3 ms·

> Musk said himself SpaceX would’ve gone bankrupt without NASA contracts. And he wasn't paid until he delivered, like any contract with a business. The taxpaye

> Musk said himself SpaceX would’ve gone bankrupt without NASA contracts. And he wasn't paid until he delivered, like any contract with a business. The taxpayers were never at risk. It was not a subsidy. Yes, Tesla benefited from EV subsidies, like all the electric car makers. He'd be stupid not to take the subsidy. > You may want to familiarize yourself with counter examples from Musk biographers, like Seth Abramson. I read "Elon Musk" by Ashlee Vance.

bumby 2y ago
>The taxpayers were never at risk I’d implore you to research more about how the CCP is administered. There are payments before any astronaut gets a ride. Meaning if the company goes out of business beforehand, the taxpayers lost that money without receiving the actual service intended. That’s also why NASA selected two CCP contractors, it distributes the risk. Maybe you think socializing risk to the taxpayer makes him a smart businessman, I just wish people would comes to terms with the fact that his wealth is inextricably linked to taxpayers. Like I said before, it’s not even necessarily a bad thing but call it what it is. I personally think the hybrid public-private arrangement works well when it’s not being abused. Regardless of all that, the point was that Musk is not a paragon of free-market capitalism. Nothing you’ve pointed out negates that point, yet people still cling to that narrative for…reasons. I suspect it has more to do with cognitive biases than reality.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  My house was built to my specification. The general contractor required that I make progress payments. He wanted to be sure he wouldn't be left holding the bag for all of it after I moved in (and he also needed cash to buy supplies and hire subcontractors). I took a risk he didn't just disappear with the up front payment. When I had the roof replaced, I had to pay half up front. And so on. This is normal business practice. There is nothing not free market about progress payments. (Besides, if NASA was fronting all the money, SpaceX wouldn't have gone bankrupt if the rocket blew up. But what I've read was Musk bet the company on it not blowing up.) I decided to check one detail. The EV subsidy came in the form of a tax credit to the buyer, it is not paid to the car manufacturer. Musk had nothing to do with it. > I suspect it has more to do with cognitive biases than reality. Imagining oneself as dealing in reality rather than cognitive bias is yet another cognitive bias. Everything written about Musk is subject to cognitive bias one way or another.
  - bumby 2y ago
    You order an uber. You aren’t expected to make progressive payments so the driver can buy the car, get gas, etc. That’s the more appropriate analogy. As I said, CCP is a service contract, not a product. A house is a product so it even if the contractor goes out of business, you still have the foundations, studs, etc. ie your payments cover the partial product you are actually contracted to receive. A house is a misapplied analogy that belies some ignorance on the commercial crew program. Businesses can leverage POs to fund operations. That’s why the NASA contract matters. Yes, the EV subsidy goes to the buyer. The point was it makes the product more competitive at its price point. That point still stands. Besides, Tesla also benefited from multiple other taxpayer benefits. For example, they get hundreds of millions in tax incentives for their factories. Again, their profitability is propped up by taxpayers. I’ve never claimed to be completely unbiased. However, we do have the benefit of testing out narratives with facts. The mental gymnastics needed to deny that these ventures/profits are somehow not related to taxpayers is, in a word, “nuts”
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      > You order an uber. You aren’t expected to make progressive payments so the driver can buy the car, get gas, etc. That’s the more appropriate analogy. It's utterly inappropriate. First, your card is submitted and approved prior to you getting the ride. The uber is going to get that payment, you have no choice. Second, I wouldn't be surprised if the amount is put on hold with the credit card company before the ride begins - I know gas stations do this. Third, it's a trivial amount of money compared with buying a house. Fourth, the uber driver cannot operate if he hasn't already bought the car and the gas. > That point still stands. Musk had no control over it. The tax credit was given to the consumer. It also was for all EVs, it was not targeted at Musk. > they get hundreds of millions in tax incentives for their factories. Again, their profitability is propped up by taxpayers. A tax abatement is not a subsidy. A subsidy is a payment. Tax abatement is not "propped up" by other taxpayers, they did not get their taxes raised by it, and the company was not previously paying taxes for that location. I'm curious why you (apparently) think that anyone could have done what Musk did? Why didn't you (or anyone else) get those subsidies and tax credits and contracts and create Tesla and SpaceX? I've read that Musk is an imbecile who somehow failed into being the richest entrepreneuer on Earth? Tesla + SpaceX is worth about $1.2 trillion dollars. If the government started it with a billion dollars, consider all the taxes Tesla + SpaceX + Musk + employees + investors has paid since. Wow what a return on investment! And as a bonus, NASA gets to shoot off rockets that cost only 10% of NASA-built rockets.
stephen_g 2y ago
“And he wasn't paid until he delivered, like any contract with a business” I don’t know the specifics of these contracts, but I very much doubt it based on my experience. That’s not how any Government development contract I’ve ever worked on has worked… There are startup payments, payments for milestones (including many at the start for various design stages before anything was built), payments at varying levels of build, etc… - often more than half (sometimes more than three quarters) of the contract value was paid before the final product was delivered. We did some pretty cool things too (this was in defence satellite communications) but various Government customers took like 80% of the risk on the development most of our big products (obviously we had already proven our design abilities with smaller components but much smaller scale), which we would then sell to them and other Governments.

