5 ms·

Another side note: it always annoys me when people insinuate that Musk using government funds is a bad thing. The government is literally just US....it's our m

Another side note: it always annoys me when people insinuate that Musk using government funds is a bad thing. The government is literally just US....it's our money and a collection of individuals from among us who we've appointed to handle the general administration of us and the space we take up. Why should American entrepreneurs, particularly ones doing such an outstanding job of moving technology in a positive direction, not get our financial support (a.k.a. the government's support)? Who exactly is losing out when we support our own business initiatives with our own money?

baby_wipe 10y ago
-
- robbrown451 10y ago
  Yes, one is game theoretically stable, and one isn't. (the one that isn't is individuals voluntarily giving money to things where the benefit is shared by all)
TeMPOraL 10y ago
Indeed. Tesla is a stellar example of using government money responsibly and for exactly the purpose it was intended to.
wojcech 10y ago
I hope it came through in my comment that I dislike the denial of government aid in the creation of a "bootstraps" narrative when people want to argue against taxes, not the making use of government aid per se(otherwise now it's clear). One valid argument against government aid is market distortion. One example of abuse is farming, where subsidies create a system(as far as I understand at least) where those that have enough land to tick of all subsidies have an edge over smaller farms (in addition to scaling), leading to consolidation and effectively paying land magnates with tax money. A different aspect(more specific) is that maybe solar is just not ready and should fail, and only the subsidies make it viable, meaning people will have "junk" on their roofs without Solarcity to maintain it if the subsidies fade. However, that argument is only valid to me if coal/oil does not get subsidies currently, which I doubt
pbh101 10y ago
The government is not literally just 'us.' It's a contentious idea: "government is just the word for the things we choose to do together" was oft-repeated by Rep. Barney Frank. He was repeating it because not everyone agrees. I think the primary problem of government funding is waste and the potential for corruption. Waste because the government is more immune to profit motive and thus can throw good money after bad for a long time. Corruption because you need to convince some bureaucrats v. all your customers (or whoever the market needs). The flip side is that, done well, you can get things done that no business could get done on its own. So, if Tesla/cleantech succeeds, nobody will remember government funding as some sort of attenuation or 'asterisk' on the win: it was getting the industry over a hump, but into self-sustaining success. Win all around. The problem is if the government support ends up propping up business models that have no hope of actually being viable when that support goes away. If cleantech ends up failing, then the government backing that which couldn't succeed in the free market will be remembered. But it's all a tradeoff: we're not going to be perfect every time and should be prepared to accept some misses if we think bootstrap government funding of promising but currently non-viable products is a worthy allocation of taxpayer money. EDIT: sibling comment has great additional point about market distortion being a problem too.
- perilunar 10y ago
  >"government is just the word for the things we choose to do together" Definitely contentious. A more correct formulation is "government is just the word for the things we are forced to do together"
  - repsilat 10y ago
    Perhaps more even-handed libertarian dig is that it's "the things we force ourselves to do together." In that view it's a solution to market failures around externalities and bad game-theoretic outcomes in collective action/decision-making. Free-riders, the tragedy of the commons, that sort of thing.
  - fennecfoxen 10y ago
    More than contentious, tendentious. It's a choice about how to organize your ideology and world-view, but it's presented as an inarguable fact of existence. It's also what a small left-leaning majority says to defend themselves and shut up their detractors while they inflict their will on the minority over an issue that's contentious (e.g. our recent health care reform). And you'll notice that when legislation they don't like appears, you'll hear remarks to the effect of "that is not who we are!" (the standard obviously being relaxed when a government does something the speaker disagrees with).
mokus 10y ago
I imagine those loud objectors would take issue with the idea that the government is "literally just US" - it's much more literally a small minority of us who are deciding on behalf of us what we are to do with our resources. There's nothing inherently wrong with that - the US was always intended to be exactly that - but it certainly leaves room for the represented to debate about the way they should be represented. "Us" consists of people with different ideas about what is worth spending money on, both in terms of goals and effective ways of pursuing those goals, and using the government to allocate funding ignores all that. It's easy to look at Tesla and SpaceX and see a couple winning tickets in the "give money for technology" lottery, but they are not the only tickets our government has purchased. Consider all the other entrepreneurs who are doing an outstanding job of not so much moving technology in any direction at all but rather lining their pockets while cratering their industry's reputation, or those that make reasonable attempts with interesting but ultimately impractical innovations. The people who object are generally objecting to the playing of the lottery itself. The most commonly proposed alternative is that these companies should earn the money by providing value in the market or convince investors (who have powerful financial incentives to get it right) that they can do so, rather than by convincing a relatively few laypeople with no real skin in the game to risk other people's money on them. Pre-emptive disclaimer: yes, I know I've not mentioned any of the opposing arguments here. My purpose in writing this is solely to explain some of the key points (including some of the emotional appeals) in this particular side of this particular debate.
- __s 10y ago
  North Dakota pipeline is nice example of an operation receiving a good dose of government funding that arguably goes against the best intentions of the future population
  - webscaleizfun 10y ago
    Hey now, we need to get that oil out of the US and into a higher priced market ASAP, hence the need for a new pipeline and the removal of restrictions on the exportation of domestically produced oil. That way, these large foreign oil companies like BP (owned by Britan's public employee retirement funds) and Royal Dutch Shell can make a ton more dough while also raising prices by a few bucks in the domestic gas & natural gas market.
KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
Please do not use the word we in this context. Half of my colleagues are paying very hefty federal and state taxes but do not have the right to vote.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- aerovistae 10y ago
  Why don't they have the right to vote? DC?
  - scaryspooky 10y ago
    Probably they are in the US on work visa's.
refurb 10y ago
A big part is how gov't money is doled out. It forces the gov't to pick winners and losers. And since politics always seems to permeate everything the gov't does, people start to question the decisions. Even if it's something as straightforward as "green credits", the process can always be perverted to advantage one business over another.
- Tempest1981 10y ago
  It's a tough balance. Often we (in the US) don't invest, then complain when jobs shift to other countries. We've seen so much bashing of $0.54 billion for Solyndra (a tiny gamble); but now most solar panels are made in China. Need to gamble, but wisely.
  - webscaleizfun 10y ago
    Not every investment will be successful either, as any person with a basic sense of business will know.
jasonlingx 10y ago
In this case it's taxpayers subsidising high end roofing for nice houses owned by well off people.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  Spot on. I'm all for subsidizing industries to incentivize the behaviour we want, but I'm not sure the people who can afford these homes, or $100,000 cars, need it.
  - DiThi 10y ago
    They may not need it, but it is worth for the rest of us. Technology becomes much cheaper when it becomes commonplace. If we all pay a bit of that 30% subsidy to rich people, what's the matter? That will allow us to eventually buy it with more than 30% reduction of price without subsidies.
- gefh 10y ago
  In the short term, yes. In the longer term, they're subsidising kick starting a market that can only come down in price once the volume increases. Some good ideas need a bump through the 'chicken and egg' stage.

