[Continuation] Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla II

[theprestige]

That's not an answer to the question. The question was: Is Musk self made? The answer to that is "no". He started out with a huge, HUGE advantage that 99% of people don't have, right? I don't know what you lacking ambition has to do with others being "self made" or not, but Musk isn't self-made, by any definition of the word. Even you didn't say you "couldn't" be a billionaire even though you "could" be a millionaire, you just said you don't have the ambition to do it. Having millions of dollars at your disposal puts you significantly further ahead than most people.

I disagree. He didn't inherit billions. It's not really a big deal, though. Kind of interesting, to me, at least.

 

[plague311]

I disagree. He didn't inherit billions. It's not really a big deal, though. Kind of interesting, to me, at least.

Then perhaps we just differ on the definition of "self made" because "self made" to me means "did it yourself" not "started with a ◊◊◊◊ ton of money and managed to make more".

 

[arthwollipot]

I figure a self-made billionaire probably has to have decent social skills.

Psychopaths have decent social skills.

 

[theprestige]

Psychopaths have decent social skills.

Yes indeed.

 

[junkshop]

I guess it depends on how you define 'decent' and "social".

As ever YMMV.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Musk's entire wealth is based on regulatory capture: with minor policy changes and one law on crypto, the value of Musk's assets would drop by 99%.
That means it's not self made, it's State made.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Musk's entire wealth is based on regulatory capture: with minor policy changes and one law on crypto, the value of Musk's assets would drop by 99%.
That means it's not self made, it's State made.

What a load of nonsense. Musk's first business venture was Zip2, which was co-founded by his brother Kimbal Musk and Greg Kouri, who put up $8000. Musk's father later put in $20,000 (to put that in perspective, a few years earlier I loaned $23,000 to my brother to buy a house, and I am certainly not rich).

By 1998 the company had partnered with about 160 newspapers to develop guides to cities. In 1999 Compaq Computer bought Zip2 for $305 million, with Elon getting $22 million and Kimbal $15 million.

Please explain how Musk became a millionaire 'based on regulatory capture'.

Musk then invested about $12 million into X.com, co-founded with Harris Fricker, Christopher Payne, and Ed Ho. Now you know where the name 'X' comes from.

Within two months X.com attracted over 200,000 signups. In March 2000 X.com merged with Confinity, creators of PayPal. Musk was its biggest shareholder and so was appointed CEO. Now he's hit the big time, and still no 'regulatory capture' in sight.

In 2002 eBay acquired PayPal for $1.5 billion, of which Musk got $175.8 million. So by this time he's close to $200 million net worth, and still no 'regulatory capture' in sight.

He then invested $100 million of that money in SpaceX, a private company that Musk founded for the eventual purpose of going to Mars, but also to decrease the cost and improve the reliability of access to space. In 2006 NASA started the COTS program, designed to spur the development of private spacecraft and launch vehicles for deliveries to the International Space Station.

This is the first contact Musk has with government. If you want to call this 'regulatory capture' then go ahead. Most people wouldn't agree with that charcterization though. The US Government contracts jobs out to many private companies, and expects to get value for money. In this case SpaceX did the job cheaper and more reliably than the competition. That's your tax dollars really working. If you don't think the US government should be in the space exploration business then tell your congressman, don't put it on Musk.

In 2004 Musk joined Tesla as its largest shareholder, investing $6.5 million. In 2008 he became CEO, and the Roadster was launched. By January 2009 Tesla had raised $187 million in private investment, with Musk contributing $70 million of his own money.

As you know, this was the time of the Great Recession, with governments around the world 'bailing out' companies who were 'too big to fail' (and just as well they did, or we might have seen another Great Depression). This included $17.4 billion to General Motors and Chrysler. In June 2009 Tesla received $465 million in interest-bearing loans from the United States Department of Energy. Tesla repaid the loan in May 2013 with $12 million in interest. Hardly what I would call 'regulatory capture' - the government made money out of it.

As you also know, since 2010 the US government has been giving tax credits of up to $7500 to buyers of EVs and plug-in hybrids. This money goes to customers (if they have tax to pay), not manufactuers, though it could be arged that they benefit from increased sales and/or being able to ask a higher price. The full credit only applied to the first 200,000 vehicles by each manufacturer, after which it would scale back. Tesla and GM reached that limit in 2018. Nissan, Ford, Toyota and BMW were still on the full amount when it was extended in 2022 by Joe Biden.

