8 ms·

The Economist recently did a good article on the financing of Elon Musk's companies that flew under the radar of Hacker News that probably warranted further dis

The Economist recently did a good article on the financing of Elon Musk's companies that flew under the radar of Hacker News that probably warranted further discussion [1] [2]. (Though the author of that piece completely misses the relative importance of each company to Musk, suggesting "he could try to sell [...] SpaceX, through gritted teeth, to a defence firm") It's unfortunate there's a bit of a reality distortion field around discussion Elon Musk's companies sometimes. Maybe because everyone wants his companies to succeed... [1] http://www.economist.com/news/business/21709061-entrepreneurs-finances-are-jaw-dropping-inventive-and-combustible-his-space?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/countdown http://www.economist.com/news/business/21709061-entrepreneur... [2] http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/10/economist-explains-21?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/canelonmusksbusinessempiresurviveandthrive http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/10/ec...

patrickk 10y ago
> Maybe because everyone wants his companies to succeed... Surely the only ones who don't want dramatically cheaper space launches, cheaper, widely available solar PV installations and attractive, affordable electric vehicles are deeply entrenched incumbents whose continued profitability involves polluting the planet, or those who really hate the environment for whatever reason. There are valid criticisms you can level at Musk (I wouldn't like to be a direct employee), but taking on the Wall Street quarter to quarter thinking with enormous, risky endeavours that have the potential to completely revolutionise some of the biggest industries out there (energy and transport) takes an extreme type of individual to succeed.
- mwfunk 10y ago
  I don't think that's the only reason someone might express skepticism of Musk at this point. They might want Musk to succeed at these things very, very much, but fear that his sketchier tendencies might lead to failure.
  - karmelapple 10y ago
    I'm curious - what sketchier tendencies do you mean?
    - kmonsen 10y ago
      How autopilot was enabled for example. It has potentially created a difficult public perception of self driving cars.
      - karmelapple 10y ago
        Poor judgment with the name... but sketchy? I don't think introducing the feature is sketchy, since it certainly seems to be working pretty well so far, right?
  - icantdrive55 10y ago
    I wouldn't call anything he's done as sketchy. I think he's a great visionary Engineer. I've been waiting for a person like him for a long time--a long wait. That said, I just don't want to see his companies go bankrupt.
- ams6110 10y ago
  I don't have anything against Musk. I simply don't care much one way or the other because the things he's working on will never affect me. Electric cars are not something I'm interested in owning at the price Tesla is asking. Or even half what Tesla is asking. Utility electricity works fine for me, is a small fraction of my monthly budget, and is reliable. I.e. something I never really worry about. Payments for and maintenance of a personal PV system do not interest me. Space travel? Again if he wants to spend his money there, fine. But I don't see it changing my life. I am not an entrenched encumbent either. I just drive cheap, old cars and have no interest in visiting Mars. I don't even care for conventional air travel.
  - tamal 10y ago
    What kind of unconventional air travel do you care for?
    - ams6110 10y ago
      I meant, as opposed to space travel. I actually don't care much for travel at all.
  - komali2 10y ago
    With all due respect, that is the standpoint of a cynic or perhaps nihilist. Which is totally fine, people should have the right to not care about stuff without being judged for it. However, if everyone was a perfect nihilist, you wouldn't have cheap old cars to drive because nobody would have made cars. You wouldn't have a cell phone, and especially a data connection, if not for the space program. And so on. So while I don't think it's a problem if some people take your viewpoint, I think it's a problem when everyone does. Somebody has to care enough about the environment to stop rampant capitalism from destroying it so that we have a planet to live on 50 years from now (electric cars, improved public transit.) Someone has to care enough to get humans off the planet so that when it is inevitably destroyed (asteroid, nuclear war, virus, overpopulation) the human race can continue elsewhere.
    - inimino 10y ago
- nartsbtaa 10y ago
  There's a difference between wanting something to be true, and acknowledging whether a business is succeeding or not on its own terms.
- rtpg 10y ago
