Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Political Discussion and Debate => Topic started by: Solar on June 04, 2017, 08:03:40 AM

Title: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Solar on June 04, 2017, 08:03:40 AM
This is damn good news!

Tesla CEO Elon Musk's decision to quit serving as a business adviser to President Trump because of Trump's exit from the Paris climate accord is spurring additional scrutiny of the billions of dollars in tax subsidies Tesla, SolarCity, and other Musk companies have received over the last decade.

"Elon Musk has received $4.9 billion" in green tax benefits, Moore said. "He has a vested interest in making sure these subsidies continue so of course he's mad at Trump."

Trump pledged to end the climate accord on the campaign trail. Musk's decision to leave Trump's advisory team has only fueled more criticism of the green subsides and how he has made his living.

"Good riddance," said Benjamin Zycher, an American Enterprise Institute scholar and a vocal critic of the Paris deal. Musk's entire business model is based on government subsidies, Zycher added.

Freedom Partners launched a six-figure digital ad campaign on Friday aimed at persuading Republicans to back their guiding principles in the upcoming GOP tax overhaul debate. One of their top-line priorities: ending "special-interest tax credits and deductions for businesses and individuals."

"We want to eliminate all tax carve-outs, special interest giveaways, and corporate welfare—regardless of who benefits—while lowering rates to grow the economy," spokesman Bill Riggs said in a statement. "Americans deserve a society of mutual benefit where businesses thrive by improving people's lives, not gaming the system to profit off taxpayers."

Moore's and Riggs' comments echo conservative criticism about his subsidies aimed at Musk on Twitter after the billionaire tech mogul tweeted Thursday that he would end his role on two of Trump's business councils.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/conservatives-target-musk-tax-subsidies/
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Hoofer on June 04, 2017, 05:45:46 PM
Pull the plug on funding Elon Musk.  Then, start investigating where & how that money was spent, how much went to cultivating Elon Musk's image instead of actual R&D.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: The Boo Man... on June 04, 2017, 06:48:15 PM
Does he really care about the environment or is it just the government handouts lining his pockets? If he did care he would design electric cars everyone could afford. Not just those who can afford to pay six figures.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Solar on June 04, 2017, 07:11:36 PM
Does he really care about the environment or is it just the government handouts lining his pockets? If he did care he would design electric cars everyone could afford. Not just those who can afford to pay six figures.
Honestly, I don't believe a single leftist gives a shit about the environment unless it somehow benefits them personally.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: The Boo Man... on June 04, 2017, 07:26:04 PM
Honestly, I don't believe a single leftist gives a shit about the environment unless it somehow benefits them personally.

Well those in government don't. Last week Obama flew a private jet to Italy and had a 14 car convoy so he could tell the rest of us to eat smaller steaks. If these "leaders" really cared they would Skype or teleconference to keep their carbon footprint to a minimum.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: quiller on June 05, 2017, 04:19:20 AM
Well those in government don't. Last week Obama flew a private jet to Italy and had a 14 car convoy so he could tell the rest of us to eat smaller steaks. If these "leaders" really cared they would Skype or teleconference to keep their carbon footprint to a minimum.

...But that would deny them the golden opportunity to see whose government wastes the most money to send them there to negotiate nothing over less than nothing.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Solar on June 05, 2017, 08:05:06 AM
Well those in government don't. Last week Obama flew a private jet to Italy and had a 14 car convoy so he could tell the rest of us to eat smaller steaks. If these "leaders" really cared they would Skype or teleconference to keep their carbon footprint to a minimum.
Thanks for qualifying, you're Right, it's the Dim party that tells the world what to do while gorging on steaks, AC turned to 68 in the summer, drive reinforced SUV' with armor plating that gets 2 gallons per mile on their way to their private jets.

Kass gently reminded the former President how much steak he had cooked for him over the course of his presidency (hundreds)

We need a real dictionary, where one can look up a word and find an accompanying pic describing the word.
For example, "Hypocrite", pictured left, the DNC headquarters displaying a flag depicting their hero, Karl Marx.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Hoofer on June 05, 2017, 03:36:25 PM
Musk understands marketing to individuals and investors - including the government.  Picking the company name is more important than the product, aligning yourself with the correct trend to obtain the greatest subsidies, grants or funding... well, the guy figured out what to sell, how to sell the idea, and where the government trough was located.

The only thing Musk has in common with the Tesla name - they're both dreamers, but only one of them was a legitimate inventor.

Marketing genius, probably so. 

Case in point:  Who would buy an electric car that took a mile to reach 60mph or looked like a VW "Thing" from the 1960s?
If you're really, really liberal, with tons of money to blow, why wouldn't you want to live in "Solar City"?

you could go down the list, but for now, just defund the guy & his companies from any US government help, and watch his investors scramble to sell off their share.  Introduce the possibility of "failure" into his "projects" - the funding dries up.   He's got that figured out - he doesn't have to produce results in a level economic market.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: je_freedom on June 05, 2017, 08:10:09 PM
Musk understands marketing to individuals and investors - including the government.  Picking the company name is more important than the product, aligning yourself with the correct trend to obtain the greatest subsidies, grants or funding... well, the guy figured out what to sell, how to sell the idea, and where the government trough was located.
...

you could go down the list, but for now, just defund the guy & his companies from any US government help, and watch his investors scramble to sell off their share.  Introduce the possibility of "failure" into his "projects" - the funding dries up.   He's got that figured out - he doesn't have to produce results in a level economic market.

No-bid contracts and government subsidies:  Elon Musk - the left wing version of Halliburton!
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Bronx on June 06, 2017, 06:29:27 AM
Someone read the writing on the wall that President Trump was going to leave the Paris climate scam. IMO Tesla depended big time on the USA to say and be a big player in that Paris accord.

If President Trump stays in the Paris accord was dumping Tesla's stock a big mistake...? Remember back in February Goldman Sacks recommended dropping all of Tesla's stock and two day after Trump pulled out Toyota came a little late to the party of dumping the Tesla stock.

I'm probably feeding to much into this but you have to admit dumping of Tesla's stock and Trump pulling out of the Paris climate scam might go hand in hand; although, the reason Goldman Sacks gave the dump back in Feb was the "merger  with financially-strapped solar panel provider SolarCity".

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/27/analysts-say-solarcity-merger-torpedoing-teslas-stock/

https://www.thestreet.com/story/14162087/1/toyota-shares-skid-after-it-reveals-tesla-stake-sale.html
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Solar on June 06, 2017, 08:14:49 AM
Someone read the writing on the wall that President Trump was going to leave the Paris climate scam. IMO Tesla depended big time on the USA to say and be a big player in that Paris accord.

If President Trump stays in the Paris accord was dumping Tesla's stock a big mistake...? Remember back in February Goldman Sacks recommended dropping all of Tesla's stock and two day after Trump pulled out Toyota came a little late to the party of dumping the Tesla stock.

I'm probably feeding to much into this but you have to admit dumping of Tesla's stock and Trump pulling out of the Paris climate scam might go hand in hand; although, the reason Goldman Sacks gave the dump back in Feb was the "merger  with financially-strapped solar panel provider SolarCity".

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/27/analysts-say-solarcity-merger-torpedoing-teslas-stock/

https://www.thestreet.com/story/14162087/1/toyota-shares-skid-after-it-reveals-tesla-stake-sale.html
Yeah, that was a scam from the get go. Musk depended heavily on future subsidies, so it comes off as a weak excuse that they dropped Musk over Solarcity, when both are only alive because of taxpayer subsidies.
I pray to God Trump dumps and guts the entire Commie Green energy scam, if he doesn't, I think the blame can be laid safely in the laps of the Establishment whores.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: je_freedom on June 07, 2017, 10:52:56 PM
Does he really care about the environment or is it just the government handouts lining his pockets? If he did care he would design electric cars everyone could afford. Not just those who can afford to pay six figures.

