Can Elon Musk Be Weaned Off Government Support? (thehill.com)

WEANED for God's sake by porges · 2017-08-07 10:42 · Score: 1

Editors.

Re:WEANED for God's sake by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2017-08-07 10:48 · Score: 1

Editors.
. . . well, considering what Detroit did to DeLorean . . . Musk should be scared . . . I sense a "drug/terrorist" conspiracy coming against him . . . really soon . . .

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Re:WEANED for God's sake by porges · 2017-08-07 10:51 · Score: 2

OK, at least they're paying attention! Thanks. (For the latecomers, the headline used to say "weened".)
Re: WEANED for God's sake by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-07 11:12 · Score: 1

Ass soon as hydrocarbon subsidies of five fucking trillion annually are zeroed out I'll give a shit

Slashdot user mi by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-07 10:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

is an idiot. Many companies receive subsidies from the US Government.

Re:Slashdot user mi by Rockoon · 2017-08-07 10:44 · Score: 1

By their definition, all companies do.

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:Slashdot user mi by Rei · 2017-08-07 11:24 · Score: 5, Informative

This is one of the dumbest articles I've ever seen on Slashdot, and that's saying a lot.
1) SpaceX has been saving the US government a huge amount of money versus its formerly monopolistic competitor, ULA, which even still gets paid even when it doesn't launch anything. SpaceX charges a tiny fraction as much per launch as ULA does, and this before they get to widespread rocket reuse.
2) The federal EV credits were basically designed by GM, for the Volt. The credit is per-kWh and maxes out precisely at the pack capacity of the Volt (gee, what are the odds of that?). Furthermore, it expires on a per-manufacturer basis. This has the perverse effect that manufacturers of popular EVs - such as Tesla - get no credits (Tesla's phaseout starts next year), but their competitors who make less popular EVs will continue to be subsidized for years to come.
3) Tesla's reservations are in place despite the fact that its US customers know that most of them will be getting a partially-phased-out credit if any at all. That's because even without credits and without accounting for savings in energy and maintenance costs, the Model 3 outcompetes other vehicles in its class (BMW 3-Series, Audi A4, etc) on performance and features for its price point.
(Cue the Slashdotters rushing to pretend that there's no difference between standard features and performance in a midrange sedan and, say, a base-model Yaris. Because that's what these conversations usually devolve to ;) )
4) Tesla Motors did get - like the Big Three - government loans during the auto bailout. But unlike some of the Big Three, they paid theirs back 100% with interest - and more to the point, years before they were due.
In large part, the subsidies that affect Tesla's products have had the perverse effect of hurting the company, giving them artificially supported competition. Musk frequently complains about them.

--
He's really very... gentle... and fuzzy. We're becoming fast friends.
Re:Slashdot user mi by alvinrod · 2017-08-07 11:32 · Score: 1

To your first point, does the government save more than they pay out in subsidies or tax credits? Even if that makes the result less impressive, competition itself is still going to be good.

Otherwise, excellent points.
Re:Slashdot user mi by haruchai · 2017-08-07 12:01 · Score: 1

"In large part, the subsidies that affect Tesla's products have had the perverse effect of hurting the company"
Seems that's the case with California ZEV credits. Musk claims Tesla often can't find buyers & usually only gets 50 cents on the dollar whereas GM et al get to claim full price. However, I'm not sure how to calculate the value of a ZEV credit - what's one worth? Does it change from quarter to quarter, year to year?

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Re:Slashdot user mi by MattskEE · 2017-08-07 12:04 · Score: 1

It's not even clear to me that SpaceX has ever received a government subsidy.
People seem to get up in arms about the government spending money on SpaceX launches and think that it's a government subsidy, but they forget that the US government is the single biggest customer of space launch services in the world. Any rocket company who isn't selling to the US govt is missing out on a big piece of the pie.
They have received commercial crew development contracts from NASA, which is similar to contracts paid by NASA to contractors to develop the space shuttle (for example) although the commercial crew program is run somewhat differently from standard cost plus government aerospace contracting. These NASA contracts require performing to milestones to stay in the game and unlock future funding, and will ultimately lead to a capability NASA will purchase (as the sole initial customer) to launch crew to the ISS.
Re:Slashdot user mi by MattskEE · 2017-08-07 12:28 · Score: 3, Informative

While California wanted more low-emission and zero-emission cars they didn't want to force manufacturers to make them. Therefore manufacturers who didn't meet requirements for percentages of low/zero emission vehicles are allowed to purchase credits from manufacturers (like Tesla) who exceeded the government's requirements so that the manufacturer doesn't need to pay a penalty.
Because there is a free market for these credits the price varies, and the price is thus set by the supply and demand. Because of the slow ramp up of CA's emissions requirements the price is currently below what the cost of the penalty would be for a manufacturer to fail to meet the requirements (or buy credits).
Re:Slashdot user mi by randomErr · 2017-08-07 12:43 · Score: 1

SpaceX has received more than $5.5 billion in government contracts and grants from NASA and the U.S. Air Force. The delinination of how much of that is free grants and how much is contract is not very clear. SpaceX starting price for any launch is $56.5 million.

--
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Re:Slashdot user mi by david_bonn · 2017-08-07 12:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

All good points.
I think the historical analogies have a lot of weight, though.
Probably the most pertinent, and controversial at the time, was the enormous land grants given to transcontinental railroads. The land grants worked out to approximately ten square miles of land for every mile of track. That was on top of generous subsidies for actually laying the track. When the land grants were extended to mineral rights as well it became an even better deal for the Union Pacific. Plus, there was a requirement that these railroads be built with American steel -- which was a boon to Andrew Carnegie and others.
A little bit later, the early electric lighting companies, most notably Edison's, were given generous contracts by local governments to provide lighting for their cities. Much later on, the federal government got into the game and subsidized a great local public power companies.
Early development of aircraft was largely subsidized by nearly every government who could get into the game, Aside from the obvious military applications there was enormous demand for mail service and to a lesser extent for passenger service -- largely supported by governments.
You could argue that the early (post WWII) computer industry was largely subsidized by the US government.
I just have to conclude that the article referenced here sets some kind of world record for abysmal ignorance and willful blindness. It doesn't surprise me that thehill.com would publish such tripe.
Re:Slashdot user mi by Areyoukiddingme · 2017-08-07 13:07 · Score: 5, Informative

To your first point, does the government save more than they pay out in subsidies or tax credits?
The US federal government gives neither tax credits nor subsidies for rockets. They buy launch services. There's a bunch of laws requiring it. A ULA launch costs $480 million. A SpaceX launch costs $62 million. Subtract the latter from the former and that's the straight up savings. SpaceX has already launched one national security payload, saving the US government in the form of the NRO hundreds of millions of dollars.
If you're asking about saving money with SpaceX vs spending tax credits with Tesla, ultimately yes, the government will save money. As the post you replied to pointed out, Teslas will be ineligible for the federal tax credit very soon. Projections were Tesla would hit the ceiling late this year, with Model 3 production. If not, they'll definitely hit it next year. After that, no more tax credits for Tesla vehicle purchases in the US. Meanwhile, SpaceX will continue saving hundreds of millions of dollars with every single launch the government buys.
NASA has booked no less than 26 resupply launches to the International Space Station with SpaceX. Every single one of those launches saves a fortune in tax money. Next year, NASA's contract with Russia for Soyuz launches of American astronauts to the ISS runs out. SpaceX is pushing hard to finish the Commercial Crew NASA contract, which would get them certified to take over from Russia late next year. That won't save quite as much money: Soyuz launches cost NASA $81.6 million per seat for six launches in three years. SpaceX will probably come in under that, but not by much. More importantly, that money will go to an American company with American employees, instead of a Russian "company".
More abstractly, the existence of Tesla is making electric cars a reality. The usual suspects can no longer lie to Congress and say it's impossible for them to build a product acceptable to consumers because there's now a company doing it. Electric cars reduce emissions, move emissions, and change the nature of emissions. Rather than hundreds of millions of vehicles spewing toxic fumes from gasoline combustion at ground level everywhere people live, we'll have merely thousands of power plants spewing toxic fumes from coal combustion hundreds of feet into the air far outside of cities. It's not a great win (yet), but it's still a win. The net result will be fewer lung disorders Medicaid has to pay for, saving the government money.
The Medicaid savings are a lot harder to quantify. Easier to just point to the rocket launch savings, which will add up to many many billions over time. Still, there will be more than just rocket launch savings from Elon Musk companies.
Re:Slashdot user mi by bareman · 2017-08-07 13:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

This BeauHD user must be losing their ass on their short selling position. Their posts here today reek of desperation.
Re:Slashdot user mi by Aighearach · 2017-08-07 13:43 · Score: 2

If somebody can't tell the difference between a purchase and a subsidy, but somehow they're already whining, don't bother explaining the details. They're not listening.
Everybody that is listening has to wait until they know the details to even form an opinion, much less whine about their perception of if the world is doing what they want.
Re:Slashdot user mi by wonkavader · 2017-08-07 13:55 · Score: 1

Base price for a Yaris: $15,250
Base price for a 435i: $48,150
If you hand me $33k, I'll tell you just how much I love the Yaris and how much I hate the 435i.
Re: Slashdot user mi by orlanz · 2017-08-07 14:02 · Score: 2

I just want to add on #2, that the credits were designed with both Nissan Leaf and GM Volt in mind. All the big manufacturers also asked that Toyota (Prius) not be given a credit because they were too far ahead in the field.
And it does irk me when people look at market sector subsidies to encourage competition & adoption; they single out the one or two successful vendors and say they are getting an unfair advantage.
If people looked at the histories of Ford, Lockheed, Chase Bank, etc... they would understand just what tailor made subs are. The solar, electric, and even present day oil subs just aren't comparable.
Re:Slashdot user mi by The+Grim+Reefer · 2017-08-07 14:03 · Score: 1

4) Tesla Motors did get - like the Big Three - government loans during the auto bailout. But unlike some of the Big Three, they paid theirs back 100% with interest - and more to the point, years before they were due.
Ford never took a bailout. GM paid back their loan with interest, ahead of schedule. Chrysler also paid back their loan with interest, though I don't recall if it was on time, or ahead of schedule.
We, the tax payers, still ended up losing $1.3 billion on Chrysler and $10.5 billion on GM due to the government selling its shares in those companies at a loss. Chrysler in 2011 and GM in 2013. .
Re:Slashdot user mi by ColaMan · 2017-08-07 14:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

The grants aren't "free money". They're money to develop stuff that might not work out. Eg. the USAF grants to develop a new rocket engine.
You can't call them contracts, because the results aren't a fully delivered product with solid specs behind it. But there's R&D attached to them that is returned to whoever's handing out the money.
And NASA / USAF / DOD and government in general does this all the time - they basically gamble a little bit of their budgets and spread it about in the commercial/academic world to try and advance the state of the art, because the payoff is that those advances make things cheaper in the long run for them.

