP may be factually correct but label them 'mental' and 'lunatic'? If you would go to the extreme of -6 foe'ing someone, I seriously doubt you are the kind of person that has any discussions at all, as opposed to surrounding yourself with like-minded peer groups. If you were truly their foe, you would study them as Sun Tzu teaches instead of tuning /. to protect you from dissenting ideas.
/. moderation guidelines are optional when anyone disagrees with The Great Bagorange.
Calling them 'lunatic' and 'just plain mental' is far more flaming trollish than anything OP said; and nothing you said contributed anything factual, speculative, theoretical, or in any way advanced a dialog you claim to seek.
If you think there is gray area for moderating 'disagree' than shall I bestow some of my mod points on you? I got karma to burn, and I certainly disagree with your attitude that
Alan Mulally is turning the ship of Ford Motor Co much more quickly than I ever thought possible. He has cleaned up the bureaucratic mess in Dearborn. The Fusion/Milan is moving up the charts. I drove the Fusion Hybrid the other day and it is fantastic. The new Taurus is getting very good press. The 20+ city MPG Transit Connect is going to be a no-brainer for delivery vehicles.
Only post roads are mentioned.
The article I, sec. 8, powers to operate a postal service and to build and maintain post roads, together with the necessary and proper clause, certainly give Congress the power to assure that there are vehicles available, which can be used by the postal service, which are, in the judgement of the Congress, appropriate for use the roads it funds under its authority to create post roads (appropriate including, in this case, having desirable environmental or other operational characteristics.) Just as the post roads Congress has the authority to fund may also be used for other purposes, so can the vehicles; if Congress finds that the most expeditious way to meet the needs is to make funds available for general purpose vehicles.
Alternatively, one could go the easier and shorter route and say, insofar as it is subsidizing particular activities in national and international commerce, Congress action is authorized under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Or, if one wanted to appeal to people who are concerned that the principle legitimate function of the government is national defense, you could, noting that personal vehicles are important to the mobility of the informal militia, appeal to the Art. I, Sec. 8 power " to provide for...arming...the militia"; or since no doubt, insofar as even the regular military uses, for many purposes, vehicles available on the general market, and that Congress may deem it more efficient to acquire vehicles by making them generally available through loans rather than paying (rather than loaning) money for custom development where the vehicles would be of more general utility, simply the powers "to raise and support armies" and "to provide and maintain a navy".
Toyota Yaris 14,000 base price give or take
Model S 49,000
That is a price difference 35 grand at three bucks a gallon for gas that is about 11 years worth or more, wow I cannot wait to stand in line to buy
one of these bad boys. It is certainly going to be amusing watching the auto industry fail yet again because they are letting the govt push
them down the whole green energy road. The are getting ready to produce vehicles again that nobody is going to buy.
Got Code?
Both the american communist and socialist parties have clearly stated that Obama is far too conservative for their tastes.
Only thing you need is electricity (which with most utilities you can get a time of use nighttime rate which is extremely cheap),
Most utilities in CA maybe but not in the US. CA is the only state I know that has different rates for different tymes of the day.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Unless you can point me to the clause I missed that specifically grants the US government that power the 10th Amendment forbids it. Again, good luck finding five Supremes who can read.
That's not the case. A clause that grants powers generally is as good as one that grants it specifically. Congress has the power to pass laws which are necessary and proper to promote the general welfare. Now, you might disagree that the loan to automakers is not necessary and proper, but surprisingly, the Constitution doesn't require Congress to get your opinion. Instead, it provides for other ways to determine when Congress has overstepped its bounds.
Irrelevant. Ford had identified a problem. It was a fixable problem. They elected to not issue a recall. They expected to kill some people, and did. They expected to get sued and lose. They did. They didn't guess the lawsuit cost right (partially because the fact they discussed the future suit was revealed in court). But that doesn't change the fact that they put a price on life and decided to unethically and illegally cover up a known defect to save money (the price on life was coincidentally not far from the federal government's price on life, so if they had revealed it to the NHSTA and requested it be voluntary, it would have probably been approved and been much cheaper than a full recall and have not been willfull killing of people).