   Picking winners and losers

This whole situation is a great example of
the practice of "picking winners and losers."
Imagine a football game between two teams
where one has much more athletic ability.
Clearly, the more talented team would win.
But suppose the referees say,
"But this other team is so much more deserving.
They're from the 'hood.  They're underprivileged. 
We need to help them."
So the referees award them a few touchdowns to begin with.
They let five yards count as a first down. 
They make the other team gain fifteen yards for their first downs.
They keep awarding favors to the less talented team;
as much as it takes to make them win.

This is like what the government has been doing in the economy.
There is one team whose operations are most efficient.
They can produce the most energy, miles driven, whatever,
for the fewest number of man-hours.
But this other team is all about sunshine and flowers and rainbows.
Their operations take several times the number of man-hours
to produce the same products.
They are inherently less efficient.
So the government steps in and
provides grants for their initial investment.
They provide refundable tax credits
to customers who buy the favored company's products.
They impose "windfall profit taxes" on the efficient company,
to "level the playing field."
They keep awarding favors to the less efficient company;
as much as it takes to make them win.

A true "level playing field" would be one where
there is no government interference.
Each company would provide their products
at the actual cost it takes to create them.
Whichever company provides
the best products to their customers at the lowest cost, wins.
Most of all, the customer wins
by choosing the best deal for himself.
A free market is the ultimate democracy.
Government interference only drives up the cost to the consumer,
by taxing the efficient company,
and giving to the inefficient company
money that could have been used
to provide more and better products.

When government picks winners and losers,
the badly performing companies win,
and the consumers lose.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: The Boo Man... on June 07, 2017, 11:08:35 PM
I'm not defending Musk but let's be honest, he's not dumb. The government offers him billions in subsidies for his company in the name of climate change. He's be an idiot to not take the cash.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Hoofer on June 08, 2017, 04:40:00 AM
I'm not defending Musk but let's be honest, he's not dumb. The government offers him billions in subsidies for his company in the name of climate change. He's be an idiot to not take the cash.
Sure, if you're looking for an opportunity - a politician comes up with a scheme to transfer money -out- of your wallet to someplace or to someone else, why not be the 'someone' else?

Al Gore warns the end is coming, we've got to do something radically different.
Elon Musk starts up companies to meet that radically different agenda, thus insulating himself from criticism, and becoming quite wealthy.

Here's where most people fail, it's not the next invention or novel idea, rather you're really looking for the next government subsidized investment.

Whatever Elon Musk really is, inventor or investor, he won't quit.  If he's really the image he's created, the inventor like Tesla - that drive to tinker won't stop until he dies.  I suspect he's an Alexander Graham Bell type... he gets to the patent office, an hour before the inventor does.  (...wow, this is gonna make me RICH!!!)
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Solar on June 08, 2017, 05:50:58 AM
I'm not defending Musk but let's be honest, he's not dumb. The government offers him billions in subsidies for his company in the name of climate change. He's be an idiot to not take the cash.
I had the same opportunities as Musk, saw the deals being offered, but I refused to take them, I was even offered sealed bids running in the millions, I refused to partake in the theft of taxpayer money.
I'm not alone, the majority of people I worked with refused to take the money as well, not everyone is willing to work with the Devil. It's what makes us Conservatives.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: topside on June 09, 2017, 11:44:28 AM
I had the same opportunities as Musk, saw the deals being offered, but I refused to take them, I was even offered sealed bids running in the millions, I refused to partake in the theft of taxpayer money.
I'm not alone, the majority of people I worked with refused to take the money as well, not everyone is willing to work with the Devil. It's what makes us Conservatives.

I run into so-called conservatives all the time that rail against the liberal agenda ... that is until it's time for them to take their cost reduction, tax advantage, rebate, etc. - a very common form of hypocrisy.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Solar on June 09, 2017, 11:57:38 AM
I run into so-called conservatives all the time that rail against the liberal agenda ... that is until it's time for them to take their cost reduction, tax advantage, rebate, etc. - a very common form of hypocrisy.
Yep, theft is theft. Just because the govt stole it first, in no way makes one innocent in any way when receiving stolen property, they are just as complicit as an accomplice in a bank robbery while driving the getaway car or laundering the money.
For this very reason, I refused to join in the theft of the taxpayer by selling grid tied solar panels so the customer could further raid this nation's treasure.
I sleep well at night.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Hoofer on June 09, 2017, 05:35:28 PM
I run into so-called conservatives all the time that rail against the liberal agenda ... that is until it's time for them to take their cost reduction, tax advantage, rebate, etc. - a very common form of hypocrisy.

Ditto...  but there are more Liberals milking that cow than Conservatives, so that makes us more moral (not).

"Ya know, it's those big guys, not the little ones that need to be reigned in, they're getting rich off the tax payers!"

Harrrrr-uph!   Add up all those little guys who are taking benefits they should honestly take, and the problem becomes more apparent.

How many little guys will "retire with a nice nest egg" - after taking US government benefits their entire lives, because our government wants everyone dependent on taxpayer handouts.  They are life-long dependents, wards of the state, the first to comply with any directive handed down... and the first to do the bidding of a police action, if you're suddenly deemed "illegal" for something that was "legal".
Like a wood burner for heat, if the EPA outlaws them - and offers $$$ for any information leading to the arrest of a violator, yup, they'll cash in on you.

IMO what Elon Musk is doing is perfectly legal, and immoral.  By the government picking winners, the real innovators who don't want his brand of environmentalism are completely frozen out of the market.  Elon Musk doesn't have to build a business like the rest of Americans, turning a profit, etc., he has been given a lot of freebies - not mortgaging his house to put his plans into motion.  If his businesses ventures go belly up, he'll still walk away, clean.   Thanks to the government, he has been given an unfair market advantage, IMO, that's immoral.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Solar on June 09, 2017, 06:38:24 PM
Ditto...  but there are more Liberals milking that cow than Conservatives, so that makes us more moral (not).

"Ya know, it's those big guys, not the little ones that need to be reigned in, they're getting rich off the tax payers!"

Harrrrr-uph!   Add up all those little guys who are taking benefits they should honestly take, and the problem becomes more apparent.

How many little guys will "retire with a nice nest egg" - after taking US government benefits their entire lives, because our government wants everyone dependent on taxpayer handouts.  They are life-long dependents, wards of the state, the first to comply with any directive handed down... and the first to do the bidding of a police action, if you're suddenly deemed "illegal" for something that was "legal".
Like a wood burner for heat, if the EPA outlaws them - and offers $$$ for any information leading to the arrest of a violator, yup, they'll cash in on you.

IMO what Elon Musk is doing is perfectly legal, and immoral.  By the government picking winners, the real innovators who don't want his brand of environmentalism are completely frozen out of the market.  Elon Musk doesn't have to build a business like the rest of Americans, turning a profit, etc., he has been given a lot of freebies - not mortgaging his house to put his plans into motion. If his businesses ventures go belly up, he'll still walk away, clean.   Thanks to the government, he has been given an unfair market advantage, IMO, that's immoral.
Nailed it!!!
The taxpayer is on the hook for his (soon to be) guaranteed business failure, the govt backed his loan, Hell, they gave him the loan, and as an LLC, he personally will walk away without a mark, because he could afford to buy protection most start up companies only dream of.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: topside on June 10, 2017, 05:59:06 AM
There needs to be a national online Wall of Shame and a nice spot in the Smithsonian (which we also pay for) that identifies all the companies that the govt. dumped our taxpayer money in only for them to go out-of-business a few years later ... and the owners walk away with their wheel barrows full of our tax dollars. I can picture a poster for each that shows the company name and product, the owner smiling with a wheel-barrow of money, and print that shows it's duration (tombstone w/ start and fail dates), and print how much was invested. The president who was on duty during that time should go on there somewhere too.

