Tesla Nabs $465M Government Loan To Build Model S 505
SignalFreq writes "Tesla Motors, based in San Carlos, California, was approved yesterday for $465M in loans from the Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program. Tesla plans to use $365M of the money to finance a manufacturing facility for the Model S (review, Letterman video) and $100M for a powertrain manufacturing plant in the SF Bay Area. 'Tesla will use the ATVM loan precisely the way that Congress intended — as the capital needed to build sustainable transport,' said Tesla CEO and Product Architect Elon Musk. Tesla expects the Model S to ship in late 2011 and the base cost to be $57,400 ($49,900 after a federal tax credit). Ford received $5.9B and Nissan received $1.6B under the same program."
A requirement for the loan (Score:2, Insightful)
should have been a 25K car cost cap.
That way most people could only barely not afford it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A requirement for the loan (Score:4, Informative)
Well, at least they're having more luck squeezing money out of people than real Nikola Tesla... [wikipedia.org]
Despite having sold his AC electricity patents, Tesla was destitute and died with significant debts. Later that year the US Supreme Court upheld Tesla's patent number, in effect recognizing him as the inventor of radio.
Immediately after Tesla's death became known, the government's Alien Property Custodian office took possession of his papers and property, despite his US citizenship. His safe at the hotel was also opened.
Tesla's family and the Yugoslav embassy struggled with the American authorities to gain these items after his death due to the potential significance of some of his research.
Re:A requirement for the loan (Score:5, Insightful)
The technology does not exist yet to make a $25k electric car that can succeed in the American market. Tesla is right to start with the high-price, high-profit end of the market and work their way down to the high-volume mainstream as the technology matures and the supply chain scales up. Trying to start out by making a capable electric car for the mainstream American market is a much riskier move, and requires much more up-front money - hence the much larger handouts that have gone to the more established automakers. Tesla, on the other hand, has already established their electric vehicle business as profitable, and can use their profits and experience from the Roadster to help subsidize the development of the Model S.
Re:A requirement for the loan (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. Tesla's approach is perfectly cogent. Starting a car company is a *huge* expense. Look at what Coda is having to go through to bring a new car to the US -- they mentioned that they still need to crash another *30 to 40 cars* to get certified. And that's just the half of it. There are no volume parts producers for EV components. Look at the Roadster transmission fiasco -- there literally was no multi-gear transmission in the world that would work with their motor, and when they spent a fortune trying to get a company to engineer one for them, what they ended up with couldn't take the stress.
The logical approach, then, is to piggyback as much work as you can onto that of an existing manufacturer (in this case, Lotus), focus only on what's different, and start at the high end so that you can absorb the capital costs into the vehicle price without creating sticker shock. People expect a carbon fiber car that does 0-60 in 4 seconds to be expensive. The fact that low-volume EV drivetrain components are super-expensive doesn't matter there, because so are the low-volume ICE components that they compete against.
This is the next logical step: an independently developed, not-piggybacked, luxury sedan. This means building a large-volume factory, with a chassis developed from scratch that's designed for your EV needs. Of course, this is incredibly expensive. Hence the need to raise a ton of capital. In the middle of a financial crisis. :P
Once they've retired that risk, even higher volumes/lower prices become realistic. Which is their plan with the Bluestar.
That seems to be the same approach being taken by Fisker. I think a reasonable alternative approach is that being taken by Aptera. Three wheels to skirt the federal requirements, but put a heavy *independent* focus on safety, with a vehicle that's so uber-streamlined and lightweight that it simply doesn't need a powerful drivetrain or large battery pack to perform well. Hence they can start at near the bottom of the market, where there is a lot less competition. Once they're rolling off the lines, you can expect to see from them what Tesla is doing now -- raising large amounts of money to build a factory for a more mainstream, higher volume sedan (although they'll almost certainly keep their extreme-efficiency focus).
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly how the whole industry started out. Until the Model T, only the very wealthey could afford to buy a car (and the ongoing costs, such as a servant to drive and look after it).
Re:A requirement for the loan (Score:5, Insightful)
In the electric car industry, that's simply too big a jump to make all at once. If your ultimate goal is to produce 200,000 $25k cars a year, and the current state of the art is 2,000 $100k cars a year (the Tesla Roadster), then it's only reasonable to expect to produce 20,000 $50k cars (the Tesla Model S) as a stepping-stone. The market is there, and those early adopters will facilitate the eventual availability of the $25k mass-market car you're talking about. If you do the math, the "rich" purchasers of the Model S will be kicking in about one billion dollars a year towards this goal, double the government loan amount. So think before you knock 'em.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
should have been a 25K car cost cap.
As with computers early adopters will help finance more affordable cars.
