Connect with us

News

Elon Musk wants the Government to be a referee, not a player in the game of industry and innovation

Published

on

Elon Musk is one of the most innovative minds to ever exist in the tech community. With his multiple companies providing successful changes in how some industries, like automotive, are looked at, Musk is a proven CEO with a track record to back it up. His many ideas basically changed the idea of what it is like to drive a car, which many of us thought would be dominated by gas and diesel-powered engines for years to come. An innovative mind and a lot of hard work undoubtedly contributed to Tesla’s success, and Musk has no interest in giving credit to anyone who didn’t earn it.

With the election coming to a close and a new Presidential campaign being selected to run the United States for the next four years, Musk was recently asked during an interview with the Wall Street Journal whether President-Elect Joe Biden’s plans to spend big on industry and innovation were a good thing. Musk doesn’t seem to have a problem with the idea, but he is vocal about the fact that the government should do more regulating than contributing. The role of Government, after all, is to enact laws and make sure they are abided by citizens. Additionally, assisting with companies’ innovation is something the Government shouldn’t stick its nose up at. Still, Musk just hopes that it plays more of an administrative role instead of becoming a “player in the game.”


A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.


“It’s the Government’s role to establish the rules of the game and then ensure that those rules are properly enforced,” Musk said. The CEO even compared the Government’s role to that of a referee in a game of football: Know the rules, enforce them correctly, make sure the game is fair.

What the Government doesn’t need to do is stay out of the way of the big companies who are working to innovate the processes of daily life to benefit them and their objectives. “I think when the Government does not do a great job is when they want to not just be a referee on the field, they want to be a player on the field. This does not end up in a good situation.”

Advertisement
-->

The issue with the Government overreaching into the field of industry and innovation is that they will “pick technology winners and losers” instead of letting companies play out their innovation themselves. This could lead to small companies being undermined even if they have ideas or technology that larger companies don’t have access to.

This scenario, if Government was overly involved in tech and innovation, could have crippled Tesla’s efforts when the company was just starting to churn out vehicles in 2008. Even though Tesla had established itself as a player in electric vehicles, it was a small, relatively unknown company that faced massive problems due to lack of funds. Nearly shutting its doors after issues with the original Roadster, Tesla somehow overcame the adversity and received more investor money.

Now, imagine if the Government would have been a player instead of a referee in this scenario. It would have likely given a large financial assistance package to a well-developed, large scale automaker like Ford or GM to develop EVs. Instead, it stayed out of the innovation portion of the equation and let the players decide the game for themselves. Tesla ended up becoming the leader in EVs, while GM and Ford are failing to catch up. It’s fairly safe to say that without Tesla, EVs would not be what they are today. The legacy automakers that exist in the universe of automotive manufacturing would likely have cranked out one or two low-range models because their primary focus is still on gas-powered cars and not on electrification.

This whole picture perfectly aligns with how Tesla’s story has played out thus far. It is fairly obvious that the Government in 2008 would have sided with a company with proven infrastructure, and not some company who had a shot in the dark to change the entire framework of vehicle manufacturing. This is where Musk made his next point: Make the rules that incentivize the outcome, not the path.

The ultimate goal is to let companies figure out issues on their own. There is no reason to have Government programs essentially hold the hands of private industry. There needs to be more of a focus on the end goal and not the path a company takes to get there. Rarely is the road to success a straight and narrow path. Many companies, Tesla being a prime example, have to fight and struggle to create a new, innovative project. Tesla’s story is perfect evidence that the end goal takes a lot of persistence and it doesn’t need to be filled with hand-holding from large Government entities. While Biden’s plan to pump money into innovation and industry may help some companies get back on their feet in dire times of need, it shouldn’t hold the hands of these large companies whose job it is to figure out the answer to problems.

Advertisement
-->

When large car companies begin to manufacture and deliver electric vehicles that are good for consumers, then they should be rewarded. Riding on the coattails of Government assistance packages that don’t necessarily guarantee innovation is the wrong way to go about things. When companies prove that they are in the business of creating a great product, then the rewards should come in. It’s that simple.

On behalf of the entire Teslarati team, we’re working hard behind the scenes on bringing you more personalized members benefits, and can’t thank you enough for your continued support!

Joey has been a journalist covering electric mobility at TESLARATI since August 2019. In his spare time, Joey is playing golf, watching MMA, or cheering on any of his favorite sports teams, including the Baltimore Ravens and Orioles, Miami Heat, Washington Capitals, and Penn State Nittany Lions. You can get in touch with joey at joey@teslarati.com. He is also on X @KlenderJoey. If you're looking for great Tesla accessories, check out shop.teslarati.com

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Model 3 and Model Y dominate China’s real-world efficiency tests

The Tesla Model 3 posted 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y followed closely at 21.8 kWh/100 km.

Published

on

Credit: Grok Imagine

Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y once again led the field in a new real-world energy-consumption test conducted by China’s Autohome, outperforming numerous rival electric vehicles in controlled conditions. 

The results, which placed both Teslas in the top two spots, prompted Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun to acknowledge Tesla’s efficiency advantage while noting that his company’s vehicles will continue refining its own models to close the gap.

Tesla secures top efficiency results

Autohome’s evaluation placed all vehicles under identical conditions, such as a full 375-kg load, cabin temperature fixed at 24°C on automatic climate control, and a steady cruising speed of 120 km/h. In this environment, the Tesla Model 3 posted 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y followed closely at 21.8 kWh/100 km, as noted in a Sina News report. 

These figures positioned Tesla’s vehicles firmly at the top of the ranking and highlighted their continued leadership in long-range efficiency. The test also highlighted how drivetrain optimization, software management, and aerodynamic profiles remain key differentiators in high-speed, cold-weather scenarios where many electric cars struggle to maintain low consumption.

Xiaomi’s Lei Jun pledges to continue learning from Tesla

Following the results, Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun noted that the Xiaomi SU7 actually performed well overall but naturally consumed more energy due to its larger C-segment footprint and higher specification. He reiterated that factors such as size and weight contributed to the difference in real-world consumption compared to Tesla. Still, the executive noted that Xiaomi will continue to learn from the veteran EV maker. 

“The Xiaomi SU7’s energy consumption performance is also very good; you can take a closer look. The fact that its test results are weaker than Tesla’s is partly due to objective reasons: the Xiaomi SU7 is a C-segment car, larger and with higher specifications, making it heavier and naturally increasing energy consumption. Of course, we will continue to learn from Tesla and further optimize its energy consumption performance!” Lei Jun wrote in a post on Weibo.

Advertisement
-->

Lei Jun has repeatedly described Tesla as the global benchmark for EV efficiency, previously stating that Xiaomi may require three to five years to match its leadership. He has also been very supportive of FSD, even testing the system in the United States.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk reveals what will make Optimus’ ridiculous production targets feasible

Musk recent post suggests that Tesla has a plan to attain Optimus’ production goals.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla Optimus/X

Elon Musk subtly teased Tesla’s strategy to achieve Optimus’ insane production volume targets. The CEO has shared his predictions about Optimus’ volume, and they are so ambitious that one would mistake them for science fiction.

Musk’s recent post on X, however, suggests that Tesla has a plan to attain Optimus’ production goals.

The highest volume product

Elon Musk has been pretty clear about the idea of Optimus being Tesla’s highest-volume product. During the Tesla 2025 Annual Shareholder Meeting, Musk stated that the humanoid robot will see “the fastest production ramp of any product of any large complex manufactured product ever,” starting with a one-million-per-year line at the Fremont Factory.

