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.
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.
Maybe that is because a Model S costs 2.4 times that of a Volt. On a per vehicle basis they are almost the same.
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 reason we use government funding to incentivize things is because we as a public want people to do/build/invent/fix those things and are willing to pay for that to happen.
So Elon Musk comes along and says he will and then he does. And then we pay him what, as a public, we planned to pay (via those incentives) to whoever did them.
Seems like everything is going according to plan, for all involved, and that we're lucky enough to have found something of a one-stop-shop for incentivized work that few others are willing to take on, but that seems to really move the needle on tech progress for something other than consumer electronics gadgets.
Win/win all around. Smells like right wing paranoia and demagoguery to me in here.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Musk is changing industries, big ones. From finance (Paypal, I know, it does suck, but alternatives are few and far between), solar, battery, electric cars, and space flight.
Jobs was a pioneer of computing but ended up a design specialist (good function and things like rounded corners).
I am a fanboy or no one. But I have to respect Musk as he doesn't talk about things, he does them. Richard Branson probably wishes he was Elon Musk...
I appreciate all of the Slashdot stories referring to Musk's activities. I don't actively seek out such information, but Slashdot provides it. And you certainly can't make an argument that the stories' topics aren't Slashdot fodder. Musk is a technical innovator of the highest standard, I don't believe anyone compares to him at this moment in time.
In conclusion, skip the story if you don't give a shit. That's what I do and I don't find myself needing to criticize or complain about story topics.
BlameBillCosby.com
You're right. People aren't appreciative *enough* of him.
Let's see. Creates the best car ever, creates rockets for fun and as insurance to potentially save humanity by going to Mars, going to create rockets at least half the price as competitors, and potentially 100x cheaper, wants to save the Earth from CO2 and is beginning to do it, amazing engineer, helped create Paypal (when it was good), open-sourced patents, envisaged design for hyperloop, building the largest battery factory ever made by an order of magnitude or more, wanted to originally research supercaps (great area to study!), cares about quality rather than just money. Put every last penny he had at his own cost in order to save Tesla and SpaceX. Speaks frankly during interviews.
No one like him.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc