Tesla lied about "Self-Driving" tech - Shareholders have brains this time?

[BrandonTech.05]

 

Summary

A complaint was filed after a mass recall of Tesla's due to the fact that they caused a lot of danger at intersections.

 

Quotes

Quote

"The complaint, filed Monday in US District Court for the Northern District of California, comes less than two weeks after a recall of 362,758 cars based on a US government finding that Tesla's "FSD Beta system may allow the vehicle to act unsafe around intersections, such as traveling straight through an intersection while in a turn-only lane, entering a stop sign-controlled intersection without coming to a complete stop, or proceeding into an intersection during a steady yellow traffic signal without due caution." The problem is stated to be fixed by an over-the-air software update."

"The lawsuit quotes a January 2023 Bloomberg article about an SEC probe that said Musk "personally directed the creation of a 2016 video that may have exaggerated the technology's capabilities. The video's promises of eventual fully autonomous, hands-free driving functionality have yet to materialize."

My thoughts

This comes to me as no surprise. Linus, on the wan show, has been talking for years now how the "self driving" is no where close to ready for it to being good enough to drive truly autonomously. He is 100% right. Blowing through intersections? That's basic driving. If it can't do that then why is it being hyped so much as if it's able to drive for you? 

Sources

 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/02/tesla-shareholder-suit-says-musk-and-co-lied-about-full-self-driving-safety/

[jaslion]

The only self driving that is somewhat functional is in those cars that have MASSIVE modules mounted on top with many different types of camera's, lidar,... all that stuff

 

Tesla only has regular basically smartphone camera's. It was always clear this wasn't gonna work. Those things lack some super basic features like depth perception.

[BiotechBen]

39 minutes ago, jaslion said:

The only self driving that is somewhat functional is in those cars that have MASSIVE modules mounted on top with many different types of camera's, lidar,... all that stuff

 

Tesla only has regular basically smartphone camera's. It was always clear this wasn't gonna work. Those things lack some super basic features like depth perception.

I'm pretty sure some do have lidar or maybe it was radar? (not the level they need), but it's one of the something like 18 SKU's that Tesla has for all the cars over time with drastically different capabilities, and afaik that sku wasn't a particularly long lived sku for supporting the sensors.

[Brooksie359]

I am confused did Tesla actually intend for people to use their autopilot feature in areas with intersections? I thought it was only supposed to be used on freeways where it will basically change lanes for you and stop and start if in traffic. I didn't see autopilot saying that it could do actually full self driving currently. Obviously there were claims that it would come eventually but that is what basically what anyone would say that is pushing self driving tech. 

[Vanderburg]

1 hour ago, jaslion said:

The only self driving that is somewhat functional is in those cars that have MASSIVE modules mounted on top with many different types of camera's, lidar,... all that stuff

 

Tesla only has regular basically smartphone camera's. It was always clear this wasn't gonna work. Those things lack some super basic features like depth perception.

Having more than one gives them depth perception.

[Senzelian]

It's funny to me that this is apparently a problem when not a single ACC system can keep a proper safety distance from the cars in front.

VW's system for example has 5 distance settings, only 3 of which actually keep enough distance to the car in front.

 

Fair enough to sue Tesla, but how about we sue every company into oblivion?

Also do drivers even care? Most people on the Autobahn only keep around 10-20m of distance to the car in front at speeds of ~100kph. Some even less. Just not that long ago I had a BMW behind me that kept a distance of literally not even a single meter while driving at over 200kph. 

 

[Middcore]

39 minutes ago, BiotechBen said:

I'm pretty sure some do have lidar or maybe it was radar? (not the level they need), but it's one of the something like 18 SKU's that Tesla has for all the cars over time with drastically different capabilities, and afaik that sku wasn't a particularly long lived sku for supporting the sensors.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/24/22451404/tesla-luminar-lidar-elon-musk-autonomous-vehicles

 

Elon talked mad shit about lidar but they've used it for testing. The Teslas people can actually buy and drive don't have it, though. 

 

They've also removed radar and ultrasonic sensors. Because Elon just thinks a vision-only system is cooler. 