--

You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Re:Slashdot user mi by sessamoid · 2017-08-07 17:30 · Score: 2

Rather than hundreds of millions of vehicles spewing toxic fumes from gasoline combustion at ground level everywhere people live, we'll have merely thousands of power plants spewing toxic fumes from coal combustion hundreds of feet into the air far outside of cities. It's not a great win (yet), but it's still a win.

In California (where more people buy Teslas than anywhere else)I, it's a great win. Virtually none of California's power comes from coal. The dirtiest power we have is natural gas plants, and they're falling as a proportion of the total electricity generated at a pretty rapid rate. So Teslas are replacing dirty ICEs with, at worst, about one third renewable or hydro power.

--
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
Re:Slashdot user mi by bitingduck · 2017-08-07 19:16 · Score: 2

You can't call them contracts, because the results aren't a fully delivered product with solid specs behind it. But there's R&D attached to them that is returned to whoever's handing out the money.
And NASA / USAF / DOD and government in general does this all the time - they basically gamble a little bit of their budgets and spread it about in the commercial/academic world to try and advance the state of the art, because the payoff is that those advances make things cheaper in the long run for them.
It depends on the agency - the gov't can and does do R&D contracts where the deliverable is demonstration of performance, sometimes on a best effort basis. Sometimes the only deliverable is a report on what they've done.
Re:Slashdot user mi by bluefoxlucid · 2017-08-08 02:06 · Score: 1

There are a few other arguments.
For one: $5 billion over what time? $5 billion isn't a lot of money; it's $31.50 per taxpayer in the United States. Even $5 billion per year is trivially cheap; and these ventures have been going for how long? A decade? More, less?
On top of that, we've sunk good money into building these things up, in terms of the economy. They're providing valuable forward-going research which may not be profitable. That means funding things like SolarCity and Tesla moves technology forward more-quickly than the free market; at $32/year I'm happy to pitch in, and the poorest don't even pay that much in taxes. So long as we're not just hitting up the super-super-rich "because they have too much money" or the desperately-poor who can't afford it, I think we can all chip in two or three bucks a month.
The alternative is a collapse of these ventures and a loss of that expense, followed by more expense to create new ventures, eventually bringing out the new technology late--more-expensive overall for us, but also harder to point at the line-item in our check books.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Slashdot user mi by bluefoxlucid · 2017-08-08 02:09 · Score: 1

Who cares? I want to know if the tax payer saves more money than otherwise. The Government is a big spender with big numbers; we have 158,000,000 taxpayers who fork over the cash for those big numbers at gunpoint.
Incidentally, $5bn / 0.158bn is $31.65. I'm not saying we should be free with how we spend other peoples's money, but Americans can easily afford this without burdening the very-poor or hitting up the super-rich to carry the majority of the burden. That much in one year is just a couple bucks a month--all those "just a couple bucks" have added up to the near-$20k I pay in taxes, and we have to consider the problem from all angles; the fiscal angle is only one angle, and it's decidedly a non-problem.
No sense being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Slashdot user mi by dAzED1 · 2017-08-08 03:29 · Score: 1

what crack are you smoking? GM paid $39.7B of $51B given to it. While Ford didn't take a TARP bailout like GM, they /did/ take a $5.9B loan from a fed program to make alternate fuel tech cars, with a stipulation that money be used for US jobs. Ford hasn't paid back a penny from that 2009 loan, and has moved the production and design the money paid for out of the US. TARP lost $10.2B total, and if you add the $5.9B from Ford which happened at the same time and was more or less a sideways bailout, that's $16.1BILLION DOLLARS that you're just dismissing as "paid back their loan" - no, they didn't.
All that ignores the fact that the subsidies aren't aimed against other car manufacturers, since they can use the same subsidies. I myself own a Chevy Bolt and a Chevy Volt, both of which gave me the "Tesla subsidy" despite not being Teslas. The goal is an alternate to oil an industry that has been benefiting from massive US subsidies and special programs for damn near a century. If anyone needs to not be subsidized anymore nor get special treatment (Exxon took how long to pay anything for their Valdez spill, for instance? And how many oil companies get to drill and destroy federal land? And the whole Dakota pipeline insanity?). The US has carried the oil industry for close to a century, if not longer. I can tell you from personal experience that the Bolt is actually a pretty good car. This isn't a "Tesla" subsidy.
Re:Slashdot user mi by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-08-08 03:42 · Score: 1

Yes, as soon as we see the argument that the government buying services from SpaceX is a 'subsidy', we know that the rest of whatever argument is being made is a purely personal flame job.
Re:Slashdot user mi by MercTech · 2017-08-08 09:18 · Score: 1

"Many companies receive subsidies from the US Government."
And the point is that many if not most of them should not be sucking the public teat.

--
NRRPT/RCT
Re:Slashdot user mi by ChrisMaple · 2017-08-08 14:48 · Score: 1

It looks like you were suckered by the "cash for clunkers" propaganda. How many of your other claims have the same level of credibility?

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Slashdot user mi by KingBenny · 2017-08-17 13:29 · Score: 1

it fails to say how much subsidies the total of politicians has received wether they attend daily or not . Its probably better spend on musk than most of them. I dont know if twitter got subsidized for never making a cent ? they sure sold out when going public despite that. I dont know about overthere but theres this daily program on tv (or used to be) where they broadcast live from brussels ... its like you can almost see the wind blowing through and you expect tumbleweeds to follow, thats how empty that hall is ... so i think most of them could be totally missed and not paid while musk at least tries something (other than put ads online). As for world hunger : the solution is to stop breeding, not deprive tek and science (imnsho)

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?

Why Indeed... by djbckr · 2017-08-07 10:44 · Score: 2

Why do we pay for Amtrak? Why do we pay for corn farms for ethanol? The list is a mile long... I don't have the answers, but I'm sure smarter people than me can chime in.

Re:Why Indeed... by Bodhammer · 2017-08-07 10:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think the terms you are looking for are "graft", "corruption", and "crony capitalism"...

--
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Re:Why Indeed... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2017-08-07 10:53 · Score: 1

Why do we pay for corn farms for ethanol?
Tastes better. Less filling.

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Re:Why Indeed... by TiberiusKirk · 2017-08-07 10:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes! Why did the government spend hundreds of BILLIONS on concrete pathways all across the fucking country? And hundreds of billions more to build the oil/gasoline infrastructure? My horse got along just fine without all that shit! Fucking morons.
Re:Why Indeed... by sunking2 · 2017-08-07 11:05 · Score: 1

One could argue that those subsidies are for products that aren't sold to the rich like a $75k+ car and $20k+ solar power system. Most are perfectly fine with subsidies, subsidies for the rich on the other hand.
Re:Why Indeed... by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2017-08-07 11:19 · Score: 5, Informative

All car companies can access the subsidies for electric cars. You can say Elon benefits more since he's only building electric cars, most of the big automakers have only been building half-assed compliance cars. Because Elon didn't start out with a huge car company he couldn't start out building a cheap car because it takes an enormous amount of money to develop a vehicle and everything needed to build it. Roadster proved an electric car can be interesting. Model S & X was needed to help scale up and develop the next thing. Model 3 is not *cheap* but it's getting closer to what the "average person" can afford. I suspect whatever follows Model Y will be even more accessible. He needed the Gigafactory battery plant to help push the cost of batteries down faster.
The article saying the same about SpaceX is pretty fuzzy if you're talking about subsidies. NASA contracted companies to ship cargo and (soon) people to the space station rather than developing it in house. The original commercial cargo contract was helpful for developing SpaceX's commercial satellite launch business. If it weren't for the Commercial Cargo & Commercial Crew programs, all the US ISS launch business would have gone to ULA's even more expensive rockets and Russia for expensive rides to the space station.
Re:Why Indeed... by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2017-08-07 11:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

Also, I'll believe the author is earnest about killing subsidies, I would have expected a mention of the fossil fuel subsidies too, including sweetheart resource extraction deals on federal lands. Or say Ford's still-unpaid bailout loan from the US government. Or ULA's expensive military satellite launch business. It just strikes me as an easy hit piece rather than an honest means to do away with subsidies.
Elon's gone on record several times saying he'll give up subsidies if everyone else gives up theirs.
Re:Why Indeed... by Rei · 2017-08-07 11:28 · Score: 1

So, giant subsidies in neural interfaces and tunnels, then? Because those are his most recent companies.
I know, we'll soon be calling any government contracts to build any sort of tunnels "subsidies" and damning him for taking them.