  Considering how most of his current businesses exist thanks to gov't incentives/tax advantages in the domains, there are legitimate criticisms to the way in which his businesses are run. Though I think it's proof the system works! Offer tax incentives for electric cars, get electric cars. Though it seems like Musk isn't making a super sustainable business just yet.... Solar City is arguably "good solar", but that company hasn't done well enough to hold up on its own, getting the Tesla bailout. Tesla's made the great push for electrics, and that's awesome. Also, I imagine there are many people who do _not_ want SpaceX to waste its time sending stuff to Mars, but want it to be a successful sattelite launching company. Meanwhile they're a sattelite launching company that blows stuff up more than average
  - biehl 10y ago
    You mean "Considering how most of his current businesses exist with some subsidies to slightly counter the massive government subsidies to fossile fuel companies and polluting-car externalities" ?
    - celticninja 10y ago
      It's odd how these subsidies are somehow seen as a negative for Tesla, when they are not tesla specific, they apply to all EV regardless of manufacturer, in addition the incumbents have been getting subsidies and bailouts for longer than Tesla Motors has existed and it would take a huge amount of government support for tesla to come even close to say GM in terms of public money received.
      - greglindahl 10y ago
        Not odd at all. Greenpeace attacks Apple for using the same environmentally-unfriendly materials that everyone else uses... because Apple is popular. The subsidy-for-Tesla narrative is driven by folks who either don't like the government, don't think climate change exists, or don't like the hype around Elon/Tesla.
        10y ago
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >but taking on the Wall Street quarter to quarter thinking with enormous It's delusional to think that Tesla isn't in bed with the big banks and playing all the Wall Street games. In fact, I think they do it more than any prominent company out there. If they don't play "quarter to quarter" games, what was the big rush to sell all the ZEV credits this quarter to get profitable? Why not just carry on as they were? My bet: there's another capital raise coming, and the argument will be, "See? We can be profitable whenever we want." But I'm more concerned with TSLA the stock, not the company.
- lmm 10y ago
  > taking on the Wall Street quarter to quarter thinking with enormous, risky endeavours that have the potential to completely revolutionise some of the biggest industries out there (energy and transport) takes an extreme type of individual to succeed. Does it? It makes for a good narrative, but are the burnout-inducing hours and unusall funding sources actually making them more likely to succeed than a company taking a more conventional approach would be, or less?
ebalit 10y ago
The first article was discussed on Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12773035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12773035
ChuckMcM 10y ago
I agree with patrickk that it isn't that people want his companies to succeed so much as they want the product he is bringing to market. I've wanted a no compromise electric car for a long time before Tesla came around, and got it in the Model S, now I don't want the company that brought it out to fail before there is incontrovertible market proof that the demand for electric cars is real and will continue. That takes on the order of 10 years of market participation AFAICT. I also wanted to exploit the solar power that is available in moderate climates like the Bay Area. I did that by "over paying" for my solar install in 2003 but at the same time the creative financing that Solar City brought to the market enabled tremendous volumes (and a price war from the Chinese government helped of course but that is a different story). I also want to go to space for less than $20M on a 1960's tech space ship to a kludged together of modules. Back when Regan's Star Wars vision was creating capital availability for companies like Rotary Rocket and DC-X I was hoping that would finally be the point where regular commercial access to space was made possible. It died and I spend a couple of decades wondering if we'd die as a species on this planet. Now Bezos and Musk are racing to create a capability that promises to take me to orbit for significantly less cash, I'm all for the product and so I want the companies working on that product to succeed. It wasn't until the decade of the idle billionaire that this even became possible.
codeulike 10y ago
that flew under the radar of Hacker News It was on the hn front page for at least 24 hours https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12773035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12773035