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

While flawed, the Tesla FSD is still safer than the average driver. Tesla reports one airbag crash for 5.15 million Km traveled, while average in the USA for regular cars is one airbag crash for 0.96 million Km traveled. That's a big difference.

 

Tesla stopped reporting on safety numbers after 2018, because amongst level 2 autonomous cars Tesla appears to be the worst, with 70% of crash reports.  Tesla was beaten by Mercedes on the first Level 3 autonomous car, Tesla doesn't have the best autonomous driving capabilities.

 

Crashes of autonomous cars are scary because autonomous cars gets wrong things that you may never fall for as a driver, like misclassifying a concrete pillar. I think most accidents happens because drivers are either distracted or tired, that's where autonomous cars have a significant advantage. I'm confident that streets would be safer already if the current fleet were replaced by the current state of the art autonomous cars.

 

At one point as a society we'll have starting asking ourself at which level of safety we should replace the current fleet with autonomous cars. Especially trucks. How much safer should they be than the average driver? 10X safer? 100X safer? 1000X safer? I think it's immoral to require too high a safety delta because each year over a million drivers die on the road worldwide. So many people could be saved even by a fleet of autonomous cars that are just 10X safer than the average driver. With that margin, autonomous cars would kill one hundred thousands driver per year, and prevent nine hundred thousands from dying.

  

1 hour ago, jaslion said:

The only self driving that is somewhat functional is in those cars that have MASSIVE modules mounted on top with many different types of camera's, lidar,... all that stuff

 

Tesla only has regular basically smartphone camera's. It was always clear this wasn't gonna work. Those things lack some super basic features like depth perception.

Human drivers manage with just two eyes, I think that's where Elon's reasoning comes from.

Especially for early version of autonomous cars I would want all the sensor I can get my hands on. Lidar, radar, camera, etc... To compensate for the fact that the intelligence of autonomous cars is a far cry from the intelligence of the average human driver.

 

[wanderingfool2]

3 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I am confused did Tesla actually intend for people to use their autopilot feature in areas with intersections? I thought it was only supposed to be used on freeways where it will basically change lanes for you and stop and start if in traffic. I didn't see autopilot saying that it could do actually full self driving currently. Obviously there were claims that it would come eventually but that is what basically what anyone would say that is pushing self driving tech. 

So in this case it's important to note the differences between FSD, FSD beta, and autopilot (I'm just lumping in all the other features with autopilot).  When they actually sold them, FSD was promising navigation on city streets (but a key note, for an extended period of time it was noted that it didn't handle traffic lights).  FSD is pretty primitive in what it can do, but when it was sold what was the stated end goal was quite a lot.  So yes, you are right in that it was essentially promised eventually, but this is the case of stockholders and not the drivers suing.  So in this case, they need to show that what was promised was a lie and that there was a material loss.

 

 

While I do think that FSD beta should not have been released to the general public, and that I do think that FSD does make some inexcusable faults; I don't really see the lawsuit itself going anywhere, as Tesla has been idealistically predicting it's capabilities of FSD/autopilot since like at least 2018...so it's going to be difficult for them to prove that there was a material loss in regards to what they are suing over (as from 2018 - 2022 the stock was greatly rising, and the value is still higher than it was pre-2020).  They will have to contend with comparing it with other "tech" and "car" companies.  (e.g. Ford Jan 2022 - 2023 dropped about 25 down to 12.5, GM similar almost dropped by 50% of the value, Tesla has dropped more historically Tesla has had larger swings than those companies).  So I doubt the lawsuit will go very far, as they have to show damages and they can't just rely on the press junket information as it's pretty much the running joke at this time that set their aims for full self driving within the year (at that stage you would have to show one would be acting on a reasonable belief that they believed that statement and probably were unaware of the multiple times it was claimed prior).

 

I read through the article and it's funny they mention, the lawsuit is literally bringing up a crash that had 100% nothing to do with autopilot or FSD, yet they still link to their uncorrected article that implies it was.

Quote

The lawsuit mentions several crashes, including an April 2021 accident that killed two passengers near Houston. "A Harris County Precinct constable told local news station KPRC 2 that the investigation showed 'no one was driving' the 2019 Tesla vehicle when the accident occurred," the lawsuit said.