--
He's really very... gentle... and fuzzy. We're becoming fast friends.
Re:Why Indeed... by hord · 2017-08-07 11:50 · Score: 1

Men with guns threaten our freedom if we don't send a check in.
Re:Why Indeed... by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-08-07 11:57 · Score: 1

Yes! Why did the government spend hundreds of BILLIONS on concrete pathways all across the fucking country?
This is not aimed at you (I understood your snark), but at people who may not know...
The reason behind the design and buildout of the US Interstate Highway System was not really to make it easier for cars to move around - it was intended to provide fast and easy movement for large numbers of military personnel and equipment, in case of war.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:Why Indeed... by haruchai · 2017-08-07 12:04 · Score: 1

"Why do we pay for corn farms for ethanol?"
I'm pretty sure corn is heavily subsidized regardless of how much is used for ethanol

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Re:Why Indeed... by Daemonik · 2017-08-07 12:14 · Score: 2

Would the private contractors have built it, and built it to the standards we expect, while reaching every citizen rather than just a few rich ones, without government subsidies is a fairer and more realistic question. The answer would be no.
Re: Why Indeed... by TiberiusKirk · 2017-08-07 13:10 · Score: 1

"Paid for by tolls" ...and guarded by trolls
Re:Why Indeed... by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-08-07 13:29 · Score: 1

Come on, it's right in the name: The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:Why Indeed... by dryeo · 2017-08-07 13:59 · Score: 2

Oh bullshit, you're perfectly free to turn down the benefits from sending those checks in and never send another check.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:Why Indeed... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-07 16:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Of all the recipients of corporate welfare, Musk's ventures fall into the better half. He's making some other people look bad, the resentment goes up, and so you get hit pieces like this.
Re:Why Indeed... by gl4ss · 2017-08-07 16:44 · Score: 1

If several other ventures started offering the same products Musk did
musk offers a maserati competitor. do you think a maserati competitor needs subsidies and please explain the rationale. also there is a lot of competition in the near to 100k car.
meanwhile other companies are and have been offering EV products to compete with gasoline golfs and civics.
why do you think trump fell out of favor with musk?
musk had a wet dream of getting same kind of car taxes for USA that some places of europe have... which for a 80k gasoline car are around 50k-60k. so a maserati that is in USA same price with entry level 80k tesla ends up being 130-140k there which makes tesla a lot better value for money. this tax difference is a LOT smaller with cheaper cars of course. it is this same system that makes hybrid systems basically free for customers in some regions(the tax advantage pays for the hybrid system)

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re: Why Indeed... by drinkypoo · 2017-08-07 23:35 · Score: 2

Yes, if allowed to private contractors would have stepped up and built interstate highways paid for by tolls. You would only pay when you used them.
Thus preserving the right to travel only for the wealthy. That's a shitty plan, and anyone who thinks it's a good one is a privileged asshole.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Why Indeed... by Topwiz · 2017-08-08 01:12 · Score: 2

Ford hasn't paid it back because it never took one.
Re:Why Indeed... by david_thornley · 2017-08-08 09:28 · Score: 2

It can be a subsidy for people using the roads.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Why Indeed... by haruchai · 2017-08-08 13:24 · Score: 1

I'm no expert either but from what I've read, most of the US corn crop goes to animal feed. One would thing that should be profitable.

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Re:Why Indeed... by Aighearach · 2017-08-10 07:00 · Score: 1

Nope. You failed in your attempt to operate a dictionary. Please try again soon.
There are people who look words up to correct their vocabulary. They're called "literate." There are also people who know how to read, but refuse to read, and refuse to look up things that they are mistaken about, even when informed. They're called "aliterate."
My hope for you is that some day you will achieve literacy, because you do actually know how to read and so you're ripe for it.

googled the author, tea party patriots group by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-07 10:45 · Score: 5, Informative

lol

wtf by enigma32 · 2017-08-07 10:46 · Score: 1

By all means, let's bitch about companies that are doing useful and interesting things instead of selling a phone with a fancier camera and slightly faster processor.

Agree except for Space-X by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-07 10:46 · Score: 1

The government consumes Space-X product (e.g. sending stuff to the Space Station) any money paid for that service isn't a 'government subsidy' (other than government contracts probably overpay anyway). The others I agree with.

How about I'm okay with this? by H3lldr0p · 2017-08-07 10:47 · Score: 2

Slashdot reader mi asks: "Why are you and I subsidizing Elon Musk's products and when will his businesses be able to compete on their own?"/

Let's not get too pedantic here. There's not a multinational or national company that doesn't have some craveout or handout put into law. Those aren't going away because that's part of how modern governments build agenda and shape policy. Get over it.

As for the rest, I'm okay with this state of affairs. Musk seems to have some good long term goals he's going for. Being able to learn from his mistakes is a good thing for the rest of us trying to figure out how to build and keep an industrial base in the 21st century. That it costs me a few dollars per year in my taxes is a fair price to pay for that knowledge.

Re:How about I'm okay with this? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-07 12:15 · Score: 1

There is, in fact, this thing called compromise. I'll pay for this thing of yours that maybe I'd otherwise prefer not to because I know that you'll pay for this thing I want. I'd say pretty much never is everyone happy with 100% of what any government does. This whole "all or nothing" attitude that is so common these days is baffling....

Replace 'Tesla/Elon' with Oil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-07 10:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Do Oil companies need approx. $4Billion/year of tax payer dollars? When can we wean them off government support?

Re:Replace 'Tesla/Elon' with Oil by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-07 10:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't Forget the Corn Ethanol Industry.
Re:Replace 'Tesla/Elon' with Oil by coolmoe2 · 2017-08-07 11:02 · Score: 1

Well hell if were going with trupisms then why not replace tesla/elon with nazis or better yet nazi pedos. Your argument is well suited for 6 year old's.

What a BS by Cyberax · 2017-08-07 10:49 · Score: 5, Informative

Tesla does not receive subsidies apart from zero-emission credits. Tesla's _customers_ receive them ($7500 federal tax rebate) until Tesla sells 100000 cars. Other automakers also receive them - I claimed it for my Chevy Volt, for example. And Tesla is going to do just fine without it.

For SpaceX it's even more disingenuous - they counted governmental launch contracts as "subsidies".

Re:What a BS by MightyYar · 2017-08-07 10:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

For SpaceX it's even more disingenuous - they counted governmental launch contracts as "subsidies".
Agreed. Author is doing the typical semantics game where they attempt to redefine common vocabulary to make you see just how bad it all is because they aren't contracts for goods and services, but really just SUBSIDIES - big ugly SUBSIDIES. Both left and right play this ridiculous game because they get no traction when they use regular language to describe things that people are pretty OK with. They want to stoke outrage.
Anyway, these launch "subsidies" are saving the government quite a bit of money over the old ways, so I'm okay with these "subsidies".

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:What a BS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-07 11:23 · Score: 1

Jenny Beth Martin (@JennyBethM) is president and co-founder of Tea Party Patriots.
Not sure there's much more to be said.
But if you want, her website says "She is a lifelong Georgian..." So, she's complaining about what California does with their money why exactly?
Re:What a BS by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2017-08-07 11:42 · Score: 1

"Author is doing the typical semantics game where they attempt to redefine common vocabulary" Well, what else did you expect from the co-founder and national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots? Their idea of government is "if it didn't exist in 1773, we don't need it now"...
Re:What a BS by swb · 2017-08-07 12:59 · Score: 1

Any amount paid to a buyer to discount a seller's products is in effect a subsidy to the seller, since they are able to sell their product for a higher price than if it didn't have the subsidy.
Who is actually getting $7500 in cash? Not the buyer, they are getting a tax rebate (paying less taxes). Tesla is the one taking in cash in this entire transaction, from buyer to seller.
You might argue that a Model S is so unique that wealthy early adopters really don't care about the subsidy, but we also have no idea what their sales would be like without it, either. Wealthy people may buy a Tesla just for the tax credit.
Is it worth it as a means of encouraging electric cars? I would say maybe, but personally I would have made the subsidy inversely proportional to the cost of the car to encourage affordable electric cars and to prevent it from becoming a tax break for the wealthy. I'm not sold on the idea that by making a luxury electric car we're somehow speeding electric car development.
Re:What a BS by Cyberax · 2017-08-07 13:11 · Score: 1

Tesla doesn't see a cent out of these $7500, the buyer gets the subsidy. Other cars are also eligible, like GM Volt or LEAF - and it's a much more significant amount for them.
Re:What a BS by Rutulian · 2017-08-07 13:53 · Score: 1

Is it worth it as a means of encouraging electric cars? I would say maybe, but personally I would have made the subsidy inversely proportional to the cost of the car to encourage affordable electric cars and to prevent it from becoming a tax break for the wealthy. I'm not sold on the idea that by making a luxury electric car we're somehow speeding electric car development.
As others have noted elsewhere, the electric car tax credit was crafted by GM for the Volt. Tesla had nothing to do with it and benefits the least from it. Tesla has been clear about their market development strategy from the very beginning. First, electric cars have to be cool and sexy, to induce people to buy them. Second, they have to start with a niche market to accumulate enough capital and manufacturing capacity to expand into a larger market. The Bolt never would have been produced except to compete with the Model 3, and it is a rather shoddy attempt considering the resources available to GM. Market demand for electric cars is being almost entirely driven by Tesla, so no, I don't think we would be where we are without them. That said, Tesla would probably still be doing what it is doing even without the tax credits.
Re:What a BS by MightyYar · 2017-08-08 01:32 · Score: 1

