NYT - Only the Rich Can Afford It. Should Taxpayers Back It?

graham · 11-28-2008, 11:22 PM

Fairly negative article about Tesla applying for part of the $25 billion dollar loan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/bu...digi.html?_r=1

Quote:

The program is intended to encourage automakers to improve fuel efficiency, but should it be used for a purpose like this, as the 2008 Bailout of Very, Very High-Net-Worth Individuals Who Invested in Tesla Motors Act? Can you conceive any way that federal dollars could be put at greater risk — and for no equity in return, keep in mind — to benefit fewer people?

Tesla Motors, a privately held company based in San Carlos, Calif., has spent almost all of the $145 million in capital it has raised to date. It says it will soon receive another round of $40 million from its private investors to sustain operations.

Cobos · 11-29-2008, 07:10 AM

Not to mention a fairly weird article as well. Why does he spend about half his article based on Moores law which clearly has nothing to do with anything related to Tesla, Roadster or Model S?
To quote "The seductive appearance, however, obscures some inconvenient truths: its all-electric technology remains woefully immature and don’t-even-ask expensive." Immature ? You mean so immature you can make a viable business out of selling it? Expensive? He must imply cheap like a high-end porsche or low end Ferrari, or wait...

He also makes a point that giving Tesla a small piece of the pie when they apparently can make a complete car for less than $140 mill is a worse decision than giving GM a lot more. Especially considering that they CAN'T make a viable electric car for $1000 mill, according to GM. I suppose if you are splitting the cost of 8 private jets for your executives out over all budgets then a new car must cost $1000 mill.

And it goes on: "Tesla pitches all-electric cars as the greenest form of personal transportation, eliminating vehicle emissions and helping to wean the United States from its dependence on foreign oil. The cars reduce air pollution indirectly, to whatever degree the power generation on the grid uses energy sources other than coal. And for households that install their own power-generating solar panels, electric cars can rightfully claim to attain truly zero emissions today."

He makes a big point out of the long tailpipe argument, which is not really valid as we know. But he mentions independence of foreign oil and fails to mention that again when he goes on his long tailpipe argument.

He mentions the BMW E-mini which is a good showcase for how far ahead Tesla is technically compared to BMW. They are making cars which are less capable than the Roadster, barely has more space and considering the $850/month lease cost probably cost at least as much as the Roadster.

And the article goes on and on...

I wish people writing technical articles would actually have a technical clue. I don't ask my Materials Science professor from university about good business decisions, so why should I assume a business professor should have enough technical insight to see the difference between an E-REV and a EV?

Cobos

graham · 11-29-2008, 07:48 AM

I love the irony of a headline deriding Tesla for only making cars for the rich and then later pointing out that the money is to produce a less expensive sedan.

The article contains 10,000 facts, but the author goes out of its way to weave them together with a negative conclusion against logic. I wonder if he was inspired by Daniel Lyons?

stopcrazypp · 11-30-2008, 05:35 PM

Calacanis takes this article apart piece by piece. I think he did a good job.
Jason McCabe Calacanis: On Bailouts and Sports Cars

This NYT editorial is starting to spread and more people are referring to the loan as a "bailout" for Tesla. Don't know who started it, but it's a bad trend not to mention incorrect. I wonder if Tesla will do an official press statement to clarify (I know they did the blog piece but that's a little different).
Will Detroit run out of road? | GreenTech Pastures | ZDNet.com

TEG · 11-30-2008, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stopcrazypp

Will Detroit run out of road? | GreenTech Pastures | ZDNet.com

...from the article...

Quote:

The Bush Administration expects the Detroit automakers to reduce “labor, management, and legacy costs; debt structure; dealer network costs; capacity utilization; fuel efficiency standards, and plans for new and existing products.”

Um, well, I hope the plan is to increase fuel efficiency standards...

dpeilow · 12-01-2008, 02:20 AM

Calacanis Rips NY Times’ Stross Over Tesla Editorial

NYT scribe: No bailout for Tesla-buying 'centimillionaires' - The Register

The Tesla Roadster: “Only the Rich Can Afford It. Should Taxpayers Back It?”

graham · 12-01-2008, 08:33 AM

At least it looks like some of the articles on the NYT story are a bit skeptical of it. But I fear this story will get a lot of coverage... more than the Newsweek one.

I suddenly remembered this morning why Randall Stross name was familiar. He wrote that awful Steve Jobs bio in the '90s, where he spent 1/4 of the book describing Sun Microsystems (where Steve didn't work) and then tying it back to him saying Steve's business was bad because it wasn't more like Sun.

dpeilow · 12-01-2008, 09:46 AM

Look's like you are right already...

Should the US taxpayer support green cars for rich people? - Short Sharp Science - New Scientist

graham · 12-01-2008, 10:42 AM

And with CNET, where they cover the spectrum:

Somewhat balanced, where they quote both Stross as well as Diarmuid O'Connell: Eyes turn to auto start-ups' funding, aid requests | Green Tech - CNET News

As well as (In the Calacanis article words) "Kill the rich": Ta ta, Tesla | Green Tech - CNET News

graham · 12-01-2008, 12:06 PM

And of course, The Truth About Cars weigh in on both Stross and Calacanis:

Tesla Death Watch 39: Li-Ion Rules! Or, Well, You Know… | The Truth About Cars