Here's the official crash report (which the prelimiary report and statements from Tesla had occured within a week of the crash)

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/09/ntsb-finds-no-evidence-tesla-autopilot-used-in-fatal-2021-texas-crash.html

 

47 minutes ago, BrandonT.05 said:

Blowing through intersections? That's basic driving

That's bit is based on having the vehicle do a rolling stop.  I'm betting if you observe a non-busy intersection with a stop light you will find the majority of drivers actually commit a rolling stop.  I'd argue not doing rolling stops will increase the probability of getting rear ended (as others expect you to do one when the visibility left and right is clear).  This one was actually addressed as well in a prior recall, where the vehicle had to fully stop.

 

It also does do stale yellows, but that wouldn't be blowing through an intersection.

 

 

Out of everything that I've witnessed on FSD beta that is a risk is that it does do lane changes to try getting over to far lanes at stop lights, not slowing down fast enough when the speed limit changes, and it doesn't always know that the lane it's in is a straight through or left turn only lane (from what I gather it's not trained on the ground markings yet).  Both of these scenarios though are things that are easily corrected by the human driver...the key with driving with Beta is knowing where it's weaknesses are and just making sure to override it when it's about to do something that doesn't make sense (in those cases it's more than easy enough to do).

 

1 minute ago, BiotechBen said:

I'm pretty sure some do have lidar or maybe it was radar? (not the level they need), but it's one of the something like 18 SKU's that Tesla has for all the cars over time with drastically different capabilities, and afaik that sku wasn't a particularly long lived sku.

I think you are thinking radar, but it effectively gave a low resolution which caused issues since it couldn't tell the difference between low bridges and a car.  Although the rumor is that the next iteration is going to have a "HD radar" installed which will compliment their voxel map.

 

4 minutes ago, Vanderburg said:

Having more than one gives them depth perception.

They can also use other image techniques.  They know the focal length, so they can base distance based on fuzziness of an object.  With that said, I think the camera placement on HW revision 3 is just plain stupid.  They needed to either place a camera top-left of the vehicle or somewhere left of the vehicle to be able to safely navigate left hand turns.

 

3 minutes ago, Middcore said:

https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/24/22451404/tesla-luminar-lidar-elon-musk-autonomous-vehicles

 

Elon talked mad shit about lidar but they've used it for testing. The Teslas people can actually buy and drive don't have it, though. 

 

They've also removed radar and ultrasonic sensors. Because Elon just thinks a vision-only system is cooler. 

Tesla has always used lidar to build a ground truth of the pointcloud.  It's the way you have to do it to verify whether or not the system you are creating is producing accurate results.  Similar to why the LHC used multiple mutually exclusive ways of detecting the higgs boson (because it works that way).

 

They moved away from radar for multiple reasons, including supply chain issues, but a larger issue with radar is that at the time there weren't really good (and cheap) radar solutions.  The general issue is, if radar says you are about to hit an object and the vision system sees nothing but a bridge in front of you what do you trust?  You effectively end up introducing more noise into the system.  There apparently are talks of Tesla using HD radar systems in HW4 (i.e. resolution that actually becomes useful).

 

To note as well Elon isn't the only one who has talked about it, George Hotz (CommaAI driving software/hacker) actually talked about pretty much the same thing that radar creates too much of an issue (it likes detecting manhole covers as cars), which is why CommaAI also moved away from it (even before Tesla did).

[mdk777]

3 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

when it was sold what was the stated end goal was quite a lot. 

Yes, indeed.

He has been selling vapor ware for so long that people just accept the continual back filling of performance and the extension of time lines as normal.

 

"Yeah he promised it 5 years ago, but you know TESLA....a promise is really just a wish for the future....a vision statement."

 

Dang...I have to get in this PONZI SCHEME mentality.

 

Yeah, I promised you a return on your investment, sure....but it was more of a wish, a vision statement of what I hope to achieve.

 

ANY OTHER PERSON OR CORPORATION  would have been in jail years ago for such obvious and direct fraud. 

 

 

[jaslion]

19 minutes ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

Human drivers manage with just two eyes, I think that's where Elon's reasoning comes from.

Especially for early version of autonomous cars I would want all the sensor I can get my hands on. Lidar, radar, camera, etc... To compensate for the fact that the intelligence of autonomous cars is a far cry from the intelligence of the average human driver.