Businesses propped up with funding like Musk's Tesla will never survive once the funding is pulled because the owners have no sense of what really makes it viable - never had to earn their stripes and develop the feel for what balances the cart. Musk was there at the right time when BO was in love with anti-fossil-fuel initiatives. I doubt if govt. funded startups ever sustain as there are those who send out the (our) money don't mind the farm.  Yes- some VC startups with a good plan and monitoring can benefit from early venture capital, but it usually requires gates for incremental release, is less than $1-5M (some exceptions), has those expecting a return and vested ownership watching the farm along with the owner, and is typically finished in less than 10 years.

I doubt if Musk has any idea whether or not Tesla is self-sustaining; hope I'm wrong and I hope he's on top of it ... but I doubt it. Fundamentally, the battery technology and charging infrastructure isn't there to support the product. But Tesla is very forward thinking - probably just released before it could be sustained. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem.

But he also demonstrated innovation in bringing along Pay Pal (his bread-and-butter) and SpaceX is very forward thinking. SpaceX may become a viable alternative to NASA in the coming years ... another path to move space exploration to the free market. Right now they are symbiotic, but SpaceX can do things faster and for much less. Mainly because they can control the strength of their employee force (hire and fire) and be more agile (less red tape) than NASA. Although, SpaceX could just become the next bloated govt. contractor too (e.g., Lockheed Martin) that is slow and micro-managed by the govt.

The point is, involving govt. funding beyond the basic start-up phase is not effective. I've heard that supporting start ups is one thing that our dollars to bear fruit in.  But I've not researched any real data on whether it's true. The return for private investment would probably overcome govt. investment if the VCs didn't want so much ownership of innovations - there is middle ground but the current environment seems to work at the extremes.

The whole greed aspect of our fallen nature is what initiates the government to get involved in aspects of our lives. I KNOW that most on this site will dislike this statement, but I think it's the balancing point between PURE (Godly) conservatism and socialism. Define and ecosystem to include all aspects touched by an entity: financial, infrastructure, environment, workers, usefulness to economy, etc. The conservatives have to deal with the fact that some entities will not do what's best overall for an ecosystem and violation require external intervention to keep from harming ... our government is the external entity. For example, there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth while there are those who are living in poverty; those at the top could choose, on their own, to work the poverty problem. In fact, many do ... but many don't. Yes, there are many other issues regarding motivation of those living life at the bottom, but there is also an onus involved on those at the top.

But the socialists miss the point that once govt. gets involved, even if they start with pure altruistic intentions, control may / will eventually fall into a Marxists hands and be manipulated to control the people. The primary difference is between a distributed system and centralized control ... under human control, a system under centralized control can and will go wrong eventually. Once the government has control of something, you can't count on it staying altruistic because those at the helm will change and control will transfer. That's why the checks and balances of our constitution work so well: the Christian morals that set it up are invariant, the substance of the constitution is fairly stable (difficult to change), and the rule of law is subservient to the constitutional principles and the laws are subject to balance of power between the branches of government. 

The brand of liberalism that's on the market now is failed because it has no moral base. Their belief is that there is no true faith. Believe whatever you want ... essentially you are God. Good luck with that. Then you end up with things like save the whales, hug the trees, kill the babies. And my favorite ($#&!@*$) ... teach our children that they can choose their sex then get it changed.

So I've diverged from the post a little :-) ... Musk should get no subsidies for any of his existing businesses at this point as they are past the initial development phase and need to self-sustain. And his financial position allows him to self sustain his other initiatives without govt. investment ... to such a ridiculous level and in so many ways that I can't believe it's even a consideration. 
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: supsalemgr on June 10, 2017, 01:04:26 PM
There needs to be a national online Wall of Shame and a nice spot in the Smithsonian (which we also pay for) that identifies all the companies that the govt. dumped our taxpayer money in only for them to go out-of-business a few years later ... and the owners walk away with their wheel barrows full of our tax dollars. I can picture a poster for each that shows the company name and product, the owner smiling with a wheel-barrow of money, and print that shows it's duration (tombstone w/ start and fail dates), and print how much was invested. The president who was on duty during that time should go on there somewhere too.

Businesses propped up with funding like Musk's Tesla will never survive once the funding is pulled because the owners have no sense of what really makes it viable - never had to earn their stripes and develop the feel for what balances the cart. Musk was there at the right time when BO was in love with anti-fossil-fuel initiatives. I doubt if govt. funded startups ever sustain as there are those who send out the (our) money don't mind the farm.  Yes- some VC startups with a good plan and monitoring can benefit from early venture capital, but it usually requires gates for incremental release, is less than $1-5M (some exceptions), has those expecting a return and vested ownership watching the farm along with the owner, and is typically finished in less than 10 years.

I doubt if Musk has any idea whether or not Tesla is self-sustaining; hope I'm wrong and I hope he's on top of it ... but I doubt it. Fundamentally, the battery technology and charging infrastructure isn't there to support the product. But Tesla is very forward thinking - probably just released before it could be sustained. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem.

But he also demonstrated innovation in bringing along Pay Pal (his bread-and-butter) and SpaceX is very forward thinking. SpaceX may become a viable alternative to NASA in the coming years ... another path to move space exploration to the free market. Right now they are symbiotic, but SpaceX can do things faster and for much less. Mainly because they can control the strength of their employee force (hire and fire) and be more agile (less red tape) than NASA. Although, SpaceX could just become the next bloated govt. contractor too (e.g., Lockheed Martin) that is slow and micro-managed by the govt.

The point is, involving govt. funding beyond the basic start-up phase is not effective. I've heard that supporting start ups is one thing that our dollars to bear fruit in.  But I've not researched any real data on whether it's true. The return for private investment would probably overcome govt. investment if the VCs didn't want so much ownership of innovations - there is middle ground but the current environment seems to work at the extremes.

The whole greed aspect of our fallen nature is what initiates the government to get involved in aspects of our lives. I KNOW that most on this site will dislike this statement, but I think it's the balancing point between PURE (Godly) conservatism and socialism. Define and ecosystem to include all aspects touched by an entity: financial, infrastructure, environment, workers, usefulness to economy, etc. The conservatives have to deal with the fact that some entities will not do what's best overall for an ecosystem and violation require external intervention to keep from harming ... our government is the external entity. For example, there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth while there are those who are living in poverty; those at the top could choose, on their own, to work the poverty problem. In fact, many do ... but many don't. Yes, there are many other issues regarding motivation of those living life at the bottom, but there is also an onus involved on those at the top.

But the socialists miss the point that once govt. gets involved, even if they start with pure altruistic intentions, control may / will eventually fall into a Marxists hands and be manipulated to control the people. The primary difference is between a distributed system and centralized control ... under human control, a system under centralized control can and will go wrong eventually. Once the government has control of something, you can't count on it staying altruistic because those at the helm will change and control will transfer. That's why the checks and balances of our constitution work so well: the Christian morals that set it up are invariant, the substance of the constitution is fairly stable (difficult to change), and the rule of law is subservient to the constitutional principles and the laws are subject to balance of power between the branches of government. 

The brand of liberalism that's on the market now is failed because it has no moral base. Their belief is that there is no true faith. Believe whatever you want ... essentially you are God. Good luck with that. Then you end up with things like save the whales, hug the trees, kill the babies. And my favorite ($#&!@*$) ... teach our children that they can choose their sex then get it changed.

So I've diverged from the post a little :-) ... Musk should get no subsidies for any of his existing businesses at this point as they are past the initial development phase and need to self-sustain. And his financial position allows him to self sustain his other initiatives without govt. investment ... to such a ridiculous level and in so many ways that I can't believe it's even a consideration.

