PDA

View Full Version : Machine Gunning a Tesla




Anti Federalist
02-20-2015, 01:17 PM
Machine Gunning a Tesla

http://ericpetersautos.com/2015/02/19/machine-gunning-tesla/

There is an episode of the TV show Top Gear involving a Prius hybrid and automatic weapons. God, I wish I could afford to do the same to a Tesla.

Unfortunately, I (and thee) are too poor to afford a Tesla. But that doesn’t mean we won’t continue to be forced to “help” Elon Musk build these mobile – just barely (and briefly) monuments to crony capitalism.

This is a company that bleeds money like a machine-gunned hemophiliac, yet doesn’t die because fresh transfusions are always available.

Just last week it was announced the company lost another $100 million and change while delivering fewer than 10,000 cars. Tesla has yet to earn – properly speaking – a single honest dollar.

The money it takes in (a very different thing) is obtained chiefly via carbon tax credits ($130 million from the state of California alone; that is to say, from the pockets of the taxpayers of the state of California) and everyone knows all about the $7,500 per car subsidy Uncle dangles in front of prospects to lure them into buying one of these flashy, yet functionally useless, electric Edsels. There are in addition state-level subsidies (in 23 states) ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 per "sale".

Do you know what a “carbon tax credit” is? It’s a tax, first of all – only one paid to an entity (I won’t call it a company, as companies are businesses and Tesla is neither) like Tesla rather than to the government. Here’s how it works. I own a business that makes things people are actually willing to buy without being coerced or subsidized. But, alas, my manufacture of this product results in “greenhouse gasses” – carbon dioxide having been decreed the primary one (even though it is far less of one than several other gasses, such as methane and also water vapor; but we’ll leave that aside for now).

Well, I want to make the thing and you want to buy the thing, but in order for me to be allowed to make it, I must send money to an entity like Tesla as a kind of (no, an actual) kickback. Because Tesla is “green” while I am not – except of course as regards the color of the money that’s been transferred to Elon Musk’s ever-growing bank account – which is very green indeed.

The argument is that each Tesla built with these kickback dollars amounts to “x” quantity of carbon dioxide negated overall. I’m allowed to build my economically viable product, so long as I “help” Tesla manufacture his not-economically viable products.

But they are “green,” right?

Certainly. In the same way that an outhouse is clean… before you use it. Only with Tesla, it’s the reverse. The finished car may not produce any noxious emissions, but it took a lot of noxious emissions to build the thing.

Do American haters of internal combustion ever stop to wonder why Tesla is building its “Gigafactory” in… China?

Where there is no EPA?

Do you know what goes into making a Tesla’s lithium-ion electric battery pack? Caustic, highly reactive solvents and cobalt oxide, a nasty compound that is uber poisonous and carcinogenic. Carbon dioxide and water vapor have been accused of triggering “global warming” (oops, “climate change” now) but breathing either will not give you cancer or neurological problems.

Cobalt, on the other hand… .

And how do you get cobalt? By mining other materials such as nickel and copper. Then, using various noxious processes to separate out the cobalt, such as “froth flotation,” “roasting” and “leaching” with sulfuric acid.

Mmmm mmmmm good!

This form of Gaia-rape is ok, though, because it does not occur within sight of Al Gore’s house. Most of the cobalt needed to make Tesla and other electric batteries is located in places like China, Afghanistan and Africa. Those parts of the earth are ok to fist and finger.

Battery production (like sausage making) is an aspect of EVs that is routinely overlooked – deliberately. Because the picture isn’t pretty. In addition to the environmental nastiness of the materials, it takes a great deal of un-green energy to transform those materials into the finished product (a battery). Nearly twice the energy that goes into making a conventional (internal combustion engined) car, as it turns out.

Where does this energy come from? Like mountain oysters, you really don’t want to know. But maybe you should. Coal and oil. Which are used to run the heavy industry plants that make the damned things. And which also make most of the electricity that powers the damned things. Did you know that electric cars that depend on coal and electric utilities are actually 17-26 percent worse, in terms of their total “carbon footprint, than a gas or diesel-engined car? (Those interested in more will find this study worth a look.)

Captain Planet, phone your office.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk continues to suckle the teat of Uncle. Which he must, because his operation is fundamentally a con. Without the force of government backing him, he’d have to bankroll this epic failure himself – which a smart guy like Musk would be unlikely to do. If we had a free market, he’d have no choice but to do that… or shut down.

Instead, he does the corporatist thing.

Which would less obnoxious if he didn’t constantly preen about the virtues of lightening the wallets of millions of average people so as to further fatten the wallets of millionaires and billionaires, who are the only people buying Teslas and profiting from their existence.

