Quote:
Originally Posted by JSH
Now I get it. If I could get people to give me billions to pursue a pet project I would take the money. However, there is no reason to go overboard and claim that Musk is "betting it all" on Tesla. Whether Tesla succeeds or fails Musk will still be a billionaire.
|
I'm assuming nobody would give it to you because you have no history of taking high risks and making hugely successful businesses. Musk worked his way into great financial standing partly by good fortune, and partly by being brilliant and risk tolerant (also great fortune, as everything is). Tesla isn't a pet project for Musk; it's his passion. Same with Space X. He didn't just have a whimsical idea one night and get loose with the pocketbook; he's been obsessing about these ideas since his youth.
Nobody is going around telling you what you ought to do with your money, or at least their argument would be as foolish as yours is concerning Musk's money. It's his. He has no obligation to do what others want him to do with it, regardless of the amount.
I certainly never said Musk is "betting it all" on Tesla, so I hope you aren't implying that I was. However, he did bet a large fortune on a number of things, and some are bound to fail. That's what entrepreneurs do. They fail often and move on. If your expectation is that entrepreneurs make 100% perfect decisions, you don't understand being human at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
Maybe he was right about why the guy was in Thailand? Makes no difference anyway.
This 'arrogance' of which they speak put Starman into Solar orbit with 'Don't Panic' on the dashboard.
|
Yup, I've argued it elsewhere, but it takes the character that is Musk to achieve what he has achieved, and that includes both the good and bad aspects of his personality. On the balance, I like the guy (I like everyone though). Just like all guys, he's got some areas that could use some improvement.
I'm the pot calling the kettle black by the way. It's possible to balance confidence, optimism and risk without resorting to arrogance to achieve great things; difficult though possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xist
That sounds logical. Do we have a consensus?
Do we ever have one?  |
I try to be disagreeable as often as possible (if you haven't noticed), even with myself. Learning doesn't take place by agreeing, and it's quite boring.
That said, I think manufacturers had one of two smart moves to make in the US concerning plug-in vehicles:
1. Build plug-in vehicles with the minimum battery size that qualifies for the full $7,500 federal rebate, which is 16 kWh, or about 65 miles of EV range for a typical car. This maximizes the federal incentive and minimizes the major expense, which is the battery.
2. Build plug-in vehicles with battery capacities just under 5 kWh, which is the minimum capacity to claim a federal tax credit. This would give about 20 miles of EV range at a modest cost, but not count towards the 200,000 vehicle tax credit limit. Once other big players run out of credits, and the technology has been sufficiently developed and built for large scale production, increase battery size to 16 kWh and eat the other manufacturers lunch. There is a period of time during credit phase out where unlimited vehicles may be sold and claim the tax credit. I'd build up a waiting list along with a huge inventory of vehicles to game the window of unlimited sales.
After the credit expired, I'd build what the consumers wanted, and anticipate where the future demand and technology will be.
So you see, the credit would only encourage irrational market behavior by businesses, with them returning to rational practices after it expires.