That's more of the Libertarian position. Tea Party still loves to use government to push their agenda.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:What a BS by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2017-08-08 01:53 · Score: 1

You never took economics...
lets pretend the car is 7501 dollars. Customers currently can buy it for $1 with the Feds giving $7500. Now they have to pay $7501. Yes, that price hike will affect sales. Yes, Tesla had government support. The fact the checks weren't inked to Musk doesn't matter.
Re:What a BS by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2017-08-08 04:37 · Score: 1

Yeah, I even read over their website too first...but it's all really vague with little actual policy ideas. Ideas like "personal responsibility" but very little on exactly what they think this means or what they want to do to make this "idea" a reality. They did rant against the IRS and government healthcare. To me, it does seem that they are ignoring the basic underlying evolutionary biology that makes humanity a highly social, cooperative "success" and want us to be "everyone for themselves"...
Re:What a BS by MightyYar · 2017-08-08 04:59 · Score: 1

Competition and open and free markets are a way to cooperate. The most efficient way, in fact.
Where I depart from many libertarians is that efficiency is not the only criteria. Take food, for instance. Efficiency is very important - too little and a good chunk of the population starves. But typical free market swings and instability are not really something that is desired in your food supply - I really don't mind some government tinkering to moderate the market, even if food costs somewhat more as a result. Other examples include anything that doesn't abide by notions of private property - photons will happily traverse your property whether you like it or not. We live on a sphere - your real estate cannot include infinitely down or up. Vaccines (and epidemiology in general) only work when almost everyone cooperates. These are not great candidates for a totally open and free market - but you still want to use as many free market principles as possible to maximize efficiency. I start to find myself agreeing with Tea Partiers and other right wing nuts when they get into an argument with a left wing nut because people on the extreme left seem to forget about competition and free markets and how they trounce central planning every single time. They'll even push a market driven approach like carbon credits without a hint of irony (and conservatives will sneer at carbon credits despite inventing pollution credits). Weird world, weird times.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:What a BS by dAzED1 · 2017-08-08 05:18 · Score: 1

the Chevy Bolt sitting in my garage has a thing or two to say about your claim this is a Tesla subsidy...
Re:What a BS by belg4mit · 2017-08-10 10:05 · Score: 1

>Any amount paid to a buyer to discount a seller's products is in effect a subsidy to the seller, since they are able to sell their product for a higher price than if it didn't have the subsidy.
Nyet. A tax credit is a negative sales tax. In a sales tax the burden is shared by the vendor and the customer. The benefits of a tax credit would also accrue to both the vendor and the customer. The split depends on the elasticity of demand, consult your favorite information repository for the term "tax incidence."

--
Were that I say, pancakes?

Thats a difficult question by Sla$hPot · 2017-08-07 10:51 · Score: 1

"Why are you and I subsidizing Elon Musk's products and when will his businesses be able to compete on their own?"

What competition?

Let's find out... by fustakrakich · 2017-08-07 10:52 · Score: 2, Funny

Pull the plug...

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Hatchet Job by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-07 10:53 · Score: 1

Fundamental misunderstanding (wilful or not) of the US economy. All major companies receive help from the government in many, many forms. Small business gets kicked in the teeth, however.

Tax breaks are government support as well... by lpq · 2017-08-07 10:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

Can people/businesses get by with out any government handouts in the form of tax breaks (incentives, rebates, credits, etc).

How about "non-profits", or government support of churches by not requiring religions to pay property tax on their holdings?

If I don't go to a mainstream church, and worship in my home, why should the mainstream churches get tax breaks and not me?

The government is always "meddling" by creating tax breaks for "behaviors" that it "desires". I.e. tax free donations, etc.

In 2007-2008, Bush gave a huge government bailout to the Investment Banks -- should we ask if they could have survived w/o the handout?

So Musk's companies are taking advantage of areas where the government offers tax benefits -- why is anyone asking about "Musk" (personally) or his company, when he's exercising the same tax benefits available to MANY other companies, organizations and people.

Why not go after ALL the tax breaks for "everything" and not just single out "Musk" for his businesses benefiting from government policy?

Many companies and businesses would FAIL bigtime without government financing. Think of the military industrial complex -- can they exist w/o government benefits?

Re:Tax breaks are government support as well... by Jack9 · 2017-08-07 11:11 · Score: 1

> should we ask if they could have survived w/o the handout?
No need to ask. They would not. Neither would the rest of the country. The dollar would have collapsed and the outcome, while uncertain, would not have been positive for most people across the US and many abroad.
The inevitable dollar crash was only postponed, again, by the visible hand of the federal reserve. Neither congressmen nor POTUS were directly involved in the decision, beyond choosing to publicly support it to maintain the status quo.

--

Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Re:Tax breaks are government support as well... by lpq · 2017-08-07 11:29 · Score: 2

Not just two wrongs, but a 1000's if not 10's of thousands.
Everyone one has their pet projects that they want to see supported by the government. Until we get the government out of the free market and cut defense spending to stop playing world policeman, it will feel free to spend the lion's share in things that aren't even examined.
I.e. compare Musk's benefits 5B, w/investment bank benefits (~2T), or tax benefits for state-sponsored religions ($$??), etc...I'd rather see something spent on tech than other things that cost much more, yet you don't see people wanting to know about government cuts in "sacred cows"... If the US won't fund NASA in space, maybe Musk getting tax-cuts to get us to Mars isn't so bad.
Sides -- it's not the small stuff that is the problem -- it's the system itself.
Separation of church and state is built into the constitution as well. Do you see the government getting out of taxbreaks for churches anytime soon?
Re:Tax breaks are government support as well... by Higaran · 2017-08-07 12:44 · Score: 1

Considering that our current president didn't pay taxes for 20+ years, maybe we should have taken him off of government subsidies earlier.

Nah let him have them by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-07 10:54 · Score: 1

He's using his billionaire-bux to leverage public money and spending it on the sort of things public money should (IMHO) be getting spent on.

Sounds like a great investment by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-07 10:54 · Score: 1

See here for example.

SpaceX alone will save the government billions in launch costs, so what you've described sounds in reality like the government making a great long-term cost-cutting decision.

As for solar energy and electric car subsidies, that seems again like the government doing exactly what I'd argue it should be doing: helping emergent solutions to pressing problems get off the ground. Or should we just burn coal and drive V8 SUVs forever?

So less than Trump? by WillAffleckUW · 2017-08-07 11:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

For example, if we look at the burden on consumers from Trump bailouts, it dwarves that of Elon Musk.

At least Musk makes stuff. The Russian comrade just stamps his logo on stuff built by shell companies he lets default on obligations for, and licenses his likeness for a 20-40 percent markup, without actually building anything.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Can big Oil be weaned off USGovernment Support? by OFnow · 2017-08-07 11:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

You would think that 100 years of US Government support that the Oil companies could be weaned off of the billions in special tax and other benefits give them every single year. The benefits should go to companies taking us to the 21st century OFF of oil. Such as Tesla and Elon Musk's other ventures. Oops. DL;DR

Re:Can big Oil be weaned off USGovernment Support? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-07 11:39 · Score: 1

I keep reading web pages debunking the idea that oil companies get special subsidies, and I haven't ever seen an actual list of the special subsidies, so I'm curious what they are.
As far as I know, I agree with you, but your argument is undercut by linking to a Forbes article on... paint, as far as I can tell.
Re:Can big Oil be weaned off USGovernment Support? by bareman · 2017-08-07 13:27 · Score: 1

Big Oil has bilked the US taxpayers for Trillions.
GM and Chrysler took many more billions than Tesla ever will.
What I want to know is will $TSLA short-sellers ever been weaned off from spreading FUD?

This is such bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-07 11:03 · Score: 1, Interesting

Where are all the hit pieces criticizing government subsidies paid to everybody from Fortune 100 oil companies and defense/aerospace contractors to corn farmers in Bumfuck, Iowa?

What makes Musk and his companies so special, exactly?

Re:This is such bullshit by alvinrod · 2017-08-07 11:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

They're tech companies and this a website that discusses things related to technology. I'm sure there are dozens or hundreds of hit pieces (or just regular pieces espousing the position that governments shouldn't be subsidizing things in general) being written about all of those different companies in different papers, magazines, or websites that are being posted to various web forums that focus on those topics, but if you want to read about them, you'll have to go to those other places.
Re:This is such bullshit by sphealey · 2017-08-07 11:36 · Score: 1

Because just yesterday on this site Musk and his "Hyperloop" pie in the sky were being extolled as the next coming of Hank Reardon, ready to save the world if it weren't for those pesky governments in his way.
Re:This is such bullshit by Maxo-Texas · 2017-08-07 18:37 · Score: 1

Exactly.
Ethanol and unneeded tanks and jets forever but not a dime for solar is the goal.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:This is such bullshit by godefroi · 2017-08-08 01:45 · Score: 1

*woosh*

--
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
Re:This is such bullshit by micahraleigh · 2017-08-08 06:25 · Score: 1

That stuff is old (i.e. not "news"), but I would like to see it go too.

