As they ahould be. SpaceX and Tesla have received substantially more taxpayer money than NPR.
Also, they weren't labeled as "publically funded". They were labeled as "U.S. state-affiliated media". That is untrue and is a political hit at the behest of Musk.
Both Tesla and SpaceX have absolutely received grants, not just contracts and loans, from the government. Just last year, SpaceX requested and applied for $886 million grant from the FCC, which is nearly three times the annual budget of NPR. They were denied for that particular one, but they appealed the decision, complaining about it.
I'm not sure what misinformation you are referring to. It is a matter of fact that Tesla and SpaceX have received billions of dollars of government contracts, highly preferential loans, grants, subsidies, and tax incentives.
Another example, from Tesla's own report submitted to the SEC in 2020:
> As part of various governmental responses to the pandemic granted to companies globally, we received certain payroll related benefits which helped to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our financial results.
This was at a time in which Musk was railing against government bailouts. Tesla never gave more details on the government handouts this particular line was referring to.
> requested and applied for $886 million grant from the FCC
Because FCC asked private companies to put in bids. So companies responded.
Its not that SpaceX just went to the FCC and asked for money.
> It is a matter of fact that Tesla and SpaceX have received billions of dollars of government contracts, highly preferential loans, grants, subsidies, and tax incentives.
These things have to be analyzed more systematically and in comparison to their industry.
Tesla received a lone for Model S production, both Ford and GM also received loans. Tesla paid it back, Ford and GM have not yet done so.
Tesla received intensive for factories, so do all large industrial facilities.
ZEV credits are a universal mechanism, not given preference to any automaker.
Same for EV Tax Credit, applies to all car maker.
Tesla, I would argue has received very little in direct subsidy. The loan guarantee was small (400M and paid back quickly).
A drop in the bucket compared to GM. Even foreign companies got access to EV tax credit.
I could do the same for SpaceX.
Yes, Musk companies receive government help. But so do all companies in these industry. Having a space company without close ties to government simply isn't happening right now. It would be more viable for Tesla, but the US government has been mucking around in the care industry for 100 years and their international competitors do so to.
The misinformation is that government picked winners and that Musk companies are successful because of these subsidies. That the success of Tesla and SpaceX are because of subsidies. These myths are often repeated.
You're sliding around the issue, because the point is not about SpaceX and Tesla relative to their industries, which is debatable on its own. The point is that the CEO of both of these companies has mislabeled a news agency because he doesn't like them but claims he accurately has done so merely by having single-digit percentages of their total budget, or less depending on how you count from the federal, state, or local sources, from government sources. This is despite his own companies taking in billions of government support in different forms. That is the point. It's beyond hypocrisy, not to mention intentionally misleading and leaning into extreme propaganda.
> These things have to be analyzed more systematically and in comparison to their industry.
So, as mentioned, no they don't. This particular issue is completely independent of comparisons to other car and space companies.
If you really wanted to start comparing things, you need to start looking at other news agencies, the people who control those agencies, and how many tax breaks and kickbacks (a form of indirect and implicit government support) from the politicians they bankroll via donations.
The issue according to you is that musk is a hypocrite. But until you show evidence that musk's companies have requested and received significant grants and subsidies specifically for them, then your claim is just FUD.
You are drafting on this narrative that musk's companies are extravagant government leeches, when the truth is that they've gone the opposite direction, taking much less money from the government, avoiding cost plus contracts, and charging significantly less than competitors for services.
I saw your quote. It doesn't say how much, or the terms of the government help. Is it billions? Or was it much less? And did Tesla have to pay it back?
You are being disingenuous here - to claim that detailing the grants and subsidies that the companies took and determining whether the sky is blue are the same category is bad faith, sorry. I'm actually personally familiar with SpaceX's finances to a degree and am not aware of any significant grants or subsidies. I'm not just just challenging you to be contrarian, I'm asking for evidence.
And I didn't say you said that, I said you are drafting off of the narrative, the same way a bike rider drafts off the rider in front of them.
I wasn't really reacting to anything about NPR. I don't even know really what that is. I was just pointing out looking at these things in isolation is not very information.
> If you really wanted to start comparing things, you need to start looking at other news agencies
> I wasn't really reacting to anything about NPR. I don't even know really what that is. I was just pointing out looking at these things in isolation is not very information.
That's fine, but the NPR thing was basically the entire impetus of this comment train, so that particular commentary wasn't relevant.
