Somehow Boeing getting billions is not sexy enough to discuss on the internet, unless we can fit in “Musk” in the headline in some way.

I don't think it's the case that discussing X means people are afraid to discuss Y. No cover up, bias, or suspicion needed to explain why that's not mentioned explicitly every time other companies are subsidized. :)

I didn’t say anything about people being afraid to discuss anything. But a search on this site for discussion on subsidies to other companies than Tesla would probably get much less results.

I mean we need safe reliable planes more than we need teslas cars.

Boeing hasn't repeatedly shat on subsidies and said they're self-made while pocketing massive government benefits.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to want a subsidy abolished and also use it while it exists. Presumably they want it abolished for everyone not just themselves.

If you compare these subsidies with the total revenues and profits of Tesla over the last 15 years, you should reach an interesting conclusion.

I looked it up and $2.8B is just 3 weeks of the company's revenue. Or two months of their gross profit. Or 3 months of their net income. Remarkable.

This may be due to most of the company CEO's receiving these subsidies don't make a regular point of speaking out against government subsidies. It's not necessarily the subsidy that attracts criticism, it's the hypocrisy.

When has a Musk? Do you have an example?

Is this a genuine question?

I just made a very quick search and it is extremely easy to find.

Since the other comments just say it's easy to find (very much true), I'll give you this link. Here he says the government should end subsidies. There's plenty more, I promise.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/6/22821532/elon-musk-biden-...

The thing is, if the government ended all subsidies it would be a much more level playing field for electric competitors to petroleum and Tesla wouldn't have to go hunting for its own subsidies.

That said the article is interesting because to my eyes he's pursuing the same "pull the ladder up" mentality that all the big players do:

> Musk also said he doesn’t believe the US government should be giving out subsidies to expand charging infrastructure

Of course he'd say that (so says my suspicious brain). In 2021 Tesla had a good lock on charging infra. Subsidizing it makes it easier for competitors to get in on it.

Not sure what it means, but in 2023 Tesla's charging standard is becoming closer to "the standard."[1]

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/more-a...

Really it's because most CEOS don't make a point of speaking out at all.

If Musk was a standard CEO with a PR team handling all messaging, the country would still love him.

It's not hypocrisy to believe no one should have subsidies including oneself. It just means you want a level playing field, not a distorted one. And taking a subsidy when you don't believe in them, is reasonable too, because you don't really have other options.

It's not hypocritical to believe something, but it is hypocritical to act in a way contrary to the belief you are espousing.

A usable definition of hypocrisy is "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform".

In this case, a belief that car companies should not be subsidized by government while simultaneously accepting subsidies from government. The act (accepting subsidies) does not match the stated belief (shouldn't accept subsidies).

To take it a step further, he could be less hypocritical if he changed his stance to along the lines of "there shouldn't be EV subsidies unless the company needs them to stay in business", but to my knowledge that is not his position.

Giving a handout is not the same thing as taking one, so it's really not hypocritical to take a handout while believing the handout should not exist.

For example, someone could be opposed to student loan debt forgiveness in principle, but that same person would probably not rip up their check.

In both cases it depends on how the belief is formed and expressed.

To build upon your examples:

Case 1 Belief: "I don't believe student loan debts should be forgiven." Action: Accepts student loan forgiveness. Outcome: Hypocritical. Action directly conflicts with the belief, ergo the belief is not truly held.

Case 2 Belief 1: "I don't believe student loan debts should be forgiven for everyone." Belief 2: "I believe I fall in the category of people who should have student loans forgiven." Action: Accepts student loan forgiveness. Outcome: Not inherently hypocritical, provided Belief 2 is expressed alongside Belief 1. Not disclosing belief 2 makes the behavior hypocritical, as to an observer only belief 1 is held.

To link this back to the example of Musk, if he expressed his belief as "I don't believe most firms need subsidies, but the ones to my firm are warranted for reason Y" that would help avoid hypocrisy. To my limited knowledge, that is not the approach he takes.

I don't think that case 1 is hypocritical, because forgiving and being forgiven are two different things/beliefs/actions. Therefore, no conflict.

Agreed. Case 1 is not hypocritical. Hypocritical would be forgiving loans while believe they should not be forgiven.

Accepting a forgiven loan is a different action - you don't believe the other person should have done it, but they did, your acceptance of that is a different matter.

Try rephrasing it into the negative: I don't believe anyone should pay sales tax. Is it hypocritical to pay sales tax when you buy something? No, it's not.

At some point this is banging-head-against-wall grade stuff, so I'll probably stop here. You're in the right area on the sales tax example, but it suffers from the same belief construction and expression issues.

Let's play your example out in a conversation:

1: "I don't believe anyone should pay sales tax!"

2: "But you (someone who is anyone) do pay sales tax, are you a hypocrite?"

1: "Of course not. I have to, it's the law."

2: "So you believe nobody should have to pay sales tax, but they must when legally required?"

1: "Yes."

2: "Oh good, that seems reasonable. I also hate taxes."

So to rephrase in terms of a subsidy, not accepting the subsidy is the same as giving the government charity.

Not giving charity while being opposed to subsidies is not hypocritical.

This is a bizarre hill to die on.

> It's not hypocritical to believe something, but it is hypocritical to act in a way contrary to the belief you are espousing

That's not what's happening.

Tesla is taking subsidies because they are available, it would be a poor decision not to. Tesla could take a stand and not accept subsidies but then those subsidies will fall to their competitors and they will lose.

It's like believing the presidency should be decided by the popular vote but not campaigning in California or thinking healthcare should be free but paying for insurance.

One is a belief about how things should be and the other is a reaction to how things are.

Publicly owned companies have a fiduciary duties to their shareholders to pursue all government programs for which they are eligible.

The company, its officers and directors could all be sued by shareholders in a massive class action lawsuit if they did not abide by their legal responsibilities based on personal beliefs.

This is just an urban legend.

Also, Elon Musk acquired solar city and then gutted it. Essentially wasting billions of Tesla shareholder dollars and he basically shrugged it off. What he did with solar city is very obviously illegal, yet the consequences have been quite insignificant. If you don't know what he did: he acquired solar city for 2.6 billion dollars to bail out his brother Kimbal Musk at the expense of public Tesla shareholders. That money literally went up in flames for nepotism. You could say that this subsidy money he took for Tesla has all gone into the solar city bailout.

The problem Tesla board and shareholders have with holding Elon accountable is the value of their shares is completely dependent on the belief that Elon the super genius will lead them to new products. Without Elon it's just just another car company and worth a fraction of what it is now.