5 ms·

When the mess gets sorted out, I'd like to have a conversation with whoever's in charge at the time the car czar or whoever and say 'I'd like to run your plants

by kirse 17y ago

When the mess gets sorted out, I'd like to have a conversation with whoever's in charge at the time the car czar or whoever and say 'I'd like to run your plants, if you don't mind,' Musk said ( http://tinyurl.com/km5e4h http://tinyurl.com/km5e4h ) Sounds like Elon will fit right in at Detroit. Run an unprofitable car company and dip into our pockets when you can't do it right.

pkulak 17y ago
Wow, for a second there I thought it said digg.com in my address bar.
absconditus 17y ago
A loan isn't exactly stealing.
- anamax 17y ago
  > A loan isn't exactly stealing. A "govt loan" isn't exactly voluntary on behalf of taxpayers. You remember taxpayers - they're the folks who are actually putting up the money.
  - lutorm 17y ago
    Taxpayers (or at least voters, not the same) are free to vote for people who wouldn't give these loans. Unless you think that the entire idea of representative government is wrong, of course, but then I'd like to see proof of another, better working model.)
    - anamax 17y ago
      The fact that representative govt is better than the alternatives does not imply that it is good enough to give free rein.
tptacek 17y ago
(a) Musk says they're on track to be profitable in months. Do you have evidence to muster that he's lying? I'm sure he could be, but it's not very interesting just to say he is. (b) Detroit auto companies have historically been very profitable. (c) The auto industry is structurally inhospitable to newcomers. Legacy manufacturers have locked up supply chains, locked up distribution channels, and are entrenched in a regulatory environment designed for 12-figure industrial bohemoths. That there may not be a way to "do it right" is an argument in favor of propping up Tesla.
- radu_floricica 17y ago
  I like Tesla like the next guy, but when it comes to investing, especially public money, the burden to prove profitability comes on the company. I'm glad this happened, but the GP is not wrong to criticize this. It's still taking public funds and putting them in a company who still hasn't made a profit.
  - kirse 17y ago
    You summed it up very well. "Profitable in a few months" means you're unprofitable. We can draw up all sorts of extrapolations based on preorders and expected order rates etc., but until the past month's income statement shows green, a business is not profitable. It really is that simple. I hope nothing but success for Tesla in that they usher in an electric car revolution (just imagine if the USA became the primary source of electric cars for the world), but until then I'd like to see some numbers if I'm paying for Elon to run his mouth.
    - calambrac 17y ago
      "Not profitable yet" does not necessarily imply "doing it wrong", but you're right, it is easier to ignore that fact, make a cheap snarky comment, and then act self-righteous because you know the definition of the word 'unprofitable'.
    - davidw 17y ago
      I'd rather own stock in a company (early Google for instance), that is a few months out from 'profitable', with a sales curve that is trending up, up, up, than stock in, say, GM, in the last month or two that it was profitable.

by kirse 17y ago

pkulak 17y ago

Wow, for a second there I thought it said digg.com in my address bar.

absconditus 17y ago

A loan isn't exactly stealing.

anamax 17y ago
> A loan isn't exactly stealing. A "govt loan" isn't exactly voluntary on behalf of taxpayers. You remember taxpayers - they're the folks who are actually putting up the money.
- lutorm 17y ago
  Taxpayers (or at least voters, not the same) are free to vote for people who wouldn't give these loans. Unless you think that the entire idea of representative government is wrong, of course, but then I'd like to see proof of another, better working model.)
  - anamax 17y ago
    The fact that representative govt is better than the alternatives does not imply that it is good enough to give free rein.

tptacek 17y ago

(a) Musk says they're on track to be profitable in months. Do you have evidence to muster that he's lying? I'm sure he could be, but it's not very interesting just to say he is. (b) Detroit auto companies have historically been very profitable. (c) The auto industry is structurally inhospitable to newcomers. Legacy manufacturers have locked up supply chains, locked up distribution channels, and are entrenched in a regulatory environment designed for 12-figure industrial bohemoths. That there may not be a way to "do it right" is an argument in favor of propping up Tesla.

radu_floricica 17y ago
I like Tesla like the next guy, but when it comes to investing, especially public money, the burden to prove profitability comes on the company. I'm glad this happened, but the GP is not wrong to criticize this. It's still taking public funds and putting them in a company who still hasn't made a profit.
- kirse 17y ago
  You summed it up very well. "Profitable in a few months" means you're unprofitable. We can draw up all sorts of extrapolations based on preorders and expected order rates etc., but until the past month's income statement shows green, a business is not profitable. It really is that simple. I hope nothing but success for Tesla in that they usher in an electric car revolution (just imagine if the USA became the primary source of electric cars for the world), but until then I'd like to see some numbers if I'm paying for Elon to run his mouth.
  - calambrac 17y ago
    "Not profitable yet" does not necessarily imply "doing it wrong", but you're right, it is easier to ignore that fact, make a cheap snarky comment, and then act self-righteous because you know the definition of the word 'unprofitable'.
  - davidw 17y ago
    I'd rather own stock in a company (early Google for instance), that is a few months out from 'profitable', with a sales curve that is trending up, up, up, than stock in, say, GM, in the last month or two that it was profitable.