Following this, Musk stated that Giga Texas will receive a 10 million-per-year unit Optimus line. But even at this level, the Optimus ramp is just beginning, as the production of the humanoid robot will only accelerate from there. At some point, the CEO stated that a Mars location could even have a 100 million-unit-per-year production line, resulting in up to a billion Optimus robots being produced per year.

Self-replication is key

During the weekend, Musk posted a short message that hinted at Tesla’s Optimus strategy. “Optimus will be the Von Neumann probe,” the CEO wrote in his post. This short comment suggests that Tesla will not be relying on traditional production systems to make Optimus. The company probably won’t even hire humans to produce the humanoid robot at one point. Instead, Optimus robots could simply produce other Optimus robots, allowing them to self-replicate.

Advertisement
-->

The Von Neumann is a hypothetical self-replicating spacecraft proposed by the mathematician and physicist John von Neumann in the 1940s–1950s. The hypothetical machine in the concept would be able to travel to a new star system or location, land, mine, and extract raw materials from planets, asteroids, and moons as needed, use those materials to manufacture copies of itself, and launch the new copies toward other star systems. 

If Optimus could pull off this ambitious target, the humanoid robot would indeed be the highest volume product ever created. It could, as Musk predicted, really change the world.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk shares SpaceX’s directive that destroys a prevalent media narrative

Musk’s comments followed Starlink’s initiatives for people affected by severe flooding in Indonesia and Cyclone Ditwah in Sri Lanka.

Published

on

UK Government, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Elon Musk recently shared SpaceX’s standing policy to offer free Starlink service during natural disasters worldwide, highlighting the company’s commitment to pursue aid over profit during times of need. 

Musk’s comments followed Starlink’s initiatives for people affected by severe flooding in Indonesia and Cyclone Ditwah in Sri Lanka.

Starlink activates free service in Indonesia and Sri Lanka

Starlink recently announced free service for those impacted by severe flooding in Indonesia’s Sumatra region, partnering with the government to deploy terminals rapidly to the hardest-hit areas. The offer extends to new and existing customers through December, restoring connectivity in zones where traditional networks have failed due to infrastructure damage.

Musk quoted the post on X, writing, “SpaceX standard policy is to make Starlink free whenever there is a natural disaster somewhere in the world. It would not be right to profit from misfortune.”

Starlink extended the same relief to Sri Lanka amid Cyclone Ditwah, coordinating with local authorities for additional support. The cyclone battered the island nation with heavy rains and winds, disrupting communications for thousands. Free access also lasts until year-end, emphasizing Starlink’s role in bridging gaps during crises.

Advertisement
-->

“For those affected by the severe flooding in Indonesia and Sri Lanka in the aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah, Starlink is providing free service to new and existing customers through the end of December 2025. We’re also working with the Indonesian government to rapidly deploy terminals and restore connectivity to the hardest-hit areas on Sumatra, as well as with the Sri Lankan government to provide additional assistance,” Starlink wrote in a post on its official website. 

Musk’s companies routinely provide aid

Musk’s firms have a track record of providing critical support in crises, often without fanfare, challenging portrayals of him as a comic book villain intent on enriching himself on the backs of a suffering populace. In January 2024 alone, Tesla opened Superchargers for free in Japan’s Hokuriku region after a magnitude 7.6 earthquake killed at least 55 and injured hundreds.

Similar efforts include Starlink deployments for the 2023 Maui wildfires, 2024 Hurricane Helene in North Carolina, and floods in Texas, where the service was used to help facilitate emergency coordination. These actions, which total millions in waived fees and logistics, demonstrate a proactive ethos among Musk’s companies, with Musk noting in past interviews that such aid stems from engineering solutions over optics.

The initiatives also provide a direct rebuttal of Musk’s characterization on mainstream media, which tends to lean negatively. This has become much more notable in recent years as Musk adopted more conservative policies. These negative sentiments came to a head earlier this year when Tesla stores, vehicles, and even some owners, were attacked during waves of anti-Tesla protests.

Advertisement
-->
Continue Reading