[scythe]

>So the government is now a venture capitalist or investment bank and should be encouraged to pick winners and losers now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employmen...

We've come a long way since the 1930s, haven't we? Yes, the government can do these things, and -gasp- it works, on a small scale, under certain conditions (economic depression).

The "$500m subsidy" to Tesla costs taxpayers zero after being repaid -- but represents a loan from the median taxpayer of about, oh, I dunno, seventy-five cents.

[bob13579]

The federal tax credit of $7,500, plus any state subsidies, for each Tesla sold doesn't ring a bell to you?

[scythe]

I should perhaps note that that isn't a subsidy to Tesla: it applies to every electric car manufacturer. It's not relevant to the question, which is, "did Tesla succeed "unfairly" w.r.t. other makers?". It's also a red herring for your previous argument about inequality: "Both the Nissan Leaf electric vehicle and the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid, launched in December 2010, are eligible for the maximum $7,500 tax credit." -- these are cheap vehicles.

But yes, now that you've successfully moved the goalpost, I might have to revise my estimate of seventy-five cents.

[bob13579]

This is just funny. Which car manufacturers on that $7,500 federal tax subsidy electric car list get $500M loans to build out their electric cars?

[scythe]

Does it actually matter? Here the one thing, there the other.

You're complaining about "government picking winners and losers with taxpayer money". The loan isn't a waste of taxpayer money. The subsidy isn't picking winners and losers. Taken together, these two things do not provide weight to your claim: Tesla is not a messiah of the government on the wings of the taxpayers. Or, at least, you have failed to demonstrate that.