" for the affluent."

" for the affluent."

David A. Stockman's article in New York Times (remember the brodering...) is absolutely worth reading. This is another take on reality than what main stream media pumps and is valuable for all to consider. However, being a Tesla customer and desperately longing for my P85 to show up, I did not like the last part of this paragraph...

"The “green energy” component of Mr. Obama’s stimulus was mainly a nearly $1 billion giveaway to crony capitalists, like the venture capitalist John Doerr and the self-proclaimed outer-space visionary Elon Musk, to make new toys for the affluent."

PorfirioR | 2 april 2013

The NYT is desperate to put eyeballs on their web site and they are simply engaging in what many in the "old media" are trying to do to survive. Mainly, trying to drive viewership by name-calling and click-baiting any topic related to anything in the social-media-aware readers' minds. Unfortunately, journalistic trash-talking appears to be the new norm these days.

They could have (should have) easily taken the journalistic approach and shown the other perspective that oil subsidies continue to be offered to an industry that does not need it and that has plunged us into wars time and again - much of this directly contributing to the debt burden the NYT laments.

awilder | 2 april 2013

Haters gotta hate.

I cringe every time I read a criticism of the Roadster and Model S as "toys" for rich people. They are ignoring that that these two cars are necessary steps to develop the Gen III Tesla, which is the car that will be "for everyone who can afford a car today." (I think those were Musk's words from 2006).

Is an iPhone or an iPod a "toy" for only rich folks? It may have been in the very beginning, but it sure isn't today; just about everyone owns one.

Although I do feel incredibly lucky and privileged to be able to a Model S today, a large part of my reason for purchasing one was to support the development of the Gen III car. I want everyone to be able to own one, not just "the affluent."

dstiavnicky | 2 april 2013

This wasn't a bail-out or a gift. It was a loan to create jobs. Period.

Brian H | 2 april 2013

And it was under a program begun in the previous administration, nothing to do with the stimulus. And is being paid off in double time (twice as fast). Stockton is fulluvit.

oildeathspiral | 2 april 2013

Did Stockman have a problem with the $5.9 billion that Ford borrowed under the same program? And the billion or two Chrysler got?
Tesla should be the counter-balance to the poorly executed loan to Solyndra, not thrown in the same boat.

TeslaRocks | 2 april 2013

I totally agree, PorfirioR, but most intelligent people probably already know about oil subsidies, oil wars, and debt from oil. More from reputation than direct experience, I once thought the New York Times was a fine newspaper, but I'm starting to get the idea that they are no trying to get the attention of intelligent readers. Too bad for them if they haven't figured out that in an age of online garbage clutter, traditional publications can retain an advantage by offering quality or local content. What's sad is that some people will actually believe their propaganda, which is where people like us come in to set the record straight and advocate for EVs and Tesla in particular.

Joshua Burstyn | 3 april 2013

Don't let facts get in the way of a good article though...

FLsportscarenth... | 3 april 2013

Interesting article, thanks for posting the link. Although I see some valid points being made about the rampant run up in debt, the long article had more of a personal rant than a real statesman's commentary flavour to it. True it was not partisan shilling, it heaped scorn on Democrat and Republican alike, but it had a cantankerous feel to it that lessens its appeal and contribution to the public debate.

Regarding the reference to Elon Musk, I found the logic a bit sloppy. As pointed out by previous posters, it was a loan not a bailout or grant, it is being paid back ahead of time and the money created american jobs and expanded a domestic industry - exactly as promised! Not mentioned is how Fisker is not likely to pay back the money it borrowed or how Nissan A JAPANESE COMPANY! took a much larger loan under the same programme! Not a balanced discussion of the issue by any measure.

Staying true to your ideals is important, however rigid dogma in the face of facts is not helpful...

The New Deal created by silk stocking socialist FDR was an unconstitutional abuse of executive power that is the root of our social and fiscal decay that have plagued this nation for nearly a century now... Yet some of the New Deal projects did positive things - the Golden Gate Bridge was not a giveaway to welfare bums, it trained a generation of displaced workers with valuable skills and anointed the Bay Area with its most beautiful structure (and saved time, money and fuel for those commuters that use it everyday). Still when you weigh it out as a whole New Deal was very bad for this country, but bad policies sometimes yield good local results.

Bush II and Obama's economic initiatives has squandered billions and are a similar abuse of executive power - government interference in the private sector... Yet like the Golden Gate Bridge, the Tesla Loan is a small exception where it did some real good. If the federal government is going to serve feasts to corporate cronies like Ford and even foreign competition like Nissan on the taxpayers dime, how can you beat up on Tesla for dinning on the table scraps especially when it is being a good corporate citizen and delivering as promised.

Yes, the system is badly broken but do not tarnish Tesla's good name by using it next to that of the criminal huskers of wall street.

oildeathspiral | 3 april 2013

Great post FLsportscar.

alanwwebb | 8 april 2013

"feasts to corporate cronies" Not so. Fairly typical investments. BTW, the win/loss ratio of this program is far better than Romney's investment firm. Tesla is the rule, not the exception.

A report on the loan program by former (under Bush) Treasury official Herb Allison says DOE could lose as much as $3 billion from companies that default on their guarantees, but that’s much less than the $10 billion that Congress had put aside for losses to the program. The loan portfolio as a whole is expected to perform well and holds less than the amount of risk envisioned by Congress when they designed and funded the program, and the Department of Energy has been judicious in balancing these risks. The vast majority of companies are expected to pay the loans back in full, on time and with about $8 billion in interest — while supporting a total of 60,000 American jobs and helping us compete for a rapidly growing global industry.