Elon & Twitter

[B@ndit]

BS. Tesla was no more "state funded" than any other automaker. Less actually, if you look at the facts about how much we currently pay in subsidies to oil and gas each year, which indirectly funds ICE manufs by keeping fuel prices artificially low.

You want to talk about TAX BREAKS, you should do some homework and look at all the tax breaks available to oil pumpers, land owners, and refineries. They have been in place for 50+ years and are mind-bogglingly high.

NPR's operating budget is $300 M, and 1%, or $3 M is funded by federal subsidies

⁠The LA Times calculates the federal subsidies Musk's companies have received at $4.9 B.

Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies

Los Angeles entrepreneur Elon Musk has built a multibillion-dollar fortune running companies that make electric cars, sell solar panels and launch rockets into space.

www.latimes.com

Let's be generous and say Musk received those subsidies over a 10 year period, while NPR would have received ~$30 M in subsidies.

4.9 B / 30 M = Musk received 163x what NPR has.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander right?

 

[JRP3]

You are, conveniently, neglecting to mention that Tesla has ASKED REPEATEDLY for an even playing field by removing ALL subsidies. Both for EVs and oil/gas.

You are, conveniently, missing the point. Elon seems to think any media that gets a penny from government is "state funded". They don't get a "pass" if they take the money but complain about it, neither should Elon/Tesla.

 

[bkp_duke]

NPR's operating budget is $300 M, and 1%, or $3 M is funded by federal subsidies

⁠The LA Times calculates the federal subsidies Musk's companies have received at $4.9 B.

Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies

Los Angeles entrepreneur Elon Musk has built a multibillion-dollar fortune running companies that make electric cars, sell solar panels and launch rockets into space.

www.latimes.com

Let's be generous and say Musk received those subsidies over a 10 year period, while NPR would have received ~$30 M in subsidies.

4.9 B / 30 M = Musk received 163x what NPR has.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander right?

Which is still CHUMP CHANGE compared to the 20B in oil/gas subsidies EACH YEAR.

Which energy source is most subsidized in the US?

President Biden has committed to shifting the United States to renewable energies but the fossil fuel industry still receives billions of dollars every year.

en.as.com

 

[B@ndit]

You are, conveniently, missing the point. Elon seems to think any media that gets a penny from government is "state funded". They don't get a "pass" if they take the money but complain about it, neither should Elon/Tesla.

It’s not missing the point. He is well aware. It’s more a akin to a 5yo sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming “la la la la la” while being told something they don’t want to hear.

 

[B@ndit]

Which is still CHUMP CHANGE compared to the 20B in oil/gas subsidies EACH YEAR.

Which energy source is most subsidized in the US?

President Biden has committed to shifting the United States to renewable energies but the fossil fuel industry still receives billions of dollars every year.

en.as.com

Are you familiar with the term red herring?

 

[bkp_duke]

You are, conveniently, missing the point. Elon seems to think any media that gets a penny from government is "state funded". They don't get a "pass" if they take the money but complain about it, neither should Elon/Tesla.

So, we can expect that anyone that owns or contributes PRIVATE money to media tries to push a certain agenda (i.e. Murdoch's and Fox News), but that STATE funding has no influence?

That's not very objective in your thinking.

And if NPR really only gets 1% from the "state", why don't they just give that up to be perfectly free from any appearance of influence?

 

[B@ndit]

Which do you like better, stand funded media or corporate media? What’s the alternative?

 

[bkp_duke]

Which do you like better, stand funded media or corporate media? What’s the alternative?

Both are bad.

State funded, you can eventually get to the level of CCP and Russia, where everything has to be suspected as propaganda.

Private funded, you have to watch out for bias towards personal/corporate agendas.


Crowd-sourced media? There isn't a perfect answer to this question, but I suspect that's why you asked it (i.e. a logic trap).

 

[B@ndit]

Both are bad.

State funded, you can eventually get to the level of CCP and Russia, where everything has to be suspected as propaganda.

Private funded, you have to watch out for bias towards personal/corporate agendas.


Crowd-sourced media? There isn't a perfect answer to this question, but I suspect that's why you asked it (i.e. a logic trap).

I asked because you said NPR should give up their 1% funding to avoid the image of any impropriety. Which would imply you are in favor of media that is 100% corporate…I strongly disagree.

 

[advocate8]

BS. Tesla was no more "state funded" than any other automaker. Less actually, if you look at the facts about how much we currently pay in subsidies to oil and gas each year, which indirectly funds ICE manufs by keeping fuel prices artificially low.

You want to talk about TAX BREAKS, you should do some homework and look at all the tax breaks available to oil pumpers, land owners, and refineries. They have been in place for 50+ years and are mind-bogglingly high.

It most definitely IS whataboutism.
The question which automaker got more federal funding, or whether OTHER car companies got some too.
The standard we’re discussing is whether Tesla received ANY state funding, minimal, maximal or not. Because Elon is having a hissy fit and attacking an organization for simply receiving any.

 

[bkp_duke]

It most definitely IS whataboutism.
The question which automaker got more federal funding, or whether OTHER car companies got some too.
The standard we’re discussing is whether Tesla received ANY state funding, minimal, maximal or not. Because Elon is having a hissy fit and attacking an organization for simply receiving any.

And that's a false argument. In modern day you cannot become a viable auto company when all other competitors are state funded to some degree. You have to partake in that available state funding, or die. So your argument is one that would have resulted in Tesla never existing.

If you look at the TOTAL of "state" funds that Tesla has gotten and compared them ONLY to the bailout funds received by GM and Ford, it's less than they got only in their bailouts.

This is the game, are you suggesting that Tesla should play that by a different set of rules than the other players?

