Well words do actually matter and this subject is a perfect example. The word "subsidies" has been thrown out for so long now that even educated and otherwise reasonable people are on the train to wrongville. Funny how that works.
Exactly^^^, and that is my point. We define things the way we want them, ignoring the truth, or intent of what is being said. If we dislike the O&G industry, or big Pharma, or the auto makers, we see things differently than if we were actually part of those industries.
It is a very rare person that can have a completely open mind.
It is a very rare person that can have a completely open mind.
You do realize that every single other company in every industry gets a lot of the same exact write-offs right? Are those subsidies too? Because I don't ever hear them referred to in that way. Should we ditch the personal income exemption and mortgage interest and medical deductions too? Since they are taxpayer subsidies afterall?
Looks like you need to go back and read the thread. I'm advocating the point of hypocrisy, NOT the notion that subsidies should go away. I'm saying people are cherry picking their outrage.
It's long been my experience that having to quote a definition shows a weakness of argument. I guarantee if you go put on Fox News right now everything they talk about a subsidy it won't meet that definition. Then again, Fox news is that same that said Gabby Giffords attacker used a high velocity clip in the attack so maybe they are loose on definition sometimes. The more important point is:
No matter what Merriam-Webster says in common parlance subsidy is used to indicate that the government is authorizing something that makes a company pay less. Whether it's not collecting taxes, giving preferred rates on loans, loan guarantees, or even just allowing them to skirt laws and regulations or nullifying those laws and regulations to the companies favor.
Or maybe it's because educated and otherwise reasonable people are speaking a shared language where they understand the context of the word rather than carrying around a dictionary so that Shadowrider is pleased with them for using exacting terms.
At the end of the day, in some form or fashion, the fossil fuel industry, along with many other industries are not paying as much as they otherwise could or should so that their shareholders get more return. Getting all in arms about if Tesla or any other specific company gets the same access to breaks or "subsidies" is just plain BS.
While fans of perceived eco-friendlier industries may describe it as the green choice, I think it's fair to say people like Elon Musk aren't in business to save the world... they're in the business of making money. Pretty sure we had this discussion in December. Since this is the week of undead threads, someone want to dig that one up?
Saving the world doesn't have to be done as a poor person. It's perfectly possible to make money presenting a better, greener option than we have now ---- in the old days that'd be called progress.
Musk has a goal, and a plan. I can't confirm it, but here's my take on him.
1. Start Tesla --- get people excited about it, brand recognition, tap into the green market to build a base.
2. Get Tesla established and then split off other brands such as Space-X. Use amazing accounting techniques to fund all the projects at their inception. Get them established and on solid footing.
3. At this point it's fair to point out I think his real goal is Mars. But that's expensive.
4. With Tesla and Space-X and related companies going well, the key of the long term plan gets in gear --- StarLink. This doesn't get as much exposure in the world, so a refresher that it's designed as a global coverage satellite broadband internet delivery system. One of the main challenges in setting that up is money, so if you have companies feeding it, and then have a space launch system to where you can deploy your own satellites on the cheap (while ferrying astronauts and supplies for profit no less) then it becomes much cheaper to win the internet space race.
5. Now that you can get your internet system in the stars and operational, you can literally offer worldwide internet coverage for billions of people. Imagine the revenue from this. Lets say half the world (3.5B) subscribed at $20/month. That's what, $840 billion a year gross? At that rate you could give away connection devices, fund the whole thing and have crap tons of revenue left over to accomplish the primary goal (Mars) all while making the current Earth greener and decreasing pollution from existing cars and trucks.
Just my thoughts on how I see his system working.
Right. So follow along. Folks attack Tesla for benefiting from some form of government stimulus...whatever people chose to call it, or whatever form it takes. We call them out for being hypocritical and not applying the same standards to the O&G industry and you chimed in and said show me where O&G ever took a check written by the U.S. government.
How is that relevant unless you were implying that Tesla had or that O&G not having received such a check cleared them of receiving any stimulus?
Agreed. I just get tired of hearing the environmentalist angle from his opponents.
Similar threads
