Tesla Motors and the Folly of Government Intervention

Why the government can’t create winners in the marketplace.

Anyone searching for a case study to explain what is wrong with capitalism in America today can stop looking. We have the perfect specimen: Tesla Motors. Federal and state programs have conferred huge advantages to help the electric-vehicle company sell its cars — which state laws then make almost impossible to sell.

Left to its own devices, Tesla one day might have epitomized everything good about market economics. In an industry whose fundamentals have changed little since the introduction of the Model T, the California-based company, led by the visionary Elon Musk, made a long-term bet that it could prevail through disruptive innovation and superior products (Motor Trend named its Model S the 2013 Car of the Year, and Consumer Reports raved about it). Instead, Tesla now epitomizes the folly of government intervention.

Start with all the special benefits Tesla receives — including a $465 million loan from the Energy Department, conferred in January of 2010. That is two-thirds more than Tesla initially raised from private investors, and more than double the $226 million the company raised from its initial public offering five months later, even though the loan surely encouraged investors to buy.

On top of the loan, add the $7,500 federal tax credit for purchasing electric vehicles. That amounts to a discount of more than 10 percent for the base Model S, whose purchase price is a hefty $70,000. Many states also offer their own incentives, including tax rebates, property tax reductions or exemptions, and sales tax exemptions worth thousands of dollars more. Some states also offer perks such as exemption from annual inspection requirements and use of HOV lanes.

And then there is California, a world unto itself. Not only has California given Tesla a $10 million grant, it has ordered car makers to sell an increasing number of electric vehicles; Gov. Jerry Brown insists that 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles ply the state’s roads by 2025. (“Zero-emissions” is a grievous misnomer, since electric vehicles need charging, and all power plants produce emissions. In fact, electric vehicles in regions where coal makes up a large share of the generation capacity are more carbon-intensive than high-mpg cars with internal combustion engines.)

But there are two problems with setting quotas for electric vehicles. Most car makers don’t manufacture them. And so far, most consumers don’t want them — even with the large financial inducements. So California lets other car makers meet the rule by purchasing credits from EV makers, which for now means Nissan and Tesla.

In August, the left-wing Mother Jones magazine reported that Tesla’s profits in the first and second quarters of 2013 — its first profits ever — would have been losses if not for the tens of millions it has collected through the credit-purchase program.

Still, some people who can afford to do so want to buy Teslas. Unfortunately, states across the country are doing their best to stop them.

In Virginia, for instance, you can visit the company’s showroom in Tysons Corner to kick the Tesla tires. But until recently that was about all you could do. You couldn’t take a Tesla for a test drive. The company reps couldn’t even discuss pricing with you. And you absolutely, positively could not buy a Tesla then and there.

Those restrictions still exist in most other states: Forty-eight states forbid Tesla to sell cars directly to consumers, which is how the company likes to do business. (Tesla has a variety of reasons for that: Among them, the company charges a single flat price for its cars, but couldn’t sustain such a policy if middlemen got involved.) And independent automobile dealers are fighting furiously to keep Tesla out of their backyards.

Texas’ rules resemble Virginia’s. In New York, lawmakers introduced legislation that would have shut down Tesla’s three locations by forbidding the registration of any vehicle not purchased through a dealer. In North Carolina, the State Senate passed a bill to forbid vehicle sales except through a franchised dealer.

Both of those measures ultimately failed, but until a couple of days ago, when a lawsuit-averting deal was announced, Tesla had not been able to win an exemption from Virginia’s rules. Some Virginia dealers wanted to keep it that way. “Tesla believes it should be allowed to sell cars without licensed dealers. This can’t be,” wrote Gerard Murphy in The Washington Post earlier this year. Murphy is president of the Washington Area New Auto Dealers Association, whose members include dealerships in Northern Virginia. “If Tesla won’t have a dealer network, it doesn’t belong in the automobile business.”

The dealers contend they are simply trying to protect local jobs and the welfare of the consumer. But their motives are not solely altruistic. If Tesla succeeds in challenging the franchise model, other car makers might do the same — and then dealerships would be in for a world of hurt. They would still make money, but probably nowhere near as much as they do now.

That’s rough on them — but it’s no rougher than the transition other industries have endured in recent decades. And the rationales the dealers offer to justify government-enforced protection of their turf make no more sense than similar justifications would make in other industries. Imagine, for instance, if states insisted that bloggers and advertisers who want to reach the public could do so only through newspaper websites, in order to preserve local jobs and the fact-checking process. That’s the sort of nonsense the dealers in other states are peddling now.

But then, there’s very little good sense in the tale of Tesla — a company that government advances with special preferences one moment, and impedes with schemes for the protection of market incumbents the next. Tesla’s cars might qualify as revolutionary. But its treatment at the hands of big government is as old as Appian Way.

This article originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • anon||

    This article could've said "Same shit, different day," and it would have conveyed exactly what reading the wall of text did.

  • RightNut||

    So Tesla extorts money from other car companies in the form of California EV credits, and then complains that in other states dealers are demanding the right to extort money from Tesla.

    That's about the gist of it right?

  • anon||

    And somehow the masses think there's absolutely nothing wrong with anything going on there.

  • ro2nn3||

    Start working at Home with Google. It’s the most financially rewarding I ve ever done. On Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292. I began this six months/ago and right away began to make at least $80 per-hour. Official site, www.Pow6.com
    WORK LESS EARN MORE

  • Dr. Kenneth Noisewater||

    Of course there's not problem with it. The voters VOTED for it, over and over again, when they voted for statists. So, the question is, why are carmakers bitching and moaning since the People Have Spoken, why shouldn't they just take their ball and go home? Why haven't they Gone Galt in California?

    If not, then quit bitching and deal with the situation.

    Frankly, I find the Ol' Boy Network sales laws more offensive, and since WWII the competitive market which argued for them has long since changed.

  • Weapon||

    To be fair, nobody forces them to buy the credits. They can generate the credits themselves. In this case Tesla is fine with running the dealerships themselves but are not allowed to, so there is no alternative options.

  • JWatts||

    To be fair, nobody forces them to buy the credits. They can generate the credits themselves.

    If you tell someone, provide these credits or we (the state) will put you out of business, you sure as hell are threatening force. Whether the car company has to pay off someone else or build their own loss making EV's is irrelevant to the argument.

  • Weapon||

    It is relevant to the argument because in one way there is no way to do business other then using a 3rd party. In the other way, you can do business but if you don't meet criteria you can use a 3rd party to supplement.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And the criteria mandates the actual production, i.e. it tells a business explicitly what it must produce. Let me guess, you believe that our tax code doesn't force anyone to do anything either, don't you? I mean, you can just earn less money if you want to pay less tax.

  • Weapon||

    The criteria doesn't exactly mandate them to produce. You can meet most of your ZEV requirements through making efficient gas vehicles as well or through NEV credits. And again it offers a way to pay your way out of anything you don't meet.

    Unfortunately the dealership laws are a bit more tricky. Example: In Texas, not only do they prevent you from selling your cars except through an individual 3rd party dealer, you also can not answering many questions concerning the car.(yes they take away first amendment rights).

    On top of it, it gets even worse. If you agree to a 3rd party dealership in any state. You now own a franchise. Which means franchise laws take effect all over the country.

    Well our tax code doesn't really force you to do anything, but it does incentivize/disincentivize you to do certain things to get tax breaks or rebates. But that is still not the same thing as "forcing".

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Sevo is right. Your sophistry is showing. You might want to cover that up. CA law is sure as hell a mandate. Make the cars we want or pay a hefty fine. If a private individual did that they would be arrested for extortion. When the government does it, it's PROGRESS!

  • Weapon||

    Right, but it is not the same as saying do this or you can't do business at all period! Now is it?

    And if you do this, then it automatically forces you into contracts in other states as well.

    I mean on one end you have the government saying "meet this or pay", on the other end the government is forcing you into a legal binding contract for life against your will.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Are you truly that stupid? The government is forcing automakers to make a certain product. Somehow it's OK because CA doesn't absolutely outlaw the sale of non-econut cars? That's your argument?

    "Well we're only stealing your money. It's not like we're actually killing you or anything serious."

  • Neil1236||

    There's a hidden cost in air pollution

    Credits for EVs are not "all bad".
    It's a small step, and a small cost. I don;t like it either, but such is the representative form of government. Don;t like it? Run for Governor

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Anyone searching for a case study to explain what is wrong with capitalism in America today can stop looking.

    Please stop using the word capitalism when you mean cronyism. No wonder the morons at MSNBC hate capitalism. People who know better don't even use the term correctly.

  • pan fried wylie||

    except, cronyism IS what's wrong with capatilism.

    "...to explain what is wrong with cronyism...", how does that make sense?

    Seems like there's nothing wrong in the current practice of cronyism. It's doing just fine, while capitalism does all the suffering.

    Not that I disagree with your premise, that people don't understand the difference between the two concepts, just that that blurb was not semantically (syntactically?) the best example to take a shot at.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Um...but...I mean...er...

    My intent wasn't to replace the word in that particular sentence.

    Point was that if you are accepting subsidies from the government, you can't call what you're doing capitalism.

    cap·i·tal·ism Noun /ˈkapətlˌizəm/

    1. An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state

    ped·ant Noun /ˈpednt/

    Synonyms:
    noun: prig, stickler, precisian

    pedants plural

    1. A person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning

  • Weapon||

    Sure you can, by your own definition, the countries trade and industry is controlled by private owners for profit rather than the state. If the state is controlled by private owners and politicians are sold to the highest bidder. That is still capitalism.

    The point he is making is cronyism is a form of capitalism.

