Comments on: Note to Romney: Tesla is not Solyndra

By: faaqu2

faaqu2 — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:15:30 +0000

Unfortunately the story that is never told is what happens to markets or products (or potential markets and products) when government invests in it. Defense endeavors aside (as a first responsibility of government, defense is unique, and investing in things like the space program or the precursors to the Internet do not belong in the same conversation), when government throws a few billion or a million at a company, private investors generally back away, because it’s like competing with a rich uncle, who doesn’t know how to invest wisely, he just gives his sisters kid a bunch of money with no strings. Investors want plans, they want returns, they want equity, which is what makes business development work. Who knows what innovations are either stalled or never started because of government involvement. Does anyone believe that the PC industry would be where it is now if the feds had thrown billions at IBM or one of those other companies (many that went belly up)? We’d have nowhere near the innovation in that market that we do. Bottom line is that government investment crowds out wise, successful investors.

By: faaqu2

faaqu2 — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:03:00 +0000

Which is precisely why we should not have invested tax dollars in it. Private industry can see those series of events a mile away, which is why no one is throwing billions at the solar/wind/fantasy energy market. Boone Pickens (an oil man from way back) lost his ASS (billions)on wind, and got out of the wind market. As he said; “alternative energy sources are not ready yet, and pretending that they are with government money is folly.”

By: jackiecox

jackiecox — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 04:12:09 +0000

a bankruptcy waiting to happen—10 year history of losses year after year of unwary investors, and obama/chu putting up half the money, for a bankruptcy expert whp will hang around as long as the cash keeps coming in. imagine for a minute, 10 years without making a profit, only obama/chu enable this sort of thing, with taxpayer money—the 21 inch tires cost 3 times what 18 inch tires cost, the lithium ion battery swells up in a few years and cost as much as the car to replace, + the electricity called emission free comes from coal fired power plants, and the rare metals in the battery poison the forests and streams, until they dump into the ocean—BIZARRE—a pres and DOE czar who do not understand science or economics, and continue free trade, or exporting our jobs to slave countries, while homelessness increases exponentially, and unemployment figures get better when the unemployment insurance ends, the entire political arena is a joke on the american people– when will it end ?

By: Paulo Franke

Paulo Franke — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 14:31:26 +0000

I hail from Brazil, we here we have abundant green energy but ZERO brilliant innovations like Tesla cars. It is simply surreal to see a presidential candidate going against this initiative, so truly representative of the American pioneering tradition. What is the problem with Mr. Romney?

By: thruhiker70

thruhiker70 — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:56:06 +0000

Wow! And at a sticker price of about $50 thosand for the most basic model (that includes a $7,500 federal rebate that you and I pay for whether we or not we wish to purchase the vehicle). Also, the Tesla boasts a replacement battery charge (which is frighteningly easy to incur) of $32,000 plus labor. Whoopee!

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 06:36:11 +0000

True EVs are not competitive now except for commuters with charge stations where they work…a small number of folks. EVs have only been on the market for 3 years. Doug America does not and never will control its oils supply…this is reality; no drilling can change that for more than a few months. When the price of gasoline in the US matches the price in the EU, say $6/liter you will be eating your words. Batteries will improve and EVs will improve with government help. EV can transport you to work when their is no oil available. The government’s long term thinking will save your short term thinking a**. Your EV will go twice a far as it does now because of its investment in nanotechnology based cathodes and anodes. Or maybe it will be biofuel again with government investment that allows you or your children to go to work at their private enterprise job when we have the next oil shock. Good thing the government was thinking ahead, because you weren’t.

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 06:18:45 +0000

Doug I know you are not persuaded by facts so if you read Fareed Zakaria’s article you won’t be able to see through your ideological blinders: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-curbing-the-cost-of-health-care/2012/07/04/gJQAxkr7NW_story.html

Market forces will allocate healthcare to the ones that can pay for it. It is expensive because it is advanced technology capitalized by small numbers of people. Society requires that people be treated long term and systemically otherwise disease spreads from the sick to the healthy. The market forces do not provide incentive for treating everyone. People are not experts in medicine so the have no idea the risk of dying if they don’t sell their house to pay for their operation. You get the idea. The data is that nationalized health care works better. You will ignore this fact in favor of your fantasy world. It works better because government can decide better than individuals on what medicine to pay for what illness. Nationalized programs reject paying for hip replacements for 90 year olds. America’s market system allows 90 years olds to have hip replacements because they have Cadillac insurance and doctors want to make money. Nationalized system can match doctor compensation with the needs of society not doctor’s desire to get rich. A nationalized system pays for doctor education so that they don’t have to raise money to pay for their education. Doctors don’t start out in the red.

By: Frank Rizzo

Frank Rizzo — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 05:47:04 +0000

The fed is the lender of last resort that should protect ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶o̶u̶n̶d̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶c̶o̶n̶o̶m̶y̶ those who make large campaign contributions. FTFY

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 05:10:02 +0000

I am beginning to think this thread is overrun by PR people for Tesla. My car, a 350Z, will go 400 miles on a “charge” and I can pull into a station and “recharge” it in five minutes and go another 400 miles. The reality is that until EV technology can do that, it will not be a mass product or it will be one relegated to riding around in communities or around town or exotic status among liberal one percenters. I guess the hybrid model like the Prius works ok.

Understand, I have nothing against any of this technology. I am sure what you say about it being very cutting edge technology is very true. The person that creates a car that performs like my Z and it costs me a fraction to run, they will earn my dollars for sure. That is how free markets work. But the government should not be funding it and deciding whether one entrepreneur or the other has a better idea and picking winners and losers. That was the point Mr. Romney was making and I think most Americans agree.

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 04:57:35 +0000

Amen.