6 ms·

Mitt Romney Calls Tesla a 'Loser'

120 points by rsingel 14y ago

sudonim 14y ago
Headlines like this always remind me of the term wikipedia taught me: "Disambiguation". A simple Mitt Romney Calls Tesla Motors a 'Loser' would have clarified in the headline whether the author meant Tesla (the person), or Tesla (the car company). Leaving it vague probably gets more clicks.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  Oh I'm sure they are counting on the rageviews. It is unfortunate for Tesla that part of the price of getting the loan from the DOE was to open themselves up more widely to the political process.
- fletchowns 14y ago
  If you had any uncertainty of what he was referring to (the person vs. the car company) you must have been living under a rock for the past year.
- wmf 14y ago
  Why would Romney have anything at all to say about Nikola Tesla?
  - SquareWheel 14y ago
    I have no idea but it was my first assumption. But then I also assumed it was taken out of context.
  - jes5199 14y ago
    Maybe he was upset about the Kickstarter to build a Tesla museum. Maybe he wanted an Edison museum.
- wwweston 14y ago
  While clarity is nice, it probably isn't necessary in this case. Heck, they could have left off "Mitt" and we could still safely assume the article wasn't about George Romney bagging on ol' Nikola.
- madiator 14y ago
  Which Mitt Romney are you talking about?
- smartician 14y ago
  Will probably get downvoted, but my first thought when reading the headline was, "Why would Romney call Nikola Tesla a loser, posthumously? Is it because Edison had been able to turn his inventions into economic successes, while Tesla died penniless? Not very nice of him to add insult to injury." After I clicked it, at first I wondered why there is a picture of a car on top of the article. And then I realized what an idiot I am.
kgermino 14y ago
For Context, from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/presidential-debate-transcript-denver-colo-oct/story?id=17390260&singlePage=true#.UG0JJ03oR3A http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/presidential-debate-tran... : (CROSSTALK) ROMNEY: ... to oil, to tax breaks, then companies going overseas. So let's go through them one by one. First of all, the Department of Energy has said the tax break for oil companies is $2.8 billion a year. And it's actually an accounting treatment, as you know, that's been in place for a hundred years. Now... OBAMA: It's time to end it. ROMNEY: And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that's about 50 years' worth of what oil and gas receives. And you say Exxon and Mobil. Actually, this $2.8 billion goes largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth. ROMNEY: But, you know, if we get that tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent, why that $2.8 billion is on the table. Of course it's on the table. That's probably not going to survive you get that rate down to 25 percent. But don't forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years' worth of breaks, into -- into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tester and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right? So this -- this is not -- this is not the kind of policy you want to have if you want to get America energy secure. The second topic, which is you said you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas. Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant. LEHRER: Let's... ROMNEY: But -- but the idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case. (CROSSTALK) Regardless, I won't comment on this myself since I can't imagine any thread on this article staying clean...
- protomyth 14y ago
  I figure given the speed of writing, it was a poorly written article to take a soundbite and put it to a pre-existing opinion. It gets clicks and maybe a quick scan without providing the actual context. This is just one example of the next 24 hour news cycle from both side's news outlets. Job numbers hit Friday, so I only expect a day of it.
  - sharkweek 14y ago
    Very much so -- watching it live, it really did not come across that harsh (this coming from someone who will 99% certainly be voting for Obama).
nwienert 14y ago
This article is wrong. He wasn't calling them losers he was saying that politicians in general don't have the ability to pick the winners, they can only pick the losers through their policies. He was basically saying that Obama was trying to pick the winners in green but that it wasn't working because the market isn't ready (basically claiming he is failing because government can't make an industry a winner through policy). He was also probably implying that Obama was purposely choosing Oil as the loser.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Not even close! Romney's statement was in the context of his reference to someone's joke making fun of Obama for picking losing companies. He was clearly calling Tesla a loser.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    That's certainly consistent with conservative tech skeptics. I think the grandparent post offers a worthwhile alternative interpretation, but I think the majority of people would go with yours. That said, the majority of people probably found both candidates too wonkish and abstract in this debate for many minds to be changed. As a policy guy, I enjoyed it, and I thought Romney did well for himself although I prefer Obama. But the candidates talked past each other to a large extent, and both were pulling their punches a little.
- possibilistic 14y ago
  If the government is bad (or simply worse than the free market) at developing new industries, should it stay out of the business of giving subsidies to groundbreaking companies? Should this be left to chance? I suppose a more direct question is this: should we just sit it out and wait for green tech to be right? (Or for oil to be so costly that any alternative is better?) What about the numerous areas in which government investment/research has paid off (eg. computing)? Could or should the free market today replace this type of public investment? Just curious.