    The right word your looking for is free-market capitalism. That is a form of capitalism that has no government intervention.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I'm sorry. I mistook being given a half a billion dollar loan, a subsidy of $7500 per vehicle sold and a $10M grant as state control of industry.

    My bad.

  • Weapon||

    You say that because you've never visited countries which actually have states control industry.

    There is a big difference between government interfering and government controlling.

    An example of "control" would be how the us government sets milk prices.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    There is a big difference between government interfering and government controlling.

    No...there is not. It is simply a matter of degrees.

    When a government, rather than the free market, picks winners and losers, it is "controlling" the market.

  • Weapon||

    Yes, there are degrees. The same applies to the word "capitalism", there are degrees and different forms of capitalism. The form that has no government intervention is "free market capitalism".

    Cronyism is still a form of capitalism.

    That said, in our economy it is more like private industry is controlling the government rather than government controlling private industry.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    We're comparing free-market capitalism to Tesla's cronyism, and saying fuck that shit. Why would you think anything different?

  • Weapon||

    Read the above comments.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    That said, in our economy it is more like private industry is controlling the government rather than government controlling private industry.

    Yeah, Tesla put a gun to the government's head and said, "subsidize us."

  • Weapon||

    As I mentioned before, these laws pre-date Tesla's lobbying. At this point, Tesla is taking advantage of things other lobbies setup.

    Here is an example. The ZEV credits were originally lobbied by the fuel cell lobby. They were setup in such a way that the highest tier was only suppose to be attainable by fuel cells. Unfortunately for them, fuel cell technology stalled and Tesla was able to come up with a way to get the highest tier (battery swap). There is already talks of removing the highest tier.

    Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Tesla is innocent by any means. Like all companies in this day in age, lobbying is the way to get things done in our economy. Just Tesla is not responsible for these current set of laws that they are benefiting from because they were setup by others. But they are taking advantage of them to the fullest.

  • Grendal||

    Government picks winners and losers every day. You are simply picking those you prefer over others. Each party picks its favorites and supports them.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, he's letting the market pick winners and losers.

  • Grendal||

    Please provide references to that subsidy. Where?

  • rts||

    TSLA, Oct 1 2012 - Sep 30 2013, +163.9 (559.78%)

    I need to get better at spotting the cronyism ahead of time.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Yep. But I'm betting their strategy isn't buy and hold.

  • albo||

    Cover your heads, and left up your pantlegs: It's a flood of rent-seeking and a shit storm of cronyism and corporate welfare.

    Welcome to Suckerville, population, you.

  • pan fried wylie||

    left up your pantleg

    Is that some new hipster trend?

  • Lord at War||

    I'm pretty sure the chain on their single-gear bike is on the right.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Without government, there would be no technological innovation.

  • Tommy_Grand||

    I love when the Tesla defenders say Tesla "didn't really need the 465 million govt. loan" (aka govt. subsidy). So why did Tesla ask for it, lobby for it, & work so hard to obtain it? Once they got the huge, supercheap loan, Tesla got investment. Once they got enough investment, they could make & sell a product (mostly EV credits, but whatever). Once they sold the product, they could repay the loan. No loan, no investors. No investors, no product. No product, no sales. No loan = no Tesla.

    I don't mind Tesla taking advantage of the junky system. I blame the system, not Tesla. I just can't stand the BS narritive that Tesla pulled itself up by the bootstraps....neglecting to mention that little half billion in subsidized govt funding. Tesla is right about the state law/ dealership BS though.

  • anon||

    So why did Tesla ask for it, lobby for it, & work so hard to obtain it?

    The same reason every other corporation does: It's easier to steal money out of the hands of consumers than it is to provide a widely desired product or service.

    I'm not blaming Tesla for that at all though; I blame the bureaucrats that enable it.

  • RightNut||

    You can get further with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word.

  • JWatts||

    On the other hand, you don't really need the kind word at that point, so FYTW.

  • Weapon||

    It is true, Tesla did not need the 465 million, that doesn't mean that it didn't help. Also a government loan is not a subsidy, unless the loan itself is subsidized by the government.

    Tesla got a lot of investment way before the loan. And your incorrect, their first product was the Tesla Roadster which was before the loan.

    The biggest thing the loan did for Tesla was let them scale production faster. But probably the biggest thing it did was give them publicity. A lot of people bashed Tesla because of the loan, and there is a saying "bad publicity is better then no publicity". Then it made even a larger impact when Tesla paid back the loan ahead of schedule.

    To note, Tesla did not lobby for the loan as the creation of the loan predates Tesla's lobbying. As for why they asked for it is obvious, at the time they wanted to scale the factory but the stock market crashed. So the interest rates everywhere went through the roof.

    Tesla could have gotten a loan from private industry to do it, but they wuld have to have waited a year when things cooled down after the crash. Tesla actually took out another loan this year from private industry and got a rate cheaper than even the government loan.

    So, yes the loan helped Tesla a lot, but even without it, Tesla would most likely have been fine.(Nobody can 100% predict what kind of butterfly effect it would have caused otherwise of course)

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "a government loan is not a subsidy"

    What the fuck?

    A government loan is the government manipulating economics, which is the same thing as a subsidy or an economic regulation. Who gives a fuck if it fits the exact definition of a direct transfer of money?

  • Weapon||

    Because if we use the same word to describe everything, we might as well embrace 1984, Good++ right?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Socialism is socialism.

    Suck a fat one, faggot.

  • Weapon||

    I am glad we are all mature here, sigh.

    Also, you can't define a word with itself.

    When the government is corrupt, there is still hope. But when people lose the ability to express themselves and succumb to double speak. Then you know that it is all over.

    Just out of curiosity, do you even know what the word socialism means?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    'Socialism' has evolved in to a generic term that adequately covers all sorts of non-free-market economic situations.
    Just like 'liberal' evolved from a term for people who prefer individual freedom, to a term for statists.

  • Weapon||

    Ah, no. The meanings of the words have not changed. Just because they are used bya minority as slang for political gains does not mean the words have "evolved". For word meanings to evolve they have to be accepted by the majority.

    But again, taking words with specific meanings and "generalizing/distorting" them is doublespeak.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Ah, no. I'm just going to contradict everyone with Ah, no.

    Socialism, fascism, economic protectionism, and communism, among others, are all rooted in the same sort of collectivist horse shit. So it is good enough for me to lump them all together and reject the validity of each of them just the same.

  • Weapon||

    Considering that some of them are almost complete opposites of each other. That is good enough reasons not to clump them all together.

    If you want to reject their validity, great. But know exactly what they are.

    It is like when a person comes to a matte black wall and says, it is "too bright".

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Which of those are complete opposites? Do you think a communist state can't be fascist?

    fascism:

    : a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

    Show me where that explicitly rules out protectionism, socialism, or communism.
    Do I have to get all Godwin on you to show how stupid your statement is? Do you even have a clue how Venezuela works today?

  • Weapon||

    Well for one, to have true communism would require the government be dissolved. That would definitely be one.(hence why fascists and communists don't like each other much).

    Now that is not to say that it can't be fascist during the transitional period but it at that point it would not be communist.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    What? Communism requires the government to be dissolved? Try again:

    com·mu·nism
    noun \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\

    : a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property

    Note the word "government" in the definition.

  • Weapon||

    Unfortunately a dictionary is not a good reference for a definition for any ideology. Simply because it cannot explain the full merit of what something is.

    The dictionary definition in webster only describes the first phase of communism, which involves government taking all property and production. But that is not communism but a transitional phase.

    After that phase, government is dissolved. And all means and production are managed by the communities. There is no "government" in communism.

    Obviously, it never gets to that point for obvious reasons. Because the party in charge during the transition takes over and instead turns it in stalinism instead of communism.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Unfortunately a dictionary is a good reference for the meaning of words. You yourself were droning on about some nonsensical reference to doublespeak and here you are now trying to weasel out of getting your hat handed to you yet again. Marx may have wanted the ultimate evolution of communism to be stateless but that doesn't mean that communism must be stateless. For if the system is truly stateless then we have anarchy, but if we have anarchy then how can we enforce communal ownership?

  • Sevo||

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 3:40PM|#
    "I am glad we are all mature here, sigh."

    People get insulted when shit-peddlers like you hand it out in the hopes others are dumb enough to buy it.
    Fuck off.

  • Weapon||

    Stevo, English please?

  • Sevo||

    Once more:
    People get insulted when shit-peddlers like you hand it out in the hopes others are dumb enough to buy it.

  • Weapon||

    Sigh, why is it so hard for you to express what you wish to express in plain English?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    It looks like pretty solid English to me. Dude.

    It means stop trying to excuse policies with semantic details that are not likely to make any difference to libertarians.

  • Weapon||

    Those semantic differences makes all the difference, especially to a libertarian. Why? Because the government can do anything it wants but no matter what, you retain your ability to think and ability to communicate with each other and change things.

    When people lose the ability to express themselves, even with all the free speech in the world. If your meaning is diluted, it ends up meaning nothing. How do you say your property is being taken if there is no words to express that notion?

    I find it sad that more and more people are falling into the whole "evolving words" when in reality they are diluting them to lose their meaning. And then when they can't express themselves they jump cursing. And in this way we lose our way to communicate with each other and share information.

    Have you read the book 1984?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    The semantic differences between ZEV credits, consumer tax credits, or direct subsidies are to me like fudge or sprinkles on a shit cruller.

  • Weapon||

    Right, and that is why you will keep paying more and more taxes and the government will keep growing bigger and bigger.

  • JWatts||

    "a government loan is not a subsidy ... So the interest rates everywhere went through the roof."

    A government loan at below market rates sure as hell is a subsidy.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    A government loan is cronyism in the first place.

