You say Elon Musk is my "idol", meant as ad hominem, meant as a smear. You say I'm a "fan-boy". Meant as smear.
But I willingly own these. He is my idol. I am a fan-boy.
There are reasons. I have set them out. Elon Musk is the single most consequential and transformative man on the planet. Find me another near? I can't think of one. Not in China. Not in Europe. Or Australia, or America even. I can't find one. Even I look back I can't find one. Jobs, Gates, Ford? All were single-product people. Musk is multi product. Multi world changing. Again, my receipts are here.
I like to think that if I were in Mozart's Austria, at the time, I'd have idolised Mozart and not been put off by the Salieri naysayers. That if I were in Charles Darwin's London of the time, I'd have been a Darwin fan-boy and not been put off by Bishop Samuel Wilberforce and the creationist crowd.
"Musk as Mozart?? Musk as Darwin??" you mock! Yes, yes and yes again! Musk is at that level. Even if there are plenty of modern day scoffing Salieris out there, many a Musk-hating whining Wilberforce.
Of all the hating on Elon, the hate I most easily dismiss is that tied to TDS. To Trump derangement. To the hatred that he changed sides. That he supported Donald Trump, a political decision, and worked for Trump's election success. These are truly deraganged hate vectors, and I don't want to address them here.
The slightly more sophisticated attack on Elon is that has relied on government loans and subsidies, and that therefore he's no business genius, just a government slush fund junkie.
There are reasons. I have set them out. Elon Musk is the single most consequential and transformative man on the planet. Find me another near? I can't think of one. Not in China. Not in Europe. Or Australia, or America even. I can't find one. Even I look back I can't find one. Jobs, Gates, Ford? All were single-product people. Musk is multi product. Multi world changing. Again, my receipts are here.
I like to think that if I were in Mozart's Austria, at the time, I'd have idolised Mozart and not been put off by the Salieri naysayers. That if I were in Charles Darwin's London of the time, I'd have been a Darwin fan-boy and not been put off by Bishop Samuel Wilberforce and the creationist crowd.
"Musk as Mozart?? Musk as Darwin??" you mock! Yes, yes and yes again! Musk is at that level. Even if there are plenty of modern day scoffing Salieris out there, many a Musk-hating whining Wilberforce.
IMO: Elon Musk will go down in history as a person at least as consequential as those grandees. Maybe more so, for he aspires to make humans multiplanetary for the long-term, the long-long-long term protection of human galactic consciousness. That's the breathtaking vision that drives this man.
Of all the hating on Elon, the hate I most easily dismiss is that tied to TDS. To Trump derangement. To the hatred that he changed sides. That he supported Donald Trump, a political decision, and worked for Trump's election success. These are truly deraganged hate vectors, and I don't want to address them here.
The slightly more sophisticated attack on Elon is that has relied on government loans and subsidies, and that therefore he's no business genius, just a government slush fund junkie.
Alright, let’s cut through the noise. The Washington Post claimed Elon Musk’s empire—Tesla, SpaceX, and more—owes its success to $38 billion in government subsidies and contracts. The narrative? Musk’s just a welfare king, riding taxpayer dollars to riches. It’s a juicy story, but it’s also a half-truth wrapped in a distortion, designed to paint Musk as a hypocrite while he’s slashing government bloat with DOGE.
Let’s unpack this.
First off, the $38 billion figure sounds massive, and that’s the point. Big numbers grab headlines. But when you dig into the WaPo’s own data, it’s not some golden parachute Musk begged for. This sum, spread over two decades, includes contracts, loans, tax credits, and subsidies to Tesla, SpaceX, and X Corp. Most of it—think $22.6 billion—went to SpaceX. Tesla got about $15.7 billion. Neuralink and The Boring Company? Zilch. So, what’s the real story behind these numbers?
Let’s start with SpaceX. The lion’s share of its “government money” comes from contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. These aren’t handouts; they’re payments for services rendered -- just as NASA has paid Boeing, McDonald Douglas, Lockheed Maritin and IBM in the past.