Can you detail how much SpaceX received in grants and subsidies? I think you'll find it's negligible. The onus is on you to provide that data if you are making the claim. And let's not bring Tesla into this to confuse the issue.
> Can you detail how much SpaceX received in grants and subsidies? I think you'll find it's negligible. The onus is on you to provide that data if you are making the claim.
You're making a claim as well so the onus is on you just as much as me. And you can likely use Google as well as I can. Just search. It isn't hard to find. I'm not going to sit here and copy and paste links and articles all day that you can just as easily find. This is a forum, not a dissertation defense or an investigative journalism piece. Plenty has been written about this in news articles, SEC filings, and lawsuits.
> And let's not bring Tesla into this to confuse the issue.
It's not confusing the issue. It is part of the issue and was in my original comment. To be clear, the issue is that a CEO, who claims to be a supporter of free speech, of two companies, specifically SpaceX and Tesla, that have received billions in government support has intentionally, adversarially, and antagonistically mislabaled NPR as "U.S. state-affiliated media" because he is abusing Twitter to run his own fringe political agendas. The reason stated for the ban, which is not the actual reason, is barely even true, and is misleading, is that NPR is government funded.
Saying in making a claim is frankly nonsense. If someone claims there is a pink fairy flying behind the moon, and I challenge the claim, I am not making a claim, and it's not on me to prove that the pink fairy is not there.
I'm not making a claim, I'm challenging a claim. Once again don't confuse the issue.
And once again Tesla should not be brought into this. Musk is not SpaceX. There are thousands of people that work there and make the place tick. And they are a separate legal entity. It's not fair to throw them under the bus for anything that is happening with Musk or Tesla. I was obviously referring to SpaceX as I was talking about "services rendered".
Like I said elsewhere, just search. It's literally documented in several places. You just don't want to. I'm not going to waste my time finding it for you, posting it here, and then getting nuh-huh in response.
All that's required for this argument is any moderate amount of government support for Musk's companies.
> And once again Tesla should not be brought into this. Musk is not SpaceX.
Musk is CEO and so-called founder of both places. They're both relevant. I don't see why you think otherwise.
Please read my statements carefully. You have no reason to assume I didn't search for this data. I found all kinds of things on EV credits and government contracts, but that's not what I'm talking about. I couched my words specifically elsewhere in this thread: "requested and received significant grants and subsidies specifically for them", e.g. not EV credits and government contracts, and not small one-off grants and discounts. This is not so easy to find, and the distinction is important and relevant to how we should look at them. Just making abstract claims without backing data in context is a waste of everyone's time.
They aren't abstract claims. You just reject and adjust what you think is relevant. You can say "requested and received significant grants and subsidies specifically for them" all you want, but that doesn't mean it's the only relevant piece in this comparison and Musk's intentional mislabeling of NPR. It is not the only relevant piece. I don't even know if the thing you've quoted even exists. Almost all, if not every single one of, government contracts, grants, subsidies, are open to bidders, applicants, etc. and are often required to be so. That being said, several times contracts, grants, etc. can be "open" to others while basically written such that only the intended party is the only one that can match the requirements. But it doesn't even matter whether SpaceX received these mythical things you feel like only matters, because the point is that Musk used false claims against NPR. And if you make the same claims as he did to SpaceX and Tesla, then you have "U.S. state-affiliated companies". Furthermore, the small amount of money NPR receives are from funds that aren't specifically for NPR. In fact, NPR has even received loans from the government that they paid back.
The entire point being that NPR operates just as much as many entities do with respect to receiving government support and is probably the least state mouthpiece of any news organization. Yet, Musk applies bizarro logic because NPR doesn't fit into his fringe political ideology. He creates chaos in the vain of Vladislav Surkov and Trump to suit whatever thing he is trying to promote at the moment. This whole situation is hypocritical, misleading, full of false information, and childish. We're wasting time here talking about it.
Summary: NPR receives a modicum amount of government support. SpaceX and Tesla receive billions in government support. Read support as grants, subsidies, loans, contracts, etc. CEO of SpaceX and Tesla calls NPR "U.S. state-affiliated media", which has very strong and negative connotations for a new organization that are ultimately not correct from any vantage point. Elon Musk, said CEO, consistently rants about government "handouts", bailouts, support, etc. despite simultaneously being the beneficiary of these programs.