Is this the 'regulatory capture' you are talking about? If so then why single out Musk, and not Mary Barra (GM) or Jim Farley (Ford)? In 2022 Mary Barra was the highest paid CEO in the industry, receiving $29 million. How much did Musk receive in the same year? Nothing. That's right, he was entitled to a base salary according to California's minimum wage requirements, but refused to accept it. Musk's worth is entirely dependent on the value of his shares.

But why are his shares worth so much? The proximate reason is simple - because that's how much investors are willing to pay for them. They are willing to pay because Tesla has gone from being a startup making boutique sports cars to producing the most popular car on the planet - which happens to be an EV. And Tesla now sells more vehicles outside the US than in it, so even if the US government pulled the plug on all incentives they would be fine. Tesla also makes batteries for energy storage too, which they sell all around the world - another revenue stream that isn't dependent on 'regulatory capture'.

You may have a point about the insane wealth Musk has accumulated and the power it gives him. But blame the real culprit for that - our capitalist economic system that rewards business owners according to the worth of their company. In a sane world everybody would get the same income no matter how much 'value' they are creating. But good luck trying to convince the Amercan voter of that, as they would rightly call it communism.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

All of crypto depends on it not being regulated as a currency - which is why Musk &co where so desperate for Trump to win.
And all of Tesla and SpaceX depend on the government giving it preferential treatment and shielding it from consequences - Starlink is obviously not something that should be in the hands of a privately owned company, given that it has more satellites than all countries combined.
And, of course, Musk has violated countless of Insider trading laws and is not fit to hold a security clearance, which is necessary for being a defence contractor.

He would lose everything if the White House and Congress got fed up with him, just by removing all his privileges.

This is not a solid foundation for companies to be built on - it's just a scam on the taxpayer.

 

[jeremyp]

I disagree. He didn't inherit billions. It's not really a big deal, though. Kind of interesting, to me, at least.

I don't think he's inherited anything yet. Both of his parents are still alive. What did happen though, is his dad gave him a shed load of money to start his first business with. He then got lucky off the back of Peter Thiel and then got ruthless at Tesla with the founders.

 

[3point14]

What a load of nonsense. Musk's first business venture was Zip2, which was co-founded by his brother Kimbal Musk and Greg Kouri, who put up $8000. Musk's father later put in $20,000 (to put that in perspective, a few years earlier I loaned $23,000 to my brother to buy a house, and I am certainly not rich).

If you didn't get it back, could you have afforded to just write it off?

A big part of this is the consequenses of failure. If you have rich parents who can afford to risk that sort of money, you can take risks and, if you fail, still be just fine financially.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

If you didn't get it back, could you have afforded to just write it off?

Of course I could have afforded it - I'm not stupid. What couldn't I 'afford'? A new car, a nice house, a family - and getting into debt. Like Musk, I make sure I have the money to invest before I risk losing it. That way I'm never in debt. I lost $7000 which I loaned to a friend who was running a computer shop in 1987. He paid me back a decade later by working in my own shop for free, without being prompted. I also lost about $10,000 in a software company I invested in, and didn't get my royalties either. But it was OK because my shop was making enough to get by. Then I had to inject $18,000 of my personal money - which I was holding in reserve for a 'rainy day' - to bail out my own company when the manager screwed up.

This is all chickenfeed compared to what most companies are working with, but the principle is the same. Investors put money in and get a piece of the business in return. Some may be actively involved in operations, while others just sit back and watch their investment grow - or not, depending on how well it's run. Musk either started up or invested in businesses that weren't doing much, and - along with others - put in the work to grow them into something valuable.

When you're in business you learn to cope with the huge amounts of money involved and the possibility of losing it all. If you're sensible you hold a bit back (don't mortgage the house!), so if the company goes bankrupt you can start over. At one point Musk had invested so much in Tesla that he didn't have enough cash to live on, but he knew that once (if) they got the Model S out they would pass through the 'valley of death' to make it big.

That's the very definition of 'self-made'. How anyone can argue the opposite is beyond me - but then this is Musk. The more he succeeds, the more the haters hate - because they were wrong when they said he was stupid and would fail. This toxic environment has pushed Musk to the right even more than what normally happens when someone goes into business, causing the haters to hate even more. Makes me sick to think how this could affect our future, when even so-called 'rational thinkers' let themselves be so overtaken by irrational emotions. Every day I am reminded that humans are animals, not that far away from monkeys flinging poo.

If you have rich parents who can afford to risk that sort of money, you can take risks and, if you fail, still be just fine financially.