Btw, a tax break is not a subsidy ... at least according to voters.
Re:This is such bullshit by ChrisMaple · 2017-08-08 14:41 · Score: 1

Neckbeards are/were hippies.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:This is such bullshit by Aighearach · 2017-08-10 06:57 · Score: 1

Neckbeards are/were hippies.
Uh, wow, you should invest in internet some day so you can find out who the Earthlings are.

Only On Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-07 11:05 · Score: 1

Can you find people bitching about both global warming and government solar subsidies.

lol. this cracks me up by WindBourne · 2017-08-07 11:11 · Score: 5, Informative

ULA, a competitor to SX, gets 1B / year subsidy. Boeing recently got 4B to develop a human rated space craft and fly it 3x. SX got less than 3B for doing it AND flying it 6x. SX continues to under bid all other rocket launchers for NASA, and the DOD while having 2/3 to 3/4 of their flights be commercial work, not gov.
So very little subsidy for SX, and massive ones for its competitors.

Tesla got a .5B loan that they paid off early. In addition, customers get 7500 / EV that Tesla sells.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler were bailed out by the gov partially with payoffs and partially with loans that STILL ARE NOT PAID OFF. All of the cars sold in America get 7500 for being hybrid or EV. In addition, back in 2008, America bought a large number of used cars to subsidize car sales for Ford, GM, and Chrysler. So, very little to no subsidy on Tesla's part, but HUGE ones for its competitors.
Oil companies and coal are MASSIVELY subsidized. Worse yet, ICE vehicles are not paying anywhere close to what it takes to maintain the roads. We need to increase taxes on diesel and gas by another .25/gal MINIMUM.

Then we have solar city. CONgress continues to push subsidies for Solar. Yet, SC has the LOWEST costs in America and are about to go even lower later this year.

To read idiots that claim that Musk is living on subsidies is just a FUD POS from kock bros and other idiot far right wingies.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re: lol. this cracks me up by WindBourne · 2017-08-07 16:42 · Score: 1

Bullshit. The feds did not buy their stock, but Ford insisted on getting a 20B loan that is STILL NOT PAID. Worse, they are offshoring jobs that they promise not to. You neo-cons constantly lie about your giving subsidies to businesses than lie about the minor stuff that helps America.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Not while ULA is getting a handout as well by gman003 · 2017-08-07 11:14 · Score: 2

SpaceX's only current competitor for the large "national security payload" market is United Launch Alliance, which receives an annual payment on the order of $1B for "launch capability", supposedly to keep infrastructure maintained and keep production lines at full capacity even if no orders are placed, to allow for fast turnaround of time-sensitive payloads. Despite taking that money, ULA has declined to enter bids on several open-bid contracts that SpaceX bid on, preferring instead to bid on the many closed-bid contracts. SpaceX is consistently bidding lower than ULA, despite not receiving an annual subsidy and thus having to factor that cost into every launch.

Restricting military/intelligence satellite launches to only American companies makes sense, I have no argument there as long as American companies aren't prevented from competing fairly. Paying fixed costs annually and then per-launch costs on a per-launch basis makes sense, but ought to be done consistently to allow fair competition. Either get rid of both of their handouts, or distribute them evenly.

(Oh, and those Commercial Cargo/Crew Development contracts from NASA? Boeing, parent company to ULA, is part of those too, and is bafflingly getting paid more for the same goals and deadlines.)

As for Tesla... did GM pay back its bailout loans yet? Tesla did. I find it hard to worry about $1,000 per car when $100,000,000,000 (rounding each to the nearest power of ten) was practically given to other companies to reward them for helping crash the economy.

Ain't nothing compared to agricultural subsidies by zerofoo · 2017-08-07 11:15 · Score: 1

"Why are you and I subsidizing Big Corn's products and when will their businesses be able to compete on their own?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Subsidies are available to all by ColaMan · 2017-08-07 11:15 · Score: 1

Anyone who qualifies for the subsidy can get it. It's just that there are very few companies in that space, which is why there's subsidies there in the first place, to help lower the barrier to entry.

I didn't skim the article, but did they mention that Telsa repaid a half-billion dollar loan from the Government 9 years early, in 2013?

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/2...

I guess if the article does mention it, it'll grump about the fact that the government didn't get all the interest it was entitled to over the course of the loan......

--

You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.

Let's run the numbers, shall we? by Anaerin · 2017-08-07 11:16 · Score: 2

Okay, so let's break this down.

General Motors receives $3.58 Billion in subsidies every year.
Royal Dutch Shell receives $2.04 Billion in subsidies every year
Blue Origin received $3.7 Million in subsidies

On the other hand, from the text of the summary:

[...]Had received $4.9 billion in government subsidies [by 2015]. By now, Musk's various ventures have sucked well over $5 billion from government coffers.

So, in the 2 year gap between the 2015 article and now, Musk had received a further $10 Million ($0.1 Billion) in subsidies. That's really not all that much.

The government rebates for buyers of EVs (which goes to the buyers, not Tesla) goes to all buyers of any EVs. Chevy Bolt, Mitsubishi iMIEV, BMW i3, you name it. It's also a fraction of the rebates received for buying larger vehicles.

Re:Let's run the numbers, shall we? by Ksevio · 2017-08-07 11:51 · Score: 1

$10 Million ($0.1 Billion)
The point stands, but you're missing a 0 there

Lets wean the petroleum off first by JoeyRox · 2017-08-07 11:19 · Score: 1

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/06/upshot/do-oil-companies-really-need-4-billion-per-year-of-taxpayers-money.html

Give him all the money he needs. by Qbertino · 2017-08-07 11:21 · Score: 1

I've said it before. Elon Musk is one of those people who actually get shit done to the benefit of the entire humanity. If he needs another 5 billion, give it to him, it's in good hands. Look at Space X and what they are doing. Look at the solar roof thing. And look at a Tesla and sit down in one. This guy and his crew are single-handedly decomissioning the IC engine! What a feat.

He deserves all the billions he can lay his hands on, earned or subsidized makes no difference.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca

Worse? by HeckRuler · 2017-08-07 11:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Worse: in order to induce car buyers to spend their money on electric vehicles, the federal government offers a $7,500 rebate on the purchase price.

Is that bad? Because not too long ago our national security was at risk since OPEC had us by the balls over a resource that we depended upon but could not produce ourselves. And as gas prices rose and applies economic pressure on everyone it bust bubbles causing a massive financial econopocalypse. The sort that hadn't been seen since the great depression.

We launched TRIllion dollar WARS over this shit.

Last I checked, there was a temporary spike in US oil production as we squeeze the last few drops out of old wells via fracking, and unlocked some oil from shale. Yay technological improvement. But that doesn't change the fact that cars are running on fossil fuels and ultimately this is not sustainable.

So what do we do? We encourage investment into alternatives. Like electric cars. Which can be powered off of grid power which can, in turn, be powered by renewable sources. So we subsidize electric cars. Would you rather we ban ice cars? Add an ice-tax? Tax fuel prices? Because raising fuel prices worked out so well for us last time.

All that said. If a company specifically targets hoovering up government subsidies, that's generally a bad thing. And there WILL come a time when such encouraging subsidies go away. But you have to examine each program on it's merits or flaws rather than on the whole. Everyone likes to bitch about taxes until you start suggesting programs to cut to reduce them.

Re:Worse? by CanadianMacFan · 2017-08-07 12:08 · Score: 1

Are you saying that your President lied about why the US invaded Iraq and that it wasn't WMDs? I'm shocked, just shocked! /s
Re:Worse? by Maxo-Texas · 2017-08-07 18:45 · Score: 2

There was a large part of junior wanting to show up daddy for not invading in that war.
And daddy was wise enough to know not to start it in the first place.
Junior was driven by neo-cons and his ego into a multi-trillion dollar war with over 4000 lives lost.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:Worse? by drinkypoo · 2017-08-07 23:33 · Score: 1

not too long ago our national security was at risk since OPEC had us by the balls over a resource that we depended upon but could not produce ourselves.
Well, no. A resource that we depended upon but could not produce cheaply ourselves. We were looking at having to slow down the American war machine, which is dependent upon cheap fuel, mostly various grades of fuel oil.

Last I checked, there was a temporary spike in US oil production as we squeeze the last few drops out of old wells via fracking, and unlocked some oil from shale. Yay technological improvement. But that doesn't change the fact that cars are running on fossil fuels and ultimately this is not sustainable.
It's best for us when OPEC is selling their oil cheaply, because we would like to use up the rest of the world's oil before ours. Sustainability is not even on the list of things to care about. But even rich people care about emissions, because we all breathe the same air. It's not like water, where they can just protect some of it and not other parts and they can be healthy while we all get sick.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Worse? by HeckRuler · 2017-08-08 03:58 · Score: 1

That's a god-damned lie and you know it. ~4000 of our troops and ~300,000 civilians.
I don't know about junior's ego vs his daddy's. But I'd say that surrounding himself with people who had already planned and pushed for an invasion of Iraq was probably a bigger factor.
Re:Worse? by HeckRuler · 2017-08-08 04:24 · Score: 1

Well, no. A resource that we depended upon but could not produce cheaply ourselves
Well YES. They imposed rationing. You were only allowed to buy so much fuel to make sure everyone could get SOME fuel. They literally could not make or get enough.

It's best for us when OPEC is selling their oil cheaply,
Hell yeah! Although some people act like it's the end of the world because they're in the business of selling oil. Ignore those people, it's good for everyone else.

because we would like to use up the rest of the world's oil before ours.

Well that's pretty brutal, but sure. I can see that angle.

