Can you detail how much SpaceX received in grants and subsidies? I think you'll find it's negligible. The onus is on you to provide that data if you are making the claim. And let's not bring Tesla into this to confuse the issue.
> Can you detail how much SpaceX received in grants and subsidies? I think you'll find it's negligible. The onus is on you to provide that data if you are making the claim.
You're making a claim as well so the onus is on you just as much as me. And you can likely use Google as well as I can. Just search. It isn't hard to find. I'm not going to sit here and copy and paste links and articles all day that you can just as easily find. This is a forum, not a dissertation defense or an investigative journalism piece. Plenty has been written about this in news articles, SEC filings, and lawsuits.
> And let's not bring Tesla into this to confuse the issue.
It's not confusing the issue. It is part of the issue and was in my original comment. To be clear, the issue is that a CEO, who claims to be a supporter of free speech, of two companies, specifically SpaceX and Tesla, that have received billions in government support has intentionally, adversarially, and antagonistically mislabaled NPR as "U.S. state-affiliated media" because he is abusing Twitter to run his own fringe political agendas. The reason stated for the ban, which is not the actual reason, is barely even true, and is misleading, is that NPR is government funded.
Saying in making a claim is frankly nonsense. If someone claims there is a pink fairy flying behind the moon, and I challenge the claim, I am not making a claim, and it's not on me to prove that the pink fairy is not there.
I'm not making a claim, I'm challenging a claim. Once again don't confuse the issue.
And once again Tesla should not be brought into this. Musk is not SpaceX. There are thousands of people that work there and make the place tick. And they are a separate legal entity. It's not fair to throw them under the bus for anything that is happening with Musk or Tesla. I was obviously referring to SpaceX as I was talking about "services rendered".
Like I said elsewhere, just search. It's literally documented in several places. You just don't want to. I'm not going to waste my time finding it for you, posting it here, and then getting nuh-huh in response.
All that's required for this argument is any moderate amount of government support for Musk's companies.
> And once again Tesla should not be brought into this. Musk is not SpaceX.
Musk is CEO and so-called founder of both places. They're both relevant. I don't see why you think otherwise.
Please read my statements carefully. You have no reason to assume I didn't search for this data. I found all kinds of things on EV credits and government contracts, but that's not what I'm talking about. I couched my words specifically elsewhere in this thread: "requested and received significant grants and subsidies specifically for them", e.g. not EV credits and government contracts, and not small one-off grants and discounts. This is not so easy to find, and the distinction is important and relevant to how we should look at them. Just making abstract claims without backing data in context is a waste of everyone's time.
They aren't abstract claims. You just reject and adjust what you think is relevant. You can say "requested and received significant grants and subsidies specifically for them" all you want, but that doesn't mean it's the only relevant piece in this comparison and Musk's intentional mislabeling of NPR. It is not the only relevant piece. I don't even know if the thing you've quoted even exists. Almost all, if not every single one of, government contracts, grants, subsidies, are open to bidders, applicants, etc. and are often required to be so. That being said, several times contracts, grants, etc. can be "open" to others while basically written such that only the intended party is the only one that can match the requirements. But it doesn't even matter whether SpaceX received these mythical things you feel like only matters, because the point is that Musk used false claims against NPR. And if you make the same claims as he did to SpaceX and Tesla, then you have "U.S. state-affiliated companies". Furthermore, the small amount of money NPR receives are from funds that aren't specifically for NPR. In fact, NPR has even received loans from the government that they paid back.
The entire point being that NPR operates just as much as many entities do with respect to receiving government support and is probably the least state mouthpiece of any news organization. Yet, Musk applies bizarro logic because NPR doesn't fit into his fringe political ideology. He creates chaos in the vain of Vladislav Surkov and Trump to suit whatever thing he is trying to promote at the moment. This whole situation is hypocritical, misleading, full of false information, and childish. We're wasting time here talking about it.
Summary: NPR receives a modicum amount of government support. SpaceX and Tesla receive billions in government support. Read support as grants, subsidies, loans, contracts, etc. CEO of SpaceX and Tesla calls NPR "U.S. state-affiliated media", which has very strong and negative connotations for a new organization that are ultimately not correct from any vantage point. Elon Musk, said CEO, consistently rants about government "handouts", bailouts, support, etc. despite simultaneously being the beneficiary of these programs.
