

On Bailouts and Sports Cars - qhoxie
http://calacanis.com/2008/12/01/on-bailouts-and-sports-car/

======
mattmaroon
Boy it's a good thing Calcanis stopped blogging, and instead started a mailing
list and then posting everything from the mailing list to a blog.

It's the blogosphere's equivalent of McCain's "suspending my campaign until
the crisis is fixed" gambit.

~~~
qhoxie
Heh, I've been thinking the same thing. I'm not subscribed to his list, so I'm
not sure what the ratio is like, but it is amusing to see the occasional _"I
thought this was important enough to put on the blog..."_

~~~
aston
Nearly every email he's posted has ended up on his blog or someone else's
(with permission). Which means he's still blogging.

~~~
jasonmcalacanis
Please don't take it all so seriously. :-)

~~~
tlrobinson
Welcome to Hacker News... if that's really you...

------
petercooper
I personally think Tesla will and should be encouraged to go on to do great
things, but..

Calacanis seems to believe that giving $400m to a relatively unproven startup
has zero risk. While he gives some great reasons for giving the loan
including, obviously, "interest", there's no consideration given to what
happens if Tesla goes out of business in a year or two.

That's not to say Tesla shouldn't try because, yes, it probably would succeed,
but that's also not to say people shouldn't be wary of giving a startup _$400
million_.. heck, at least drip feed them the loan.

~~~
jasonmcalacanis
I don't think there is no risk--would anyone think there is no risk in
starting a car company!??!!? Hello!??!

The issue here is if we are going to give 25b in funding to companies to
advance new car technology we should probably start with the company that has
been most successful in actually delivering a product (i.e. Tesla and not GM).

~~~
aston
Didn't expect you to show up here, but since you are, here's my major
disagreement:

What makes you so certain that Tesla has so much more ability to execute than
the big three auto companies? They're years and years behind in the "deliver a
few people electric cars" race
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car>). And based on the
executive turnover at Tesla, how could anyone really be sure that the
leadership there is stable enough to be trusted to actually make good on a
government loan?

I know the Roadster is awesome, and I agree with most of your points about it
being at least a legit, innovative, and potentially affordable venture. But
you kind of omit the part of the argument about why Tesla deserves it and the
other companies don't...

------
sarvesh
Randall is really short sighted
([http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30digi.html?_r=1&...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30digi.html?_r=1&ref=business)).
The big three want to be bailed out using this fund which defeats the whole
purpose of why this fund was started in the first place. I don't see how
giving this money to the big three will help anyone. They will go on to build
those big SUVs and will need more money in six months. The jobs that would be
saved will be at stake again.

Jobs at companies like Tesla are more likely to stay. I personally would like
my tax dollars going to someone like Telsa rather than GM.