Throw ‘em in the Woods.

Spikender
02-20-2015, 01:24 PM
Read this earlier when it was posted on Lewrockwell.com.

Great article as always. Eric is always on point with everything. Sadly Musk is but one of thousands benefiting from this massive environmental scam.

CaptUSA
02-20-2015, 01:31 PM
Do American haters of internal combustion ever stop to wonder why Tesla is building its “Gigafactory” in… China?

The "Gigafactory" is being built in Reno, NV.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2014/09/07/3-things-reno-can-expect-from-teslas-gigafactory/

I usually enjoy Eric's articles, but he's a little off-base here. I agree Musk is not shy of taking tax money, but he is using it to do some pretty libertarian-friendly things. Privatizing space travel? Restructuring the energy industry? It's dirty, but Musk has been taking a really looong view. This makes him sound like a leech.

Anti Federalist
02-20-2015, 02:34 PM
The "Gigafactory" is being built in Reno, NV.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2014/09/07/3-things-reno-can-expect-from-teslas-gigafactory/

I usually enjoy Eric's articles, but he's a little off-base here. I agree Musk is not shy of taking tax money, but he is using it to do some pretty libertarian-friendly things. Privatizing space travel? Restructuring the energy industry? It's dirty, but Musk has been taking a really looong view. This makes him sound like a leech.

Eric answers better than I can:


eric
February 20, 2015 at 2:58 pm

Bill,

It’s not my government. And that’s the whole point. I – and millions of others – are in the position of a shopkeeper having to deal with Luca Brasi.

Government is a mafia. Nothing less – or more.

And Musk is using the muscle of the mafia to enrich himself.

If he wants to build six figure electric toys, fine. That’s not what I object to. I object to being compelled to “help” him do so… and then to “help” people buy the got-damned things!

If you disagree, then perhaps you will send me a check to “help” me install an off-grid solar array… so I can be “green”…. which would be ok, actually, if you sent the check freely. But if someone threatens you with violent repercussions if you don’t… well, then that’s another kettle of fish.

And it’s the essence of Tesla’s “business.”

idiom
02-20-2015, 04:21 PM
I wouldn't call it the essence of the business. The cars would still be good cars, and people would still buy them without the tax credits, just in smaller quantities, and the business would grow more slowly.

Spikender
02-20-2015, 06:18 PM
I wouldn't call it the essence of the business. The cars would still be good cars, and people would still buy them without the tax credits, just in smaller quantities, and the business would grow more slowly.

But that's not part of the game plan in reality, now is it?

If he was doing what you were saying, we wouldn't be here even talking about the company in this light. We would be comfortable with the cars and their business practices.

Accepting tax payer money and doing "good things" with it is still a cardinal sin in my book. Sadly, in our system, it is one of the only ways to compete with the mega companies that get bailed out. That's just how the mindset nowadays is. With a good amount of people I discuss business with, it's always painted as concern with creating and maintaining jobs that what's "morally right". I've talked to liberal people who doubled back on the bailouts in the late 2000s because there was the possibility people might lose their jobs.

Zippyjuan
02-20-2015, 06:27 PM
A $7,500 rebate on a $100,000 car probably isn't going to move the market by much. But the article is right about the environmental costs of "green" automobiles (and that is in addition to the electrical generation to charge it up).

Spikender
02-20-2015, 06:28 PM
A $7,500 rebate on a $100,000 car probably isn't going to move the market by much.

A snail pulling a tractor trailer is bound to get somewhere eventually I s'pose.

CaptUSA
02-20-2015, 06:56 PM
Eric answers better than I can:
I get ya, but he got one of his main premises wrong. The gigafactory is NOT in China, it's in Reno. Ostensibly, he was building the factory in China to hide from the EPA.

You know, the same EPA with which we all disagree.

And then the other point is that he places blame on Musk for accepting subsidies when so many of his would-be competitors receive subsidies as well. I don't like it either, but it's the market we have now. It's not a free market. I have hope that Musk's innovations are going to help restore a freer market. Batteries for cars is just one aspect - the biggest driver is batteries for businesses and homes. The ability to buy your power at the lowest possible price and store it for when you need it or sell it back when the price is higher. It's a free market in energy and it's possible. It will also enable people to go off the grid by storing their solar and wind power for when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing.