Learn to love Alaska
My complaint is that this is being done for a company *that is competing with U.S. owned companies* in a sector where we're struggling.
I could buy Nissan ADRs, American Depositary Receipts, on NASDAQ if I had the money. American Depositary Receipts are a method Americans can invest in foreign owned corporations.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
...whenever it benefits us. For example, we're perfectly willing to distort the market for transportation by paying for freeways with regressive sales taxes. We also like to force property owners to provide off-street parking spaces in the name of "free" parking.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
You should be able to find a perfectly reliable, reasonably safe used car for just a few grand. It may not be pretty, but it will do fine.
When you buy a used car you're buying someone else's problems more than likely. Now I've bought 5 used cars, and one new car I still have after 9 years. Of those I have had to work on 4, one I had to rebuild one engine. Myself, the only think I could not do was bore out the cylinders so I took the engine block to a machine shop. Others I had to repair and replace the transmissions, starters and alternators, replace brakes and other things. Which was fine with me, I could only afford to buy cheap cars I could fix.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
False dichotomy. I don't need a car to get to work, and the mass transit here sucks. I take the most efficient form of transportation available, which also happens to be one of the cheapest: a bicycle. My hilly 10-mile commute takes 40-45 minutes each way.
For groceries and other cargo (such as children), there's the bakfiets (and clones), xtracycle and bike trailers. People even bike in the rain and snow.
The auto manufacturers have done an impressive job making us believe that "everybody in this country needs a car".
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
The poster in question is very, very free market, tiny government fundamentalist.
I base this on quite a few of their posts. Not just the one where they actually say central government must not be allowed to fund fire trucks. It may be (I have no idea)"unconstitutional" to do so, but my implication is that such an interpretation is completely unreasonable.
Worth noting also that they boast of having 200 "freaks". I'm very far from the only one.
I probably count as very left wing to quite a few people, they are free to ignore any contributions I might have.
I'm sure I am disproportionately pro government and anti free markets for someone who reads Slashdot.
Re modding people down because you disagree, of course there will be grey area between "I very strongly disagree" and "I think you are looking for a fight." Because all contributors are human.
However I have never modded anyone up or down (never had any points- too much of a newbie, I think. Actually, I don't even know when you start getting points.)
If I did have points I would always prefer to use them to mod up.
Since the whole idea of down seems to be actually to prevent others, not me hearing someone else. Whereas up is trying to tell others that something is worth your time.
Yes, I know they really have the same effect, but modding up would feel nicer.
the reductio ad absurdum of this is that I must watch Fox News everyday to catch the latest from Hannity & O'Reilly. And you should read all my posts. I don't think that would be very productive. We both will have much better things to do with our time, no?
do you think that the people that like to buy $50-60k cars try to eke 200,000 miles out of them, or do they tend to be people that like to have a new car every few years?
If I could afford to buy new cars every few years, I'd still keep a car as long as I could. The only reason I'd buy a new one to replace the old one was because it was costing too much to keep. Instead of spending money on new toys, I'd rather invest the money. Or donate it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I just realised that I do have the ability to vote stuff up or down.
I was foolishly waiting for a specific message saying "you can now vote up or down". Ho Hum.
Looks like the gov't is a AT v M...
f cars like these get the same battery economy that would mean $25k every 5-7 years according to their FAQ.
After 5 year their batteries are supposed to hold 70% of their new charge capacity, so they really don't need to be replaced, unless the owner needs the range.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Government was already fund Detroit. While I don't like government subsidies whereas 2 of the Detroit big 3 are bankrupt, Tesla looks to be profitable.
The ideal and proper method for government grants
These are loans not grants and have to be repaid.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
TARP may of been needed but if so then strings should have been placed on the funds, such as requiring banks to lend money instead of using it to buy competitors and hoarding the money. Money was given to banks because they were too big to fail, well now they're massive and when they crash again the government won't be able to bail them out.
