21 ms·

well, Ayn Rand modulo all the public money he uses in his ventures (state environmental credits for Tesla, contracts with NASA ... ie. taxpayers money, research

well, Ayn Rand modulo all the public money he uses in his ventures (state environmental credits for Tesla, contracts with NASA ... ie. taxpayers money, research grants, etc, etc). Then again Ayn Rand did suck state bottle with medicaire and social security. I'm not saying the projects are not ambitious and amazing. But they would not grow so quickly without the State.

ricardobeat 13y ago
http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-repays-department-energy-loan-nine-years-early http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-repays...
- tptacek 13y ago
  (a) They were financially incentivized to repay early. (b) They got the sweetheart-deal to end all sweetheart-deals: a gigantic cash infusion structured as a loan with a market-beating interest rate, rather than as equity which would have entitled the government to a share of the upside.
  - ricardobeat 13y ago
    Isn't that a standard deal as far as government loans go? It's nothing compared to the auto industry bailouts, where even the equity taken turned up a loss.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I'm not sure how the government intervening even more in different companies has anything to do with my point.
  - v13inc 13y ago
    Those two points seem to be at odds with each other. How were they incentivized to repay early? Having a below-market interest rate seems like it would do the opposite.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      DOE had options on Tesla equity, but their contract cancelled them out on early repayment.
      - monkeyspaw 13y ago
        Interesting. So if Tesla did well, they would be able to repay the loans and keep the (more valuable) equity. If they failed, the DOE would have some worthless stock... Still, compared to the other similar loans offered by the US government, I have to judge the Tesla loans as a success.
        tptacek 13y ago
        They are successful in a sort of spot measurement sort of way. Most of us are happy to see what's become of Tesla. The problem with Tesla as a model for government intervention is that, if the government continued to involve itself in industry this way, it would inevitably lose money for the taxpayers. VCs mentally write off the majority of their portfolio and make their profits on the 1-2 smashing successes, which works because VCs purchase a large share of the upside of the whole portfolio. That model would not work at all if the best the VC got from those 1-2 successes was interest payments.
        meric 13y ago
        The missing part of the equation is successful businesses generate taxes, failing ones don't. So, as Tesla grows, it pays more taxes. That's how the government will collect the upside. If Tesla doesn't do as well, the government will also collect the (deferred) upside through stocks. The only way the government can lose is if Tesla goes bankrupt. That way the government can make their profits on all the businesses that don't fail, rather than just 1-2 smashing successes. There's also the taxes the government collects through suppliers to Tesla, as well as sales taxes generated when consumers purchase electric vehicles, etc, taxes from capital gains and dividends of tesla stock, taxes from salary taxes. I'm simplifying here because I haven't talked about the opportunity cost of the taxes from a petrol car the consumer didn't buy or the other job employees could have held. In general, however, the government will profit as long as value of taxes from economic growth and other benefits exceed the cost of the loan. And remember, for the government, the cost of the loan isn't for taxpayers to bear, but for all holders of US dollars, which include foreign nations and other non-taxpayers, through temporary inflation; Since the government can always print money to lend, and destroy money when the money is repaid, unless the business fails, in which case every US dollar holding person suffers. Overdoing it, however, will mean displacing existing investors who are arguably better posed to select winners and negatively affect the economy. What I am saying is some level of government intervention may actually be profitable for taxpayers, even if the investment structure doesn't appear so on the surface. It's like the "Why do governments invest in loss-making airlines?" The answer of course is to bring more tourists to their country by undercharging plane tickets.
- JackpotDen 13y ago
  There's been various statements about how tesla uses government subsidies... but so do most car manufacturers. This is them paying back a loan early. It's still a good company, doing good things, etc etc.
  - specialist 13y ago
    As a proud taxpayer, I enthusiastically support government subsidies which move the ball forward.
adventured 13y ago
Why shouldn't Ayn Rand take medicare and social security? She paid for those services. Ayn Rand said that of all the things public funds were ever spent on (outside of judicial and national defense), NASA was the most worthy. She wrote admiringly about NASA, revealing a deep respect for its technology, scientific pursuit, and its Apollo launches. They even specifically invited her to an Apollo launch. I don't think someone that hated NASA - or supposedly would dislike a private SpaceX - would write: "Apollo 11: A Symbol of Man's Greatness." Clearly since Ayn liked NASA, she would love SpaceX as a step in the right direction over public space exploration.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  > Why shouldn't Ayn Rand take medicare and social security? Because she was against it? Those things are based in principles. In principle I have the right to state funds for all of my children. Because I am against such subsidies I have decided not to request them, even though the state continues to insist that I should and that it is my right. And even though I pay for other people exercising this right. For Ayn Rand to rail a life long in many different pamphlets against state run entities only to turn around and to use them when times were a bit tougher seems hypocritical to me.
  - tlrobinson 13y ago
    I'm sure she was also against the government taking her money to fund those programs in the first place, but she didn't have a choice. Why does trying to recover some of that money make her a hypocrite?
    - caseydurfee 13y ago
      Most people pay more into insurance programs than they get out. That's how all forms of insurance works. Sheesh. Ayn Rand ended up taking government benefits because she had to, not because she was trying to get back what she paid in. That's the key part. Even if she could afford to take care of herself and was just trying to game the system to get her money back, that's morally pretty suspect, too. Imagine trying to mount the same argument about someone who deliberately crashed their car to "recover some of that money" they had to pay in insurance premiums. Rand spent her whole life decrying people who are dependent on government assistance as looters and parasites, and then she spent the last few years of her life completely dependent on government assistance without it changing her stated beliefs. If you don't see the hypocrisy there, you're trying awfully hard not to. She is an illustration that you can lead a successful, productive, non-moochery life and still end up needing government assistance at some point.
loumf 13y ago
Ayn Rand was forced to pay for SS and Medicare (like the rest of us). Is it really anti-libertarian to take what you are forced to buy? They are subsidized, but I assume she was at the end of the income spectrum that is doing the subsidizing. Not a Rand-lover or libertarian (in fact, quite the opposite) -- but this is how I always looked at it.
- Aloisius 13y ago
  Actually Rand probably paid very little into Medicare which was started in 1965 when Rand was already 60 years old. She probably took out many, many times what little she put in.
  - crusso 13y ago
    Yeah, because all the taxes she paid during some of the highest progressive income tax levels in our history were completely separate from the "lock box" where they kept Medicare money.
    - Aloisius 13y ago
      Considering there was no lock box of money (we ran a deficit the vast majority of the time she was paying taxes - a world war and a depression will do that), yes... money she paid in income tax before medicare was completely separate from the money used to pay for medicare. She didn't buy her own insurance. She got sick and in order to avoid bankruptcy and continue living, she got on medicare just like all the "takers" she so famously railed against. She certainly didn't pay her fair share for the insurance. Heck we don't even know if she paid any taxes during that 5 year period which was after she stopped writing and Objectivism had ebbed quite a bit.