In general I oppose subsidies but at least this money has to be repaid, and some of the money will be used to open a factory employing people.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, government price fixing... That's what we need to save the car industry and promote innovation!
Re:A requirement for the loan (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is the parent modded troll? She quite correctly points out that Ford has received a far larger cheque than Tesla, and essentially for the same general purpose - "improving fuel economy". Yes, this isn't bailout money; but neither is Tesla being bailed out. It's very much a fair apples-to-apples comparison.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What part of "why put a cap on Tesla? $500 million is nothing compared to the $6billion the government flushed down the toilet when they gave it ford, nobody is going to buy a ford anytime soon regardless of the price." made you think that federal emergency loans ("bailout") was being talked about at all?
The federal government gave Ford $6B. The poster pointed that out. A subsequent poster treated them like an idiot for saying that (confusing the bailout with the ATVM loans), when in fact what the parent
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, Ford declined to take any bailout money from the government, they just said they might need to take a loan.
Also, since about the year 2000, Fords have been hugely improved over earlier years, and they've been much more reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is about Tesla, that's why I named them.
Really, I can solve the auto issue.
In fact, the administration should hire me, give me "too much latitude" ahve me solve it and be terribly sorry for me action.
Meanwhile I will be put on a trial in the media and by the time I resign, people will be used to my changes and feel good something was done.
BTW I ahve been talking to people and a lot of them have bought fords in the last 2 months.
If I was in the market, I would buy a Ford. Fords reputation is larg
Re: (Score:2)
True... ish. 500M is not much compared to 6B.
Ford does have the distinction of the Detroit 3 of being the only one to not take bailout (ahem... loan) money for the core business. In fact, Ford's done a hell of a job getting their act together and they do have 3 of the top 10 spots in new car sales in the US (including the 1 overall). So... Not quite.
source: A little Google-ing - http://jalopnik.com/5277118/top-ten-best-selling-cars-may-2009 [jalopnik.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do government car-maker loans work the same way as student loans? For a student loan, you have to pay it back with interest regardless of what happens. Can't get out of a student loan going bankrupt or anything?
Green Car on a Budget - Innovation Not Required (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Green Car on a Budget - Innovation Not Required (Score:5, Informative)
Tesla is the only company in the world selling production electric cars that are fully street-legal. They started with a $100K car, and now they're doing a $50K car. They have a $30K car planned for after that.
Basically, you need economies of scale to get the cost of these cars down. Tesla's riding that curve, and plans to eventually have cheaper cars than Ford. This is a potentially great place to invest in American innovation, not to mention the environmental benefits or jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla is the only company in the world selling production electric cars that are fully street-legal.
BYD F3DM? Mitsubishi MiEV? Subaru Stella EV? AC Propulsion E-Box? Etc?
Re:Green Car on a Budget - Innovation Not Required (Score:4, Informative)
BYD F3DM is a hybrid, and only sold in China to the government and corporations.
The Mitsubishi MiEV is still in research phase, and I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a US version
The Subaru Stella EV is still only a concept car, though it may be sold soon in Japan. Again, good luck getting one here.
AC Propulsion E-Box? Seriously? It's a $55K conversion kit, not a car, and it converts a crummy $15K car into a crummy $70K car.
Subaru Stella is not yet in production, and it'll be a long time before we get to buy them.
So long as we're talking about cool future technologies, I'd include the Volt and Aptera. I hope all these companies make it, but high-volume production is key. Tesla has the lead in this area, and they're further along at developing the technology than any other company.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
BYD F3DM is a hybrid,
No, it's an E-REV. Extended-Range Electric Vehicle. It has 40-60 miles of all-electric range. It just happens to *also* have an onboard generator.
The Mitsubishi MiEV is still in research phase, and I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a US version
Wrong and wrong. It's both under production and for sale now in Japan, and they've announced US plans for "before 2012".
The Subaru Stella EV is still only a concept car, though it may be sold soon in Japan. Again, good luck getting one h
Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You want them to develop a whole new vehicle in six months? Really? Do you realize that includes factory tooling, creating supply chains, training workers?
A friend of mine works for GM. In 2007 they had re-tooled the factory he worked in at a cost of $2.5 billion. The interest on the loan for that retooling is more per day than every employee in the plant combined.
What is lacking, and what Tesla and other startups (like Aptera) are trying to do, is create electric cars cheap enough and with competitive
Re: (Score:2)
AS it turns out, electric cars people will buy are costly to make.
Not teslaa expensive, but expensive.
How about selling a 45MPG car base model at cost +2000. If they have a working trad in more then 10 years old, drop the price to cost.
Re:Green Car on a Budget - Innovation Not Required (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm anti-subsidy for luxury car manufacturers. Starting at $49,900 -- bah! How about spending a fraction of this to rip out the engine of a Chevy Aveo and put in an electric motor? How about an electric car people can actually buy? Innovation not required!
