I don’t make it a habit of ever reading electrek, but I stumbled upon this brazen piece of misinformation by their writer Fred Lambert. It’s shocking in two ways. First, it’s full of outright lies. Second, this guy is an admitted investor in Tesla and yet he makes these blatant attempts to prop up the stock price and prevent a public erosion in confidence in Elon Musk.
In any case, I thought it would be fun to list some of Fred’s false points and give a quick answer to them here. I’m not going to address everything, just the items that interest me. His points are highlighted below followed by my rebuttal:
Update: a Twitter account associated with the Anonymous group claim that the people behind the video are not directly associated with them.
Fred leaves out the relevant fact that there are multiple twitter accounts that are recognized as representing various factions of Anonymous. It’s not out of the ordinary that when a faction sends out a video that other factions will simply clarify whether or not they were involved. In this case, there is already a twitter account which is known to represent a faction which has claimed responsibility for the video and attests to it’s truth. But Fred throws in this update as if to cast doubt on the video as being some kind of elaborate hoax. This video is the real deal and not a joke.
Tesla and Elon Musk are no stranger to smear campaigns and misinformation. It generally originates from the automotive or fossil fuel industries…
Wow, what is up with bringing up a completely irrelevant conspiracy theory that the fossil fuel industry is behind smear campaigns? This guy lives in la la land if he seriously thinks that real CEO’s of real companies care in the least about an unstable self-destructive idiot like Musk.
Lambert is desperately trying to introduce doubt into the audience’s mind that maybe this video is fake. But as I mentioned before, at least one recognized Anonymous Twitter account stated that the video is real.
One of the main arguments Anonymous put forward in the video is the same one the EV community has been hearing for years: “Tesla is all about government subsidies.”
This is a disingenuous claim that Tesla detractors have been making for years. Yes, it’s true that Tesla, like any other electric automaker, is taking advantage of government incentives for electric vehicles.
Lambert tries to make it sound like Tesla is no different from any other EV maker. That is false. No other EV maker on the planet has been as brazen as Tesla when it comes to scamming the government into handing over taxpayer dollars. Here’s only a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head without doing any research.
Anonymous is exactly right. When it comes to government subsidies, Tesla goes above and beyond what anyone else is willing to do to get those cash payments even if it means bending the truth.
But those incentives are in place to account for the positive effect that EVs have on the environment compared to their gasoline-powered counterparts.
Another false claim. I was just reading about a study this weekend that found, yet again, that EV’s have very little positive effect on the environment. If any. I’ll link to it if I can find it. For every study that Electrek can find which says EV’s help the planet, there is a study which says they don’t.
And Michael Moore helped with an entire documentary that showed electric vehicles are not about saving the planet. According to Moore, EV’s are worthless virtue signaling to help people feel good about doing nothing.
This is mainly a problem in the US, where the subsidies take the form of direct incentives on electric vehicle puchares. In other countries, like in Norway, this is not seen as a problem since the government instead properly taxes gasoline and gasoline-powered cars in other to account for the cost they have on health and the environment.
This paragraph is barely understandable. But Fred can’t compare the subsidies that Tesla gets with how Norway taxes gasoline. Tesla is getting money that directly hurts it’s competitors. Tesla has a direct benefit. In Norway, gasoline taxes can go to roads, schools, or anything. It’s not like Norway is trying to pick winners and loser in the business world.
In the US, it’s the contrary. Fossil fuels are extremely subsidized, while the subsidies that EVs are getting represent only a fraction of what the fossil fuel industry has been receiving for years, even before accounting for the financial costs of the pollution emitted by fossil fuel products
Hey McFly, you do realize that the entire US economy runs on fossil fuels? Without petroleum, factories would grind to a halt. There would be no plastic shampoo bottles, no syringes for medicine, no tires for your Tesla. Petroleum is a key ingredient in millions of products besides just gasoline for cars. It’s prudent for the government to take an interest in fossil fuels in order to protect the US economy. And if we ever go to war with Russia or China, we need to ensure that we can fuel our airplanes and tanks. That’s why every country on Earth subsidizes petroleum. Because it’s also a security issue. You can’t justify the direct payments which Tesla gets by comparing it to guarding our national economy and security.
American subsidies for the petroleum industry aren’t payments going to General Motors or Ford. Even when the government bailed out GM. It was a loan which GM had to repay with interest.