  • Grendal||

    Why aren't you more upset at Ford? They got a $5.9 billion from the same program that Tesla got their $465 million. The difference is that Tesla has paid their loan back with interest. Ford has another 24 years to pay their loan back.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Who says we aren't upset with Ford? And Tesla's subsidized interest was effectively paid back with more subsidies! Now do you understand the problem?

  • Grendal||

    Where has the government given them more money? Please provide any evidence. Since there isn't any then you are simply making things up.

    $465 million loan - paid back with interest.

    $7500 tax credit is your own money that you get to keep instead of giving to the government to spend wastefully.

    ZEV credits - Other manufacturers pay Tesla to cover their butts.

    Tax money being given to Tesla = $0.00

  • Dr. Kenneth Noisewater||

    I don't mind Tesla taking advantage of the junky system. I blame the system, not Tesla. I just can't stand the BS narritive that Tesla pulled itself up by the bootstraps....

    Indeed, if they DIDN'T take advantage of such incentives, as a shareholder I'd want the board and/or CEO sacked. Keep in mind as well that Ford took advantage of a similar program for cheap gummint money before the financial crisis, and their loan was ~10x larger (~$5B) than Tesla's. They were able to restructure with that loan, and without it would likely have gone bankrupt like GM.

    The problem is with the laws, and ultimately, the useless moron voters. Ain't Democracy grand?

  • John Galt||

    The bottom line is consumers just don't want electric cars. Not even when they're paid to buy them.

  • albo||

    Right. There's essentially no market for them except that one created by government. Basically, government is saying that consumers are idiots.

  • Sevo||

    They're not only paid to buy them, they are given free charging all over the bay area.

  • pan fried wylie||

    I hope the charging stations include a sign to the effect of "Fuck Your Salary, Local Power Company Employees!"

  • Weapon||

    Consumers do want electric cars. They just don't want crappy electric cars. That is why Tesla Model S is the best selling premium full sized sedan in the country. Because they actually made an awesome car.

  • Bob Straub||

    I don't think the Nissan Leaf is a crappy car. It may not have a lot of range (few electrics do), but it's put together well, has lots of interior room for its size, and is reasonably peppy. I wouldn't buy one as my only car unless I lived in a big metropolitan area because of the range limit, but otherwise, it's at least almost awesome. Costs way less than a Tesla, too.

  • Weapon||

    The problem with the leaf is the BMS is not that good. Now they may have fixed it in the latest revision, idk. But I know the previous models had issues with it. Previous versions I think also lacked a heat pump.

  • Juice||

    Teslas may be the best electric car out there, but Teslas are crappy electric cars. There's no such thing as a non-crappy electric car yet. They can go maybe 50 miles on a charge on a good day and take all day or night to have enough charge to do that. That's crap. Very few people are willing to put up with that.

  • Weapon||

    Ah, no. The Tesla Model S really is an awesome car. There is a reason why it is winning awards for best car of the year and has the highest consumer reports score in history. They can go anywhere from 200 mile - 400 miles. Not 50 miles.

    I don't expect you to understand. It is not something that can be explained with words. Action speaks louder than words. Test drive a Tesla Model S, you will never want to go back.

  • Sevo||

    "They can go anywhere from 200 mile - 400 miles."

    If you can find a cliff that high.

  • Weapon||

    Now your just trolling.

  • Sevo||

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 6:08PM|#
    "Now your just trolling."

    And here you are proudly bullshitting!

  • Sevo||

    "That is why Tesla Model S is the best selling premium full sized sedan in the country."

    Bullshit.
    Take away the credits and see how it sells.

  • John Galt||

    The Teslas are little more than toys for rich, subsidized by all who pay taxes, and powered by coal belching endless tons of delicious carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

  • Weapon||

    Unlikely. The states where Tesla sells most of their cars use very little coal. That said, from a CO2 perspective, in the US. Even if you used a car 100% powered by coal, it would release less CO2 than the highest mpg gasoline car.

    The reason is that US EPA regulations are pretty strict on coal emissions and get stricter by the year.

  • Sevo||

    OK, it's hardly worth stating, but BULLSHIT ALERT!
    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 6:29PM|#
    "Unlikely. The states where Tesla sells most of their cars use very little coal.."

    Yes, since electricity never crosses state lines.

  • Weapon||

    Electricity does cross the state lines (well depending on the state). The statement still remains true. Most of the coal use is by a few states. Most states have converted to NG.

  • JWatts||

    The reason is that US EPA regulations are pretty strict on coal emissions and get stricter by the year.

    The EPA does not restrict emissions of CO2 from coal plants. So no, your wrong.

  • Weapon||

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Don't. Just don't. You don't understand economics or thermodynamics. Let's play a game, shall we? A typical coal plant in the US has less than 35% thermal efficiency. Transmission losses are about 7% so now you're at 32.55%. Charging losses are an additional 10% so now you're down to 29.3%. Now assuming that you don't have to heat the interior of the vehicle which you get for free in a combustion engine that tops out your efficiency.

    Now compare that to a modern gas engine that has a thermal efficiency in the range of 25-30% and oops there goes the CO2 benefit. It's even worse when you consider that the amount of CO2 released burning coal(which I don't give a shit about) is 40% higher per unit of energy than burning gas. And fuck me if the picture doesn't get worse when comparing to diesel which can have thermal efficiencies of over 50%.

    Now go back to dreaming that Elon will ask you the prom.

  • Weapon||

    NotAnotherSkippy, I understand thermodynamics well enough.

    There are 3 factors your forgetting:

    1) Your forgetting that gasoline needs to be distributed to gas stations as well. It does not magically appear at the pump. Gasoline also needs to be refined as well.

    2) Coal power plants do other work such as water purification and heating which can raise them above 35% efficiency. (same way an engine heats the interior, the wasted heat is not wasted)

    3) A coal power plant runs most of the time at maximum efficiency. Your gasoline car runs and maximum efficiency at how often?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    1) So does the coal to your power plant. In fact the transport of coal is less efficient than either a pipeline or super tanker. And "your" (sic) forgetting parasitic losses in the battery temperature extremes.

    2) Really? So you think that most coal plants are co-generation in this country?
    http://www.eia.gov/electricity.....08_02.html

    Show me the CCGT line in that report.

    3) Actually thanks to your (correct usage this time) EPA US coal plants do NOT run at maximum thermal efficiency because to do so would increase NOx emissions (higher temp and all that). That 35% was generous on my part. Actual calculation from the EIA data is 3412/10128 (fucking BTU's) = 33.7%, so I gave you 1.3% for free. Aren't I generous?

    Modern cars are actually quite efficient as long as they are moving. We invented this little thing we like to call a "transmission." This "transmission" does wonderful things such as adjusting the applied torque and allowing the engine to stay closer to its maximum efficiency operating condition. (At this point you could try to catch me on the transmission losses but I'll just point out that I gave you a freebie on your electric motors and assumed 100% efficiency. It ain't.).

  • Sevo||

    NAS,
    Weapon is also ignoring the environmental impacts of battery making and disposal.

  • Grendal||

    And you are ignoring the environmental impacts of pumping and shipping oil. What about the military expenditures to keep the oil flowing? Have you seen the military budget?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Mining rare earths for your mythically clean EV's is a lot dirtier than shipping oil through a pipeline.

    Yes, it takes a powerful military to ensure that those Canadians stay in line and continue to send us oil. Why we had to send at least a couple armored divisions up there to make sure they built Keystone XL!

  • Grendal||

    Tesla motor uses no rare earths. You should do research before you comment. Canada is still foreign oil. It is still money leaving the country. It does not eliminate the threat from the Middle East. America does not import any electricity and will never need to do so.

  • AaronBonn||

    Yeah. Take that $7000 tax credit away and that $70000 machine suddenly doesn't look so affordable any more.

  • Weapon||

    The credits one way or the other would not have had any difference as far as sales for Q1 and Q2 is concerned. For it to make a difference, Tesla has to get to a point where supply overtakes demand. At this point Tesla is still back logged.

  • Sevo||

    OK, it's hardly worth stating, but BULLSHIT ALERT!

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 6:25PM|#
    "The credits one way or the other would not have had any difference as far as sales for Q1 and Q2 is concerned. For it to make a difference, Tesla has to get to a point where supply overtakes demand"

    Stupidity or sophistry?
    The bullshit from this guy is so thick, I'm having a hard time telling.

  • Weapon||

    Sigh, let me break this down in an easy to understand form.

    Lets say you have 1000 orders for an item. You make 500 items in half a year. Would losing 10-20% of sales have any effect on how many items you sold in the first half of the year?

    Basic math.

  • Sevo||

    "Lets say you have 1000 orders for an item."

    Let's say half of those were generated by the reduced price from the tax credits.
    Now you didn't think that was going to fly by unnoticed, did you, you lying piece of crap

  • Weapon||

    Even though I highly doubt 8% is going to make a 50% difference. That still does not change the equation above.

    A 50% drop of 1000 orders is 500 orders. You produced 500 items in the first half. You still sold 500 items in the first half.

    I mean seriously, basic math here!

  • Sevo||

    "I mean seriously, basic math here!"

    Nobody's buying your bullshit.

  • Grendal||

    "Take away the credits and see how it sells."

    So you are fighting to pay MORE taxes? Not a very good conservative are you?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, he's fighting to stop subsidizing affluent econuts with his money. Let the market decide.

  • AaronBonn||

    You obviously don't live in Los Angeles. Teslas are all over the place here. See one every day on my way to work.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    You see the same douchebags every day on your way to work? Me, too.

  • AaronBonn||

    Actually, I usually see 2 or 3 a day, in various locations around the city. Among those that can afford them, Teslas are, in fact, quite popular here in LA.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    You see douchebags all over Los Angeles?