There is a bit more to the Tesla cars than just ripping out the ICE and putting in a regular electric motor. There is very advanced liquid-cooled Lithium Ion battery technology, a next-gen 3-phase/4 pole motor, etc. It performs at par or better than other cars in its price point, and is also practical (can carry 5 passengers and their luggage comfortably). It is easily 200 to 300 percent more energy efficient than a typical hybrid as well. Luxury or not, getting such a vehicle to market is very worthwhile. Remember the Prius was the favourite toy of green-wannabe celebrities and rich folk in its early adoption phase, and this is a much better alternative.
Given the nature of the technology this is the ONLY way to bring it forward. I think GM's approach (with bringing out a less exotic Chevy Volt) or yours (an even more austere Aveo) is backwards. Say it costs $5000 to $10000 to implement the advanced battery and drivetrain at this point in development. This means the cost of an electric Aveo would be 50+ percent higher than for a gas one, which is "cheap enough" to run in the first place. NOBODY who is willing to be an "early adopter" would buy an electric aveo at a profitable price point, because green and innovative as the drivetrain would be, the rest of the car is actually rather crappy.
OTOH, The Tesla S is probably no more tha 10 or 20% more expensive than a comparable car that runs on petroleum fuel. Early adopters tend to be more affluent as well, and when you get to that less-than-20% premium for something cool and new. This car has a realistic chance of making a profit, or at least paying back its loans. The Volt or an electric Aveo would be a guaranteed money loser.
Remember, that Tesla got its loans specifically because it has committed to re-investing profits from early, more exotic/expensive models into more practical, affordable models. Even in its early stages on the market it has established a track record: It followed up an exotic, very expensive roadster with a luxury sedan that is actually very practical and within the price range of upper-middle class households (the ones who buy Escalades, BMW 5 or 7 series, etc). Ensuring the success of the S means the much more likely possibility of an under $30K vehicle that competes right in the mainstream sedan market.
If the US is going to get all socialist on us, I'm glad it isn't following the tired old thinking that to support innovation it must have this fixation on immediately addressing the needs of the "masses" or "working poor" or that crap, when it isn't realistic from a business perspective. Certainly better than taking a controlling interest in a loser bankrupt GM or gifting Chrysler to the unions--doing both with massive loans backing the moves (if taxpayers weren't forced to accept such nonsense, thay'd never in their right mind invest in such shaky enterprises). GM in particular has been the ABSOLUTE LEAST INNOVATIVE auto company on the entire planet for decades--even its best products are dependable but very boring and un-innovative, and they've invested the least into new technologies in their plants out of EVERY SINGLE company that builds cars in N America.
If my gov't is going to throw boatloads of cash around on speculative enterprises, I'd MUCH rather it go do something bold, new, exciting and innovative like Tesla than something tired, old and nothing to show for in terms of innovation than words and vague plans crafted for the purpose of begging for alms from the gov't. as GM and Chrysler have done in the last year.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about an electric car people can actually buy? Innovation not required!
It's not sufficient to build a car that people can buy, it also has to be a car they want to buy, or it won't sell.
Various companies have tried the "rip out the engine of a standard car and replace it with an electric motor" route before, and it doesn't work. You end up selling what looks like a $15,000 car for $35,000, and the car has a top speed of 70 miles an hour, a range of 40 miles, and takes 6 hours to "refill". The public
loans for everyone! (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone left wondering why our tax dollars are funding a loan for Nissan while U.S. auto companies are struggling?
Re:loans for everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
just a guess, but it could be because of the 3 manufacturing plants and 1100 dealerships Nissan has in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
The loans are part of the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program, which provides incentives to new and established automakers to build more fuel-efficient vehicles.
It's better to give companies loans for actually doing something. Rather then giving them 25 billion dollars [businessweek.com] just for "struggling".
Especially if the reason they're struggling is because they make shitty cars. At least the when we fund companies that create electric cars we get a quality product out of it.
Re:loans for everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the money is going to a Nissan plant in TN that is being retrofitted to develop, manufacture, and test cutting edge batteries. Would you rather that the DOE does not provided to money on some idiotic jingoistic grounds only so that a future industry in and that portion of the economy is cornered in Japan?
Re:loans for everyone! (Score:4, Insightful)
Loans to people/companies who can actually pay them back yield a lot of money. Average return on a 15 year mortgage, for example, is about double. It's also frontloaded, so they make most of the profit by year 10 and all that is left is the principal that needs to be paid back.
Corporate loans work similarly, so if Company X pays back a 1 billion dollar loan in 10 years, the loaner has made a profit of probably around 50-75%.
