Should Tesla receive government help?(dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com)
dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com
Should Tesla receive government help?
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/should-taxpayers-pay-to-back-tesla-motors/
15 comments
Any federal money or loans that goes to Tesla should be through some sort of grant project where other automakers and manufacturers can compete for the money.
The only way direct bailout money should go to them is if they have any IP worth salvaging. Personally, I don't think an all-electric car is "the future" of the passenger car. Fuel cells, PHEV, natural gas, etc. all seem like better options, so I'd rather see federal money invested into these technologies.
The only way direct bailout money should go to them is if they have any IP worth salvaging. Personally, I don't think an all-electric car is "the future" of the passenger car. Fuel cells, PHEV, natural gas, etc. all seem like better options, so I'd rather see federal money invested into these technologies.
"Any federal money or loans that goes to Tesla should be through some sort of grant project where other automakers and manufacturers can compete for the money."
Some sort of grant project for clean energy? Some kind of grant project that has $25 billion to give away to worthy projects?
Almost entirely lost in the subsequent discussion was the fact that Section 136 of EISA created a $25 billion fund known as the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Incentive Program (ATVM). The ATVM specified that the Department of Energy (DOE) should provide loans, loan guarantees and grants to new and existing automakers and suppliers to encourage development and speed delivery of next-generation cars – vehicles that meet higher standards for fuel efficiency and stretch technology beyond the internal combustion engine. The program aimed to provide “grants and loans to eligible automobile makers and component suppliers for projects that re-equip, expand, and establish manufacturing facilities in the U.S. to produce light-duty vehicles and components that make meaningful improvements in fuel economy performance.”
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:iJGKVzIN1ikJ:www.courtho...
Some sort of grant project for clean energy? Some kind of grant project that has $25 billion to give away to worthy projects?
Almost entirely lost in the subsequent discussion was the fact that Section 136 of EISA created a $25 billion fund known as the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Incentive Program (ATVM). The ATVM specified that the Department of Energy (DOE) should provide loans, loan guarantees and grants to new and existing automakers and suppliers to encourage development and speed delivery of next-generation cars – vehicles that meet higher standards for fuel efficiency and stretch technology beyond the internal combustion engine. The program aimed to provide “grants and loans to eligible automobile makers and component suppliers for projects that re-equip, expand, and establish manufacturing facilities in the U.S. to produce light-duty vehicles and components that make meaningful improvements in fuel economy performance.”
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:iJGKVzIN1ikJ:www.courtho...
Right...
The debate is whether or not Tesla is more worthy of the money than another manufacturer. I'm not convinced they are.
The debate is whether or not Tesla is more worthy of the money than another manufacturer. I'm not convinced they are.
No.
No business should receive help from the government aside from a publically available grant. Bailouts violate the concept of a free market.
No business should receive help from the government aside from a publically available grant. Bailouts violate the concept of a free market.
No. Because they are not building consumer vehicles, but luxury cars.
If they will only ever build luxury cars, then no.
If they will work down into lower parts of the market as their tech gets less experimental and less expensive, then yes for sure.
If they will work down into lower parts of the market as their tech gets less experimental and less expensive, then yes for sure.
I like how Calacanis acts like the $400 million loan has no default risk. Tesla has blown through hundreds of millions already with no profit. What makes him think that this company will be able to continue to fund operations and research as well as pay back interest and principle on a $400 million loan.
All of his "consumer benefits" can be had in other technologies as well. It's not like Tesla is the be all and end all of all alternative powered vehicles. If GM and Toyota are able to put 40-50 mile range PHEV on the roads next year, Tesla becomes even more irrelevant to the average consumer.
All of his "consumer benefits" can be had in other technologies as well. It's not like Tesla is the be all and end all of all alternative powered vehicles. If GM and Toyota are able to put 40-50 mile range PHEV on the roads next year, Tesla becomes even more irrelevant to the average consumer.
What are you talking about no profit? Some of that was profit! People paid for the cars and are starting to receive them aren't they?
That's revenue.
They still have a sizable sum of money in the kid's college fund!!! Just enough to get him started!!!
----
People we are broke. I would suggest everyone accommodate themselves to the new fiscal realities coagulating around us. To continue to spend in the hopes that some future generation will pick up the bill is morally unconscionable. It is also contrary to our self interests by the way. As it is highly likely that the most damaging consequences of our financial mismanagement will develop in a more immediate time frame. That is, it is likely that you only THINK your kids will be the ones saddled with the consequences. In our current situation, it is far more probable that you will.
If a business enterprise requires government assistance to make it economically feasible then alarm bells should be going off in our heads with regard to the economic efficiency of that enterprise.