4 ms·
What? This is on the New York Times? Tesla does not make faberge eggs or something. It makes all-electric vehicles. They are expensive now because the technolo
by dcurtis 18y ago
What? This is on the New York Times?
Tesla does not make faberge eggs or something. It makes all-electric vehicles. They are expensive now because the technology is new. But it is the future. The price will come down. This is not a subsidy for ultra wealthy people-- it's an investment in a whole new industry. If Detroit gets its 25 billion, the least the taxpayer can do is help a small company develop technology that might turn into a major competitor against the Big 3. Then we might not have to bail them out again.
How does this sensationalist stuff get into the mainstream news media so much lately?
- Prrometheus 18y agoThis kind of thinking, "If they got an $X billion bailout, then why can't I get only $Y billion?", is an example of the kinds of perverse incentives that these bailouts create. Rarely is the true nature of democracy on such clear display: everybody trying to rip off everybody else.
- wmf 18y agoDidn't Mark Twain say that most people want less government corruption or more opportunity to participate in it?
- newsycaccount 18y agoWho are you, Walter Lippman?
- peter123 18y agoTesla makes electric cars targeted at the wealth. There are plenty of other electric car companies making cars that are way less than $100k.
- dcurtis 18y agoWhich companies?
- fallentimes 18y agoTax payers shouldn't be subsidizing for-profit businesses.
- rms 18y agoIt only works when the tax payers get voting shares in the for-profit businesses. This is the China model, except it is the government that owns the companies. And they've owned shares in the companies before the companies go bankrupt. What would happen if US tax payers actually had voting shares of companies, starting with GM? Obviously there would be a very low turn out rate, but taxpowers could vote if they were sufficiently marketed to.
- JabavuAdams 18y agoYou need to be clear what kind of financial aid you're talking about. Is it research grants, or bailouts? The (semi) convincing reason for these massive bailouts is to avert immediate crises that will affect huge numbers of people. This crisis atmosphere is the only reason such huge amounts of money can be rammed through with minimal deliberation. OTOH $400M is a lot of money for some kind of R&D grant. Tesla is a private company. $4M would be a different story. If we're throwing out $100's of M here and there in pure grants, then there are also many other deserving recipients. Who decides who should get those funds? I wouldn't put Tesla at the top of that list.