  - 14y ago
beatgammit 14y ago
Meh. Tesla is still in debt (and had to renegotiate their loan at that), so Romney's technically correct about that. The major benefit I see from the Tesla project is it puts pressure on other companies to make better electric cars. I really hope they go mainstream, but it seems they're not targeting the average Joe. If it's going to be an "energy" project, it needs to go mainstream, like the Nissan Leaf or the Chevy Volt. I just don't see why the government should be sponsoring a company that will probably only ever sell to upper and upper-middle class customers. Don't get me wrong, I love the Tesla company, but I think there were more interesting points of the debate than this. To be fair, Romney didn't single out Tesla; it was lumped in with other projects that haven't proven successful yet.
- biscarch 14y ago
  Tesla is planning a lower cost vehicle, somewhere in the 30k range. Quick search turns up this: http://www.plugincars.com/tesla-reveals-lower-priced-fourth-electric-vehicle-112356.html http://www.plugincars.com/tesla-reveals-lower-priced-fourth-... As I understand it their plan was high-price/low-volume to start and progressing towards high-volume/low-price as time went on.
- lukifer 14y ago
  Just because a venture fails for its investors doesn't mean it's a failure for the economy as a whole. NeXT was a colossal flop, and yet look what came out of it in the end.
- tantalor 14y ago
  > Tesla is still in debt Yes, they have debts, about $505M.[1] They also have $700M in assets.[2] Calling them a "loser" implies bankruptcy or insolvency. [1] http://www.crunchbase.com/company/tesla-motors http://www.crunchbase.com/company/tesla-motors [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors
temp1111 14y ago
Is GM also a loser?
- protomyth 14y ago
  From an American taxpayer point of view, yes they are. We aren't going to get our money back anytime soon if at all.
  - gfodor 14y ago
    GM has paid back its loans and for the taxpayer to break even on the stock the government owns (~30%) it currently needs to about double. http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/08/29/automakers-report-card-who-still-owes-taxpayers-money-the-answer-might-surprise-you/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/08/29/automaker...
    - anamax 14y ago
      You're "forgetting" the $15-20B in tax carry-forwards that are typically lost in bankruptcy. And, by stiffing some public pension plans who owned GM bonds, that bankruptcy increased the taxes that those jurisdictions will have to pay. (That money went to the ordinarily unsecured pensions, Fiat, and a couple of other places.) GM and Chrysler's assets would have been bought and put to use.
      - gfodor 14y ago
        If you really think liquidating GM and Chrysler's assets would have resulted in anything other than a net destruction of wealth for the U.S. I don't know what to tell you. What good is a car factory if the entire supply chain has broken down? You can argue that the loans should not have been made on principle, and you can argue that they were a poor investment vis a vis net return to taxpayer dollars, but it's very hard to argue that they were a net loss on U.S. GDP unless you assume a "controlled bankrupcy" for GM and Chrysler would not have destroyed the U.S. (or global) auto industry. That's a big leap.
rayiner 14y ago
The larger "government shouldn't pick winners and losers" meme is idiotic in the context of alternative energy and green tech. It's basic economics that the market fails to pick efficient winners and losers in industries that involve large negative externalities.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  It's the sort of basic economics that is too nuanced for many people, it seems.
- tupuli 14y ago
  I disagree. If you don't like the external costs of a particular form of energy you can tax it directly. Taxing things you don't want is different than subsidizing particular companies offering particular alternatives (i.e. picking winners and losers) since it does not favor one solution over another. Government should act as referee, not venture capitalist. One irony to Tesla is that while they do benefit from loan programs they would have been much better off if GM and Chrysler had been allowed to fail. As it is now Tesla has to compete with companies with strong government support.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I said the market fails to pick the efficient winners and losers. I wasn't advocating for a particular form of addressing that problem. Also, I'd arguing that taxing a particular form of energy is equivalent to picking a loser.
    - tupuli 14y ago
      Taxing something in proportion to its external costs isn't picking a loser, it's levelling the playing field. OTOH, subsidizing particular manufacturers of solar panels or electric cars puts all other alternatives at a disadvantage. BTW, you've failed to substantiate your claim that the market fails to pick efficient winners and losers. How would you even define "efficient" without appealing to the marketplace?
dr_ 14y ago
Interesting. Musks' political contributions are widespread, not to one single party, but apparently none for Romney, allowing him to make such a comment: http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/index.php?q=elon+musk&searchButt_clean.x=0&searchButt_clean.y=0&searchButt_clean=Submit&cx=010677907462955562473%3Anlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID%3A11 http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/index.php?q=elon+musk&#38...
grkovalev 14y ago
i think, all this interest around for Tesla, grants and Obama associated with election president program. I like Teslo but it is too early say about loosers or winners Teslo.
nicolaus 14y ago
When the government set up and fostered the development of the Internet, was it picking winners and losers then, too?
- anamax 14y ago