I'm not sure Musk's parents are that rich. If Musk was stupid enough to get himself into a few billion (or even just a few million) of personal debt, he'd be screwed. But that's why we have corporations. A business the size of Tesla would be impractical to manage without it, let alone the incredible stress the sole owner would be under. I only ran a small business and that was bad enough.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

All of crypto depends on it not being regulated as a currency - which is why Musk &co where so desperate for Trump to win.

Sadly crypto is here to stay. It's not really a currency, so regulating it as one would be wrong.

Musk was a proponent of crypto from the early days, which is not surprising considering the business he was in (payments over the internet). So Trump has now come out in support of it, saying "We're going to do something great with crypto". As with most of Trump's 'policies' this sounds very much like he doesn't have a plan at all. Nevertheless it makes perfect sense for crypto enthusiasts to want an adminisration that's pro crypto - and doesn't imply a neferious agenda. Who knows, perhaps Trump will make it into a currency and regulate it! After all, central banks around the world are looking at replacing notes and coins with 'digital currency'.

And all of Tesla and SpaceX depend on the government giving it preferential treatment and shielding it from consequences - Starlink is obviously not something that should be in the hands of a privately owned company, given that it has more satellites than all countries combined.

So you want to have it both ways, eh?

Please tell us how the government gave Tesla and SpaceX 'preferential treatment' and 'shielded it [sic] from consequences'.

And, of course, Musk has violated countless of Insider trading laws and is not fit to hold a security clearance, which is necessary for being a defence contractor.

He would lose everything if the White House and Congress got fed up with him, just by removing all his privileges.

This is not a solid foundation for companies to be built on - it's just a scam on the taxpayer.

Now your'e just being silly. 'Countless' SEC violations? Musk isn't a defense contactor. What 'privileges' are you talking about that would cause him to 'lose everything' if they were removed?

The US government is (was) encouraging people to buy EVs to reduce fossil fuel usage, and they are advancing space exploration. Tesla has done more to help them with that than other companies, and done it with fewer tax dollars. How is this a 'scam on the taxpayer'?

I'm not sure if you are regugitating hater talking points, or just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks. Maybe both. Either way it's not working.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

of course Musk is a defence contractor - that's a fact.
And crypto wants all the advantages with none of the drawbacks of a currency - the quintessential mark of privilege by regulatory capture: if it has a value, why are we not allowed to treat it like a currency or commodity?

If Musk was actually an entrepreneur and not a leech of the government, like Trump, then why is he spending so much time and money on promoting himself on social media and so desperate to get into the government?
If you thought he could make more money by building a better product than by funnelling government funds his way, he would do that.
But he is a leech and wouldn't be able to compete on an open market.

It's all a house of cards that only exists as long as the government, any government, suffers it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

of course Musk is a defence contractor - that's a fact.

Nope. SpaceX is, but Musk as an individual isn't.

And crypto wants all the advantages with none of the drawbacks of a currency - the quintessential mark of privilege by regulatory capture: if it has a value, why are we not allowed to treat it like a currency or commodity?

This is complete BS. Actual crypto fans (as apposed to 'investors' just trying to make money from another asset class) want nothing to do with government, and laugh at people who expect any kind of regulation or support. In fact the whole idea of crypto was that governments would not be involved in any way. I'm not a fan of this idea myself, but I won't misrepresent their position.

If Musk was actually an entrepreneur and not a leech of the government, like Trump, then why is he spending so much time and money on promoting himself on social media and so desperate to get into the government?

Because the Biden administration was actively hostile towards him. I'm not saying they didn't have reasons to 'look into' his operations, but they could have handled it better. The result is on them.

If Musk is a 'leech who wouldn't be able to compete on an open market' then what about Thomas Rosenbaum, David Calhoun, Jim Taiclet, Mary Barra and Jim Farley? To name just a few of the CEOs who by your measure are benefiting from 'regulatory capture'.

On the one hand you say Musk is a leech for doing work for NASA (and doing it cheaper than the competition), and on the other you say he shouldn't be allowed to operate a private satellite business. This proves you really don't care about where his companies are doing business, you're just against them doing anything that might make money. Why? I can only assume you're simply jealous of Musk's success.

Far from 'capturing' a regulatory agency, regulators have been harder on SpaceX and Tesla than other companies. Part of that is because Musk has been innovating and pushing boundaries more, but part is also due to regulatory friction and competitors using it against him.

