• Video
  • 66
If you've ever wanted to get an inside look into the world of a high-risk, high-tech entrepreneur, we've got just the video for you. Elon Musk, co-founder of Tesla Motors, SpaceX and Paypal (and Chairman of SolarCity) sat down with PandoDaily's Sarah Lacy for an entertaining hour-long interview and talked of his experiences starting and running billion-dollar companies.

Besides regaling his host and audience with tales of wrecking his Mclaren F1 and trying to buy Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles, Musk gave interesting insights into intricacies of both rocket and VC funding failures. Although there technically wasn't any burning of wood during the so-called "fireside" chat, that doesn't mean there weren't any hot sparks. Indeed, Elon didn't hesitate to flame Fisker for its approach to the electric vehicle market. And we quote, "The reason we don't have electric cars is not for lack of styling."

But it wasn't all retrospective. Musk also discussed his plans for the future – he will continue to run Tesla and SpaceX for some time – and what transportation solutions he would like to see, and possibly make, happen. He touched on his supersonic electric airplane idea as well as something completely new: a hyperloop.

Say what?

Now, he didn't go into detail about what a hyperloop actually is beyond that he envisions it using solar power as its energy source (it can store that energy somehow for night operation as well) and he expects it could take you from L.A. to San Francisco in about 30 minutes. In a tweet following the event, he also mentioned that he will expand on this idea publicly within the next couple weeks and that it doesn't involve vacuum tubes.

Set aside a bit of time and scroll down for a lively conversation that includes so much more than what we've mentioned here. Bon appétit!



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 66 Comments
      • 2 Years Ago
      Taking shots at another sustainable car company is not the negative approach America needs to move forward, and is representative of someone who has narrow vision when it comes to the big picture of renewable energy within the automotive environment. We need different types of innovative companies to succeed as a whole and propel America forward with new technology in automation. Fisker is a beautiful brand with a different position on sustainable energy - the ability to continue driving once the pure electrical energy is depleted. Criticizing healthy competition reveals a bigger problem, which is the effect politics are having on preventing much needed innovation in the field. We need to be united in the dream for a better motoring future, not opposing any other company looking to improve our choices, opportunties and change. Fisker IS a better looking car... and it has an excellent and diiferent approach to how the consumer travels from one place to the next. You can't drive across our great country in a Tesla, without recharging the car at the expense of time. But that's OK... because we have the choice to do so in a Fisker and to do it in style. The point is, we have a choice and THAT is what's important for the American automotive industry and all Americans.
      Ford Future
      • 2 Years Ago
      And Electric Jets would be MORE EFFICIENT then carbon fuel jets, would fly at 80,000 feet, instead of 30 to 50,000 feet.
        Nick
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Ford Future
        Ford Future That's what he said in the interview, but then again, the plane would have to carry massive batteries to have enough energy to fly for more than 10 min!
          Joeviocoe
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Nick
          Nobody said anything about a Battery Electric plane. Being a plane, and not a car, there is room for a reformer. So possibly a reforming a liquid fuel (not sure if avgas would work) and sending through a fuel cell stack to get electricity.
        Richard Lam
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Ford Future
        There may not be enough oxygen to burn efficiently at 80,000 feet, so it really could be more efficient for an electric jet. Then again, I know nothing about aerospace physics, so if someone could correct me for that.
      Jon
      • 2 Years Ago
      Mitt Romney got rich by pushing money around accounts and fancy financial gambling. Elon Musk got rich by creating new innovative companies that are all driving the future of their respective industries.. Musk is a true american entrepreneur.
      Nick
      • 2 Years Ago
      If his businesses really take off, there's a chance that Elon Musk will become as famous as Howard Hughes or Thomas Edison in this century. Tesla could theoretically be worth tens of billions, his already profitable space company could be a big player in space tourism, and the exciting thing is: There's no way of knowing how big this could get, since no one else has been there before!
        throwback
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Nick
        Hughes maybe, but Edison? Edison was one of the greatest inventors in US history. Musk is sucessful but he is not an inventor.
          PeterScott
          • 6 Months Ago
          @throwback
          Edison was world class douchebag. He went a massive FUD compaign against Alternating Current, and prove AC was dangerous, he set about electrocuting live animals. Cats, dogs, cows, horses and even an Elephant to Prove AC was dangerous, so people would use his Direct Current system instead of Teslas AC. Edison also had a sweatshop of inventors working around the clock "muckers", so I question how much Edison really invented.