  > When the government set up and fostered the development of the Internet, was it picking winners and losers then, too? The total expenditures then were a small fraction of what we're spending now. Do you really think that the ROI today is as high as it was then? Do you really think "govt spent money well once" implies "govt money spent now is well spent"? (It's also false that "govt money was spent badly in the past" implies "govt money spent now is badly spent".)
gaius 14y ago
Flagged; flamebait.
gavanwoolery 14y ago
Not to pick one side or the other, but Tesla was made possible by artificial means, not market demand. The time will come when batteries are cheap and powerful enough that you could buy an electric car for $10k, but that time is not now and the government should not be an investor - historically it has both a bad record of managing budgets and delivering innovation per the dollar...And don't start with arguments about the internet - it was actually Xerox that largely made the internet possible: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044446430457753... Edit: overall, I have to concede, it is kind of dumb to attribute the internet to a single entity or person - it was a pretty natural progression of technology - basically the digital evolution of phone lines. Could you imagine trying to patent the internet? If the government really wants to help out with energy, it should loosen environmental restrictions. I am as much a supporter of green tech and protecting the environment as the next guy, but there is something like 1000x the volume of natural gas under our soil as all the oil in the world combined. The sheer amount of wealth generated from tapping that resource could fund all kinds of green tech, and lessening foreign dependence creates jobs here and makes us stronger politically.
- VikingCoder 14y ago
  I disagree with much of what you wrote, but I rebuke you for giving credit to Xerox for the creation of the Internet. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-mo-who-inven... http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/23/yes-government-researchers-really-did-invent-the-internet/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/23/... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=internet-pioneer-cerf http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=internet-pi... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/wsj-mangles-history-to-argue-government-didnt-launch-the-internet/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/wsj-mangles-histo... And most importantly: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57479781-93/no-credit-for-uncle-sam-in-creating-net-vint-cerf-disagrees/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57479781-93/no-credit-for-u...
- nodata 14y ago
  > Not to pick one side or the other, but Tesla was made possible by artificial means, not market demand. But you did. > And don't start with arguments about the internet - it was actually Xerox that largely made the internet (sic.) possible: But you did: "Don't do X - X." NIST is government funded. Are they also magically excluded from having done good things?
michaelfeathers 14y ago
Thank goodness he wasn't talking about Nikola. I was about to have a fit.
tsahyt 14y ago
Politics aside, Tesla is not the future either. At least not with their current models or anything derivable. Sure, they're doing a great job building battery powered electric cars but personally I don't see how they can work for everyone in the same way that fossil fuel powered cars do today. I'm driving a diesel (being european this isn't too odd) and I'm driving a lot of long distances. The beauty about the fossil fuel powered car is, that I can drive some 800km on a tank, stop for fuel which takes me about 5 minutes and then carry on. Tesla claims a 3-3.5h charge time. Even if the range was the same, which it isn't, this just isn't gonna work for anyone who drives across a country rather than through cities. To this day I haven't heard of any battery powered car that is charging in acceptable time compared to filling up a fuel tank. Don't get me wrong, in a way I like electric motors. The torque they produce is amazing! What bothers me is the use of batteries. The technology I personally saw most potential in was the use of hydrogen fuel cells. The tank is filled with hydrogen, the fuel cell powers the electric motor. I'm not for a second suggesting hydrogen is a good "fuel" in the sense that we can just dig it up somewhere and get additional energy. What hydrogen is good at though, is storing energy and because filling a tank with it happens in a matter of minutes it's a whole lot better than carrying thousands of laptop batteries in your car.
- wutbrodo 14y ago
  I'd wager that most automobile use day-to-day doesn't come close to 800km stretches. Would it not be interesting enough if electric cars managed to replace all the fossil-fueled, city-driving cars? Even with that point aside, I don't think one can write off Tesla based on a snapshot of charging infrastructure at this instant. There are already concepts like Better Place that involve swapping out batteries instead of waiting to charge the one in your vehicle. A little less ambitiously, DC Fast charging stations (already installed in places like Los Angeles, Wash. state and Oregon) charge EVs up to roughly 80% of capacity in around 30 minutes. My point isn't that the system is perfect, or that these concepts completely solve the range issue with EVs. Comparing charging options now to even one or two years ago shows a substantial difference in potential (heh), so it seems a little myopic to say "I can't do this right now perfectly so it will never happen".
  - 14y ago
benologist 14y ago
Wired Panders To Reddit, HN, Etc Fixed the title.
zeruch 14y ago
The constant dissonance between "don't you dare touch all the subsidies we give the petro" industries and the "dont you dare waste money on any alternatives" is just dumbfounding. I mean, the stuff is orthogonal to politics (or at least it should be).