The bailout also gave bad banks advantages over banks that were properly run and didn't make bad loans. Good banks and borrowers were made to pay for those who made bad loans and those who took out bad loans. In other words the government was choosing winners and losers instead of letting the markets do it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
imho, elon musk is doing what billionaires should be doing. taking risks that their fortune enables only them to make, with companies like tesla motors, and spacex.
Sorry, but you have no idea what socialism is.
Socialism is about working class owning the means of production (for example workers of a car factory all own equal amount of shares of the car manufacturer).
Using tax payer's money for funding failed businesses has nothing to do with socialism. This procedure is called "corporate welfare" and is pretty much the opposite of socialism.
Isn't that Communism? From what I remember of history, in Russia their government was pretty well set up to take care of the people's every need. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussr Specifically, "The government of the Soviet Union administered the country's economy and society. It implemented decisions made by the leading political institution in the country, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU)." This sounds a lot like where our country is headed. Government getting over-involved in industry, economy, and social welfare has been tried and failed. And, by the way, social welfare is different from 'general welfare', citing another reply. I'd equate 'general welfare' to 'general well-being', as in to protect us from harm of outside sources.
Somebody has way too much time on their hands.
SiO2
The Tesla site says, "Seats 7". Given the photos there, I don't see how.
I live in a socialist (social democrat) ruled country. Obama would be considered as conservative over here, mainly due to his rather strong christian faith (OMH he goes to church!) and no clear statement on abortion. His economy policy would be considered conservative too due to a lack of a "powerful" welfare state.
> So if they amended the constitution, you'd suddenly feel like
> it's the kind of thing that IS the government's business?
Of course not! I'd argue until I was blue in the face against the Amendment granting the unlimited powers the Federal government currently wields. But if we had that argument out and I lost I'd have to either accept the outcome or grab the sporting goods and launch a revolution because it would then have been done proper. We would have swept away the last vestiges of the Old Republic and the Empire would be official.
My problem is that by ignoring the Constitution it creates problems greater than the specific problem under discussion because decades of doing it has turned our country from one where the Rule of Law was supreme to one where the Rule of Men holds. There is no certainty in the law because the words are meaningless since all three branches of government now feel free to just yank whatever they want out of their butts. Contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on any more.
Democrat delenda est
It would appear that Tesla seems to be able to do what Detroit has not been able to do. Personally, I have never been convinced of the arguments that Detroit has ever put out. I figure that the greed of the few outweighed the needs of the many; go figure. I wish every success to Tesla Motors. I would also suggest to Tesla that they re-watch, "Tucker: The Man and His Dream," the movie. Detroit didn't get to be a big as it is by being less "Aged, Cunning, and Deceitful" as its rivals.
The Polywell project could've used just some of that money.
Not even half a gigabuck will convince Americans to ride bikes. *ducks*
I used to ride my bike 100 to 200 miles a week. That ended when I was hit while riding my bike. While in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived, instead my life has been a living hell. I wish I had died.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If you want electric cars to be delivered next year you just have to do one thing -- increase the price of fuel dramatically. Until that happens none of this matters and no efforts short of that to move to electric cars will work.
A Net Zero Fuel Tax has been proposed that would do that. Tax on fuel would be raised while people would get a cut in their income tax. If the average person's fuel cost increased $20 people would get a $20 income tax cut. This would encourage people to demand and buy more fuel efficient vehicles.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The term "liberal" or "conservative" is relative to what is considered normal for the country. Centerists are right down the middle, liberals are to the left, conservatives are to the right.
Not always (hint: liberals are on the right in Europe). But, yes, in general, "liberal" and "conservative" are relative labels. However...
Relative to Stalin, yeah, Obama is a hard-line conservative; relative to what is considered normal for American politics, he is an ultra liberal in favor of major social programs OR! wait for it.....a socialist.
