You can transfer to any US bank account with Balanced. Wells Fargo accounts benefit from same day transfers, while all other accounts are next business day.
Fisker and Solyndra and several others couldn't pay back their loans. The government didn't arrest any of them and didn't take any of their personal assets. The debt was simply discharged.
"What many of them did instead was to go bankrupt and ask for bailouts."
This is quite astonishing. A few large American car companies with large pension liabilities needed the subsidies (I would have let them failed and let more efficient car manufacturers take over their assets, personally). Every other large manufacturer didn't need subsidies.
"Furthermore, the incumbents had plenty of chance to innovate."
The combustible engine is more efficient than ever. We're getting many more miles per a gallon of gas than we ever had. The efficiency of the engine has done much, much, much more than electric vehicles to curb carbon emissions. Going forward, making the combustible engine and hybrids more efficient will do magnitudes more to curb carbon emissions than all-electric vehicles.
The combustible engine is more efficient than ever. We're getting many more miles per a gallon of gas than we ever had. The efficiency of the engine has done much, much, much more than electric vehicles to curb carbon emissions.
Yeah, but only because they are far more common.
Going forward, making the combustible engine and hybrids more efficient will do magnitudes more to curb carbon emissions than all-electric vehicles.
Only if you operate under the assumption that electric vehicle usage won't become more common.
How do you explain the $7,500 subsidy for each Tesla sold?
Also, the government would have gifted them the money regardless of their ability to pay it back. Fisker couldn't pay back theirs, as did many other energy companies that went bankrupt. No one was arrested and no personal assets were taken.
The same way I explain the $7,500 subsidy for each ANY all electric car sold; as the government trying to promote alternatives to ICE because (in theory) it's good for the planet and economy.
"they know what they're doing, and they're not picking winners and losers, they're playing the same game every investor plays: trying to decide who is going to win or lose before it happens."
The government should be in the venture capitalist business funding companies based on the recommendations of the board of People Who Know Things, now?
"As for dealerships, the reason Tesla doesn't have to go through them is because they don't have any preexisting agreements with the dealerships."
Other smaller car manufacturers are having to go through dealerships, even with zero pre-existing relationships. Why should Tesla, which has a market cap that far exceeds those aforementioned manufacturers, get special rules?
> Other smaller car manufacturers are having to go through dealerships, even with zero pre-existing relationships. Why should Tesla, which has a market cap that far exceeds those aforementioned manufacturers, get special rules?
They shouldn't. Remove dealership requirements for all manufacturers. I think that's pretty clearly what Tesla is arguing for.
> The government should be in the venture capitalist business funding companies based on the recommendations of the board of People Who Know Things, now?
Sure. Why not? I want the government to stimulate innovations in places that need it.
Well, yeah. Who else? It's not dissimilar to how academic research funding works. Proposals are submitted, evaluated, and sometimes awarded funds.
As far as curbing carbon emissions goes, there are a lot of irons in that fire, both public and private. No reason to place all your eggs in one basket. There are a lot of reasons to publicly support new innovations in EVs. It's a very high-profile field, and Tesla is doing a fantastic job of showing that EVs can be fun, pleasant cars. Putting the money into academic research isn't going to generate nearly as much public interest.
>Other smaller car manufacturers are having to go through dealerships, even with zero pre-existing relationships. Why should Tesla, which has a market cap that far exceeds those aforementioned manufacturers, get special rules?
I don't believe you. Show me some evidence that they have to, and that they're not merely choosing to.
>[It shall be a violation...] to offer to sell or to sell any new motor vehicle to any person located in the commonwealth, except a distributor, at a lower actual price therefor than the actual price offered and charged contemporaneously to a motor vehicle dealer located in the commonwealth for the same model vehicle similarly equipped or to utilize any device which results in such lesser actual price unless the same is available on equal terms to all dealers located in the commonwealth; but this paragraph shall not apply to sales by a manufacturer or distributor to any unit of the federal government or any agency thereof or to the commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions.
As written, this clearly applies if and only if Tesla already sells cars to dealers, and furthermore similarly to other independent car manufacturers, electric and otherwise.
Is it a bad law? Yes. Does it hurt the incumbents? Yes. Is it biased in Tesla's favor? No. Is it giving Tesla special treatment? No.
No, if you study the automotive industry, you'll see that those car manufacturers have been trying to get around those dealers by building their own dealerships (which are quickly shut) or selling their cars online (which again are prevented). They're not lobbying for dealerships in countries where you can sell cars directly to the consumer. Take Brazil or Germany for instance.
Because we're subsidizing inefficient actors already, that makes it okay to subsidize other actors? Why subsidize any of the inefficiency at all? Tesla is certainly not curbing carbon emissions. More efficient combustible engines however are doing that, despite the lack of subsidies.
> Because we're subsidizing inefficient actors already, that makes it okay to subsidize other actors?
I didn't say that, but I would note that talking about established industries which do not benefit from government intervention in some way is a bit like the dumbed down problems we used to get in high-school physics, where we could just ignore things like friction or inertia when it was convenient.
In the real world, all our industries have a relationship with government. It's fair to say that you don't think a new entrant with a seemingly good idea should receive any subsidies like the DOE loans, but what you're really saying is that we won't level the playing field to neutralize the effect of subsidization of the existing players, and there will consequently be less competition.
> More efficient combustible engines however are doing that, despite the lack of subsidies.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. The companies making those engines - American, German, Japanese, Korean, whatever - are subsidized and supported by their governments. The companies making the fuel are similarly entwined with government. It's not a comparison that should cause a libertarian-minded person to immediately want to pick on Tesla specifically, which is why this line of argument strikes me as so odd.
> Tesla is certainly not curbing carbon emissions.
The critical component, by far, is the battery. If you find ways to build a better battery, electric cars are a practical reality. Academia is perfect for battery research.
They're also subsidizing cheap gas to the tune of $1 billion per day in Iraq and other Middle East engagements. Economies are very complicated, there's pros and cons for every action and inaction.
Well let's look at the oil and food subsidies, and compare them with the electric cars ones. I can take a wild guess and say they are on different order of magnitudes. I wonder if I'm wrong.
It's okay to give them half a billion dollars in loans because others got billions? Why not be outraged at everyone involved? The industry is colossally inefficient.
Inefficient when it comes to innovating, yes. In any industry dominated by powerful incumbents and where the startup capital costs are extremely high, you do need outside intervention (I.e. a subsidy in the form of a loan) to help newcomers.
So any startup that competes in the pharmaceutical sector or biotechnology industry should be given hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded loans?
I am not outraged at anyone, except previous commenter. But to your point, yes it is okay to give them half a billion. I don't see why government should not have supported them. And as time has shown it was a right decision, since they have paid off that loan, which I think is incredible for an only electric cars company.
