Tesla repays federal loan nearly 10 years early

[livendive 8]

Nice to see them doing well and taking care of this early.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

Elon Musk - I love the guy. He puts his money where his mouth is. He gets the ideas. He makes them happen.

And - here's the thing about him - he puts out products that deliver. SpaceX? It works. Tesla Motors? It's delivering on the promise. I sense that he makes things happen because he won't let them fail. Mad props.

Note: perhaps the government could learn something from this. Taking the debt and paying it off early. Naw... Plenty of economists say that would be bad...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,009]

>Note: perhaps the government could learn something from this.

That it's sometimes worth investing in new-technology companies even if some of them turn into Solyndras?

[kidicarus 0]

I was associated with Elon in 2000 thru the flying club at the Palo Alto airport. Guy came to me with 60 hours in a 172 saying he wanted to get proficient in the Extra 300. I told him a straight transition was possible, but, transitioning through lesser planes (citabria, decathlon, Marchetti) would be the way to go. No go. So I loaded him up. Long story short; he became safe and proficient long before I thought he would. He never would have been a Mike Mangold. However, he came in thoroughly prepared mentally and just simply refused to fail. We would beat on maneuvers for literally hours. I'm talking about land, refuel, and continue util he had it down. I've never had another acro student like that before or since. I think that is just his approach to life. It's not refusal to fail. It's fail until you succeed. Probably something to be said for that.

[rushmc 23]

Iago

***>Note: perhaps the government could learn something from this.

That it's sometimes worth investing in new-technology companies even if some of them turn into Solyndras?

It's worth investing in GOOD MANAGEMENT not just a new tech company. Solyndra failed because their management sucked. Elon could be managing a food truck and he'd have a working plan to make it bigger than McDonalds.

Not to mention that Solyndra was a political payback

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[beowulf 1]

billvon

>Note: perhaps the government could learn something from this.

That it's sometimes worth investing in new-technology companies even if some of them turn into Solyndras?

No I don't think it's worth it. The Tesla story isn't all rosy.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/tesla-would-stop-selling-cars-wed-all-save-some-money

[normiss 806]

How many "Solyndras" can we support?

[billvon 3,009]

>How many "Solyndras" can we support?

Quite a few. I am pretty happy with a 93% success rate.

Counter question - how many Challengers and Apollo 1's and Columbias can we afford? They cost far more in terms of lives and money. Should we have cancelled the space program after Apollo 1?

[normiss 806]

Interesting comparison, care to put a value on the technology that we skimmed from NASA work?

NASA didn't have competition that paid them bribes either.

[beowulf 1]

I wouldn't consider Tesla cars to be successful products till they can be sold at a profit with out government subsidies. The electric car idea still has a long way to go.

[billvon 3,009]

>Interesting comparison, care to put a value on the technology that we skimmed
>from NASA work?

Care to put a value on viable electric cars, affordable solar power systems and better electrical grids? How about nuclear spill cleanups? What about better internet security systems (to protect against Chinese cyber attacks, for example?)

Both are pretty high value. A viable electric car will do a huge amount to reduce our dependence on oil.

>NASA didn't have competition that paid them bribes either.

Solyndra's competition didn't pay them bribes either.

However, a LOT of potential NASA contractors bribed the hell out of the senators responsible for making the decisions on where to build the various big-ticket items. Google the story of how Grumman got the contract for the Lunar Lander, for example.

[normiss 806]

You're going to have to show an example of a 'viable electric car' - because there are currently NONE.

Hence the problems in that market of vehicles.

Businesses will NEVER succeed this way and neither will our economy! Oh wait. Sell it to the Chinese.

I'm beginning to think that Marx and Lenin were actually correct.

[Darius11 12]

billvon

>Note: perhaps the government could learn something from this.

That it's sometimes worth investing in new-technology companies even if some of them turn into Solyndras?

Yes it is, and we should and yes some will suck and be a waist.

I think that's what people do not get. It's not a 100% solution where there is never an abuse or never mismanagement. However when you judge you should look at the whole picture that the idea effects.