Sustainability is not even on the list of things to care about.
Oh ye of little foresight.
Let me make this perfectly clear. It IS on the list. It might not be super high on YOUR list, but it's pretty high up on MY list. Do you want a society that only plans out things as far as the next business quarter? Do you care about what sort of planet your children will live on? Do you ever thing about retiring?
With a sustainable energy policy we don't have to invade the other side of the world to destabilize them and keep them from raising their oil prices. We don't have to worry about countries invading us to take what resources we have. We don't have to care about what the rest of the world is doing if we don't depend upon them.

But even rich people care about emissions, because we all breathe the same air. It's not like water, where they can just protect some of it and not other parts and they can be healthy while we all get sick.
Uh... historically the gentry moved out of the shit-filled urban centers to the country-side which had fresh air. A little while ago they moved out of the urban industrial centers where all the smog collected. But these days we just outsource all that dirty work to China. Emissions and air pollution is definitely local pollution. I mean, it also has a global warming element to it, but as far as actual smoke and fumes are concerned, the farmland in Iowa is clear and sunny.
But yeah, you're talking about climate change, which affects us all. But I'd bet money the rich will simply avoid the areas that get really screwed over by it. And when the refugees escape the dried out husks or the flash-flooded destruction, they'll arrive where the rich already own all the land. Who knows, maybe a lawyer convention will get flooded and we can finally get that Bioshock scenario.
Re:Worse? by drinkypoo · 2017-08-08 05:41 · Score: 1

Let me make this perfectly clear. It IS on the list. It might not be super high on YOUR list, but it's pretty high up on MY list.
By "our" I mean as a nation and particularly to our leaders. For example, the only candidate in the last election who even appears to give a sufficient shit about the environment was Jill Stein. Democrats pay lip service to environmental issues but seldom do anything of consequence. The EPA was founded by fucking Nixon, but that shit would never come out of the Republican party today.
I care about environmental issues, you care, but as a nation we do not act as if we care. Instead, we just run around bombing everything, and setting everything else on fire.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Worse? by HeckRuler · 2017-08-08 06:58 · Score: 1

the only candidate in the last election who even appears to give a sufficient shit about the environment was Jill Stein. Democrats pay lip service to environmental issues but seldom do anything of consequence.

That's great that you're praising Jill Stein for giving the appearance of caring while bashing the democrats for giving the appearance of caring.... in a thread about subsidies for electric cars.
That's great. Super. We're simultaneously bitching about all the money we're giving away. While bitching about not REALLY doing anything. While bitching that other people WOULD TOTALLY really do something.
Re:Worse? by drinkypoo · 2017-08-08 07:24 · Score: 1

That's great that you're praising Jill Stein for giving the appearance of caring while bashing the democrats for giving the appearance of caring.... in a thread about subsidies for electric cars.
Subsidies for electric cars are like one hundredth of one percent of what needs to be done. The Democrats have the appearance of caring very little.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Worse? by HeckRuler · 2017-08-08 08:04 · Score: 1

Alright. Lay it on me. What needs to be done?
Re:Worse? by david_thornley · 2017-08-08 09:38 · Score: 1

Get a copy of Colin Powell's audiobook "It Worked For Me", read by Colin Powell. When he gets to the Iraq War, note his voice. Powell was still upset over being used to spread false information.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Re: Tea party strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-07 11:24 · Score: 1

Amazing that hack jobs like this make it through the firehose. I hope slashdot doesn't become a tool for the tea party and others to push propoganda. I thought this is why the site employed some human editors to prevent organized tampering.

Look what they are calling "subsidies" by mschuyler · 2017-08-07 11:27 · Score: 2

As a consumer you get a rebate for buying an electric car. Why? Because the government wants to encourage consumers to buy electric cars. It reduces the effective price of the Tesla. The Times says this "subsidizes" Tesla. Tesla may be able to sell more cars to people who otherwise will claim they cannot afford them, but that money is not free money to Tesla, which never sees it. The government also will give me (not Tesla, but ME) a 30% credit if I buy solar panels from Solar City. The Times counts that as a subsidy to Tesla. When Tesla really did get money from the government, that loan was repaid with interest, Romney to the contrary. The citizens made several million dollars on that deal, unlike Solandra, which failed. Is SpaceX subsidized? Excuse me, but when they launch a satellite or a capsule for NASA they expect to be paid, and their price is about half what ULA charges. Who is subsidized? SpaceX or ULA?

The thing to understand about taxes is that they are confiscatory. The government sets a rate, and once in awhile they drop the rate to encourage growth. People immediately claim that's a "subsidy." Nonsense. They are just confiscating less. It's not THEIR money in the first place. It's OURS. They are like bank robbers giving a rebate to the bank for how much money they stole. And what the government does with this money is pay themselves a great deal, and give it away to people who don't produce anything.

You have to ask yourself, do you want the jobs provided by a huge battery factory or not? Do you want well-paid employees in your state or not? Do you want to move us away from fossil fuels or not? Yes or no? Answer the questions. It's hypocritical to bitch and moan about climate change, then do everything in your power to prevent someone from doing something about it. So I'm fine with Musk's so-called "subsidies." I certainly don't see anyone else doing anything useful.

--
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.

You forgot to mention... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2017-08-07 11:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Jenny Beth Martin is the co-founder and national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots". So, I'm assuming she doesn't want any government subsidies for anything at all, and wants to reduce our government down to just doing "mutual defense" of the individual states. She also makes around 15K per month for "strategic consulting" and $272,000 salary as President of said Tea Party Patriots...for a total of over $450,000 a year. That's quite a bit of "tea".

Re:You forgot to mention... by thegarbz · 2017-08-07 13:36 · Score: 1

So, I'm assuming she doesn't want any government subsidies for anything at all
I think we should take all these free market idiots and give them a country of their own. Put them on some island in the middle of no where and let them build it up themselves. With a common ideology they shouldn't end up with a government redistributing wealth of driving any kind of policy.
This is great if you're in a village of 20 people, but what we really need to do is put them ALL there. Make the population big enough until the disagreements start. I wonder if they will enjoy the government they end up with after they castrate democracy.

some real questions by dicki · 2017-08-07 11:46 · Score: 1

how about we ask what slashdot's intent is in posting this disingenuous question in the first place? or, maybe they could use this to ask some actually interesting questions, like: 1) why is it that the american public must be encouraged to purchase a vehicle that is not harmful to the environment? ans: because this is the government's actual job. 2) what are nasa's current plans on making space travel to mars possible? ans: none, all cancelled 3) what are some truly ridiculous ways in which govt. wastes money by giving it away to lawmakers' constituents because they only happen to sit on a powerful committee? ans: too many to count 4) what is the actual definition of a subsidy and how should they be counted? ans: whatever works for you, on any given day 5) why is the hill (and, in turn, user mi) picking on the most important innovator of the last one hundred years, one who is actually doing something positive for mankind and his future? ans: perhaps an investigative journalist could look into this?

Re:Whine much? by Ksevio · 2017-08-07 11:48 · Score: 1

You drive 5 hours on the highway per day? Are you a truck driver?

The People's teet by sdinfoserv · 2017-08-07 11:50 · Score: 4, Informative

So what?
The 5 richest people in the US (the Waltons, owners of Walmart), get 17% of every food stamp dollar
Government aid to Farmers will be $23+ billion in 2017
When Dick Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton, convinced "W" to start a war in Iraq, Halliburton was awarded $8B in no bid contracts
The oligarchy in the country have always enriched themselves with "the peoples money" - how do you think they got there?

Bullshit by chill · 2017-08-07 11:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Fake News at its best. The linked OPINION PIECE over at The Hill starts with a false premise -- that companies run by Elon Musk have gotten approximately $5 billion in taxpayer funds -- and runs blindly with it.

Click thru to the original LA Times from May 2015 and you get this bit of clarity:

The figure compiled by The Times comprises a variety of government incentives, including grants, tax breaks, factory construction, discounted loans and environmental credits that Tesla can sell. It also includes tax credits and rebates to buyers of solar panels and electric cars.

Let's take that apart one piece at a time, starting with the easy ones: discounted loans, factory construction, and end-user rebates.

Tesla's discounted loans were loans that were made by the Dept. of Energy only if Tesla could get matching funding from the private sector. They did. And then paid the loans back, plus interest, a full nine years before they were due.

Yes, they paid them back with interest. That isn't "taking taxpayer money". They got it all back plus some. You know, like capitalism.

How about "end user rebates"? Musk doesn't get those, they go to the person -- taxpayer -- purchasing the electric vehicle. You get them on Nissan Leafs and Chevy Volts as well. And they're only around until the manufacturer sells a certain number of vehicles. Claiming them as a "subsidy" for Musk is dishonest.

Factory construction and tax breaks? State-level incentives made by California, New York, and Nevada because factories bring jobs and other revenue. This isn't unique to Musk or any of his companies. States, Counties, and Cities use tax incentives -- rebates, discounts, and waivers -- in order to lure all sorts of businesses, from Walmart to automotive manufacturers. Trying to call out Musk for this as if it is something special given to his companies, again, dishonest.

Environmental tax credits and grants in general are because the pollution created by the fossil fuel industry is horrendous, and isn't something that individuals can deal with on their own. Large companies get their own subsidies by externalizing the environmental costs -- that is, sweeping the filth under the run and not paying to clean up.

Corporations will shit all over everything if it can make them a buck. Individual who need jobs to survive aren't in a position to fight for even the basics -- that is one of the reasons we have governments.

The environmental benefits of switching to electric vehicles and solar/wind power are massive, and greatly outweigh the downsides (when measured against the coal/oil yardstick).