For example, Tesla can't sell cars in Texas (even though they have a factory and their corporate offices there) because they don't have a dealer network. The laws regarding this made some sense when cars needed regular maintenance, but EVs don't. Those laws should be changed to reflect the new technology, but of course other car makers are blocking this to prevent Tesla from competing.

When entire states in the US practically depend on defense contracts to survive and have their politicians embedded in government to secure those contracts, it's more than a bit rich to call Musk a leech on government. In fact it's more the other way around. Without SpaceX their costs would have been much higher, threatening many projects and perhaps even the future of NASA itself.

The US government also poured billions into reducing fossil fuel usage, a big part of which was promoting the transition to EVs. So far Tesla has been the only US company to make a serious contribution to that goal. Other automakers dragged their feet and only produced just enough to match the incentives they were given, if that. Most are making a loss on every EV they sell because they refuse to commit lest it cannibalize their gas car sales. Tesla is showing others the way. They are helping the government (and everyone on this planet) a lot more than the government is helping them.

In other countries the situation varies. Some have incentives for EVs, which any manufacturer can take advantage of. Others, like New Zealand, have nothing, and some are openly hostile towards Tesla. They were forced to build a factory in Berlin so they could sell cars in Germany, and even then Teslas made in China were hit with massive tariffs after other German car makers lobbied the government. You talk about 'regulatory capture', well there's an example. Yet strangly I don't hear a peep from you about the CEOs of Volkswagen, BMW or Mercedes-Benz. Why is that?

It's all a house of cards that only exists as long as the government, any government, suffers it.

Tesla was making EVs before incentives were put in place. Without incentives Tesla could be in a better position, because other automakers wouldn't bother making EVs so there wouldn't be any competition. There's no reason to believe Tesla wouldn't exist without the 'suffering' of governments.

Some countries, like New Zealand, don't provide any incentives for EVs. Here they are actually penalized because owners now have to pay the full road user tax of 7.8 cents per km while hybrids pay half. Also just yesterday I found out that the annual ACC levy for EVs has more than doubled, from $40 (same as gas cars) to $114. As you can imagine that messaging put a big dent in EV sales. Nevertheless the Tesla Model Y is the top selling EV here by a wide margin. The next biggest seller, the Ford Mach-E, only got that spot because they are selling them at half price.

SpaceX originally intended to launch payloads for other customers, but NASA had a mandate to partner with private companies so it invested $278 million in SpaceX to help develop the rocket it needed. When SpaceX proved that they had a reliable launch platform NASA then awarded them a contract. If SpaceX hadn't been around that would have gone to someone else, who probably would have been a lot more expensive. Far from 'suffering', the government was getting an excellent deal. Compare that to the $587 million they gave Boeing to develop Starliner, which failed leaving astronauts stranded on the ISS to be 'rescued' by SpaceX. The way Boeing is going these days I wouldn't be surprised if they ceased to exist soon, despite getting double the funding from NASA that SpaceX did (for nothing in return).

Again and again you single out Musk's companies for purported malfeasance while others are practicing 'regulatory capture', wasting taxpayers' money, torpedoing the government's goals and positioning themselves to be 'too big to fail'. Why? Because you don't like Musk's political views? No, it's more that, It started when Musk was described by some as a 'real life Tony Stark'. This got in the craw of many 'rational thinkers' who imagined themselves to have a superior intellect. 'No' they exclaimed, 'Musk's actually an idiot whose harebrained schemes won't get anywhere'.

And then some did get somewhere. Before long Tesla had multiple 'gigafactories' making innovative EVs that impressed competitors. The Tesla Model Y went from being 'vaporware' to the most popular car on the planet. And Tesla stock (righty) soared. Since Musk had 40% of the shares his net worth also soared. Now the 'rational thinkers' were incensed. "How dare Musk make us look like fools", they wailed "We must find anything we can to counter it - whether fair and accurate or not! And if that doesn't work we'll call him names!".

 

[jeremyp]

Nope. SpaceX is, but Musk as an individual isn't.

This is true, but, of course, SpaceX is mostly owned by Elon Musk, so it seems a bit of a hair splitting.

SpaceX originally intended to launch payloads for other customers, but NASA had a mandate to partner with private companies so it invested $278 million in SpaceX to help develop the rocket it needed. When SpaceX proved that they had a reliable launch platform NASA then awarded them a contract. If SpaceX hadn't been around that would have gone to someone else, who probably would have been a lot more expensive. Far from 'suffering', the government was getting an excellent deal. Compare that to the $587 million they gave Boeing to develop Starliner, which failed leaving astronauts stranded on the ISS to be 'rescued' by SpaceX. The way Boeing is going these days I wouldn't be surprised if they ceased to exist soon, despite getting double the funding from NASA that SpaceX did (for nothing in return).

