7 ms·

"Tesla can’t increase demand by dropping the price very much. " That's a pretty big leap on the Authors part, one that isn't really justified from facts or inf

"Tesla can’t increase demand by dropping the price very much. " That's a pretty big leap on the Authors part, one that isn't really justified from facts or information. We know basically nothing about Tesla's plans for their cheaper models or what they have/will do to reduce the cost. It's really bizarre to me how much certain groups are just itching for Tesla to fail.

justina1 13y ago
Might be those that jumped on the short TSLA bandwagon after Fisker blew up.
- LandoCalrissian 13y ago
  Fisker was never really building their own stuff though. They were just bolting together a bunch of parts from different suppliers. Tesla has real technology, especially in the battery department that they are already beginning to licence to other auto manufactures.
beatpanda 13y ago
Cato's funding comes from a fortune made on fossil fuels. They have a job to do.
- bhb916 13y ago
  I'm not a Cato Foundation supporter, but I can't seem to find a single article on their website advocating fossil fuel subsidies. To the contrary, I found four articles articulating opposition (one even congratulated the President!) to them. Am I missing something?
  - uvdiv 13y ago
    The criticism is that they similarly oppose subsidies to oil competitors (such as electric cars). And more significantly, regulation or taxes on CO2.
DanBC 13y ago
> It's really bizarre to me how much certain groups are just itching for Tesla to fail. Patrick Michaels is a climate change denialist. He himself has estimated that about 40% of his funding comes from the oil companies. He has been criticised for manipulating the data of other scientists - not trivial mistakes or oversights, but deliberate serious manipulations. (Here's just one example where a colleague almost accuses him of fraud (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2005/Crichton_20050927.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2005/Crichton_20050927.pdf) > One of the skeptics, Pat Michaels, has taken the graph from our 1988 paper with simulated global temperatures for scenarios A, B and C, erased the results for scenarios B and C, and shown only the curve for scenario A in public presentations, pretending that it was my prediction for climate change. Is this treading close to scientific fraud? He's part of the Cato Institute, who have publically said they disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change. Disappointing to see this worthless tripe on HN, and to see it getting any votes.
- gwright 13y ago
  > … is a climate change denialist It would be nice if Hacker News could avoid the worst abuses of language that happens in public debate. 1) Climate has always and will always be 'changing'. It is a dynamic, not static, system. 2) No one denies that climate changes so 'climate change denialists' is the empty set. 3) To dispute the theory of 'catastrophic anthropogenic global warming' is not the same as denying 'warming', 'global warming' or even 'anthropogenic global warming'. It is only when you add in the 'catastrophic' part (which comes from the magnitude of the predicted positive feedbacks in global climate models) that you enter into the realm of serious disputes. 4) There is considerable evidence that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 20 years (anthropogenic or not) and even more evidence that the magnitude of the positive feedback included in the 'catastrophic anthropogenic global warming' models is much smaller than previously assumed. 5) If the climate models only match actual temperatures by lowering the postive feedbacks in the models then they are probably no longer predicting catastrophic warming.
  - marshray 13y ago
    I think #2 makes you a 'climate change denialist denialist'. Also 6) If client change is assumed to be occurring, catastrophic, and anthropogenic, what can and should we even do about it? Are the cures worse than the disease?
ryguytilidie 13y ago
It's really not that bizarre at all when you consider how much money is in the traditional auto industry. People see "their" industry and lifestyle being threatened and just freak out and suspend all logic.
beat 13y ago
Tesla doesn't WANT to increase demand right now. That means scaling up manufacturing, which is extremely expensive and still kind of politically shaky. MUCH better for them to put a ceiling on demand with high prices, and simultaneously increase their profit margin. More money in the bank for later expansion, less debt, and less commitment to potentially flawed early designs. The Tesla Roadster was ridiculous, but the cash it generated and the lessons it taught them gave them the opportunity to scale with the S sedan. Now the S sedan will give them that same cash/lessons combination to expand with whatever comes next. This is no different than scaling a software startup, if you think about it.

justina1 13y ago

Might be those that jumped on the short TSLA bandwagon after Fisker blew up.

LandoCalrissian 13y ago
Fisker was never really building their own stuff though. They were just bolting together a bunch of parts from different suppliers. Tesla has real technology, especially in the battery department that they are already beginning to licence to other auto manufactures.

beatpanda 13y ago

Cato's funding comes from a fortune made on fossil fuels. They have a job to do.

bhb916 13y ago
I'm not a Cato Foundation supporter, but I can't seem to find a single article on their website advocating fossil fuel subsidies. To the contrary, I found four articles articulating opposition (one even congratulated the President!) to them. Am I missing something?
- uvdiv 13y ago
  The criticism is that they similarly oppose subsidies to oil competitors (such as electric cars). And more significantly, regulation or taxes on CO2.

DanBC 13y ago

> It's really bizarre to me how much certain groups are just itching for Tesla to fail. Patrick Michaels is a climate change denialist. He himself has estimated that about 40% of his funding comes from the oil companies. He has been criticised for manipulating the data of other scientists - not trivial mistakes or oversights, but deliberate serious manipulations. (Here's just one example where a colleague almost accuses him of fraud (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2005/Crichton_20050927.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2005/Crichton_20050927.pdf) > One of the skeptics, Pat Michaels, has taken the graph from our 1988 paper with simulated global temperatures for scenarios A, B and C, erased the results for scenarios B and C, and shown only the curve for scenario A in public presentations, pretending that it was my prediction for climate change. Is this treading close to scientific fraud? He's part of the Cato Institute, who have publically said they disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change. Disappointing to see this worthless tripe on HN, and to see it getting any votes.

gwright 13y ago
> … is a climate change denialist It would be nice if Hacker News could avoid the worst abuses of language that happens in public debate. 1) Climate has always and will always be 'changing'. It is a dynamic, not static, system. 2) No one denies that climate changes so 'climate change denialists' is the empty set. 3) To dispute the theory of 'catastrophic anthropogenic global warming' is not the same as denying 'warming', 'global warming' or even 'anthropogenic global warming'. It is only when you add in the 'catastrophic' part (which comes from the magnitude of the predicted positive feedbacks in global climate models) that you enter into the realm of serious disputes. 4) There is considerable evidence that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 20 years (anthropogenic or not) and even more evidence that the magnitude of the positive feedback included in the 'catastrophic anthropogenic global warming' models is much smaller than previously assumed. 5) If the climate models only match actual temperatures by lowering the postive feedbacks in the models then they are probably no longer predicting catastrophic warming.
- marshray 13y ago
  I think #2 makes you a 'climate change denialist denialist'. Also 6) If client change is assumed to be occurring, catastrophic, and anthropogenic, what can and should we even do about it? Are the cures worse than the disease?

ryguytilidie 13y ago

It's really not that bizarre at all when you consider how much money is in the traditional auto industry. People see "their" industry and lifestyle being threatened and just freak out and suspend all logic.

beat 13y ago

Tesla doesn't WANT to increase demand right now. That means scaling up manufacturing, which is extremely expensive and still kind of politically shaky. MUCH better for them to put a ceiling on demand with high prices, and simultaneously increase their profit margin. More money in the bank for later expansion, less debt, and less commitment to potentially flawed early designs. The Tesla Roadster was ridiculous, but the cash it generated and the lessons it taught them gave them the opportunity to scale with the S sedan. Now the S sedan will give them that same cash/lessons combination to expand with whatever comes next. This is no different than scaling a software startup, if you think about it.