baby_wipe 10y ago

robbrown451 10y ago
Yes, one is game theoretically stable, and one isn't. (the one that isn't is individuals voluntarily giving money to things where the benefit is shared by all)

TeMPOraL 10y ago

Indeed. Tesla is a stellar example of using government money responsibly and for exactly the purpose it was intended to.

wojcech 10y ago

I hope it came through in my comment that I dislike the denial of government aid in the creation of a "bootstraps" narrative when people want to argue against taxes, not the making use of government aid per se(otherwise now it's clear). One valid argument against government aid is market distortion. One example of abuse is farming, where subsidies create a system(as far as I understand at least) where those that have enough land to tick of all subsidies have an edge over smaller farms (in addition to scaling), leading to consolidation and effectively paying land magnates with tax money. A different aspect(more specific) is that maybe solar is just not ready and should fail, and only the subsidies make it viable, meaning people will have "junk" on their roofs without Solarcity to maintain it if the subsidies fade. However, that argument is only valid to me if coal/oil does not get subsidies currently, which I doubt

pbh101 10y ago

The government is not literally just 'us.' It's a contentious idea: "government is just the word for the things we choose to do together" was oft-repeated by Rep. Barney Frank. He was repeating it because not everyone agrees. I think the primary problem of government funding is waste and the potential for corruption. Waste because the government is more immune to profit motive and thus can throw good money after bad for a long time. Corruption because you need to convince some bureaucrats v. all your customers (or whoever the market needs). The flip side is that, done well, you can get things done that no business could get done on its own. So, if Tesla/cleantech succeeds, nobody will remember government funding as some sort of attenuation or 'asterisk' on the win: it was getting the industry over a hump, but into self-sustaining success. Win all around. The problem is if the government support ends up propping up business models that have no hope of actually being viable when that support goes away. If cleantech ends up failing, then the government backing that which couldn't succeed in the free market will be remembered. But it's all a tradeoff: we're not going to be perfect every time and should be prepared to accept some misses if we think bootstrap government funding of promising but currently non-viable products is a worthy allocation of taxpayer money. EDIT: sibling comment has great additional point about market distortion being a problem too.

