Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,301 posts, read 4,412,550 times
Reputation: 2397
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
>
Vs....its not right for the government to risk taxpayers money either way.
Someone could have developed a battery for a hell of a lot less in taxpayer money than Musk has been handed.
Then why didn't they (other companies)? And it is the right of the government to invest in matters that further national security or national interests (NASA). This investment has greater implications and benefits than many here are comprehending. Give it a year for everyone to fully comprehend it and then hold on to your seats.
As long as I see the value vs As long as you don't see the value. You can structure the sentence how you want and you end up with the same authority. I am just saying that if our government invested in people like Mr Musk more rather than others like Solyndra, we would have a good return in our investment. Everyone will see the value in the battery within a few years - especially as a matter of national security (ergo - oil dependency). This investment has that kind of implication.
No its not the same. My perspective doesnt involve the moral hazard of spending other peoples money to fulfill my wishes as yours does.
Anytime the government throws its weight(i.e. our money) behind a product, it shows favoritism and crowds out other technologies from emerging.
I dont want politicians deciding what products or technoligies are beneficial to me.
Then why didn't they (other companies)? And it is the right of the government to invest in matters that further national security or national interests (NASA). This investment has greater implications and benefits than many here are comprehending. Give it a year for everyone to fully comprehend it and then hold on to your seats.
I'm all for that but why privatize the gains and subsidize the risk? Why is stake ownership not on the table with these DOE deals (in reference to Tesla motors)? Maybe then we can really benefit when it takes off instead of just receiving a "revolutionary" product. Every other country invests in stuff to seek a stake not just take the risks and hand it over for someone else to reap rewards.
The DOEs policy of not intending to generate profit but to provide affordable financing so that America’s entrepreneurs and innovators can build a growing clean energy industry in the United States is flawed. If they want to play venture capitalists then go all the way.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,301 posts, read 4,412,550 times
Reputation: 2397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
No its not the same. My perspective doesnt involve the moral hazard of spending other peoples money to fulfill my wishes as yours does.
Anytime the government throws its weight(i.e. our money) behind a product, it shows favoritism and crowds out other technologies from emerging.
I dont want politicians deciding what products or technoligies are beneficial to me.
Many investments our government may make (like the auto bail out), I don't like. But, I like having a government that invests in our infrastructure and in technology that benefits us all. If you don't - well, that is your right. It is a concept of government morality (as it pertains to investment), that I approve of.
Many investments our government may make (like the auto bail out), I don't like. But, I like having a government that invests in our infrastructure and in technology that benefits us all. If you don't - well, that is your right. It is a concept of government morality (as it pertains to investment), that I approve of.
What about the form? Is it wrong to disagree with the form it does it in?
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,301 posts, read 4,412,550 times
Reputation: 2397
Quote:
Originally Posted by radiolibre99
I'm all for that but why privatize the gains and subsidize the losses? Why is stake ownership not on the table with these DOE deals (in reference to Tesla motors)? Maybe then we can really benefit when it takes off instead of just receiving a "revolutionary" product. Every other country invests in stuff to seek a stake not just take the risks and hand it over for someone else to reap rewards.
The DOEs policy of not intending to generate profit but to provide affordable financing so that America’s entrepreneurs and innovators can build a growing clean energy industry in the United States is flawed. If they want to play venture capitalists then go all the way.
I can agree with what you say. It is something that is rather unique to the USA. It seems that our government gives money to private companies with no strings attached. There is good and bad to that. Good in that the government then doesn't dictate to private companies and turns it into a state-controlled company. The bad - well, often it is just a bad investment and if it is, the tax payer gets no return on that investment. Your points are certainly not lost on me.
Bulldawg I agree with you mostly. The right wingers in here tend to be slightly hypocritical in their disdain of Solyndra and Tesla, when they're actually cheaper investments than the corporate welfare queens in the defense industry. Somehow they have nothing to say about Lockheed but a liberal green company with Obamas seal of approval gets all the ire.
Someone could have developed a battery for a hell of a lot less in taxpayer money than Musk has been handed.
Well, someone didn't. Established US companies are better at buying legislators to defend their niche than they are at innovating. Listen to their porcine squeals of outrage when Tesla suggests that perhaps the dealer model is a bit on the old-fashioned side...
Detroit hates the idea of having to come up with new technology when they can keep building the same-old and tell the American consumer that it's what they really want.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 06-01-2015 at 02:16 PM..
Reason: Too many betters.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,301 posts, read 4,412,550 times
Reputation: 2397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Well, someone didn't. Established US companies are better at buying legislators to defend their niche better than they are at innovating. Listen to their porcine squeals of outrage when Tesla suggests that perhaps the dealer model is a bit on the old-fashioned side...
Detroit hates the idea of having to come up with new technology when they can keep building the same-old and tell the American consumer that it's what they really want.
Yep.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
