Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Polls on the front page of Slashdot? Is the world coming to an end?! Nope; read more about it. ×

Comment: Re: We the taxayer get screwed. (Score 5, Insightful) 349

...he fossil fuel industry is subsidized more than 8b PER year in America...

Not to mention that the Internet was started by the government. And companies like Lockheed Martin rely almost completely on government military subsidies. This article was a hit piece. The American media really is shockingly corrupt.

Businesses

How Elon Musk's Growing Empire is Fueled By Government Subsidies 349

Posted by timothy
from the damned-if-you-don't dept.
theodp writes: By the Los Angeles Times' reckoning, Elon Musk's Tesla Motors, SolarCity, and SpaceX together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support. The figure compiled by The Times, explains reporter Jerry Hirsch, comprises a variety of government incentives, including grants, tax breaks, factory construction, discounted loans and environmental credits that Tesla can sell. It also includes tax credits and rebates to buyers of solar panels and electric cars. "He definitely goes where there is government money," said an equity research analyst. "Musk and his companies' investors enjoy most of the financial upside of the government support, while taxpayers shoulder the cost," Hirsch adds. "The payoff for the public would come in the form of major pollution reductions, but only if solar panels and electric cars break through as viable mass-market products. For now, both remain niche products for mostly well-heeled customers." And as Musk moves into a new industry — battery-based home energy storage — Hirsch notes Tesla has already secured a commitment of $126 million in California subsidies to companies developing energy storage technology.

Comment: Re:More than PR (Score 1) 384

by khallow (#49787291) Attached to: What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?
The real question is did you learn anything from it? I read about Russian nobility decades before I read Atlas Shrugged too.

Just because she lauded a certain, relatively elitist view, a view which is echoed to some degree in actual human endeavor, doesn't mean that she advocated some sort of nobility. Her heroes weren't people who were noble by birth or because they belonged to the right families. They were people who made things or ran enterprises (which incidentally is not a thing the Russian nobility was notable for!). In the end, the protagonists of her book had largely abandoned society and lost the fruits of the labors they had in greater society (gone on "strike").

Further, I find it odd that all you can seem to find in the book is some lame argument for Russian nobility. The most important takeaway is that this novel is about a dystopian future created by people who take from others and society supposedly for the purpose of saving society. The language she uses to describe them, particularly, "looter" indicates why she abhors the foes of the book. It's not because they aren't nobility.

She actually has some good writing in there particularly the story of the end of "20th Century Motors", a business which happened to employ John Galt as an inventor. The only people who could be considered nobility were the ones who inherited and then destroyed the company, causing a great deal of suffering in the process.

My entire point is Rand is pushing a view that the USA finally rejected in 1777 - so both ancient and silly.

Do you really think she would be so popular today, if you were even remotely right? The US is going through the early stages of the Atlas Shrugged nightmare right now. It's a country where higher education costs have tripled over a few short decades (adjusted for inflation) and this increase in cost is due solely to attempts to make college allegedly more affordable (subsidized and government guaranteed student loans). The same has happened for health care and home ownership.

It's a place where one can justify government spending by claiming that they will create one temporary job per few hundred thousand dollars spent. Where economic activity (GDP) is more important than future wealth. Where people can bitterly complain about the lack of jobs while simultaneously advocate for various policies that make it harder and more costly to employ people. Where moving enterprises to the more productive and vigorous societies of the world becomes synonymous with derogatory terms like "race to the bottom".

It's a place where various robin hood and social improvement policies have been in place for generations, yet things are getting worse and more corrupt with chilling signs of tyranny on the horizon. Where governments get creative with interpretation of laws in ways that suit them or their cronies.

Here's the thing. Rand nailed that 50 years ago: the language, the actions, the outcomes. I simply don't care if she actually had unpopular opinions on nobility or whatever. I think she should get considerable credit for calling our present society.

Comment: Re:More than PR (Score 1) 384

by khallow (#49779217) Attached to: What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?

I think it's the other way around. Rand probably based her antagonists on people against her or she is against philosophically (i.e people like GP). So it's not that GP sounds like a Rand antagonist, but Rand antagonists sound like people like GP.

If A is like B, then B is like A.

Dagney meanwhile is Rand's author insert. Atlas Shrugged is basically Rand's fantasy of defeating her ideological opponents.

I quite agree. But I think the book serves a purpose past just expressing Ayn Rand's fantasies. For example, notice dbiii's obsessive focus on nobility despite obvious problems with the assertion. Ayn Rand caricatures such beliefs intentionally and unintentionally in Atlas Shrugged.

It's not the French Revolution any more. If your beliefs are so immature, silly, and ancient that a hack writer like Rand can accurately portray them 50 years ago, then maybe you need to up your game.

Comment: Re:Eventually - but the lies do real damage meanwh (Score 4, Insightful) 417

by khallow (#49775089) Attached to: Can Bad Scientific Practice Be Fixed?

Measles vaccine effectiveness is one that is specifically in doubt.

Having looked at this problem, I note that before and after the measles vaccine was introduced, we saw a three order of magnitude drop in US measles cases with similar declines in other countries, correlating with the introduction of measles vaccines in those countries. There's just too much of an effect to hand wave away with the assertion that the world no longer practices measles parties as much as it used to or with the other assertions you make.

Also, lab tests were developed and began being introduced at the same time as the vaccines that only verify 100/25,0000 of suspected cases. A suspect case of measles is not a case of measles. It is not even a diagnosis of measles. It is a case where doctor is covering their ass for a measles-like illness by ordering the test. There is no reason today to expect a "suspected case of measles" in the developed world to have a high likelihood of being a case of measles, especially with the extremely rare incidence of measles. There is no actual evidence here that doctors have a high likelihood of misdiagnosing measles.

You know, this stuff has been explained to you before and yet you continue with your erroneous assertions. When are you going to listen to reason?

Comment: Re:Yes to Brexit (Score 1) 396

By the sound of it you had a hard time meeting a particular standard, that's most certainly not a reason to go without standards!

Actually it is. You have to do a cost/benefits analysis to see if the standard is worth following. But a standard which is hard to meet combined with low value from following the standard is something you shouldn't be entertaining.

Comment: Re:More than PR (Score 1) 384

by khallow (#49774863) Attached to: What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?

When a minor is thrust into a position of power due to their ancestry and not their own efforts what else do you call it?

Inheritance.

Little Jailbait Princess Dagney is nothing but a symbol of how wonderful the aristocracy is and how common losers like Franklin, Washington and Jefferson got it all wrong.

Dagney's brother was pretty big on class warfare too and how elites like him were necessary to fight for the common man. I find it interesting how quickly you descend into the language of the antagonists of the story.

And as it turned out, Little Jailbait Princess Dagney was really good at running trains which is a thing Ayn Rand cared about more than her supposed nobility.

Repel them. Repel them. Induce them to relinquish the spheroid. - Indiana University fans' chant for their perennially bad football team

Working...