For those that like to battle FUD, there's tons in the article and the subsequent comments section. I've already put my $.2 in.
Tesla and Its Subsidies | National Review Online
Tesla and Its Subsidies | National Review Online
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I was riding along in his car happily, minus the hyperbole, until he hit the government loan discussion. The warrant cancellation argument is absurd. The terms of the loan were such that Tesla was able to avoid paying the warrants. The government provided a loan, the company prospered, the government got its principal and some interest back, and a job creator was launched. This is a net win for everyone.
And it goes down an absurd populist path from there about rich hobbyists with the Model S as their 3rd or 4th car. Tax subsidies to attract job creators (the Gigafactory) are par for the course. The author can lament that fact in general but it's hardly reasonable to call out Tesla alone.
And it goes down an absurd populist path from there about rich hobbyists with the Model S as their 3rd or 4th car. Tax subsidies to attract job creators (the Gigafactory) are par for the course. The author can lament that fact in general but it's hardly reasonable to call out Tesla alone.
Don't know what's harder to read, the article or the incendiary comments. We are a refuge from the madness......
The fact is that GM Volt also benefits from thee $7500 tax credit that has been in place since 2007. Congress, in its "Wisdom", created Cap-and-Trade as part of environmental bill. The rationale is that green companies will benefit by selling its zero emission credits and "dirty" industries will buy them to balance out their carbon foot print. IMHO it is more about creating a secondary market for banks to profit by participating in trading "emission credits" in the market place.
Does ZEV credits favor Tesla -- YES. Are they restricted to Tesla -- NO. Elon has challenged, encouraged and demanded that other manufactures make the switch to zero emission vehicles to help the Earth. None are stepping up to the challenge. Nor any true contenders are on the horizon to take full advantage of the ZEV and tax credits which Tesla benefits.
Since Tesla captures part of its sales at the detriment of Audi, Mercedes, BMW and GM, maybe these will step up electric vehicle production. The playing field is level....others just need to get on the field.
Does ZEV credits favor Tesla -- YES. Are they restricted to Tesla -- NO. Elon has challenged, encouraged and demanded that other manufactures make the switch to zero emission vehicles to help the Earth. None are stepping up to the challenge. Nor any true contenders are on the horizon to take full advantage of the ZEV and tax credits which Tesla benefits.
Since Tesla captures part of its sales at the detriment of Audi, Mercedes, BMW and GM, maybe these will step up electric vehicle production. The playing field is level....others just need to get on the field.
You're ascribing too much wisdom to Congress. The only thing Congress did was to give California the right to impose stricter environmental standards on cars sold there. It's California that created the ZEV credit program and imposed a carbon tax. About 1/4 of the U.S. population lives in a state with a reciprocal ZEV program.
While the NR author has valid points, he's cherry-picking. Sure, Tesla has benefited from certain federal and state programs, but so has every other U.S. automaker. Sure, Tesla got incentives to locate in Nevada, but BMW got incentives from South Carolina, etc. etc. The fossil fuel industry receives generous subsidies (often in the form of tax relief or below-market royalty fees) that lower the cost of driving an ICE vehicle. The ZEV program can be viewed as a sideways mechanism for imposing a carbon tax, which is long overdue.
Bottom line: the author hasn't shown that Tesla is unduly benefited by government programs. Moreover, the author seems to believe that any business benefiting from government programs should be ridiculed. Mr. Kerpen, may I introduce you to the farm lobby, and the oil & gas lobby, and mining lobby, and ....
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
The rich hobbyists 3rd and 4th car bit really hit me. I'm sure there are some people in that position but the perception I have from a lot of people around here is that their Tesla is often the primary vehicle in the household and often they only have 1-2 cars. In my particular case we had 4 vehicles before the Tesla, got rid of 3 of them (1 was directly replaced with the Tesla and the other 2 should have been sold long before that). There's been some serious consideration of just having the Tesla and being down to a single vehicle. So I just have hard time seeing this as a fair representation of most Tesla owners.
rolosrevenge
Dr. EVS
tonybelding
Active Member
Wow... I haven't even made it to the comments yet, and I've got a feeling I might be better off just not looking at them.
I wouldn't write one myself, since I wouldn't know where to start or where to end. I could go on for pages about everything wrong with that article.
There are perhaps one or two points I would agree with. I think the tax break for buying an EV served its purpose to jump-start the industry, and that is mission accomplished, and it probably can and should go away now. However, that particular subsidy was created prior to Tesla, and the money doesn't go to Tesla. They benefit from it only indirectly.
The loan... It's true that Tesla paid off the loan early to get out from under the strings attached to it. I don't see anything wrong with that, especially since he *neglected* to mention that they paid a penalty for doing so!
Nevada... I'm sure Nevada gave Tesla a sweet deal, but I'm also sure they went into with their eyes open. They knew what they were giving away, and they knew what they'd be getting back. They were looking at the bottom line. That's not a subsidy, that's just business.
