Slashdot Mirror
How Does Musk's Government Funding Compare To Competitors?
Rei writes: We recently discussed an article in the LA Times complaining about how Elon Musk has built his corporate empires — Solar City, Tesla Motors and SpaceX — on the back of government subsidies. However, how does the funding compare in context to various competitors? USC professor Greg Autry breaks it down, noting among other things that SpaceX's competitors have benefited from decades of tremendous government money and a launch monopoly, while the Volt receives — on a percentage basis — 2 1/2 times greater subsidy than a Model S, and was developed on the government's dime.
No one cares how he compares to competition. There are two broad groups of people on this:
1) People think it's fine for the government to subsidize some industry.
2) People who think the government should not subsidize industry.
The people in group #1 think it's good that the Tesla and Volt got government funding. The people in group #2 oppose funding of both Tesla and Volt. So a study like this will change no one's opinion (and from the author's writing, it is clear that is what he's trying to do).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The oil industry receives far larger subsidies per year than Musk is accused of receiving over three companies and many years. And some of the "subsidies" Musk is accused of receiving consisted of loans that were paid back with interest.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
The IMF just published a comprehensive study of fossil fuel subsidies. They about to $5 trillion a year (world-wide) which is 6.5% of global GDP.
http://www.imf.org/external/np...
As Elon has stated: "If I was interested in subsidies, I'd go into the oil business".
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?