  • AaronBonn||

    This is all invective and snark. There is no argument here for me to respond to. So I guess I've got nothing more to say to you.

    Great job, Beavis.

  • Sevo||

    AaronBonn|9.30.13 @ 3:39PM|#
    "This is all invective and snark."

    In reply to your irrelevancy.

  • AaronBonn||

    My comment was relevant. Galt said people just don't want to buy electric cars. I was pointing out that, at least out here, that is clearly not true. They're all over the road out here, despite the fact that they are still quite expensive machines.

  • Sevo||

    "I was pointing out that, at least out here, that is clearly not true"

    Right.
    Pointing out that you've seen 'a couple of them' really makes that point.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Wow, 2 or 3. And how many Porsches, BMW's, Lexus', Audis, Mercedes do you see? Right, now have we learned that anecdotes are bullshit arguments? Good.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    The dealers contend they are simply trying to protect local jobs and the welfare of the consumer.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA... oh god, my sides are splitting open. If dealerships actually cared about the welfare of the consumer, they wouldn't be attempting to fuck over the consumer every single chance they get.

    Yes, the loans are cronyism at its most blatant. But the dealership monopoly is bullshit, and I don't see anyone else making the slightest effort to fight it, so good on them.

  • anon||

    Yes, the loans are cronyism at its most blatant. But the dealership monopoly is bullshit, and I don't see anyone else making the slightest effort to fight it, so good on them.

    You missed the point, I think.

    Guess who's responsible for both situations?

    Hint: Neither Tesla nor Dealerships.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    Well, I'm just trying to find a sliver of a silver lining. We're essentially indirectly bribing (with taxpayer money) a company to advocate for more liberty. I think the dealership monopoly is largely hidden out of the public view, and I'd wager most legislators didn't even know about it until Tesla and the dealerships made a fuss. The gov't loans battle was already being fought; we might be on the losing end of it, but both the people and legislators are aware of the argument.

    Given that the battle against these gov't loans was already lost, I'd rather our tax dollars went to companies that were opening new fronts in the war for economic liberty, regardless of their motives. Meanwhile, we work on changing minds.

  • pan fried wylie||

    sliver of a silver lining

    Like, nanometer-thick-coating silver lining. The latest in FuckYouThat'sWhy Technology.

  • Rasilio||

    wait, silver nano particles? That makes it anti bacterial, do you have an FDA license for that argument?

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    Yeah, saying that all cars must be sold through dealers because the welfare of the consumer sounds to me like saying that all animal shelters shall be ran by the proprietors of Chinese restaurants, for the good of the animals.

  • JWatts||

    Or like all Health Insurance most be by companies incorporated within the state?

  • Lord Rae||

    Sounds more like the state laws keeping Tesla from selling it's product are the real problem and not the tax credits helping a business off the ground. If they're still getting them in 10 years that's a problem but I see no issue with them as they are now. Not all govt money spent is a bad thing especially in this case as it's helping an industry change. It's the resistance to that change and the free market that is the problem not the credit or incentive to try something new.

  • Sevo||

    "Sounds more like the state laws keeping Tesla from selling it's product are the real problem and not the tax credits helping a business off the ground."

    The "business" you refer to is selling tax credits via the automobiles.
    Absent that, Tesla would be running at a huge loss.
    So, no, the problem is two-fold; my money Tesla is grabbing via the government and secondarily, the protection racket.

  • anon||

    The "business" you refer to is selling tax credits via the automobiles.
    Absent that, Tesla would be running at a huge loss.

    That's not entirely true, Sevo: Absent federal money, Tesla may not have incurred manufacturing costs that it was enabled to incur. They might have spent what money they had more productively rather than pissing it away on anticipated sales that never happened.

  • Sevo||

    Hypothetically, you'll get a great big "maybe".
    The fact is that now, Tesla makes money only by trading those tax credits; the cars are a dead loss.

  • Weapon||

    Not exactly, Tesla makes a gross profit on making the cars. The ZEV credits essentially cover Tesla's R&D. But Tesla is actually making a gross profit on making the cars.

  • Sevo||

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 2:54PM|#
    "Not exactly, Tesla makes a gross profit on making the cars."

    Now you're out-and-out lying.
    Tesla would be losing quite a bit of money if it weren't for those credits.
    Tesla is not a car company; it is a financial business trading government rent products.
    "So far this year, Tesla was able to turn what would have been a $57 million loss into an $11 million gain by selling $68 million worth of these credits to other auto manufacturers in California."
    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/.....favoritism

  • Weapon||

    First of all, that article is only talking about Q1. There is already information on Q2. But ok, lets talk about Q1.

    First of all, lets get away from pulling random quotes out of articles and playing the game of telephone and dig straight into Tesla's financials:(There is a saying, if you want something done right, you do it yourself)

    http://ir.teslamotors.com/comm.....ilename=Q1 13 Shareholder Letter.pdf

    This is what all these articles use as a basis.

    Now then lets see, Tesla had 562 million revenue, 68 million were credits. Tesla's gross profit was slightly over 96 million. That makes up 12% of their revenue being from credits. But their gross margin is 17%. What does that mean? That means Tesla had a gross margin of 5% in Q1, even without the credits!

    Don't confuse net profit and gross profit.

  • JWatts||

    And what would their sales have been without the $7,500 Federal tax credit and various state tax credits?

  • Weapon||

    JWatts, probably the same. The reason why is simple. Tesla is supply capped, not demand capped. They can't keep up with the demand.

    Considering the average price of a Tesla Model S sold is over 90k. The 7.5k credit is only 8% of the price.

    Now that is not to say that it has no effect. But as far as Q1 is concerned, it would not have made a difference.

  • Sevo||

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 6:14PM|#
    "JWatts, probably the same."
    Bullshit.

    "The reason why is simple. Tesla is supply capped, not demand capped."
    Totally irrelevant.

  • Weapon||

    Totally relevant, read my response above.

  • Sevo||

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 7:13PM|#
    "Totally relevant, read my response above."

    Which was an assertion; worthless.

  • JWatts||

    JWatts, probably the same. The reason why is simple. Tesla is supply capped, not demand capped. They can't keep up with the demand.

    In that case we should be lobbying the Federal government to immediately eliminate the Tax credit, right? Since it's not having any effect whatsoever.

    Why should we spend millions of dollars in Federal money when by your own admission, the money is completely wasted? That money could better go to food stamps for orphans and blind minority students, right?

    Weapon, why do you want to take food from children and give it to rich yuppies buying luxury cars?

  • Weapon||

    JWatts, the tax credit doesn't make much difference to current Tesla sales(might make a difference to future sales as demand catches up). But the biggest difference it makes is with budget EVs like the Nissan Lead, Ford Fusion EV, Chevy Spark EV and etc.

    That said, I never exactly stated I was for or against the tax credit. To me it doesn't matter much one way or the other. I am more neutral on the issue of the tax credits.

  • Sevo||

    I certainly hope you're proud of your shit-slinging abilities!

  • Weapon||

    Sevo, are you trying to make some sort of point? If you disagree with what I posted, feel free to respond with evidence contrary to my statements. Is not the point of discussion to learn from each other?

    Your just being childish at this point.

  • Sevo||

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 6:17PM|#
    "Sevo, are you trying to make some sort of point?"

    Yes, yes, I am. You are a bullshit artist who couldn't be trusted with a shopping list.
    You offer a PR release to argue with an independent report and then sling irrelevant crap about gross vs. net; insulting to anyone.
    By now, it's pretty clear that you are employed by Tesla or one of its agents ad you are very practiced as spreading the lies justifying a pretty sleazy operation.

  • Weapon||

    What I linked to use is a shareholder letter which holds Tesla's financial data. Your so called "independent report" is just an article written by a person who got 100% of their information from the same shareholder letter.

    Neither I or them have any access to any secret information. I linked you to the source of the story so that you can check the numbers yourself. It is the same public information every single article on the internet on Tesla basis their story on.

    If it makes you feel better, I'll use your own link. Go to your article and click on "first-ever quarterly profit". It will take you to Marketwatch. This article:
    http://www.marketwatch.com/sto.....2013-05-08

    Right there:
    "revenue of $562 million." and "Gross margin was 17%". 68m/562m = 12%. 17% - 12% = 5%.

    Using your own link! Why? because they all get data from exactly the same place!

    What is interesting is you blindly trust media on the internet and yet don't dare do your own research? The reason why I don't like articles on the internet to use as a source is they play the game of telephone. Which means every person that reposts an article warps the meaning. That is why it is important to track down the source of the information.

  • Weapon||

    Part 2:

    Also, the difference in gross profit and net profit is extremely important in finance. Especially when we are talking about the core business. Net profit has little relevance outside of wall street unless a company is building up cash on hand.

    The problem here is simple, its not about me being wrong or right. You could care less. The problem is it does not conform to your views so you brush it aside.

    If I am wrong, PROVE ME WRONG! Actions speak louder then words.

  • Sevo||

    "Also, the difference in gross profit and net profit is extremely important in finance."

    Yes, when you are spinning data, any number can assume great importance.
    As far as 'proving you wrong', you've been proven wrong numerous times and each time you return with another load of bullshit.
    It's amusing watching that sort of 'skill' used to support a sleazy operation like Tesla, but you're not fooling anyone.

  • Weapon||

    I don't think you understand financing do you?

  • Sevo||

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 9:35PM|#
    "I don't think you understand financing do you?"
    I understand it well enough to spot snow jobs, you lying piece of crap.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    "Also, the difference in gross profit and net profit is extremely important in finance. Especially when we are talking about the core business. Net profit has little relevance outside of wall street unless a company is building up cash on hand."

