5 ms·

You just cited a source for parent's assertion, although I'm not sure you realize. IIRC the loan came through at a time Tesla was finding it hard to get a loan

You just cited a source for parent's assertion, although I'm not sure you realize. IIRC the loan came through at a time Tesla was finding it hard to get a loan through other sources. You could argue that Tesla was more deserving of government funds than Detroit auto, but it seems to me the government did bail the company out. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout

Arjuna 15y ago
"You just cited a source for parent's assertion, although I'm not sure you realize." I disagree with this, because the funds available under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program are not related to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). They are entirely different programs, under different government departments: ATVM is under the Department of Energy, while TARP is under the Department of the Treasury. "You could argue that Tesla was more deserving of government funds than Detroit auto [...]" One "Detroit auto" company did participate in the ATVM loan program: Ford Motor Company [1]. [1] https://lpo.energy.gov/?projects=ford-motor-company https://lpo.energy.gov/?projects=ford-motor-company
- hristov 15y ago
  I did not say that Tesla participated in TARP. I said Tesla was bailed out with government loans. The phrase "bail out" has generally understood meaning in the English language that is not limited to TARP.
  - jholman 15y ago
    While we're quibbling (and I have no idea why some in this thread have been mentioning TARP), it's not clear to me from any of the cited evidence that ATVM was a bailout. Is someone assuming that all government loans, whether "stimulus" or for some other ostensible reason, are bailouts?
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]