That's where you fail. "Liberal" does not equate "socialist", not even the one in favor of "major social programs". At best you can call him a social democrat, though even that would be a stretch. Socialists are those guys who believe in collective ownership of means of production. It's a fairly definite position, and not relative by any measure.
Whether or not Obama's policies are socialist when compared to the rest of the world is irrelevant. He's a socialist by American standards.
Here we were, thinking that "socialism" is a well-defined sociopolitical theory - and then Americans come and tell us that "socialist" is pretty much anyone who's to the left of Reagan, no matter what his beliefs are otherwise. Who knew...
Isn't that Communism? From what I remember of history, in Russia their government was pretty well set up to take care of the people's every need. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussr [wikipedia.org] Specifically, "The government of the Soviet Union administered the country's economy and society. It implemented decisions made by the leading political institution in the country, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU)."
No, USSR has always maintained that its system was socialist, and not communist (and it was largely correct - it wasn't a democratic socialism, but it was socialism nonetheless).
In general, the time when you can properly call Obama socialist is when he nationalizes most of U.S. industries, and puts the worker committees (at least formally) in charge.
"socialist" is pretty much anyone who's to the left of Reagan
Reagan was pretty socialist, for big businesses, the military, and law enforcement, but not for others. He was also friendly to the fossil fuel industries.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
relative. However, socialism is an economy type, like capitalism. It's not relative.
And liberal is an economic as well as political type and is not relative. Specifically Liberalism and the Liberals that stand for it stand for free markets, liberty, and small government. Ah, but I see you say you're a small government liberal.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
And they are still praised to this day for what they have done for this country.
Not everyone, even economists, praise FDR for what he did. Many economists blame him for making the Great Depression last as long as it did. While Teddy Roosevelt was known as a great Trust Buster FDR made trusts more powerful and allowed industries to collaborate to keep competition out.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Smith Electric Vehicles in the UK has been making electric vehicles for 70 something years straight, the current range runs from "sub compact car/van" size right up to articulated good vehicles. One of the better sellers is based on the Ford Transit, a 3500 Kg GVW van, which has a running cost of only 2p per mile and a purchase cost far far far far cheaper than a tesla, and it will earn you a living.
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
No, post roads are specifically mentioned. One lane each way is more than enough to handle USPS traffic.
These EVs are never going to work in parts of the USA that get COLD in the winter. Not to mention the lack of passenger compartment heating, these batteries are going to be seriously degraded in the freezing cold.
I read the title to the article as "to build a Model T". Back in time we go!
You mean like the federal government handing out majority ownership rights over the new GM to the unions that help destroyed it (Obama's loyal supporter base) and shafting the secured bond holders who were legally first in line to be compensated? Sounds a whole lot like your definition.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
Trillions spent/lost in dot-com crash, 9-11, Iraq war, mortgage meltdown and now "stimulus" projects. Why don't they stop spending money for a few years until the economy recovers? The US is heading for bankruptcy if they keep wasting so much money.
Bullshit alert: User believes driving a car emits a ton of nastiness into the air.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Umm... wouldn't all the dealers have closed if the government wouldn't have given them a loan?
Ford didn't have a problem, and Ford took the hardest economic hit, and much earlier.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Ahh yes. We'll just stop spending money. That's exactly how the economy works. good on you for figuring it out. Why did we bother paying all those financial experts when we could have just asked you to spit out the solution between Dr. Peppers? Silly government, thinking that the world economy is fueled by spending!
Also ... what the hell is wrong with Socialism? All it means is that the government sees to the well being of the people. What on earth is wrong with that? If the government isn't going to see to it that I don't die or starve, why am I a citizen? Sidewalks are great, but I'd rather make sure that I continue living to use them first! When did people get the idea that a) socialism is bad and b) that it's the same as communism?
Um. Interstate commerce clause? Anyone?
Why does Ford get such a big help? Because they've been such a leader, and shown such promise in the world of alternative transportation?
