5 ms·

Tesla wants to have its cake and eat it too. You can't take a 500 million loan from taxpayers ( the vast majority of whom DON'T benefit from and can't afford yo

by cellis 12y ago

Tesla wants to have its cake and eat it too. You can't take a 500 million loan from taxpayers ( the vast majority of whom DON'T benefit from and can't afford your product ) and then on the other hand claim unfair treatment by local governments.

enraged_camel 12y ago
Maybe you're forgetting that the auto industry received bailouts that were two orders of magnitude greater than the loan that Tesla took from the government. And, unlike the rest of the auto industry, Tesla paid back its loans, and did so ahead of time.
- cellis 12y ago
  First, that's kind of a strawman. I didn't say that GM's bailout was a good thing, only that Tesla has also taken money from the government ( at its most dire time, I might add; had they not received those loans they'd have been insolvent for sure ). And second, even though Tesla paid back its loans, it doesn't mean the taxpayer benefitted at all from the transaction. Au contraire, by paying back the loans early, Tesla avoided granting the government shares of TSLA, and thus stiffed the taxpayer out of any possible return. I understand everyone in SV wants Tesla to succeed, but it's not the most meritocratic, little-upstart-vs-entrenched-player story their PR would like you to believe.
  - enraged_camel 12y ago
    >>I didn't say that GM's bailout was a good thing, only that Tesla has also taken money from the government ( at its most dire time, I might add; had they not received those loans they'd have been insolvent for sure Just like the car companies, who were also bailed out at their most dire time. Except the car companies declared bankruptcy anyway due to gross mismanagement and horrible business practices. From wikipedia: "In September 2008, the Big Three asked for $50 billion to pay for health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs, and Congress worked out a $25 billion loan.[85] By December, President Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of $17.4 billion to be distributed by the next administration in January and February.[86] In early 2009, the prospect of avoiding bankruptcy by General Motors and Chrysler continued to wane as new financial information about the scale of the 2008 losses came in. Ultimately, poor management and business practices forced Chrysler and General Motors into bankruptcy. Chrysler filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on May 1, 2009 [87] followed by General Motors a month later.[88]" >>And second, even though Tesla paid back its loans, it doesn't mean the taxpayer benefitted at all from the transaction. There are an incredible number of government-business transactions that the taxpayer does not directly benefit from. In Tesla's case, I'd argue that the benefits were actually there. You may not be able to afford one of their cars, but having a high-tech electric car company enter the market and succeed against well-entrenched incumbents is in everyone's best interest. You may disagree but I think you'd (fortunately) be in the minority.
Dylan16807 12y ago
Cake and eat it too? These are completely unrelated issues. They took a loan and also they want to be able to sell their product. Sounds fair to me.

by cellis 12y ago

enraged_camel 12y ago

Maybe you're forgetting that the auto industry received bailouts that were two orders of magnitude greater than the loan that Tesla took from the government. And, unlike the rest of the auto industry, Tesla paid back its loans, and did so ahead of time.

cellis 12y ago
First, that's kind of a strawman. I didn't say that GM's bailout was a good thing, only that Tesla has also taken money from the government ( at its most dire time, I might add; had they not received those loans they'd have been insolvent for sure ). And second, even though Tesla paid back its loans, it doesn't mean the taxpayer benefitted at all from the transaction. Au contraire, by paying back the loans early, Tesla avoided granting the government shares of TSLA, and thus stiffed the taxpayer out of any possible return. I understand everyone in SV wants Tesla to succeed, but it's not the most meritocratic, little-upstart-vs-entrenched-player story their PR would like you to believe.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  >>I didn't say that GM's bailout was a good thing, only that Tesla has also taken money from the government ( at its most dire time, I might add; had they not received those loans they'd have been insolvent for sure Just like the car companies, who were also bailed out at their most dire time. Except the car companies declared bankruptcy anyway due to gross mismanagement and horrible business practices. From wikipedia: "In September 2008, the Big Three asked for $50 billion to pay for health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs, and Congress worked out a $25 billion loan.[85] By December, President Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of $17.4 billion to be distributed by the next administration in January and February.[86] In early 2009, the prospect of avoiding bankruptcy by General Motors and Chrysler continued to wane as new financial information about the scale of the 2008 losses came in. Ultimately, poor management and business practices forced Chrysler and General Motors into bankruptcy. Chrysler filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on May 1, 2009 [87] followed by General Motors a month later.[88]" >>And second, even though Tesla paid back its loans, it doesn't mean the taxpayer benefitted at all from the transaction. There are an incredible number of government-business transactions that the taxpayer does not directly benefit from. In Tesla's case, I'd argue that the benefits were actually there. You may not be able to afford one of their cars, but having a high-tech electric car company enter the market and succeed against well-entrenched incumbents is in everyone's best interest. You may disagree but I think you'd (fortunately) be in the minority.

Dylan16807 12y ago

Cake and eat it too? These are completely unrelated issues. They took a loan and also they want to be able to sell their product. Sounds fair to me.