Just a tip. Posts of this length do not get read.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: je_freedom on June 10, 2017, 01:39:23 PM
Just a tip. Posts of this length do not get read.

I read it.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: walkstall on June 10, 2017, 01:44:11 PM
I read it.

Ok so that makes 3. 
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Solar on June 10, 2017, 02:03:37 PM
Just a tip. Posts of this length do not get read.
Very true. With a post this long, it's best to capture your audience with summary in the first sentence including a compelling question, then proceed to explain the answer to your audience.
People like to know what they're getting into when it's this long because most don't have a lot of time to devote to the forum, which is why sometimes even a title helps grab your audience.
I admit, I only read the first paragraph which didn't capture my interest, though he was right, much of what I read had already been covered in this thread, I surmised from what little I read.
Sometimes several short posts work better. It's not so much what you say, but how concise one can say it. I fail in this department. :laugh:

This is not in anyway meant as an insult to the author, it's just your's and my experience combined that knows what recognizes the difference between a regular post, a good post, or a really great post, something that takes a Hell of a lot of work, which many times gets buried before someone distinguishes its greatness.
This may very well have been a good post, it simply didn't pique my interest.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: topside on June 10, 2017, 03:46:22 PM
Very true. With a post this long, it's best to capture your audience with summary in the first sentence including a compelling question, then proceed to explain the answer to your audience.
People like to know what they're getting into when it's this long because most don't have a lot of time to devote to the forum, which is why sometimes even a title helps grab your audience.
I admit, I only read the first paragraph which didn't capture my interest, though he was right, much of what I read had already been covered in this thread, I surmised from what little I read.
Sometimes several short posts work better. It's not so much what you say, but how concise one can say it. I fail in this department. :laugh:

This is not in anyway meant as an insult to the author, it's just your's and my experience combined that knows what recognizes the difference between a regular post, a good post, or a really great post, something that takes a Hell of a lot of work, which many times gets buried before someone distinguishes its greatness.
This may very well have been a good post, it simply didn't pique my interest.

Comments noted - I've been long-winded several times and will adjust, going forward, to either reduce or summarize first. 

There is a dichotomy regarding basic conservative philosophy that I'm thinking through and was integrated into the long post. I expected some might pick up on it and skewer me a bit ... but then suggest alternative viewpoints that are helpful to the readers. I think it's a critical trade that isn't well-owned by most conservatives as far as I can tell and I'm trying to figure out what to do with it myself. If interested, start in the long post about half through with "The whole greed aspect ... "
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: quiller on June 11, 2017, 05:22:41 AM
A mass of words signifying verbal diarrhea.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Hoofer on June 11, 2017, 06:01:37 AM
There needs to be a national online Wall of Shame and a nice spot in the Smithsonian (which we also pay for) that identifies all the companies that the govt. dumped our taxpayer money in only for them to go out-of-business a few years later ... and the owners walk away with their wheel barrows full of our tax dollars. I can picture a poster for each that shows the company name and product, the owner smiling with a wheel-barrow of money, and print that shows it's duration (tombstone w/ start and fail dates), and print how much was invested. The president who was on duty during that time should go on there somewhere too.

Businesses propped up with funding like Musk's Tesla will never survive once the funding is pulled because the owners have no sense of what really makes it viable - never had to earn their stripes and develop the feel for what balances the cart. Musk was there at the right time when BO was in love with anti-fossil-fuel initiatives. I doubt if govt. funded startups ever sustain as there are those who send out the (our) money don't mind the farm.  Yes- some VC startups with a good plan and monitoring can benefit from early venture capital, but it usually requires gates for incremental release, is less than $1-5M (some exceptions), has those expecting a return and vested ownership watching the farm along with the owner, and is typically finished in less than 10 years.

I doubt if Musk has any idea whether or not Tesla is self-sustaining; hope I'm wrong and I hope he's on top of it ... but I doubt it. Fundamentally, the battery technology and charging infrastructure isn't there to support the product. But Tesla is very forward thinking - probably just released before it could be sustained. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem.

But he also demonstrated innovation in bringing along Pay Pal (his bread-and-butter) and SpaceX is very forward thinking. SpaceX may become a viable alternative to NASA in the coming years ... another path to move space exploration to the free market. Right now they are symbiotic, but SpaceX can do things faster and for much less. Mainly because they can control the strength of their employee force (hire and fire) and be more agile (less red tape) than NASA. Although, SpaceX could just become the next bloated govt. contractor too (e.g., Lockheed Martin) that is slow and micro-managed by the govt.

The point is, involving govt. funding beyond the basic start-up phase is not effective. I've heard that supporting start ups is one thing that our dollars to bear fruit in.  But I've not researched any real data on whether it's true. The return for private investment would probably overcome govt. investment if the VCs didn't want so much ownership of innovations - there is middle ground but the current environment seems to work at the extremes.

The whole greed aspect of our fallen nature is what initiates the government to get involved in aspects of our lives. I KNOW that most on this site will dislike this statement, but I think it's the balancing point between PURE (Godly) conservatism and socialism. Define and ecosystem to include all aspects touched by an entity: financial, infrastructure, environment, workers, usefulness to economy, etc. The conservatives have to deal with the fact that some entities will not do what's best overall for an ecosystem and violation require external intervention to keep from harming ... our government is the external entity. For example, there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth while there are those who are living in poverty; those at the top could choose, on their own, to work the poverty problem. In fact, many do ... but many don't. Yes, there are many other issues regarding motivation of those living life at the bottom, but there is also an onus involved on those at the top.

But the socialists miss the point that once govt. gets involved, even if they start with pure altruistic intentions, control may / will eventually fall into a Marxists hands and be manipulated to control the people. The primary difference is between a distributed system and centralized control ... under human control, a system under centralized control can and will go wrong eventually. Once the government has control of something, you can't count on it staying altruistic because those at the helm will change and control will transfer. That's why the checks and balances of our constitution work so well: the Christian morals that set it up are invariant, the substance of the constitution is fairly stable (difficult to change), and the rule of law is subservient to the constitutional principles and the laws are subject to balance of power between the branches of government. 

The brand of liberalism that's on the market now is failed because it has no moral base. Their belief is that there is no true faith. Believe whatever you want ... essentially you are God. Good luck with that. Then you end up with things like save the whales, hug the trees, kill the babies. And my favorite ($#&!@*$) ... teach our children that they can choose their sex then get it changed.

So I've diverged from the post a little :-) ... Musk should get no subsidies for any of his existing businesses at this point as they are past the initial development phase and need to self-sustain. And his financial position allows him to self sustain his other initiatives without govt. investment ... to such a ridiculous level and in so many ways that I can't believe it's even a consideration.

I read it - great post, and some well thought out points.  You and I seem to view Musk and the emergence of Telsa very similar, Musk being the opportunist, and Barak Obama being the financial enabler.   However, Musk should get no subsidies - ever.  If your idea is worthwhile, it will be invested in by private individuals/companies - the government is the kiss-of-death.

We definitely part company with this liberal nonsense, "...there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth..." - which paints a false picture of a mattress stuffed with dollars, McDuck's room piled high with gold & silver - BS.  Quite frankly, the people who are hoarding wealth are those exchanging dollars for gold & silver as a hedge against inflation, or whatever excuse.  That "money" is not an investment that "helps" any poor person, provides employment or leads anyone else to financial independence.   Just listen to those commercials, filled with tales of the next market crash, like a deflating balloon, "what goes up, must come down", etc., like the markets are somehow governed by "gravity".