That's a whole lot different than a grant, in which case the money is free so long as it is used for the specific purpose it was granted for.
Loans are a good thing as long as there is a good reassurance that the loan will be paid back. I don't mind a loan to Nissan, since they have a number of US factories and have a very solid business. That means more jobs and money for the US.
Loans should NOT be given to US companies that look like they might fail. That's what got the mortgage industry into trouble and helped cause this crisis in the first place. Propping up a failing business is bad practice, but helping a viable business become more viable and more profitable is good practice, especially when you can get a good return on your investment. All we should care about when granting these loans are two things: Will it create more lasting jobs in the US, and will we get are money back and then some. If we start fudging the second one just because it is a US based company, then we'll be headed for more heartache.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(and yes, it is a handout. It's called "gambling with someone else's money". If you go broke anyway, you don't pay it back, because you can't-)
As to why ANY of them are getting any government money,,,,, that would have to do with a certain musty piece of paper, and of a number of politicians who have no use for it.
~
ABOUT freakin' time (Score:2)
Now, if eeStor's ultracapacitors can ramp up, we might actually have a private transportation sector in 10 years.
RS
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Electric cars will be nice, but putting the plant in California is massively wrong and stinks of rotten pork.
If Tesla is going to succeed in the long run, they need to be in a pro-busioness climate, and not in a state that needs money so badly the punitive tax burden combined with out of control state regulators will force them to either go belly up, or move their facilities to another state later (at great expense and possibly triggering additional fallout from the Feds for not staying in CA).
Tesla Fanboi (Score:2, Informative)
I've been watching Tesla since day one. The make cars the way they should be made. You place an order for your car, then the car is built. It was privately financed until this infusion of funds. For what the model S is and does the price isn't to high. I looked at buying a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo and it clocked in at $42,000, while I was shopping I noticed that entry level BMW's and Audi's were also at the $40,000 mark. So I saved $22,000 and bought a 2009 Corolla. My next car will be a Tesla as soon a
Re: (Score:2)
without the need to change the oil or pay at the pump.
You do have to pay for a new battery every once in a while though. Don't remember the estimated price (I think it was every 6 or 12 months), but it was steep. Hopefully if they make more cars the prices for those parts will come down, and it will turn into a real savings. But for now you're substituting fuel costs for battery costs and other maintenance fees.
Electric vehicles aren't great (Score:3, Interesting)
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details_new.php?seriesid=2009-B-51905%7C2009-B-69390&semesterid=2009-B/ [berkeley.edu]
Lecture 1 - 46 mins in Richard Muller talks about the cost vs pay of an electric vehicle.
Re:Electric vehicles aren't great (Score:4, Informative)
Fleet Car (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
1: GM never made a production version of the Impact (EV-1) since the CARB changed course mid stream and no longer required any zero emissions vehicles per automaker fleet.
2: They are using the money for plants. They have almost no money for actual development of the Model S. That money is likely being laundered via those plants at this point. Multiple times now Musk has made claims regarding funding that have proven to be false, like that they had already gotten approved for this program or the VC funds ea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Battery replacement cost? (Score:3, Interesting)
That thing looks hot.
My only concern is battery replacement. Replacing a UPS battery is roughly half the cost of the UPS. If cars like these get the same battery economy that would mean $25k every 5-7 years according to their FAQ. (I'm just guessing here based on battery life; they made no mention of battery replacement costs)
Their FAQ claims the car is a great lasting investment due to lack of complexity and moving parts, but having to drop $25k every 6 years for a new battery would be a deal breaker.
I do wish them luck though, it's way past time we stopped supporting extremists in the middle east. Not to mention that fact that a complete 300 mile recharge would cost about $4.
Re: (Score:2)
Model Tee Hee Hee (Score:2, Funny)
If they are on "S" now, then the next model in line is "T". The potential confusion cannot be good for marketing. Reminds me of the door company that made a "Commodoor-64".
Geography (Score:4, Insightful)
$100M for a powertrain manufacturing plant in the SF Bay Area
How on earth can that be the cheapest place to manufacture something?
I suspect the factory location is more political than practical ("I've love to help you get that loan, but you know, it'd sure be nice if you located that factory in my state").
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually my initial thought was the opposite. Who is the most likely to buy (read, afford) these cars? Silicon Valley nerds and Hollywood liberals. (And I don't mean to disparage either of those groups; if I were in either of their socioeconomic strata I would be standing in line with them.) Factor in the stricter emission standards of California as extra incentive, and one has to wonder why it would make sense to build them 2000 miles aw
Re:Geography (Score:5, Informative)
1) You can't just take some laid off Mexican auto assemblers from an old GM plant, put them in a new building and tell them to start making Electric car drivetrains -there are probably entirely new process steps (not to mention components) which would make this a non-starter
2) they probably need to tweak that process as well as being able to introduce changes in parts as the design is tested and improved
therefore it makes sense for the factory to be close to where design/engineering takes place -not to mention that there is also a highly trained, technologically able workforce in the Bay Area.