Then the statement becomes a little more accurate, but even then, it’s completely disingenuous since it doesn’t account for the fact that Tesla makes a significant gross margin on its vehicles without accounting for subsidies,
Lambert sidesteps the Anonymous accusation that Tesla isn’t making any money on cars by trying to shift the discussion to gross margins. But as I’ve explained in depth before, Tesla’s gross margins aren’t what they seem because they own the retail chain. So gross margins seem healthy when compared to wholesalers like Ford or GM who sell to a dealership network.
But Tesla’s gross margins are too low to make a profit. They have much higher selling costs than Ford or GM since they have to pay for all service and support which includes the charging stations. This is why Tesla is losing money on making cars. It’s a structurally unprofitable business.
And it’s not just Anonymous pointing out that Tesla makes no money on cars. When Tesla recently reported their Q1 results, the finance world was full of headlines along the lines of this from the Wall Street Journal “Tesla makes more money on Bitcoin than cars”. Everyone knows that Tesla makes no money on cars. Anyone who claims otherwise just looks foolish.
Update: a Twitter account associated with the Anonymous group claim that the people behind the video are not directly associated with them.
Fred leaves out the relevant fact that there are multiple twitter accounts that are recognized as representing various factions of Anonymous. It’s not out of the ordinary that when a faction sends out a video that other factions will simply clarify whether or not they were involved. In this case, there is already a twitter account which is known to represent a faction which has claimed responsibility for the video and attests to it’s truth. But Fred throws in this update as if to cast doubt on the video as being some kind of elaborate hoax. This video is the real deal and not a joke.
Tesla and Elon Musk are no stranger to smear campaigns and misinformation. It generally originates from the automotive or fossil fuel industries…
Wow, what is up with bringing up a completely irrelevant conspiracy theory that the fossil fuel industry is behind smear campaigns? This guy lives in la la land if he seriously thinks that real CEO’s of real companies care in the least about an unstable self-destructive idiot like Musk.
Lambert is desperately trying to introduce doubt into the audience’s mind that maybe this video is fake. But as I mentioned before, at least one recognized Anonymous Twitter account stated that the video is real.
One of the main arguments Anonymous put forward in the video is the same one the EV community has been hearing for years: “Tesla is all about government subsidies.”
This is a disingenuous claim that Tesla detractors have been making for years. Yes, it’s true that Tesla, like any other electric automaker, is taking advantage of government incentives for electric vehicles.
Lambert tries to make it sound like Tesla is no different from any other EV maker. That is false. No other EV maker on the planet has been as brazen as Tesla when it comes to scamming the government into handing over taxpayer dollars. Here’s only a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head without doing any research.
- The hundreds of millions New York gave to Tesla to for the Buffalo Gigafactory in exchange for meeting employment targets. Those targets were never met.
- The state of California gave Tesla millions for a battery swap program. The battery swap program never happened.
- Canada subsidized Tesla vehicles if they would offer a model that cost under $35K. Tesla scammed the government by building a few and making the model almost impossible to buy.
Anonymous is exactly right. When it comes to government subsidies, Tesla goes above and beyond what anyone else is willing to do to get those cash payments even if it means bending the truth.
But those incentives are in place to account for the positive effect that EVs have on the environment compared to their gasoline-powered counterparts.
Another false claim. I was just reading about a study this weekend that found, yet again, that EV’s have very little positive effect on the environment. If any. I’ll link to it if I can find it. For every study that Electrek can find which says EV’s help the planet, there is a study which says they don’t.
And Michael Moore helped with an entire documentary that showed electric vehicles are not about saving the planet. According to Moore, EV’s are worthless virtue signaling to help people feel good about doing nothing.
This is mainly a problem in the US, where the subsidies take the form of direct incentives on electric vehicle puchares. In other countries, like in Norway, this is not seen as a problem since the government instead properly taxes gasoline and gasoline-powered cars in other to account for the cost they have on health and the environment.
This paragraph is barely understandable. But Fred can’t compare the subsidies that Tesla gets with how Norway taxes gasoline. Tesla is getting money that directly hurts it’s competitors. Tesla has a direct benefit. In Norway, gasoline taxes can go to roads, schools, or anything. It’s not like Norway is trying to pick winners and loser in the business world.