Seriously, ponder the price of an IPhone or any other device needing Silver / Gold - how much CHEAPER it would be, without hoarders keeping the price of these metals UP!   I've worked for and grew up among some well known, wealthy people - they invested everything in vehicles that benefited both themselves and were quite generous to "invest" in things to help the less fortunate.  I'm trying really hard to think of just one of them... who didn't lose money on a business venture, sorry, they all took risks and lost money.

Would you employ a Butler & Maid, if you had the means?   Hire them from a slum or an impoverished country?  Take people with ZERO marketable skills, pay for their training, and bring them into your household - becoming responsible for them (they are adults).  Wealthy people do that - give less fortunate people a change.  They have a saying, "Wealth ends in the next generation, unless it's managed wisely."

Back to the main point - IMO, government is the greatest destroyer of the entrepreneurial spirit.   Government prevents businesses from ever getting off the ground.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Solar on June 11, 2017, 08:42:30 AM
Comments noted - I've been long-winded several times and will adjust, going forward, to either reduce or summarize first. 

There is a dichotomy regarding basic conservative philosophy that I'm thinking through and was integrated into the long post. I expected some might pick up on it and skewer me a bit ... but then suggest alternative viewpoints that are helpful to the readers. I think it's a critical trade that isn't well-owned by most conservatives as far as I can tell and I'm trying to figure out what to do with it myself. If interested, start in the long post about half through with "The whole greed aspect ... "
OK.

There needs to be a national online Wall of Shame and a nice spot in the Smithsonian (which we also pay for) that identifies all the companies that the govt. dumped our taxpayer money in only for them to go out-of-business a few years later ... and the owners walk away with their wheel barrows full of our tax dollars. I can picture a poster for each that shows the company name and product, the owner smiling with a wheel-barrow of money, and print that shows it's duration (tombstone w/ start and fail dates), and print how much was invested. The president who was on duty during that time should go on there somewhere too.

Businesses propped up with funding like Musk's Tesla will never survive once the funding is pulled because the owners have no sense of what really makes it viable - never had to earn their stripes and develop the feel for what balances the cart. Musk was there at the right time when BO was in love with anti-fossil-fuel initiatives. I doubt if govt. funded startups ever sustain as there are those who send out the (our) money don't mind the farm.  Yes- some VC startups with a good plan and monitoring can benefit from early venture capital, but it usually requires gates for incremental release, is less than $1-5M (some exceptions), has those expecting a return and vested ownership watching the farm along with the owner, and is typically finished in less than 10 years.

I doubt if Musk has any idea whether or not Tesla is self-sustaining; hope I'm wrong and I hope he's on top of it ... but I doubt it. Fundamentally, the battery technology and charging infrastructure isn't there to support the product. But Tesla is very forward thinking - probably just released before it could be sustained. It's kind of a chicken and egg problem.
I'll start here. Musk/Tesla isn't alone in his vision, he's supported by other major corporations, Ford, Microshaft, several battery manufactures, mining interests and the list goes on.
They're all interested in taxpayer backing because, with the govt on the hook for backing, it virtually guarantees success through monopolized Legislation picking winners and killing off the little guy.
Here's what they have in mind, and it all ties into the "Smart Meter", that should tell you how long this has been in the planning stages.

They plan on replacing the gas engine with an electric grid, one that charges the car as it moves, batteries as it leaves the grid, charging at home overnight, all this, while the govt tracks your every move.
Like the Internet, the govt can literally shut you down at any moment, take away your ability of free movement. An uprising against Govt in Az? Govt shuts down the grid, cuts off your ability to move people.
There is sooo much more to the equation, but you get the idea and why we need to stop the "Green" movement, it has nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with control over the masses in removing our Freedom and Liberty.
That was the idea behind the global warming move, controlling energy output, make our sole source of energy morally wrong, kill the evil coal and fossil fuel industry and introduce solar (insert smiling sun, butterflies and children playing happily), manipulate the next generation into believing gasolind driven cars and those who own them as the enemy.


Quote
But he also demonstrated innovation in bringing along Pay Pal (his bread-and-butter) and SpaceX is very forward thinking. SpaceX may become a viable alternative to NASA in the coming years ... another path to move space exploration to the free market. Right now they are symbiotic, but SpaceX can do things faster and for much less. Mainly because they can control the strength of their employee force (hire and fire) and be more agile (less red tape) than NASA. Although, SpaceX could just become the next bloated govt. contractor too (e.g., Lockheed Martin) that is slow and micro-managed by the govt.

The point is, involving govt. funding beyond the basic start-up phase is not effective. I've heard that supporting start ups is one thing that our dollars to bear fruit in.  But I've not researched any real data on whether it's true. The return for private investment would probably overcome govt. investment if the VCs didn't want so much ownership of innovations - there is middle ground but the current environment seems to work at the extremes.

Beyond tourism, what will SpaceX do? Why is it essential to the security of the nation? Nasa was pretty much given the green light in the space race against the Russians, we landed on the moon and won.
Beyond military applications, NASA has no business being involved in private industry, beyond it being another dark hole for Congress to funnel money to its supporters as in payoffs and bribes.
If SpaceX wants to fly, they can do it like all other young startups did, by using private investors.


Quote
The whole greed aspect of our fallen nature is what initiates the government to get involved in aspects of our lives. I KNOW that most on this site will dislike this statement, but I think it's the balancing point between PURE (Godly) conservatism and socialism. Define and ecosystem to include all aspects touched by an entity: financial, infrastructure, environment, workers, usefulness to economy, etc. The conservatives have to deal with the fact that some entities will not do what's best overall for an ecosystem and violation require external intervention to keep from harming ... our government is the external entity. For example, there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth while there are those who are living in poverty; those at the top could choose, on their own, to work the poverty problem. In fact, many do ... but many don't. Yes, there are many other issues regarding motivation of those living life at the bottom, but there is also an onus involved on those at the top.


Maybe this analogy will help you see that govt has grown way beyond the binds our Founders placed on the Godless structure.
Just imagine if govt had taken sides in the auto industry, pitted the buggy industry against Henry Ford, used environmental laws to stifle his growth, the Commerce Clause to tie his hands at moving product across state lines, or export abroad?
Point being, Government has crossed the line of regulation and moved to choosing what it deems "Good For Society", something the people as a whole used to do through the free mkt.

OOOPs, I missed the rest of the paragraph.
Quote
usefulness to economy, etc.

"usefulness to economy"? What has that to do with Free mkt principles?

Quote
The conservatives have to deal with the fact that some entities will not do what's best overall for an ecosystem and violation require external intervention to keep from harming ... our government is the external entity. For example, there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth while there are those who are living in poverty; those at the top could choose, on their own, to work the poverty problem. In fact, many do ... but many don't. Yes, there are many other issues regarding motivation of those living life at the bottom, but there is also an onus involved on those at the top.

So what? Where does govt have the right to tell you or I what to do with our money, how we invest or who we exploit, or help to further our goals?
Govt is actually a hindrance when monetary growth is concerned, by using banking regulations to micro manipulate the economy, in how we invest, hoard or spend money.
Again, to grasp this line of thinking more clearly, giving one an ability to toss out the pap and filler of govt intervention, one must read and digest the Federalist Papers and the Constitution.

Quote
But the socialists miss the point that once govt. gets involved, even if they start with pure altruistic intentions, control may / will eventually fall into a Marxists hands and be manipulated to control the people. The primary difference is between a distributed system and centralized control ... under human control, a system under centralized control can and will go wrong eventually. Once the government has control of something, you can't count on it staying altruistic because those at the helm will change and control will transfer. That's why the checks and balances of our constitution work so well: the Christian morals that set it up are invariant, the substance of the constitution is fairly stable (difficult to change), and the rule of law is subservient to the constitutional principles and the laws are subject to balance of power between the branches of government. 

