I like my Tesla model 3 and I have a Rivian R1T deposit out.

Nice cars. But I think he may be Earnst Stavro Blofeld in reality. We will see.

Enjoying the discussion of Elon's Great Adventures as posted above.

Whatever the real truth may be of the man himself, the willing investor of private funds must be overcome with the lure of financial pheromonal rush, or massive incompetance of their own, to continue making such decisions on a business model operating at the 36 of 40 quarters loss.

And whoever in .gov that continues funding projects, must ultimately be facing some kind of impetus that leans heavily in the Tesla technology direction, regardless of profitability.

Not to belabor the Bezos accomplishments as measurable to the SpaceX performance, he has at least found a profitable way to run his business in a manner that has literally restructured operations of many previously profitable businesses. That suggests the 'Bezos product' is something other than 'what you put in the box' but the ability to put that box/contents ordered on the doorstep (or INSIDE!) virtually any structure on the planet.

In ways that new model of each of these guys have similar insights not previously marketed in such a manner.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

Nothing to say on the Musk issue, but I must point out that it’s unfair to equate those paying to/drawing from Social Security, an involuntary arrangement, with businesses voluntarily seeking government subsidies. In fact, the difference is even more so when you consider that the business hasn’t contributed towards the handout, constant dollars or not.

Sure, but they are both gov't run and even while involuntary, people have no problem taking them and crying too high heaven if cuts are ever proposed, regardless if they are well into the 'free' category.

And I'm sure the company pays federal taxes, so they 'contribute' to both subsidies in a way as well.

Who here couldn't spend $13,000,000,000 and Not turn a profit?

Musk - a good marketeer and charlatan. Knows how to 'work the financial system', and may or may not end up in club fed. I think he is a blowhard. Tesla is a loss - sure interesting car, but the other automakers are about to eat his lunch. Audi ran E cars in LeMans with great success - so it's just a matter of time before the release their Tesla killer (minus US protection barriers; Free Trade? ha ha ha).

Space X - big freaking deal with lots of gov money - same gov who paid for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo to US sub-contractors. And these sub cons had to 'invent' a lot, even with all already done by Dr, Goddard's early research and successes as well as Dr. Von Braun / Operation Paperclip.

Launching rockets is no longer true rocket science - Russia, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, France (Europe) have done so already before Space X and Musk.

As far as Bezos and Amazon. Until Bezos created Amazon Web Services, Amazon the on-line retailer was just ike Tesla - a financial loss. AWS is the money maker in Amazon by leaps and bounds and a reason for imminent Anti-Trust action (hence Bezos alignment with the Democrats and owning their mouthpiece the Washington Post to forstall such action with this cash cow).

Man I wish we could go back to ordering from months old catalogs instead of Amazon and paying assloads of money for a barely reusable Space Shuttle with no real mission.

Bezos and Musk have fucked it all up!

I don't like that tax payer money is accessed by private business without an equitable transfer of value. I understand there can be a benefit overall, but there is more likely to be corruption overall. Musk accessed tax payer funds to build a car either no one wanted or no one could really afford unless someone else helped pay for involuntarily. The principle is wrong. It is like Solyndra etc. This is business for politics sake. That is unsustainable and wasteful of taxpayer money which I think ultimately damages the economy. Is Musk worse than other who do it? No. I don't like the other parasites either.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I don't like that tax payer money is accessed by private business without an equitable transfer of value. I understand there can be a benefit overall, but there is more likely to be corruption overall. Musk accessed tax payer funds to build a car either no one wanted or no one could really afford unless someone else helped pay for involuntarily. The principle is wrong. It is like Solyndra etc. This is business for politics sake. That is unsustainable and wasteful of taxpayer money which I think ultimately damages the economy. Is Musk worse than other who do it? No. I don't like the other parasites either.

This is the bottom line in this thread.

^^^^or to paraphrase^^^
let free market economics work the way it is intended to work

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I don't like that tax payer money is accessed by private business without an equitable transfer of value. I understand there can be a benefit overall, but there is more likely to be corruption overall. Musk accessed tax payer funds to build a car either no one wanted or no one could really afford unless someone else helped pay for involuntarily. The principle is wrong. It is like Solyndra etc. This is business for politics sake. That is unsustainable and wasteful of taxpayer money which I think ultimately damages the economy. Is Musk worse than other who do it? No. I don't like the other parasites either.

Ding ding! If he had a viable product investors would pay. He doesn't so they don't.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I don't like that tax payer money is accessed by private business without an equitable transfer of value.

Well said. The proper way to do this is by giving a loan in exchange for shares which can be sold in the future once the enterprise is doing better. Anyone who says this cannot be done, or this is not the right way, has another agenda in mind.

Wow, this sure is one "How's his dick taste?" thread.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I don't like that tax payer money is accessed by private business without an equitable transfer of value. I understand there can be a benefit overall, but there is more likely to be corruption overall. Musk accessed tax payer funds to build a car either no one wanted or no one could really afford unless someone else helped pay for involuntarily. The principle is wrong. It is like Solyndra etc. This is business for politics sake. That is unsustainable and wasteful of taxpayer money which I think ultimately damages the economy. Is Musk worse than other who do it? No. I don't like the other parasites either.

