3 ms·

On Bailouts and Sports Cars

14 points by qhoxie 18y ago

sarvesh 18y ago
Randall is really short sighted (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30digi.html?_r=1&ref=business http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30digi.html?_r=1&...). The big three want to be bailed out using this fund which defeats the whole purpose of why this fund was started in the first place. I don't see how giving this money to the big three will help anyone. They will go on to build those big SUVs and will need more money in six months. The jobs that would be saved will be at stake again. Jobs at companies like Tesla are more likely to stay. I personally would like my tax dollars going to someone like Telsa rather than GM.
mattmaroon 18y ago
Boy it's a good thing Calcanis stopped blogging, and instead started a mailing list and then posting everything from the mailing list to a blog. It's the blogosphere's equivalent of McCain's "suspending my campaign until the crisis is fixed" gambit.
- qhoxie 18y ago
  Heh, I've been thinking the same thing. I'm not subscribed to his list, so I'm not sure what the ratio is like, but it is amusing to see the occasional "I thought this was important enough to put on the blog..."
  - aston 18y ago
    Nearly every email he's posted has ended up on his blog or someone else's (with permission). Which means he's still blogging.
    - jasonmcalacanis 18y ago
      Please don't take it all so seriously. :-)
      - tlrobinson 18y ago
        Welcome to Hacker News... if that's really you...
petercooper 18y ago
I personally think Tesla will and should be encouraged to go on to do great things, but.. Calacanis seems to believe that giving $400m to a relatively unproven startup has zero risk. While he gives some great reasons for giving the loan including, obviously, "interest", there's no consideration given to what happens if Tesla goes out of business in a year or two. That's not to say Tesla shouldn't try because, yes, it probably would succeed, but that's also not to say people shouldn't be wary of giving a startup $400 million.. heck, at least drip feed them the loan.
- jasonmcalacanis 18y ago
  I don't think there is no risk--would anyone think there is no risk in starting a car company!??!!? Hello!??! The issue here is if we are going to give 25b in funding to companies to advance new car technology we should probably start with the company that has been most successful in actually delivering a product (i.e. Tesla and not GM).
  - aston 18y ago
    Didn't expect you to show up here, but since you are, here's my major disagreement: What makes you so certain that Tesla has so much more ability to execute than the big three auto companies? They're years and years behind in the "deliver a few people electric cars" race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car). And based on the executive turnover at Tesla, how could anyone really be sure that the leadership there is stable enough to be trusted to actually make good on a government loan? I know the Roadster is awesome, and I agree with most of your points about it being at least a legit, innovative, and potentially affordable venture. But you kind of omit the part of the argument about why Tesla deserves it and the other companies don't...
  - petercooper 18y ago
    I've voted you up just because it's awesome that you're here ;-) I do agree that if we're going to give money to anyone, it should be someone who can deliver new, game-changing products. I still feel, though, that your piece has great intentions but isn't a good rebuttal to the NYT piece. Non-technological America - when presented with a loan to Tesla or GM - will be thinking of all the people already employed who could lose their jobs at GM rather than the new possibilities offered by companies like Tesla. I just didn't think your post really catered to those people, and they're the ones who make the most noise in this country.

14 points by qhoxie 18y ago

Randall is really short sighted (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30digi.html?_r=1&ref=business http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30digi.html?_r=1&...). The big three want to be bailed out using this fund which defeats the whole purpose of why this fund was started in the first place. I don't see how giving this money to the big three will help anyone. They will go on to build those big SUVs and will need more money in six months. The jobs that would be saved will be at stake again. Jobs at companies like Tesla are more likely to stay. I personally would like my tax dollars going to someone like Telsa rather than GM.

mattmaroon 18y ago

Boy it's a good thing Calcanis stopped blogging, and instead started a mailing list and then posting everything from the mailing list to a blog. It's the blogosphere's equivalent of McCain's "suspending my campaign until the crisis is fixed" gambit.

qhoxie 18y ago
Heh, I've been thinking the same thing. I'm not subscribed to his list, so I'm not sure what the ratio is like, but it is amusing to see the occasional "I thought this was important enough to put on the blog..."
- aston 18y ago
  Nearly every email he's posted has ended up on his blog or someone else's (with permission). Which means he's still blogging.
  - jasonmcalacanis 18y ago
    Please don't take it all so seriously. :-)
    - tlrobinson 18y ago
      Welcome to Hacker News... if that's really you...

petercooper 18y ago

I personally think Tesla will and should be encouraged to go on to do great things, but.. Calacanis seems to believe that giving $400m to a relatively unproven startup has zero risk. While he gives some great reasons for giving the loan including, obviously, "interest", there's no consideration given to what happens if Tesla goes out of business in a year or two. That's not to say Tesla shouldn't try because, yes, it probably would succeed, but that's also not to say people shouldn't be wary of giving a startup $400 million.. heck, at least drip feed them the loan.

jasonmcalacanis 18y ago
I don't think there is no risk--would anyone think there is no risk in starting a car company!??!!? Hello!??! The issue here is if we are going to give 25b in funding to companies to advance new car technology we should probably start with the company that has been most successful in actually delivering a product (i.e. Tesla and not GM).
- aston 18y ago
  Didn't expect you to show up here, but since you are, here's my major disagreement: What makes you so certain that Tesla has so much more ability to execute than the big three auto companies? They're years and years behind in the "deliver a few people electric cars" race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car). And based on the executive turnover at Tesla, how could anyone really be sure that the leadership there is stable enough to be trusted to actually make good on a government loan? I know the Roadster is awesome, and I agree with most of your points about it being at least a legit, innovative, and potentially affordable venture. But you kind of omit the part of the argument about why Tesla deserves it and the other companies don't...
- petercooper 18y ago
  I've voted you up just because it's awesome that you're here ;-) I do agree that if we're going to give money to anyone, it should be someone who can deliver new, game-changing products. I still feel, though, that your piece has great intentions but isn't a good rebuttal to the NYT piece. Non-technological America - when presented with a loan to Tesla or GM - will be thinking of all the people already employed who could lose their jobs at GM rather than the new possibilities offered by companies like Tesla. I just didn't think your post really catered to those people, and they're the ones who make the most noise in this country.