Yes, the government needs to actively encourage clean technologies. Yes, it is in the tax payers best interest to support these sorts of things. There are always people who will value short term profits over long term benefits, so no, the unregulated free market will not handle this better.

Been there (Love Canal, NY & New Jersey in the 1970s), done that (tetra-ethyl lead, freon, asbestos), not going back for some Ayn Rand-worshiping fanatic who failed to study history or learn anything useful from it.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.

Re:Bullshit by cjameshuff · 2017-08-07 14:17 · Score: 2

Also, as for the subsidies SpaceX has received, from that same article:
"The state put up more than $15 million in subsidies and infrastructure spending to help SpaceX build a launch pad in rural Cameron County at the southern tip of Texas. Local governments contributed an additional $5 million."
That's it. It's not even Federal money, or being handed directly to SpaceX...a lot of it is stuff like road improvements.
Re:Bullshit by drinkypoo · 2017-08-07 23:40 · Score: 2

The tax credits are the only point here I disagree with you on. I think they actually are an effective subsidy, and they are effectively given to Tesla even though Tesla is not collecting them as profit. They are enabling Tesla to sell the car at a profitable price. Without the taxpayer footing the bill for those credits, Tesla would be losing [more] money, because the car would have to be priced lower to generate sales.
If we're going to call stuff the government does for the oil companies with our money a subsidy, and I think we should, then I think we also have to call the EV tax credit a subsidy.
With that said, you're correct that Tesla is not the only beneficiary of the credit, and that other automakers profit as a result of the program as well. The argument should IMO thus be distilled to what percentage of the program went to subsidize Tesla sales, and what benefit we derive from the program. Is it worth the investment? Maybe it is, I haven't even tried to do the math.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Bullshit by dAzED1 · 2017-08-08 05:41 · Score: 1

there is a cap to the number of cars per manufacturer. Even if people buy from the other brands at a slower rate, it will catch up. My wife has a Chevy Volt, I have a Chevy Bolt - the Bolt is pretty awesome, really. I would have gotten a model3 if I didn't...you know...need a car a bit sooner than that. The tax credits aren't Tesla against other car manufacturers, it's EV vrs Oil, and Oil has had fed subsidies for practically a century. Not loans, subsidies (and special treatment, ala Valdez repayment delay, Dakota Pipeline bullshit, drilling and fracking on federal land, etc)

Re:Whine much? by hord · 2017-08-07 12:01 · Score: 1

You do pay less because most road taxes are excise taxes on fuel. It's the damn bicyclists that are tearing up our roads for free.

Re:Welfare for the Rich by hord · 2017-08-07 12:06 · Score: 1

But if people drive more EVs, the air will be cleaner for the homeless to sleep in. Think of that positive note.

Re:Yes, why indeed .... by haruchai · 2017-08-07 12:12 · Score: 1

"And how many of those institutions have the money flow into one person's pocket?"
The only real money Musk makes is from stock & he only gets additional shares when he meets certain goals.
He's put over $70 million of his own money into Tesla in the early years; I'm sure he could have done very nicely in much safer investments

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body

Re:Welfare for the Rich by CanadianMacFan · 2017-08-07 12:15 · Score: 1

Maybe you could find a few buck in the massive defence budget that aren't being spent wisely and redirect to helping them. Or not buy an F-35 or not build one of those new ships. But then you would have to use an electron microscope to find a heart cell in any of your leaders to pry any money away to spend money on actually helping someone in need in the first place.

Wouldn't be a new week by meglon · 2017-08-07 12:23 · Score: 2

if the right wing neo-nazi fascist wannabe's didn't post some conservative propaganda or lies. I guess last last weeks posting of a verified lie and conspiracy theory by Nunes didn't prompt "mi" to give a long hard look to his complete lack of morality or ethics.

Why is it conservatives lie so fucking much?

--
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's

This article brought to you by: by TheReaperD · 2017-08-07 12:34 · Score: 1

This article was brought to you by BP, ConocoPhillips, Exxonmobil, and Shell.

--
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -

Subsidize for what? by manu0601 · 2017-08-07 12:40 · Score: 1

Why are you and I subsidizing Elon Musk's products and when will his businesses be able to compete on their own?

I do not subsidize this. One reason why you do subsidize is to make sure US tech has an edge over other countries (including mine) startups.

Oil companies by Kremmy · 2017-08-07 12:49 · Score: 1

Answer the same question regarding the major oil companies while you're at it.

Re:Slashdot user mi - want to talk subsidies? by barc0001 · 2017-08-07 13:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year

According to new information compiled, 6.5% of the global GDP goes into fossil fuel subsidies. You want to stop subsidies? I agree. Let's stop ALL of them. Electric cars will be a no brainer when gas is $8 a gallon.

Re:Welfare for the Rich by Jodka · 2017-08-07 13:07 · Score: 1

My California city has more than 3,000 homeless people.

Homelessness is caused by government.

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature.

Meanwhile, in SC and Ga by GerryGilmore · 2017-08-07 13:11 · Score: 1

The GE nuclear plants under construction that are being halted due to severe cost overruns in South Carolina and Georgia will saddle the taxpayers with close to $10B in loan guarantees from the government. Crickets from the Conservatives on this, but...Gasp!...Solar or other Green (read: "Liberal") stuff? Noooooo!!!!

Re:Slashdot user mi - want to talk subsidies? by Richard_at_work · 2017-08-07 13:13 · Score: 1

"Gas" is currently at an average of $5.50 in the UK, and has been as high as $8 recently - and it hasn't forced a significant number of people onto electric cars.

The issue for a large proportion of the world isn't the price of petrol, its the difficulty with which charging an electric vehicle presents. In my "home" city of Norwich, most people live in terraced housing, have no off street parking, and indeed have no *designated* parking. Getting parked on the same street as your house is often a difficulty in itself.

And Norwich is pretty representative of most of Europe, where we don't have a grid system and most people don't have driveways or wide roads etc etc.

No one seems to ever suggest a reasonable solution to this issue.

Fossil fuel subsidies $5 Trillion a year... by hyades1 · 2017-08-07 13:22 · Score: 2

...and never a peep from conservatives.

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.

Re:Slashdot user mi - want to talk subsidies? by barc0001 · 2017-08-07 13:35 · Score: 1

Europe is a different market. Most people would probably consider a 30 mile commute one way to be utter insanity but that isn't too unusual in North America. Some people commute 60 miles or more. And with gas around $3 in the US, it jumping to $8 combined with those lengthy commutes would absolutely be the first horseman of the Apocalypse showing up.

That said I live in Canada where we have been enjoying $1.20-$1.40 a liter gas for ages. That's one of the reasons I take transit to work.

Excellent question by JustNiz · 2017-08-07 13:35 · Score: 1

"Why are you and I subsidizing Elon Musk's products"

Freaking excellent question.
I suspect its the Tesla cars phone home/self-driving thing. The government LOVE the idea of more ways to spy on and removing any/all control from the people.

Re:Yes, why indeed .... by dryeo · 2017-08-07 13:55 · Score: 1

$70 million for Musk is pocket change. Even if Tesla was a total failure, it wouldn't have changed his life. Much like if I invested $70 in something, no sacrifice involved.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

Re:Slashdot user mi - want to talk subsidies? by Richard_at_work · 2017-08-07 14:04 · Score: 1

I don't know about the rest of Europe, but the whole "short commutes only" thing is a bit of a myth here in the UK - I know plenty of people who commute 50 miles a day by car, each way.

Re:Slashdot user mi - want to talk subsidies? by Richard_at_work · 2017-08-07 14:07 · Score: 1

The street lamps that are 100ft apart and get turned off at night? The street lamps that are set back from the road so any charging cable would have to cross the pavement as well? The street lamps that are outnumbered on my street my about 20:1?

Getting access to a mains supply to hook a charging point up isn't the issue if you are the council or the electricity company, the lines are right there. The issue is that for a street like mine, you would need a charging point every 7ft on each side of the road, and those charging points would need to handle multiple users accounts.

Short Sellers are Behind This by Bruce+Perens · 2017-08-07 14:08 · Score: 2

There are a lot of people who short-sold Tesla and are going to lose big money if they can't drive the stock down. So, you're going to see a lot of propoganda. I would not be surprised if they were prompting the attempts at unionization and creating whatever other bad news they could.

--
Bruce Perens.

FoxConn WI? by spinitch · 2017-08-07 14:26 · Score: 1

Why aren't more US Co's making deals like FoxConn in WI ? Presumably other businesses could create jobs with such high support. Of course FoxConn has a brand and makes tech products vs cheese but it ain't easy being cheesy. FoxConn will do better coz they'll get the cheddar.

Re:Yes, why indeed .... by haruchai · 2017-08-07 15:48 · Score: 1

$70 million for Musk is pocket change. Even if Tesla was a total failure, it wouldn't have changed his life. Much like if I invested $70 in something, no sacrifice involved.

It wasn't pocket change at the time - probably 40% of his net worth. The company came vey close to bankruptcy, reportedly were down to only enough cash for another couple weeks operation when Musk brokered a deal with Daimler & Toyota.

