4 ms·

My understanding is that Tesla opened it up, because the US government would fund EV charging stations, as long as they support more than one auto maker? So it

My understanding is that Tesla opened it up, because the US government would fund EV charging stations, as long as they support more than one auto maker? So it's not exactly a government free success story.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rtkwe 3y ago
The idea of Tesla as a non subsidized company is wild.
- qualifiedai 3y ago
  They paid their gov loans on time (or early) and with interest. Also getting rid of EV credits would benefit them the most.
  - wmf 3y ago
    Maybe it would benefit them now but they wouldn't exist without those credits. I think the overall system is good and working as intended but let's not pretend subsidies are not subsidies.
    - Jcowell 3y ago
      yeah , loans are just subsidies of time.
  - greesil 3y ago
    Yes, but those tax credits certainly helped get them started. Mad props to Tesla for making a great product, too, but the government subsidies helped.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Loans from taxpayers are still subsidies.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    But nobody else would have made a loan to them, and without that loan, they would have not survived. The government program exists exactly for that sort of situation, where traditional banks are unwilling to take the risk on an unproven business model. I have heard second hand that early EV credits helped them get off the ground, but I haven't checked that personally...
    - junofan 3y ago
      Chinese banks will happily loan Tesla money. Private credit would probably do the deal today. That loan is probably the highest ROI thing Uncle Sam’s done for the climate.
    - schiffern 3y ago
      > But nobody else would have made a loan to them, and without that loan, they would have not survived. Feature, not bug. That was literally the entire point of the (Bush era) Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing policy: to inexpensively achieve pollution reduction by nudging almost-there clean vehicle technologies "over the line" from non-viable to viable. Why are we suddenly complaining when it did exactly what we intended in the first place? Inexpensive? Big check (see Clinton's try for a typical case). Accelerated pollution reduction with huge health benefits? Also check. Where's the problem? I'm not seeing a problem. :-\
      - epistasis 3y ago
        I'm not following the meaning in your statements. When you say "feature, not bug" I'm not sure if you're saying the feature is that traditional banks are bad at evaluating new tech, or if the feature is that Tesla would have not survived without a government loan. Either meaning is hard to connect to the rest of your comment. I don't know what "Clinton's try" is, or really what fuel efficiency has to do with any of this, to be honest!
        schiffern 3y ago
        >the feature is that traditional banks are bad at evaluating new tech Apples and oranges. Traditional banks have a profit motivation. That's their only job. Governments have a public health and well-being motivation. They try to achieve that at minimum cost. It's wrongheaded to view government merely a "broken bank" in this scenario. It's actually that government is judged by totally different metrics, ones which they achieved very successfully. >I don't know what "Clinton's try" is, or really what fuel efficiency has to do with any of this, to be honest! Clinton's try for cleaner vehicles, of course. That was the previous attempt before Bush tried his ATVM loan program. https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1993/09/30/clinton-announces-plan-for-80-mpg-car/ https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1993/09/30/clinton-announce... It's relevant because it shows the typical-case cost for government achieving (or more accurately, not achieving) their public health goals in this sector. It shows how the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan program was actually a fantastically cheap and successful policy program when compared to its peers.
  - rtkwe 3y ago
    It's not just loans there's also the $7500 EV car credit they benefitted from massively in the beginning.
- ec109685 3y ago
  Many small businesses take advantage of sweetheart SBA loans. Government subsidy to stimulate the economy is good.
  - stetrain 3y ago
    I don't think anyone is arguing that the government support of Tesla and EVs is necessarily bad here, just taking issue with OP's claim of "without any government intervention."
- slt2021 3y ago
  A lot of automakers in the USA get subsidies, GM even got bailed out in 2008. Tesla on the other hand creates a lot of jobs, invests in US factories, invests into R&D, pays a lot of taxes, and most importantly - delivers on the vision of transition to clean energy. Without Tesla, America would still be driving even more gas guzzling SUVs and pickups. So the relationship is mutually beneficial for the company, country, economy, and ecology
  - sushid 3y ago
    No one is saying that the US didn't benefit from Tesla's existence. But saying that Tesla was not subsidized or profited from government intervention is wholly untrue.
    - slt2021 3y ago
      In the grand scheme of things American taxpayer doesnt care all that much, because there are so many leeches who profit off of government spending like military, healthcare, automotive, etc. in teslas case at least there is clear ecological and experience benefit to consumers to show for all the “subsidies” You call it subsidy, I call it accelerating EV transition
thelastgallon 3y ago
Tesla doesn't need govt funding, they built a coast-to-coast supercharger network years before and have been continuing to build. The charging station funding is to help GM and Ford, they can't figure out how the charging thing works, and they don't want to compete fairly, so my tax dollars and yours, they go to help these legacy carmakers.
- snotrockets 3y ago
  For years, the only way Tesla made money was from government subsidies.
  - stetrain 3y ago
    Well, mostly from other automakers paying Tesla for credits, as mandated by various governments' legislation. But the transactions didn't directly involve government/tax dollars.
    - snotrockets 3y ago
      Vegas casinos could also buy credits instead of paying taxes, so there's at least that. And of course, some of those credits were undeserved (remember the battery replacement swindle they pulled?) But even if it was all pure "get other companies work around regulations", those regulations were created to reduce future costs to people, and the public coffers. By subverting them, in spirit, if not in letter, Telsa made profit not just by selling cars, but also by selling our future, something rarely accounted for.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rtkwe 3y ago

