Overpriced meaning he charges more than people are willing to pay. He can't sell enough at the market price without losing money, that's why he needs the $7k tax credit or whatever it is now (probably some state credits on top of that) If you invented a widget that cost you $10 to make, but people are only willing to pay $5 for it. Then you pay politicians to pass a law saying the taxpayer will chip in a $5 credit for every widget sold, and voila, you have a "profitable" widget. Oh, make sure to call it a "green" widget.
Then you could just fly on your private jet to a state that sold them directly anyway. But there's a 1 to 2 month waiting period anyway, so you'd run into that problem unless you bought used.
How do you know what people are willing to pay. It is overpriced to you because you are not willing to pay. It doesn't mean others aren't. He could sell fewer at a higher price. If it cost me $10 to make a widget, and I sell it for $5 and get a credit of $5, how do I make a profit (even worse in this case as the customer actually receives the credit)? All the auto manufacturers have been using those same tax credits for years to their advantage.
Whatever they are, they're expensive. You do recoup some of that through gas savings and the tax credit but it's still not affordable for a lot of people.
In this case, the government sees that it will get tangible benefits that will save it money in the long-term from more people owning these green widgets compared to them owning brown widgets. It is willing to pay $5 each, cash money, for these benefits. Are you saying our government shouldn't spend money now so that it can save money in the long-run? Same stuff is going on in the power industry with distributed solar generation (and other stuff too like wind-farms) -- credits to incent companies to own their own solar generation on a net-metering basis. If they can get participation, it will improve system reliability and shave the peak in extreme weather events and other emergencies where demand would make wholesale prices skyrocket. Having a reliable and affordable supply of electricity is in the national interest and would save us a lot of money that would otherwise be spent on overbuilding generation capacity and transmission. Isn't it worth it to government to throw in a couple of credits to take even larger rewards later? I think the 'subsidies distort market forces' line of thinking is a little too facile -- government is a player in the market too.
I agree. Unfortunately the costs associated with them are too high to offer a better price (or perhaps even the current price).
From my understanding, their 2nd generation vehicle (the Model X SUV) is slated for late 2014 / early 2015 and will be this same price range. But their 3rd generation vehicle scheduled 12-18 months after that is supposed to be more of a mid-range priced vehicle. Who knows if it will happen, but that's the plan, I believe.
when I sat in the Model S and did the "door close test" I felt that it was very cheaply made. the interior materials are nice to the touch and sight, but the doors... didn't make me feel good about spending 100k on it. the new honda accord has better doors
Conservatives really trip me out. No mass transit. It is a total waste. Don't subsidize new tech. It is a waste. Keep everything the same and it will all be OK.
I need to ask my cousin how he bought his. I thought he bought it from a Tesla dealership in Dallas. I guess he bought it out of state. For what it's worth, he has a lambo, Ferrari California, and AMG SL; and the Tesla is by far his favorite car.
If it cost you $10 to make, you recieve $5 from the government and you sell it for $10, you make a profit of $0 and you probably spent money convincing the gov't to give you a $5 subs.
