so Mitt said Tesla Motors is a "loser"

[88m3]

pretty lame to blast those companies on Mitts part it may make it hard for them to get investors.


I've seen Tesla's being driven pretty often this summer. I thought they were Lotus Elise or Exiges at first. They're cool cars and they aren't very expensive like everyone is implying. I also saw a Fisker yesterday another really sharp car. These are new companies, new cars and technology, that have just started doing business. The Fisker was shown at the NYAS this year.
"The Fisker Atlantic concept was unveiled in April 2012 at the New York International Auto Show and it is expected to be produced at a former GM plant in Delaware around 2013."
You would have to be a big a doat as Romney to expect some BMW, VW, FIAT esque company springing up and performing after three years.

 

[zerozero]

^^ also just to add, they made high end cars to build the technology, they're now moving downmarket to sedans (although still expensive for a while)

 

[unit321]

do they get billions in tax breaks or not?

Obama's department of energy gave Tesla, one of the most innovative and vital american companies, a tiny loan that it's paying back EARLY. This is not a "loser" pick.

Thanks for completely omitting Solyndra from your response. Wouldn't want to make Obama look bad or anything?

 

[zerozero]

Thanks for completely omitting Solyndra from your response. Wouldn't want to make Obama look bad or anything?

this isn't about Obama. The point is that these companies are innovate and necessary and Romney specifically name-checking Tesla Motors as a "loser" points out how he's not the man wth a vision for any country's future

Only 3 companies out of 36 in the DoE program filed for bankruptcy. That's the nature of entrepreneurship and stimulating green energy is necessary in our time. In fact, way overdue by decades. These are actual product companies, not bullsh1t leveraged buyout activity like Romney's expertise

We can continue to act like hydrofracking is the answer though

 

[88m3]

^^ also just to add, they made high end cars to build the technology, they're now moving downmarket to sedans (although still expensive for a while)

The one I saw yesterday was a sedan. They're supposed to be priced comparatively to an Audi A5 and BMW 335.

 

[unit321]

this isn't about Obama. The point is that these companies are innovate and necessary and Romney specifically name-checking Tesla Motors as a "loser" points out how he's not the man wth a vision for any country's future

Only 3 companies out of 36 in the DoE loan program filed for bankruptcy. These are actual product companies, not bullsh1t leveraged buyout activity like Romney's expertise

Yes, it is about Obama. Because investing in Solyndra was all a part of Obama's green initiative and creating jobs through an alternative energy company. It doesn't surprise me that you don't want to ignore that debacle.

Tesla sells luxury electric cars. Not Prius, Insight, or Volt level of cars. They sell cars that are not in the price range for low income and lower-middle-class people. Huh? What? It doesn't help the poor? Prove it. They must make some kind of economy car. Here you go Tesla Motors | Premium Electric Vehicles Cheapest car is $50,000. He put money into a niche car company that benefits a very small number of people.

When Romney became the CEO for the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, he turned their financial situation from highly in debt to going into the black. No leveraged buyouts. Obama has zero results for turning around the deficit situation. Zero results? Zero results.

 

[VerbalIntercourse]

wow these comments are smug drivel. hasn't made a profit? It's an early stage company with literally new technology. Much more deserving of a LOAN that they're paying BACK than a million bullsh1t things that get government loans

I'm going to bump this in six months to embarrass y'all

put your life savings on it. If you see an opportunity like this (a sure bet), don't waste it.

They're a high risk company right now, the government shouldnt make high risk investments. The government isn't motivated by profit or returns. It really has nothing to lose by taking a loss on a loan. it has no incentive to the charge the appropriate interest on a high risk investment. Who does the government have to answer to if it makes a mistake? The tax payers?! Lol

I think I will be able to buy a car like a tesla in a few years. I know I would never purchase one.

 

[zerozero]

Yes, it is about Obama. Because investing in Solyndra was all a part of Obama's green initiative and creating jobs through an alternative energy company. It doesn't surprise me that you don't want to ignore that debacle.

Tesla sells luxury electric cars. Not Prius, Insight, or Volt level of cars. They sell cars that are not in the price range for low income and lower-middle-class people. Huh? What? It doesn't help the poor? Prove it. They must make some kind of economy car. Here you go Tesla Motors | Premium Electric Vehicles Cheapest car is $50,000. He put money into a niche car company that benefits a very small number of people.

