Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?

[lklundin]

Of course there is a "fallacy", but don't for a moment think this fallacy is in turn the result of some kind of cognitive error by the opposite side (which would have to be forgiven). No, it's a brute and calculated attempt at shutting down your competitor instead of stepping up your own innovating. Pathetic.

I can't disagree with that, which is why I brought the "story" here as an example of anti-Tesla/Musk propaganda. So I will presume that your instruction is directed at the forum as a whole. Btw, at the end of this month I will have been an editor for ten years on the English Wikipedia, where plenty of fallacies are deliberate. I go there because it is among other things a zero-payment language training. If anybody thinks there is zealousness around Elon Musk and Tesla Motors, then try to improve on a Wikipedia article implicating Vladimir Putin, e.g. "Malaysia Airlines Flight 17".

 

[Johan]

I can't disagree with that, which is why I brought the "story" here as an example of anti-Tesla/Musk propaganda. So I will presume that your instruction is directed at the forum as a whole. Btw, at the end of this month I will have been an editor for ten years on the English Wikipedia, where plenty of fallacies are deliberate. I go there because it is among other things a zero-payment language training. If anybody thinks there is zealousness around Elon Musk and Tesla Motors, then try to improve on a Wikipedia article implicating Vladimir Putin, e.g. "Malaysia Airlines Flight 17".

It was indeed a general remark and not aimed at you, who I'm sure gets it intuitively.

As a side note I agree there's free advanced language training to be found in the most interesting places, such as here on TMC

 

[Curt Renz]

While this thread's name is Tesla specific (and doesn't seem to lack on-topic content) I see that it is also used for articles used to attack Elon Musk and his non-Tesla activities.

As such I will point to a recent attack:
Steve Sherman - Elon Musk’s SpaceX Example of Crony Capitalism
which feeds off the L.A. Times' well-known "Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies" for the purpose of going after Musk and SpaceX (and John McCain).

Per the prologue of the thread:
In my understanding the main idea of this attack is that SpaceX is managing to out-maneuver ULA only due to government subsidies and unfair legislation (pushed by John McCain, who is getting kickbacks from Musk) thus accusing Musk (and McCain) of crony capitalism.

I consider this a fallacy since SpaceX in comparison to ULA is simply cheaper (while not relying on essential components imported from an adversarial country). SpaceX achieves its advantage due to its innovation, rather than unfair regulation and in fact had to struggle precisely against such unfair regulation.

As such the attack is a piece of propaganda typical for managing to completely turn things up side down.

The person behind this "analysis" is a Steve Sherman who back in April penned a similar attack (also via townhall.com), one that goes after Musk including Tesla.
According to his linkedin profile mr. Sherman is an entrepreneur with diverse interests, but none directly related to Musk ('s competitors):
https://www.linkedin.com/in/steve-sherman-21753386

Apparently mr. Sherman found himself a new source of income.

I added this comment to Sherman's article:

Apparently Mr. Sherman is unwilling to mention that ULA receives an added $800-million per year from the government for simply remaining in the business of assembling space vehicles. SpaceX does not. Now where actually is the crony capitalism? This article appears more like crony journalism.

 

[Johan]

I added this comment to Sherman's article:

Apparently Mr. Sherman is unwilling to mention that ULA receives an added $800-million per year from the government for simply remaining in the business of assembling space vehicles. SpaceX does not. Now where actually is the crony capitalism? This article appears more like crony journalism.

Exactly. What are the companies that the taxpayers really seem to love? It's not Tesla or SpaceX. Boeing gets billions in tax cuts and exemptions every year.

 

[Curt Renz]

Wall Street Journal has the typical subsidy hit piece on Tesla in response to Jay Leno telling people to get off Tesla's back:

Hey, Jay Leno, What About Tesla’s Dependence on the Taxpayer?

Jay Leno:

Cramer: Jay Leno's shocking wake-up call on Tesla

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. has written almost identical anti-Tesla/Musk WSJ articles in the past. Surely he must know that Tesla paid off its government loan with interest and prepayment penalty nine years early in 2013, while the other auto and alternative energy companies in the same loan program still owe. Yet he keeps it up, and we can tell from the comments that the WSJ faithful lap it up. It really can't hurt the stock anymore, since Jenkins knows he is preaching to a choir that would never buy the car or stock and in many cases are already short it.

