[alfl23]

This is a very poor interpretation of what actually happens. Elon explained it better himself in an interview. The gov isn't exactly signing a blank check for them, instead it's subsidising by allowing tax credit on land, assets and revenue.

First and foremost, do you really think the American tax payer is doing a greater favour to Elon than Elon is doing to the entire world by moving the whole lot of purely eletrical power?

This reporter is an absolute imbecile to use such titles, market pleasing as they are. If Elon wanted to get rich he would buy an island and sunbathe for the next 40 years. He's already rich.

With respect to the amount of good done, I urge this reporter in particular to join TMZ and keep up with the Kardashians.

[droithomme]

It's fascinating because literally every single thing you have said is a lie.

Tesla is not profitable and is massively subsidized by its competitors and the taxpayers. They make a product that causes massive devastation to the environment through toxic lithium mining, and which is astonishingly expensive and can only be afforded by the ultra rich, and then only with subsidies paid for by the poor and middle class. Furthermore, these so-called cars have off the shelf Panasonic batteries that only last a few years before they have to be replaced at extravagent cost.

You call the reporter of the truth an "absolute imbecile" because using ad hominem arguments is the last refuge of a brain dead moron with no facts.

[mikeash]

Wow, I really hope this is satire. I don't want to live in a world where somebody can write that last paragraph seriously.

[alfl23]

- How does toxic lithium mining fair to the countless oil spillage disasters that happen every few years? It doesn't. Lithium mining is now a rising industry in the dawn of the electric era, and it is nonetheless a limited resource which will very shortly need to start being synthetical, simply out of practical necessity.

- Tesla has been profitable for numerous financial quarters, although not consistent. On that basis, neither has been GM for many quarters after the crisis, after causing an $11.2 billion loss to the American tax payer.

- Tesla is funded mostly by competitors and revenue, not by the tax payer. Read the above sentence again for contrast: GM caused a direct loss of $11.2 billion to the tax payer. Tesla only borrowed and then repaid in full.

- The subsidy granted to Tesla by the US gov, only a minuscule percentage of the GM bailout, was repaid in full with interest by Tesla, with the tax payer making a profit. The loan was around $450 million, not $11 billion.

- Does the fictional subsidy working in the favour of the so called ultra rich really work out better than the oil barons of the world? Which is really the strongly monopolised industry with price strictly regulated in favour of private interest? Does the name Rockefeller or Saud ring a bell?

- How does the net time value of a Tesla fair to a normal middle class sedan? Well, it's only the higher upfront class you pay. On a 10 year span Tesla directly competes with most mid level sedans.

- Furthermore, iteration takes a long time and cost efficiency takes the longest time in manufacturing, if you weren't be a belligerent skeptical.

- I can see your finances do not buy you a Tesla just yet and that makes you angry. The secret to changing that is to stop blaming the "ultra rich" for your problems and take a real good look in the mirror.

Do you really not sense any irony in your "ad hominem arguments"? If must warn you that a brain dead moron might be dangerously close to you.

I don't particularly care you've found fault in my logic as being belligerent makes someone like you feel good, this is the Internet after all.

But if you are a third party reading this, don't get stuck on the fact that you can't yet afford a Tesla. And when you do the math, don't look at upfront cost only, that's the worst way to do it. Add up fuel cost for your average mileage, average maintenance, repairs, insurance premiums, tax credits over the number of years you plan to keep it for and workout the real value. You will be amazed to learn a Tesla isn't that expensive after all. A 70D starts at $57k and from thereon you can start decreasing tax credits, fuel savings and so forth. Is it really more expensive or are you unaware about what the net time value of a purchase is? Time to get your economics in order.

Lastly, every business starts out with an overpriced overbloated product, even if you're launching a stupid new social network for dogs, it always takes time to become efficient. Let alone with cars. People who haven't built things from scratch often lack this sense of continuous iteration that is necessary, but I would really re-consider my position against Elon and Tesla and all the great work they have been doing.

[coliveira]

The main problem of Tesla is that they are interested in creating luxury cars that happen to be electric. I don't have any good feelings towards companies that target the ultra-rich, specially when they use public money for funding. Now, I know they say that they plan to create popular car, but who knows if that will ever be real? Even the CEO has changed his mind about the business several times. I would rather buy a Prius or a Leaf than subsidize this luxury car company.

[noobermin]

Indeed. I'd rather have billions go to Elon who will turn it into awesome technology, as his companies have, than have it go to defense contractors who will turn it into another plane that can't fly.

[__z]

Things that have their origins in defense:

GPS

Siri

The Internet

Tor

Not saying pork isn't a huge problem but saying no awesome technology comes out of defense spending is untrue.

[verbin217]

You had me at defense contractors. Successful or not it wouldn't create a net benefit for humanity or even the subset of it our government is ostensibly serving.