5 ms·

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.

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.