And the rest of course.

Infographic: The NASA Budget's Biggest Profiteers

This chart shows the NASA contractors with the highest awards volume in FY 2022.

www.statista.com

In the fiscal year 2022, the U.S. space agency NASA awarded Musk's company about $2 billion in contract volume out of its total approved budget of $24 billion. SpaceX received 25 percent more funds than in 2021 and overtook Boeing as the agency's second-most-awarded contractor.

So that's $3.6 billion in 2021 and 2022 alone. Then we have this

In November, one month after the end of the previous fiscal year, NASA also announced $1.2 billion in funding for another Artemis lunar surface landing mission.

Has NASA got the rocket it needed yet? Well up to a point: Falcon and Crew Dragon are going well. That Artemis mission seems to be not going well though, given that SpaceX has already busted all the milestones (they are not the only ones, to be fair) and still hasn't got a Starship into orbit, never mind on the Moon, and upright.

 

[jeremyp]

Musk is failing to comply with the rules of his security clearance.

Report: Elon Musk failed to report movement required by security clearance

No federal agencies have accused Musk of disclosing classified information.

arstechnica.com

He could be in serious trouble...

... oh wait, rules don't apply to Musk.

 

[The Don]

Musk is failing to comply with the rules of his security clearance.

Report: Elon Musk failed to report movement required by security clearance

No federal agencies have accused Musk of disclosing classified information.

arstechnica.com

He could be in serious trouble...

... oh wait, rules don't apply to Musk.

...and who is going to bother to enforce any rules applying to security clearances in the Trump administration.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Nope. SpaceX is, but Musk as an individual isn't.

This is complete BS. Actual crypto fans (as apposed to 'investors' just trying to make money from another asset class) want nothing to do with government, and laugh at people who expect any kind of regulation or support. In fact the whole idea of crypto was that governments would not be involved in any way. I'm not a fan of this idea myself, but I won't misrepresent their position.

Because the Biden administration was actively hostile towards him. I'm not saying they didn't have reasons to 'look into' his operations, but they could have handled it better. The result is on them.

If Musk is a 'leech who wouldn't be able to compete on an open market' then what about Thomas Rosenbaum, David Calhoun, Jim Taiclet, Mary Barra and Jim Farley? To name just a few of the CEOs who by your measure are benefiting from 'regulatory capture'.

On the one hand you say Musk is a leech for doing work for NASA (and doing it cheaper than the competition), and on the other you say he shouldn't be allowed to operate a private satellite business. This proves you really don't care about where his companies are doing business, you're just against them doing anything that might make money. Why? I can only assume you're simply jealous of Musk's success.

Far from 'capturing' a regulatory agency, regulators have been harder on SpaceX and Tesla than other companies. Part of that is because Musk has been innovating and pushing boundaries more, but part is also due to regulatory friction and competitors using it against him.

For example, Tesla can't sell cars in Texas (even though they have a factory and their corporate offices there) because they don't have a dealer network. The laws regarding this made some sense when cars needed regular maintenance, but EVs don't. Those laws should be changed to reflect the new technology, but of course other car makers are blocking this to prevent Tesla from competing.

When entire states in the US practically depend on defense contracts to survive and have their politicians embedded in government to secure those contracts, it's more than a bit rich to call Musk a leech on government. In fact it's more the other way around. Without SpaceX their costs would have been much higher, threatening many projects and perhaps even the future of NASA itself.

The US government also poured billions into reducing fossil fuel usage, a big part of which was promoting the transition to EVs. So far Tesla has been the only US company to make a serious contribution to that goal. Other automakers dragged their feet and only produced just enough to match the incentives they were given, if that. Most are making a loss on every EV they sell because they refuse to commit lest it cannibalize their gas car sales. Tesla is showing others the way. They are helping the government (and everyone on this planet) a lot more than the government is helping them.

In other countries the situation varies. Some have incentives for EVs, which any manufacturer can take advantage of. Others, like New Zealand, have nothing, and some are openly hostile towards Tesla. They were forced to build a factory in Berlin so they could sell cars in Germany, and even then Teslas made in China were hit with massive tariffs after other German car makers lobbied the government. You talk about 'regulatory capture', well there's an example. Yet strangly I don't hear a peep from you about the CEOs of Volkswagen, BMW or Mercedes-Benz. Why is that?