Also, thanks to Hitech, Lockheed, Lawrence Livermore Labs, etc there are a great many machine tooling shops in the area which are second to none.
Think of this as a pilot mfg plant -they will no doubt try to go somewhere cheaper when it comes time to produce quantities in the 100ks
On the other hand, we have the only large scale auto manufacturing plant left on the West Coast just down the street from me: http://www.nummi.com/ , so stranger things have happened.
-I'm just sayin'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't just take some laid off Mexican auto assemblers from an old GM plant, put them in a new building and tell them to start making Electric car drivetrains -there are probably entirely new process steps (not to mention components) which would make this a non-starter
Let's also be fair here and mention that cars made in Mexico have repeatedly been shown to have quality problems; this has happened again and again with Fords, GMs, and especially VWs; the Golfs made in Mexico are complete shit piles, so they went back to making them in Germany, and now they're some of the most reliable cars there are.
I don't know WHY the cars that come out of Mexico are shit, but they are.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why no diesel-electric cars? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is all the development on electric and electric-hybrid cars going into fancy new systems with lithium ion batteries or hydrogen fuel cells and (for hybrids) complicated switching between a conventional drive train and electric motors, instead of using and improving upon the time-tested diesel-electric technology which has efficiently powered many trains for quite some time now?
Build a simple all-electric car - just a body, steering rack, four wheels with a dynamo on each (there's your propulsion and your regenerative brakes), some circuity to control them all, and a small battery that holds just enough charge to get you up to speed, maybe twice that for a safety margin. Then stick the most efficient diesel or gas generator you've got in it to provide electricity to keep the battery charged. You lose a bunch of weight and mechanical complexity by ditching most of the drive train and transmission system for some simple wiring between the generator and the dynamos; the alternator and the standard car battery become redundant with the generator and main battery; heck you could even replace the radiator with a small steam engine for still increased efficiency, turning that excess heat into electricity instead of just disposing of it to the air.
Yes, it still uses some fossil fuels, but in the end most of our electricity comes from coal anyway (even for a wall-charged all-electric vehicle like the Model S here, which I am very excited about). This just seems like it would have been far cheaper, more efficient (in terms of both money and thermodynamics), and simpler a solution than the complicated hybrids they've been building for a while now; plus the technology has already existed in widespread use on trains for decades!
So why isn't anybody doing it in cars? Is there a good technical or economic reason?
Re:More bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
More bullshit courtesy of the U.S. Gubmint!
I know. Just like those silly Interstate highways, the US Marine Corps, the US Postal Service that'll deliver a package of paper to any door in the US within a day or two for an affordable flat fee, and those terribly inefficient and socialized Firefighters and that neo-communist socialized Police Department. Government. Pah! Who needs it?
Re:More bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
> I know. Just like those silly Interstate highways
Roads are specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. Pass
> the US Marine Corps
A Navy is specifically mentioned. The Marines are a sub unit of the Navy. Pass
> the US Postal Service that'll deliver
Postal service is permitted. Pass. But note that most packages use private carriers these days, the postal service is mostly for bills and junk mail.
> and those terribly inefficient and socialized Firefighters and that neo-communist socialized Police Department
Those services are not provided by the US government. Federal money for those purposes are unconstitutional. Good luck getting enough literate Supremes to be able to figure that out any time soon.
US Taxpayer money to a private automaker? Fail. Unless you can point me to the clause I missed that specifically grants the US government that power the 10th Amendment forbids it. Again, good luck finding five Supremes who can read.
It's a Loan. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not a handout. It's a loan. You know like the loans you can get for small businesses from the feds and state governments.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> It's not a handout. It's a loan.
It must be great to be young and naive. You probably think the TARP money will be paid back too. It will only be paid back if Tesla makes a crapload of profits instead of losing their ass on the deal. But if it was a sure fire moneymaker they could have raised the money on the private markets. Even in a recession and credit crisis there is venture capital looking for places to park. SO we must assume it is a high risk investment being financed with a very sweetheart
Re: (Score:2)
But if it was a sure fire moneymaker they could have raised the money on the private markets. Even in a recession and credit crisis there is venture capital looking for places to park.
No, there was a liquidity crisis, so there weren't any banks making loans, and VC has been skittish for a while. I don't know what your problem is, but the TARP thing was needed.
Re:It's a Loan. (Score:4, Insightful)
> the TARP thing was needed.