          Joeviocoe
          • 6 Months Ago
          @throwback
          The comparison with Edison may be valid then. Many people still think Musk is a douche for firing Eberhard. Musk is not an inventor, but he is an engineer and a great businessman who knows how to leverage inventions to make remarkable innovations possible.
      Dan Frederiksen
      • 2 Years Ago
      I played the drinking game where I took a drink every time he mentioned Martin Eberhard : ) but a good interview. interesting that he seems to think that Kleiner Perkins will go down with Fisker. at 26:30 he said Fisker was their mistake. and it was.. the hyperloop has to be a maglev vacuum tube train system, it's the only thing that can move fast with little energy with conventional technology. and it has some advantages but I'd like to see some numbers on the cost of the track. I like how he respects the logic of doing the math on an issue. that's a good quality. but I would ask him to do the math on 10^23 star systems and billions of years coupled with the hundreds of millions of people who say they encounter ET vehicles and beings and figure out what that means for spacex. then he could make a real difference for the world. or die trying.
        Ford Future
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Dan Frederiksen
        There's lots of stars. They're very very far apart.
          Dan Frederiksen
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Ford Future
          billions of years is a long time to develop technology and travel. try not to be limited by provincial thoughts
        Dan Frederiksen
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Dan Frederiksen
        ok he tweeted that it's not a vacuum tube. then I can't really think of a reasonable design that it could be. sounds interesting but I have my doubts
          Dan Frederiksen
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dan Frederiksen
          ehh a hit? : ) any planet with life would have interest in the universe. earth has been a shining beacon for a long time. they were always here. deal with it
          Ford Future
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dan Frederiksen
          Someone calculated, that even if there were civilizations out there capable of space travel, you'd only get 1 REAL Hit every 1 thousand years. Jesus!
      Joeviocoe
      • 2 Years Ago
      Elon Musk @28min: "In the case of Fisker, it was headed by Henrik Fisker, and he's a designer so he's good at styling the cars. But he thinks it's all about styling. And it's not. The reason we don't have electric cars, is not for lack of styling."
        Letstakeawalk
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Joeviocoe
        Well, then it's obvious... The reason we don't have electric cars (until just very recently) is because (until just very recently) the technology wasn't ready yet. Kind of puts a hole in all the anti-EV conspiracy theories when the guy who's at the head of the pack as far as BEVs go thinks that the engineering is the biggest reason we don't have BEVs. It's not a simple as many commentators would like to think, and that's why the big auto companies aren't as far along as many think they should be.
          Marcopolo
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          @ Letstakeawalk, Lol ! A succinct and brilliantly simple analysis!
          Letstakeawalk
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          "...they weren't delayed 2 years by the Fisker issue." Fisker was given the contract to design the Whitestar project on Jan. 19, 2007. Tesla was given permission to use "Designed by Fisker Coachbuild" as a marketing and promotional tool. Fisker complained about the hard point requirements of the vehicle (dictated by the engineers), and was given permission by Elon Musk to deviate from those engineered points in order to "improve the design". During April of 2007, Musk used Fisker's design to attract investors, and opined that the car was "starting to look pretty good". Fisker was awarded a second contract in Sept. 2007. Tesla joked about providing their own technology to Fisker's new Quantum partnership. Tesla then terminated the contract with Fisker on Nov. 8, 2007. Tesla has stated that the Whitestar underwent a complete redesign after Fisker's involvement ended. That's at least one year of development down the tubes, for Tesla to start over with an entirely new design. The Model S (né Whitestar) prototype wouldn't be shown until March 2009. Holzhausen was hired by Musk in Aug. 2008. So maybe not a few years, but almost a couple years in order to redesign the Whitestar/ Model S. A needless delay, if Musk is to be believed - the design was really not the important factor, yet he thought it important enough to throw away work he had already paid for, approved of, and used to attract investors.