120 points by rsingel 14y ago

Headlines like this always remind me of the term wikipedia taught me: "Disambiguation". A simple Mitt Romney Calls Tesla Motors a 'Loser' would have clarified in the headline whether the author meant Tesla (the person), or Tesla (the car company). Leaving it vague probably gets more clicks.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
Oh I'm sure they are counting on the rageviews. It is unfortunate for Tesla that part of the price of getting the loan from the DOE was to open themselves up more widely to the political process.
fletchowns 14y ago
If you had any uncertainty of what he was referring to (the person vs. the car company) you must have been living under a rock for the past year.
wmf 14y ago
Why would Romney have anything at all to say about Nikola Tesla?
- SquareWheel 14y ago
  I have no idea but it was my first assumption. But then I also assumed it was taken out of context.
- jes5199 14y ago
  Maybe he was upset about the Kickstarter to build a Tesla museum. Maybe he wanted an Edison museum.
wwweston 14y ago
While clarity is nice, it probably isn't necessary in this case. Heck, they could have left off "Mitt" and we could still safely assume the article wasn't about George Romney bagging on ol' Nikola.
madiator 14y ago
Which Mitt Romney are you talking about?
smartician 14y ago
Will probably get downvoted, but my first thought when reading the headline was, "Why would Romney call Nikola Tesla a loser, posthumously? Is it because Edison had been able to turn his inventions into economic successes, while Tesla died penniless? Not very nice of him to add insult to injury." After I clicked it, at first I wondered why there is a picture of a car on top of the article. And then I realized what an idiot I am.