Was it? Everybody said that..... but 'everybody' seemed to be the ones either handing out the money or the politically connected people who were lining up to take the money. And then they didn't even spend most of the money to solve the 'toxic asset' problem that we were assured was going to bring on a depression. No, they nationalized banks, insurance companies and automakers with most of it and show every sign of keeping any money that does get paid back as a giant off the books slush fund.
Not the only one who is starting to smell a giant rat. Seeing the same 'masters of the universe' types moving seamlessly between Wall Street, the Bush administration and now the Obama camp spending Sagans of cash that was called into existence from nothing to bail out old money companies who did stupid things because they were afraid of being called names by Democrats.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You only think the TARP thing was "needed" because somebody told you it was.
How do you know there weren't any banks making loans? To homebuyers? Or to businesses? When the news told you they weren't making loans, did you find out which they were talking about? Were businesses looking for loans in the first place? OR were businesses interested in shoring up their own books before getting more loans? This is all past tense, "were", how do you know businesses want loans now? Home prices haven't gone u
the TARP thing was needed (Score:3, Interesting)
TARP may of been needed but if so then strings should have been placed on the funds, such as requiring banks to lend money instead of using it to buy competitors and hoarding the money. Money was given to banks because they were too big to fail, well now they're massive and when they crash again the government won't be able to bail them out.
The bailout also gave bad banks advantages over banks that were properly run and didn't make bad loans. Good banks and borrowers were made to pay for those who made ba
Re:It's a Loan. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a Loan. (Score:5, Interesting)
It must be great to be old, stupid and wrong.
Many banks and financial organizations are ALREADY preparing to pay it back, starting next month.
In fact, there some people are saying they should be allowed to until the enact the changes they promised when taking the money.
That's not going to happen. Almost all of that money will be paid back within a year. Why? because the financial institution don't like the strings that came with it. That's right, the government add string that would pretty much guarantee a payback.
Maybe you should read up on things instead of letting libertarians spoon feed you? You might be able to actually look at facts can come to your own independent conclusion.
"But if it was a sure fire moneymaker they could have raised the money on the private markets"
You've never looked for VC funding, have you?
Frankly I would rather get a loan I can pay of then give up 60+% of my company to a VC that want's to make 10 times the money they invested immediatly.
Wouldn't be the first company a VC forced a sell of so they could make a quick return, and destroying the company at the same time.
No, that is not a reasonable assumption, and if you knew anything about financing companies at this stage, you would understand why.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Tesla? What about Ford?
Both companies are probably going to produce the same number of electric cars, so what entitles them to an extra ~5.5 billion?
Re: (Score:2)
There is always the good old general welfare clause. It is not hard to argue that getting us off of oil is beneficial to the general welfare of the nation.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, FYI the government is also supposed to protect its countrymen. This is to include promoting a market for more sensible transportation that is not sourced from fossil fuels (given we change our ways of electricity production as well).
The damage to be incurred by not making serious changes yesterday (said "now") is worth your attention whether you're educated enough to understand it or not. If you don't understand why this is important, get the education and understand, or sit back and trust those tha
Re:More bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
Henry Ford had no idea that using fossil fuels could lead to dire consequences of worldwide magnitude.
In all honesty, we should have made these serious changes over a decade ago.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:More bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
One question. If the 'general welfare' clause were intended to be as open ended as you guys believe it to be, why did they feel a need to carefully enumerate the powers and limitations in the lines directly under that header?
So we have two competing theories:
1. The 'general welfare' clause, along with the other all purpose commerce clause, grant unlimited powers to the Federal government making the 9th and 10th Amendments (passed as Amendments btw which can override the original document) null and void.
2. The words 'general welfare' appear in the section heading describing the general flavor of the more specific defined powers granted in the section which taken together define the limits of Congress's powers to 'provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.'
But since you posted as an AC it is doubtful you will man up and even try to answer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More bullshit courtesy of the U.S. Gubmint!
I know. Just like those silly Interstate highways, the US Marine Corps, the US Postal Service that'll deliver a package of paper to any door in the US within a day or two for an affordable flat fee, and those terribly inefficient and socialized Firefighters and that neo-communist socialized Police Department. Government. Pah! Who needs it?
The Republicans are involved at the highest levels of government. If anybody would be in a position to fix it instead of complaining about it then it would be them, or at least them when they had control of all three branches not too long ago. So why didn't they do anything about it? And if it's a system that cannot be fixed and they do not believe in it, why are they still a part of it?
If us IT geeks went about our jobs like Republicans, we'd be saying stuff like "Bah, stupid computers! Management wants to
Re: (Score:2)
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Postal Service is funded by postage, not taxpayer money. All the other stuff is typical government stuff.