    Oh. My. God. Stop. Just stop. Gross profit isn't profit. Gross profit is just revenue - COGS. Repeat after me: gross profit is not profit that you can take to the bank or even buy an overpriced tesla with. Net profit, or better yet free cash flow, actually tells you how much money can be extracted from the business without consuming it. And TSLA has always been FCF negative.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And don't confuse non-GAAP(as in these exclude things we want to exclude) with GAAP. TSLA remains free cash flow negative. Net profit for Q1 was negative even with the government handouts and mandates. Your 5% GM without handouts is before R&D and SG&A, both of which swamp any gross profit. And before you start you little dance about how TSLA can cut back on R&D you have to answer why they haven't.

    Oh, and that $68MM is just some of the subsidy that TSLA gets. Of course we have the $7500 federal tax credit. But CA also has a $2500 rebate. Isn't that nice? Thankfully that is just a stupid tax on Californians unlike the federal gimmie. And what else? Oh, well TSLA parasites get to drive on roads that they don't pay for. Isn't that nice? You see, they don't pay gas tax, i.e. road tax, so they don't pay their fair share of maintenance.

    TSLA is so firmly attached to the government teat that Obama's nipples must be getting sore.

  • Sevo||

    "Oh, well TSLA parasites get to drive on roads that they don't pay for. Isn't that nice?"

    And aren't the CA utility users or taxpayers oh so pleased to provide free charging stations for those poor folks who can only afford a $100K car if the government subsidizes it?

  • Weapon||

    NotAnotherSkippy, Your confusing Q1 with Q2. In Q1 Tesla reported 15 million non-GAAP and 11.2 million GAAP net profit.

    And right, it is before and SG&A because we were discussing if Tesla was profitable on building cars. Which they are. R&D is an expense towards future cars.

    The discussion here is if Tesla makes a profit on making the cars without zev credits. Lets not get off topic, if you want to discuss other things. Start a separate topic for it.

  • Sevo||

    "And right, it is before and SG&A because we were discussing if Tesla was profitable on building cars. Which they are. R&D is an expense towards future cars."

    Why, yes! Look over there!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I'm not confusing a damn thing. TSLA got to "earn" $10.5MM for early payback of the DOE loan. Cute trick that. That means TSLA was "profitable" to the tune of about $500k.

    Did you bother to follow the links? Do you understand what FCF is? Do you understand the difference between gross profits (as in we can't count this yet) and net profit (as in, "Look, Ma, real money!")? Do you understand that R&D and SG&A are operating expenses?

    "In accounting, gross profit or sales profit is the difference between revenue and the cost of making a product or providing a service, before deducting overhead, payroll, taxation, and interest payments. Note that this is different from operating profit (earnings before interest and taxes)."

    So exactly who do you not want to pay to turn your gross profit into operating profit? Exactly what depreciation do you not want to take so that you can make yourself feel good while your machinery wears out resulting in your inability to continue to build cars? And then you wake up to the fact that operating profit still isn't net profit!!

    Just because you don't understand an income statement hardly means that we're getting off topic here.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "That said, I never exactly stated I was for or against the tax credit. To me it doesn't matter much one way or the other."

    Because you are a complacent statist or a mooch.

  • Sevo||

    "Because you are a complacent statist or a mooch."

    Weapon is in the Tesla marketing dept or the agency. Weapon would not dare take a position on that issue if s/he can avoid it.
    Weapon caught the "tesla" subject on a web search and as part of the web marketing team, it's his/her job to spread the spin at every opportunity. It's a pretty good bet that Weapon has no idea what libertarianism is, outside of office chat; this was among his/her jobs this afternoon.
    We'll see if there are any 'after hours' comments.

  • Weapon||

    Sevo, is this the part where I claim you work for the oil industry?

    I have no affiliation with Tesla other then me planning to buy a Model S next year. That is about it. You don't have to believe me, you can even imagine I am Elon Musk if it helps you sleep better at night.

  • Sevo||

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 9:47PM|#
    ..."I have no affiliation with Tesla other then me planning to buy a Model S next year. That is about it."

    No that's not 'about it'. If you don't work for Tesla, you have obviously spent months of study to make sure you have lies lined up for every objection.
    Tell us about those 'loads of superchargers' again. Or how a Tesla sitting still somehow uses no energy.
    Sigh...

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    OK, let's try this. Since you claim that Tesla's are so dreamy and the tax credit is irrelevant, then give them up. Don't take the credit on your tax return and decline all rebates and other incentives. I mean, the car's worth it, right?

    You wanna waste your money? Go right ahead. But fuck you if you take mine in the process.

  • Weapon||

    ZEV credits are not tax credits.

  • Sevo||

    You are correct; they allow other companies to sell profitable cars.

  • Grendal||

    You mean car companies that make their cars and parts overseas and in foreign countries to create a lower cost? Have you seen Detroit recently? Ford and GM don't have to buy the ZEV credits from Tesla so you are fighting for foreign owned companies.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Making components overseas somehow makes a company foreign owned? Not a very intelligent prog, are you? Regardless it's irrelevant who owns the companies. Would you always buy American regardless of the cost or quality? I wouldn't. Not many progs would either. How many are driving their little Priuses and Hondas to their local union support rallies? Lots.

    If Ford and GM want to sell cars in CA then yes they do have to buy the credits from TSLA or they are forced to build cars that the market still doesn't want. Why the hell is it the government's business what kind of vehicle I want to buy with my money? I bet you don't want the government telling you what you can do with your private parts. How is that any different? Libertarianism 101.

  • Grendal||

    I never said that Ford and GM are foreign owned, maybe you should learn to read. They outsource a lot of their parts to foreign manufacture.

    I get it. You don't care about American interests, just yours. Everyone around you can go f*ck themselves as far as you are concerned.

    It seems to be in the governments interest that you MUST buy from a dealership. As for Tesla, the market says they are making a car that almost everyone who can afford one wants. They can't make the cars fast enough.

  • Jordan||

    Not all govt money spent is a bad thing especially in this case as it's helping an industry change.

    Then they ought to be able to convince people to give them money voluntarily instead of holding a gun to their heads.

  • Raston Bot||

    in this case as it's helping an industry change. It's the resistance to that change and the free market that is the problem

    Seems to me the loan rewards a poor performer. The industry has already changed, just not in the way vested interests would have preferred. That was obvious with the bailout of GM and Chrysler. Now the bailout of Tesla.

    Imagine how unnecessary all this talk would be if we didn't have franchise protection laws and other market distortions.

  • Weapon||

    GM and Chrysler were bailed out. Tesla was not bailed out.

    Tesla and Ford did receive ATVM loans but no bailouts. Though Tesla did pay back the loan 9 years in advanced with interest.

  • Sevo||

    "Tesla was not bailed out."

    Right:
    "Along with the federal loan, Tesla also relies on support from politicians through a complex series of federal and state subsidies. For each purchase of a new Tesla acquired for personal use, the federal government offers a $7,500 federal tax credit. In addition, various states offer additional income-tax credits, including $6,000 in Colorado and $7,500 in West Virginia."
    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/.....favoritism

    Tesla is not a car company. Tesla is a company trading in government rent products.

  • Weapon||

    Tesla cars, like all companies making electric cars are subsidized by the government. Yes. BUT, that is not the same thing as being "bailed out".

  • Sevo||

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 3:19PM|#
    "Tesla cars, like all companies making electric cars are subsidized by the government. Yes. BUT, that is not the same thing as being "bailed out"."

    No, it's 'bailed in'. You sophistry is showing.

  • Weapon||

    "bailed in" is not really a term. And it has nothing to do with being sophisticated, your talking about completely different meanings.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    So, then the existence of electric cars themselves are being bailed out.

  • Weapon||

    Not really, no. That doesn't even make sense.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Sure it does. Without rent-seeking 'credits', fewer electric cars would exist.

  • Weapon||

    While fewer electric cars would exist, that still does not mean the same as "bailed out".

  • Sevo||

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 4:15PM|#
    "While fewer electric cars would exist, that still does not mean the same as "bailed out"."

    No body cares about your sophomoric claims.
    The company would not exist without money taken from me and others at gunpoint.

  • Weapon||

    Sevo, when was the money taken from you at gun point? We can both go to the police and report the incident. What was the model of the gun? At what time and place?

  • Sevo||

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 6:20PM|#
    "Sevo, when was the money taken from you at gun point?"

    How do they collect taxes from you?

  • Weapon||

    Tesla does not collect taxes from me. So the answer is they don't.

  • Sevo||

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 7:45PM|#
    "Tesla does not collect taxes from me. So the answer is they don't."

    Yes, it does. Tesla uses the coercion of government to steal my money. At gun point.

  • Will Nonya||

    weapon, all tax money is taken by threat of force. Usually that force takes the form of a gun. SO any taxes that weren't an intentional over payment qualify for servo's claim.

  • Will Nonya||

    Servo, certainly the government uses force to take money but just because Tesla is willing to accept it doesn't mean they stole it. If anyone stole the money it would have been the politicians or bureaucrats who approved the redistribution of wealth From others to Tesla in the first place.

  • Sevo||

    OK, so Tesla trades in stolen property?

  • Weapon||

    I am aware, but that is what I wanted him to say. Because he is blowing something simple completely out of proportions. As evident in his reply to you below, he now thinks Tesla is trading stolen property, sigh.

  • Sevo||

    "Because he is blowing something simple completely out of proportions."

    Yes, taxes are very simple: Pay them of die.

  • FYTW||

    Not all govt money spent is a bad thing especially in this case as it's helping an industry change.