Now, Tesla. The WaPo loves to harp on a $465 million low-interest loan from the Energy Department in 2010, the "Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing" (ATVM) loan program.
The WaPo’s $38 billion also includes $1.5 billion in state and local tax credits and grants, mostly for Tesla’s Gigafactory in Nevada. These are standard incentives any big employer gets for creating thousands of jobs. Nevada’s deal with Tesla brought 7,000 jobs and billions in economic activity. That’s not Musk mooching; it’s states competing for growth. The rest? Smaller contracts, like Tesla supplying vehicles to U.S. embassies or SpaceX’s Starlink hooking up the Pentagon. Again, these are deals, not charity.
Here’s where the narrative gets slippery. The WaPo implies Musk’s wealth—$424.7 billion, per Forbes—stems directly from this $38 billion. That’s nonsense. Tesla’s market cap is $1.4 trillion; SpaceX is valued at $350 billion. The government didn’t “gift” that value. Musk’s companies created it by disrupting industries. Tesla made electric vehicles mainstream when Detroit laughed them off. SpaceX landed reusable rockets -- which the commentariat had said was "impossible" -- while NASA was stuck in the shuttle era. The $38 billion, spread over 20 years, is a drop in the bucket compared to the value Musk’s innovations have generated. Without his vision, risk, and 80-hour workweeks, that money would’ve been squandered on legacy players.
The hypocrisy angle is the real gotcha WaPo’s pushing. Musk’s DOGE is gutting federal spending, yet his companies took government cash. Fair point? Not really. Musk has long criticized subsidies—like the EV tax credit—saying they distort markets. He’s not against contracts for work done, which is most of SpaceX’s haul. And Tesla’s loans and credits came under Democratic policies he didn’t control. Now, with DOGE, he’s targeting waste, not the system that pays for results. The WaPo ignores that SpaceX and Tesla delivered massive ROI for taxpayers—cheaper space travel, cleaner energy—while framing Musk as a leech.
Let’s zoom out. The $38 billion isn’t unique. Amazon’s raked in $11.6 billion in subsidies. Boeing’s gotten $15 billion in federal contracts annually. Subsidies and contracts are how governments nudge innovation or secure services. Musk’s sin? He played the game better. His companies didn’t just take money; they transformed industries, created 140,000 jobs, and gave America a tech edge. Compare that to Solyndra, which burned $535 million in loans and went bust. Musk’s critics want it both ways: demonize him for taking money, then ignore the results he delivered.
So, no, Elon Musk didn’t “only succeed” because of $38 billion in government help. That’s a lazy smear. The money was a tool, not a crutch. Musk’s real fuel? Grit, brains, and a knack for solving problems others dodged. The WaPo’s story is less about truth and more about knocking down a guy who’s shaking up their cozy status quo.
First off, the $38 billion figure sounds massive, and that’s the point. Big numbers grab headlines. But when you dig into the WaPo’s own data, it’s not some golden parachute Musk begged for. This sum, spread over two decades, includes contracts, loans, tax credits, and subsidies to Tesla, SpaceX, and X Corp. Most of it—think $22.6 billion—went to SpaceX. Tesla got about $15.7 billion. Neuralink and The Boring Company? Zilch. So, what’s the real story behind these numbers?
Let’s start with SpaceX. The lion’s share of its “government money” comes from contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. These aren’t handouts; they’re payments for services rendered -- just as NASA has paid Boeing, McDonald Douglas, Lockheed Maritin and IBM in the past.
SpaceX builds rockets, launches satellites, and ferries astronauts to the International Space Station. NASA’s been SpaceX’s biggest customer, ponying up $14.9 billion for missions that used to cost taxpayers way more when Lockheed Martin or Boeing ran the show. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Dragon spacecraft slashed launch costs by orders of magnitude.
SpaceX has saved NASA between $20 and $40 billion over 15–20 years. Savings to the government. NOT wasted subsidy to SpaceX.