perilunar 10y ago
>"government is just the word for the things we choose to do together" Definitely contentious. A more correct formulation is "government is just the word for the things we are forced to do together"
- repsilat 10y ago
  Perhaps more even-handed libertarian dig is that it's "the things we force ourselves to do together." In that view it's a solution to market failures around externalities and bad game-theoretic outcomes in collective action/decision-making. Free-riders, the tragedy of the commons, that sort of thing.
- fennecfoxen 10y ago
  More than contentious, tendentious. It's a choice about how to organize your ideology and world-view, but it's presented as an inarguable fact of existence. It's also what a small left-leaning majority says to defend themselves and shut up their detractors while they inflict their will on the minority over an issue that's contentious (e.g. our recent health care reform). And you'll notice that when legislation they don't like appears, you'll hear remarks to the effect of "that is not who we are!" (the standard obviously being relaxed when a government does something the speaker disagrees with).

mokus 10y ago

I imagine those loud objectors would take issue with the idea that the government is "literally just US" - it's much more literally a small minority of us who are deciding on behalf of us what we are to do with our resources. There's nothing inherently wrong with that - the US was always intended to be exactly that - but it certainly leaves room for the represented to debate about the way they should be represented. "Us" consists of people with different ideas about what is worth spending money on, both in terms of goals and effective ways of pursuing those goals, and using the government to allocate funding ignores all that. It's easy to look at Tesla and SpaceX and see a couple winning tickets in the "give money for technology" lottery, but they are not the only tickets our government has purchased. Consider all the other entrepreneurs who are doing an outstanding job of not so much moving technology in any direction at all but rather lining their pockets while cratering their industry's reputation, or those that make reasonable attempts with interesting but ultimately impractical innovations. The people who object are generally objecting to the playing of the lottery itself. The most commonly proposed alternative is that these companies should earn the money by providing value in the market or convince investors (who have powerful financial incentives to get it right) that they can do so, rather than by convincing a relatively few laypeople with no real skin in the game to risk other people's money on them. Pre-emptive disclaimer: yes, I know I've not mentioned any of the opposing arguments here. My purpose in writing this is solely to explain some of the key points (including some of the emotional appeals) in this particular side of this particular debate.

__s 10y ago
North Dakota pipeline is nice example of an operation receiving a good dose of government funding that arguably goes against the best intentions of the future population
- webscaleizfun 10y ago
  Hey now, we need to get that oil out of the US and into a higher priced market ASAP, hence the need for a new pipeline and the removal of restrictions on the exportation of domestically produced oil. That way, these large foreign oil companies like BP (owned by Britan's public employee retirement funds) and Royal Dutch Shell can make a ton more dough while also raising prices by a few bucks in the domestic gas & natural gas market.

KKKKkkkk1 10y ago

Please do not use the word we in this context. Half of my colleagues are paying very hefty federal and state taxes but do not have the right to vote.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
aerovistae 10y ago
Why don't they have the right to vote? DC?
- scaryspooky 10y ago
  Probably they are in the US on work visa's.

refurb 10y ago

A big part is how gov't money is doled out. It forces the gov't to pick winners and losers. And since politics always seems to permeate everything the gov't does, people start to question the decisions. Even if it's something as straightforward as "green credits", the process can always be perverted to advantage one business over another.

Tempest1981 10y ago
It's a tough balance. Often we (in the US) don't invest, then complain when jobs shift to other countries. We've seen so much bashing of $0.54 billion for Solyndra (a tiny gamble); but now most solar panels are made in China. Need to gamble, but wisely.
- webscaleizfun 10y ago
  Not every investment will be successful either, as any person with a basic sense of business will know.

jasonlingx 10y ago

In this case it's taxpayers subsidising high end roofing for nice houses owned by well off people.

forgetsusername 10y ago
Spot on. I'm all for subsidizing industries to incentivize the behaviour we want, but I'm not sure the people who can afford these homes, or $100,000 cars, need it.
- DiThi 10y ago
  They may not need it, but it is worth for the rest of us. Technology becomes much cheaper when it becomes commonplace. If we all pay a bit of that 30% subsidy to rich people, what's the matter? That will allow us to eventually buy it with more than 30% reduction of price without subsidies.
gefh 10y ago
In the short term, yes. In the longer term, they're subsidising kick starting a market that can only come down in price once the volume increases. Some good ideas need a bump through the 'chicken and egg' stage.