          JakeY
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          @Letstakeawalk Yes, pricing is a possible reason. (Lack of) marketing and incentives are others. Patent encumbrance is another (the nimh patents). Anti-EV astroturfing and negative marketing is another. But Elon discussed none of those and didn't say at all what the biggest reason was, so again, Elon's comments do not refute the "conspiracy theories". As for my personal view, I think it's simply that "green cars" in general are not as profitable as inefficient cars (the profitability of a car in general is the inverse of its efficiency). So it benefits automakers to have as much foot-dragging as possible in terms of green cars (esp. the ones that involve newer tech). After all, they are not the ones that have to deal with the externalities of oil dependence and air pollution, it's the entire public (not just the driving public) and the government. If it weren't for CARB, EPA, and government programs (like CAFE, PNGV, FreedomCAR, etc.), we would not have hybrids, clean diesel, plug-ins, hydrogen cars, NGVs, etc. The Whitestar/Model S delay was from the factory hold-up from switching from the New Mexico location to California in 2008. The funding hold-up and the big changes in the executive board from the 2008 financial crisis was another major factor. Even if they went with Fisker's design, the Whitestar/Model S wouldn't have been out any faster (maybe the design would be unveiled sooner, but that's about it). I think that's what Dan meant. http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2008/06/30/daily11.html?page=all
          JakeY
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          I think you are reading a bit much into his comment. He said it "wasn't for the lack of styling", but not that it was because the "technology wasn't ready yet". There are a whole host of possible reasons besides from styling and engineering (conspiracy was a possible one you pointed out). Elon didn't rule that out. :P
          Letstakeawalk
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Well, yes, the poor economics of BEVs is indeed another reason why they haven't been more successful until recently.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Although, it is worth noting that if Tesla hadn't pursued a frivolous lawsuit against Fisker, they might have been able to put out the Model S a few years ago instead of having to spend a couple years redesigning it.
          Dan Frederiksen
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          LTAW, your conclusions are wrong. they weren't delayed 2 years by the Fisker issue. perhaps you could comment on his stance on hydrogen fool cells instead : )
      BipDBo
      • 2 Years Ago
      Didn't he pitch that electric jet idea to ironman?
      Joeviocoe
      • 2 Years Ago
      The Hyper Loop seems to be a ground version of this http://launchloop.com/ Instead of trying to reach orbital velocity, or going above the atmosphere.... Elon's concept is probably different than a Launch Loop in the following ways: 1) Going to run along the ground, and underground in some places. 2) Have solar panels along the majority of the length. 3) Be an evacuated tube instead of just a track in vacuum of space. But have the following in common: 1) Propulsion by coupling a constantly moving mass ( a very long rotor ) that travels in one big loop. 2) Magnetic coupling to that moving rotor to provide smooth acceleration from 0 to max speed. So in essence, passengers would go to a terminal in LA, get into a pod, the pod would move into an airlock and onto the track (the track has a hypersonic magnetic rotor constantly moving underneath), the pod slowly begins to magnetically couple itself to the moving rotor, and accelerates to hypersonic speeds. No possibility for collisions since each pod is tracked exactly. Speed can be adjusted down using magnetic couplings that provide energy back to the rotor's motion when the pod decelerates. The rotor itself is the means of energy storage. No need for friction braking (unless emergencies) and no air resistance. A lot more expensive than a bullet train, but this could handle A LOT more passengers since you can just add more pods. And each pod shouldn't increase energy consumption since it is 100% regenerative energy and no loss to air friction either. Adding cars to a train increases rolling resistance and requires more power to accelerate (not all energy can be recaptured) . The only losses would be auxiliary for control, the large radius turning of the rotor around the endpoint city will take away energy, and airlock vacuums, etc.