If Jenkins and the WSJ want to editorialize against government incentives, fine. They should not be bashing one possibly benefitting company and its CEO, while ignoring the others. In any event, investors should actually appreciate a company that takes advantage of programs offered by the government, and wonder about the wisdom of any company that intentionally avoids them.

Perhaps Jenkins and the WSJ have started receiving some of the $10-million per year that the Koch brothers and their associates plan to spend on FUD regarding government incentives for electric cars. The recent barrage of seemingly coordinated anti-Tesla articles appears to indicate that the mean spirited money has already started flowing. This can be done by paying for the advertising done by auto and oil companies, and expecting anti-electric car articles in return.

 

[lklundin]

If anybody thinks there is zealousness around Elon Musk and Tesla Motors, then try to improve on a Wikipedia article implicating Vladimir Putin, e.g. "Malaysia Airlines Flight 17".

Since I inadvertently compared Elon Musk to Vladimir Putin I just want to clarify:

Vladimir Putin and Elon Musk are both villains.

But Putin is just an actual villain whereas Musk is a supervillain (per Stephen Colbert).

 

[dauger]

I read the piece by searching the full title on Google and got in a few volleys against some of the most blatant offenders - including Jenkins himself - before the paywall popped up again.

They're all parroting the same lines from Fox News, WSJ etc.

I'm glad we got in something. After my initial point-by-point critiques of Jenkins' stipulations, I got in another round before that paywall blocked me too. Then, not having anything factual to say, those anti-Tesla commenters attack the character of anyone poking a hole in their echo chamber.

My takeaway is that Tesla is merely caught in the crossfire of a bigger problem, which I think Jay Leno alluded to: lack of critical thinking and a failure to distinguish a real intellectual argument from a fake one. If I had another round I'd want to cite Jon Stewart's "You're hurting America" because it's just like what Stewart was saying was wrong with CNN Crossfire. Maybe I'd add Monty Python's Argument skit too: "That's not an argument..."

 

[Curt Renz]

I'm glad we got in something. After my initial point-by-point critiques of Jenkins' stipulations, I got in another round before that paywall blocked me too.

Close your browser, then reopen it. Reenter the article headline into a Google search. You should be able to again bypass the paywall.

 

[Curt Renz]

My takeaway is that Tesla is merely caught in the crossfire of a bigger problem, which I think Jay Leno alluded to: lack of critical thinking and a failure to distinguish a real intellectual argument from a fake one.

As Julius Caesar wrote, Most people simply believe what they "want" to believe.

Media outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch take advantage of that.

 

[lklundin]

As Julius Caesar wrote, Most people simply believe what they "want" to believe.

Media outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch take advantage of that.

Yes, and that is one risk with the Internet:

There will always be some source of information that confirms what you already believe, so by sticking with that you will tend to strengthen your existing beliefs, as opposed to having your point of view challenged.

So to really stay reasonably informed and open to new input one needs to follow a whole range of news sources.

PS. To avoid tracking (also by services with subscription) I use my browser's "privacy-mode', <ctrl>P for anything that does not actually require a login and Firefox's "Privacy Badger". Additional tips are welcome.

 

[winfield100]

nice article on Seeking Alphalfa by Randy Carlson and informed speculation about the Model 3 batteries

 

[neroden]

I'll tell you what really causes me to head-scratch. There are actual problems with Tesla Motors (I won't list them here, but they've been discussed on TMC repeatedly). Somehow those never make it into these anti-Tesla articles. What's up with that?!? Why do they only use fake problems?

 

[lklundin]

I'll tell you what really causes me to head-scratch. There are actual problems with Tesla Motors (I won't list them here, but they've been discussed on TMC repeatedly). Somehow those never make it into these anti-Tesla articles. What's up with that?!? Why do they only use fake problems?

Unless you are employed by Tesla or is bound by some other NDA, then I cannot see why you will not go into specifics.

And without specifics, it is difficult to consider your question.

 

[Johan]

Unless you are employed by Tesla or is bound by some other NDA, then I cannot see why you will not go into specifics.

And without specifics, it is difficult to consider your question.