ricardobeat 13y ago

http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-repays-department-energy-loan-nine-years-early http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-repays...

tptacek 13y ago
(a) They were financially incentivized to repay early. (b) They got the sweetheart-deal to end all sweetheart-deals: a gigantic cash infusion structured as a loan with a market-beating interest rate, rather than as equity which would have entitled the government to a share of the upside.
- ricardobeat 13y ago
  Isn't that a standard deal as far as government loans go? It's nothing compared to the auto industry bailouts, where even the equity taken turned up a loss.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I'm not sure how the government intervening even more in different companies has anything to do with my point.
- v13inc 13y ago
  Those two points seem to be at odds with each other. How were they incentivized to repay early? Having a below-market interest rate seems like it would do the opposite.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    DOE had options on Tesla equity, but their contract cancelled them out on early repayment.
    - monkeyspaw 13y ago
      Interesting. So if Tesla did well, they would be able to repay the loans and keep the (more valuable) equity. If they failed, the DOE would have some worthless stock... Still, compared to the other similar loans offered by the US government, I have to judge the Tesla loans as a success.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        They are successful in a sort of spot measurement sort of way. Most of us are happy to see what's become of Tesla. The problem with Tesla as a model for government intervention is that, if the government continued to involve itself in industry this way, it would inevitably lose money for the taxpayers. VCs mentally write off the majority of their portfolio and make their profits on the 1-2 smashing successes, which works because VCs purchase a large share of the upside of the whole portfolio. That model would not work at all if the best the VC got from those 1-2 successes was interest payments.
        meric 13y ago
        The missing part of the equation is successful businesses generate taxes, failing ones don't. So, as Tesla grows, it pays more taxes. That's how the government will collect the upside. If Tesla doesn't do as well, the government will also collect the (deferred) upside through stocks. The only way the government can lose is if Tesla goes bankrupt. That way the government can make their profits on all the businesses that don't fail, rather than just 1-2 smashing successes. There's also the taxes the government collects through suppliers to Tesla, as well as sales taxes generated when consumers purchase electric vehicles, etc, taxes from capital gains and dividends of tesla stock, taxes from salary taxes. I'm simplifying here because I haven't talked about the opportunity cost of the taxes from a petrol car the consumer didn't buy or the other job employees could have held. In general, however, the government will profit as long as value of taxes from economic growth and other benefits exceed the cost of the loan. And remember, for the government, the cost of the loan isn't for taxpayers to bear, but for all holders of US dollars, which include foreign nations and other non-taxpayers, through temporary inflation; Since the government can always print money to lend, and destroy money when the money is repaid, unless the business fails, in which case every US dollar holding person suffers. Overdoing it, however, will mean displacing existing investors who are arguably better posed to select winners and negatively affect the economy. What I am saying is some level of government intervention may actually be profitable for taxpayers, even if the investment structure doesn't appear so on the surface. It's like the "Why do governments invest in loss-making airlines?" The answer of course is to bring more tourists to their country by undercharging plane tickets.
JackpotDen 13y ago
There's been various statements about how tesla uses government subsidies... but so do most car manufacturers. This is them paying back a loan early. It's still a good company, doing good things, etc etc.
- specialist 13y ago
  As a proud taxpayer, I enthusiastically support government subsidies which move the ball forward.