The brand of liberalism that's on the market now is failed because it has no moral base. Their belief is that there is no true faith. Believe whatever you want ... essentially you are God. Good luck with that. Then you end up with things like save the whales, hug the trees, kill the babies. And my favorite ($#&!@*$) ... teach our children that they can choose their sex then get it changed.

So I've diverged from the post a little :-) ... Musk should get no subsidies for any of his existing businesses at this point as they are past the initial development phase and need to self-sustain. And his financial position allows him to self sustain his other initiatives without govt. investment ... to such a ridiculous level and in so many ways that I can't believe it's even a consideration.
Whether Musk believes in the Green movement or not, I have no idea, but what he does believe in, is finding ways to get taxpayer dollars and the commie Green movement was the very teat he latched on to.
This option needs to be severed, the govt teats need to be removed, it has no business in business, period!
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: supsalemgr on June 11, 2017, 09:05:35 AM
I read it - great post, and some well thought out points.  You and I seem to view Musk and the emergence of Telsa very similar, Musk being the opportunist, and Barak Obama being the financial enabler.   However, Musk should get no subsidies - ever.  If your idea is worthwhile, it will be invested in by private individuals/companies - the government is the kiss-of-death.

We definitely part company with this liberal nonsense, "...there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth..." - which paints a false picture of a mattress stuffed with dollars, McDuck's room piled high with gold & silver - BS.  Quite frankly, the people who are hoarding wealth are those exchanging dollars for gold & silver as a hedge against inflation, or whatever excuse.  That "money" is not an investment that "helps" any poor person, provides employment or leads anyone else to financial independence.   Just listen to those commercials, filled with tales of the next market crash, like a deflating balloon, "what goes up, must come down", etc., like the markets are somehow governed by "gravity".

Seriously, ponder the price of an IPhone or any other device needing Silver / Gold - how much CHEAPER it would be, without hoarders keeping the price of these metals UP!   I've worked for and grew up among some well known, wealthy people - they invested everything in vehicles that benefited both themselves and were quite generous to "invest" in things to help the less fortunate.  I'm trying really hard to think of just one of them... who didn't lose money on a business venture, sorry, they all took risks and lost money.

Would you employ a Butler & Maid, if you had the means?   Hire them from a slum or an impoverished country?  Take people with ZERO marketable skills, pay for their training, and bring them into your household - becoming responsible for them (they are adults).  Wealthy people do that - give less fortunate people a change.  They have a saying, "Wealth ends in the next generation, unless it's managed wisely."

Back to the main point - IMO, government is the greatest destroyer of the entrepreneurial spirit.   Government prevents businesses from ever getting off the ground.

Another ripoff of the government are farm subsidies. Foreign companies are buying up American farmland and cashing in on these subsidies by the US government.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: topside on June 11, 2017, 10:19:39 AM
I read it - great post, and some well thought out points.  You and I seem to view Musk and the emergence of Telsa very similar, Musk being the opportunist, and Barak Obama being the financial enabler.   However, Musk should get no subsidies - ever.  If your idea is worthwhile, it will be invested in by private individuals/companies - the government is the kiss-of-death.

We definitely part company with this liberal nonsense, "...there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth..." - which paints a false picture of a mattress stuffed with dollars, McDuck's room piled high with gold & silver - BS.  Quite frankly, the people who are hoarding wealth are those exchanging dollars for gold & silver as a hedge against inflation, or whatever excuse.  That "money" is not an investment that "helps" any poor person, provides employment or leads anyone else to financial independence.   Just listen to those commercials, filled with tales of the next market crash, like a deflating balloon, "what goes up, must come down", etc., like the markets are somehow governed by "gravity".

Seriously, ponder the price of an IPhone or any other device needing Silver / Gold - how much CHEAPER it would be, without hoarders keeping the price of these metals UP!   I've worked for and grew up among some well known, wealthy people - they invested everything in vehicles that benefited both themselves and were quite generous to "invest" in things to help the less fortunate.  I'm trying really hard to think of just one of them... who didn't lose money on a business venture, sorry, they all took risks and lost money.

Would you employ a Butler & Maid, if you had the means?   Hire them from a slum or an impoverished country?  Take people with ZERO marketable skills, pay for their training, and bring them into your household - becoming responsible for them (they are adults).  Wealthy people do that - give less fortunate people a change.  They have a saying, "Wealth ends in the next generation, unless it's managed wisely."

Back to the main point - IMO, government is the greatest destroyer of the entrepreneurial spirit.   Government prevents businesses from ever getting off the ground.

I have also seen many who did well share there wealth.

The full statement I made was:

Quote
For example, there is no doubt that many at the "top" of society (financially) hoard wealth while there are those who are living in poverty; those at the top could choose, on their own, to work the poverty problem.

Yes, it has aspects of lib lunacy, but there is a kernel that isn't lined up well.

I chose poverty of the nation just as an example to talk about - there are other similar examples. The point was that poverty in our nation could be addressed without the governments "help" ... the government seems to enable more than help and the effectiveness is highly in question and I believe that the Marxists use helping the impoverished as a lever. But the wealthy don't solve the problem on their own for some reason. Hoarding was a poor choice in words as there is a litany of reasons why the wealthy don't solve it. Some may just choose not to help this issue Some may not help just because they don't see a mechanism to reach to those who really need help.

But the point is, because the citizens of the nation who could help resolve this problem (and others) can't or don't, then the only remaining options that I see is either let the issue continue without relief or use our government to take action. It is well known (at least to most on this forum) that government action tends to corruptions - so that's not even a choice. So what's left?

Here's what I think. I believe that private organizations could amass a consortium to attack the problem and it would be much more efficient than the government. The primary motivating problem is that dealing with the poor is messy and not typically lucrative. A simple ROI calculation would persuade you to invest somewhere else. But there are local altruistic measures taken on a sparse basis and these could be assessed to find the best examples to use. A national company could be encouraged - maybe voted in by some mechanism - to distribute actively addressing poverty at local levels on a distributed basis ... then checking that corruption isn't happening. I know this has holes - but are there any better ideas? I hope so.   

Onto Solar's post later ... after I get a few things done around here.

Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Hoofer on June 11, 2017, 10:56:35 AM
The real point, or question, "Were it not for government intervention (CASH), who is Elon Musk?".

I doubt it.  Well.... maybe he would have found another way to fleece investors, and his name would be plastered on tabloids, "Musk pleads guilty to investor fraud!"
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: topside on June 11, 2017, 06:30:08 PM
OK.
I'll start here. Musk/Tesla isn't alone in his vision, he's supported by other major corporations, Ford, Microshaft, several battery manufactures, mining interests and the list goes on.
They're all interested in taxpayer backing because, with the govt on the hook for backing, it virtually guarantees success through monopolized Legislation picking winners and killing off the little guy.
Here's what they have in mind, and it all ties into the "Smart Meter", that should tell you how long this has been in the planning stages.

They plan on replacing the gas engine with an electric grid, one that charges the car as it moves, batteries as it leaves the grid, charging at home overnight, all this, while the govt tracks your every move.
Like the Internet, the govt can literally shut you down at any moment, take away your ability of free movement. An uprising against Govt in Az? Govt shuts down the grid, cuts off your ability to move people.
There is sooo much more to the equation, but you get the idea and why we need to stop the "Green" movement, it has nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with control over the masses in removing our Freedom and Liberty.
That was the idea behind the global warming move, controlling energy output, make our sole source of energy morally wrong, kill the evil coal and fossil fuel industry and introduce solar (insert smiling sun, butterflies and children playing happily), manipulate the next generation into believing gasolind driven cars and those who own them as the enemy.

Solar - you're in a very different place than I on the conspiracy ideas. I don't discount them and see logic behind how it could be happening ... but it's hard to swallow in a first reading. If true, that's quite a devastating plot.

