People dislike that he's benefiting a lot, directly and indirectly, from government subsidies. I usually point out that oil&gas get a tremendously larger amount of subsidies, but some people counter that by saying Tesla is different because it wouldn't be feasible without the subsidies. I am not sure I see the logic in that, if anything it seems like an argument for it to have subsidies because it's creating value that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

Not just oil and gas, the auto industry and aerospace (i.e. his direct competitors) have received tons of subsidies and bailouts over the years. To expect Musk to get by without any subsidies would be to hold him to a higher standard than anyone else in his industry.

> I usually point out that oil&gas get a tremendously larger amount of subsidie

Oil and Gas do not get direct subsidies, they get to write off capital expenses. That's completely different.

You can downvote me all you want, but writing off capital expenses is available to every business and this is always included in the "oil and gas subsidies" number people tout, because it fits an agenda of corporate welfare for everyone else. Corporate welfare should be abolished. The Oil & Gas sector did get a bailout in the early 90s, and it shouldn't have. The auto industry also shouldn't have been reaped rewards from government bailouts.

All of the companies he's involved in receive government dollars, directly or indirectly through subsidies. Tesla, Space X, and SolarCity. That's 3 out of 3. Hence the moniker.

To be fair, all of those industries have had and will continue to have heavy government involvement. He didn't create the problem, although he seems to be attracted to industries which have those sorts of problems.

Only 3? What about Zip2 and PayPal?