kgermino 14y ago

For Context, from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/presidential-debate-transcript-denver-colo-oct/story?id=17390260&singlePage=true#.UG0JJ03oR3A http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/presidential-debate-tran... : (CROSSTALK) ROMNEY: ... to oil, to tax breaks, then companies going overseas. So let's go through them one by one. First of all, the Department of Energy has said the tax break for oil companies is $2.8 billion a year. And it's actually an accounting treatment, as you know, that's been in place for a hundred years. Now... OBAMA: It's time to end it. ROMNEY: And in one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that's about 50 years' worth of what oil and gas receives. And you say Exxon and Mobil. Actually, this $2.8 billion goes largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth. ROMNEY: But, you know, if we get that tax rate from 35 percent down to 25 percent, why that $2.8 billion is on the table. Of course it's on the table. That's probably not going to survive you get that rate down to 25 percent. But don't forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years' worth of breaks, into -- into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tester and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right? So this -- this is not -- this is not the kind of policy you want to have if you want to get America energy secure. The second topic, which is you said you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas. Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant. LEHRER: Let's... ROMNEY: But -- but the idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case. (CROSSTALK) Regardless, I won't comment on this myself since I can't imagine any thread on this article staying clean...

protomyth 14y ago
I figure given the speed of writing, it was a poorly written article to take a soundbite and put it to a pre-existing opinion. It gets clicks and maybe a quick scan without providing the actual context. This is just one example of the next 24 hour news cycle from both side's news outlets. Job numbers hit Friday, so I only expect a day of it.
- sharkweek 14y ago
  Very much so -- watching it live, it really did not come across that harsh (this coming from someone who will 99% certainly be voting for Obama).

nwienert 14y ago

This article is wrong. He wasn't calling them losers he was saying that politicians in general don't have the ability to pick the winners, they can only pick the losers through their policies. He was basically saying that Obama was trying to pick the winners in green but that it wasn't working because the market isn't ready (basically claiming he is failing because government can't make an industry a winner through policy). He was also probably implying that Obama was purposely choosing Oil as the loser.

rayiner 14y ago
Not even close! Romney's statement was in the context of his reference to someone's joke making fun of Obama for picking losing companies. He was clearly calling Tesla a loser.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  That's certainly consistent with conservative tech skeptics. I think the grandparent post offers a worthwhile alternative interpretation, but I think the majority of people would go with yours. That said, the majority of people probably found both candidates too wonkish and abstract in this debate for many minds to be changed. As a policy guy, I enjoyed it, and I thought Romney did well for himself although I prefer Obama. But the candidates talked past each other to a large extent, and both were pulling their punches a little.
possibilistic 14y ago
If the government is bad (or simply worse than the free market) at developing new industries, should it stay out of the business of giving subsidies to groundbreaking companies? Should this be left to chance? I suppose a more direct question is this: should we just sit it out and wait for green tech to be right? (Or for oil to be so costly that any alternative is better?) What about the numerous areas in which government investment/research has paid off (eg. computing)? Could or should the free market today replace this type of public investment? Just curious.
- 14y ago

beatgammit 14y ago

Meh. Tesla is still in debt (and had to renegotiate their loan at that), so Romney's technically correct about that. The major benefit I see from the Tesla project is it puts pressure on other companies to make better electric cars. I really hope they go mainstream, but it seems they're not targeting the average Joe. If it's going to be an "energy" project, it needs to go mainstream, like the Nissan Leaf or the Chevy Volt. I just don't see why the government should be sponsoring a company that will probably only ever sell to upper and upper-middle class customers. Don't get me wrong, I love the Tesla company, but I think there were more interesting points of the debate than this. To be fair, Romney didn't single out Tesla; it was lumped in with other projects that haven't proven successful yet.

biscarch 14y ago
Tesla is planning a lower cost vehicle, somewhere in the 30k range. Quick search turns up this: http://www.plugincars.com/tesla-reveals-lower-priced-fourth-electric-vehicle-112356.html http://www.plugincars.com/tesla-reveals-lower-priced-fourth-... As I understand it their plan was high-price/low-volume to start and progressing towards high-volume/low-price as time went on.
lukifer 14y ago
Just because a venture fails for its investors doesn't mean it's a failure for the economy as a whole. NeXT was a colossal flop, and yet look what came out of it in the end.
tantalor 14y ago
> Tesla is still in debt Yes, they have debts, about $505M.[1] They also have $700M in assets.[2] Calling them a "loser" implies bankruptcy or insolvency. [1] http://www.crunchbase.com/company/tesla-motors http://www.crunchbase.com/company/tesla-motors [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors

temp1111 14y ago

Is GM also a loser?