bumby 2y ago

>The taxpayers were never at risk I’d implore you to research more about how the CCP is administered. There are payments before any astronaut gets a ride. Meaning if the company goes out of business beforehand, the taxpayers lost that money without receiving the actual service intended. That’s also why NASA selected two CCP contractors, it distributes the risk. Maybe you think socializing risk to the taxpayer makes him a smart businessman, I just wish people would comes to terms with the fact that his wealth is inextricably linked to taxpayers. Like I said before, it’s not even necessarily a bad thing but call it what it is. I personally think the hybrid public-private arrangement works well when it’s not being abused. Regardless of all that, the point was that Musk is not a paragon of free-market capitalism. Nothing you’ve pointed out negates that point, yet people still cling to that narrative for…reasons. I suspect it has more to do with cognitive biases than reality.

WalterBright 2y ago
My house was built to my specification. The general contractor required that I make progress payments. He wanted to be sure he wouldn't be left holding the bag for all of it after I moved in (and he also needed cash to buy supplies and hire subcontractors). I took a risk he didn't just disappear with the up front payment. When I had the roof replaced, I had to pay half up front. And so on. This is normal business practice. There is nothing not free market about progress payments. (Besides, if NASA was fronting all the money, SpaceX wouldn't have gone bankrupt if the rocket blew up. But what I've read was Musk bet the company on it not blowing up.) I decided to check one detail. The EV subsidy came in the form of a tax credit to the buyer, it is not paid to the car manufacturer. Musk had nothing to do with it. > I suspect it has more to do with cognitive biases than reality. Imagining oneself as dealing in reality rather than cognitive bias is yet another cognitive bias. Everything written about Musk is subject to cognitive bias one way or another.
- bumby 2y ago
  You order an uber. You aren’t expected to make progressive payments so the driver can buy the car, get gas, etc. That’s the more appropriate analogy. As I said, CCP is a service contract, not a product. A house is a product so it even if the contractor goes out of business, you still have the foundations, studs, etc. ie your payments cover the partial product you are actually contracted to receive. A house is a misapplied analogy that belies some ignorance on the commercial crew program. Businesses can leverage POs to fund operations. That’s why the NASA contract matters. Yes, the EV subsidy goes to the buyer. The point was it makes the product more competitive at its price point. That point still stands. Besides, Tesla also benefited from multiple other taxpayer benefits. For example, they get hundreds of millions in tax incentives for their factories. Again, their profitability is propped up by taxpayers. I’ve never claimed to be completely unbiased. However, we do have the benefit of testing out narratives with facts. The mental gymnastics needed to deny that these ventures/profits are somehow not related to taxpayers is, in a word, “nuts”
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > You order an uber. You aren’t expected to make progressive payments so the driver can buy the car, get gas, etc. That’s the more appropriate analogy. It's utterly inappropriate. First, your card is submitted and approved prior to you getting the ride. The uber is going to get that payment, you have no choice. Second, I wouldn't be surprised if the amount is put on hold with the credit card company before the ride begins - I know gas stations do this. Third, it's a trivial amount of money compared with buying a house. Fourth, the uber driver cannot operate if he hasn't already bought the car and the gas. > That point still stands. Musk had no control over it. The tax credit was given to the consumer. It also was for all EVs, it was not targeted at Musk. > they get hundreds of millions in tax incentives for their factories. Again, their profitability is propped up by taxpayers. A tax abatement is not a subsidy. A subsidy is a payment. Tax abatement is not "propped up" by other taxpayers, they did not get their taxes raised by it, and the company was not previously paying taxes for that location. I'm curious why you (apparently) think that anyone could have done what Musk did? Why didn't you (or anyone else) get those subsidies and tax credits and contracts and create Tesla and SpaceX? I've read that Musk is an imbecile who somehow failed into being the richest entrepreneuer on Earth? Tesla + SpaceX is worth about $1.2 trillion dollars. If the government started it with a billion dollars, consider all the taxes Tesla + SpaceX + Musk + employees + investors has paid since. Wow what a return on investment! And as a bonus, NASA gets to shoot off rockets that cost only 10% of NASA-built rockets.

stephen_g 2y ago

“And he wasn't paid until he delivered, like any contract with a business” I don’t know the specifics of these contracts, but I very much doubt it based on my experience. That’s not how any Government development contract I’ve ever worked on has worked… There are startup payments, payments for milestones (including many at the start for various design stages before anything was built), payments at varying levels of build, etc… - often more than half (sometimes more than three quarters) of the contract value was paid before the final product was delivered. We did some pretty cool things too (this was in defence satellite communications) but various Government customers took like 80% of the risk on the development most of our big products (obviously we had already proven our design abilities with smaller components but much smaller scale), which we would then sell to them and other Governments.