While it may be considered rude to answer for someone else, I'm quite sure @neroden 's main gripe with Tesla is their [according to him] poor build out plan for service centers in non-central areas. There is however a very good counter argument to be made, and one that was recently well made by @RobStark, which is that there is no need for Tesla to cover 100% of the target population geographically - as long as they are to some extent production constrained it makes sense to expand gradually, branching out from naturally population (and demand) rich areas. "Pick the low hanging fruits first".

 

[winfield100]

[QUOTE=", branching out from naturally population (and demand) rich areas. "Pick the low hanging fruits first".[/QUOTE] yes, there were about 70 Tesla, counting 2 roadsters, at the Rockville Maryland, USA, Gude Drive Service center yesterday, the vast majority shrink wrapped, lots of X and S. Washington, DC area has 3 "showrooms" so to speak and the Gude drive facility has expanded at least once, perhaps more.

 

[neroden]

I didn't want to make a list of all the actual problems in case the Tesla permabears actually read it and started regurgitating articles. But Tesla's notorious communications problems are another one. (Example: a recent post said, paraphrased, "it's sad when I know more about corporate policy than the employees at the service center who are supposed to implement it"). I've never seen those mentioned in one of the aggressively bearish articles.

 

[ChadS]

There are actual problems with Tesla Motors [...] Somehow those never make it into these anti-Tesla articles. What's up with that?!? Why do they only use fake problems?

That's a really interesting question. I am sure there are some counter-examples both ways, but in general it does seem that made-up problems seemed to get repeated more often than real problems. That seems counter-productive to somebody logical examining issues and trying to establish if there are really problems or not. Surely fake problems are more likely to be rejected by anybody that spends time looking in to it.

I suspect (though I am completely guessing) the reason is that people who research issues like this to make up their minds are not who the false messages are intended for. They are going after people who are not going to put any effort in to looking things up, because it is easier to instill a sense of disgust in those people. "They do WHAT?! That's awful. I'm not having anything to do with that company."

Somebody who is not doing any investigating makes it easier, because you don't have to bother with the truth - which makes instilling disgust FAR easier. The emotion of disgust is a powerful one that changes behavior. It increases donations to groups that are trying to fight the disgusting target. But as perhaps more often used in this case, it makes people automatically reject anything from the target of disgust. If you plant a real issue like "well, they have communications issues like many large companies undergoing change, but probably worse than most" they may well believe it, but will still have an open mind the next time they hear something about the company because it's not shocking; things like that are everywhere. But if you plant that the target is killing puppies/stealing from taxpayers/secretly a shill for Big Pharma, then they will be against this awful target and be suspicious of anything good said about them in the future. You will now have an ally arguing against the target on every topic, not just the false one you planted.

 

[neroden]

That's a really interesting question. I am sure there are some counter-examples both ways, but in general it does seem that made-up problems seemed to get repeated more often than real problems....

...But as perhaps more often used in this case, it makes people automatically reject anything from the target of disgust. If you plant a real issue like "well, they have communications issues like many large companies undergoing change, but probably worse than most" they may well believe it, but will still have an open mind the next time they hear something about the company because it's not shocking; things like that are everywhere. But if you plant that the target is killing puppies/stealing from taxpayers/secretly a shill for Big Pharma, then they will be against this awful target and be suspicious of anything good said about them in the future. You will now have an ally arguing against the target on every topic, not just the false one you planted.

That's a great explanation, ChadS, but it still doesn't quite explain it for me. Because... well.... what do they gain by doing this?

Tesla has reached a self-sustaining financial state; they can't starve Tesla of financing. And the cars seem to sell themselves due to their inherent good qualities, so it's unlikely that this can reduce sales; if anything, Tesla's biggest problem on the sales side is lack of name recognition, and anti-Tesla FUD actually increases Tesla's name recognition....

I suppose NADA might manage to get some more anti-Tesla dealership-protection state laws passed? But so far the only financial backers I've seen directly tied to FUD attacks on Tesla in the media have been oil-industry.

 

[lklundin]

I didn't want to make a list of all the actual problems in case the Tesla permabears actually read it and started regurgitating articles.

The oldest argument against that position that I am aware of is from a locksmith in1853:

"Rogues are very keen in their profession, and know already much more than we can teach them."

See also

Alfred Charles Hobbs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[neroden]

Well, all the problems are listed somewhere on this forum already, it just seemed unnecessary to make it into a comprehensive laundry list for the convenience of *lazy* rogues who might just want to copy-and-paste.