adventured 13y ago

Why shouldn't Ayn Rand take medicare and social security? She paid for those services. Ayn Rand said that of all the things public funds were ever spent on (outside of judicial and national defense), NASA was the most worthy. She wrote admiringly about NASA, revealing a deep respect for its technology, scientific pursuit, and its Apollo launches. They even specifically invited her to an Apollo launch. I don't think someone that hated NASA - or supposedly would dislike a private SpaceX - would write: "Apollo 11: A Symbol of Man's Greatness." Clearly since Ayn liked NASA, she would love SpaceX as a step in the right direction over public space exploration.

jacquesm 13y ago
> Why shouldn't Ayn Rand take medicare and social security? Because she was against it? Those things are based in principles. In principle I have the right to state funds for all of my children. Because I am against such subsidies I have decided not to request them, even though the state continues to insist that I should and that it is my right. And even though I pay for other people exercising this right. For Ayn Rand to rail a life long in many different pamphlets against state run entities only to turn around and to use them when times were a bit tougher seems hypocritical to me.
- tlrobinson 13y ago
  I'm sure she was also against the government taking her money to fund those programs in the first place, but she didn't have a choice. Why does trying to recover some of that money make her a hypocrite?
  - caseydurfee 13y ago
    Most people pay more into insurance programs than they get out. That's how all forms of insurance works. Sheesh. Ayn Rand ended up taking government benefits because she had to, not because she was trying to get back what she paid in. That's the key part. Even if she could afford to take care of herself and was just trying to game the system to get her money back, that's morally pretty suspect, too. Imagine trying to mount the same argument about someone who deliberately crashed their car to "recover some of that money" they had to pay in insurance premiums. Rand spent her whole life decrying people who are dependent on government assistance as looters and parasites, and then she spent the last few years of her life completely dependent on government assistance without it changing her stated beliefs. If you don't see the hypocrisy there, you're trying awfully hard not to. She is an illustration that you can lead a successful, productive, non-moochery life and still end up needing government assistance at some point.

loumf 13y ago

Ayn Rand was forced to pay for SS and Medicare (like the rest of us). Is it really anti-libertarian to take what you are forced to buy? They are subsidized, but I assume she was at the end of the income spectrum that is doing the subsidizing. Not a Rand-lover or libertarian (in fact, quite the opposite) -- but this is how I always looked at it.

Aloisius 13y ago
Actually Rand probably paid very little into Medicare which was started in 1965 when Rand was already 60 years old. She probably took out many, many times what little she put in.
- crusso 13y ago
  Yeah, because all the taxes she paid during some of the highest progressive income tax levels in our history were completely separate from the "lock box" where they kept Medicare money.
  - Aloisius 13y ago
    Considering there was no lock box of money (we ran a deficit the vast majority of the time she was paying taxes - a world war and a depression will do that), yes... money she paid in income tax before medicare was completely separate from the money used to pay for medicare. She didn't buy her own insurance. She got sick and in order to avoid bankruptcy and continue living, she got on medicare just like all the "takers" she so famously railed against. She certainly didn't pay her fair share for the insurance. Heck we don't even know if she paid any taxes during that 5 year period which was after she stopped writing and Objectivism had ebbed quite a bit.