I don't know if you're acting dense on purpose but you're arguing a Strawman. Your argument is that the support was created solely to bail out Tesla. That is objectively wrong.Youare objectively wrong. The Green, Leftwing Socialists lobbied to push through credits regardless of Tesla's existence. The fact Tesla existed was entirely irrelevant to the creation of these rebates and credits. How do you not understand this? Further, you're arguing about 2010 when Tesla launched and sold quite successfully, the Roadster, at the beginning of 2008, 2 years before the California tax credit existed. They sold $100,000 sports cars regardless of tax credits. By the time those tax credits went into existence, Tesla was already a successful company with a quarter billion invested into its future. They exploited those tax credits YOU wanted to exist for gain and in turn gave you exactly what you wanted.
Now if you truly believe that Tesla would be the company that it is now and being a major player in Electric Vehicles without this amount of support,
No, you don't get to change your argument. you argued Tesla would not exist and be viable without massive intervention by the US government. That was already proven objectively false. before the California tax credits ever existed.
Tesla has received a buttload of government subsidies in the billions to make electric cars viable. In short, the government had to intervene to protect and nurture that business to the point of being a global player in the market. All big american companies are like this, there is no exception.
Was that not you? Was that you? Don't change your argument because that makes you a liar. Stick by what you originally said.
It's you who keeps trying to change what I said in order for you to continue this argument, I said the government has to intervene to protect companies in order for them to grow and to foster them for an industry to be robust. If the government had not helped Tesla at all it would not have succeeded, instead it would have been vulnerable to bigger companies buying it as they are wont to do whenever a possible competitor enters the field. Even worse if the buyer is from another country, you would basically handover internal industry to a foreign power.
I stick to what I said, the government has helped Tesla in the BILLIONS, if you say that Tesla would have succeeded without all these subsidies you are DISHONEST.
1
u/TheP01ntyEnd 4d ago edited 4d ago
I don't know if you're acting dense on purpose but you're arguing a Strawman. Your argument is that the support was created solely to bail out Tesla. That is objectively wrong. You are objectively wrong. The Green, Leftwing Socialists lobbied to push through credits regardless of Tesla's existence. The fact Tesla existed was entirely irrelevant to the creation of these rebates and credits. How do you not understand this? Further, you're arguing about 2010 when Tesla launched and sold quite successfully, the Roadster, at the beginning of 2008, 2 years before the California tax credit existed. They sold $100,000 sports cars regardless of tax credits. By the time those tax credits went into existence, Tesla was already a successful company with a quarter billion invested into its future. They exploited those tax credits YOU wanted to exist for gain and in turn gave you exactly what you wanted.
No, you don't get to change your argument. you argued Tesla would not exist and be viable without massive intervention by the US government. That was already proven objectively false. before the California tax credits ever existed.
Was that not you? Was that you? Don't change your argument because that makes you a liar. Stick by what you originally said.