The idea of Tesla as a non subsidized company is wild.

qualifiedai 3y ago
They paid their gov loans on time (or early) and with interest. Also getting rid of EV credits would benefit them the most.
- wmf 3y ago
  Maybe it would benefit them now but they wouldn't exist without those credits. I think the overall system is good and working as intended but let's not pretend subsidies are not subsidies.
  - Jcowell 3y ago
    yeah , loans are just subsidies of time.
- greesil 3y ago
  Yes, but those tax credits certainly helped get them started. Mad props to Tesla for making a great product, too, but the government subsidies helped.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Loans from taxpayers are still subsidies.
- epistasis 3y ago
  But nobody else would have made a loan to them, and without that loan, they would have not survived. The government program exists exactly for that sort of situation, where traditional banks are unwilling to take the risk on an unproven business model. I have heard second hand that early EV credits helped them get off the ground, but I haven't checked that personally...
  - junofan 3y ago
    Chinese banks will happily loan Tesla money. Private credit would probably do the deal today. That loan is probably the highest ROI thing Uncle Sam’s done for the climate.
  - schiffern 3y ago
    > But nobody else would have made a loan to them, and without that loan, they would have not survived. Feature, not bug. That was literally the entire point of the (Bush era) Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing policy: to inexpensively achieve pollution reduction by nudging almost-there clean vehicle technologies "over the line" from non-viable to viable. Why are we suddenly complaining when it did exactly what we intended in the first place? Inexpensive? Big check (see Clinton's try for a typical case). Accelerated pollution reduction with huge health benefits? Also check. Where's the problem? I'm not seeing a problem. :-\
    - epistasis 3y ago
      I'm not following the meaning in your statements. When you say "feature, not bug" I'm not sure if you're saying the feature is that traditional banks are bad at evaluating new tech, or if the feature is that Tesla would have not survived without a government loan. Either meaning is hard to connect to the rest of your comment. I don't know what "Clinton's try" is, or really what fuel efficiency has to do with any of this, to be honest!
      - schiffern 3y ago
        >the feature is that traditional banks are bad at evaluating new tech Apples and oranges. Traditional banks have a profit motivation. That's their only job. Governments have a public health and well-being motivation. They try to achieve that at minimum cost. It's wrongheaded to view government merely a "broken bank" in this scenario. It's actually that government is judged by totally different metrics, ones which they achieved very successfully. >I don't know what "Clinton's try" is, or really what fuel efficiency has to do with any of this, to be honest! Clinton's try for cleaner vehicles, of course. That was the previous attempt before Bush tried his ATVM loan program. https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1993/09/30/clinton-announces-plan-for-80-mpg-car/ https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1993/09/30/clinton-announce... It's relevant because it shows the typical-case cost for government achieving (or more accurately, not achieving) their public health goals in this sector. It shows how the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan program was actually a fantastically cheap and successful policy program when compared to its peers.
- rtkwe 3y ago
  It's not just loans there's also the $7500 EV car credit they benefitted from massively in the beginning.
ec109685 3y ago
Many small businesses take advantage of sweetheart SBA loans. Government subsidy to stimulate the economy is good.
- stetrain 3y ago
  I don't think anyone is arguing that the government support of Tesla and EVs is necessarily bad here, just taking issue with OP's claim of "without any government intervention."
slt2021 3y ago
A lot of automakers in the USA get subsidies, GM even got bailed out in 2008. Tesla on the other hand creates a lot of jobs, invests in US factories, invests into R&D, pays a lot of taxes, and most importantly - delivers on the vision of transition to clean energy. Without Tesla, America would still be driving even more gas guzzling SUVs and pickups. So the relationship is mutually beneficial for the company, country, economy, and ecology
- sushid 3y ago
  No one is saying that the US didn't benefit from Tesla's existence. But saying that Tesla was not subsidized or profited from government intervention is wholly untrue.
  - slt2021 3y ago
    In the grand scheme of things American taxpayer doesnt care all that much, because there are so many leeches who profit off of government spending like military, healthcare, automotive, etc. in teslas case at least there is clear ecological and experience benefit to consumers to show for all the “subsidies” You call it subsidy, I call it accelerating EV transition

thelastgallon 3y ago

Tesla doesn't need govt funding, they built a coast-to-coast supercharger network years before and have been continuing to build. The charging station funding is to help GM and Ford, they can't figure out how the charging thing works, and they don't want to compete fairly, so my tax dollars and yours, they go to help these legacy carmakers.

snotrockets 3y ago
For years, the only way Tesla made money was from government subsidies.
- stetrain 3y ago
  Well, mostly from other automakers paying Tesla for credits, as mandated by various governments' legislation. But the transactions didn't directly involve government/tax dollars.
  - snotrockets 3y ago
    Vegas casinos could also buy credits instead of paying taxes, so there's at least that. And of course, some of those credits were undeserved (remember the battery replacement swindle they pulled?) But even if it was all pure "get other companies work around regulations", those regulations were created to reduce future costs to people, and the public coffers. By subverting them, in spirit, if not in letter, Telsa made profit not just by selling cars, but also by selling our future, something rarely accounted for.