A better analogy would be NASA. Most of the work of building an launching things is done by contractors, not the government itself. Having the government pay a company to develop something is not unheard of. The only thing I hope they did is stipulate that the technology is free to all takers since it was funded with public money.
Re: (Score:2)
More bullshit courtesy of the U.S. Gubmint!
I know. Just like those silly Interstate highways,
Highway construction is mostly managed by states: Federal subsidy reduces the incentive to keep costs down and effectively eliminates the consideration of other alternatives like rail.
the US Marine Corps,
Needed to maintain the oil supplies that support the fuel-inefficient transportation system. They're not defending the borders.
the US Postal Service that'll deliver a package of paper to any door in the US within a day or two for an affordable flat fee,
They were the best alternative because federal law prohibited competition. FedEx and UPS are doing a pretty good job in niches where they are allowed.
and those terribly inefficient and socialized Firefighters and that neo-communist socialized Police Department. Government. Pah! Who needs it?
Those are local government, not U.S. government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not even half a gigabuck will convince Americans to ride bikes. *ducks*
Re: (Score:2)
Line 10 - Complain that the U.S. Government is not doing enough to help us lead in the Tech sector.
Line 20 - Complain when the U.S. Government actually risks money putting it into a technology, industry and with a US company that is making headway in a technological field.
Line 30 - goto 10.
And the U.S. Government, stuck in the perpetual tug of war between Line 10 & Line 20, executes the program perfectly and comes in second best. A mediocracy where trying to be in first place is to much of a risk, but h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is giving a loan to a financially solvent private company that has a market valuation of $550B (at least as judged by Daimler) the same as the sort of giveaway that you portray it as??
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How is funding a boutique luxury car manufacturer at the rate of half a billion similar to funding interstates, military, postal service, etc.? Tesla does not even hope to provide shared infrastructure or essential services to the country as do these programs. I don't get it.
I am so sick of this argument! They are NOT just a boutique luxury car manufacturer, they started that way to get enough money for their company but they are now working on selling the first truly viable all electric family sedan, that is within the range of most other nice sedans like Audis, etc, which many familys have.
They are the first company with the balls to say FU to the oil companies and actually do some real innovative work, and they deserve every fucking penny of what they got.
While every other a
Re: (Score:2)
Were you imagining that you were slurping Ayn Rand's kipperbox while you were posting?
If not then no, you fail it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Please keep your conspiracy crap off the Internet.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Even the head of the America's Socialist Party [washingtonpost.com] doesn't think so. Propaganda rule #1: At least get the disinformation believable. Otherwise it just makes Obama haters appear stupid. Just sayin..
Re:Model S (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama socialist?
People who claim that Obama or the American Democratic party for that matter is socialist needs to take a trip around the globe. In many European countries the Democrats would be considered a right wing party.
Re:Model S (Score:5, Funny)
The kind of people who claim that Obama is socialist aren't the kind of people that travel around the globe. Well OK, Gov. Sanford does, but the REST of them...
Re: (Score:2)
Not nearly as liberal or socialist as FDR or JFK. And they are still praised to this day for what they have done for this country. Sorry to burst your distortion bubble.
Get educated.
Re: (Score:2)
One, it's Alice IN Wonderland.
Two, definitions don't think.
Three, it seems they aren't alone.
Re:Overpriced. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cars are cheap because nearly everybody in this country needs a car. You need a car to get to work, you need it to get to school and you need it for recreation. Sure, if you happen to live in a major city there is also mass transit, but for a large percentage of the population a car is a necessary reality.
Now, with that being said - what happens when something is produced in such great numbers? Economies of scale - the price is driven down due to mass production. Vehicles that cost $13,000 USD are a reality and they're not half bad either. A pretty decent car can be purchased for $20,000, and a really good car for $30,000. Luxury vehicles are nearly anything $40,000 and above.
What about electric cars? They aren't mass produced in any great number just yet, because so far everyone is content with dropping $13,000 on a car that's just "good enough" for their needs. Why do I need an electric vehicle? What benefit does it give me _right now_? Fuel costs decrease significantly, yes - but enough to offset the price of the car? Probably not, even over the lifetime of the vehicle. Therein lies the problem.
Electric vehicles - especially from a non-big 3 startup - are something I believe the government should assist. Your tax dollars are helping fund the future, because while you may not be able to afford this vehicle at $50,000, you might be able to afford the next car they produce using the profits of the Model S.
When the world is filled with "good enough" and people who like "good enough" - how do you convince people to switch to something better?