In the US, it’s the contrary. Fossil fuels are extremely subsidized, while the subsidies that EVs are getting represent only a fraction of what the fossil fuel industry has been receiving for years, even before accounting for the financial costs of the pollution emitted by fossil fuel products
Hey McFly, you do realize that the entire US economy runs on fossil fuels? Without petroleum, factories would grind to a halt. There would be no plastic shampoo bottles, no syringes for medicine, no tires for your Tesla. Petroleum is a key ingredient in millions of products besides just gasoline for cars. It’s prudent for the government to take an interest in fossil fuels in order to protect the US economy. And if we ever go to war with Russia or China, we need to ensure that we can fuel our airplanes and tanks. That’s why every country on Earth subsidizes petroleum. Because it’s also a security issue. You can’t justify the direct payments which Tesla gets by comparing it to guarding our national economy and security.
American subsidies for the petroleum industry aren’t payments going to General Motors or Ford. Even when the government bailed out GM. It was a loan which GM had to repay with interest.
Then the statement becomes a little more accurate, but even then, it’s completely disingenuous since it doesn’t account for the fact that Tesla makes a significant gross margin on its vehicles without accounting for subsidies,
Lambert sidesteps the Anonymous accusation that Tesla isn’t making any money on cars by trying to shift the discussion to gross margins. But as I’ve explained in depth before, Tesla’s gross margins aren’t what they seem because they own the retail chain. So gross margins seem healthy when compared to wholesalers like Ford or GM who sell to a dealership network.
But Tesla’s gross margins are too low to make a profit. They have much higher selling costs than Ford or GM since they have to pay for all service and support which includes the charging stations. This is why Tesla is losing money on making cars. It’s a structurally unprofitable business.
And it’s not just Anonymous pointing out that Tesla makes no money on cars. When Tesla recently reported their Q1 results, the finance world was full of headlines along the lines of this from the Wall Street Journal “Tesla makes more money on Bitcoin than cars”. Everyone knows that Tesla makes no money on cars. Anyone who claims otherwise just looks foolish.
Without subsidies, Bitcoin, and accounting tricks Tesla’s “record profit” turns into a loss of $231 million
but it invests a lot of money on accelerating production in order to accelerate EV adoption. It results in lower net income,
This is another statement that makes absolutely no sense. When you “invest” in production, that money is capitalized. It goes to the balance sheet, not the income statement. Fred can’t blame Tesla’s lack of profits in any given quarter on investments which were capitalized. The whole meaning of the word capitalized means that you don’t hit income.
and therefore, yes, sales of ZEV credits represent a significant portion of profits. However, it’s important to note that those ZEV credits are not paid by public money. In fact, the money comes from other automakers who are not as quick to make electric vehicles.
Fred fails to mention that these ZEV credits arose due to laws passed by the US Government. Furthermore, it is no different than a check from the US Government. If Ford or GM have to write a check to a collection agency and that money is passed along to Tesla than it is a government subsidy. It doesn’t matter who actually collects the money. It’s no different than a tax-and-spend program.
I think that Fred would agree that the US Government subsidizes farm products. How does that work? The IRS collects income tax from Walmart, Exxon, and John Q Public. Later, checks are sent to farmers. It’s no different with Tesla. Money is collected from GM and Ford. Later, checks are sent to Tesla.
In short, Anonymous’ attack on Tesla and Musk is full of poorly researched points that amount to misinformation that the fossil fuel industry has tried to push for years
Actually, no, these attacks are no different than articles you’ll find in Business Week, The Wall Street Journal, or Business Insider. Fred is the one who is spreading misinformation and poorly researched points.
The fact that Fred is blaming “The Fossil Fuel Industry” is in and of itself a red flag. Instead of tackling arguments on their merits, he tries to insinuate there is some vast conspiracy. He does this whenever he can’t refute the truth. Blame it on the fossil fuel industry.
But it’s not the fossil fuel industry’s fault that Tesla can’t make money on selling cars. No one forced Tesla to offer free supercharging or make low quality cars that constantly need repairs. The fact that Tesla doesn’t make any money on cars isn’t a made up fact by Exxon and has nothing to do with “The fossil fuel industry”.
If you see anyone posting his article in response to the anonymous video. Please refer to this post in response.
RSS Feed