I love that pie chart. So crony-capitalism subsidies paid to Standard Oil in the 1930's mean that its Elon Musk's turn to get federal loans and rebates. "It's his turn" people!
The huge federal tax payer funded rebates on Tesla automobiles is absolutely a subsidy for his company. To not count it towards the 4.9 Billion dollars in Federal aid is absurd. There's no reason someone shelling out $100,000 for a car should get a $20,000 rebate from the government. That's not 'helping the environment' thats rich people stealing tax money from the poor and middle class.
Obviously oil companies today still get subsidies from the government. The most egregious of which are the liability limitations on deep ocean drilling as evidenced by the Deep Water Horizon disaster. The rig never would have been built if the US Congress didn't indemnify BP for all damages over $70 million dollars.
The article in the post tries to claim that the ratio of fossil fuel subsidies to renewable is 100 to 1. But the time frame of that pie chart belies a serious misrepresentation of fact. "Cumulative Historical Federal Subsidies" suggests all federal subsidies throughout all of history, which would include subsidies paid in the 1930's.
It would be much more enlightening to know that ratio just for the past 5 years.
Hold on. Who elected him entrepreneur-in-chief? If he manages to pull that off, he will have a large stake on a successful company. Let him play by the same rules as everyone else.
> Let him play by the same rules as everyone else.
He is. The building of publicly accessible next-gen infrastructure should be rewarded, especially when the government isn't willing to do it.
> If he manages to pull that off, he will have a large stake on a successful company.
That's the point. He's also taking the risk that he's sinking millions (billions?) of dollars into an infrastructure that might go the way of the betamax.
Correct. If the federal government wants to build or subsidize an electric charging network then it should build or subsidize an electric charging network, not luxury cars.
What's the point of subsidizing a charging network if nobody can afford the cars that use it? Tesla isn't the only company being subsidized for building electric cars.
I swear, it's like some people around here have no concept of history or economics. How do you think the oil, electricity, telephone and data infrastructures of this country was built, anyway?
That subsidy goes towards Chevy volt as well. And it is turning electic cars from an awkward piece of geek gatery to something a wide public is actually considering. Money well spent, I'd say.
The question then is whether the tax rebates are driving battery research. Because that's what drives the performance/cost ratio of electric vehicles more than anything else (and that's what people care about, how much does it cost and how well does it work).
People always go on about the EV1 and how the owners loved it and wanted to buy it, but they don't mean they wanted to buy it for the $100,000 plus it would have really cost. And then somehow, 15 years later, we have cheaper electric cars that have much better performance characteristics. Except it isn't a mystery, batteries got a whole lot better.
In another 5 or 10 years, batteries will be even better and we will have people ranting about how it shouldn't have taken so long for practical electric cars, never mind the stupid predictable curve of battery progress you are trying to show them.
No! We shouldn't prioritize research so that the technology can improve. We should shell out billions of taxpayer dollars on existing technology that isn't competitive without subsidies so that politically connected businesses like Solyndra and their investors can pocket millions of your dollars and then go bankrupt. \s
Your myopic focus on the direct subsidies that Tesla receives from the US government blinds you. The price you pay at the pump for gasoline does not capture all the costs. The true price of gas is much higher and camouflaged by myriad direct and indirect costs associated with maintaining our oil economy.
National subsidies to oil, gas and coal producers in the US amount to $20.5 billion annually, with almost all of those subsidies being received in the form of tax or royalty breaks that benefit producers. Many of the largest US national subsidies take the form of tax exemptions for specific production activities and investments. For example, Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) are a tax-advantaged investment structure with an estimated cost of $3.9 billion per year. Another example is the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. BP claimed a $10 billion tax deduction due to an estimated $32.2 billion in cleanup costs. In 2015, BP reached a final settlement with the US
government and five state governments totalling $20.8 billion. However, only $5.5 billion of this is in the form of a non-tax-deductible penalty, and the remaining $15 billion can be written off by BP.
Also, this shale revolution America had is over as the underlying geology—deeply buried shale rock that contains diffuse hydrocarbons—looms as a more fundamental limit on fracking's future. Recent projections indicate that by decade's end or a few years after, U.S. oil production from fracking will likely flatten out as supplies are depleted. Currently, US shale is less than $1 cheaper than importing it from Nigeria, Mexico, or Venezuela. Foreign oil is cheaper and refineries prefer it after investing heavily in assets to process heavy oil.
And this is without mentioning the 800lb gorilla and the elephant in the room. When foreign oil is cheaper, we become dependent on receiving it from countries that are either politically unstable or at odds with the U.S. subjecting the American economy to occasional supply disruptions, price hikes, and loss of wealth. Then there's the whole climate change thing, the huge costs to deal with that and the global instability it promotes. Arctic sea ice will be almost completely gone in a decade or so, and then America and the world will either be dependent on Russia for oil and gas or competing with them and incurring costs for the eventual military buildup. Russia openly and brazenly interfering with the US election tosses out a chance of cooperation with the newly forming shipping/trading routes and access to oil and gas deposits.