You have to keep in mind that the human eye and a camera operate wildly differently and aren't compareable assets sadly. It's why you can super easily trick a multi camera depth array by just giving it 2 different light intensities in zones.

 

Also our brains are made for understanding depth whilst software has to be specifically written to recognized millions of different variances whilst running on camera's that do not have a full spectrum in all cases.

 

This is why functional self driving has radar and lidar as a minimum as this gives extra error correction multi points of reference as to how far or near something actually is. As well as identifying objects better as now there is a sharp shape for them instead of a flat image that has to be traced.

 

 

The self driving in tesla's has proven over and over to not fully work and have a ton of false positives which lead to accidents.

[wanderingfool2]

1 minute ago, mdk777 said:

ANY OTHER PERSON OR CORPORATION  would have been in jail years ago for such obvious and direct fraud. 

It's important to clarify the difference between their end goals, and maybe setting unachievable ones vs actual full on contractual obligating promises.

 

To put it in perspective, Intel's push for 7nm seems important here.  They have pretty much been promising 7nm for about the same time that FSD has been a thing.

 

There is nothing wrong with having goals, and even unrealistic goals if it keeps employees motivated to keep moving forward.

 

6 minutes ago, mdk777 said:

Yeah, I promised you a return on your investment, sure....but it was more of a wish, a vision statement of what I hope to achieve.

Literally every single publicly traded company is going to try having a vision statement that puts them at a level of achieving something they will never achieve.  GM back in 2021 the CEO stated they could "absolutely" catch Tesla in EV sales.

 

25 minutes ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

Tesla stopped reporting on safety numbers after 2018, because amongst level 2 autonomous cars Tesla appears to be the worst, with 70% of crash reports.  Tesla was beaten by Mercedes on the first Level 3 autonomous car, Tesla doesn't have the best autonomous driving capabilities.

Fun fact, Tesla reports more because they have more vehicles and that their systems generally are able to run in areas that aren't geofenced.  It's actually why miles per accidident isn't necessarily accurate either (as on highways you typically drive longer periods with less variability).  So you end up with the situation that we don't truly have enough data to compare against other manufacturers (as others simply don't report it or don't get as much press when accidents do happen).

 

Also, being beaten to level 3 autonomy doesn't actually mean a thing really.  All it means is that Mercedes takes responsibility during that section of road while driving below a certain speed.  Tesla's could handle that condition, but what's the point in getting level 3 realistically...it's better to stick with level 2 (as you avoid more lawsuits).

 

9 minutes ago, jaslion said:

This is why functional self driving has radar and lidar as a minimum as this gives extra error correction multi points of reference as to how far or near something actually is. As well as identifying objects better as now there is a sharp shape for them instead of a flat image that has to be traced.

That is the type of image you get with a high resolution radar (one that you would find on the car).  That also ignores the fact that it can't always see a flat wall if it's approaching it.  Radar is a crutch realistically, lidar is too expensive (and can have gaps as well).

 

Vision is ultimately the way to go, supplemented maybe with HD radar...but it's also important to note that some of the cameras can actually see quite a bit more than what humans do now.  Specifically Tesla's have different cameras with a different focus distance, which means you could actually reliably track depth.  From what I can guess though, the biggest bottleneck in the FSD Beta pipeline is that they are turning everything into voxels and they simply don't have enough ram to resolve everything that they should be resolving.

[Arika]

Quote

Shareholders have brains this time?

No.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, mdk777 said:

Yes, indeed.

He has been selling vapor ware for so long that people just accept the continual back filling of performance and the extension of time lines as normal.

 

"Yeah he promised it 5 years ago, but you know TESLA....a promise is really just a wish for the future....a vision statement."

 

Dang...I have to get in this PONZI SCHEME mentality.

 

Yeah, I promised you a return on your investment, sure....but it was more of a wish, a vision statement of what I hope to achieve.

 

ANY OTHER PERSON OR CORPORATION  would have been in jail years ago for such obvious and direct fraud. 

