Rivian Gets $6.6B DOE Loan Commitment for Georgia Plant Construction

[emoore]

That is not what is happening.

It isn't opposition to high tech, highly-skilled manufacturing. It is opposition to government manipulating the free market. It is opposition to taking money from those who cannot afford to buy a Rivian and giving it to Rivian to build what they cannot buy. It is opposition to our skyrocketing national debt.



This is a good point and provides a reasonable argument for implementing tariffs on countries that are doing that.

If a country is artificially propping up their industries, then we can artificially make them more expensive to sell here. When they get rid of their interference in their own free market, we can open up free trade with them and eliminate the tariffs. That is what I would do instead of just repeating their mistakes by messing with our free market economy.

The only issue is there is no such thing as a free market economy, never has been and never will be.

Sponsored

 

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

That is not what is happening.

It isn't opposition to high tech, highly-skilled manufacturing. It is opposition to government manipulating the free market. It is opposition to taking money from those who cannot afford to buy a Rivian and giving it to Rivian to build what they cannot buy. It is opposition to our skyrocketing national debt.

This is a good point and provides a reasonable argument for implementing tariffs on countries that are doing that.

If a country is artificially propping up their industries, then we can artificially make them more expensive to sell here. When they get rid of their interference in their own free market, we can open up free trade with them and eliminate the tariffs. That is what I would do instead of just repeating their mistakes by messing with our free market economy.

That's a whole lot of words to say you don't understand how a loan works.

 

[COdogman]

That is not what is happening.

It isn't opposition to high tech, highly-skilled manufacturing. It is opposition to government manipulating the free market. It is opposition to taking money from those who cannot afford to buy a Rivian and giving it to Rivian to build what they cannot buy. It is opposition to our skyrocketing national debt.



This is a good point and provides a reasonable argument for implementing tariffs on countries that are doing that.

If a country is artificially propping up their industries, then we can artificially make them more expensive to sell here. When they get rid of their interference in their own free market, we can open up free trade with them and eliminate the tariffs. That is what I would do instead of just repeating their mistakes by messing with our free market economy.

There has never ever been a "free market" and never will be. Atlas Shrugged was not a textbook.

 

[mkhuffman]

That's a whole lot of words to say you don't understand how a loan works. Did you even read the article?

The cash that is given to them that they have to pay back comes from the taxpayers and adds to our debt. If Rivian pays it back, eventually the debt will be removed. However, until then, we have a bigger hole to fill. And what if Rivian goes bankrupt? Then what happens to the debt they owe?

The bankruptcy process will determine which debts they have to pay back and how much, and I imagine the Federal loan will take priority over all other debts. But that is just my assumption. Is that true? And will they really be able to pay all of it back? Then it becomes a permanent hit on the debt the taxpayers have to cover.

The lower than market rate on the loan is a subsidy that adds to our debt anyway.

There has never ever been a "free market" and never will be. Atlas Shrugged was not a textbook.

Atlas Shrugged is my textbook.

But seriously, some markets are more free, and some are less free. Sure, there are a lot of markets that are very much not free. That does not mean it is a good thing. I guess you want the government to control every single decision you make as a consumer? I hope not.

I hope you want some freedom to make your own decisions. Personally, I like freedom of choice, and a free market provides that. Get government out of the way and everyone will prosper more. That is my opinion, and I think the data supports it.

 

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Get government out of the way and everyone will prosper more.

I'm done here. You don't even own a Rivian and most of your posts come across a bit troll-ish. Bye!

 

[COdogman]

The cash that is given to them that they have to pay back comes from the taxpayers and adds to our debt. If Rivian pays it back, eventually the debt will be removed. However, until then, we have a bigger hole to fill. And what if Rivian goes bankrupt? Then what happens to the debt they owe?

The bankruptcy process will determine which debts they have to pay back and how much, and I imagine the Federal loan will take priority over all other debts. But that is just my assumption. Is that true? And will they really be able to pay all of it back? Then it becomes a permanent hit on the debt the taxpayers have to cover.

The lower than market rate on the loan is a subsidy that adds to our debt anyway.



Atlas Shrugged is my textbook.

But seriously, some markets are more free, and some are less free. Sure, there are a lot of markets that are very much not free. That does not mean it is a good thing. I guess you want the government to control every single decision you make as a consumer? I hope not.

I hope you want some freedom to make your own decisions. Personally, I like freedom of choice, and a free market provides that. Get government out of the way and everyone will prosper more. That is my opinion, and I think the data supports it.

Name one "free" market in history that has ever succeeded.

Giving me a Sophie's choice based on the false premise that one can't be free and live in a society that is prosperous and protects the most vulnerable among us is disingenuous.