    If the industry's customers want the industry to change, they will spend their own goddamn money to facilitate it, and investors will take note of that and invest, without any need for Sugar Daddy Government stepping in with an offer of a "loan" of taxpayer money, looted from the productive by force.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Not all govt money spent is a bad thing especially in this case as it's helping an industry change. It's the resistance to that change and the free market that is the problem not the credit or incentive to try something new.

    Fuck off.

  • Loki||

    Imagine, for instance, if states insisted that bloggers and advertisers who want to reach the public could do so only through newspaper websites, in order to preserve local jobs and the fact-checking process.

    Don't give them any ideas...

  • cschappert@gmail.com||

    QUOTE - “Zero-emissions” is a grievous misnomer, since electric
    vehicles need charging, and all power plants produce emissions. In fact, electric vehicles in regions where coal makes up a large share of the generation capacity are more carbon-intensive than high-mpg cars with internal combustion engines.
    REALLY? - This side-bar pseudo-argument initially aims at downplaying the lower emissions associated with EVs, then concludes in comparing a complete worst-case fuel cycle with a best-case partial fuel cycle; even then the jury is out; SOURCES (it's a thing people use when talking about facts): http://www.afdc.energy.gov/veh.....sions.php, http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/559.pdf

  • JWatts||

    No, "Zero Emissions" is still marketing hype for the gullible. You might be transferring your emissions elsewhere, but you still have them.

  • John Galt||

    But, it makes them feel so derpy good inside!

  • thorsmjollnir||

    So Mother Jones likes to brag when a corporation turns a profit specifically because that profit is based on taxpayer money, but bitches and moans when a corporation turns a profit without taking a direct government handout?

  • thorsmjollnir||

    I wonder if the horse and buggy industry was bitching about jobs being lost when the automobile was introduced?

  • Bean Counter||

    Hell yes!!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Let's say you're a progressive tech guy who lives in Palo Alto and decides to go hang out at the house in Tahoe for a day or two, and you have a Tesla and a Porsche in the garage. You absolutely positively have to be in the office at 7:30 Monday morning. Which one do you take?

    Which one do you take in February?

  • Rasilio||

    Since the Porsche is finicky and tempermental and the Tesla probably hasn't got the range I'm gonna go rent a Lexus on Sunday

  • Sevo||

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 3:05PM|#
    "Considering the distance of 228 miles, if the house has a charger, the Tesla. If not, rent a car."

    If you own a Tesla, you'll be getting Christmas cards from the car rental agency.
    I'll be happy to watch you stuck in traffic in Sacto while you watch your charge meter sag to 'where in hell is the next (government-supplied) charge station'.
    "EPA rates range of 300-mile Tesla Model S at 265 miles"
    http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-1.....65-miles/#!

  • Weapon||

    You do know that electric cars are not like gasoline cars right? They do not suffer from depleted range when stuck in traffic. They actually do better in slow speeds. That is how people got 425 miles range on their Model S.

    Also, California is loaded with superchargers.

    A 228 mile trip on christmas is easy enough on a Tesla Model S in california.

  • Sevo||

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 3:25PM|#
    "You do know that electric cars are not like gasoline cars right? They do not suffer from depleted range when stuck in traffic."

    BS.
    If you're stopped and anything (like, oh the AC in summer, the heater, the wipers, the radio, etc) is running, you are depleting your range.
    You've got quite a bundle of spin to hand out, don't you?

  • Weapon||

    Right, but these things are not related to the cars motion. That is accessories. Gasoline cars waste gas standing still or moving slow. That is why gasoline cars tend to have worse city mpg than highway. Electric cars do not suffer from those issues.

    Of course if your using AC or a Heater your going to be using energy. That is obvious. It doesn't appear out of nowhere. But it won't prevent you from making the trip.

    Plus your talking about California where EVs can access the toll roads and carpool lanes.

  • Sevo||

    So you lie.

  • Weapon||

    Pretty sure the statement I made is still factually accurate.

  • Sevo||

    Pretty sure you're making a career of lying:
    "They do not suffer from depleted range when stuck in traffic."

  • Weapon||

    The question here is concerning which car you would take in California during winter time. With an average temperature of around 59 degrees during winter.

    At those temperatures AC would be silly and heating is not really necessary. At best you would preheat the cabin before leaving and just use seat warmers.

  • Sevo||

    So a Tesla might get to Tahoe if the temp stays at 59*.
    That's a hell of a selling point.

  • Weapon||

    I am not the one who made up that scenario. Someone else did and I answered it based on the question at hand.

  • Sevo||

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 9:52PM|#
    "I am not the one who made up that scenario. Someone else did and I answered it based on the question at hand."

    Yes, you are the done who lied in reply. Are you so stupid to presume no one notices that?

  • Sevo||

    Oh, and you lie.

  • Will Nonya||

    Electric cars sitting in traffic using accessories still waste the same energy it uses for the drive train. It may waste it more efficiently than a gasoline engine but it is still being used depleting the vehicles range.

  • Sevo||

    "Also, California is loaded with superchargers."

    A Supercharger! Where you can get a 150-mile charge in 1/2-hour (according to Tesla)! That's right, bring a book!
    And you'd better hope they are subsidized:
    "Tesla’s Supercharger’s specs are yet to be revealed, but by the numbers it is apparent the system is delivering a massive 90kWh charge which is likely 440V DC at around 200A. An hour of charging at that rate is 70% of the power that my home uses in an entire month."
    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.c.....-stations/
    At CA utility rates, that's a couple of $Cs for 150 miles.

    And "loaded"?
    Folks, Tesla is doing it's level best to make sure you can't find the real number behind promises of 'tripling (some unknown number)'. I'm beginning to think Weapon may Chief of Obfuscation.
    Anyhow, 9/13/13:
    "First, the 21 Supercharger stations he cites are the total number now operational throughout the U.S."
    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.c.....-stations/

  • Sevo||

    Rasilio,
    Porsches haven't been 'finicky' since the last of the air-cooled cars.
    And my other comment was meant to go elsewhere.

  • Weapon||

    Considering the distance of 228 miles, if the house has a charger, the Tesla. If not, rent a car.

    Though to be honest, waking up at 3am and driving isn't very pleasant. So the best option would be to drive there sunday on the Tesla, use a supercharger on the way so you have plenty of time and range.

  • Sevo||

    Sorry, this is in reply to the Tesla PR dept.
    Sevo|9.30.13 @ 3:12PM|#

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 3:05PM|#
    "Considering the distance of 228 miles, if the house has a charger, the Tesla. If not, rent a car."

    If you own a Tesla, you'll be getting Christmas cards from the car rental agency.
    I'll be happy to watch you stuck in traffic in Sacto while you watch your charge meter sag to 'where in hell is the next (government-supplied) charge station'.
    "EPA rates range of 300-mile Tesla Model S at 265 miles"
    http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-1.....65-miles/#!

  • Grendal||

    Tesla is building their Supercharger network. The government is busy giving money to the oil companies to build "Hydrogen" stations.

    http://articles.latimes.com/20.....s-20130613

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Not that I support hydrogen stations in the least but it's funny how you missed the link at the bottom of the page:

    http://www.latimes.com/busines.....7114.story

    And there's no subsidy for electric charging stations.

  • Grendal||

    Tesla is paying for their own Supercharger network. California subsidizing their own different charging stations that aren't as good for other electric cars is their choice.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Unless that Porsche is a four wheel drive rally-based car, that's a retarded selection of vehicles to rely on.

  • timbo||

    Can we stop calling America a capitalist country already. We have not seen free market capitalism in a century.
    It is not good for any chance of resurrecting healthy free markets by referring to anything that happens in this country as capitalistic.

  • John Galt||

    They call our system "capitalistic," when it's anything but.

    Like they we are a "democracy," when in reality we were intended to be a constitutional republic.

    Wouldn't come as much of a surprise to learn that 99 percent of American politics is 100 percent lies.

  • Will Nonya||

    They can be lies. That would be illegal, unless of course it was for you own good and then they would only do it grudgingly

  • nina.Malik||

    my best friend's sister-in-law makes $74 hourly on the computer. She has been laid off for 5 months but last month her pay was $14134 just working on the computer for a few hours. have a peek at this website....

    http://www.Works23.Com

  • Jhall118||

    It's amazing to me that Tesla supporters show up here en masse, to correct the mistakes of others. If the author and some commenter's didn't bother to do research before, why would they do it now.

    Makes me glad I own plenty of shares of the stock (bought them when it was clear Obama was going to win the election). Luckily, the ignorance of many has made me 100k off a 20k investment. Thank you so much!

    The fact that people still don't get it will make me a lot more.

    By the way, what you really have an issue with is the Government. The loan was a program started by Bush. There isn't a single auto manufacturer that hasn't benefited from government subsidies (and Tesla easily has benefited the least).

    The 7,500 tax DEDUCTION, let's you owe less in taxes, similar to charitable deductions. Grrr the evil.

    The carbon credits are just a very bad program to try and get people to pay for the cost of warming the planet. We should have a real carbon tax, accounting for the manufacturing of electric cars, but unfortunately that isn't supported by the government.

  • Weapon||

    Actually, the 7.5k is not a tax deduction. It is a non-refundable tax credit. A deduction lowers your tax bracket, a non-refundable tax credit lowers the amount of taxes owed. But you won't receive a rebate on it. Which means say I own 50k in taxes, I would now own 42.5k in taxes. But if I owe 2k in taxes, I would now owe 0 in taxes but the government won't send me a check for the difference. (The tax credit is also not deferrable)

    Also, while Tesla does benefit from some carbon credits (Off the top of my head I think ~17 million, but not 100% sure on the number). Most of the credits are ZEV credits. Contrary to what the media says, ZEV credits are NOT carbon credits.