Quote
Beyond tourism, what will SpaceX do? Why is it essential to the security of the nation? Nasa was pretty much given the green light in the space race against the Russians, we landed on the moon and won.
Beyond military applications, NASA has no business being involved in private industry, beyond it being another dark hole for Congress to funnel money to its supporters as in payoffs and bribes.
If SpaceX wants to fly, they can do it like all other young startups did, by using private investors.

If viable, I would look to SpaceX and follow-ons to begin the trials of populating other planets using their natural resources. It's stuff of science fiction ... but so was walking on the moon before 1950.
 
Quote
Maybe this analogy will help you see that govt has grown way beyond the binds our Founders placed on the Godless structure.
Just imagine if govt had taken sides in the auto industry, pitted the buggy industry against Henry Ford, used environmental laws to stifle his growth, the Commerce Clause to tie his hands at moving product across state lines, or export abroad?
Point being, Government has crossed the line of regulation and moved to choosing what it deems "Good For Society", something the people as a whole used to do through the free mkt.

OOOPs, I missed the rest of the paragraph.
"usefulness to economy"? What has that to do with Free mkt principles?

Oh - I'm amazed at how the founding fathers saw the plight of involving government and am more than convinced that minimal government is central part of a free nation / republic like our. So you're preaching to the choir on this point. Even if government has good intentions now, what about after the next election. Sustaining ethics will always be a problem with the government as you've pointed out in some of your other posts.

Quote
So what? Where does govt have the right to tell you or I what to do with our money, how we invest or who we exploit, or help to further our goals?
Govt is actually a hindrance when monetary growth is concerned, by using banking regulations to micro manipulate the economy, in how we invest, hoard or spend money.
Again, to grasp this line of thinking more clearly, giving one an ability to toss out the pap and filler of govt intervention, one must read and digest the Federalist Papers and the Constitution.
Whether Musk believes in the Green movement or not, I have no idea, but what he does believe in, is finding ways to get taxpayer dollars and the commie Green movement was the very teat he latched on to.
This option needs to be severed, the govt teats need to be removed, it has no business in business, period!

Agree on all counts with your comment above. But I'm still looking at a hole in my thinking: What should happen when the private sector / free economy fails to solve a critical societal problem. There are many problems that fit this type and we've seen how government intervention does NOT work. So government intervention is a bad idea. Assuming the private citizens of our republic don't step up to solve the problems locally, the only other option is to do nothing? So, in the poverty example, just let the children starve - that's the natural outcome? I know conservatives don't think that way ... that would be terrible ... Stalen-esque. 

I believe in the greatness of true Americans - that given the vision and on-ramps, they will step into the gaps. We see it all the time in our soldiers (domestic and abroad) who go into harms way. For some reason, we can't seem to get the same take-the-hill response in solving many societal gaps other than give it to the government ... which is a fail that I think conservatives aren't addressing and liberals use to gain control. If we got it right, it would severely damage the liberal agenda. I believe that, given the right impetus, those who can step in and solve these problems (outside the government) will. Schools, hospitals, etc. came from those of faith who banned together to stand in the gap - that's the type of solution that can scale up and address some of the gaps. But how does it get motivated?
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: topside on June 11, 2017, 06:33:42 PM
The real point, or question, "Were it not for government intervention (CASH), who is Elon Musk?".

I doubt it.  Well.... maybe he would have found another way to fleece investors, and his name would be plastered on tabloids, "Musk pleads guilty to investor fraud!"

I believe Musk capitalized (literally) on Pay Pal and then found the vein of government funding for Tesla / SpaceX and started mining there. I do think he's innovative ... but now dependent on the teet. So he has become no one without government cash - sold his soul.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Solar on June 12, 2017, 05:40:32 AM
Solar - you're in a very different place than I on the conspiracy ideas. I don't discount them and see logic behind how it could be happening ... but it's hard to swallow in a first reading. If true, that's quite a devastating plot.
It's
If viable, I would look to SpaceX and follow-ons to begin the trials of populating other planets using their natural resources. It's stuff of science fiction ... but so was walking on the moon before 1950.
 
Oh - I'm amazed at how the founding fathers saw the plight of involving government and am more than convinced that minimal government is central part of a free nation / republic like our. So you're preaching to the choir on this point. Even if government has good intentions now, what about after the next election. Sustaining ethics will always be a problem with the government as you've pointed out in some of your other posts.

Agree on all counts with your comment above. But I'm still looking at a hole in my thinking: What should happen when the private sector / free economy fails to solve a critical societal problem. There are many problems that fit this type and we've seen how government intervention does NOT work. So government intervention is a bad idea. Assuming the private citizens of our republic don't step up to solve the problems locally, the only other option is to do nothing? So, in the poverty example, just let the children starve - that's the natural outcome? I know conservatives don't think that way ... that would be terrible ... Stalen-esque. 

I believe in the greatness of true Americans - that given the vision and on-ramps, they will step into the gaps. We see it all the time in our soldiers (domestic and abroad) who go into harms way. For some reason, we can't seem to get the same take-the-hill response in solving many societal gaps other than give it to the government ... which is a fail that I think conservatives aren't addressing and liberals use to gain control. If we got it right, it would severely damage the liberal agenda. I believe that, given the right impetus, those who can step in and solve these problems (outside the government) will. Schools, hospitals, etc. came from those of faith who banned together to stand in the gap - that's the type of solution that can scale up and address some of the gaps. But how does it get motivated?
[/quote]
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Solar on June 12, 2017, 07:04:35 AM
Solar - you're in a very different place than I on the conspiracy ideas. I don't discount them and see logic behind how it could be happening ... but it's hard to swallow in a first reading. If true, that's quite a devastating plot.

If viable, I would look to SpaceX and follow-ons to begin the trials of populating other planets using their natural resources. It's stuff of science fiction ... but so was walking on the moon before 1950.
 
Oh - I'm amazed at how the founding fathers saw the plight of involving government and am more than convinced that minimal government is central part of a free nation / republic like our. So you're preaching to the choir on this point. Even if government has good intentions now, what about after the next election. Sustaining ethics will always be a problem with the government as you've pointed out in some of your other posts.

Agree on all counts with your comment above. But I'm still looking at a hole in my thinking: What should happen when the private sector / free economy fails to solve a critical societal problem. There are many problems that fit this type and we've seen how government intervention does NOT work. So government intervention is a bad idea. Assuming the private citizens of our republic don't step up to solve the problems locally, the only other option is to do nothing? So, in the poverty example, just let the children starve - that's the natural outcome? I know conservatives don't think that way ... that would be terrible ... Stalen-esque. 

I believe in the greatness of true Americans - that given the vision and on-ramps, they will step into the gaps. We see it all the time in our soldiers (domestic and abroad) who go into harms way. For some reason, we can't seem to get the same take-the-hill response in solving many societal gaps other than give it to the government ... which is a fail that I think conservatives aren't addressing and liberals use to gain control. If we got it right, it would severely damage the liberal agenda. I believe that, given the right impetus, those who can step in and solve these problems (outside the government) will. Schools, hospitals, etc. came from those of faith who banned together to stand in the gap - that's the type of solution that can scale up and address some of the gaps. But how does it get motivated?
I don't do conspiracies.

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/is-big-brother-watching-you/msg202964/#msg202964

Excerpt, yes, Musk sees gas as evil.