So is going to the other extreme and suggesting I want the "government" controlling every decision I make. It's a very weak straw man argument. You know as well as I do there is a medium to be found there....

 

[kurtlikevonnegut]

The cash that is given to them that they have to pay back comes from the taxpayers and adds to our debt. If Rivian pays it back, eventually the debt will be removed. However, until then, we have a bigger hole to fill. And what if Rivian goes bankrupt? Then what happens to the debt they owe?

The bankruptcy process will determine which debts they have to pay back and how much, and I imagine the Federal loan will take priority over all other debts. But that is just my assumption. Is that true? And will they really be able to pay all of it back? Then it becomes a permanent hit on the debt the taxpayers have to cover.

The lower than market rate on the loan is a subsidy that adds to our debt anyway.



Atlas Shrugged is my textbook.

But seriously, some markets are more free, and some are less free. Sure, there are a lot of markets that are very much not free. That does not mean it is a good thing. I guess you want the government to control every single decision you make as a consumer? I hope not.

I hope you want some freedom to make your own decisions. Personally, I like freedom of choice, and a free market provides that. Get government out of the way and everyone will prosper more. That is my opinion, and I think the data supports it.

The US automotive market is hardly a "free" market when you consider the government intervention with Chrysler and GM, and things like the Chicken Tax.

By comparison, a low interest guaranteed loan for $6 billion is pretty small potatoes and pretty silly to get upset over.

 

[Dave Cundiff]

@mkhuffman: Thanks for your contributions to our discussions. Atlas Shrugged is compelling fiction, which attracted me in adolescence but not much in the many years since then.

My understanding is that totally free markets, to the extent they exist anywhere, are eventually strangled by oligopoly/monopoly power, which definitely is NOT a situation where "everyone will prosper more."

To oversimplify: What creates prosperity appears primarily to be COMPETITIVE markets, not "free markets," with adequate information for all market participants and with reasonable protections for innovators, consumers, labor, and the poor. That's simple to prescribe, but complex to construct. "The devil is in the details."

***

Government intervenes in markets at its peril, because it's hard to predict all the effects of any intervention -- but, because markets often fail to promote prosperity in changing circumstances, government intervention is often needed.

Well-regulated capitalism brings prosperity for all -- but poorly-regulated capitalism eventually brings calls for reform (or even revolution) from those whom it leaves behind.

Best wishes!

 

[mkhuffman]

I'm done here. You don't even own a Rivian and most of your posts come across a bit troll-ish. Bye!

I am sorry you feel that way. I am a huge Rivian fan and plan to buy a Tri Max sometime next year. And I do own RIVN stock. I bought right after the IPO. Whoops.

 

[mkhuffman]

Name one "free" market in history that has ever succeeded.

Giving me a Sophie's choice based on the false premise that one can't be free and live in a society that is prosperous and protects the most vulnerable among us is disingenuous.

So is going to the other extreme and suggesting I want the "government" controlling every decision I make. It's a very weak straw man argument. You know as well as I do there is a medium to be found there....

I understand what you are saying. You are pointing out the truth about our markets.

While I believe in free markets, I am not a anarchist. I just think smaller is better. Not zero, but very, very small. And we do have lots of data that shows government regulations and taxes depresses the economy, and that government choosing winners and loosers has a significant negative impact on those it does not choose. That is bad, IMO.

Anyway, I am going to respectfully agree to disagree. We both are Rivian fans and I would rather focus on that.

Happy Thanksgiving. Seriously. As people who can afford a 100k vehicle, we have a lot to be thankful for. I hope you have a great day tomorrow.

 

[mkhuffman]

The US automotive market is hardly a "free" market when you consider the government intervention with Chrysler and GM, and things like the Chicken Tax.

By comparison, a low interest guaranteed loan for $6 billion is pretty small potatoes and pretty silly to get upset over.

The government bailouts of GM and Chrysler were illegal, IMO, and never should have happened. More bad spending isn't a compelling argument to me.

 

[kurtlikevonnegut]

The government bailouts of GM and Chrysler were illegal, IMO, and never should have happened. More bad spending isn't a compelling argument to me.

Well everyone is entitled to an opinion!

 

[Donald Stanfield]

I understand what you are saying. You are pointing out the truth about our markets.

While I believe in free markets, I am not a anarchist. I just think smaller is better. Not zero, but very, very small. And we do have lots of data that shows government regulations and taxes depresses the economy, and that government choosing winners and loosers has a significant negative impact on those it does not choose. That is bad, IMO.

Anyway, I am going to respectfully agree to disagree. We both are Rivian fans and I would rather focus on that.

Happy Thanksgiving. Seriously. As people who can afford a 100k vehicle, we have a lot to be thankful for. I hope you have a great day tomorrow.

