Posted on 05/12/2018 9:35:39 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Tesla CEO Elon Musk is a rare thing in the car business: a celebrity and a leader.
His celebrity has definitely helped fuel Tesla's rise.
But of late it has begun to reveal some disadvantages.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention to all things Tesla for the past two weeks. Here's an update:
Tesla reported first-quarter earnings and lost over $700 million in three months.
CEO Elon Musk, who is supposed to be sleeping on the floor of his factory in California, flipped out on an earnings call, silencing two analysts and taking 20 minutes of questions from a YouTuber who owns less than 100 shares of Tesla stock and pitched his insights to Musk via Twitter.
The stock tanked.
Musk got on Twitter to attack the offending analysts as instruments of short-sellers; neither has a drastically bearish view of the stock, and both have hold ratings.
The stock bounced back.
Musk warned short sellers that they were in for a world of hurt.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Neither am I.
So you’re against the taxpayers footing the bill for Musk’s projects then?
Am I supposed to ignore the money put in by Musk, other investors, and the value added by the work of the employees? Specifically, what do you mean by “foot the bill?”
And am I so supposed to demand that Musk turn down tax breaks and other incentives that his competitors receive? Should I blame him or the governments who offer them? Should I blame Musk for the rebates that his customers receive?
You’re ignoring the taxoayer subsidy, while saying you’re against it.
Funny.
I am against customers getting rebates for electric cars. But why should Musk be required not to accept them while his competitors do?
You seem reluctant to get into specifics. I wonder why.
Why should taxpayers be on the hook for any risk?
What are you specifically referring to?
The taxpayer subsidies that he is very skilled at slurping up.
You know, the tax parasite subsidies you claim to be against?
The taxpayer money invested into, say, his overhyoped “hyperloop”?
The taxpayer money sunk into his battery megaplant?
Ringing any bells?
Of course not.
You are against tax parasites only in word because you like said parasites.
I’m against them all.
Nice try on attempting to excuse it.
I think Musk pretty much made the Hyperloop public domain and I see no mention of subsidies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop#Open-source_design_evolution
State & Local Incentives For Gigafactory 1 & Gigafactory 2
The states of Nevada, New York, and California have indeed all offered Tesla various forms of tax breaks and concessions in order to draw the company to develop operations (or expansions) in those states — a situation that is completely normal with regard to most modern business sectors. Essentially every company out there that is large enough to employ a substantial workforce or to generate significant economic activity can come to terms with various local and regional governmental bodies on incentives’ packages. Cities, counties, and states want more jobs, as well as more residents, and their often eager to find ways to incentivize companies to bring those jobs and residents to their jurisdictions.
Again. Why should Musk turn down incentives that would be available to his competitors for bringing jobs and economic activity to a particular place? If you don’t like it then you should hate the politicians, not Musk.
Musk would be sued and dismissed by his shareholders if he didn’t get what was available.
There’s a reason Wikipedia is banned as a source reference in college.
“Why should Musk turn down incentives that would be available to his competitors “
So you lied when you said you were against tax parasites.
It’s not hard to say it, you know.
It’s better than your reference which is none.
Just Friday SpaceX launched the latest version of Falcon 9. SpaceX has already driven down the cost of launches. They’ve dominated commercial launches now for over a year and have forced the Russians out of the business. This year they’ll conduct more launches than any country on Earth. SpaceX has greatly reduced the cost of launches for the American taxpayer. Other launchers have been forced to lower their prices, so we the taxpayer save on every launch, not just a SpaceX launch. The new rocket is projected to lower the incremental launch cost to about $6 million. Parasites don’t return that kind of value.
One of the “subsidies” Tesla received was a $451 million loan that they paid back nine years early. Parasites don’t pay back their loans.
So now you still haven’t provided specifics of how Musk is being a tax parasite. Waiting.
This link took a whole nanosecond to find:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html
This took another whole nanosecond:
http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-stock-price-california-state-government-bailing-out-2017-7
yawn...
And if you want to address them one by one specifically, then that’s fine.
Otherwise, go back to sleep.
Why must I do your homework?
That Musk received taxpayer money has been everywhere on FR, discussed after nauseum, and defended by his worshipful acolytes as if he is a religious icon.
If you, as you are pretending, honestly don’t know then you were and are purposely blind.
As I said, you lied when you said you were against tax parasites.
“One of the “subsidies” Tesla received was a $451 million loan”
That he shouldn’t have received to begin with.
That’s a little less than half a billion in parasitism and you’re perfectly okay with it.
WERE HE A GOOD BUSINESSMAN, HE WOULD HAVE INVESTORS TAKE THE FINANCIAL RISK INSTEAD OF THE TAXPAYERS.
There should not have been 451 million anything from the taxpayers.
He really dislikes “blasphemy” against his God.
He would be a Looter, not a Moocher, in an Ayn Rand novel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.