When Romney became the CEO for the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, he turned their financial situation from highly in debt to going into the black. No leveraged buyouts. Obama has zero results for turning around the deficit situation. Zero results? Zero results.

No, I said companies failing is part of entrepreneurship. It's a tragedy to me that you think this is some game or something. The DoE program isn't about the deficit. Hell, a lot of their money went to clean coal, which Mitt backs! And a modern electric grid, what's your plan for that?

The product cost thing is neither here nor there. It's about the technology. The first cars and planes were for the elite too. Tesla is an important and likely successful company. Views like Romney's are a shame and blight upon the political process.

 

[zerozero]

put your life savings on it. If you see an opportunity like this (a sure bet), don't waste it.

They're a high risk company right now, the government shouldnt make high risk investments. The government isn't motivated by profit or returns. It really has nothing to lose by taking a loss on a loan. it has no incentive to the charge the appropriate interest on a high risk investment. Who does the government have to answer to if it makes a mistake? The tax payers?! Lol

This loan is getting paid back early, with interest though. That's a fact. What's your point?

 

[88m3]

Yes, it is about Obama. Because investing in Solyndra was all a part of Obama's green initiative and creating jobs through an alternative energy company. It doesn't surprise me that you don't want to ignore that debacle.

Tesla sells luxury electric cars. Not Prius, Insight, or Volt level of cars. They sell cars that are not in the price range for low income and lower-middle-class people. Huh? What? It doesn't help the poor? Prove it. They must make some kind of economy car. Here you go Tesla Motors | Premium Electric Vehicles Cheapest car is $50,000. He put money into a niche car company that benefits a very small number of people.

When Romney became the CEO for the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, he turned their financial situation from highly in debt to going into the black. No leveraged buyouts. Obama has zero results for turning around the deficit situation. Zero results? Zero results.

Whats wrong with investing in green energy?


Would you prefer if the Government did all the work?


The majority of cars on the road are in that price range in my city so saying its some "niche car company"(besides the fact its electric), and "benefits a very small number of people" is highly disingenuous.

 

[zerozero]

speaking of the Salt Lake Olympics, that used $1.5 billion of government money funding for a turnaround. not a loan.

 

[VerbalIntercourse]

This loan is getting paid back early, with interest though. That's a fact. What's your point?

The ends don't justify the means. Sure, Tesla may be a success in the end, but its prompt payment is based entirely on luck. If you roll a pair of dice enough times, you'll get a seven. Whereas a PE or VC is going make sure it never makes huge mistakes like Solyndra. IF a VC makes a blunder like solyndra, it would cease to exist.

How can you trust an entity to make loans on YOUR behalf when it's not accountable to any type of performance measure?

Forget it. i don't expect liberals to understand human behavior or incentives.

 

[unit321]

Whats wrong with investing in green energy?

If stealthbomber glaringly avoids Obama and his adminstration's total screw up on their investment into Solyndra and the mismanagement of taxpayer dollars, then I'm going to point it out.

Would you prefer if the Government did all the work?

That's the cry of the welfare recipient.

The majority of cars on the road are in that price range in my city so saying its some "niche car company"(besides the fact its electric), and "benefits a very small number of people" is highly disingenuous.

Hearsay. You would have to prove that with actual sales numbers of vehicles in that price range for your city.

 

[zerozero]

The ends don't justify the means. Sure, Tesla may be a success in the end, but its prompt payment is based entirely on luck. If you roll a pair of dice enough times, you'll get a seven. Whereas a PE or VC is going make sure it never makes huge mistakes like Solyndra. IF a VC makes a blunder like solyndra, it would cease to exist.

How can you trust an entity to make loans on YOUR behalf when it's not accountable to any type of performance measure?

Forget it. i don't expect liberals to understand human behavior or incentives.

You don't know how VC works do you? the vast majority of their investments fail or don't deliver enough returns. They're based on having 1-2 'breakout' companies in each fund. The DoE success numbers are way better than most VC portfolios

And these loans weren't based on 'luck'. They were based on incentives for developing green energy. Carbon has already gotten a century+ of breaks. Enough for clean coal.

 

[zerozero]

1979 clean coal ad