[panick21_]

> requested and applied for $886 million grant from the FCC

Because FCC asked private companies to put in bids. So companies responded.

Its not that SpaceX just went to the FCC and asked for money.

> It is a matter of fact that Tesla and SpaceX have received billions of dollars of government contracts, highly preferential loans, grants, subsidies, and tax incentives.

These things have to be analyzed more systematically and in comparison to their industry.

Tesla received a lone for Model S production, both Ford and GM also received loans. Tesla paid it back, Ford and GM have not yet done so.

Tesla received intensive for factories, so do all large industrial facilities.

ZEV credits are a universal mechanism, not given preference to any automaker.

Same for EV Tax Credit, applies to all car maker.

Tesla, I would argue has received very little in direct subsidy. The loan guarantee was small (400M and paid back quickly).

A drop in the bucket compared to GM. Even foreign companies got access to EV tax credit.

I could do the same for SpaceX.

Yes, Musk companies receive government help. But so do all companies in these industry. Having a space company without close ties to government simply isn't happening right now. It would be more viable for Tesla, but the US government has been mucking around in the care industry for 100 years and their international competitors do so to.

The misinformation is that government picked winners and that Musk companies are successful because of these subsidies. That the success of Tesla and SpaceX are because of subsidies. These myths are often repeated.

[bmitc]

You're sliding around the issue, because the point is not about SpaceX and Tesla relative to their industries, which is debatable on its own. The point is that the CEO of both of these companies has mislabeled a news agency because he doesn't like them but claims he accurately has done so merely by having single-digit percentages of their total budget, or less depending on how you count from the federal, state, or local sources, from government sources. This is despite his own companies taking in billions of government support in different forms. That is the point. It's beyond hypocrisy, not to mention intentionally misleading and leaning into extreme propaganda.

> These things have to be analyzed more systematically and in comparison to their industry.

So, as mentioned, no they don't. This particular issue is completely independent of comparisons to other car and space companies.

If you really wanted to start comparing things, you need to start looking at other news agencies, the people who control those agencies, and how many tax breaks and kickbacks (a form of indirect and implicit government support) from the politicians they bankroll via donations.

[colordrops]

The issue according to you is that musk is a hypocrite. But until you show evidence that musk's companies have requested and received significant grants and subsidies specifically for them, then your claim is just FUD.

You are drafting on this narrative that musk's companies are extravagant government leeches, when the truth is that they've gone the opposite direction, taking much less money from the government, avoiding cost plus contracts, and charging significantly less than competitors for services.

[bmitc]

I gave you a direct quote from their own SEC filing. You can find it.

You're asking me to prove the sky is blue, and I'm saying to just go outside.

> You are drafting on this narrative that musk's companies are extravagant government leeches

No, I didn't say that.

[colordrops]

I saw your quote. It doesn't say how much, or the terms of the government help. Is it billions? Or was it much less? And did Tesla have to pay it back?

You are being disingenuous here - to claim that detailing the grants and subsidies that the companies took and determining whether the sky is blue are the same category is bad faith, sorry. I'm actually personally familiar with SpaceX's finances to a degree and am not aware of any significant grants or subsidies. I'm not just just challenging you to be contrarian, I'm asking for evidence.

And I didn't say you said that, I said you are drafting off of the narrative, the same way a bike rider drafts off the rider in front of them.

[panick21_]

I wasn't really reacting to anything about NPR. I don't even know really what that is. I was just pointing out looking at these things in isolation is not very information.

> If you really wanted to start comparing things, you need to start looking at other news agencies

Sounds like a good idea.

[bmitc]

> I wasn't really reacting to anything about NPR. I don't even know really what that is. I was just pointing out looking at these things in isolation is not very information.

That's fine, but the NPR thing was basically the entire impetus of this comment train, so that particular commentary wasn't relevant.