[dventimi]

The median price for a Tesla Model 3 in 2024 was ~$47k. The median price for a 4-door compact sedan in 2024 was ~$26k, or almost half as much. I'm sure some working-class people can afford a Tesla. None of these are hard and fast rules, and there are exceptions. But, which do you think is going to be more affordable to a typical working class person? The $47k car or the $26k car?

[satvikpendem]

No one said more affordable, the commenter above simply said affordable to which I rebutted.

[dventimi]

The commenter above that introduced the word affordable, that commenter was me, and I'm free to clarify what I meant, which I just did.

[satvikpendem]

Then perhaps you should clarify it in the beginning as to not have these exchanges on semantics. Anyway, of course a cheaper product is more affordable than a more expensive one, that's a vacuous, trivially true statement that does not add anything to the discussion being made in this thread.

[dventimi]

> Then perhaps you should clarify it in the beginning as to not have these exchanges on semantics

Well, nobody's perfect. After all, perhaps you could've been perceptive enough to understand that I meant that for a long time, and even now, Elon's cars have been premium products at the high end in their category, priced accordingly, and tend to be less affordable for working class people than the alternatives (and even out of reach for some of them), without getting wound around the axle on these "exchanges on semantics." And yet, here we are.

> Anyway, of course a cheaper product is more affordable than a more expensive one, that's a vacuous, trivially true statement that does not add anything to the discussion being made in this thread.

In my experience, it's the trivially true propositions that internet debaters most readily overlook.

[satvikpendem]

> In my experience, it's the trivially true propositions that internet debaters most readily overlook.

I could say the same if I had no real argument to provide too. I understood perfectly fine what you are saying about Teslas being premium products, but I don't see how it is relevant to the question at hand, because the person above said "Elon got rich by creating goods and services for other people," so saying that you personally don't know anyone who is middle class who could afford them is a non-sequitur; no one said anything about Teslas being affordable for middle class at all (even though they are now starting to be, whether there are more affordable options or not), as "goods and services for other people" does not specify anything about the types of people or their income levels; if he sold superyachts to only the rich, then he'd have also gotten rich himself.

If you'll then say something about how "he should make things more affordable for people," or "he shouldn't have gotten so rich selling rich things to rich people," well, I'm not sure what to tell you, that's shifting the goalposts at the very least, and it looks like you have an axe to grind against rich people in general. "[Billions of dolalrs] worth of productive capacity [are] being redirected away from other uses that benefit many people" is not how economics and value creation works, much as you believe so.

[dventimi]

> the person above said "Elon got rich by creating goods and services for other people,"

That's not all they said. They also said, "such as EV cars, or low-cost space launches. It's a wash. Oh wait, actually it isn't because every trade of goods and services is advantageous to both parties by definition."

What's the significance of "low-cost" for space launches? What do they mean by, "It's a wash." What do they mean by, "every trade of goods an services is advantageous to both parties."? Do they mean that low-cost space launches benefit all or most Americans, because we all benefit from satellites for weather and GPS? Maybe. Do they mean that with both space launches and EV cars, the benefits of Elon's activities to all or most Americans wash out any drawbacks of him being rich? Maybe. Do they mean that this balancing of benefits and drawbacks always occurs because it's built into free-market capitalism? Maybe. Those interpretations aren't ruled out so far. You can't be certain they aren't what they intended any more than I can be certain that they are. It certainly would be in keeping with a common line of argument, which is that wealthy people return as much or more to any economy as they extract from it. I don't know that this is this person's line of argument, but it could be, and if it is then it's not a non-sequitur to attack that line of argument by throwing into doubt the universality of the benefits of Elon's products.

> If you'll then say something about how "he should make things more affordable for people,"

Let me stop you right there. I practically never hand out recommendations for what people "should" do.