Automotive regulatory credits: 1,309
Net income: 8,880
The credits aren’t negligible. But they are a fairly small part of their net income.
As far as I know (the space is changing quickly), no other manufacturer is close to profitable here. They are all subsidizing their EV program with their ICE profits. Good: that’s what they need to do. But for it to be sustainable, they need to improve their EV manufacturing so that they can transition to 100% EVs without going bankrupt.
…it’s freaking California, the entire world is bigger than freaking California. And we are talking production, not sales.
They are still dependent on subsidies in various shapes of forms. They wouldn’t have come close to selling as many cars as they have here in NZ if it wasn’t for the government initiatives.
And none of this is an excuse to have a racist, misogynistic abusive working environment. That isn’t an acceptable trade-off. It should be entirely possible to run a business without allowing racism, sexism and abuse to proliferate.
Are the NZ subsidies in any way biased toward Tesla? If not, there’s nothing to complain about. If someone wants to outsell Tesla, they can produce a better EV and claim the same subsidy.
…nice of you to ignore we are talking about production and not sales.
I’m literally not complaining. I’ve already stated I support the subsidy, I support the free market. All I’m stating is that the subsidy exists, its a government initiative to help combat climate change, and that it is disingenuous to pretend that this (and other government initiatives) don’t contribute to Tesla’s profitability and/or bottom line.
And none of this is an excuse to have a racist, misogynistic abusive working environment. That isn’t an acceptable trade-off. It should be entirely possible to run a business without allowing racism, sexism and abuse to proliferate.
You know, I’ve jokingly said in the past that Elon thinks he’s real-life Tony Stark, but is actually real-life Ted Faro.* I never expected anyone to actually argue seriously that he is real-life Ted Faro.
*For those who don’t know (and there’s no real reason you should), Ted Faro is a character in the game Horizon: Zero Dawn. Spoilers for a 5-year-old game. He leads a company that saves the planet from a climate crisis by developing and producing AI robots that clean up the environment. Oh, and then he pivots to AI military robots that go rogue, reproduce exponentially, and destroy the entire biosphere causing global extinction of all life on earth (or so it seems). And then he destroys the sum total of human knowledge that’s been archived in a sort of time capsule because it makes him look bad. In the game’s timeline, he’s the most destructive person in the history of the planet by several orders of magnitude, not because he’s evil, but because he’s a narcissist incapable of admitting to his own failings. Also, you get to hunt robot dinosaurs with a bow and arrows. Awesome game. Don’t say anything about Forbidden West where I’m sure Ted’s done even more bad things, because I can’t play it till it comes out for PC who knows when.
To the extent that this is true, it isn’t quite the “big deal” people make it out to be. While it is true that battery electric vehicles don’t have tailpipe emissions you can only consider them to have zero impact or emissions by ignoring energy that goes into manufacturing them and transporting components around (substantial, particularly the battery), that the electricity used to power them is largely produced by fossil fuel production (because they are generally charged at night), and the massive quantity of waste once the car is at end-of-life because of the materials that go into them and the difficulty (and currently prohibitive cost) of recycling the batteries.
And while Teslas might be displacing BMWs and Porsches in driveways, it isn’t as if those vehicles are just disappearing into the aether; they’re being resold downmarket, which might make the owner of a shiny new Model S feel really good about all they are “doing for the environment” in such a stylish way but they’re actually just contributing to a consumerist culture that is consuming energy and producing waste far out of proportion with the rest of the world, to the extent that a toddler in the US or Europe has the same effective cumulative emissions footprint as an elderly person in a developing nation. The only way we are going to actually make any real impact on global emissions and climate change isn’t by replacing old dirty bling with shiny new bling but by dramatically curtailing energy and materials use, reverse the clearing of carbon-absorbing wetlands and forests, and stop consuming just for the sake of consumption.
Which, of course, isn’t going to happen. Musk himself is a promoter of conspicuous consumption and a sort of techno-futurism where “the environment” consists of anything he can sell you. His efforts at greenwashing are so patently nonsense that Tesla has been removed from several sustainability indices for not actually being very sustainable or environmentally friendly despite the fact that they don’t ride down the highway “rolling coal”. That he has inspired the public to look to electric vehicles for absurdly high performance (and corresponding price and build costs) has actually compromised the environmental merits of electric vehicles, and while Musk was not personally responsible for lapsing interest in research of alternative low-carbon or carbon-neutral biofuels and synthetic fuel that could be retrofit into existing vehicles, the obsession with battery electric vehicles as being an all-in solution to ‘fix’ the emissions of the transportation sector has pretty much dulled any interest in this or other ways to transition away from petroleum hydrocarbon fuels without having to build an entirely new fleet of motor vehicles, notwithstanding that many of the high emittin areas of transportation are not amenable to electrification using existing or proposed battery storage technology.
