News
Tesla and the danger of soft budget constraints
The Wall Street Journal is not always friendly to Elon Musk and Tesla Motors. In an article published August 16, staff writer Holman Jenkins, Jr. suggests that Tesla is one election away from extinction. Why? Holman bases his analysis on a study of John Z. DeLorean and an economic principle known as soft budget constraints.
The study by Graham Brownlow of Queen’s University Belfast was published in October, 2014. It says one of the foundations for DeLorean’s start-up car company was the willingness of the British government to subsidize the enterprise with grants, tax breaks, government backed loans, and other political incentives.
In 1975 when DeLorean Motors began, conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland was at a fever pitch. The economy of Northern Ireland was in tatters and the British government was desperate to attract manufacturing jobs to the area. DeLorean promised to do just that and the government responded with open arms.
Brownlow says the support from the government amounted to what economists refer to as soft budget constraints, meaning the company never had to turn a profit. In effect, as DeLorean boasted at the time, the government was in so deep, it had no choice but to continue funding the operation. In layman’s terms, its like having rich parents and knowing they will cover your losses no matter how foolishly you spend your money.
Jenkins says Tesla Motors is similarly positioned. It is the beneficiary of several indirect government subsidies such as federal and state tax credits, HOV stickers, and the like. He also claims the company benefits from direct government support in the form of loan guarantees and corporate tax credits. Taken together, they provide Tesla with the ability to exceed normal budgetary constraints on a regular basis.
He prefers what he would term the more traditional model, as laid out by Brownlow. “The more [an entrepreneur] expects that the existence and growth of the firm will depend solely on production costs and proceeds from sales, the more he will respect the budget constraint,” Brownlow writes.
Jenkins hints darkly that Musk’s recent decision to bring the start of production of the Model 3 forward by 2 years is a ploy designed to force the federal government to extend the tax credit program for buyers of electric cars. Tesla will be bumping up against the 200,000 vehicle limit in total US sales by the time that car goes on sale.
He also thinks the merger between Tesla and SolarCity is intended to mute the criticism that Teslas are not as environmentally friendly as they are touted to be, since the majority of electricity in the United States comes from burning fossil fuels like natural gas and coal.
Jenkins reminds readers that John DeLorean’s dream came crashing down once Margaret Thatcher came to power. She turned off the financial spigot that had propped him up, with predictable results. The implication is that Tesla is just one election away from a similar fate.
Jenkins could be the designated cheerleader for all the people who have shorted Tesla stock. The comments appended to his story in the Journal make it clear his opinions have plenty of enthusiastic supporters, many of whom view Elon Musk as little more than a scam artist.
In his efforts to advocate for a level playing field where every corporation pays all its bills on time, pays all its taxes, never accepts a hand out from the government, and always does the right thing, he conveniently overlooks the $5 trillion a year in direct and indirect subsidies the International Monetary Fund says are provided to the fossil fuel industry every year.
There is a coda to the DeLorean story, one that is seldom told. It is said that John Z personally selected the spot where his factory in Northern Ireland would be built. The Irish have a long and steadfast belief in what they call “the little people.” We call them leprechauns.
According to the story, the site DeLorean chose required the removal of a whitethorn tree. Now, everyone knows the little people build their homes in the roots of whitethorn trees. Uprooting one is guaranteed to bring some seriously bad mojo down on your head.
What happened to DeLorean only proves that legend may be more powerful than economic theory. The antidote to Jenkins’ gloomy predictions may be to inform Elon he must never cut down a whitethorn tree to build one of his factories.
Source: Wall Street Journal
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Investor's Corner
NASA taps SpaceX to launch the telescope that could unlock new worlds
NASA’s Roman Space Telescope heads to orbit this August aboard SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with massive scientific ambitions.
SpaceX is set to play a central role in one of NASA’s most anticipated science missions in years. The company’s Falcon Heavy rocket, currently the most powerful operational launch vehicle in the world, will carry the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope into orbit on August 30 from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Roman is now in final preparations inside the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility, where on June 26 technicians used a crane to lift the observatory into a specialized stand for fueling and pre-launch testing.
Roman is named after Nancy Grace Roman, NASA’s first chief of astronomy, whose career helped shape how the agency approaches space science.
NASA chose SpaceX Falcon Heavy because of Roman’s needs to reach a specific orbit far from Earth, well beyond where a standard Falcon 9 can deliver it. The Falcon Heavy, which first flew in 2018, has since become NASA’s go-to option for missions that need serious muscle without the cost and complexity of older launch systems.
Celebrating SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Tesla Roadster launch, seven years later (Op-Ed)
Roman will carry a field of view at least 100 times wider than the Hubble Space Telescope, meaning it can photograph enormous swaths of the universe in a single shot rather than the narrow slices Hubble captures. That difference in scale is significant. While Hubble reshaped our understanding of the cosmos over 30 years, Roman is built to work faster and wider, surveying hundreds of millions of galaxies at once.
One of Roman’s most compelling capabilities is its potential to discover and photograph planets orbiting stars outside our solar system, and with enough precision to directly image planets that would otherwise be lost. That means scientists could study the atmosphere and surface characteristics of distant worlds rather than simply confirming they exist. Combined with Roman’s sweeping field of view, the telescope could detect thousands of exoplanets, and some of those planets may be in habitable zones where liquid water could exist. No telescope currently in operation has this level of power and capability. That capability alone could change what we know about other worlds, and perhaps finally answer the question: are we the only intelligent lifeforms in existence?
What Roman actually finds once it reaches orbit is an open question, and that is exactly what makes this launch worth watching.
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
Tesla analyst says Full Self-Driving is about to have its iPhone moment