ZEV credits? Well, here we can get into some political philosophy. I think the ZEV credit scheme is way better than having a ZEV mandate with no credit swapping, where every carmaker has to make ZEVs or die, and there's no flexibility. Of course I'm sure the author of that article simply froths with righteous indignation at the thought of the mandate existing at all -- and probably shakes an angry fist at the Clean Air Act and CAFE standards too.
The underlying thread of indignation here is a rejection of the whole concept of industrial policy. The idea of a government using subsidies and regulations to support industrial development and technological progress just really chaps this guy's hide. He'd much prefer a laissez-faire system where US car makers do exactly as they please and wallow in stagnation. Meanwhile, the Japanese and Chinese and Germans would forge ahead building the automobiles and auto industry of the future. But at least we'd be pure and right-thinking, unlike those dirty socialists!
I wouldn't write one myself, since I wouldn't know where to start or where to end. I could go on for pages about everything wrong with that article.
There are perhaps one or two points I would agree with. I think the tax break for buying an EV served its purpose to jump-start the industry, and that is mission accomplished, and it probably can and should go away now. However, that particular subsidy was created prior to Tesla, and the money doesn't go to Tesla. They benefit from it only indirectly.
The loan... It's true that Tesla paid off the loan early to get out from under the strings attached to it. I don't see anything wrong with that, especially since he *neglected* to mention that they paid a penalty for doing so!
Nevada... I'm sure Nevada gave Tesla a sweet deal, but I'm also sure they went into with their eyes open. They knew what they were giving away, and they knew what they'd be getting back. They were looking at the bottom line. That's not a subsidy, that's just business.
ZEV credits? Well, here we can get into some political philosophy. I think the ZEV credit scheme is way better than having a ZEV mandate with no credit swapping, where every carmaker has to make ZEVs or die, and there's no flexibility. Of course I'm sure the author of that article simply froths with righteous indignation at the thought of the mandate existing at all -- and probably shakes an angry fist at the Clean Air Act and CAFE standards too.
The underlying thread of indignation here is a rejection of the whole concept of industrial policy. The idea of a government using subsidies and regulations to support industrial development and technological progress just really chaps this guy's hide. He'd much prefer a laissez-faire system where US car makers do exactly as they please and wallow in stagnation. Meanwhile, the Japanese and Chinese and Germans would forge ahead building the automobiles and auto industry of the future. But at least we'd be pure and right-thinking, unlike those dirty socialists!
There are small truths in the article but the spin was so outrageous that any real truth is completely lost. The writer clearly has an agenda and it is not a true Conservative agenda as he is trying to spin it.
I had about 50 comments correcting both the article and the misinformation laced in comments.
Some commenter looked up the writer's history and he has worked for oil, GM, and Dealerships in his past. I didn't confirm that so take that with a grain of salt.
I had about 50 comments correcting both the article and the misinformation laced in comments.
Some commenter looked up the writer's history and he has worked for oil, GM, and Dealerships in his past. I didn't confirm that so take that with a grain of salt.
It is a conservative right wing outfit and the author is the President of another Republican FUD machine, American Commitment. So what do you expect. He is playing to his gallery.
[oh, I used forbidden words conservative, right-wing and Republican - so this post has crossed all boundaries of what is allowed in this forum, and so has a good chance of getting moved to the snippy section; never mind everything what i said is 100% true]
[oh, I used forbidden words conservative, right-wing and Republican - so this post has crossed all boundaries of what is allowed in this forum, and so has a good chance of getting moved to the snippy section; never mind everything what i said is 100% true]
Last edited by a moderator:
TES-E
Member
Hmmmm...comments where not as bad as I expected - guess I am getting jaded....at the end of the day, I am reminded of one of my favorite sayings: success is the best revenge.
RVC
Member
And so is mine. Has been since 3/20/2014 delivery. And yes, proud of it, too!At this point, my Tesla IS my only car!!! (And proud of it, too!)
Have you looked at their homepage? Its just right wing trash, why even dignify it by linking it?
Actually it is not. It is a hit piece couched in political rhetoric. A true conservative should be all for Tesla and what they have achieved. It is only the nutty fringe, which the Left has as well, that is trying to be riled up. Most people reading the article don't understand the implications or have any reference other than the quick talking points. That is why I was taking the effort to point out the larger picture to them. There were at least three commenters with an open mind enough to see the misinformation for what it was when given the perspective. No thinking person likes to be manipulated. That article is just pure propaganda with an agenda.
You claim this without even a SINGLE example of this happening, as if there is a distinction between what I said in general and the latter part of your statement. It's emblematic of the same disconnect with reality that the article and its writers have - and that disconnect is required to support that flawed ideology because it's completely irrational. I mean you're basically arguing No True Scotsman.
Similar threads