    ZEV credits do not govern CO2 emissions or any GHG emissions. They govern toxic emissions such as ground level ozone, NOx, and CO.

  • Sevo||

    Weapon|9.30.13 @ 5:11PM|#
    ..."Contrary to what the media says, ZEV credits are NOT carbon credits."...

    'It can be read as a tax'
    This guy is good, but not as good as the bullshit artists who write womens' cosmetic ads.

  • Weapon||

    ZEV credits are not a tax. And sorry I don't read womens' cosmetic ads, but I'll take your word for it.

  • Grendal||

    Tesla receives exactly $0.00 from the government for their ZEV credits.

  • Sevo||

    Grendal|10.1.13 @ 12:25AM|#
    "Tesla receives exactly $0.00 from the government for their ZEV credits."

    Tesla receives the government thugs to 'help' them sell the ZEV credits.

  • Grendal||

    You are sad and naïve, Sevo. You should spend some more time learning things for yourself than parroting others talking points. Keep your eye on the ball.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I tell Vinny to break your arm and he does. I didn't break your arm by your logic but I still got what I wanted. Just like ZEV credits.

  • Grendal||

    So California has no right to prevent a business from dumping their crud into the environment? The ZEV mandate is saying that California recognizes that emissions are damaging and automakers need to start cleaning up their cars.

    Pollution costs you in taxes. I know that is difficult for you to understand, but it doesn't make untrue.

  • Sevo||

    "The carbon credits are just a very bad program to try and get people to pay for the cost of warming the planet. We should have a real carbon tax, accounting for the manufacturing of electric cars, but unfortunately that isn't supported by the government."

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • John Galt||

    Your fabulism is derpalicious!

  • JWatts||

    It's amazing to me that Tesla supporters show up here en masse, to correct the mistakes of others. If the author and some commenter's didn't bother to do research before, why would they do it now.

    The Tesla supporters have been pretty wrong and extremely pedantic.

    By the way, what you really have an issue with is the Government.

    Umm, yeah we don't like when the Government forcibly takes money from us and gives it to billionaires so they can build "cool" car companies. What was your point again?

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Making money off of the ignorance of Obama and Bush is like robbing Christopher Reeve. It is very easy.

  • Will Nonya||

    "The carbon credits are just a very bad program to try and get people to pay for the cost of warming the planet. We should have a real carbon tax, accounting for the manufacturing of electric cars, but unfortunately that isn't supported by the government."

    yes, what we need is another tax...why not make it one the politicians get room to play with like counting carbon.

    What's next, are we going to start taxing anything that produces heat? After all the heat produced by over 6 billion people simply being alive exceeds the changes in heat retention potentially caused by carbon buildup.

    If it becomes too expensive just to love, or to own dogs, chickens or what have you then eventually there will be less of those heat producers around. You'll have saved the planet from a terrible crisis and the standard of living of the survivors will be higher since they still have fossil fuels.

    surely that makes as much sense as a carbon tax...

  • bassjoe||

    The most revolutionary thing Tesla is doing is its direct sales program (seriously, by the time Tesla is selling $30K electric cars, every other major manufacturer will be, too; selling a $70K+ luxury car is hardly revolutionary).

    The car dealership system is absolutely horrible and makes zero sense in today's world. I had no idea of the "robust" legal foundation to this system; laws that may have been meant to actually facilitate commerce back before the Internet but are horribly inefficient today (and, for some odd reason, may also be criminal violations... why?).

    If Tesla's enduring legacy is destroying the dealership system, that will be the biggest long-term boon to automobile consumers in decades.

  • Will Nonya||

    If Tesla sells cars directly and has a show room doesn't that require local jobs?

    Several years ago Ford bought all of the deal ships in the area where I live, it was an experiment in this model. They failed and eventually sold the dealerships back to franchisees. The only real losers in that deal though were the original franchise holders.

    Still, this is the type of union inspired protectionist thinking which just drives me crazy.

  • Agoraphobic||

    - “Zero-emissions” is a grievous misnomer, since electric vehicles need charging, and all power plants produce emissions. -

    I call them "remote-emissions vehicles."

  • Sevo||

    OK, here's the long and short of it:
    1) Tesla should not exist and does so only on coerced funds. Musk took a possibly workable model and turned it into nothing other than a government 'business'.
    2) The car stinks. EVs are a wonderful solution to things like city delivery vehicles or taxis; vehicles that travel short distances and can be charged without distress to someone wanting to get somewhere by some time.
    3) EVs are in no way 'environmentally friendly'; figure in the energy pollution and then add the pollution from battery mfg'g *and* disposal. They are HORRIBLE.
    4) Who sells that crap to whom is totally irrelevant.

  • Grendal||

    1. You made that up.
    2. People are buying the car faster than they can make them. So buyers completely disagree with you. Oh. And so does every car reviewer. So that is just your opinion. Since you've never driven the car, it is an uninformed opinion.
    3. Let's see. You pull oil out of the ground in Saudi Arabia, transport it to a ship that travels across the sea, drop it off in Houston to be refined into gasoline, transport it to a gas station where it is finally pumped into your car and that is for just one fill up. You're deluded and a propaganda puppet.
    4. A dealership is a middleman that gets a chunk of the money for selling you the car and repairing it as it breaks down.

  • Sevo||

    Grendal|10.1.13 @ 12:36AM|#
    "1. You made that up."
    You're an idiot of a liar.

    "2. People are buying the car faster than they can make them. So buyers completely disagree with you. Oh. And so does every car reviewer. So that is just your opinion. Since you've never driven the car, it is an uninformed opinion."

    "3. Let's see. You pull oil out of the ground in Saudi Arabia, transport it to a ship that travels across the sea, drop it off in Houston to be refined into gasoline, transport it to a gas station where it is finally pumped into your car and that is for just one fill up. You're deluded and a propaganda puppet."
    Uh, most of the US oil now comes from the US or Canada, you ignorant asshole.

    "4. A dealership is a middleman that gets a chunk of the money for selling you the car and repairing it as it breaks down."
    And the sky is blue.
    Fuck off.
    Stupid people do stupid things, and other stupid people brag about it. So?

  • Grendal||

    1. You are a coward that hasn't achieved anything so you need to put down those that have so you can feel better about yourself. Go do something.

    2. Couldn't disagree with the truth eh?

    3. Canada is owned by the USA now? Oil companies are 100% US owned? So you're just buying the drugs from a different supplier. The Middle East is still making their money from oil and they still hate America. So just because we're not buying all their oil they aren't interested in attacking us? Look in the mirror, ignorant one. Get a larger view of the world than your radio and TV.

    4. You must work at a dealership. Some stupid people have to be the puppet of what they listen to and watch and parrot those talking points with no knowledge of the subject. It's cowardly and ignorant. Maybe spend a little time researching things yourself.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    3. You didn't even address his point. Where did he claim Canada was owned by the US? How is that even relevant to his point. And aside from the very dirty tailing from rare earth mining and refinement look at my earlier post on efficiency and carbon emissions of gas powered cars vs. coal powered (still a large fraction of US electrical production) electric vehicles. You also somehow seem to think that transporting oil in supertankers and pipelines is somehow grossly inefficient. Umm, try again. The amount of energy expended transporting crude oil around the world is a tiny fraction of the energy content of the crude itself. The same is true for pipelines. If it weren't then it wouldn't be economical to transport crude at all.

    4. TSLA is a middleman that skims tax money and coerced payments from me and other automakers, respectively. Your point?

  • Grendal||

    You didn't follow the whole thread.

    3. Sevo tried to say that oil isn't being imported and then said we get the oil from Canada! That's imported oil. That's not American interest. That's American money LEAVING the country. That's a deficit.

    4. Sorry, but MY tax dollars goes to support gas and diesel cars and to give privileges to dealerships. They are not unsupported. They also have lobbyists that coerce politicians into creating laws to give themselves advantages in the marketplace. Your point? As an American, I should be able to choose how to buy a car yet there are laws in place to protect dealerships? That's capitalism?

  • galedodgson||

    my friend's step-sister makes $83 hourly on the computer. She has been without a job for 5 months but last month her pay was $21487 just working on the computer for a few hours. blog here

    http://www.Works23.com

  • Grendal||

    As a fiscal conservative, I find this article very misleading.

    First off, Tesla is the only car company in the United States that doesn't owe the Federal government any money. Ford received $5.9 billion from the same loan program that Tesla received its loan from and most of that is still owed. Tesla paid back the loan, in full with interest, over six months ago.

    The ATVM loan program was created by G. W. Bush's administration to help promote American automobile interests. It seems to have succeeded when it comes to Tesla.

    And how about the (also created by the Bush administration) tax credit? I thought as a conservative that I don't want to give more of my tax money to the government to waste? When did giving the government more of my hard earned money become something that we are fighting for? If I buy one of these cars then I get to keep $7500 of my money and NOT give it to the government. That's a huge win in my book.

    I don't understand this article. This is an American company making an American product that is the best in the entire world. People in other countries are buying this car which means that this is income coming INTO the country. The car has more American parts in it than any other car manufactured.

    This car can also help to get us off foreign oil. Remember 9-11? That was funded by foreign oil money. This car is powered by 100% American energy.

  • Sevo||

    You maybe a fiscal conservative, but you're also an idiot.
    Tesla would not exist without government money.

  • Grendal||

    You're here arguing about Tesla when there are much bigger companies sucking at the government tit and you have the audacity to call me an idiot. Look in the mirror. Why are you fighting against this company when there is Lockheed, McDonnell-Douglas, and Boeing getting billions from the government. You are so short sighted and tunnel-visioned it's quite sad and pathetic. You need to focus on your beliefs more and fight against the true companies that are pulling money from your pocket.