I know it's a different way of thinking about things, but we always decry cronyism and how hard it is to make a start-up because big corporations are crafting regulations to drive out their potential competitors. Musk is finding ways to break through that. PayPal when it was good. SpaceX. Tesla motors... It is unthinkable that someone could break into cemented markets and bring new competition. Now, is he doing it with his hands tied behind his back? With the exception of PayPal, no. He's operating in the system we have - not the system we want. But to think that his competitors haven't received taxpayer subsidies and preferential treatment due to their connections is just ludicrous!

I'm no fan of how willing he is to take government money. In fact, I hate it. But I understand that in this climate, in the huge industries that he's tackling, this is the only way. He's playing their same game. I'm not asking Eric to like it, but he shouldn't be singling this one company out.

KCIndy
02-20-2015, 11:21 PM
And then the other point is that he places blame on Musk for accepting subsidies when so many of his would-be competitors receive subsidies as well. I don't like it either, but it's the market we have now. It's not a free market. I have hope that Musk's innovations are going to help restore a freer market.

That pretty well sums up my own feelings regarding Musk. I really hated to see him take government funding and put NASA's contracts first and foremost with SpaceX. But the Feds have the big guns - and they were basically at war with SpaceX until Musk finally agreed to play ball with 'em. Seriously. In the beginning, SpaceX was not allowed to launch a rocket from, over toward or across any U.S. controlled airspace. The first couple of launches had to be done from the Marshall Islands for that reason.

As far as Tesla motors, I like the idea in general, and the Tesla Roadster is a kickass car, but the critical and and perhaps even fatal problem is the fact that:

1.) Electric cars aren't really going to be viable until a cheap and clean way of producing electricity is developed, and

2.) Americans simply aren't ready for an electric car and have a hard time wrapping their minds around such a concept.




He's operating in the system we have - not the system we want. But to think that his competitors haven't received taxpayer subsidies and preferential treatment due to their connections is just ludicrous!

I'm no fan of how willing he is to take government money. In fact, I hate it. But I understand that in this climate, in the huge industries that he's tackling, this is the only way. He's playing their same game. I'm not asking Eric to like it, but he shouldn't be singling this one company out.

Anyone who doesn't "play the game" gets stomped out of business really fast, and there's no doubt about that.

I don't like the government subsidy thing. I don't like it at all. But I agree, if we're going to bust Elon Musk's nuts for accepting government handouts, it's only fair to take a look at the much larger distribution of stolen goodies which have been passed out to the major players.


http://humanevents.com/2015/01/06/taxpayers-lose-billions-as-auto-industry-bailout-ends/

Taxpayers lose billions as auto industry bailout ends

In late December 2014, the U.S. Treasury Department announced the official end of the automobile industry bailout, after loans given to the “Big Three” automakers have been repaid to the government’s satisfaction.

Final accounting tallies, however, published in 2014 reveal that the corporations received almost $10 billion more than they repaid.

Created in January 2009 as part of the larger Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the Auto Industry Financing Program (AIFP) loaned $79.69 billion to American car manufacturing companies General Motors and Chrysler Motors and their respective in-house financing companies.

Funds allocated from the bailout program, part of the national government’s response to the subprime lending crisis, were also used to purchase majority shares of the companies, effectively nationalizing the private companies.

After the nationalization, the government later sold Chrysler Motors to foreign manufacturer Fiat. General Motors separated from the General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) financing company—now called Ally Financial—to allow GMAC to receive bailout funds as a financial corporation.


I guess it comes down to one critical question: In today's United States, is it possible to start a large company and have said company be successful without accepting ANY form of government assistance or support, all while abiding by the government's insane and innumerable number of rules, regulations, fees, requirements, restrictions and taxes?

If anyone really thinks the answer is yes, I would love to see some examples.

CaptUSA
02-20-2015, 11:38 PM
I guess it comes down to one critical question: In today's United States, is it possible to start a large company and have said company be successful without accepting ANY form of government assistance or support, all while abiding by the government's insane and innumerable number of rules, regulations, fees, requirements, restrictions and taxes?

If anyone really thinks the answer is yes, I would love to see some examples.I think it can probably be done, but not in well establish industries that already have their lobbyists firmly planted in DC. You mentioned the bailouts, but that's chump change when you consider how much wealth we have wasted and blood we have spilled to keep the oil flowing so that we can keep filling up the tanks. (And how convenient that the government has another revenue stream tied into it with gas taxes) If you're going to talk about handing out incentives to go solar, you have to consider the huge incentives that have been given to stay fossil. Now, that's not to say 2 wrongs make a right, they're both wrong. But you can't bitch about the small side of the equation while ignoring the elephant sitting on the other side of the scale.

enhanced_deficit
02-20-2015, 11:50 PM
ISIS has been bad for electric car makers and cheap oil flow days are probably far from over.