        Jon
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Joeviocoe
        Remember no energy conversion is 100% efficient. There are still losses everywhere in the system. But you have eliminated air resistance and frictional losses (if it is maglev). So the only losses are in the conversion to/from kinetic energy, electrical energy, and whatever storage is used (eg batteries). All in all it would be very efficient and cheap to operate.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Jon
          Molten Salt is a good energy storage medium if you already have the energy in the form of heat. Like a Solar Thermal array (sunlight reflected via mirrors to central point to heat the fluid).... But Musk did say that this idea would have PhotoVoltaic cells along the route. So it would be electrical... not thermal. It would be too much waste to convert to thermal to heat the Salt. And then to recover heat energy, you need to run a steam turbine. Way too much loss. A moving rotor stores the energy in the form that is closest to the desired form. Kinetic energy! No heat cycles, just linear induction motors to convert the PV panels electricity to linear motion of the rotor. *Most of the electricity would be needed to keep the rotor levitating via electromagnets or to keep liquid nitrogen flowing cold for superconductors.* Once the rotor is moving at optimum speed, the system is regenerative. Pods (carrying people, cargo, etc) attach to the rotor via magnetic coupling and will accelerate. The rotor itself will slow down just a bit (conservation of energy/momentum). But when the Pod decelerates at the distant end, the energy goes back to the rotor. The rotor will be moving all night long at very high speeds... and can contain enough energy to supply the vacuum needs and its own magnetic levitation. Such a large and fast rotor can move all night long, transporting pods. And since the rotor itself stores the energy, a gradual 100 mph drop in speed over the course of the night (from 900 mph to 800 mph), could power the operation during the night time until the solar panels can replenish the speed. But this can only work if the only net energy losses are keeping the rotor levitated, maintaining a vacuum (partial at least) and handling the losses due to inefficiencies of linear motor/generators and the other components. If there is no vacuum, way too much energy will be lost to air resistance. Think about it, a 747 flies above 35,000 ft at 550 mph. That is optimum cruising speed. The air density is about 23% of sea level. And energy goes up exponentially with speed. So if Elon suggests double the speed, that is 4 times more energy. And then if Elon suggests that this HyperLoop would be at sea level.. that is 4-5 times the air density too.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Jon
          The equivalent for a localized storage solution would be a flywheel. It is being tried. But to store any significant energy, you need either a VERY large mass (a 1 inch diameter rotor going from LA to SF and back)... or VERY high speeds. And grid energy storage flywheels go very fast. For Beacon Power's flywheel. "At 16,000 rpm the flywheel can store and deliver 25 kWh of extractable energy. At 16,000 rpm, the surface speed of the rim would be approximately Mach 2 - or about 1500 mph" A bit faster surface speed than Musk's proposal of 1100 - 1200 mph However, Linear motion of mass, moving through a vacuum has MUCH less stress on materials than a solid piece rotating at 16,000 rpm.. which has significant centrifugal force on the material, which is why they need a reinforced carbon fiber composite rim.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Jon
          Right, my 100% was just saying that no percentage of friction brakes would be used in normal operation. So 100% regen braking. But obviously, there will be some loss. There should not be any need for battery storage at all. The mass of the moving rotor is a great storage medium. During the day, the solar energy collected may increase the speed of the rotor by a few mph. With such a large overall mass, that is a LOT of energy storage for such a small increase in speed. So during the day, the rotor will move faster than at night.
          Jon
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Jon
          Ah, forgot about the rotor. If the rotor is such a good method for storing energy I wonder why utilities dont already use them for load-leveling / backup ect.
          bdc
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Jon
          There isn't any batteries (pretty sure that's what he said) in his idea, I assume that his vision has the "vaccuum train" powered by the solar during the day, but it produces excess power so it also stores energy via some other method (outside the tube) such as molten salt to power it during the night.
      Joeviocoe
      • 2 Years Ago
      @ 53:27 Q&A session: "Honda, Mercedes have both said very clearly that Hydrogen is the future..." Elon Musk: HA!! "We do you think they are so committed to hydrogen?"
        bdc
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Joeviocoe
        Except he is right, Hydrogen Fuel Cells is stupid, the cost of batteries is coming down fairly quickly now and it isn't a matter of IF, it is a matter of WHEN we finally get some of these large leaps in battery tech for the mainstream market, they can produce them in univesities, it's just a matter of time before we catch up technologically to be able to mass produce batteries that can hold many times the power of our current batteries.
          bdc
          • 6 Months Ago
          @bdc
          ugh, that was meant to be for Marco Polo.
        PeterScott
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Joeviocoe
        " Success is not one of the possible outcomes. Why embark on that? you can't win. It's crazy." Something I really wonder as well.
          Marco Polo
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PeterScott
          Peter Scott Much as I admire Elon Musk, he does tend to get a little ah, um..indignant at other viewpoints. Not much of a sense of humour old Elon as his lawyers will attest. He does have just a teensy bit of vested interest...
          PeterScott
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PeterScott
          @Marco I can only think they do it because of fear. Fear that if some government somewhere actually (magically?) creates a hydrogen infrastructure for automobiles, they would be shut out. But really as Elon states, the math is super obviously in favor of batteries. We are aren't talking about a few percent here, we are talking about more like 3X the range on the same KWh.