Jesus, they were still making almost nothing but giant, dick-substitute trucks until like 2007. Fuck them, they're stupid and shortsighted, let them flounder and fail.
Porquoi?
Funny how when you compare the loan they got to others, how it shows very little the importance on finding new energy.
The big companies (that should be standing on their own feet..thank you ford for putting us into the ground)...seem to get a bigger piece with no real realization of this promise towards different energy...while a company like this one which is pure 100% electric only,
gets no real support....I mean 5billion, they could buy a car for each family in the us with that,.....how is this help...and tesla gets a few million...at least give them 1 billion, see what they make out of it!!!
You wish you had died because the prospect of death is unpalatable, and you do not wish to die now; you only wish to not have to continue living, and by extension wish the deed had been forced on you long ago because you're aware of your own distaste for the only method of escape you have.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Tax breaks to the super rich spurred the economy just enough to raise the GDP 20% and keep the overall income tax collected by the federal government almost as high as it was; there was about a 10 billion dollar decrease in money brought in over the next year, out of 1900 billion dollars. With the prior year's GDP not increasing after the tax cuts, the decrease would have been 380 billion dollars. I find that these tax breaks were not a major factor in government deficit.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
That pretty much seems what is happening with General Motors. The government nationalized GM and now the unions (worker committees) own a big chunk of GM.
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
liberals are on the right in Europe
So liberals are like steering wheels?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Because you assume the world can support everyone in it. Resources are limited. Money is an artificial limiter; remove it and we find that we can't grow enough food (too many people, too little land, eventually you have to start using up feed land and then you can't feed everyone...). There will always be continuous growth of the population over time, and then we hit a point of saturation where some of you poor slobs just have to die. The overall model resembles insurance: we can't give EVERYONE health insurance, because the system actually can't support those who need it most, and eventually collapses and can't support ANYONE anymore.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant to say the poster was describing a communistic policy in the people's equal share ownership of industry. I agree that USSR was a social system. The main point I was trying to make was that the system is flawed, unsustainable. There will always be people who do not put their fair share in, or pull more out than they need, and eventually the system will collapse. I don't think we necessarily need to wait and see if our country truly becomes socialistic. I do think we have come too close already, even if we're not there yet. Government should not be spending its resources in the way it is. If the economy is down, wait. It will pick back up. It's a dynamic system, and it will always be this way.
The battery technology they're developing could go pretty far in getting our cars off gasoline, and stopping our dependency on foreign oil.
And which would be better for the general welfare of the country? Food or cars?
Yes I do. I have not committed hari kari, sepaku, or another ritualized form of suicide mostly because a belief I formerly had. Though I no longer do I used to believe in reincarnation and whenever I'd think of ending my life I'd think that if reincarnation were true then I'd have to come back and go through what I've been through again. Two other reasons are that I hate giving up, and I am stubborn. Which may be a problem there, some of the doctors and therapists I've seen said that if I weren't stubborn I would not have survived. Actually I just got home from an appointment at my doc's clinic where I told two therapists I met the same thing.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
No it couldn't.
Car fuel isn't the only things that require oil.
Hell, the car and the road itself require oil.
Everyone focuses on cars, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Arizona does as well.
Okay, that makes two states, out of 50. Even if there are 10 states that have variable electrical rates that's only 1 in 5.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
How is funding a boutique luxury car manufacturer at the rate of half a billion similar to funding interstates, military, postal service, etc.? Tesla does not even hope to provide shared infrastructure or essential services to the country as do these programs. I don't get it.
I am so sick of this argument! They are NOT just a boutique luxury car manufacturer, they started that way to get enough money for their company but they are now working on selling the first truly viable all electric family sedan, that is within the range of most other nice sedans like Audis, etc, which many familys have.
They are the first company with the balls to say FU to the oil companies and actually do some real innovative work, and they deserve every fucking penny of what they got.
While every other automaker in the world has treated electric cars like a curiosity, Tesla came right out and saw them as the future. If anyone *doesn't* deserve the money, it's the major automakers that ignored anything efficient until oil blew up and being green became fashionable.
