Only the Rich Can Afford It. Should Taxpayers Back It? (Tesla Electric Car)

Only the Rich Can Afford It. Should Taxpayers Back It? (Tesla Electric Car)

www.nytimes.com

THE Tesla Roadster is an electric car that goes fast, looks sensational and excites envy. The seductive appearance, however, obscures some inconvenient truths: its all-electric technology remains woefully immature and don’t-even-ask expensive. If enough billionaires step forward to inject additional capital to keep the doors of its manufacturer, Tesla Motors, open, I’m happy for all parties.

If investors pass up the opportunity, however, why should taxpayers fork over the capital that Tesla needs? The Roadster is not much more than a functioning concept car that sells for $109,000.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.ritholtz.com
www.techcrunch.com
forcechange.com
www.goodcleantech.com

This is a tough one here!

1) We need to make "greener" running cars, but at what cost and for the benefit of who?

2) And on the other hand, how is the technology going to be developed without some kind of support from the government.

The problem I have lies with (1), the price of the car! At $109,000 the only people that are going to be able to afford the car are the rich, not the average person struggling to make a living! Is this right for the average taxpayer to bailout a company that is building cars that they can't even afford!

The other problem is (2), if we don't help subsidize the cost and research to make more efficient electric cars, will the technology ever advance? And if they do advance the technology using taxpayer bailout money and grants paid for by the taxpayers, should they have the actual patents for the newly developed technology that we paid for!

After all, isn't a patent also a way to reimburse a person or company of the cost for the R&D of their new technology or invention!

I think I'm leaning towards them working their own money problems out though!

www.nytimes.com (visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 11/30/2008 by Keyhole]

[edit on 11/30/2008 by Keyhole]

The rich will still get the car anyway...so it's really of no use to argue the point.

One thing to note the guys at the showroom in Menlo Park and real jerks. My son and I were riding buy on bikes and simply looking through the window at the cars and were chased off the lot by thier sales drones.

Edit to add: No, the taxpayers should not subsidize what amounts to a rich mans toy IMHO.

Now a 2 seat electric car for short around town hops that is affordable? By all means IMHO

[edit on 11/30/08 by FredT]

The real question also should be.. how much does it cost to make the car because of the cost of paying someone for BS patents.

Patent law needs to be changed.. it is a matter of national security. To be able to suppress or make technology ungodly expensive because a corporation owns a patent is ridiculous.

I reckon planes at first were mental, you had to pay loads to build one and when you flew it, you stood a pretty good chance of dieing. Unfortunately, that car has some pretty good features, speed, distance primarily, sod the chasis. This is cutting edge technology which will come down in price when we have a better overall idea about what we were doing. Pushing forwards the boundaries of technology costs a lot, and the ultimate questions are will it be worth the cost and if we don't do it, will it cost more? I suppose it depends on your view of all of the causes of this global warming lark.

Its a car designed to compete with porshe and other super cars... So if you think if that way.. its not so expensive considering you are getting better acceleration the most super cars and some bikes.. for about what you will pay for a nice porshe.. and you get to be green and different.. its really a bargain.. Tesla will be making a 40-50k sedan soon... and after that they will get to the 20k level..it makes sense to start with this class car so that the margins will be sufficient enought to pay for more R&D.. I am waiting for the 50k model to come out.

Most if not all developments in the auto industry, and for that matter, a whole host of others, come in at the high end first and filter down.

It's a fact of life.

If it is a development that is going to benefit all of us in the long run, I see no harm in supporting it through the initial stages.

[edit on 30/11/08 by Implosion]

Wow we are still pushing for electric cars? I though the Japanese developing hydrogen fuel cell cars was the way forward? Seems a bit counter productive, to make a electric car which is claimed to be green, then use electricity made from coal and gas power stations to power it? See the backwards logic there lol.

The Japanese car I mentioned is no bigger than a dawoo matiz, runs off tap water and can get from 0-60mph roughly the same time for similar type cars.

But of course, why would our #ty government want to back something which will be of benefit to us? They stand to make no cash from it that is why.

Well, Tesla might not be as good a tax tick as Aptera for example, from a public utility pov, but the reality is they are still breaking the mould and trying to get off oil, with viehicles that actually don't need fossil fuels, only some lubricants. And they do have plans for a cheaper sedan. So they qualify imo. There are other companies, like Ford and Chrysler, that despite monumental resources have trapped the auto industry in the silly fossil fuel model and high maintenance technology that is making personal transportation much more expensive and underperforming than it could be, with no real alternatives down the line.

I would not bail out any automaker that dosen't have at least a full electric powertrain in development for immediate commercialization if I had the final word. That would be the criteria.