patrickk 10y ago

> Maybe because everyone wants his companies to succeed... Surely the only ones who don't want dramatically cheaper space launches, cheaper, widely available solar PV installations and attractive, affordable electric vehicles are deeply entrenched incumbents whose continued profitability involves polluting the planet, or those who really hate the environment for whatever reason. There are valid criticisms you can level at Musk (I wouldn't like to be a direct employee), but taking on the Wall Street quarter to quarter thinking with enormous, risky endeavours that have the potential to completely revolutionise some of the biggest industries out there (energy and transport) takes an extreme type of individual to succeed.

mwfunk 10y ago
I don't think that's the only reason someone might express skepticism of Musk at this point. They might want Musk to succeed at these things very, very much, but fear that his sketchier tendencies might lead to failure.
- karmelapple 10y ago
  I'm curious - what sketchier tendencies do you mean?
  - kmonsen 10y ago
    How autopilot was enabled for example. It has potentially created a difficult public perception of self driving cars.
    - karmelapple 10y ago
      Poor judgment with the name... but sketchy? I don't think introducing the feature is sketchy, since it certainly seems to be working pretty well so far, right?
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  I wouldn't call anything he's done as sketchy. I think he's a great visionary Engineer. I've been waiting for a person like him for a long time--a long wait. That said, I just don't want to see his companies go bankrupt.
ams6110 10y ago
I don't have anything against Musk. I simply don't care much one way or the other because the things he's working on will never affect me. Electric cars are not something I'm interested in owning at the price Tesla is asking. Or even half what Tesla is asking. Utility electricity works fine for me, is a small fraction of my monthly budget, and is reliable. I.e. something I never really worry about. Payments for and maintenance of a personal PV system do not interest me. Space travel? Again if he wants to spend his money there, fine. But I don't see it changing my life. I am not an entrenched encumbent either. I just drive cheap, old cars and have no interest in visiting Mars. I don't even care for conventional air travel.
- tamal 10y ago
  What kind of unconventional air travel do you care for?
  - ams6110 10y ago
    I meant, as opposed to space travel. I actually don't care much for travel at all.
- komali2 10y ago
  With all due respect, that is the standpoint of a cynic or perhaps nihilist. Which is totally fine, people should have the right to not care about stuff without being judged for it. However, if everyone was a perfect nihilist, you wouldn't have cheap old cars to drive because nobody would have made cars. You wouldn't have a cell phone, and especially a data connection, if not for the space program. And so on. So while I don't think it's a problem if some people take your viewpoint, I think it's a problem when everyone does. Somebody has to care enough about the environment to stop rampant capitalism from destroying it so that we have a planet to live on 50 years from now (electric cars, improved public transit.) Someone has to care enough to get humans off the planet so that when it is inevitably destroyed (asteroid, nuclear war, virus, overpopulation) the human race can continue elsewhere.
  - inimino 10y ago
nartsbtaa 10y ago
There's a difference between wanting something to be true, and acknowledging whether a business is succeeding or not on its own terms.
rtpg 10y ago
Considering how most of his current businesses exist thanks to gov't incentives/tax advantages in the domains, there are legitimate criticisms to the way in which his businesses are run. Though I think it's proof the system works! Offer tax incentives for electric cars, get electric cars. Though it seems like Musk isn't making a super sustainable business just yet.... Solar City is arguably "good solar", but that company hasn't done well enough to hold up on its own, getting the Tesla bailout. Tesla's made the great push for electrics, and that's awesome. Also, I imagine there are many people who do _not_ want SpaceX to waste its time sending stuff to Mars, but want it to be a successful sattelite launching company. Meanwhile they're a sattelite launching company that blows stuff up more than average
- biehl 10y ago
  You mean "Considering how most of his current businesses exist with some subsidies to slightly counter the massive government subsidies to fossile fuel companies and polluting-car externalities" ?
  - celticninja 10y ago
    It's odd how these subsidies are somehow seen as a negative for Tesla, when they are not tesla specific, they apply to all EV regardless of manufacturer, in addition the incumbents have been getting subsidies and bailouts for longer than Tesla Motors has existed and it would take a huge amount of government support for tesla to come even close to say GM in terms of public money received.
    - greglindahl 10y ago
      Not odd at all. Greenpeace attacks Apple for using the same environmentally-unfriendly materials that everyone else uses... because Apple is popular. The subsidy-for-Tesla narrative is driven by folks who either don't like the government, don't think climate change exists, or don't like the hype around Elon/Tesla.
      - 10y ago
forgetsusername 10y ago
>but taking on the Wall Street quarter to quarter thinking with enormous It's delusional to think that Tesla isn't in bed with the big banks and playing all the Wall Street games. In fact, I think they do it more than any prominent company out there. If they don't play "quarter to quarter" games, what was the big rush to sell all the ZEV credits this quarter to get profitable? Why not just carry on as they were? My bet: there's another capital raise coming, and the argument will be, "See? We can be profitable whenever we want." But I'm more concerned with TSLA the stock, not the company.
lmm 10y ago
> taking on the Wall Street quarter to quarter thinking with enormous, risky endeavours that have the potential to completely revolutionise some of the biggest industries out there (energy and transport) takes an extreme type of individual to succeed. Does it? It makes for a good narrative, but are the burnout-inducing hours and unusall funding sources actually making them more likely to succeed than a company taking a more conventional approach would be, or less?

ebalit 10y ago

The first article was discussed on Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12773035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12773035

ChuckMcM 10y ago

I agree with patrickk that it isn't that people want his companies to succeed so much as they want the product he is bringing to market. I've wanted a no compromise electric car for a long time before Tesla came around, and got it in the Model S, now I don't want the company that brought it out to fail before there is incontrovertible market proof that the demand for electric cars is real and will continue. That takes on the order of 10 years of market participation AFAICT. I also wanted to exploit the solar power that is available in moderate climates like the Bay Area. I did that by "over paying" for my solar install in 2003 but at the same time the creative financing that Solar City brought to the market enabled tremendous volumes (and a price war from the Chinese government helped of course but that is a different story). I also want to go to space for less than $20M on a 1960's tech space ship to a kludged together of modules. Back when Regan's Star Wars vision was creating capital availability for companies like Rotary Rocket and DC-X I was hoping that would finally be the point where regular commercial access to space was made possible. It died and I spend a couple of decades wondering if we'd die as a species on this planet. Now Bezos and Musk are racing to create a capability that promises to take me to orbit for significantly less cash, I'm all for the product and so I want the companies working on that product to succeed. It wasn't until the decade of the idle billionaire that this even became possible.

codeulike 10y ago

that flew under the radar of Hacker News It was on the hn front page for at least 24 hours https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12773035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12773035