[ajkirwin]

No. Because they are not building consumer vehicles, but luxury cars.

[StrawberryFrog]

If they will only ever build luxury cars, then no.

If they will work down into lower parts of the market as their tech gets less experimental and less expensive, then yes for sure.

[swombat]

The work they're doing on luxury cars could easily be applied to consumer vehicles.

[omouse]

You're right because they work on battery technology too. They have to in order to make electric vehicles more appealing and they plan on selling their batteries to other automakers.

[dallasrpi]

http://calacanis.com/2008/12/01/on-bailouts-and-sports-car/

[ssharp]

I like how Calacanis acts like the $400 million loan has no default risk. Tesla has blown through hundreds of millions already with no profit. What makes him think that this company will be able to continue to fund operations and research as well as pay back interest and principle on a $400 million loan.

All of his "consumer benefits" can be had in other technologies as well. It's not like Tesla is the be all and end all of all alternative powered vehicles. If GM and Toyota are able to put 40-50 mile range PHEV on the roads next year, Tesla becomes even more irrelevant to the average consumer.

[omouse]

What are you talking about no profit? Some of that was profit! People paid for the cars and are starting to receive them aren't they?

[tom_rath]

People paid for the cars but, according to Mr. Musk's "it's all the preceding CEO's fault" shtick, they were each sold at a substantial loss.

Let me guess: They'll make it up on volume, right?

[ssharp]

If you do enough volume, your costs should shrink... The experience curve.

[ssharp]

That's revenue.