Tesla was making EVs before incentives were put in place. Without incentives Tesla could be in a better position, because other automakers wouldn't bother making EVs so there wouldn't be any competition. There's no reason to believe Tesla wouldn't exist without the 'suffering' of governments.

Some countries, like New Zealand, don't provide any incentives for EVs. Here they are actually penalized because owners now have to pay the full road user tax of 7.8 cents per km while hybrids pay half. Also just yesterday I found out that the annual ACC levy for EVs has more than doubled, from $40 (same as gas cars) to $114. As you can imagine that messaging put a big dent in EV sales. Nevertheless the Tesla Model Y is the top selling EV here by a wide margin. The next biggest seller, the Ford Mach-E, only got that spot because they are selling them at half price.

SpaceX originally intended to launch payloads for other customers, but NASA had a mandate to partner with private companies so it invested $278 million in SpaceX to help develop the rocket it needed. When SpaceX proved that they had a reliable launch platform NASA then awarded them a contract. If SpaceX hadn't been around that would have gone to someone else, who probably would have been a lot more expensive. Far from 'suffering', the government was getting an excellent deal. Compare that to the $587 million they gave Boeing to develop Starliner, which failed leaving astronauts stranded on the ISS to be 'rescued' by SpaceX. The way Boeing is going these days I wouldn't be surprised if they ceased to exist soon, despite getting double the funding from NASA that SpaceX did (for nothing in return).

Again and again you single out Musk's companies for purported malfeasance while others are practicing 'regulatory capture', wasting taxpayers' money, torpedoing the government's goals and positioning themselves to be 'too big to fail'. Why? Because you don't like Musk's political views? No, it's more that, It started when Musk was described by some as a 'real life Tony Stark'. This got in the craw of many 'rational thinkers' who imagined themselves to have a superior intellect. 'No' they exclaimed, 'Musk's actually an idiot whose harebrained schemes won't get anywhere'.

And then some did get somewhere. Before long Tesla had multiple 'gigafactories' making innovative EVs that impressed competitors. The Tesla Model Y went from being 'vaporware' to the most popular car on the planet. And Tesla stock (righty) soared. Since Musk had 40% of the shares his net worth also soared. Now the 'rational thinkers' were incensed. "How dare Musk make us look like fools", they wailed "We must find anything we can to counter it - whether fair and accurate or not! And if that doesn't work we'll call him names!".

Nope. SpaceX is, but Musk as an individual isn't.

This is complete BS. Actual crypto fans (as apposed to 'investors' just trying to make money from another asset class) want nothing to do with government, and laugh at people who expect any kind of regulation or support. In fact the whole idea of crypto was that governments would not be involved in any way. I'm not a fan of this idea myself, but I won't misrepresent their position.

Because the Biden administration was actively hostile towards him. I'm not saying they didn't have reasons to 'look into' his operations, but they could have handled it better. The result is on them.

If Musk is a 'leech who wouldn't be able to compete on an open market' then what about Thomas Rosenbaum, David Calhoun, Jim Taiclet, Mary Barra and Jim Farley? To name just a few of the CEOs who by your measure are benefiting from 'regulatory capture'.

On the one hand you say Musk is a leech for doing work for NASA (and doing it cheaper than the competition), and on the other you say he shouldn't be allowed to operate a private satellite business. This proves you really don't care about where his companies are doing business, you're just against them doing anything that might make money. Why? I can only assume you're simply jealous of Musk's success.

Far from 'capturing' a regulatory agency, regulators have been harder on SpaceX and Tesla than other companies. Part of that is because Musk has been innovating and pushing boundaries more, but part is also due to regulatory friction and competitors using it against him.

For example, Tesla can't sell cars in Texas (even though they have a factory and their corporate offices there) because they don't have a dealer network. The laws regarding this made some sense when cars needed regular maintenance, but EVs don't. Those laws should be changed to reflect the new technology, but of course other car makers are blocking this to prevent Tesla from competing.

When entire states in the US practically depend on defense contracts to survive and have their politicians embedded in government to secure those contracts, it's more than a bit rich to call Musk a leech on government. In fact it's more the other way around. Without SpaceX their costs would have been much higher, threatening many projects and perhaps even the future of NASA itself.

