3 ms·

Your logic does not make sense here. These exact same perks were available to the established automotive industry as well. And on top of all of that they had va

Your logic does not make sense here. These exact same perks were available to the established automotive industry as well. And on top of all of that they had vastly greater economc resources, infrastructure resources, and even greater talent to draw from as well. It's not like "Musk can have these, but not you guys!" The playing field was not fair, but that's because it was heavily weighted towards established players. That these players failed to achieve anything is a very strong indicator that they were indeed just "sitting on their asses." Consider that Tesla started after, and in part as a response to, GM deciding to recall and destroy their EV1 electric vehicle. As well even your claims of subsidies and consumer price sensitivity work against your argument. Tesla was built on the Roadster. An ultra high end electric vehicle. Somebody paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a car isn't suddenly going to be swayed by a $10k tax credit. Finally we can even take things like the federal automotive bailouts. Ford, for instance, took a sub-inflation rate loan of $5.9 billion from the taxpayer, which they unsurprisingly have not paid back. It was supposed to be used to develop fuel efficient vehicles. A literal check for $5.9 billion just blows every point in your list out of the water. Yet, Ford not only dawdled but most recently announced they've cancelled every sedan/car in their line except the Mustang and one upcoming vehicle. That leaves them 90% of their lineup distributed towards trucks, SUVs, and commercial vehicles. And the next time gas prices spike, we can bet they'll come begging for another handout from the taxpayer. Just brilliant business acumen by these guys.

rayiner 8y ago
The Roadster (released 2008) sold less than 2,500 vehicles. It is a historical curiosity, like the EV1--the fact that a tiny handful of people bought the Roadster without tax incentives tells you little about how consumers would react to a mainstream vehicle. The story of mainstream EVs starts with the federal tax incentives in 2009, the GM Volt and Nissan Leaf in 2010, and the Tesla Model S in 2012. Tesla has done a good job making popular, well-rated cars. But this idea that they were "first" while others were "sitting on their asses" is just completely factually incorrect. Competing car manufacturers dipped their toes into EVs years before Tesla even existed, and everyone rushed to build mainstream EVs in the same 2007-2012 time frame, with Nissan and GM releasing their products first.[1] [1] Also, I don't see the relevance of the Ford loan? I'm not the one trying to add a moral dimension to the history of EVs. There is none. The relevance of the federal subsidies is not "oh, Tesla took subsidies." But rather that subsidies were necessary to make EVs attractive to consumers. The EV1 was canceled because consumer surveys in the late 1990s showed that you'd have to sell an EV for $28,000 less than a gas car to get consumers to buy it. Rising gas prices closed up a lot of that gap, along with advances in battery technology improving range. But the $10,000 or so in federal and state tax credits also played a huge role in making EVs palatable to consumers.

rayiner 8y ago

The Roadster (released 2008) sold less than 2,500 vehicles. It is a historical curiosity, like the EV1--the fact that a tiny handful of people bought the Roadster without tax incentives tells you little about how consumers would react to a mainstream vehicle. The story of mainstream EVs starts with the federal tax incentives in 2009, the GM Volt and Nissan Leaf in 2010, and the Tesla Model S in 2012. Tesla has done a good job making popular, well-rated cars. But this idea that they were "first" while others were "sitting on their asses" is just completely factually incorrect. Competing car manufacturers dipped their toes into EVs years before Tesla even existed, and everyone rushed to build mainstream EVs in the same 2007-2012 time frame, with Nissan and GM releasing their products first.[1] [1] Also, I don't see the relevance of the Ford loan? I'm not the one trying to add a moral dimension to the history of EVs. There is none. The relevance of the federal subsidies is not "oh, Tesla took subsidies." But rather that subsidies were necessary to make EVs attractive to consumers. The EV1 was canceled because consumer surveys in the late 1990s showed that you'd have to sell an EV for $28,000 less than a gas car to get consumers to buy it. Rising gas prices closed up a lot of that gap, along with advances in battery technology improving range. But the $10,000 or so in federal and state tax credits also played a huge role in making EVs palatable to consumers.