So yeah, this is a fucking bargain in comparison. It's an investment in future security and prosperity. It's a transparent investment as opposed to the opaque pricing of fossil fuels. It is meant to stimulate and hasten the adoption of clean energy vehicles. And as a bonus, it doesn't totally fuck up the environment and destroy biodiversity. Much like SpaceX, it is a model for public/private partnerships. Honestly, in what reality is Elon Musk a robber baron on the scale of Rockefeller? He's not content to take his paypal money and shrewdly invest it. He's investing his own fortune and trying to solve the biggest problems we face as a species through the creation of new technoogies.
It's understandable since it is rare since most people do not take externalities, whether they be positive or negative, into account
I don't want fossil fuel subsidies either! We should focus on killing externalities like you said, especially environmental ones, and stop the abuse of our tax money. If Tesla is to succeed, it must succeed without federal subsidies. The subsidies at best hasten the advent of EV by a few years, and that is not worth the Billions of graft and waste that occurs with these federal grants, loan guarantees and rebates. Especially if it turns out the EV wont happen for another few decades. In that case, all these subsidies are a waste because the underlying battery technology is insufficient.
I don't know if Tesla will succeed or fail. If you think it will succeed, then buy their stock. But i don't want to be forced into investing through my tax dollars. That is not the role of government.
>But i don't want to be forced into investing through my tax dollars. That is not the role of government.
The world is more complicated then that. If those subsidies suddenly disappear, guess what. The US is a unique nation and first with no equals in projecting both its soft and hard power. Like it or not, we are the police securing the global commons which is essential to functional, consistent global trade.
If you really don't want to invest your tax dollars and are approaching this from a selfish standpoint., incorporate yourself. Contributing productive activity to society generally exempts you from all number of taxes. If you want to pay no taxes, become extremely wealthy. That's the lesson this country teaches you :)
> We should focus on killing externalities like you said,
That's nearly impossible. We generally do a piss poor job of capturing the true price of things. Externalities are often times diffuse and not acute. Most externalities exist because of our lack of knwledge about how costs and benefits are shared between individuals, firms, and societies.
>stop the abuse of our tax money.
I've just come to accept that governments are not hyper-efficient economically and never will be. Our government is a nasty, messy thing at times. Honestly, if everyone's taxes were suddenly lowered in this economic environment, it would cause inflation so there'd be little actual benefit
The transcript[1] from a secret recording[2] of seasoned propagandist Rick "Dr. Evil" Berman, laying out his strategy for smearing environmentalists and muddying debates on behalf of Big Oil at a Western Energy Alliance[3] summit (in 2014) was an eye opener for me, in regard to this type of enterprise.
Among other gems:
> You want to get people to say, one of my north stars is to get people to say, "You know, I never thought of it that way before."
> Because, if you can get people to say that, here's what you get: instead of getting the 'he said, she said debate,' what you will get with the factual debate, often times, you're going to get into people get overwhelmed by the science and 'I don't know who to believe.' But, if you get enough on your side you get people into a position of paralysis about the issue.
> We're not experts and so you don't want them trying to be experts. But if you put enough information out there and say, "Well, it could go to $10.10 but ou could also lose a lot of jobs, the Congressional Budget Office says you can lose a lot of jobs." And again, we got a lot of ads on this thing.
> You get in people's minds a tie. They don't know who is right. And you get all ties because the tie basically ensures the status quo.
> People are not prepared to get aggressive and in moving one way or another. I'll take a tie any day if I'm trying to preserve the status quo. "
But for a fuller insight into this type of PR mindset, the whole transcript (pdf below) is worth reading.
The about page says the following about the intention of this particular website:
"Stop Elon Musk from Failing Again is an initiative launched by the Sunlight Project, under Citizens For The Republic, to root out corruption, fraud and abuse of taxpayer of[sic] money in major corporations. Elon Musk has defrauded the American Taxpayer out of over $4.9 Billion in the form of subsidies, grants, and other favors. We are challenging not just Elon, but the entire culture of corporations making billions of dollars off of the American people for almost zero return to the consumer. CEO’s like Musk are taking advantage of Americans, and it is our intention to end their free ride.
StopElonFromFailingAgain.com is a collection of sources and news meant to inform and develop an understanding of Elon Musk, Tesla, SolarCity, and SpaceX. Unless stated, articles are not our content but that of those around the web. We do not take credit for any article unless stated."
Is the name "Sunlight Project"[1] intended to confuse people with the "Sunlight Foundation"[2]?
Funnily enough, when you click through the Sunlight Project website, they claim to oppose government waste in several industries, but the only thing they seem to write about is Elon Musk.
Most of the industries are subsidized. Even Apple is basically reusing without paying for it (taxes paid lightly in Ireland), research paid for by other public or private entities.
Given that you're seemingly incapable to set up a purely libertarian economy, would you be able instead to set up a simulator of such, to see if it is at all possible?
> he's a private citizen not sure why he wouldn't sue them into next week.
Because it's a about "defrauding the American taxpayers" and, hence, a matter of public concern, which presents the same standards for libel prosecution (and barriers to other tort prosecution based on expressive acts) that would be in play if Musk were a public figure.
And probably also because the entities directly involved are likely to have have less recoverable assets than the cost of prosecution and be designed to be disposable and replaceable.
The huge federal tax payer funded rebates on Tesla automobiles is absolutely a subsidy for his company. To not count it towards the 4.9 Billion dollars in Federal aid is absurd. There's no reason someone shelling out $100,000 for a car should get a $20,000 rebate from the government. That's not 'helping the environment' thats rich people stealing tax money from the poor and middle class.