Nonsense article on Elon Musk subsidies

[Manuel]

I think a person who lies in the articles he writes will just ignore the email.
I wrote him on twitter, maybe it will get more attention. He just twitted about the article.

 

[AB4EJ]

Yellow Journalism?

I think a person who lies in the articles he writes will just ignore the email.
I wrote him on twitter, maybe it will get more attention. He just twitted about the article.

There is a term "yellow journalism" which refers to stuff being written to sell more papers, without regard for facts or balance in the writing. Maybe this falls in that category.

 

[Beckler]

Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF | Environment | The Guardian

 

[callmesam]

Although the article is one-sided and filled with errors, the underlying truth is that the tax code exists with thousands of pages of deductions and subsidies.

Here's my plan:

Eliminate all clean energy subsidies!!!

But let's start our subsidy snipe hunt with the oldest subsidies and deductions first.

Oil and gas manufacturing deductions.

Mortgage deductions.

Childcare deductions.

Healthcare deductions.
.
.
.
then we can address those pesky incentives that keep our air clean and potentially create a pathway to NOT heat the earth like a sauna.

 

[Manuel]

Elon Musk replies on CNBC.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102723117

 

[Vic_F]

The basic premise is flawed, when the government does not tax someone it is being called a subsidy; that assumes the government owns the money it takes. That premise is wrong. Ownership capital and income belongs to those who earn it, people or companies.

 

[Johan]

Saw this thread and I feel I'm proud to reference my own post on the investment thread, made a good day before the LA Times article came out

I'd add this hit piece from Holman Jenkins of WSJ with the same core argument, came out 2 days ago. A memo has been passed around from the Heartland institute? "Note to all affiliates. Re Tesla and Musk: The agenda for June is: Subsidies".

The Savior Elon Musk - WSJ

 

[brucet999]

The terms "average" and "mean" refer to the same statistic. Perhaps you meant "median" instead?

Thank you. I did indeed.

- - - Updated - - -

Great e-mail. One small typo if you haven't sent it yet. Should be $465 million Dept of Energy loan

Actually, that was Hirsch's typo. I just used his figure, knowing that whatever it was it had been repaid.

 

[mikes_fsd]

Saw this thread and I feel I'm proud to reference my own post on the investment thread, made a good day before the LA Times article came out

Well called, sir!

 

[Model 3]

The basic premise is flawed, when the government does not tax someone it is being called a subsidy; that assumes the government owns the money it takes. That premise is wrong. Ownership capital and income belongs to those who earn it, people or companies.

While I do agree with you, we had a longer debate about this in the Norwegian forum, and the best references we found was this:

https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/wtr06-2b_e.pdf

although the term “subsidy” is widely used in economics, it is rarely defined. often it is used as an antonym to a tax, i.e. a government transfer of money to an entity in the private sector. this seems, for instance, to be the case in the oxford online dictionary where a subsidy is defined as: “a sum of money granted from public funds to help an industry or business keep the price of a commodity or service low”. But many would argue that tax concessions are also a form of subsidization. Indeed, for the relevant recipients it may not make much difference whether they are made better off by receiving money or through the reduction of their tax bill. Both forms of “assistance” also represent financial transfers by the government. Border protection, e.g. tariffs, on the other hand does not result in any such financial transfer from the government, and instead results in fiscal revenue. Yet it could be argued that the imposition of a tariff represents a form of subsidization for the import-competing sectors that are thereby protected from foreign competition. to define subsidies in terms of government transfers or fiscal expenditure is thus not necessarily complete.

As I read this I interpret it as: Subsidy in it basic form is just what is defined in the oxford online dictionary "a sum of money granted from public funds to help an industry or business keep the price of a commodity or service low”. But that you are free to define it as more boarder reaching to include more incentives like not taxing something. But if you do, you have to include your definition of the word "subsidy" or link it to a public definition of the word. And that is what WTO has done.

So he could have said:

And he's built those companies with the help of billions in government subsidies given the definition of the word "subsidy" given by the WTO.

(except for SpaceX - witch would need a hole new definition of that word I think )

Without giving a definition of the word the basic form of the word is excepted, and basic premise of this article is flawed.

 

[Sparky]

There is a term "yellow journalism" which refers to stuff being written to sell more papers, without regard for facts or balance in the writing. Maybe this falls in that category.

I think click-bait journalism is the new term.
This is a well-played example by Jerry Hirsch:
Start by posting some polemic or general nonsense with popular keywords (Elon Musk, Tesla, SpaceX), watch a flame war start in comments and see your article get linked all-over the internet.
But the follow-up is key:

Post a separate article about the online response: LATimes--"Readers react to Elon Musk's $4.9 billion in government subsidies"
Then post Elon Musk's response to your nonsense: LATimes--"Exclusive Elon Musk: 'If I cared about subsidies, I would have entered the oil and gas industry'"

Oh Mr. Hirsch, you are so skilled.