I think that is what made America strong. Invest in new ideas many will fail but the one revolutionary idea will have drastic effects.

Think of the Television how many other business and avenues of revenue have become possible because if it?

I can't even count way too many.
Many people have ideas, but having the ability to attempted to actually do them is the game changer.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[billvon 3,009]

>You're going to have to show an example of a 'viable electric car' - because there
>are currently NONE.

At my company alone there are over 200 viable electric cars. Including over a dozen Teslas. People drive them to work every day.

Consumer Reports recently gave the Tesla model S their highest score, ever.

Plug in vehicles are selling at the rate of tens of thousands a year, despite being less than 3 years old.

Sounds pretty viable.

>Businesses will NEVER succeed this way and neither will our economy!

I recall the same claims being made about the Internet. A government controlled network that you need a ten thousand dollar computer to connect to? Who's going to use that? What a waste of money!

[normiss 806]

Yes, some of the CARS themselves are an amazing progression in that technology. The BUSINESS behind them are quite simply made of cards.
Unless you like government owned businesses anyway.

[billvon 3,009]

>Yes, some of the CARS themselves are an amazing progression in that
>technology. The BUSINESS behind them are quite simply made of cards.

Hmm. Tesla, Nissan, GM and Ford seem to be doing OK.

You were defending NASA before. Remind me, how much money did they make?

[normiss 806]

NASA isn't nor has it ever been a for profit entity.
You know this.

You think a car with a 70 mile range is viable????

GM is doing OK with the Volt????

[jclalor 12]

And what happened to their stock after they payed off Uncle Sam?

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/29/investing/tesla-stock/

It seems that WS thinks that they are doing just fine.

[normiss 806]

The latest round of Tesla wonderment came when it reported its first quarterly profit earlier this month. TSLA stock darned near doubled in a week. Musk then borrowed $150 million from Goldman Sachs (shocking!) and floated a cool billion in new stock and long-term debt. That’s how we—the taxpayers—were repaid.

[billvon 3,009]

>NASA isn't nor has it ever been a for profit entity.

And how much did we spend on NASA (with no hope of ever seeing that money back) vs. spend on loans to EV and solar companies?

>You think a car with a 70 mile range is viable?

For a great many people here - yes.

Do you think motorcycles are viable?

>GM is doing OK with the Volt?

Right now they're not even breaking even - which is what I would expect with the very first car of its type. They are redesigning it so they can make a profit.

Second generation PHEV's - the Prius PHEV and the C-Max - are doing well. Both of them accomplish this by downsizing the battery, which (IMO) is where GM made their mistake.

[billvon 3,009]

>Musk then borrowed $150 million from Goldman Sachs (shocking!) and floated a
>cool billion in new stock and long-term debt. That’s how we—the taxpayers—were
>repaid.

Cool. And we (the taxpayers) now have a new option when it comes to cars - one that does not depend on oil, foreign _or_ domestic.

[Remster 30]

Quote

or_ domestic

Why do you hate America?

Remster

[normiss 806]

Not we. Some people.
Yes, SOME metro areas will support those short distances.
Some might even be able to afford two cars so they can actually leave the metro area once in awhile.

I can't wait to see the battery array required for any real work from a vehicle. Because that's what I need!

I do hope to see some big improvements for battery powered motorcycles.

[billvon 3,009]

>Not we. Some people.

Yes. Just like ATC just benefits some people, NASA just benefits some people, and motorcycles benefit some people. Yet I assume you would not claim that motorcycles "aren't viable" or that NASA was useless just because their research didn't benefit everyone.

>Some might even be able to afford two cars so they can actually leave the metro
>area once in awhile.

Over 50% the households in the US have more than one car.

>I can't wait to see the battery array required for any real work from a vehicle.
>Because that's what I need!

You need more than 260 miles of range? OK, you'll probably have to wait for that.

[normiss 806]

No, I need a work vehicle that has torque and can tow.

I, like most Americans, cannot afford a Tesla - hence the weak sales.
And the lack of sufficient charging stations.
And disposing the batteries.

Battery hybrids are still foolishly expensive IMO.