          JakeY
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PeterScott
          Might as well quote his answer too: "I think they felt for a long time that there was this need to be doing -something-, and since fuel cells were 10 years in the future and always would be, then they could always say that they were working on fuel cells, and that would satisfy people." I think that's the nail on the head. The auto companies know that hydrogen will take longer to develop and be truly market-ready than BEVs and plug-ins (and that neither will be profitable compared to gasoline cars), but they must be doing SOMETHING in the mean time. Hydrogen gives them a great excuse to ask people to wait, while continuing to sell the same gasoline cars. In fact, that was the excuse they use to cut the CARB programs in the late 90s. I have no doubt there truly are engineers in those companies that believe hydrogen is the future (some of their jobs depend on it), but I'm willing to guess the reason Musk pointed out makes up a bulk of it. And at this point it seems only Daimler is the one really serious about putting FCVs into production (at least thousands, not hundreds). Honda talks a lot, but they have no plans to put FCVs into serious production (I thought the Clarity would be it when they had all that talk in 2008 about series production, but it turned out to be no different than any test fleet in terms of volume).
          Marcopolo
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PeterScott
          @ Jake Y I always enjoy your postings. I don't always agree, but I still enjoy reading your postings. But, the reason you come up with these theories is that you start with a moral/philosophical belief that you assume everyone else shares. Thus, because you believe in EV technology every one else believes the same, so any different thinking is obviously guilty heresy. Auto-manufacturers are commercial enterprises, not moral or idealistic organizations. Occasionally, the world gets lucky and an Elon Musk comes along with sufficient fortune of his own to build what he believes will be beneficial. Auto-manufacturers, do not spend billions of dollars of shareholders just to 'pretend' to develop a technology that they know will never be practical. Daimler, Toyota, VW, and Hyundai, don't share your belief that they must be seen to be doing something just to satisfy the beliefs of a handful of greenies who don't buy new cars anyway. Nor do thousands of highly qualified engineers spend years 'pretending' to work on a technology they know will never come to fruition. Your belief stems from an assumption that these engineers and auto-makers think the same as you, but they don't. That's how conspiracy theories begin.
          PeterScott
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PeterScott
          Of course he has a vested interest. But he is right. To be clear he is talking about the use equal energy in KWh from the grid: electrolysis->h2->fuel cell->electricity->EV motor. vs charge Battery->discharge Battery-electricity->EV motor. If you give the Fuel Cell Cycle the maximum theoretical values for energy transfer, you come in using about 2X the energy of Battery Cycle. All the practical number I have seen are around using 3X. So at best the FCV cycle is 2X times worse, in practice it is closer to 3X worse. If you have information to dispute this. Present it.
      • 2 Years Ago
      Hmm that is much too intriguing to wait. Does anyone have any reasonable guesses as to what a "hyperloop" may be?
        Joeviocoe
        • 2 Years Ago
        Skip to around 43:30
        Dan Frederiksen
        • 2 Years Ago
        no, if he rules out vacuum tubes I'm at a loss to explain it. I'd go so far as to say I doubt it's a good idea but I'd be very open to something I couldn't even imagine. one thing he might be talking about, but is a bad idea, would be a ballistic system where you are launched at such a speed that you go into space and ballistically free fall to the destination. but that has many problems and it's very energy intensive and doesn't fit with solar power or energy storage at all. but it would be fast. it sounds interesting but I expect to be disappointed.
      Chris M
      • 2 Years Ago
      That one "LA to San Francisco" proposal sounds a lot like a high performance "Personal Rapid Transit" system, probably something like this: http://www.skytran.us/ Better performance than the supposed "high speed rail", as it could take passengers directly to their destination and not have to make multiple stops along the way, and no waiting for scheduled departures.
        Joeviocoe
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Chris M
        At 150 MPH... that is much too slow to be what Elon was talking about. LA to SF in 30 minutes is 800 mph. He also said about twice as fast as an airplane flies. So about 1000 mph there. I don't see how this will be managed without some kind of a vacuum tube. I know he tweeted that there won't be a vac. tube... But I would think that at that speed, a pushing through a full atmosphere would be so damn energy intensive, it won't be very cost effective to transport a single 4 pax pod. At least a partial vacuum to get an equivalent of 50,000 ft. Something.