 

 

How is it a ponzi scheme mentality? Most companies have goals and they don't always achieve them in the time frame they thought they would. It's not like Tesla stock hasn't seen returns either for those who bought stock early on. I am not a huge fan of Tesla but I feel like people make them out to be way worse than they actually are. Sure they aren't a perfect company and are largely profitable based on goverment subsidizes but complaining that they claimed they would achieve full self driving at some point seems dumb. If anything I would see a complaint of the naming of autopilot as something to complain about more than being upset that they haven't achieved full self driving yet. 

[mdk777]

To be clear,

I have no problem with fluff or the legal term puffery.

 

I have a problem with selling something that doesn't exist.

For years TESLA has sold the Promise of self driving.

 

They charge you extra to get what you get for free from TOYAOTA.

 

If I am not mistaken, every Toyota made now has various levels of driver assist.

 

They don't say, hey....for 15K....we will give you automated driving "legal disclaimer...the term means whatever we decide today it means...and if you don't agree, we will simply cut you off from our software with no means of refund."

 

Yeah, when I buy something and pay for it....I expect it to exist. I don't want to wait for some years and then be told...."sorry, not quite ready."

 

WELL, then I would like my money back with interest for the years I waited.

 

That consumers, that brain washed wish thinkers accept this level of total BS is beyond my comprehension.

 

Go ahead and rationalize, go ahead and parse legal terms, go ahead and self deceive yourselves that you are talking the hit to make the world better.

 

I don't really care. Its you money.

 

I DO CARE THAT MY MONEY by taxes and subsides is funding this insanity.    

[mdk777]

PS

 

A Ponzi scheme is where you take money from new investors and pay it out to make it look like you have a profit stream.

Hence bringing in new investors to keep the endeavor going.

 

This is all TESLA has done from day one.

 

1. They never made a profit selling their cars. The profit came from selling credits to others.

So, you force every consumer of ICE cars to pay TESLA  a tax through this system and then pretend like they are a successful company.

This is classic Ponzi scheme...taking revenue from one place and pretending it comes from another.

 

2. They are not economical without the tax credits given to buyer.

 

So, you tax the poor so that the rich can enjoy a large tax credit on their new car. Then claim there is demand.

The only reason their was demand was because you BOUGHT it with other PEOPLES MONEY(tax payers, future generations).

YES, that is the definition of a PONZIE scheme.

 

3. you over promise and under deliver....constantly stringing the sucker along...

We all hate to admit we are wrong, we all hate to admit that we have been taken.

Ponzi schemes take advantage of this human reluctance.

 

Investors(marks) would rather rationalize and pretend that they were not lied to rather than admit they fell for the Big CON.

 

 

 

[TetraSky]

The shareholders and finally waking up from the Tesla dream eh.

[wanderingfool2]

One thing that is an important discussion around things such as self driving vehicles is how many rules of the road should it be allowed to break.

 

e.g. braking fully at a 4 way stop.  Waiting until you are zero speed will affect the flow of traffic (and potentially increase rear ends and efficiency of traffic).  Yet the feature was recalled due to "safety" (despite every driver I know doing exactly that).

 

A prime example where "safety" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing when it comes to recall.  Tesla recalled their "fart mode" (official name boombox) due to "safety"...the reason, the noise supersedes the spaceship noise while in neutral/reverse/slow speeds...so to be clear, a safety recall to prevent exterior noise being played because it plays over the other car noise (which is there to alert people there is something nearby).

 

Where I think the issue comes with FSD, at what stage should a car be allowed to lets say cross a line, or brake a traffic law?  At the moment Tesla's are allowed to "speed", but it's only a forced recall away from not being allowed to speed...at which point not being able to speed can put it in a more dangerous situation (merging onto the highway).

 

If a truck is blocking your lane with it's hazards on, almost everyone would try going around the truck...yet the precise thing that is being recalled is now going to prevent it from making that decision.  The stopping on a yellow light if it knows it can stop, I guarantee will cause more rear ends and more harsh driving (since it knows it can stop it will now have to decelerate a lot quicker than what a normal human might do).

 

4 minutes ago, mdk777 said:

1. They never made a profit selling their cars. The profit came from selling credits to others.

So, you force every consumer of ICE cars to pay TESLA  a tax through this system and then pretend like they are a successful company.

