[W]hy should taxpayers fork over the capital that Tesla needs? The Roadster is not much more than a functioning concept car that sells for $109,000. The company is requesting $400 million in low-interest federal loans as part of the $25 billion loan package for the auto industry passed by Congress last year.
Jason Calacanis rips the story apart line by line. For example, on the title:
Yes Randy, the first version of technology tends to be expensive. Personal computers used to cost $5,000, flat-panel TVs were $10,000 and–gasp–the first decade’s worth of solar panels were not worth the price. You’re a *technology* journalist at the New York Times. You understand all too well that expensive technology becomes commodity technology within 10 to 20 years of its inception.
Personal computers now start at $200. Of course the first version of an all-electric sports car is going to be expensive.
I’m not sure that explains why taxpayers should back it, but Michael Arrington agrees. Calling the NYTimes article “an editorial, but not marked as such,” he argues:
Tesla has announced two new vehicles, both at much lower prices (and one targeted at $30,000). Stross’ facts are wrong, and his opinions are misguided. If Tesla succeeds, it will be because it was able to sell cars to the mass market.
I’m against government meddling in the markets. But I would far prefer to see Tesla get any part of that money, if it must be distributed, than any of the big three automakers. As I wrote this weekend, the best thing for them, and for our country, is to just let them die. They are incapable of innovating given their current financial and logistical structure. Tesla, on the other hand, is actually doing something interesting.
SEE ALSO: NPR’s Morning Edition, Electric Car Manufacturer Hopes To Generate Sales.