-Taylor
They take beautiful Lotus, extract the engine and add electrical moters. That's innovation?
Considering the mindset of most american auto company execs, I guess that does qualify.
Why not make more efficient internal combustion engines?
Use carbon nano tubes to grow an internal combustion engine that would be lighter, and the parts would fit together more accurately.
Major electrical plants made aluminum easier to extract from boxite, so why not find some process or some high gain resource for titanium. That would lower the price of titanium to then use in engines.
To those who say that it is too unrealistic, that argument is also applicable to electrical cars that run directly from chemical batteries.
If you were going to use electrical, why not have wireless electric power beamed over major highways and other roads. Then use batteries on the car to store the power when not gaining electricity.
It would be more useful for Tesla to take Mr. Tesla's designs to its full potential.
Oh but I do.
I believe that taxes have one single purpose. To fund the government. Therefore I believe it is immoral and wrong to tax things differently in an attempt to alter an individual's behavior.
In general I feel the same but I also believe it's the responsibility of government to protect people, and that includes from pollution. If a business or person pollutes they should be held accountable. But I guess you didn't even look at the link I provided. The net zero tax proposal was from the neoconservative publication "Weekly Standard".
I also believe a tax or user fee should cover the cost of what it is for. In the case of fuel tax it should cover the cost of building and maintaining roads, but they don't. Money has to be taken out of general revenue to pay for roads.
Taxes should not be used as a subversive method to influence free choices.
So polluters shouldn't have to pay for their pollution?
Furthermore, your argument suggests if you tax something, you get less of it, or rather people buy/use less of it. Which is true, so why are we taxing income and savings?
Again you say it's my proposal or argument, can you show me where I claimed it was?
Also if you go back in my posting history you should see I oppose personal income taxes. I have repeatedly advocated reducing the size of government, getting rid of the ABCs of agencies and authorities, bureaus, departments, offices, and others the Constitution of the USA does not mention. If there is an exception I make it is the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. Personally I don't think it's an exception though others may. That's because pollution does not respect man made lines on a map. Because of heavy use of fertilizers on farms in the Midwest, which gets washed down the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico, a large and growing Dead Zone forms in the Gulf every year. Among those who have to pay are all the fishermen who don't catch much if any fish because all the fish are dead.
Your suggestion to tax gasoline to change human behavior is in conflict with a free society. In a free society, you don't need to worry about what other people do.
So polluters get a free ride. You do have to worry, because what others put out may cause you to lose your property or kill you, but I guess as long as someone make money that's alright.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I'll reply - and I'm trying to agree with you, we have two competing theories. One held by me, and the Supreme Court of the United States since at least 1941 (see U.S. v. Darby), and one held by you and the states rights groups.
You mean like the federal government handing out majority ownership rights over the new GM to the unions that help destroyed it (Obama's loyal supporter base) and shafting the secured bond holders who were legally first in line to be compensated? Sounds a whole lot like your definition.
What control did the UAW, or any other union, have on GM's marketing and other high-level strategic decisions? Yes the costs of decent wages and benefits were significant expenses, but all business have non-trivial expenses they have to deal with. For example, Ford has similar union contracts, in the same industry, and they still are profitable. Instead, it was a failure of the leadership of the recent executives that got GM into this mess .
Oh I know - it's like when Copernicus and Galileo said "The Earth goes around the Sun" and the Church pointed to what was written on an old piece of paper and said "pass".
I think you meant "fail". Could be wrong, but Wikipedia states that
"he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest."
Certainly sounds like a fail to me.
More bullshit courtesy of the U.S. Gubmint!
I know. Just like those silly Interstate highways, the US Marine Corps, the US Postal Service that'll deliver a package of paper to any door in the US within a day or two for an affordable flat fee, and those terribly inefficient and socialized Firefighters and that neo-communist socialized Police Department. Government. Pah! Who needs it?
