Thanks to all of my taxpaying friends in America I now have a brand new carbon fibre hockey stick!

(NASA -> Hockey stick, you see the connection?):)

That article is so thin, almost to be invisible. What are the "subsidies" they receive?

The conclusion on Musk himself is that he's a salesman. You can't really defend him on principal as an innovator, etc like Jobs or Bezos because his ideas are not really his, and they are not really innovative. The first Tesla was a roadster, and what made it possible was the battery technology, which he bought and brought in house. His battery research guy died in a plane crash about 10 years ago, and the company has not exactly made the same strides in pioneering tech since then.

Musk will push product that is not yet ready for market, similar to Gates did when he ran Microsoft. And like Gates, his aim is to have more hits than flops. He sees selling as his main function, not pioneering innovation. Unlike Apple, or more precisely Jobs, Musk is selling things that are not quite fulfilling a "need". You have to adapt to the product. The Tesla battery powered car is like the Apple Watch. Cool, yes. Practical, No. The Macintosh was both cool and practical. The iPod was stunningly cool and better yet, it worked, and it was practical. Those who defend the Tesla cars are taking it upon themselves to overlook these failings, and they take on a sort of defensive, advocate role of the "green vision" of battery powered cars. They do this huge logical leap that imagines solar power is motivating them about from Point A to Point B, and that they are subverting "Big Oil". That is Musk's genious, not the actual product. The sales pitch is catchy and it sticks.

I'd argue that he is innovative. HE may not be the tech innovator that Wazniak was (but neither was Jobs) but Was needed Jobs, and battery guys need Musk.

I can agree that might be where the similarities end but, as an innovator Musk seems to have a nack for re-engineering processes in innovative ways, wether it be payment system (Paypal) or transportation systems and battery applications (charging stations as backup to home power, and roof top generation) to fill those batteries.

^ You know what's really ironic about that? Nikola Tesla was the innovator behind AC power, but Edison was given credit as the innovator because he knew how to sell it. You have to bring it to market in order to sell it. Musk would more fittingly have named his company Edison, but you know he could not do that.

Thats a great point! :D

Ahh, but Edison fought and fought against AC and finally.... sheepishly caved in. But Mr. Bright Idea turned around, accepted the 'facts' and made mucho money from it. That in itself is the lesson.

You can either hate or like Musk, but I certainly give him high kudo's. He's like an Edison and learned the insides of how govt. leaders work and then they make it happen. You can all sit back and poo-poo the govt. and or these big players, but how else will we have any sort of progress?

There was no "sheepishly" caved in. The issue was the hydro plant in Niagara falls. The submissions were made, GE offering DC and Westinghouse AC. AC was chosen. Carnegie, who was the MONEY behind GE (and Edison) went after the second unit and won. The Thomson-Houston management at GE (who already supported AC) hired some additional talent (Namely Stienmetz). At that point, DC was dead. Edison was basically talent (and showman) by this point. He was very small minority owner in GE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

Edison's anti-AC stance[edit]
As AC systems continued to spread into territories covered by DC systems, with the companies seeming to impinge on Edison patents including incandescent lighting, things got worse for the company. The price of copper was rising, adding to the expense of Edison's low voltage DC system, which required much heavier copper wires than higher voltage AC systems. Thomas Edison's own colleagues and engineers were trying to get him to consider AC. Edison's sales force was continually losing bids in municipalities that opted for cheaper AC systems [39] and Edison Electric Illuminating Company president Edward Hibberd Johnson pointed out that if the company stuck with an all DC system it would not be able to do business in small towns and even mid-sized cities.[40] Edison Electric had a patent option on the ZBD transformer, and a confidential in house report recommended that the company go AC, but Thomas Edison was against the idea.
After Westinghouse installed his first large scale system Edison wrote in a November 1886 private letter to Edward Johnson, "Just as certain as death Westinghouse will kill a customer within six months after he puts in a system of any size, He has got a new thing and it will require a great deal of experimenting to get it working practically."[41] Edison seemed to hold a view that the very high voltages used in AC systems was too dangerous and that it would take many years to develop a safe and workable system.[42] Safety and avoiding the bad press of killing a customer had been one of the goals in designing his DC system[43] and he worried that a death caused by a mis-installed AC system could hold back the use of electricity in general,[42] Edison's understanding of how AC systems worked seemed to be extensive. He noted what he saw as inefficiencies and that, combined with the capital costs in trying to finance very large generating plants, led him to believe there would be very little cost savings in an AC venture.[44] Edison was also of the opinion that DC was a superior system (a fact that he was sure the public would come to recognize) and inferior AC technology was being used by other companies as a way to get around his DC patents.[45]
In February 1888 Edison Electric president Edward Johnson published an 84-page pamphlet titled "A Warning from the Edison Electric Light Company" and sent it to newspapers and to companies that had purchased or were planning to purchase electrical equipment from Edison competitors, including Westinghouse and Thomson Houston, stating that the competitors were infringing on Edison's incandescent light and other electrical patents.[46] It warned that purchasers could find themselves on the losing side of a court case if those patents were upheld. The pamphlet also emphasized the safety and efficiency of direct current, with the claim DC had not caused a single death, and included newspaper stories of accidental electrocutions caused by alternating current.

Americans got their first taste of public electrical lighting in 1893 despite the battle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_Columbian_Exposition

And Edison was not a great guy in some ways:
Jan. 4, 1903: Edison Fries an Elephant to Prove His Point | WIRED
Edison Publicly Tortured Animals To Discredit AC Power - KnowledgeNuts
Death and Money - The History of the Electric Chair

I probably helped. I did a lot of work on advanced composites in the early 198Os. All paid for by the DOD.

Amazing the industries that you have helped once that technology and american know how trickled down to your chemical companies and engineers!

( I'll bet they pay a lot of taxes today) :)

New Mexico is very sunny. You have to ask how does their yield compare with say, London, Bangkok, or Washington DC (let alone Seattle Washington)? And how many eagles or plain jane birds get fried flying over those solar fields?http://financeseeyou.com/red/images/45.gif http://financeseeyou.com/red/images/7.gif
http://financeseeyou.com/red/images/8.gif

It was found during a quick search just to bring up how Tesla getting federal funds is just business as usual in the US. Not meant to be any real news.

This article is a little more interesting, it discusses how much defense spending has been and will be spent on space cargo launches to Boeing and Lockheed Martin and how Musk sued to break their monopoly:

How Elon Musk exposed billions in questionable Pentagon spending - POLITICO

But what are the subsidies? All they list is some dollar value with nothing else.