This is classic Ponzi scheme...taking revenue from one place and pretending it comes from another.

That's only painting half the painting.  First, Tesla as a company has had a net income, instead of loss since 2020 and currently holds some of the highest profit margins per vehicle sold.

To address the regulatory credits elephant in the room.  Tesla has always had a supply issue, and not a demand issue.  Had those regulatory credits not been in place, they still would have been selling the same amount of vehicles (just the consumers would be paying more).

Another key point, don't confuse the cost of revenue sold vs a company a net income/loss.  Rivian for example, their cost of goods sold is like 3x (for every vehicle they sell it cost them 3x the amount to make it).  Even back in 2017 and 2014 times, Tesla was making money on every vehicle sold.

Actually, typically if they lets say decided not to spend money on R&D they would have been posting a positive EPS on many of their operating years (aside from the fact that R&D is what Tesla's are great at).

 

21 minutes ago, mdk777 said:

So, you tax the poor so that the rich can enjoy a large tax credit on their new car. Then claim there is demand.

The only reason their was demand was because you BOUGHT it with other PEOPLES MONEY(tax payers, future generations).

YES, that is the definition of a PONZIE scheme.

Tesla took the governments money once...and they repaid it (with interest), along with Nissan.  Ford on the other hand still owes the government ~$6 billion.

GM got bailed out to the tune of billions of dollars back in 2008.  Oh, lets not forget Ford and GM are currently letting their profits from their ICE divisions help weather them through the EV transition (since I think it was GM that said they won't be break even until 2025)...so all those ICE car owners are subsidizing things like the bolt, mach-e, etc.

[Brooksie359]

36 minutes ago, mdk777 said:

PS

 

A Ponzi scheme is where you take money from new investors and pay it out to make it look like you have a profit stream.

Hence bringing in new investors to keep the endeavor going.

 

This is all TESLA has done from day one.

 

1. They never made a profit selling their cars. The profit came from selling credits to others.

So, you force every consumer of ICE cars to pay TESLA  a tax through this system and then pretend like they are a successful company.

This is classic Ponzi scheme...taking revenue from one place and pretending it comes from another.

 

2. They are not economical without the tax credits given to buyer.

 

So, you tax the poor so that the rich can enjoy a large tax credit on their new car. Then claim there is demand.

The only reason their was demand was because you BOUGHT it with other PEOPLES MONEY(tax payers, future generations).

YES, that is the definition of a PONZIE scheme.

 

3. you over promise and under deliver....constantly stringing the sucker along...

We all hate to admit we are wrong, we all hate to admit that we have been taken.

Ponzi schemes take advantage of this human reluctance.

 

Investors(marks) would rather rationalize and pretend that they were not lied to rather than admit they fell for the Big CON.

 

 

 

Ponzi scheme is not taking money from one place and pretending it comes from another. I mean technically it is but that isn't what makes a ponzi scheme bad. Ponzi schemes rely on new investors money to pay old investors. Tesla is just abusing a tax subsidizes to make profit which is completely legal even though I do not like it. Also the tax credits are there to incentivize the adoption of electric cars to reduce carbon emissions so while I do not like what Tesla is doing with the subsidizes I do think the subsidizes are a good idea as it will push electric vehicles faster which Tesla has definitely done wonders for the perception of electric vehicles. Prior to Tesla most electric cars were memed on for being crazy cars while after Tesla now they are seen as just as good if not better than normal cars. Anyways yes it's pretty crappy that they charge extra for self driving features but again that is a business model thing and I would say that if you don't like it just buy from a different company like Toyota that you referenced. 

[mdk777]

22 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

esla took the governments money once.

You miss the point, every car they sell takes the taxpayer's money twice.

1. through the tax subsidy paid to the buyer (FEDERAL and many states also)

2. selling the credit for that sale to other companies (Other car companies that are not yet selling electric cars)

 

The entire business model is based on stealing from one consumer to benefit another 

 

( YES.. I know it is legal... that does not make it just or moral)

[mdk777]

33 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Tesla has always had a supply issue, and not a demand issue.  Had those regulatory credits not been in place, they still would have been selling the same amount of vehicles (just the consumers would be paying more).

You sir are delusional.

