Comment by aerovistae | Hacker News Reader

Comment by aerovistae | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I know, right?? I was perusing them in disbelief. They seem planted. It's just amazing to me.

People focus on SpaceX's government contracts, disregarding the MASSIVE subsidies ULA receives and disregarding the fact that SpaceX is dropping the price of rocket launches like a brick off a cliff, which will (obviously??) save far, far more taxpayer money in the long run than if SpaceX had not done this.

People focus on Tesla's subsidies, but ignore the massive bailouts given to the other auto manufacturers and ignore the future potential of Tesla to bring large amounts of jobs and money into the US as the cars are exported around the world. They ignore how much money will be saved by a cleaner environment in the long run, in healthcare costs and environmental costs. They overlook that Tesla paid back all its government loans with interest, making it a solid investment. They ignore everything relevant.

And with SolarCity, people focus on it having received some small amount of subsidies while disregarding the fact that a future where we don't have to pay electric bills or gas bills will save us all far more than we might have to spend in taxes now.

These people seem to imagine that Musk's companies are taking up valuable money that could have been used elsewhere, but truly, what better use for money than to break the mold of dysfunctional legacy infrastructure?

Lobbying groups are known to pay people to comment spam like this. The irony is too great though, the oil/gas industry has about $6 trillion in subsidies per year when you factor in environmental damage.

Wonder whether they get more than 50ct for that, or less.

Would you say alcoholics get a subsidy as well due to the damage they cause to their health? It certainly adds to the cost of the healthcare.

Your argument seems a little silly.

If they pay less for healthcare than they receive in services, what else would you call it other than a subsidy?

That seems much more clearcut than who exactly benefits from various economic policies and government actions.

If the companies are creating products that do health/environmental damage that the taxpayers have to fix, how is it silly? Say a given Toyota does $500 worth of environmental damage in its lifetime, and the government pays to repair it. Is that not a $500 subsidy, a fee handled by taxpayers which the responsible party (Toyota) is somehow permitted to ignore?

If the companies are creating products that do health/environmental damage that the taxpayers have to fix, how is it silly?

A few reasons why it's silly. You can't accurately measure it, so it's a somewhat useless metric. Also, everything is interdependent if you look at it that way.

Rich people are being subsidized by landlords due to rent control!

Alcohol companies are being subsidized because they don't pay for crashes caused by drunk drivers.

It goes on and on and it doesn't add much value.

In Canada the alcoholics example holds because we have universal healthcare. Alcohol/tobacco is actually highly taxed because of this.

I've seen research indicating that tobacco users actually cost the Canadian healthcare system less overall: they die ~5 years younger, and healthcare costs go up with age.

You're comparing a statistic of one population (smokers) with a different stat of another (general population). There's no conclusions to draw from that.

E.g. healthcare costs go up with age because that's when people start dying. Smokers die at an earlier age, so they experience those costs earlier. Is this correct? Who knows, but it's one of the many ways in which the argument you wrote could be invalid.

You are quite right and I could have been more clear. In this case they specifically looked at the total healthcare costs and still concluded it was cheaper. Unfortunately I don't have a link and feel a strong [citation needed] flag is warranted.

Furthermore, healthcare costs don't reflect the complete picture. Firstly, lost productivity is an issue. Secondly, we may not want a society where ritual suicide is encouraged at a pre-determined age with the goal of reducing healthcare costs.

Here's a link that mentions a NE Journal of Medicine report backing up your claim: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-01-04/news/1998004017_...

The same is certainly true in Australia. Smokers cost the healthcare system far less because they die sooner and faster. Of course, the value and efficiency of a healthcare system isn't measured in how little you can spend per a person but instead at what cost can you keep people healthy. In the case of smokers there's no way at any price point for the healthcare system to provide long term positive outcomes so it ends up being cheaper. That's not a good thing.

Obviously I know this isn't what you're arguing. You're right in saying that alcohol and tobacco taxes aren't used to offset higher costs to healthcare. In most cases they're supposed to be a cost pressure to change consumption.

I think that same study included savings from paying out pensions, etc.

Smokers are subsidizing everyone!! How do you solve for that?

source?

Kind of don't need a source to tell you that world governments are having to go to great lengths to deal with global warming, do we?

the $6 trillion figure comes from Elon Musk during a recent interview.

This https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O_azyt1JhI0

is a really impressive moment in history

> and ignore the future potential of Tesla to bring large amounts of jobs

Once Tesla stabilises, they'll be looking to move manufacturing jobs offshore, just like any other manufacturer. 'Future manufacturing jobs aplenty', without some significant social changes, is a pipe dream.

>Once Tesla stabilises, they'll be looking to move manufacturing jobs offshore

I'm sure that some jobs will be created offshore, but I doubt that the worlds largest battery factory is just going to be shut down and moved to Shenzhen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com