[badkungfu]

Eh, yeah, I'm just not sure it's that simple.

In the article, he points out that Tesla's been given a lot of taxpayer money plus a lot of incentives for buyers to make their product more attractive. And now they now get to skirt around the market rules that other companies have been stuck with and had to build infrastructure and procedures to deal with more effectively.

Maybe Tesla's handouts should be pared back as they grow and are allowed to bypass the old rules.

[toomuchtodo]

Besides the Gigafactory, can you point out taxpayer money they were "given"? They had a DOE energy loan that was paid back much earlier than required, with interest. That is not a gift.

Also, their vehicles receive the same incentives as other EVs produced by other manufactures. Perhaps other manufacturers should make more EVs (or EVs people will buy) if they would like to capture the benefit of those government incentives.

[rahimnathwani]

> That is not a gift.

Yes, it is a gift. The loan was priced way below market, considering the level of risk and other conditions attached. The difference between the interest rate Tesla paid, and the market interest rate for the same amount of money, is a subsidy (or 'gift', if you prefer) from the taxpayer to Tesla.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/tesl...

[toomuchtodo]

A subsidy is not a gift. It is an incentive to take a specific action, no different than the mortgage income tax deduction, credit on your taxes for children, or deductions for charitable contributions.

If you have any thought that the US is an efficient pure free market, I am sorry to inform you that is not the case.

[rahimnathwani]

Let me be more clear. You said:

'can you point out taxpayer money they were "given"'

My point is that the subsidised interest rate _is_ taxpayer money they were given. They were given the difference between the market interest and the interest they actually paid.

I'm _not_ arguing either that (i) 'the US is an efficient pure market' or (ii) that this specific subsidy was a good or bad thing.

[curun1r]

> Tesla's been given a lot of taxpayer money plus a lot of incentives for buyers to make their product more attractive.

One could argue that by not taxing the externality of their business (CO2 emissions), auto manufacturer's that make traditional gas guzzlers have been given far more government assistance than Tesla. The incentives that you speak of are intended to produce a positive benefit to society (less pollution) rather than as a handout to help Tesla.

[gknoy]

The market rules were there to prevent car companies from undercutting their own dealerships, however.