Regarding the politics of the DOE ATVM Loan awards:
So it turns out to be all the best loans money can buy.
Ford paid over $14M to elected officials and consultants in order to get the loan. Ford paid the third largest amount and Ford got the third largest loan. This is disclosed in public records searches and lobby filings just revealed. 21 elected officials had direct benefit from the deal.
Nissan paid over $10M to elected officials and consultants in order to get the loan. Nissan paid the third largest amount and Nissan got the third largest loan. This is disclosed in public records searches and lobby filings just revealed. The law and public statements by elected officials state that the money was to increase American competitiveness for America car companies yet the money was given to a Japanese company who will send all of the profits back to Japan. 7 elected officials had direct benefit from the deal.
Tesla paid over $100,000.00 to elected officials and consultants in order to get the loan. Tesla paid the third largest amount and Tesla got the third largest loan. This is disclosed in public records searches and lobby filings just revealed. Teslaâ(TM)s filings show that their business model is unsustainable compared to competitors, that they were 200% off on the BOM of their car, that all of their first funding was wasted so they have to pay back twice as much to investors as competing companies and that their technology is so old, it all needs to be redone yet they still got money. 18 elected officials had direct benefit from the deal. Tesla did not even read the rules for the loan and planned to build a building when the NEPA rules make that option impossible so they had to restart the process, which is supposed to put one into a new cycle yet they were kept in the previous cycle and put ahead of Fisker, Bright and others who had applied earlier than Tesla. Tesla provided massively creative accounting records to show that they were financially sustainable and have issued numerous press releases to try to make people think that but, in fact, the truth is that they are not because of bad management issues that they cannot get past.
The ATVM program was created by Ford, GM & Chrysler lobbyists to pad their companyâ(TM)s pockets and those three had pre-hardwired the entire $25B for their own pockets but something happened in the process when Senator Bingaman added a few key lines that opened the door for OTHERS to apply to build green technology and required that those who get the money were âoefinancially sustainableâ businesses. Back when the ATVM was authored to save Detroit, it was fully known that Detroit was going to go bankrupt. Ford had the same problems as GM and Chrysler but they went around the world getting bailout money instead of going first to US funds. As law required public exposure of the bankruptcy, Bingamanâ(TM)s brilliant plan to finally create a green transportation industry was revealed. The very people that had stopped green cars for over 100 years suddenly became the first people to, accidently, cause them to happen but now others could do it too.
Bingaman should get the Congressional Medal of Honor for pulling off this impossible trick and finally giving America the Electric Cars it should have had for the last hundred years.
Once Detroit realized this, they tried to hijack the whole ATVM program with a takeback at the end of 2008 but that effort was defeated by a close late night vote. Now that it was out there, Detroit lobbyists and influencers fought to get the review of applicants delaye
Well, the US government itself seems to be taking tack 1. And it has been for a century or so at least.
But seriously for a moment. Don't you think it is reasonable that when they say general welfare, they mean just that, and then enumerate a starting list of powers? It would be pretty stupid to keep the list unchanged over centuries of use!
Let me take a guess here and hazard that you're against universal healthcare. Why, when that is one of those things that is most assuredly, under any possible definition, part of "general welfare", both of the individual members of a nation and the nation as a whole? Yet because it wasn't possible, or simply imagined, in 1789, you must stick out against it? I do apologise if you support universal healthcare in the US.
Actually, the libertarian ideas are quite new in US politics. If you look back to speeches and propaganda of the pre-war era, Americans were very proud of their social welfare system, such as it was. It has grown enormously since then, though still lagging behind Europe, so at least it's clear that America as a whole is for social justice and welfare.
As expressed in the 1964 revue "Beyond the Fringe": "Of course, they have inherited our two-party system, haven't they? Well, let me see now, they've got the Republican Party, you see, which is the equivalent of our Conservative Party. And then there's the Democratic Party, which is the equivalent of our Conservative Party."
:)
How times don't change.