bob13579
bob13579 on Hacker News
Balanced Payments only allows transfers to customers with Wells Fargo accounts, right? Does Stripe allow transfers to all banks?
Can you give me an actual link that explains what you're specifically talking about?
Fisker and Solyndra and several others couldn't pay back their loans. The government didn't arrest any of them and didn't take any of their personal assets. The debt was simply discharged.
Who determines what needs funding? A lobby of People Who Know Things?
If you wanted to curb carbon emissions, there are many more efficient ways to do so.
This is just funny. Which car manufacturers on that $7,500 federal tax subsidy electric car list get $500M loans to build out their electric cars?
"What many of them did instead was to go bankrupt and ask for bailouts."
This is quite astonishing. A few large American car companies with large pension liabilities needed the subsidies (I would have let them failed and let more efficient car manufacturers take over their assets, personally). Every other large manufacturer didn't need subsidies.
"Furthermore, the incumbents had plenty of chance to innovate."
The combustible engine is more efficient than ever. We're getting many more miles per a gallon of gas than we ever had. The efficiency of the engine has done much, much, much more than electric vehicles to curb carbon emissions. Going forward, making the combustible engine and hybrids more efficient will do magnitudes more to curb carbon emissions than all-electric vehicles.
How do you explain the $7,500 subsidy for each Tesla sold?
Also, the government would have gifted them the money regardless of their ability to pay it back. Fisker couldn't pay back theirs, as did many other energy companies that went bankrupt. No one was arrested and no personal assets were taken.
"But to your point, yes it is okay to give them half a billion. I don't see why government should not have supported them."
I find it quite outrageous that we're enriching well-connected billionaires and millionaires, but what do I know?
"And as time has shown it was a right"
Not really. Taxpayers are still on the hook for $7,500 for each Tesla sold.
The federal tax credit of $7,500, plus any state subsidies, for each Tesla sold doesn't ring a bell to you?
"they know what they're doing, and they're not picking winners and losers, they're playing the same game every investor plays: trying to decide who is going to win or lose before it happens."
The government should be in the venture capitalist business funding companies based on the recommendations of the board of People Who Know Things, now?
"As for dealerships, the reason Tesla doesn't have to go through them is because they don't have any preexisting agreements with the dealerships."
Other smaller car manufacturers are having to go through dealerships, even with zero pre-existing relationships. Why should Tesla, which has a market cap that far exceeds those aforementioned manufacturers, get special rules?
So any startup that competes in the pharmaceutical sector or biotechnology industry should be given hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded loans?
No, if you study the automotive industry, you'll see that those car manufacturers have been trying to get around those dealers by building their own dealerships (which are quickly shut) or selling their cars online (which again are prevented). They're not lobbying for dealerships in countries where you can sell cars directly to the consumer. Take Brazil or Germany for instance.
Because we're subsidizing inefficient actors already, that makes it okay to subsidize other actors? Why subsidize any of the inefficiency at all? Tesla is certainly not curbing carbon emissions. More efficient combustible engines however are doing that, despite the lack of subsidies.
The critical component, by far, is the battery. If you find ways to build a better battery, electric cars are a practical reality. Academia is perfect for battery research.
Umm, no. Taxpayers are still subsidizing $7,500 per Tesla sold.
It's okay to give them half a billion dollars in loans because others got billions? Why not be outraged at everyone involved? The industry is colossally inefficient.
So the government is now a venture capitalist or investment bank and should be encouraged to pick winners and losers now?
It's quite funny that these Tesla Roadsters are being bought by rich Americans, and being subsidized by average Americans, and yet there seems to be no outrage from those purportedly upset about inequality. The average American isn't benefiting by enriching billionaires and millionaires with their $100,000 roadsters.
"Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, or smaller ones like Think, BYD, Tango, or Venturi"
"smaller" was in reference to Honda, Toyota, BMW, and Mercedes. You can substitute Bright Automotive if you wish.
How exactly did Tesla earn an "A" up to that point? Every small electric car manufacturer was losing money left and right. Two smaller startups got the loan (Tesla and Fisker) to survive, while the others didn't (Bright Automotive, etc.). The ones that didn't get the loans went out of business. The one that got the other $500 million loan went out of business (Fisker). Only Tesla survived by having one tiny profitable quarter (which was a low single digit profitable quarter where they sold 3000 cars to rich people).
This is a different argument altogether. The original argument was about Tesla playing on an unfair playing field, which is demonstrably false. Other car manufacturers have to go through the same dealer network. Why should Tesla be allowed to sell directly when other car manufacturers can't?
Manufacturers would love to sell directly. They're doing it in Europe and aren't trying to enact protectionist dealership laws to protect their interests from upstart competitors. Dealers are notorious for bad service, and you can't shut underperforming ones without large buyout fees.
Any of those dealers would love to sell Tesla cars, especially the higher-end ones that sell BMWs, Mercedes, Porsches, and Lexuses. Nothing is stopping Tesla from partnering with dealers to do so. Small Chinese car manufacturers don't get special treatment. Why should Tesla get them?
I know the dealership laws are awful, but IMO we should be focusing on changing those laws instead of giving special treatment to particular companies.
Did Toyota or Honda or BMW, when they initially entered US markets, get special laws? Or did common laws apply to them?
Exactly. I agree with you that car manufacturers should be able to sell directly. I'd love to buy a BMW directly instead of dealing with a dealership. The laws prevent BMW and other car manufacturers from doing so. The laws need to be changed, but until that happens, IMO everyone should be following the same rules.
1) The large corporate interests don't own that infrastructure. The actual owners can choose whoever they want to represent.
2) What's stopping Tesla from partnering with Toyota dealers?
3) With its $10B valuation, Tesla could build 10 very nice dealerships for 1% of its valuation.
Tesla currently has a market cap over $10B. That is larger than Fiat's.
At a $10B valuation, Tesla is worth about 1000 times the average car dealership in Texas.
Yes, I agree that the law is a shoddy law but that shouldn't allow Tesla to sell directly. Would small car manufacturers get special rules too?
Laws are laws. Either change the law or enforce it. That's fair. Not cronyism.