Acknowledging that Tesla’s small production volumes can in no way build electric cars fast enough to meet a global fleet of 2 billion cars, Musk expressed the belief that the electric car industry shouldn’t be fighting itself — but gasoline cars.

https://transportevolved.com/2014/06/12/elon-musk-electric-car-world-patents-patents/

Driving a gas car is like littering on a camping trail, smoking on an airplane, and throwing a big stack of paper in the trash, and it’s just a matter of time until public disgust catches up to it.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html

Apple has already entered the car mkt.
Apple wants its electric car ready by 2019
https://www.theverge.com/apple/2015/9/21/9365833/apple-electric-car-2019-report

Autonomous cars, future.
Apple, Google, Tesla and the race to electric self-driving cars
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/apple-google-tesla-and-race-electric-self-driving-cars

France and Normandy already investing in solar roads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PoHXscWdGM
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: taxed on June 12, 2017, 09:05:04 AM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-11/its-confirmed-without-government-subsidies-tesla-sales-implode

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: topside on June 12, 2017, 10:31:19 AM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-11/its-confirmed-without-government-subsidies-tesla-sales-implode

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Timely find!
 
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Solar on June 12, 2017, 11:26:31 AM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-11/its-confirmed-without-government-subsidies-tesla-sales-implode

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
What did I predict? :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: topside on June 12, 2017, 11:29:45 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
What did I predict? :thumbsup:

You da man Solar!  :thumbup:
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Solar on June 12, 2017, 12:11:08 PM
You da man Solar!  :thumbup:
I'm just glad Trump saw through the BS and put a stop to it.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Hoofer on June 12, 2017, 06:17:27 PM
One thing for sure, with a Capitalization of $800,000 per car in Denmark... if you buy one, it'll immediately tag you as a wicked capitalist, setting you apart from the rest of the Danes.

But, Tesla is for high-brow rich liberal SOBs children, just like Subaru (which settled on the high oil consumption issue), is for the feel-good old-fart environmentalists.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: topside on June 22, 2017, 09:04:01 AM
I have this feeling that Musk will change his tune - will now admit that global warming is a hoax.

Quote
The car batteries used in a Tesla generate as much CO2 as driving a gasoline-powered car for eight years. And that’s before they even come off the production line.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/21/delingpole-tesla-car-batteries-co2-not-remotely-green-study-finds/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/21/delingpole-tesla-car-batteries-co2-not-remotely-green-study-finds/)

Uh oh.  :unsure: Not sure if the sales or subsidies will dry up faster.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: walkstall on June 22, 2017, 09:15:46 AM
I have this feeling that Musk will change his tune - will now admit that global warming is a hoax.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/21/delingpole-tesla-car-batteries-co2-not-remotely-green-study-finds/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/21/delingpole-tesla-car-batteries-co2-not-remotely-green-study-finds/)

Uh oh.  :unsure: Not sure if the sales or subsidies will dry up faster.

They put in a Tesla charging stations for 6 cars over a year ago.  I have yet to see more then one car using it a time.  In over a year that I know of there has been only 5 cars using them.  But then I only go into town 2 times a week.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Hoofer on June 22, 2017, 04:04:59 PM
They put in a Tesla charging stations for 6 cars over a year ago.  I have yet to see more then one car using it a time.  In over a year that I know of there has been only 5 cars using them.  But then I only go into town 2 times a week.

Installed 20amp receptacles into the bike racks...LOL  Interesting ways to meet other "greenies"...

"Hi, I'm Elon, I just stopped in for a quickie... charge, plug in here often?  You know how it is, the summer heat kills those batteries - last week one exploded by SpaceX and we mistook it for a launch..."  :scared:
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Hoofer on June 25, 2017, 06:58:11 AM
I have this feeling that Musk will change his tune - will now admit that global warming is a hoax.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/21/delingpole-tesla-car-batteries-co2-not-remotely-green-study-finds/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/21/delingpole-tesla-car-batteries-co2-not-remotely-green-study-finds/)

Uh oh.  :unsure: Not sure if the sales or subsidies will dry up faster.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/23/tesla-may-build-electric-car-plant-in-china/
Quote
Tesla is considering manufacturing electric cars in China in order to bypass a 25 percent tariff on vehicles imported into the country.
....
China’s central government requires all foreign auto manufacturers to partner with a Chinese based company in order to build on Chinese soil, with the foreign company owning no more than 50 percent of the business.

However, both China and Tesla have much to gain from cooperating in the venture.

It's not about the environment - find me ANYTHING about saving the environment that's not fairy-tale stuff.
Follow the money - Musk is about M-O-N-E-Y.   Cornering the market, leveraging & cashing in!  If it means Communist China OWNS it, who the heck cares, damn the environment, he can produce cars cheaper where there are no environmental & worker regulations.

Expect to hear workers or the environment, contaminated by Lithium, next.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Solar on June 25, 2017, 07:49:50 AM
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/23/tesla-may-build-electric-car-plant-in-china/
It's not about the environment - find me ANYTHING about saving the environment that's not fairy-tale stuff.
Follow the money - Musk is about M-O-N-E-Y.   Cornering the market, leveraging & cashing in!  If it means Communist China OWNS it, who the heck cares, damn the environment, he can produce cars cheaper where there are no environmental & worker regulations.

Expect to hear workers or the environment, contaminated by Lithium, next.
Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner. :thumbup:
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Hoofer on June 26, 2017, 05:08:18 PM
Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner. :thumbup:

How does one convince the "greenies" that Musk = money?   He's got *their* language down pat, so good, they think he's one of them!

I hope this recent China idea gets traction - he's the type that would justify wholesale pollution for alternative energy.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Solar on June 26, 2017, 06:41:43 PM
How does one convince the "greenies" that Musk = money?   He's got *their* language down pat, so good, they think he's one of them!

I hope this recent China idea gets traction - he's the type that would justify wholesale pollution for alternative energy.
Libs are funny that way, they have the attention span of bacteria, so the second Musk turns on the commie movement, the LSM ignores it, and in a flash, they're creating a new Commie "Green Energy" Icon for the adoring masses to follow. "Musk Who"?
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: je_freedom on June 28, 2017, 07:48:37 PM
Tesla is considering manufacturing electric cars in China in order to bypass a 25 percent tariff on vehicles imported into the country.
....
China’s central government requires all foreign auto manufacturers to partner with a Chinese based company in order to build on Chinese soil, with the foreign company owning no more than 50 percent of the business.

However, both China and Tesla have much to gain from cooperating in the venture.

Who in China would buy a Tesla, anyway?
China has a lot fewer people with the
abundance of money and shortage of brains
it takes to buy a Tesla.

And the government of China is certainly not
foolish enough to subsidize Tesla buyers,
like the U.S. government does.

At least 99% of Teslas made in China would be exported.
And the U.S. government (if The Donald doesn't intervene)
probably would STILL subsidize buyers of Teslas made in China!

China would like to have another product to export,
(plus any new manufacturing technology that comes with it)
and Tesla would like to have China's cheap labor.
Title: Re: The End of Commie Green Subsidies and Elon Musk
Post by: Hoofer on July 06, 2017, 01:21:21 PM
This guy is a globalist NUT!    But that's what happens when you spend your whole life in the metro areas, you lose perspective of s-p-a-c-e in the rural areas.

Quote
Elon Musk: The world's population is accelerating toward collapse and nobody cares   Elon Musk: The world's population is accelerating toward collapse and nobody cares 
4 Hours Ago | 01:01
Elon Musk usually tweets about mundane topics, from LA traffic to Tesla projects. On Thursday he was more dire.

"The world's population is accelerating towards collapse, but few seem to notice or care," Tesla's CEO tweeted to his nearly 10 million followers. He pointed to a November article in New Scientist magazine titled, "The world in 2076: The population bomb has imploded."
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/elon-musk-the-worlds-population-is-accelerating-toward-collapse-and-nobody-cares.html

These knuckleheads wouldn't last a week in my neighborhood without all their electronic toys and groupies.

the problem isn't overpopulation, it's more like people lack the most basic skills of living, starting with growing a garden.