protomyth 14y ago
From an American taxpayer point of view, yes they are. We aren't going to get our money back anytime soon if at all.
- gfodor 14y ago
  GM has paid back its loans and for the taxpayer to break even on the stock the government owns (~30%) it currently needs to about double. http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/08/29/automakers-report-card-who-still-owes-taxpayers-money-the-answer-might-surprise-you/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/08/29/automaker...
  - anamax 14y ago
    You're "forgetting" the $15-20B in tax carry-forwards that are typically lost in bankruptcy. And, by stiffing some public pension plans who owned GM bonds, that bankruptcy increased the taxes that those jurisdictions will have to pay. (That money went to the ordinarily unsecured pensions, Fiat, and a couple of other places.) GM and Chrysler's assets would have been bought and put to use.
    - gfodor 14y ago
      If you really think liquidating GM and Chrysler's assets would have resulted in anything other than a net destruction of wealth for the U.S. I don't know what to tell you. What good is a car factory if the entire supply chain has broken down? You can argue that the loans should not have been made on principle, and you can argue that they were a poor investment vis a vis net return to taxpayer dollars, but it's very hard to argue that they were a net loss on U.S. GDP unless you assume a "controlled bankrupcy" for GM and Chrysler would not have destroyed the U.S. (or global) auto industry. That's a big leap.

rayiner 14y ago

The larger "government shouldn't pick winners and losers" meme is idiotic in the context of alternative energy and green tech. It's basic economics that the market fails to pick efficient winners and losers in industries that involve large negative externalities.

MartinCron 14y ago
It's the sort of basic economics that is too nuanced for many people, it seems.
tupuli 14y ago
I disagree. If you don't like the external costs of a particular form of energy you can tax it directly. Taxing things you don't want is different than subsidizing particular companies offering particular alternatives (i.e. picking winners and losers) since it does not favor one solution over another. Government should act as referee, not venture capitalist. One irony to Tesla is that while they do benefit from loan programs they would have been much better off if GM and Chrysler had been allowed to fail. As it is now Tesla has to compete with companies with strong government support.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I said the market fails to pick the efficient winners and losers. I wasn't advocating for a particular form of addressing that problem. Also, I'd arguing that taxing a particular form of energy is equivalent to picking a loser.
  - tupuli 14y ago
    Taxing something in proportion to its external costs isn't picking a loser, it's levelling the playing field. OTOH, subsidizing particular manufacturers of solar panels or electric cars puts all other alternatives at a disadvantage. BTW, you've failed to substantiate your claim that the market fails to pick efficient winners and losers. How would you even define "efficient" without appealing to the marketplace?

dr_ 14y ago

Interesting. Musks' political contributions are widespread, not to one single party, but apparently none for Romney, allowing him to make such a comment: http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/index.php?q=elon+musk&searchButt_clean.x=0&searchButt_clean.y=0&searchButt_clean=Submit&cx=010677907462955562473%3Anlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID%3A11 http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/index.php?q=elon+musk&#38...

grkovalev 14y ago

i think, all this interest around for Tesla, grants and Obama associated with election president program. I like Teslo but it is too early say about loosers or winners Teslo.

nicolaus 14y ago

When the government set up and fostered the development of the Internet, was it picking winners and losers then, too?

anamax 14y ago
> When the government set up and fostered the development of the Internet, was it picking winners and losers then, too? The total expenditures then were a small fraction of what we're spending now. Do you really think that the ROI today is as high as it was then? Do you really think "govt spent money well once" implies "govt money spent now is well spent"? (It's also false that "govt money was spent badly in the past" implies "govt money spent now is badly spent".)

gaius 14y ago

Flagged; flamebait.