The US government also poured billions into reducing fossil fuel usage, a big part of which was promoting the transition to EVs. So far Tesla has been the only US company to make a serious contribution to that goal. Other automakers dragged their feet and only produced just enough to match the incentives they were given, if that. Most are making a loss on every EV they sell because they refuse to commit lest it cannibalize their gas car sales. Tesla is showing others the way. They are helping the government (and everyone on this planet) a lot more than the government is helping them.

In other countries the situation varies. Some have incentives for EVs, which any manufacturer can take advantage of. Others, like New Zealand, have nothing, and some are openly hostile towards Tesla. They were forced to build a factory in Berlin so they could sell cars in Germany, and even then Teslas made in China were hit with massive tariffs after other German car makers lobbied the government. You talk about 'regulatory capture', well there's an example. Yet strangly I don't hear a peep from you about the CEOs of Volkswagen, BMW or Mercedes-Benz. Why is that?

Tesla was making EVs before incentives were put in place. Without incentives Tesla could be in a better position, because other automakers wouldn't bother making EVs so there wouldn't be any competition. There's no reason to believe Tesla wouldn't exist without the 'suffering' of governments.

Some countries, like New Zealand, don't provide any incentives for EVs. Here they are actually penalized because owners now have to pay the full road user tax of 7.8 cents per km while hybrids pay half. Also just yesterday I found out that the annual ACC levy for EVs has more than doubled, from $40 (same as gas cars) to $114. As you can imagine that messaging put a big dent in EV sales. Nevertheless the Tesla Model Y is the top selling EV here by a wide margin. The next biggest seller, the Ford Mach-E, only got that spot because they are selling them at half price.

SpaceX originally intended to launch payloads for other customers, but NASA had a mandate to partner with private companies so it invested $278 million in SpaceX to help develop the rocket it needed. When SpaceX proved that they had a reliable launch platform NASA then awarded them a contract. If SpaceX hadn't been around that would have gone to someone else, who probably would have been a lot more expensive. Far from 'suffering', the government was getting an excellent deal. Compare that to the $587 million they gave Boeing to develop Starliner, which failed leaving astronauts stranded on the ISS to be 'rescued' by SpaceX. The way Boeing is going these days I wouldn't be surprised if they ceased to exist soon, despite getting double the funding from NASA that SpaceX did (for nothing in return).

Again and again you single out Musk's companies for purported malfeasance while others are practicing 'regulatory capture', wasting taxpayers' money, torpedoing the government's goals and positioning themselves to be 'too big to fail'. Why? Because you don't like Musk's political views? No, it's more that, It started when Musk was described by some as a 'real life Tony Stark'. This got in the craw of many 'rational thinkers' who imagined themselves to have a superior intellect. 'No' they exclaimed, 'Musk's actually an idiot whose harebrained schemes won't get anywhere'.

And then some did get somewhere. Before long Tesla had multiple 'gigafactories' making innovative EVs that impressed competitors. The Tesla Model Y went from being 'vaporware' to the most popular car on the planet. And Tesla stock (righty) soared. Since Musk had 40% of the shares his net worth also soared. Now the 'rational thinkers' were incensed. "How dare Musk make us look like fools", they wailed "We must find anything we can to counter it - whether fair and accurate or not! And if that doesn't work we'll call him names!".

He won't marry you.

 

[jeremyp]

He won't marry you.

That's a blessing, judging by the way his ex-spouses tend to talk about their experiences.

On the other hand, he also won't be buying Roger a pony.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I heard that ponies now come with self-driving technology.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Musk getting competition from Bezos in Space:
New Glenn, bigger than the Falcon 9, is supposed to take flight this year.

Blue Origin raises its first flight worthy New Glenn into launch position ahead of final testing – Spaceflight Now

 

[dirtywick]

for all you guys saying oh, you're just picking on musk, i hope jeff bezos buys a social media site and gets a pill addiction, overshares, and also fails

 

[Darat]

What are the likes of SpaceX and Tesla going to do without Musk?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

And his ability to milk the government for protection and money?

 

[Darat]

And his ability to milk the government for protection and money?

Oh I am sure he will be able to do that better (until his inevitable split from Trump),but we know that being a top 20 Diablo 4 player is more important than running SpaceX (we shall not mention him being caught cheating on another game and being banned, oh I did mention it), and now he is going to overhaul the entire USA civil service so where will SpaceX now be on his to-do list?

 

[Andy_Ross]

So will hydrogen power never improve it's efficiency?

If the resources pumped in to developing EVs and battery power had gone in to hydrogen instead, would we be saying battery power was inefficient?