Color me uninterested in awarding ‘points’ to a spoiled man-child for having successfully sold the public and many political figures on his oversized personal contribution to ‘saving the planet’ when he’s actually shown little interest for protecting the environment or the people within it. Or as Mike Campbell and the Dirty Knobs say, “Fuck that guy.”
That’s partly true but I’m not sure how big a deal that really was. The GM EV1 in the late 90s was capable of 0-60 acceleration that was at least as good as the souped-up 1976 Ford Mustang II Cobra II and probably better. Sure, it sort of looked like an inverted bathtub, but it was a late-90s design. Its range was terrible but it was limited by the battery technology of the time. And right now GM is about to start producing an affordable EV competitor that might wipe the Tesla Model 3 right off the map.
This is such a great video. I wish every Muskrat could be forced to watch the Musk part on repeat (and the last three minutes) until the brainwashing wears off. Musk’s one real talent is… hmmm … was… PR. He was good at selling himself as a genius visionary and people bought into it. Now why was and not is? See Twitter. The mask is off. Musk isn’t even good at PR anymore, probably because he believes his own hype.
Really a distinction without a difference in this context. Pretty much every EV being made right now is being sold immediately with popular models, including Tesla having 6 - 12 month waiting periods. I don’t think there’s ever been a time when Tesla has fully cleared their backlog and you could just walk onto a lot and drive away a car that day.
A symmetric bet would be something like you have a 50% chance of losing $1 and a 50% chance of gaining $1. An asymmetric bet would be you have a 90% chance of losing $1 and a 10% chance of gaining $10.
It’s (relatively) easy to get rich by making symmetric bets and slowly developing an edge where you have a 52/48% chance of winning/losing $1 and grinding those small edges over time. It’s brutally difficult to get rich by consistently finding opportunities where you only have an 80% chance of losing $1 and a 20% chance of gaining $10 because you’re going against the expert consensus and the consensus usually makes sense. Even on your best of days, you’re still wrong 80% of the time which is a psychologically corrosive place to be in. But the advantage of making asymmetric bets is that if you do it right, you make a lot of money very quickly.
I don’t know if it’s possible. The very nature of the gift is that it’s a double edged sword. You have to be preternaturally gifted and resist the temptation to ever doubt yourself or second guess or ever tone yourself down in order to fit any sort of conventional wisdom.
Musk reminds me of Arnold Schwarzenegger in being a higher functioning version of an abusive father who has megalomaniac ego and energy and has defied conventional wisdom a few times to succeed spectacularly on asymmetric bets. Yet Arnold seems to have have avoided some of those failures and not antagonized as many people.
It seems like one can doubt oneself in the sense of admitting one could be wrong and yet still be willing to take asymmetric bets while adjusting course.
Only to an extent. Remember his stint as governor of California?
He came in with grand ambitions thinking he would change or possibly revolutionize California politics and so forth. To his credit, his early setbacks made him realize the actual job of governing was nothing like campaigning.
To do that, he had to more or less admit he had been wrong, change tack, and move to the political center. And even there, Schwarzenegger ends up not being the visionary or revolutionary but merely a publicly popular version of something that already exists and is rather unremarkable - a right of center (for the US) politician.
Admitting any sort of fault or becoming a ‘regular’, unremarkable capitalist is anathema to somebody like Musk who, unlike Schwarzenegger, does not appear to care about anything/anybody beyond himself and would always choose personal glorification over his ostensible job.
…I think that in context, the meaning of the statement “efficiently producing a statistically [insignificant] handful of cars” should be painfully obvious, and the fact that “pretty much every EV being made right now is being sold immediately with popular models” is completely irrelevant to what I originally said.
I know next to nothing about how a company’s senior management team operates. But ISTM some senior executives’ strength is in strategizing for the future on a long term basis; while for others, it lies in their ability to organize, manage, and motivate people internally. Both are needed, but Elon Musk seems to be good only at the former. Why this wasn’t so much of a problem at Tesla and SpaceX, I presume, is because of differences in the typical work culture for those kinds of enterprises.
Also, while under normal conditions it may not be easy to find good software engineers, I imagine it’s even harder to find good rocket engineers. There simply aren’t that many out there. So is it possible that Musk knew he had to treat SpaceX employees better?
As above, he probably isn’t actually good at either of those things but at SpaceX and Tesla there were people “managing” Elon so he couldn’t screw things up too badly with some of his worse decisions. Those weren’t established companies with thousands of employees when he got involved, so it was easier to get such people in place.
There’s no such group at Twitter, which is already an established company, which is why the best thing he probably could do is find a CEO who can balance kissing the owner’s butt while also steering him away from (or just flat out ignoring) the ludicrously stupid stuff. It’s often a fine line.