gavanwoolery 14y ago

Not to pick one side or the other, but Tesla was made possible by artificial means, not market demand. The time will come when batteries are cheap and powerful enough that you could buy an electric car for $10k, but that time is not now and the government should not be an investor - historically it has both a bad record of managing budgets and delivering innovation per the dollar...And don't start with arguments about the internet - it was actually Xerox that largely made the internet possible: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044446430457753... Edit: overall, I have to concede, it is kind of dumb to attribute the internet to a single entity or person - it was a pretty natural progression of technology - basically the digital evolution of phone lines. Could you imagine trying to patent the internet? If the government really wants to help out with energy, it should loosen environmental restrictions. I am as much a supporter of green tech and protecting the environment as the next guy, but there is something like 1000x the volume of natural gas under our soil as all the oil in the world combined. The sheer amount of wealth generated from tapping that resource could fund all kinds of green tech, and lessening foreign dependence creates jobs here and makes us stronger politically.

VikingCoder 14y ago
I disagree with much of what you wrote, but I rebuke you for giving credit to Xerox for the creation of the Internet. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-mo-who-inven... http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/23/yes-government-researchers-really-did-invent-the-internet/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/23/... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=internet-pioneer-cerf http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=internet-pi... http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/wsj-mangles-history-to-argue-government-didnt-launch-the-internet/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/wsj-mangles-histo... And most importantly: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57479781-93/no-credit-for-uncle-sam-in-creating-net-vint-cerf-disagrees/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57479781-93/no-credit-for-u...
nodata 14y ago
> Not to pick one side or the other, but Tesla was made possible by artificial means, not market demand. But you did. > And don't start with arguments about the internet - it was actually Xerox that largely made the internet (sic.) possible: But you did: "Don't do X - X." NIST is government funded. Are they also magically excluded from having done good things?

michaelfeathers 14y ago

Thank goodness he wasn't talking about Nikola. I was about to have a fit.

tsahyt 14y ago

Politics aside, Tesla is not the future either. At least not with their current models or anything derivable. Sure, they're doing a great job building battery powered electric cars but personally I don't see how they can work for everyone in the same way that fossil fuel powered cars do today. I'm driving a diesel (being european this isn't too odd) and I'm driving a lot of long distances. The beauty about the fossil fuel powered car is, that I can drive some 800km on a tank, stop for fuel which takes me about 5 minutes and then carry on. Tesla claims a 3-3.5h charge time. Even if the range was the same, which it isn't, this just isn't gonna work for anyone who drives across a country rather than through cities. To this day I haven't heard of any battery powered car that is charging in acceptable time compared to filling up a fuel tank. Don't get me wrong, in a way I like electric motors. The torque they produce is amazing! What bothers me is the use of batteries. The technology I personally saw most potential in was the use of hydrogen fuel cells. The tank is filled with hydrogen, the fuel cell powers the electric motor. I'm not for a second suggesting hydrogen is a good "fuel" in the sense that we can just dig it up somewhere and get additional energy. What hydrogen is good at though, is storing energy and because filling a tank with it happens in a matter of minutes it's a whole lot better than carrying thousands of laptop batteries in your car.

wutbrodo 14y ago
I'd wager that most automobile use day-to-day doesn't come close to 800km stretches. Would it not be interesting enough if electric cars managed to replace all the fossil-fueled, city-driving cars? Even with that point aside, I don't think one can write off Tesla based on a snapshot of charging infrastructure at this instant. There are already concepts like Better Place that involve swapping out batteries instead of waiting to charge the one in your vehicle. A little less ambitiously, DC Fast charging stations (already installed in places like Los Angeles, Wash. state and Oregon) charge EVs up to roughly 80% of capacity in around 30 minutes. My point isn't that the system is perfect, or that these concepts completely solve the range issue with EVs. Comparing charging options now to even one or two years ago shows a substantial difference in potential (heh), so it seems a little myopic to say "I can't do this right now perfectly so it will never happen".
- 14y ago

benologist 14y ago

Wired Panders To Reddit, HN, Etc Fixed the title.

zeruch 14y ago

The constant dissonance between "don't you dare touch all the subsidies we give the petro" industries and the "dont you dare waste money on any alternatives" is just dumbfounding. I mean, the stuff is orthogonal to politics (or at least it should be).