This comes full circle back to Elon's statement that for fairness, ALL subsidies should be removed. Credit where credit is due, have you EVER heard another auto CEO asking for subsidies to be removed?

 

[B@ndit]

The hypocrisy here is staggering. When Elon takes government money it is a prudent business decision. When NPR does it, it fully discredits their organization and is proof of a leftist cabal of woke deep state media operatives working to manipulate the public.

 

[JRP3]

So, we can expect that anyone that owns or contributes PRIVATE money to media tries to push a certain agenda (i.e. Murdoch's and Fox News), but that STATE funding has no influence?

That's not very objective in your thinking.

And if NPR really only gets 1% from the "state", why don't they just give that up to be perfectly free from any appearance of influence?

Still missing, (avoiding), the point, purposely so I suspect.

 

[bkp_duke]

Still missing, (avoiding), the point, purposely so I suspect.

No, the argument people are trying to make is a . . . stretch.

Tesla takes gov funds, objectively less than their primary competition (big auto). They don't then USE THOSE FUNDS to try to peddle influence.

NPR, by definition as a media company, wields influence by what they publish and the stances they take on topics and in editorials, etc. Same for any media that takes gov funding (US or not). There is ALWAYS an inherent bias to "not piss off the hand that feeds you". That part applies to both Tesla and NPR.

What doesn't apply, but people here are trying to argue, is INFLUENCE. Tesla doesn't turn around and use that gov funding to push any particular political agenda. They have a stated mission, they have had that mission since their inception, and that's what the funding is used for.

There's a difference, one company builds products. The other spreads ideas (by definition that's what news does). The problem with spreading ideas and having gov funding is that in theory, the ideas you spread can be influenced by "the hand that feeds you".

 

[B@ndit]

They both produce a product. One produces cars, one produces news stories. The attempt to try and portray either company as peddling in influence is yet another logical fallacy being presented here.

 

[tivoboy]

SSSSSHHHHHH, those in the echo chamber don't like facts.

Facts like GM STILL hasn't paid back their bailout money from 2008/2009. Facts like Ford took a large gov loan at the time to avoid bankruptcy, that also hasn't been paid back. Facts like both of those companies, and Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes ALL get local tax incentives to build factories and create jobs in whatever state they are going into.

The facts on Tesla is that they had a DOE loan very early on, and paid that back in full with interest, early. They paid it back early because the provisions in the loan were so bad that Tesla didn't want to be beholden to the DOE.

Everything else Tesla has "gotten from the government" was equally available to any other company building EVs. That was kinda the point of the EV "incentives", to spur the industry on.

I think you might be confusing GM with FORD, which still DOES have a 2008/2009 loan that it was sort of compelled to take at the time? GM paid back loans with the Treasury TARP programs over about 5 years, but as well the gov’t took a $10B+ write-off loss when GM fully emerged from bankruptcy.

I think GM DOES have some NEW loans from the energy dept., to develop EV battery facilities-as do most US OEM’s but I don’t think they are tied to anything from 2008/2009.

Overall, treasury lost money although they DID convert some of the loan write-offs into either preferred equity or warrants, and in the past few years when GM and other OEM were trading at decade highs during the pandemic I know some of that was sold for a wash, if not a profit by the Treasury.

If there is some loan that GM continues to have with a part of the federal gov‘t that still stems from the 2008/2009 global financial crises I’d be interested to see its terms.

 

[Electroman]

The fundamental principal of media is to be neutral. The moment their survival is dependent on funding from entities like govt or corporates their neutrality is out the window.

 

[bkp_duke]

I think you might be confusing GM with FORD, which still DOES have a 2008/2009 loan that it was sort of compelled to take at the time? GM paid back loans with the Treasury TARP programs over about 5 years, but as well the gov’t took a $10B+ write-off loss when GM fully emerged from bankruptcy.

I think GM DOES have some NEW loans from the energy dept., to develop EV battery facilities-as do most US OEM’s but I don’t think they are tied to anything from 2008/2009.

Overall, treasury lost money although they DID convert some of the loan write-offs into either preferred equity or warrants, and in the past few years when GM and other OEM were trading at decade highs during the pandemic I know some of that was sold for a wash, not a profit by the Treasury.

If there is some loan that GM continues to have with a part of the federal gov‘t that still stems from the 2008/2009 global financial crises I’d be interested to see its terms.

It was a general grouping, but for details here are 2 articles.

Ford, still hasn't fully repaid their loan:

Ford took $6B government loan in 2009 — and debt still haunts company

Ford isn't alone in the struggle, but it entered 2020 reporting a much smaller-than-expected profit than its competitors.

www.freep.com

GM, as you correctly state, was bailed out and all of that funding didn't come back, the Gov wrote off 10.6B.

In the five years since GM's bankruptcy it made $22.6 billion. But taxpayers lost $10.6 billion on bailout that saved the company.

In five years since bankruptcy GM made $22.6 billion while taxpayers lost $10.6 billion on bailout that saved the company.

money.cnn.com

Compared to Tesla, who took an ~$450M loan, and repaid it in full, 9 years early, with interest:

Tesla Repays Department of Energy Loan Nine Years Early | Tesla

www.tesla.com

 

[B@ndit]

The fundamental principal of media is to be neutral. The moment their survival is dependent on funding from entities like govt or corporates their neutrality is out the window.

First of all, If this were even remotely true every 4-8 years when the government administration changes hands all news corps taking government funding would presumably change the way they report on things to appease the new masters, right? Or how does that work?

Secondly, I would hardly call their survival dependent on 1% of funding…

 

[bkp_duke]

Secondly, I would hardly call their survival dependent on 1% of funding…

Then they should give it up, to completely invalidate any appearance of impropriety. Same with any other media companies taking "state" funding.