Obama Wins

Obama Wins

So now that Obama has won the election, what do you guys think this means for Tesla over the next four years?

Brian H | November 9, 2012

Tariffs (note sp.) force consumers to pay more than otherwise for goods. Plus impose "friction" (bureaucratic/collection overheads). Then substitute gov't judgment about how to spend duty proceeds for market judgment. (Note that in effect the extra cost ends up in gov't hands. Kind of the same as a sales tax.)

Every step of that depresses standard of living.

EU agricultural duties, e.g., raise food prices, distort production decisions, close markets to developing nations and generally make life harder for everyone except inefficient farmers (and duty collection superstructure employees). In many cases, exported subsidized food destroys local production elsewhere. Often happens with e.g. food aid; what farmer can compete with free? When/if the aid ends, there is no local capacity left. Shortage/starvation becomes permanent.

Brian H | November 9, 2012

Note above: duties collected end up in gov't hands, but of course domestic producers get to sell at the higher price. Only domestically, only as long as the duty lasts. They cannot compete for export markets (unless additional subsidies are provided).

jbunn | November 9, 2012


Duties collected do end up in government hands. The government needs a certain amount of revenue to function. With tariffs as a revenue source, it allows for the lowering of other taxes and fees. Here in the US, at one time we did not have a federal income tax, and the government was funded primarliy through tariffs.

A second positve effect of tarrifs is that domestic producers are able to compete, which means they hire, and those employees spend, which increaces monitary velocity, and decreaces a trade imbalance.

When the US entered an agreement with Mexico for NAFTA the effect was a weakening of US manufacturing as they headed south of the border to take advantage of cheap labor. In a "frictionless" ecomony all labor costs try to equalize. That's great if you want to compete with people that make 10 bucks a day. Hell, it's really great if you want to hire people at 10 bucks a day. But when I'm making 10 bucks a day, I'm not going to be buying anyone's products.

DouglasR | November 9, 2012

Back to the original topic, it is quite possible that the BEV tax credit could be sacrificed as part of the budget negotiations aimed at avoiding the "fiscal cliff." Both sides are talking about eliminating loopholes and tax preferences. Ironically, the Republicans may be less willing to do this than the Democrats, since under Grover Norquist's lunatic pledge, eliminating the credit would be a tax increase.

Gator | November 9, 2012

I expect the EV Tax credit to be raised to $10,000 and the Maryland's tax credit to $3,000.00. I want others to pay for this through higher taxes so I can get "my" Tesla at a lower price. This is only fair.

mknox | November 9, 2012

Obama win = higher taxation, US falls back into recession, no one can afford Teslas? Sorry, couldn't resist. I actually think it makes no difference whatsoever. Both candidates had positive and negative policy positions, but now that the election is over, the realities of the day will drive policy (remember "read my lips"?)

weeandthewads | November 9, 2012

Absolutely nothing if they can’t improve production and become cash flow positive. Profits by Q1 2013 or Romney was right. LOSER!

Velo1 | November 9, 2012

All of us, including TMC, need to keep educating our representatives, especially GOP members, of the fact TMC is 100% U.S. owned, operated, and succeeding. The misperception by Romney during the Presidential debate probably reflects the viewpoint of many in Congress.

Brian H | November 9, 2012

In the "Big Pic" all gov't credit comes at the expense of private investment. That's OK, because the gov't is smarter than the market about where to deploy resources.

Oh, wait ...

jbunn | November 9, 2012

If you forget that 80% of basic scientific research that produces new pharmaceuticals is done by the public sector, and ignore small things like highway systems, aviation management, GPS, development of the internet, and the space program (I probably left out a few things), then sure. I agree with you.

Brian H | November 10, 2012

Watch what happens as Elon pushes SpaceX into the foremost "Space Exploration" outfit in the world. It's already about ¼ the cost per launch of NASA and the Air Force (Delta, etc.) all costs considered, and is the SOLE outfit trying to develop re-usable rockets, and bring launch cost per lb. down by a factor of 1,000. He's about 40, and intends to retire to Mars, along with hundreds of thousands or millions of others.

When it and Bigelow get really going, you'll see the difference.

Just to repeat: SpaceX went from turning sod to its second successful Dragon launch for less than ½ the cost of one incomplete Orion prototype. And I predict the Dragon will be more capable than the Orion. E.g.: look at the Orion launch simulations -- with their old disposable launch escape tower on the tip, which might maybe help in the first 2 minutes of flight, and which is dumped as soon as possible. The Dragon will have internal propulsion, capable of safe emergency return of astronauts all the way to orbit!!

Government policy and practice quickly turns into empire-protection. It has stifled space flight since 1970, except for the Meccano-ISS LEO boondoggle.