Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The U.S. government provided a $465 million loan to a tiny money-losing startup and got no equity in return.

Now Tesla insiders are leveraging that taxpayer loan to IPO.

Is this free enterprise or just corruption?




A) Compare that number to the amount that defense contractors receive for not even delivering anything. The Tesla car works.

B) Compare that number with the inflation-adjusted amount that the government has put into other research ventures. Like, say, THE INTERNET.

C) Tesla says that it is now profitable http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/07/tesla-says-it-is-now-pr....

What's your problem with better technology here?


My problem is that taxpayers have the most at risk with this company, but get none of the upside.

There is a huge difference between government funding for basic research, and government funding to bring a privately owned product to market.

Even worse, since Daimler is a Tesla shareholder, U.S. taxpayers are underwriting tech that is partially owned by a foreign competitor.


The department of energy routinely gives low-interest loans to interesting energy startups because there's a compelling national interest in renewable energy.

So, yeah, we're on the hook for 500m. But we just spent a trillion in Iraq. And when we hit peak oil and hit a point of total supply inelasticity for energy, we're really gonna be up a creek.

There are literally thousands of companies that get these loans. I invested in one called Beacon Power, they build electrical grid stabilizers based on flywheels -- suck in excess power during supply peaks, then spit it back out if everyone turns on their AC units at once. Great idea. Helps the whole economy if they succeed, not just them. So the dept of energy took the long view and threw them a few million dollars as a loan.

All in all, this stuff adds up to way less than 1% of domestic federal spending -- which itself is less than 1/6 of the total federal budget. If a few of them pan out and we reduce our dependence on foreign oil, then it's a win.


If they choose to locate the factory in high-cost California, I have to wonder what's going on. It makes no business sense unless CA has some outstanding tax benefits for green industries.


If you're a small company (500 people for Tesla, apparently), building a never-been-built product and probably encountering lots of kinks along the way, it's probably worth having the factory be local. The high-priced engineers who design the thing can just blast over to the factory while they're figuring out production issues.

Just speculating, of course. But I'm assuming they somewhat know what they're doing, given that they actually built the thing and it actually works. Gotta give them some benefit of the doubt for that.

Another speculative data point, a vehicle like this, the engineering is a much bigger % of the final cost than your standard "build what we built last year" car.. that has to come into the decision as well.


Also, many (most?) of their customers are in California. An accessible factory is a good marketing tool for high-end vehicles.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: