Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Unofficial "Elon Musk trying to "Save Everyone" from Themselves (except his Step-Sister)" Thread...


Renegade7
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

If the guy can round up $44 billion to buy twitter; he doesn't need any government subsidies.

 

Agreed. 

 

The subsides saved him and SpaceX from going bankrupt in its early days.  Now that SpaceX is getting contracts with NASA, do they really need them?

 

The perception and optics of why they are being ended is fair to discuss, but I'd love here the reason not to end them over what you just posted alone.

 

Getting to Mars is important, don't subsidize them doing it without us and claiming the credit.  Musk is the type to claim that whole goddamn planet for himself, don't think he won't. 

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

If the guy can round up $44 billion to buy twitter; he doesn't need any government subsidies.

The government subsidies aren’t given because x company needs them. They are given because the Government thinks it’s a good investment or serves a strategic purpose.

 

Subsides to Tesla, which sale most of the EVs in the United States made in the United States creating jobs and manufacturing capabilities in the United States, and having battery manufacturing plants in the United States is in the United States strategic interests.

 

Not to mention the positive impact on the environment from green energy cars and solar power. EVs are common place now because of Tesla and Tesla is here because of Subsidies.  


The reason you continue to subsidize Tesla is to encourage the development of more plants, jobs, and technology in the United States. Which is what Tesla is doing.

 

It’s a win win.

 

SpaceX is another great of example of subsidies being in the countries strategic. Boeing gets 10x the subsides SpaceX gets yet the SLS launch system has been continuously delayed while SpaceX dragon capsule is already deployed; and developed at a fraction of the cost. AND ITS COST PER LAUNCH IS LOWER.
 

Needy companies aren’t productive companies and I would rather give government money to companies that produce results. Once Tesla and SpaceX stop out producing there competitors we can talk.

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
  • Thumb down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Needy companies aren’t productive companies and I would rather give government money to companies that produce results.

 

Cmon, SpaceX rockets were blowing up one after the other when they first started, they weren't producing results yet.  I don't agree with most of your subsidies stances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Cmon, SpaceX rockets were blowing up one after the other when they first started, they weren't producing results yet.  I don't agree with most of your subsidies stances.

That’s what rocket development is bro. Agree or not, it’s ok to be wrong. ;)

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

That’s what rocket development is bro.

 

But contradictory to your requirement of producing results before getting subsidies.

 

And SpaceX clearly needed the money, Musk would've run out in the early days if it wasn't for that.

 

We've got the return on investment now, we at minimum don't need Russia to get to space anymore.  Why pay them via contracts and still giving them money via subsidies?

Edited by Renegade7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:


before space x who was producing results? 
before Tesla who was producing results.

 

Inception of reusable rockets and electric cars were a result.

 

 

 

This is your quote:

 

Quote

Needy companies aren’t productive companies and I would rather give government money to companies that produce results

 

Are you saying that companies shouldn't get subsidies until they produce results or should only get subsidies if they eventually produce results? 

 

SpaceX was doing neither when they first started getting subsidies, how was the government going to know they were going to get it right to justify that investment?

 

Producing results shouldn't be a requirement until the government loses faith that they can. In the context of money being a finite resource, absolutely it should be need based centric.

Edited by Renegade7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tesla has received about the same amount of subsidies as Nike has…

 

https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/top-100-parents

 

how is subsidizing a shoe company that operates oversees sweat shops in Americas interest?

 

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

This is your quote:

 

 

Are you saying that companies shouldn't get subsidies until they produce results or should only get subsidies if they produce results? 

 

Inception IS a result. But I have no interest in arguing a point with you that misses the bigger picture.

 

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Tesla has received about the same amount of Subsides as Nike has…

 

https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/top-100-parents

 

how is subsidizing a shoe company that operates oversees sweat shops in Americas interest?

 

Fantastic question, now we getting somewhere. 

 

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Inception IS a result.

 

 

Have you ever watched Shark Tank?  Because, no, it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Fantastic question, now we getting somewhere. 



 

 

you sound like Elon musk.

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 


 

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Have you ever watched Shark Tank?  Because, no, it's not.

 

it got them on the show, didn’t it? Where they had an opportunity to advertise to millions of consumers right? A result; no?
 

And btw, inception is different from idea.

 

I highly doubt you even know what subsides Space X has gotten and are just railing on it now because it’s a new fad to take shot at Musk.

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than the way it plays against the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" BS we constantly hear, I don't really have too much of a problem with the subsidies. What I do have a problem with is that they're structured in such a way that they allow the company to have essentially unlimited profit with little or no return to the government and unfettered executive compensation. That in turn allows schmucks like Musk to make enough money to buy even more politicians. Wash, rinse, repeat. I'd much rather see the subsidies structured in such a way that a percentage is returned to the government along with limits on executive compensation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

you sound like Elon musk.

 

it got them on the show, didn’t it? Where they had an opportunity to advertise to millions of consumers right? A result; no?
 

And btw, inception is different from idea.

 

What is inception then, where is your definition coming from, and what do you have to show that the government does prioritize that over the company actually needing the subsidy to do it?

 

9 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I highly doubt you even know what subsides Space X has gotten and are just railing on it now because it’s a new fad to take shot at Musk.

 

It's not a hot take, ill defend to a T them getting the subsidies they needed to getting to the point of taking us to ISS themselves.  The question is do they really need them now, and I'm fine with expanding this debate to who really needs subsidies and who doesn't, not jus SpaceX.

 

Can you list the subsidies they are getting this fiscal year and why they should keep getting them?  I'm all ears.

Edited by Renegade7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Sisko said:

Other than the way it plays against the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" BS we constantly hear, I don't really have too much of a problem with the subsidies. What I do have a problem with is that they're structured in such a way that they allow the company to have essentially unlimited profit with little or no return to the government and unfettered executive compensation. That in turn allows schmucks like Musk to make enough money to buy even more politicians. Wash, rinse, repeat. I'd much rather see the subsidies structured in such a way that a percentage is returned to the government along with limits on executive compensation.

What about the benefits that the government gets in arms of strategic manufacturing capability, job growth, and capital expenditure on new plants? (All of which is taxed multiple times through sales tax and payrol tax and income tax)

 

Most if the subsides that Tesla has received has come from localities that want Tesla to build factories in their state.

Just now, Renegade7 said:

 

 

 

Can you list the subsidies they are getting this fiscal year and why they should keep getting them?  I'm all ears.

You can view Teslas.  I already posted the link.  SpaceX (via Starlink) received 700 million to develop broadband access in rural counties in the US. Did SpaceX need it? No. But the United States has decided that they want people living in Rural areas to have access to high speed internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I have a lot of respect for you what you do. So I'm gonna ask some questions to make sure I understand what you're saying.

 

Was Musk's question on how to solve world hungry or how to address it for a year?

 

Was the UN proposal based on needing 6 billion dollars a year, and for how long? 

 

How has it gone with respect to governments filling that need if Musk wont?

I suppose it was how to "solve" world hunger. The WPF answered how limited that $6B would be, but they answered him.  They could have said, "We'll use the $6B to kill off 90% of the population, world hunger solved".

 

The UN proposal was for 1 year. They laid out needs in an executive summary. 

 

The $9B the UN raises comes from voluntary contributions.  Governments, Corporations amd Individuals.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

What about the benefits that the government gets in arms of strategic manufacturing capability, job growth, and capital expenditure on new plants? (All of which is taxed multiple times through sales tax and payrol tax and income tax)

 

Most if the subsides that Tesla has received has come from localities that want Tesla to build factories in their state.

What about if they have a problem with it, they go find non-subsidized financing and then compete with another company that chose to agree to the terms for getting the subsidies? Nobody is twisting their arm to take our tax dollars. If you want them, then you comply with the restrictions and terms. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

.

You can view Teslas.  I already posted the link.  SpaceX (via Starlink) received 700 million to develop broadband access in rural counties in the US. Did SpaceX need it? No. But the United States has decided that they want people living in Rural areas to have access to high speed internet.

 

We talking about SpaceX here more then Tesla, that a different conversation.

 

And if Musk can pull together 44 Billion to buy Twitter, why are we giving him 700 million for rural areas to get satellite internet?  He clearly doesn't need the money from us if that's the case, that's the point here.

 

Money is a finite resource, government needs to act like it and we need to demand it or we will never not run a deficit.  We are borrowing money so we can give Musk subsidies he doesn't need, don't you see the problem with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tesla subsidies

 

https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/tesla-inc

 

SpaceX

 

https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/space-exploration-technologies-spacex

 

Though I think that it is missing some subsides for Starlink.

 

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

We talking about SpaceX here more then Tesla, that a different conversation.

 

  Most of SpaceX subsidies were low interest government loans which it paid back.

 

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

And if Musk can pull together 44 Billion to buy Twitter, why are we giving him 700 million for rural areas to get satellite internet?  He clearly doesn't need the money from us if that's the case, that's the point here.


 

 

because the government wants to develop rural internet service.

 

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 We are borrowing money so we can give Musk subsidies he doesn't need, don't you see the problem with that?


the government would be spending the money anyway. They want to do X. They are just using Y to do X.

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

What about if they have a problem with it, they go find non-subsidized financing and then compete with another company that chose to agree to the terms for getting the subsidies? Nobody is twisting their arm to take our tax dollars. If you want them, then you comply with the restrictions and terms. End of story.

If we did it this way SpaceX would get all the subsides and Boeing would be left in the cold. I get the need for accountability but I think you are over estimating what Space X got, under estimating what they produced, and in general under estimating the benefits on investing in manufacturing capabilities.

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:


the government would be spending the money anyway. They want to do X. They are just using Y to do X.

 

Not really is SpaceX was gonna fo it anyway, is the subsidies to make sure they do, because that doesn't sound neccesary either as I thought reaching rural and out of reach areas was already a primary focus of Starlink.

 

  We also have cable broadband money for rural areas in the infrastructure bill, we don't need to pay for both if Musk has the money to build his own damn satellites now.

 

Edit: and I'm still waiting on where you got that inception=results definition from a subsidies standpoint.

Edited by Renegade7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

We also have cable broadband money for rural areas in the infrastructure bill, we don't need to pay for both if Musk has the money to build his own damn satellites now.


So Verizon and Comcast are broke ass companies that deserve the money and SpaceX isn’t?  What are you talking about?

 

or maybe you want to punish SpaceX for showing initiative? 

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

 

Edit: and I'm still waiting on where you got that inception=results definition from a subsidies standpoint.

Wait a while for that straw man argument you are tying to make.

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:


So Verizon and Comcast are broke ass companies that deserve the money and SpaceX isn’t?  What are you talking about?

 

They aren't and weren't planning to invest their resources to putting broadband in the middle of nowhere, same as some smaller ISPs.  

 

Did US come to Musk and say we need Internet in rural areas, or did Musk come to US for subsidies for something he already planned to do?  And the debate is still now does he need those subsidies and what rules are there on those subsidies.

 

Because these seem pretty specific:

 

Quote

Details on $42 billion grant program
The $42.45 billion in broadband deployment money would be administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The NTIA would distribute the funding to states, which in turn would distribute grants to ISPs to build in unserved and underserved areas.

 

The bill defines unserved locations as those without access to speeds of at least 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream and without access to "latency sufficient to support real-time, interactive applications." It also allows subsidies in "underserved locations" without access to 100Mbps download and 20Mbps upload speeds. Funded projects would have to provide speeds of at least 100Mbps downstream and 20Mbps upstream with good latency. Unserved locations will be determined using more accurate geospatial broadband maps that the FCC is in the process of developing.

 

While some Democrats have pushed for federal spending to prioritize networks that offer 100Mbps in both directions, the non-symmetrical 100Mbps/20Mbps standard was adopted after lobbying by cable and fixed-wireless providers that lag behind fiber providers in upload speeds. AT&T—which offers a mix of fiber, DSL, and fixed wireless—also lobbied against nationwide fiber deployment.

 

ISPs that get funding will be required to offer at least one low-cost broadband service option to eligible subscribers, with the NTIA and states being given authority to define what counts as low-cost. "Eligible subscribers" would be defined by the NTIA. ISPs would be given four years to complete broadband deployments, though states can grant extensions for "extenuating circumstances."

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/11/congress-oks-42-billion-to-deploy-100mbps-broadband-in-unserved-areas/%3famp=1

 

 

Edited by Renegade7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Renegade7 changed the title to The Unofficial "Elon Musk trying to "Save Everyone" from Themselves (except his Step-Sister)" Thread...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...