 

[ggr]

I think click-bait journalism is the new term.
This is a well-played example by Jerry Hirsch:
Start by posting some polemic or general nonsense with popular keywords (Elon Musk, Tesla, SpaceX), watch a flame war start in comments and see your article get linked all-over the internet.
But the follow-up is key:

Post a separate article about the online response: LATimes--"Readers react to Elon Musk's $4.9 billion in government subsidies"
Then post Elon Musk's response to your nonsense: LATimes--"Exclusive Elon Musk: 'If I cared about subsidies, I would have entered the oil and gas industry'"

Oh Mr. Hirsch, you are so skilled.

A lot of the followup articles have had titles like "Musk defends subsidies", which reinforce the perception that the original article actually had meaning. Bah.

 

[ecarfan]

Here's a MarketWatch article countering the absurd LA Times piece:
Elon Musk is no corporate welfare queen - MarketWatch
Elon Musk is no corporate welfare queen - MarketWatch

 

[kuttakamina]

GM vs Tesla

Am I misunderstanding this, or this article is just absurd?

Elon Musks growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies - LA Times

Lets talk about Elon Musk's "empire"

- Tesla has gotten loans, under conditions, repaid back early with interest. Plus they have produced awesome technology, saved loads of pollution, and gas.
- Solar city has saved loads of CO2 emission, or nuclear waste.
- SpaceX has presented the only viable route to space, cheaper than even China - for the country that put man on the moon, we today rely on Russia for access to space. That is shameful.

Meanwhile, government motors cost us $11.2b and still continues to build inefficient unreliable cars.
And their "business plan" is to sell Volt and Bolt at a loss to drive Tesla out of business.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/30/us-autos-gm-treasury-idUSBREA3T0MR20140430
and
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/us-generalmotors-autos-volt-idUSBRE88904J20120910

Am I misunderstanding this? If not, why do we tolerate such nonsense in leading newspapers?

 

[dhrivnak]

To be fair the taxpayers did come out whole or slightly positive on the GM restructuring and to date GM has sold more Volts and has saved more overall gasoline than Tesla. Yes Tesla does make and awesome car and the volumes are growing nicely. But to date GM does deserve a little credit.

But Tesla deserves more credit.

EDIT I stand corrected it appears there was a taxpayer loss on the GM bail-out

Taxpayers Don't Have Government Motors To Kick Around Any More - Forbes

 

[wayner]

The article is definitely skewed and ignores the fact that Musk has two businesses, Tesla and Solar City, that are focussed on products that reduce pollution and GHG which should be promoted by the government. All sorts of businesses get subsidies so it makes more sense to help new technologies get established that will benefit everyone in the long term rather than subsidies petroleum exploration or ICE manufacturing.

 

[kuttakamina]

To be fair the taxpayers did come out whole or slightly positive on the GM restructuring...
.

Got a link to back that up? All I can find is, GM cost taxpayers money, and they are selling Volt at a loss and plan to do exactly the same with Bolt.
Tesla, could also sell Model S at 30K for a loss on each car, and they would probably save more gas than Volt.

For my money, I'd rather see Tesla be supported than GM. But maybe I'm misguided?

 

[qwk]

To be fair the taxpayers did come out whole or slightly positive on the GM restructuring and to date GM.

Absolutely not. The taxpayers got hosed, as always. You might want to look at the numbers again.

 

[chriSharek]

The Volt was the best car GM has ever produced. I can't say enough great things about my 4 year old, 2011, first year it was made, 70k+ mile, 250 MPG little car. The fact that they didn't market the thing or even educate their sales force to sell it correctly, is the mystery to me. It wasn't even fully charged when I picked it up, but they were so excited to take me down the street to the pump to get it's first tank of gas! I think it is just GM having their hands in deep oil pockets still. The only reason GM continues to build massive SUVs that get crappy mileage is because Americans buy them. As sad as that is, it's the truth. Yesterday, I received this month's Motortrend and it has an article comparing all the high end MASSIVE SUVs, including the Escalade. When I saw the prices of $85k - $97k, all of a sudden I didn't feel as guilty buying a $100k Model S! I actually felt good about it. Hard for me to believe someone would pay that amount of money for a vehicle that only gets 20 MPG (if that). But, the fact is, people (primarily Americans) do and thus GM builds these cars/SUVs.

Regardless, Tesla deserves much more credit considering where they have come from and how quickly they got there. Personally, I feel Elon Musk deserves more credit for his leadership and inspiration in getting Tesla to where they are.

Did I mention I'm glad I ordered MS!? 89 days . . .

 

[kuttakamina]

Yup, I don't know why people are crazy about SUVs. But then again, I've never owned an SUV.
I have sat in one though, and didn't think it was all that.

Couple of advantages of SUV though,
- If you live in the boonies in snow country, SUV with its clearance and 4wd is a must.
- Carrying capacity (which Tesla is pretty good at too).
- Some people say driving sitting higher on the road is an advantage - that is the most BS reason ever. I just HATE it when I want to make a right, and the SUV to my left, blocking my view from incoming traffic, wants to make a left. SUV drivers are a55h0l3s. Thats all there is to it.

Still, people who commute (1 person) in cadillac escalades - what is wrong with your head?

And yes Volt is awesome. I had a hard time choosing between Volt 2016 or Model S. Decided to live a little, especially given that Volt's 0-60 is 9 seconds