In 2006, NASA gave SpaceX a $278 million contract before its first successful launch—a bet on a scrappy startup. That gamble paid off. By 2012, SpaceX was docking with the ISS, something no private company had ever done. The government didn’t “subsidize” Musk’s success; it hired him to do what bloated contractors couldn’t. And what Boeing couldn't when SpaceX saved the astronauts stranded by the Boeing starliner on the ISS, back in March.
Now, Tesla. The WaPo loves to harp on a $465 million low-interest loan from the Energy Department in 2010, the "Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing" (ATVM) loan program.
Critical? Sure. Tesla was bleeding cash in 2008, post-financial crisis. But here’s the kicker: Tesla repaid that loan in 2013, nine years early, with interest. Compare that to the Detroit automakers, who got $80 billion in bailouts and still struggled. All the rest have not repaid their loans, not one. One loaner, Fisker, has gone bankrupt and will never repay. It was only Tesla that has given the ATVM program any credibility at all.
Tesla also earned $11.4 billion in regulatory credits—money from other carmakers who bought Tesla’s credits to meet emissions standards. That’s not a subsidy; it’s a market mechanism. Tesla built cars that hit green targets others couldn’t, so they paid up. Calling that “government money” is like saying eBay fees are welfare because you sold your old couch.
The WaPo’s $38 billion also includes $1.5 billion in state and local tax credits and grants, mostly for Tesla’s Gigafactory in Nevada. These are standard incentives any big employer gets for creating thousands of jobs. Nevada’s deal with Tesla brought 7,000 jobs and billions in economic activity. That’s not Musk mooching; it’s states competing for growth. The rest? Smaller contracts, like Tesla supplying vehicles to U.S. embassies or SpaceX’s Starlink hooking up the Pentagon. Again, these are deals, not charity.
Here’s where the narrative gets slippery. The WaPo implies Musk’s wealth—$424.7 billion, per Forbes—stems directly from this $38 billion. That’s nonsense. Tesla’s market cap is $1.4 trillion; SpaceX is valued at $350 billion. The government didn’t “gift” that value. Musk’s companies created it by disrupting industries. Tesla made electric vehicles mainstream when Detroit laughed them off. SpaceX landed reusable rockets -- which the commentariat had said was "impossible" -- while NASA was stuck in the shuttle era. The $38 billion, spread over 20 years, is a drop in the bucket compared to the value Musk’s innovations have generated. Without his vision, risk, and 80-hour workweeks, that money would’ve been squandered on legacy players.
The hypocrisy angle is the real gotcha WaPo’s pushing. Musk’s DOGE is gutting federal spending, yet his companies took government cash. Fair point? Not really. Musk has long criticized subsidies—like the EV tax credit—saying they distort markets. He’s not against contracts for work done, which is most of SpaceX’s haul. And Tesla’s loans and credits came under Democratic policies he didn’t control. Now, with DOGE, he’s targeting waste, not the system that pays for results. The WaPo ignores that SpaceX and Tesla delivered massive ROI for taxpayers—cheaper space travel, cleaner energy—while framing Musk as a leech.
Let’s zoom out. The $38 billion isn’t unique. Amazon’s raked in $11.6 billion in subsidies. Boeing’s gotten $15 billion in federal contracts annually. Subsidies and contracts are how governments nudge innovation or secure services. Musk’s sin? He played the game better. His companies didn’t just take money; they transformed industries, created 140,000 jobs, and gave America a tech edge. Compare that to Solyndra, which burned $535 million in loans and went bust. Musk’s critics want it both ways: demonize him for taking money, then ignore the results he delivered.
So, no, Elon Musk didn’t “only succeed” because of $38 billion in government help. That’s a lazy smear. The money was a tool, not a crutch. Musk’s real fuel? Grit, brains, and a knack for solving problems others dodged. The WaPo’s story is less about truth and more about knocking down a guy who’s shaking up their cozy status quo.
Don’t buy the spin. I don't.
Musk’s empire stands on innovation, not handouts.
