The House Always Wins

The responses Elon has previously written to criticisms have been very concise and convincing. This article isn&#x27;t too far off the mark, but I do feel his frustration for the petty politics he deals with shows through the article.<p>Is it even necessary for him to respond to petty accusations such as the inflated claims that he&#x27;s masterminding Nevada&#x27;s politics? Wouldn&#x27;t it benefit him more to let the nay-sayers nay say?

Called it, 2.5 months ago. Most of HN said I was wrong.<p><i>If the 1.25B tax break causes a net gain in tax receipts due to the expansion of the economy, then the deal is a net positive for everyone, job-seekers, Nevada, and Tesla.<p>No one loses when the economic pie gets bigger. Economics is not zero-sum.</i><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8271914" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=8271914</a>

&gt; Our automotive plant in California has been in operation for over 60 years with no foreseeable end in sight.<p>How can this be? Tesla Motors was founded in 2003. Did they take over the plant from some other manufacturer?

Are the contracts open to the public? Between Tesla and Nevada?

I don&#x27;t know if the benefits were too large but Musk spends the entire article refuting something else: that the deal would be net negative to Nevada.<p>If I paid $1 for something and today&#x27;s market price is $10 then I got a bad deal if I sell it for $5, even though I made a profit.

what is wrong with such deals is that one needs to be big (and&#x2F;or extremely politically connected) to get one. I.e. the game is tilted. I mean why a small shop should pay higher taxes than a big one? How is that good for economy&#x2F;society?

I had never read much Elon Musk before but I am incredibly impressed with his Elon Musk&#x27;s eloquent Elon Musk is. This deal is undoubtedly good for Nevada. These tax incentives always seem to me to be a zero sum game. They benefit large corporations who have the ability to negotiate with states at the expense of smaller corporations who do not have that ability. In essence they cause small corporations, or individuals to subsidize large corporations.

These deals are net positive for Nevada (tax breaks don&#x27;t really hurt them that much if they wouldn&#x27;t have gotten the facility anyway), and net negative for the US overall (revenue wise, at least). If nobody engaged in these kinds of deals then Tesla would surely pay more tax.<p>I don&#x27;t blame Nevada for engaging in it, and I think they probably won overall.<p>Other factors (cheap land, regulatory, etc) almost definitely came into play but nobody is really complaining about those.

Seems to me like their competition must have been busy trying to smear them, it is much easier to smear someone than clear ones name.

I realize this is off topic, but I take serious issue with the statement that &quot;Nevada is the entertainment capital of the world.&quot;

Bullshit. There are always externalities in these deals. Since I do not know the details, I can.not say. But what about things like pollusion and waste. These are negatives to the people of nevada that are most likely not accounted for. Also work olace hazards ir worse damage, explosions, etc.<p>Also what about surrounding infrastructure like roads, sewage, etc. Who is paying for that?