Re:Overpriced. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask Apple — that is, once they recover from the devastating choices of entering the saturated mp3 player and smartphone markets.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you need a new car? You should be able to find a perfectly reliable, reasonably safe used car for just a few grand. It may not be pretty, but it will do fine. Drive it until it dies, saving your car payment during that time. By the time it dies, you should have enough to buy something better (especially with trade in value). Trade up to another used car that's better, and continue.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems silly to dump such a large sum into a company that is in fact making luxury cars. Sustainable? Sure, if you're upper-class white America.
If you look at the history of cars, they were always owned by the rich people first. EVENTUALLY Joe Average was able to afford one. But as GM and Chrysler (and numerous banks) have proven, you can't make money by selling something to the poor - by definition they don't have any money. If you want a poor person's car, TATA motors has a vehicle fo
Re:Wasted taxpayer dollars (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong in so many ways.
1) It's not a grant. It's a loan.
2) The Model S is right in the price range of high-end luxury sedans (which is what they're making).
3) Tesla got the overwhelming majority of their Roadsters when there was no EV tax credit. Sure, it'll increase their Model S sales volume, but they'd still sell a ton without it.
4) The whole world is lacking in venture capital right now. It's called a financial crisis. About the only entity that investors trust to loan money to these days are major world governments. Hence, that makes them effectively the only entity able to give loans worth half a billion dollars to all but the most established large businesses.
5) If you have such a problem with half a billion dollar loan, I'd hate to see how you'd react to the $5.9 billion loan Ford just got from the same program.
Re:Wasted taxpayer dollars (Score:4, Insightful)
> If you have such a problem with half a billion dollar loan, I'd hate to see how
> you'd react to the $5.9 billion loan Ford just got from the same program.
I'm pissed off about that too. I'm pissed off at the money we are pissing away on the auto bailouts in general. We spent all that money.... and they went bankrupt anyway. But since they cheated and didn't let them do a proper bankruptcy it's going to be f&%king Groundhog Day in Detroit for the next 3 1/2 years as they keep going bankrupt over and over again and the US taxpayer keeps stuffing money down the UAW rathole and relaunching the zombie automakers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Oh, and management willingly signed every contract that holds provisions in it your find repugnant.
Interesting definition of 'willing' you have there. Places like Detroit aren't in 'right to work' states so once a shop goes union you basically have two choices, sign the contract or close the plant. And you are sitting at the table with a Federal negotiator with unappealable powers to impose 'binding arbitration' so closing the plant is only an option if HE says it is and HE is a political appointee w
Re:Wasted taxpayer dollars (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words the taxpayers just had half a billion stolen from them and given to some idiot Californicators to waste on building overpriced cars that will only sell if they are subsidized with yet more taxpayer dollars.
Seriously, if these cars were such a great moneymaking venture I don't think California is lacking in venture capitalists even in a recession. You only go to the government with hat in hand if you know it is a losing idea but can be made politically appealing anyway. These days you just have to say "green!" to crack open the piggy bank.
Who built the Interstates?
Re:Wasted taxpayer dollars (Score:4, Insightful)
People, with machines.
Re:Wasted taxpayer dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
You remind me of my Dad in 1975 when new cars were required to have catalytic converters and could no longer use leaded gas.
Re:Nissan? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is the United States government giving money to Nissan? Shouldn't the Japanese government do that and not the U. S. taxpayer?
They are getting money because they are trying to produce a car that might help the US reduce its dependence on dangerous, foreign, terror-funding oil.
They are getting money because they might employ you, and many other US citizens.
They are in a better position to employ you and others than 2 of the 3 major American car manufacturers because they are not shite.
Surely you don't think they are taking the money back to Tokyo to spend on kimonos?
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate your points. However, I'm more than a little bitter thinking that the money I have paying into the system for so many years is going to a foreign company, especially when I'm having such a hard time finding a job in my home country. Nobody is hiring.
I apologize if I offended you.
Oh, and one more thing. We don't need more cars. We need decent freakin' public transportation in this country. In Europe, it's everywhere. Here, you have to live in a "major" city and even then it's shaky at best.
I don
Re:Nissan? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been to Europe, so, yes, I have seen and used the public transportation system. (Props to the Netherlands and Germany!) The U.S. just needs to take a look at its infrastructure and wonder whether all of that stimulus might be spent on other endeavors that have a greater impact on the greatest amount of people. We should not be so concerned with keeping the car companies alive for the short term. Let us thing in the long term.
SiO2
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you such knee-jerk ideologues? A government spending money is socialism?
It is! What, you want this country to turn into Cuba?
By the way, would you mind putting out my flaming shoe [youtube.com] so I don't have to rely on a socialist fire department?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US government is retarded. (Score:3, Interesting)
Government was already fund Detroit. While I don't like government subsidies whereas 2 of the Detroit big 3 are bankrupt, Tesla looks to be profitable.
The ideal and proper method for government grants
These are loans not grants and have to be repaid.
Falcon