> SpaceX is a perfect example: it is far more operationally efficient, and that is largely due to the fact that it is privately held.
Something that I can very well understand.
> SpaceX is a perfect example: it is far more operationally efficient, and that is largely due to the fact that it is privately held.
Something that I can very well understand.
I remember when Sarbanes Oxley was passed in 2002. I was in college and one of my professors was advocating becoming a SAP engineer specializing in SOX compliance. The cost of compliance was estimated to be gigantic, which meant lots of highly paid (but boring) work for enterprise programmers.
I admire his ambition and he is great for Tesla in general but as far as managing a public company his approach hasn't been very successful.
That's about as fair as saying there's a cabal of billionaires shorting Tesla stock and using their media companies to drive the price down every chance they get. Either way, going private eliminates the noise.
isn't that successful there?
What?That's the intended question. Though I don't know what GP's definition of "success" is.
https://www.investopedia.com/news/spacex-will-fly-astronauts...
Or this:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/nasa-commercial-crew...
(I clarified my original comment)
Having 2 years worth of production in the backlog is not successful?
Ok then.
I'm not going to look it up right now, but for now and the past several years, most of SpaceX's income has come from sources outside of NASA. That is, commercial launches.
The government is a customer of space x but they still compete against other companies for that business.
On the other hand, German carmakers have a longstanding gentleman‘s agreement to electronically limit their cars to 250 km/h. Seems they can live with limits.
That prompted me to look for polls.
> (2015-10-15) 56% of those polled would support a speed limit of 150 km/h on all German Autobahnen
Representative survey by YouGov, source: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/umfrage-mehrheit-d...
> (2018-01-26) A slim majority of Germans (52%) supports a general speed limit of 130 km/h.
Representative survey by Forsa, source: https://www.tz.de/auto/tempolimit-autobahn-knappe-mehrheit-d...
> (date unclear) "Are you for or against a general speed limit of 120 km/h?" - 35% for, 62% against
Source: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/258757/umfrag... (they won't disclose source, survey method or date unless you cough up your personal data)
So it appears that a speed limit would be supported by the majority if it starts out reasonably high. (That's the same way the Swiss did it: They started with a relatively high speed limit, and then lowered it as the majority mindset shifted towards higher energy efficiency.)
The reality, I think, is that there is sufficient support for the speedlimit-free Autobahn from Germans.
GM and Ford were propped up by the government during the Great Recession to protect tens of thousands of jobs. Both companies have since repaid those loans...though GM discharged much of its loan through bankruptcy.
All automakers are eligible for this support...if they build electric cars. Ford and Tesla are the only automakers to have never declared bankruptcy. These are tiresome arguments that hold no water.
Yes, the message here is almost all large industries in all countries receive substantial government support.
The amount of goverment subsidy for fossil fuels that normal cars run on, for instance, is much higher than for renewables.
https://www.thebalance.com/auto-industry-bailout-gm-ford-chr...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-gm-treasury-idUSBRE...
GM was effectively nationalized (at a reported cost of $11b) and the creditors lost their shirts.
Also, I mixed up GM and Chrysler on which of them repaid the loan.
What did you mean to say here?
That GM eliminated (not repaid) the loan through bankruptcy?
Or that GM discharged the loan then repaid it anyway?
So in theory a loan can be completely paid off through a bankruptcy. In the case of GM, it did not happen, IIRC.
There is absolutely nothing special about a Tesla BEV other than that unlike most automakers, it's extremely unprofitable. Go read Tesla's financial statements.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_US_dealership_disputes
(Just off the top of my head, tiffs between Costco and distributors when Costco wanted to sell liquor.)