 

[a_unique_person]

Hydrogen is inherently more difficult to work with.

 

[The Don]

So will hydrogen power never improve it's efficiency?

If the resources pumped in to developing EVs and battery power had gone in to hydrogen instead, would we be saying battery power was inefficient?

Hydrogen necessarily involves an extra step, converting electricity into hydrogen which means it'll be less efficient than using the electricity directly.

IMO it's a useful way of storing excess electricity and of addressing situations where battery power is impractical - planes and heavy lorries for example.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

We are in the Cambrian explosion of energy innovation - the fact that Musk wants to nail down his technology (and only in his version) is impeding progress.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Hydrogen necessarily involves an extra step, converting electricity into hydrogen which means it'll be less efficient than using the electricity directly.

IMO it's a useful way of storing excess electricity and of addressing situations where battery power is impractical - planes and heavy lorries for example.

Less efficient at the moment.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Hydrogen is inherently more difficult to work with.

At the moment.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

We are in the Cambrian explosion of energy innovation - the fact that Musk wants to nail down his technology (and only in his version) is impeding progress.

How exactly is he doing that?

He’s made both the charging standard and the 48v architecture protocols freely available to other manufacturers. Maybe not out of the goodness of his heart, but some credit where credit is due.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm curious: What's proprietary about 48V systems? Car manufacturers have had that change in the works for many years. Mercedes were pushing for it before EVs were a significant market.

 

[The Don]

Less efficient at the moment.

There's no getting around the second law of thermodynamics. Hydrogen power may become less inefficient but converting electricity to hydrogen and then using it will be less efficient than using the electricity directly.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I'm curious: What's proprietary about 48V systems? Car manufacturers have had that change in the works for many years. Mercedes were pushing for it before EVs were a significant market.

Not sure of the details, but Copilot says this:

“Tesla is sharing its **48V architecture** with other automakers to help advance the industry. This move is part of Tesla's effort to simplify and improve vehicle wiring, efficiency, and accessory integration

By sharing this documentation, Tesla aims to encourage other automakers to adopt this more efficient system, which could lead to significant improvements in vehicle design and functionality.”

 

[plague311]

I read that Tesla is having yet another recall. If this keeps up the cybertruck might be the most recalled vehicle ever created.

Per AP:

Tesla is recalling almost 700,000 vehicles because of an issue with the warning light on the tire pressure monitoring system.

According to a letter Thursday from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the recall includes certain 2024 Cybertruck, 2017-2025 Model 3, and 2020-2025 Model Y vehicles.

Oh, that's right. I forgot, according to the Musk apologists\fanbois if it can be fixed through a software update then it's not a "recall", do I still have that right? Because it's Musk and it can be fixed over the waves it's somehow not as serious.

I can't remember all the special rules the Musk nut huggers have specifically set up for him anymore.

 

[jeremyp]

Hydrogen necessarily involves an extra step, converting electricity into hydrogen which means it'll be less efficient than using the electricity directly.

IMO it's a useful way of storing excess electricity and of addressing situations where battery power is impractical - planes and heavy lorries for example.

Well batteries involve converting electrical energy into chemical energy too. Hydrogen fuel cells have better energy density (I think, maybe wrong) Batteries are more convenient though. Either way, both involve converting electrical energy to something else and then back again.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I can understand wanting to fix a situation where a low tire pressure light might not come on.

But it’s really hard to get worked up over something that trivial - we somehow managed to drive safely for about a century before tire pressure monitoring systems even existed. The 2005 Honda Element we still own doesn’t have TPMS, for example, and we somehow manage.

I’m NOT a Musk fanboy. But our 2022 Tesla Model 3 has been very reliable over almost 3 years and 68,000 miles. It has never had a physical recall. It’s hard to express what a nothingburger these OTA update “recalls” are to owners.

As cars become more and more dependent on computers, it’s not surprising that like most other computers - and phones - they’ll periodically need system updates. To be able to do those updates over-the-air pretty much started with Tesla, with other manufacturers catching up. Calling these system updates “recalls” is still misleading, especially over something as simple as a TPMS glitch.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Elon has claimed on Twitter that his company could build a transatlantic tunnel between New York and London for one thousand times less money than current estimates. $15.7 billion.

Such a figure would be cheaper than the cost of the world's current longest underwater tunnel, the 31-mile Channel Tunnel linking London and Paris, which cost £9 billion in 1984, approximately £18 billion in today’s money.

 

[dirtywick]

well he could just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ do it anytime then, that's almost nothing to him