 

They had close to zero demand before the credits and the company would not exist (to start with or even ongoing) without them.

There was no market, and no economy for the vehicles without the credits.

 

If this were not the case(your demand statement), then the credits should never have existed and should have been left to phase out.

Your statement is much worse than those who rationalize some collective benefit to the world from the redistribution of wealth.

 

You are saying that the government simply is enriching TESLA for no good reason at all....that demand exists and they are profitable without it.

 

THEN WHY ARE WE GIVING THEM MONEY FOR EVERY VEHICLE??????????

[wanderingfool2]

1 minute ago, mdk777 said:

You miss the point, every car they sell takes the taxpayer's money twice.

1. through the tax subsidy paid to the buyer (FEDERAL and many states also)

2. selling the credit for that sale to other companies (Other car companies that are not yet selling electric cars)

 

The entire business model is based on stealing from one consumer to benefit another 

 

( YES.. I know it is legal... that does not make it just or moral)

There's this wonderful thing called Investor Relations where a publicly traded companies needs to submit financial statements.

 

Those regulatory credits as of Q3 2022 make up for $286 million.  They sold (excluding credits), $17,785 million of vehicles, and $621 from leasing...it literally makes up less than 2% of all the revenue from sale of vehicles.  The tax subsidies could end overnight and Tesla wouldn't have to worry at all.

 

2 minutes ago, mdk777 said:

They had close to zero demand before the credits and the company would not exist (to start with or even ongoing) without them.

There was no market, and no economy for the vehicles without the credits.

 

If this were not the case(your demand statement), then the credits should never have existed and should have been left to phase out.

Tesla actually have maxed out on the credits in the past, the reason it was left in place was because the government wanted to still encourage companies to get into the EV business.  As an example, without the credits Ford might never have moved towards EV's. 

[mdk777]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

esla actually have maxed out on the credits in the past, the reason it was left in place was because the government wanted to still encourage companies to get into the EV business.  As an example, without the credits Ford might never have moved towards EV's. 

So again, you are pointing out the scale of the RAPE of the American tax payer.

 

Say for round numbers, TESLA sells 1 million vehicles in the US.

They have cut and raised prices in response to the 7500 US tax subsidy

 

So you are telling me that the US TAX PAYER is wasting 7.5 BILLION dollars to give people money they don't need?

 

You want FORD to catch up with TESLA...give them the tax break and not TESLA.

 

You just told me they don't even need it.

 

Yes, we are spending BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars to make people think they are doing something to save the world.

 

Can't wait for you to explain to your children and grandchildren how their worthless dollars and bankrupt economy was all for the good of the world, despite inheriting a world of debt and poverty. 

 

 

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

7 hours ago, mdk777 said:

Can't wait for you to explain to your children and grandchildren how their worthless dollars and bankrupt economy was all for the good of the world, despite inheriting a world of debt and poverty. 

Do you think that if the government stopped subsidizing R&D, that money would solve poverty?

Not. You would still have the exact same poverty, hunger and misery, and not have the R&D.

The government earn its taxes when it's allocating resources in a constructive way. Each dollar that is redirected to advancing technology (infrastructure, R&D, advanced manufacturing, higher education, research, space, etc...) is a dollar that is not wasted.

Is Tesla the most efficient capital allocation for that money? Maybe? Tesla clearly was one of the first movers in EV, and other manufacturers are now following suit. I argue those subsidies have been one of the few efficient capital allocation the USA governemnt made in recent times.

We are talking about a government can't even efficiently allocate resources for an high speed train. Cut them some slack, Tesla's capital allocation has yielded the expected result. There weren't many EVs around. Government subsidized Tesla. There are a meaningful numbers of EVs around now and a new market segment is getting competition from manufacturers.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

There are a meaningful numbers of EVs around now and a new market segment is getting competition from manufacturers.

as much i really don't like Tesla cars, or musk, or space X (same business scheme basically)  you have a point this is very much on established car manufacturers,  they completely dropped the ball on EVs, they are not the victim here (and if so by their own doing) Its unfortunate Teslas are as terrible as they are but they pretty much took advantage of other manufacturers dropping the ball / they coulda pushed EVs since decades, if they really wanted, then there would be no Tesla...