4 ms·

Criticisms of Tesla (both posts and comments) seem to draw an unwarranted level of ire on HN. I think its the combination of Elon Musk's personality, the incre

by jmduke 13y ago

Criticisms of Tesla (both posts and comments) seem to draw an unwarranted level of ire on HN. I think its the combination of Elon Musk's personality, the increasing inevitability of the ubiquity of electric cars, and the tendency to use Tesla v. <other carmakers> as an underdog allegory (Lord knows how many times "Tesla" and "disrupt" appear in the same sentence.) A lot of the comments on this article seem needlessly ad hominem, calling the author a "whiner" and "wicked." While I don't see eye-to-eye with every point the author makes, I think the underlying argument -- that a lot of the praise of Tesla's results so far has been under the assumption that its purely the car responsible for these profits. (The crudely phrased press release about Tesla paying back loans "before any other US manufacturer" certainly doesn't help the notion that Tesla is loosely playing the marketing game.) It's entirely possible to laud Musk and Tesla's work so far while also being cognizant that, hey, the company isn't sterling and there's still a lot of work to be done before we consider the Tesla a success.

Goronmon 13y ago
I think the problem I have with the article is that it makes no effort to truly analyze the issue at hand. The important questions revolve around whether such programs are important as long term investment or whether investments in Tesla couldn't have been spent better elsewhere. Instead the author seems to make the issue too simple. 1) Spending tax payer money is bad. 2) Tesla is taking tax payer money. 3) Tesla is bad. Or to pull examples from the article. But such a success must still be measured against other taxpayer losses and misallocated capital. Yes, and where are the author's measurements? Why should middle-class taxpayers whose incomes are falling still pay to subsidize the purchase of cars that only the affluent can afford, and then partly as a gesture of their superior environmental virtue? When does the rest of America get its return on Tesla's profits? And why doesn't the author attempt to answer these questions? Of course, you could assume these are rhetorical, but again, I'm not sure why that's useful.

by jmduke 13y ago

Goronmon 13y ago

I think the problem I have with the article is that it makes no effort to truly analyze the issue at hand. The important questions revolve around whether such programs are important as long term investment or whether investments in Tesla couldn't have been spent better elsewhere. Instead the author seems to make the issue too simple. 1) Spending tax payer money is bad. 2) Tesla is taking tax payer money. 3) Tesla is bad. Or to pull examples from the article. But such a success must still be measured against other taxpayer losses and misallocated capital. Yes, and where are the author's measurements? Why should middle-class taxpayers whose incomes are falling still pay to subsidize the purchase of cars that only the affluent can afford, and then partly as a gesture of their superior environmental virtue? When does the rest of America get its return on Tesla's profits? And why doesn't the author attempt to answer these questions? Of course, you could assume these are rhetorical, but again, I'm not sure why that's useful.