You are now logged in.

"That day, you received a call from Joe Biden," the Wall Street Journal technology columnist Joanna Stern asked Tesla CEO Elon Musk at a forum on Monday night. "He asked: What is your need for this [2 trillion dollar spending] bill? How would you answer him?"

"We didn't think about it at all, really," Musk said, guiding Don Draper with the audience's uneasy laughter. "It might be better if the bill is not passed," Musk added. "The federal budget deficit is crazy...you have to pay. You can't just spend 3 trillion dollars more than you have every year without expecting bad things to happen."

Stern told Musk: "With this bill, electric vehicles (electric cars) have received a lot of support...it helps Tesla." So if the bill shouldn't be passed, Stern asked, "What do you think the role of the government should be?"

"I think the role of the government should be the referee, not the players on the court," Musk replied. "The government should try to get away, not hinder progress." He continued:

The rules and regulations are increasing every year. Rules and regulations are immortal, they will not die. Occasionally you will see that some laws have sunset clauses, but in fact, other than that, most of the rules and regulations will always exist...Finally, it will take longer and longer, and it will become more and more difficult to do things. . There is no really effective garbage collection system to eliminate rules and regulations. So gradually, this will harden the arteries of civilization, and over time, there will be less and less things you can do. So I think the government should work very hard to abolish those rules and regulations that may be beneficial at some point but currently do not. "

"To be honest, I can just complete the entire bill. Don't pass it," Musk said strongly.

Legislators in Congress hope that the "Rebuild Better" bill passed this or next month will include a tax credit of $12,500 for US-made electric vehicles produced in union factories, which is higher than the current $7,500. Critics pointed out that Musk has no reason to support the supply of electric vehicles because there is no union at the Tesla factory. But he has other good reasons for opposing these regulations: the adoption of electric vehicles and the construction of charging stations are progressing smoothly, and there is no need for (market-distorting, trade-union-friendly) government intervention-Musk specifically raised this point, who pointed out that the federal government The government does not pay for gas stations, nor does it need to build electric car charging stations. "I'm actually talking about removing all subsidies," Musk clarified. (It is worth noting that subsidies for charging stations have been included in the infrastructure bill passed last month, so the details of these two impressively expensive bills are somewhat confused.)

It's nice to hear Musk condemning government intervention, but there is no doubt that he has made a lot of money from government subsidies in the past, so it looks a bit like he is pulling a ladder behind his back to thwart the constantly eroding competitors.

A few years ago, Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner wrote that Musk was "a model businessman in the Obama era." "His business thrives on authorizations, regulations, and subsidies. Tesla has obtained federal loan guarantees to manufacture plug-in cars, which are also subsidized by tax credits to buyers. SolarCity's supplier is subsidized solar energy. Panel manufacturers, whose customers receive tax credits for installing panels. SpaceX is mainly a government contractor."

"Tesla Motors, SolarCity, and Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, have collectively benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support," a 2015 survey by the Los Angeles Times revealed. "Musk and his company's investors enjoy most of the financial benefits of government support, while taxpayers bear the cost." Moreover, recently, SpaceX and Amazon's Project Kuiper have both publicly competed, arguing the Federal Communications Commission with the other party. At the same time, it has been providing the government with millions of dollars in subsidies for satellite Internet projects.

Nevertheless, Musk's own suspicious motives for terminating these subsidies did not make the substance of his comments less true. When considered together with other statements that he was skeptical of the government-“take the capital allocation work away from people who have demonstrated outstanding skills in capital allocation, and give it to those who have shown very poor capital allocation. The entity of skills is meaningless"-it seems that Musk may have replaced Jack Dorsey, a warlock who loves freedom of speech, as the richest and most staunch government skeptic in the United States.

After all, when asked whether billionaires like him should seize their wealth through taxation and redistribute it by the federal government, Musk said, after all, “the government is just the largest company that monopolizes violence, and you don’t chase it. Claim rights." Where is the lie?

Next post: Bryant Park in New York City is a mess. Then it was privatized.

Liz Wolfe is Reason's associate editor.

© 2021 Rational Foundation|Accessibility|Privacy Policy|Terms of Use