      noevfud
      • 2 Years Ago
      Musk seems to represent everything lazy Americans and some of the Republicans in office do not. The can do attitude and the vision to make things happen. This guy will eventually be seen as a pioneer for the new advancements and solutions in transportation and then the Republicans will want to take all the credit. Thank god for people like him, he is more productive then all of poser Americans in congress combined and he has already proven he can do what others say is not possible. For those that bashed him, what did you build? He's more American than those born here or living under alias names like "Bobby Jindal" Of course Issa made car alarms- HA!. Keep up the good work Musk, you are part of the solution!
        throwback
        • 2 Years Ago
        @noevfud
        Interesting you call out republicans but make no mention of democrats. A party whose main function seems to be making people dependent on government and thus NOT take the type of risks that have made Musk successful. I applaud Musk, he is a risk taker and a job creator, he demonstrates what can be done when you don't sit back and expect to be given "your fair share" of what, I don't know. I am a son of immigrants, my mother came to the USA (legally) with nothing more than determination and a will to succeed, and she ignored or went around any obstacles in her path. We need to get back to that kind of risk taking spirit.
          lasertekk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @throwback
          Musk is a technologist, first and foremost. He is comfortable with science, with what it can achieve for us. I admire the progressive thinking. Yet, those of a certain ideology fear science (the earth is 6000 years old, no stem cell research for curing disease, etc). I certainly wouldn't place Musk and his actions in that camp.
          PeterScott
          • 2 Years Ago
          @throwback
          Likely he does that because it is Republicans (and their propaganda machine Beck/Fox/Rush) that keep taking a dump on EVs and Elon builds EVs. Shitting on EVs has become a cause célèbre of the Right. So if Elon makes a success of Tesla, it would be ridiculous for the Right to try suck up some credit.
          Nick
          • 2 Years Ago
          @throwback
          throwback "A party whose main function seems to be making people dependent on government " You're massively brainwashed by your televisions. It's amazing what kind of nonsense mindless people are led to believe.
          Grendal
          • 2 Years Ago
          @throwback
          Often when people say they're Libertarian they aren't saying they are with the Libertarian Party but that they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
          Ryan
          • 2 Years Ago
          @throwback
          Except for risks like Solendra, Fisker, A123. We shouldn't waste our money with that type of technology should we? The free market will choose the subsidized oil since that is the easiest and has big money, power, and lobbyists. It also can be taxed a lot (income, property, sales). My solar panels generating power and zero jobs are a problem. The Right is a bunch of hypocrites.
          Ford Future
          • 2 Years Ago
          @throwback
          throwback, "make people dependent on government" - Wall Street creates an unregulated 60 Trillion Dollar CDO market, Greenspan refuses to regulate, in other words, the players can enter the market and make massive bets multiple times their capital capacity, from 4X to 100X their net worth. One bad bet and one actor can take down 100 other individuals. The effect is to CRASH the US Economy, putting main street Americans out of work, and you say "Democrats" make people dependent on government? You Republicans DOUBLED THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS, You DOUBLED THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON FOOD STAMPS. The number one product of Republican "rule" is hardship for Most Americans.
          Vlad
          • 2 Years Ago
          @throwback
          Republicans more than deserved to be called out. When NASA just announced their COTS program, effectively creating a new -private- industry, and -removing- government from it, Congress Republicans opposed it with a unified voice. Some went as far as saying that private business is good, but not in this case. And it was democratic administration that pushed it through. How is that "making people dependent on government"?
          lasertekk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @throwback
          So NASA is handing over the day to day duties of ferrying cargo and people to PRIVATE COMPANIES, you know, creating new industries, creating new opportunities, so they can concentrate on science and exploring, yet look who freaks out. Hypocrites.
          Ashton
          • 2 Years Ago
          @throwback
          well put, and right on the money. But you realize your saying this on a left wing site...right? Musk has played it smart when it comes to politics, he says he's a Libertarian...which has many similarities to the Tea Party...but you will never hear him say he agree's with the Tea Party because then the socialists Liberals would all freak out and bash him...and he want to keep the press liking him. The above video was a good interview, I especially liked the Fisker bashing part, and the hyperloop part, and I would love to get some more details on that one.
        Ford Future
        • 2 Years Ago
        @noevfud
        Republicans, are paid, to produce Bull, they do that Extraordinarily Well, you could say they are Innovators in the field. Don't put that party down, know your enemy, these are his strengths, to make a Lie feasibly True.
    • Load More Comments