Ding ding! If he had a viable product investors would pay. He doesn't so they don't.

The argument is that a switch to electric cars (which some believe is the future) requires infrastructure and investment that won’t happen without an external jumpstart.

My leftist brother thinks that the only reason internal combustion engines have such a huge power to cost advantage is because the social costs (Pareto equilibrium for Econ majors) aren’t included in the cost of the fuel. I’m not convinced that he has considered the social costs of mining for the electric car batteries or their disposal.

Me, even if electric cars are the future I’d be happier without the government picking winners along the way.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
Wow, this sure is one "How's his dick taste?" thread.

Funny the first thought that comes to your mind is giving someone a blow job.

Got some repressed urges maybe?

I'm not judging - if you swing that way, it's a free country and all...

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
Wow, this sure is one "How's his dick taste?" thread.

I was thinking pointy elbows....but okay.

quote:

Originally posted by deepocean:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I don't like that tax payer money is accessed by private business without an equitable transfer of value.

Well said. The proper way to do this is by giving a loan in exchange for shares which can be sold in the future once the enterprise is doing better. Anyone who says this cannot be done, or this is not the right way, has another agenda in mind.

If you would give a loan to Tesla and take their stock as collateral (or more commonly, do a convertible loan where you have the option of being paid back with interest or having your principal and accrued interest converted to shares at a price set as part of the loan agreement), you are a *much* bigger optimist than I am. Considering the company’s financial history and status, the odds that it will earn enough of a profit to pay off the loan seem vanishingly small. As far as the stock price appreciating further, given the lack of profitability, that would seem to depend on the greater fool theory. Certainly not impossible, but not something I’d like bet on, much less invest on.

YMMV

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I don't like that tax payer money is accessed by private business without an equitable transfer of value. I understand there can be a benefit overall, but there is more likely to be corruption overall. Musk accessed tax payer funds to build a car either no one wanted or no one could really afford unless someone else helped pay for involuntarily. The principle is wrong. It is like Solyndra etc. This is business for politics sake. That is unsustainable and wasteful of taxpayer money which I think ultimately damages the economy. Is Musk worse than other who do it? No. I don't like the other parasites either.

I for one am tired of these fat cats holding a gun to the head of uncle Sam and stealing these tax payer dollars.

Don't blame him for the gross incompetence of our shitty government.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I don't like that tax payer money is accessed by private business without an equitable transfer of value. I understand there can be a benefit overall, but there is more likely to be corruption overall. Musk accessed tax payer funds to build a car either no one wanted or no one could really afford unless someone else helped pay for involuntarily. The principle is wrong. It is like Solyndra etc. This is business for politics sake. That is unsustainable and wasteful of taxpayer money which I think ultimately damages the economy. Is Musk worse than other who do it? No. I don't like the other parasites either.

Ding ding! If he had a viable product investors would pay. He doesn't so they don't.

The argument is that a switch to electric cars (which some believe is the future) requires infrastructure and investment that won’t happen without an external jumpstart.

My leftist brother thinks that the only reason internal combustion engines have such a huge power to cost advantage is because the social costs (Pareto equilibrium for Econ majors) aren’t included in the cost of the fuel. I’m not convinced that he has considered the social costs of mining for the electric car batteries or their disposal.

Me, even if electric cars are the future I’d be happier without the government picking winners along the way.

Perhaps, but we see in Tesla's case the argument is a failure......or at least swirling the drain. Solyndra was surely a failure if not fraud (corruption) altogether.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
[If you would give a loan to Tesla and take their stock as collateral (or more commonly, do a convertible loan where you have the option of being paid back with interest or having your principal and accrued interest converted to shares at a price set as part of the loan agreement), you are a *much* bigger optimist than I am. Considering the company’s financial history and status, the odds that it will earn enough of a profit to pay off the loan seem vanishingly small. As far as the stock price appreciating further, given the lack of profitability, that would seem to depend on the greater fool theory. Certainly not impossible, but not something I’d like bet on, much less invest on.

YMMV

I meant as opposed to an outright gift, as I believe was done with a host of companies during the last downturn. My point being there is nothing wrong with the tax payers getting a return on their investment. A gift is essentially dead money, whereas an investment would be returned and made available to do more good in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
The argument is that a switch to electric cars (which some believe is the future) requires infrastructure and investment that won’t happen without an external jumpstart.

My leftist brother thinks that the only reason internal combustion engines have such a huge power to cost advantage is because the social costs (Pareto equilibrium for Econ majors) aren’t included in the cost of the fuel. I’m not convinced that he has considered the social costs of mining for the electric car batteries or their disposal.

Me, even if electric cars are the future I’d be happier without the government picking winners along the way.

Perhaps, but we see in Tesla's case the argument is a failure......or at least swirling the drain. Solyndra was surely a failure if not fraud (corruption) altogether.

If Tesla had not started making electric cars, do you think so many car makers would have jumped on the bandwagon? The folks arguing for government control of the economy would argue that getting electric cars out and in use was the goal and their investment accomplished that sooner than it would have happened otherwise.

Again, I’d rather the government did a lot less picking of winners and losers and trying to control consumer behavior, but nobody asked me.