Don’t take this as me picking on you because 5 years ago I would have written something almost identical to what you just did. Respectfully you have it backwards, the more free the society the more rules it needs to keep it that way. I know this sounds paradoxical so let me explain.

The goal of a free society should be to let people do whatever they want while not being able to restrict those same choices for other people. Agree with me so far, probably right? The problem is never with the do whatever you want, it’s with the restrict the rights of others part. With money comes influence and with influence comes the ability to pass rules that benefit you to the detriment of others.

The USA started out with minimal rules and the understanding that people would operate on the basis of the principle of common interest. The problem came from individuals who took advantage of those free markets to attempt to change the rules to their benefit at the expense of the majority. Take anti trust laws for example, they were introduced because Standard oil figured out that if they acquired all the oil produced they could charge whatever they wanted for it and no one could do anything about it.

Obviously this restricts the choices of the majority to benefit the few so society thought it best to grant the government power to make sure any one individual or group of individuals couldn’t get together to screw over anyone else. The market became more regulated but also became more free.

Another example is Sarbanes- Oxley. This was passed in response to things like Enron. Enron was a company that used fuzzy math and obscured accounting to fool investors into thinking their company was solvent when it wasn’t, screwing over many people to their own benefit. They also punished people who tried to bring it to the attention of the public by firing or blackballing them.

Sarbanes prevents retaliation to whistleblowers and requires publicly traded companies to follow GAAP or Generally Accepted Accounting Practices. That way we know the public data is calculated using math that shows an accurate picture of a company’s health. This is another example of a law making the market more free.

It’s not as simple as saying more laws equal less free markets because sometimes a law is needed to make sure everyone is playing fairly. Laws by themselves aren’t bad or good, they are just words. A law that protects the public from bad actors makes us all MORE free not less. Laws can be corrupted too, I’m not saying all laws are good either.

Atlas Shrugged is myopic because it takes the overly simplistic approach that government is bad and private sector is good when bad actors are found everywhere. The best policy is a government designed to protect the rights of all, even and especially from the other parties involved in the market.

I’m sure you could point to studies showing less regulation was better for market growth but there are just as many examples of a lack of regulation stifling innovation and freedom. In the inverse I showed two examples of regulation stepping up to protect freedom and the integrity of the market from free market actors intent on restricting freedom to their own benefit.

We need people like you. We need you to scrutinize laws and make sure the laws we have only protect freedom not infringe on it. The thing is, the law itself isn’t automatically bad because it’s a law and we need more laws than you’d think. It’s a balance.

 

[COdogman]

I understand what you are saying. You are pointing out the truth about our markets.

While I believe in free markets, I am not a anarchist. I just think smaller is better. Not zero, but very, very small. And we do have lots of data that shows government regulations and taxes depresses the economy, and that government choosing winners and loosers has a significant negative impact on those it does not choose. That is bad, IMO.

Anyway, I am going to respectfully agree to disagree. We both are Rivian fans and I would rather focus on that.

Happy Thanksgiving. Seriously. As people who can afford a 100k vehicle, we have a lot to be thankful for. I hope you have a great day tomorrow.

Same to you my friend. I don’t need to agree on everything to wish the best for you and your family. And you are so right - we have much to be thankful for

 

[Dave Cundiff]

The government bailouts of GM and Chrysler were illegal, IMO, and never should have happened. More bad spending isn't a compelling argument to me.

If those bailouts kept manufacturing capability and good jobs in the USA, then they helped protect America's security (manufacturing capability) and economic well-being (good jobs) better than what the market was poised to do by itself.

Unintended consequences? You bet! Some executives may have learned that they could take extra risks without much risk -- because their companies got bailed out. But stockholders who didn't supervise their executives lost most or all of their equity, so there isn't much motivation to drive auto companies "into the ditch" in the future.

I think the balance of benefits and harms turned out pretty well in those bailouts.

***

Aspects of this discussion remind me of the farmer who got a visit from his pastor. Our hospitable farmer showed the pastor his farm. The pastor's response: "Mighty fine farm you and the Lord have here."

Next were the house and barn. "Nice snug house you and the Lord have here." "Mighty fine barn you and the Lord have here." "Beautiful crops you and the Lord have here." "Beautiful animals you and the Lord have here."

Finally our exasperated farmer blurted out, as politely as he could, "Pastor, everything I am and everything I have, I owe it all to the Lord. I get that. But, Pastor, you should have seen this farm when the Lord had it all to Himself!"

***

Everything we have, we owe primarily to workers and innovators we will never meet but to whom we owe respect, and to a natural world that places resources within reach of humans. We don't primarily owe these things to government.

But you should have seen the economy, and everything else, when there wasn't any government, or when government didn't have the means to make sure people's needs could be met!

Best to all!

Sponsored