3 ms·

Why do you look at the history of telecommunication companies rather than the history of SpaceX? They received subsidies for electric cars and delivered electr

Why do you look at the history of telecommunication companies rather than the history of SpaceX? They received subsidies for electric cars and delivered electric cars. They received subsidies for space travel and they delivered both cargo and humans to the space station. Now they receive subsidies on for telecommunication, given the two previous deliveries, what makes you think this third one will suddenly go the grift route?

joecool1029 6y ago
>They received subsidies for electric cars and delivered electric cars. Majority of the subsidies (around 70%?) were indirect on EV's through buyer incentive credits. I wouldn't directly consider this a Tesla subsidy as any established auto manufacturer could claim it with an electric vehicle. The remaining subsidies were far less than this FCC subsidy is. > Why do you look at the history of telecommunication companies rather than the history of SpaceX? Because when a company that isn't a telecommunications company decides to be one, it's important to understand why and the best way to do so is to look at the history of the industry and the behavior of principle executives in the company deciding to pivot. >They received subsidies for space travel and they delivered both cargo and humans to the space station. This was a great success and they should absolutely be commended for this. There are situations where the public and SpaceX have received a mutual benefit. The GPS, ISS missions, and Lockheed defense contracts all saved taxpayers a ton of money. > Now they receive subsidies on for telecommunication, given the two previous deliveries, what makes you think this third one will suddenly go the grift route? Sweeping aside that this is the way it's always been for a market that should not require subsidies now that costs can actually be amortized (unlike previously for Iridium), there's already a track record of scandals around their Elon-associated affiliates looting public funds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarCity#Lawsuits_and_investigations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarCity#Lawsuits_and_investi...

joecool1029 6y ago

>They received subsidies for electric cars and delivered electric cars. Majority of the subsidies (around 70%?) were indirect on EV's through buyer incentive credits. I wouldn't directly consider this a Tesla subsidy as any established auto manufacturer could claim it with an electric vehicle. The remaining subsidies were far less than this FCC subsidy is. > Why do you look at the history of telecommunication companies rather than the history of SpaceX? Because when a company that isn't a telecommunications company decides to be one, it's important to understand why and the best way to do so is to look at the history of the industry and the behavior of principle executives in the company deciding to pivot. >They received subsidies for space travel and they delivered both cargo and humans to the space station. This was a great success and they should absolutely be commended for this. There are situations where the public and SpaceX have received a mutual benefit. The GPS, ISS missions, and Lockheed defense contracts all saved taxpayers a ton of money. > Now they receive subsidies on for telecommunication, given the two previous deliveries, what makes you think this third one will suddenly go the grift route? Sweeping aside that this is the way it's always been for a market that should not require subsidies now that costs can actually be amortized (unlike previously for Iridium), there's already a track record of scandals around their Elon-associated affiliates looting public funds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarCity#Lawsuits_and_investigations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarCity#Lawsuits_and_investi...