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body

Re:Yes, why indeed .... by dryeo · 2017-08-07 16:39 · Score: 1

OK, I was under the impression that he was worth more at the time. Still having your net worth reduced from $150 million to $80 million, still doesn't affect your quality of life too much.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that he made the investment. Too many are sitting on fortunes now instead of investing it in something constructive.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

The point of taxation and subsidy by rml1997 · 2017-08-07 17:21 · Score: 1

I was an economics student. We are taught that one of the essential points of government is to address market failure. Everything has a cost. If I drive a car very loudly past your house every hour, and you try to sell it, your house is going to fetch you less money. Naturally, there is no way I directly pay you for the noise I'm creating. The payment of a fine to the government for noise pollution might reduce the noise I make and increase the value of your house. Alternatively, it might reimburse you for the inconvenience of living close to me. Some of the cost is obvious and borne by the producer. Others are to third parties who deserve to be compensated. Elon Musk is advancing technology, reducing global warming, reducing the need for infrastructure investment in the grid, reducing house prices (directly by providing cheaper roofing materials and by increasing land available to include that on mars potentially). All of these are valid uses of subsidy. The jobs created are also important so the welfare payments are reduced for the unemployment that would otherwise occur. Other motor companies benefit from a subsidy to gas prices, so electric vehicles need equivalent subsidies to level the playing field. These are some of the reasons you and I should subsidise Elon Musk's companies. I'm from the UK and I will also subsidise his company despite not benefiting as much from taxation of his company. I do still benefit from the positive externalities compared to the next best alternative (petrol/gas)

Re:Slashdot user mi - want to talk subsidies? by Maxo-Texas · 2017-08-07 18:41 · Score: 1

Did they consider things like the 2 trillion and 4000 lives spent on the gulf war to protect oil in their totals?

When we don't have to protect oil wells, spending and wars will drop markedly.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.

Re:Yes, why indeed .... by haruchai · 2017-08-07 19:07 · Score: 1

OK, I was under the impression that he was worth more at the time. Still having your net worth reduced from $150 million to $80 million, still doesn't affect your quality of life too much.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that he made the investment. Too many are sitting on fortunes now instead of investing it in something constructive.

He didn't put more into Tesla because he was the lone financial backer for SpaceX, supposedly to the tune of $100 million, up until the company started winning contracts.

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body

Re:Slashdot user mi - want to talk subsidies? by Computershack · 2017-08-07 19:33 · Score: 1

Err quite a lot of people in the UK do 30+ mile commutes. The average mileage in the UK is 12,000 miles per annum. Until recently I used to do 17-20,000 miles, 15,000 of that being commuting.

--
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams

Re:Planned propaganda against renewable energy by oobayly · 2017-08-07 19:53 · Score: 1

I wouldn't be too sure about that - the oil industry is a massive investor in R&D in renewable energy. Statoil, for example building Hywind (a floating wind farm), etc.

Of course, I don't know much about the US, so maybe when you say "oil lobby", you mean lobbyists for the people who do the actual drilling.

Re: Slashdot user mi - want to talk subsidies? by Richard_at_work · 2017-08-07 20:21 · Score: 1

Did you not read my reply to the other poster who suggested a similar thing?

Re:Slashdot user mi - want to talk subsidies? by bitingduck · 2017-08-07 20:25 · Score: 1

The issue is that for a street like mine, you would need a charging point every 7ft on each side of the road, and those charging points would need to handle multiple users accounts.

It's been done. Way back before modern car batteries, there were cold places that had electrical outlets attached to the parking meters so you could plug in your block heater while you were parked. Modern parking meters have no trouble reading credit cards and charging your account. Integrate the two and you're done. It wouldn't be cheap to do all at once, but it's certainly doable by cities as a long term program.

Failed business manager by Manqueman · 2017-08-07 22:19 · Score: 1

Musk is a financier -- someone who engages in financial dealing. He has never managed a profitable business. Always great to the corporate media to overlook it all the time. Then again, it conflicts with their Musk scenario as they work their way towards complete irrelevance.

Umm...also Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, GM, etc... by chicksdaddy · 2017-08-08 00:08 · Score: 1

We'd like to draw a neat line and say "Tesla is being propped up by government subsidies whereas [company x] is surviving on its wits & talents in the marketplace." But is that true? Do you really want to open the can o' worms that is government subsidies of various industries or players, whether through direct taxpayer support, tax incentives/loopholes (just direct taxpayer support by other means), infrastructure investment, R&D investment, preferential immigration policies, etc. etc. The list is long. So...as they say...people who live in glass office parks...

And how much has gone in subsidies to others? by EagleRider70 · 2017-08-08 00:52 · Score: 1

What about the bailout money the other car companies took? What about the subsidies for fossil fuel companies? How much money has the United Launch Alliance taken? At least some of the money SpaceX has received was from providing resupply flights to ISS and for NRO satellite launches. Solar City has also installed solar power stations for US military bases. So at least some of the money has been from selling products and services. It is not out of the ordinary for governments to provide subsidies to industries that are just starting. Especially, in the case of industries that will provide continues economic development over time and those that address significant risks to the current economy (i.e. climate change).

Endless Musk-bashing lately by nospam007 · 2017-08-08 01:10 · Score: 1

Sour grapes anybody?

Why all the smearing?? by JuliceMTL · 2017-08-08 01:57 · Score: 1

Seams to me Musk is currently the target of a smearing campaign ... I wonder who's behind it ... Big Oil (read Kock Brothers)? Time will tell. PS: Socialism should'nt be reserved for military only ...

Re:Slashdot user mi - want to talk subsidies? by b0bby · 2017-08-08 02:18 · Score: 2

Actually the average mileage in the UK is 12,000 *k* per annum, closer to 8000 miles. You are more of an outlier. The average in the US, which has more cars per capita (800 vs 520 per 1000 people), is 13,500 miles. So you've got 50% more cars per capita, and each of those cars is driving 70% more miles on average.
I used to live in the UK, and it's hard for most people there to really get their heads around the amount Americans drive.

Re:Slashdot user mi - want to talk subsidies? by apoc.famine · 2017-08-08 03:58 · Score: 1

I live in the US and I have a hard time getting my head around the amount Americans drive. I have co-workers who commute 1.5 hrs each way. 80 miles/130km EACH WAY, EVERY DAY!!! How do you even live your life when 3 hours of every day is spent driving to/from work? I have a 30 minute commute and feel like even that sucks a little too much out of my day. Two more lost hours, and I would accomplish nothing useful outside of work!

--
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor

Let's have this libertarian experiment... by alexandre · 2017-08-08 05:28 · Score: 1

I almost wish one US state would become fully "government free", as a voluntary experiment, so we can see how everyone makes it!

We could probably watch the 99% just die, get abused, then survive through their overlord without democracy and maybe, eventually, have a revolution and rediscover democracy...

Re:Let's have this libertarian experiment... by david_thornley · 2017-08-08 09:47 · Score: 1

The Constitution guarantees a democratic government for each state, and state governments have certain requirements.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

they took a $6b loan by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-08 06:14 · Score: 1

they took a $6b loan that they still haven't paid out. it wasn't TARP, but it was a bailout. a rose by any other name...

Re:Slashdot user mi - want to talk subsidies? by Richard_at_work · 2017-08-08 10:06 · Score: 1

You don't seem to understand the setup here in the UK, which is what we are talking about.

"Block heaters" haven't ever been a thing here.

Parking meters are one per block of parking, you go find the nearest one (could be on the other side of the street) and buy a physical ticket which you stick to the inside of the windscreen.

Most residential parking however is on street, and controlled by permits you display. There are no allocated spaces, you park by the side of the road where you can (and where there are no restrictions) - parking spaces are rarely marked, so you literally fit the car in as best as you can.

This means that on our street, for 100 houses (each terraced house is about 1.5 car lengths wide, not counting any space between the cars), you often can't park outside your house, as it's a free for all. Many houses have two cars, which means you often can't even park on your street.

Parking in this example is parking in the direction of traffic - you get a row of parked cars down each side of the road, and a single row of traffic between them. It's that tight.

Once you start understanding how different it is here, you start understanding the issues present. Electric charging in these circumstances means a *lot* has to change, but no one can suggest reasonable changes which work.

For my city alone, you are probably talking about the installation of 100,000 on street chargers, which is a *massive* undertaking - who is going to do that? The current wave of electric is based on home charging and a few points in well located spots, and that simply doesn't work here.

Limited on street parking? by PlaynBass · 2017-08-09 11:29 · Score: 1

I wonder if, for the tight on-street parking situations described, there are any pedestrian sidewalks? If so, I would suggest a city undertake to install raised sidewalks with parking spaces and metered universal charging stations underneath, with the revenue from the charging station being used to add more parking spaces.

Just a quick thought. I'm sure that other solutions could be arrived at.

Some people are so locked into lockstep "it can't be done" thinking patterns, it's depressing!

It's a wonder how the human race managed to make it this far with such defeatist attitudes!

--
PlaynBass

Re:Limited on street parking? by Richard_at_work · 2017-08-09 15:23 · Score: 1

This is the sort of thing I am talking about - its a Google Maps Street View of the area in question. Its the middle of the day, so there are some spaces, but come about 6pm and these roads are end to end with parked cars. Take a look around the rest of the city, most of it is like this.
Re:Limited on street parking? by PlaynBass · 2017-08-10 08:33 · Score: 1

It would be like building a narrow cantilevered walkway/carport above all the cars which had all the electrical connections built into it, with stairways to get up & down to the parking level. Expensive, probably, but doable, especially as Electric Vehicles (EVs) begin to outnumber Internal Combustion Engines (ICEs).
Raising the walkways would be cheaper than raising the roadways for obvious engineering reasons. The walkways would also provide more protection from the elements for the cars. People will always have their 'brellies!
;)

--
PlaynBass

Slashdot Mirror

Can Elon Musk Be Weaned Off Government Support? (thehill.com)

168 of 270 comments (clear)