[sethd]

I’m not sure if you realized it but you just further answered OPs question and validated my point at the same time.

GM did receive bailouts and I never even implied otherwise.

So you have existing automakers (GM) who were already in a weak position due to the 2008 crisis and used the bailouts merely to keep *current* operations afloat. I’m not saying it was right for them to be bailed out but that’s what happened. Importantly, it didn’t put them in position to spend a lot of money on EV development, it was life support.

On the other hand you have a startup (Tesla) who was running out of runway to fund their product development of EVs. In this case they could put 100% of the bailout towards EV development. That was just the start, the billions in government subsidies that followed allowed them to not only pay back that loan ultimately but got them to where they are today (a bit of securities fraud helped as well). This wasn’t just life support it was a lot of runway for a startup.

Hopefully the above makes it obvious that government subsidies are indeed the primary answer to why he was able to “walk into that area and do so much better than experienced traditional automakers” as without them Tesla wouldn’t even exist.

[ajross]

That's just not true. GM had lots and lots of R&D going on, and that bailout absolutely kept the lights on. This was expressly listed as one of the reasons the government needed to step in, so that the US wouldn't "fall behind", etc... You're imagining a distinction where none exists (e.g. by being hyperspecific about "assistance via DOE loan to keep product development on a consumer EV running" -- something GM didn't "technically" get, simply because it wasn't a product focus for them).

If you want to argue that Tesla required government assistance to bring EVs to market, that's fine. If you argue that they weren't recipients of exactly the same kind of assistance offered to other parties in the market, you're way, way off.