elindbe2

> Government officials didn't risk anything, they risked other people's money

Government has its own accounts, therefore it has its own money to spend. It doesn't matter that they get that money from taxpayers, it belongs to the government by law.

> leverage over politicians

What leverage over politicians was used and what objectives did it achieve? Please give specific examples. AFAIK, the EV credits were designed to get more EVs on the road to reduce pollution and were successful at doing that. They are also not limited to Tesla.

> hoarding attention

What does that mean? You're complaining that people write articles about Musk?

> For sure Elon Musk is a very smart guy and he works really hard and he knows how to deliver amazing products and his PR skills are amazing...

And again, don't ignore the part where he used his entire PayPal fortune to build a company that he thought had a high probability of failure. That's key to this conversation about risk.

The government chose to take on the risk of providing subsidies in order to get the benefits it enjoys today due to Musk's efforts, which is a growing electric vehicle industry. That wasn't Musk's choice to socialize risk, it was elected officials'. And that choice has paid off well for everyone.

Yeah I wonder how many people work for Musk and pay taxes to California while building EVs that reduce pollution in California.

California would've had to make that responsibility known up front. They chose not to do that.

And California directly benefitted from the money they spent. That benefit is electric vehicles in the hands of its population, which improves the state's pollution levels long-term.

Good point. I wonder how much expertise would actually transfer over from ICE manufacturers.

Sure, but even for the average law abiding Californian it would be nice having one less government requirement to worry about.

The part of me that likes freedom over safety likes this idea because it gives the government less ability to enforce its own bullshit.

So do people not need to renew their driver's license then? Or is there a fine? What if you don't pay the fine?

From what I've heard, dealership don't like electric cars because they make their money off of maintainance and EVs require less.

Having gone through it, the Tesla process makes it super easy to buy a car.

Socializing what risk? What are you even talking about? Musk put his entire fortune from PayPal on the line for Tesla knowing that in all probability it would fail. It turned out well for him but it was still a huge risk he took.

I would argue that the opposite is true. California wants a larger cut of profits from business activity within their borders without any risk on their part, or even having to provide better services than competing states.

IMO people are overreacting, both people who like and dislike California. Musk is an American citizen and as such can live wherever he likes within US borders. California will be fine without Musk. They've still got nice weather which will attract people willing to pay their high taxes and if they have some tax base loss it's not the end of the world. Maybe they'll have to cut some fat out of their budget but there is plenty of fat.

But clothing

That doesn't answer the question though, which was what percentage of clothes actually sell. I wasn't asking what happens if the clothes don't sell.

But why turn around a legacy automaker, even if he thinks he could? It would have to fit into his greater strategy, e.g. providing branding for his EVs or providing auto workers that would otherwise be hard to find, etc.

I took this as just an offhand comment saying "we might be willing to do this if they can convince us it will benefit Tesla" not a statement on how likely it is to happen.