  • Grendal||

    You didn't comment on Ford's $5.9 Billion. That's 12 times more than Tesla ever got and they still owe the money to the government. Why aren't you 12 times more angry about that? Tesla paid their loan back, so they don't owe us anything. Has Ford paid their loan back? Shouldn't you be more concerned about that? Or are you a cowardly puppet whose strings are being pulled to respond as you have done. Ignore the $5.9 billion pulled from your pocket so you can be angry about the company that paid their loan back. I think your priorities are completely screwed up there, Sevo. You're fighting a phantom that was put in front of you to distract you from the true government waste. And who is the idiot?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Argh, you truly are clueless. No one is arguing that the loan made to Ford is a waste. What you fail to grasp is that Ford is and would be profitable without it. Repeat after me, TSLA is not profitable without government handouts. Let's try that one more time: TSLA is not profitable without government handouts. And the reality is that even with them it has only had a single profitable quarter so far and has been FCF negative every quarter of its existence.

  • Grendal||

    Argh, you had an opinion before you read the post. Ford was given the loan to prevent them from filing for bankruptcy like GM. Ford would be out of business and be a footnote without that government loan. That would leave the US without any automobile companies if you had your way. Repeat after me: There is NO American car companies that would be in business without government support. So you are picking and choosing which company you prefer and railing against that. That makes you a hypocrite or clueless. Learn the history before you assume you understand the answers. Tesla was not expected to be profitable. The ZEV credits allowed them to be profitable. So what? It takes a lot of time to make a car company profitable. That's why the stock went crazy, because they were very smart businessmen that by using the rules created unexpected profit early. It made no difference on the product that they created. It is still considered one of the best cars in the world - for their second car. Tesla is building a car company from scratch. The other manufacturers have had 100 years to make their business work successfully. And in 2008 they were all bailed out by the government. Happily, Ford got a loan and is very slowly paying it back.

  • microsrfr||

    I would like to remind the author that the entire Japanese and South Korean auto and electronic industries were created with massive government subsidies. Currently Japan, who is trying to catch up with the Volt, is offering $13,200 rebates for its electric cars sold in Japan.

  • Sevo||

    microsrfr|10.1.13 @ 10:05AM|#
    "I would like to remind the author that the entire Japanese and South Korean auto and electronic industries were created with massive government subsidies."

    I would like to remind YOU that the USSR collapsed in 1989.
    If government planning were all that hot, well, things would be different wouldn't they?
    Oh, and fuck off, slaver.

  • Christophe||

    The difference is that when Japanese/Koreans are taxed to subsidize their car industry, car buyers (including us) benefit and the relevant (foreign) taxpayers lose. When we subsidize our car manufacturers, it's the other way around.

    Just because other countries are dumb enough to donate their tax dollars to us doesn't mean we need to return the favor.

  • Grendal||

    Yeah. The author tries to get everyone, like ignorant puppet servo, riled up about "subsidies" that aren't subsidies at all. The government isn't spending any tax money but they can get these idiots to knee jerk respond by calling it that so they can get them against it. This company is receiving NO government money. Not one cent of our tax money is being spent but you can see these people standing and shouting for it to end just because they've been told to do so. Meanwhile, real tax money is being tossed away elsewhere while these buffoons are being distracted by this. How about this:

    http://www.popsci.com/technolo.....nfographic

    That's $84 Billion (with a B) spent on a fighter that we still don't have in our arsenal.

    Please spend a little time thinking for yourself...

  • Christophe||

    The Tesla hate here relates to three statist policies it benefits from:

    - Social engineering through tax credits
    - Wealth transfer between car manufacturers based on what's politically fashionable (ZEV)
    - Politically motivated favorable credit conditions on taxpayer funded loans

    These are all bad, for any libertarian worthy of the name. The fact that there are worse things isn't relevant. There are always worse uses of government power, but being okay with small abuses is exactly how they end up growing.

  • Grendal||

    Christophe. I appreciate you commenting in a reasonable fashion.

    - social engineering.

    In a sense this is correct. With the internal combustion engine you have a 100+ year old entrenched industry that, while incredibly important to modern society, has enormous amount of finances and inertia to maintain the status quo. Historically we have seen where this has gotten us. Widespread pollution, health issues, multiple wars, and economic problems are very obvious results of our need for oil and gas. We as taxpayers pay for all of that. That will continue into the future as well. I have no hatred of oil and gas because it has given us the modern world that I live in. It will create a much stronger position in the world for America if can reduce our need on this commodity that strangles us. So it is in the governments (Americas) interest to promote alternatives. In the long run it will save lives and money.

    -Wealth transfer

    Not really.
    California has the right to tell manufacturers that their gas cars are damaging the environment and that it costs the state to counteract that damage. The state is simply saying to adjust or stop selling here. They allowed them an out of purchasing credits so they don't have to leave if they so desire. Some do.

    Part 1 response...

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    What damage? You mean the CAGW that has stopped? Why the hell does the state get a say in private transactions? You're a conservative? Based on what? You seem to believe in propping up industries. You're fine with the state interfering in the marketplace to restrict consumer choice. The only thing you seem to be upset about is the consumption of oil and military spending. Last time I looked that qualified you to vote in any Team Blue Caucus, although the latter gets you a partial pass as a Libertarian.

  • Grendal||

    You don't think that Texas or Louisiana was affected by the BP oil leak? You don't think that cost the taxpayers of those states any money? You don't think there are plenty of businesses in California that do the same? I can remember driving into Los Angeles and seeing a brown smog haze above that city. You think that has absolutely no effect on health and the environment, like the water you drink? I'm sure you would be perfectly happy to allow businesses to do whatever they want because they have your best interests in mind. The movie "Erin Brokovich" and "The China Syndrome" come to mind as examples of the care that business has for their consumers. It comes out of your pocket one way or another. When PG & E paid out the claim from Hinkley, do you think they raised their rates to cover that cost? If you say no, then you are an idiot.

  • Grendal||

    Part 2 response...

    - Federal Loans

    The ATVM loan program was created by the Bush administration to prevent Ford from going under like GM. They were willing to give over $20 billion to Ford to prevent just that. Ford took $5.9 billion and is still paying it back. Politically they made it open to everyone so they didn't look like it was a Ford bailout. Tesla was one of 3 others that took advantage of Ford's loan program and they took the smallest amount of all of them and has already paid it back. Yes it was politics, but it was not for Tesla.

    We live in a big world and America must now compete on a global scale. A lot of other countries are willing to subsidize their industry in the hopes of breaking our country's industry when it is playing by the rules. Solar panels are an excellent example of this. I don't have a problem with our country trying to better position our industry in the global market as long as they aren't tossing a large percentage of their bet in the toilet.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And that makes you a complete statist. If other countries want to throw away their money on subsidize unprofitable industries be our guest. Solar is a joke. Wind is a joke. Even China is starting to feel the pinch of their complete misallocation of capital in solar.

  • Grendal||

    Solar energy is predicted to be the #1 energy producer worldwide in less than 20 years. Right now, China is the #1 producer of solar panels because they undercut every other producer in the world. Better do some more research.

  • hollanderpetr||

    my co-worker's step-mother makes $63 every hour on the laptop. She has been without a job for 7 months but last month her pay check was $13317 just working on the laptop for a few hours. visit

    http://www.Works23.com

  • Christophe||

    Government poisons everything it touches.
    I want to be a rabid fanboy for Elon Musk. I want to be able to cheer the guy for succeeding where others have failed. I think Tesla's are awesomely engineered cars, and, for my needs (I have a very short commute) they're perfect, if expensive.
    I don't want what is essentially a tech-lust driven purchase to be tainted with the theft and wealth transfer aspects of these policies. Fuck.
    Government has made it impossible to separate the two.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Not just government but Musk as well. He was perfectly willing to accept the subsidies.

  • Grendal||

    And so is every other business. You think there are noble and selfless businesses? Even supposedly conservative politicians immediately hold their hand out for any pork that is being handed out. Why? Because if it creates more jobs or generates money then they can get re-elected.

  • Neil1236||

    Tesla didn't make the rules or ask for handouts. All manufacturers receive the same handouts for EVs, many got handouts for other reasons (except Ford).

    Tesla's handouts are small compared to Exxon's. In 2010 Big Oil got $10 billion in handouts. Handouts are rife in a lot of industries. It's the environment, not Tesla.

    Tesla paid-off all their debt to Uncle Sam after their 2nd public offering in the summer of 2013.

    If 80% of taxes are paid by 20% of the taxpayers, then the $7500 credit is mostly paid for by the rich. So the real issue big government, and crony capitalism. Government is now the ultimate crony.

    Furthermore, if Tesla believes that demand is strong (and surely they must), then it'd be logical for them to add the $7,500 to the real price $62,500 price, which means the buyer got no discount - he paid $63,500 for a car worth $63,500.

    Tesla's "Model S" run expected to be 20,000 units. Thre's 150 million workers, so the cost is $1 per worker. The real risk is misallocainge resources from their optimum uses. All subsidies to all industries should be ended.

    The grid is getting cleaner. Electric cars can be charged by a solar panels or a wind turbines.

    Find a way to create an affordable EV with good range, and you'll have consumers beating a path to your door. Quotas distort market prices and/or quantities which misallocate scarce resources to the wrong products.

  • jolieena||

    my classmate's step-sister makes $84/h hourly on the internet. She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $20791 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site.. Bay89.com

  • OBD2 Scanner||

    2013V Multi-Di@g Access J2534 Pass-Thru OBD2 Device
    http://www.obd2works.com/2013v.....-1889.html
    Now Price: $274.89

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement