Investor's Corner
Tesla is being ‘anti-subsidized’ in the US, and it’s thriving in spite of it
Ask any TSLAQ believer about one of the biggest reasons for Tesla’s ongoing success, and there’s a good chance that one will hear the word “subsidies.” More often than not, Tesla critics would argue that the electric car maker has only survived because the US government heavily subsidizes it — and without these subsidies, Tesla would fall.
Unfortunately for TSLA bears, this is not an accurate assumption. In fact, if one were to look at what Tesla has had to deal with in the past years (and is still dealing with today), it would actually be more accurate to state that the company had been “anti-subsidized” for the most part, both in its home country and some key territories abroad.
As thoroughly discussed by Tesla investor KarenRei on Twitter, Tesla actually has dealt with a lot of handicaps when selling its cars to consumers. Take the United States, for example. Being a pure electric car company, it was no surprise that Tesla was the first to trigger a phaseout of the $7,500 tax credit given to EV buyers in the country.
Today, Tesla buyers no longer receive tax credits from the United States government, which means that at this point, the company is taking on traditional automakers solely through its vehicles’ own merits. Buyers of pretty much every other car except the Chevy Bolt still receive a $7,500 tax credit, while those who purchase Teslas do not get any incentives. Yet, despite this, the demand for the company’s vehicles has remained healthy.
Another ghost from Tesla’s past that always emerges in the constant bull vs. bear debates online is the loan that the company received during the US financial crisis. Tesla did receive a loan from the Obama administration, but so did other companies, the biggest of which was General Motors, the quintessential American automaker. Tesla would eventually pay back the $465 million loan it received from the US government — 10 years early. GM, in comparison, defaulted on their own loan. This nifty little detail usually gets a bit overlooked whenever Tesla’s loans are discussed among critics.
But what about state incentives that are granted to Tesla for, say, building Giga Nevada? Well, that’s not particularly unique to the electric car maker, either. It should be noted that it is a pretty common practice for states to offer incentives to attract large corporations to invest and build their facilities within their borders. Doing so triggers an influx of jobs, as well as potentially positive effects for local businesses.
And don’t forget that Tesla is still struggling to formally sell its cars in several US states. It’s almost ironic how Tesla was able to secure land, build a factory, and start delivering locally-produced Model 3s in China to consumers before it was able to get permission to sell its cars in parts of its home country, like Texas.
In other territories, Tesla receives anti-incentives as well. This happened to the Model 3 in Canada, whose EV incentives required the base price of qualified vehicles to start below the cost of the Model 3, effectively excluding Tesla’s most affordable vehicle. This reflected a similar strategy adopted in Germany when the Model S was released in the country.
Keeping these in perspective, it almost seems like governments across the globe earnestly want electric cars to succeed. But when it comes to Tesla, the company has not been handled with kid gloves at all. Far from it. In a way, it seems fair to argue at this point that Tesla’s success, as evidenced by its 112,000 vehicle deliveries in the fourth quarter of 2019, is happening in spite of anti-incentives that are consistently thrown its way. Perhaps, just as argued by the company’s supporters, Tesla’s products just happen to be very compelling for buyers.
H/T @enn_Nafnlaus/Twitter
In a pointed message on X, Elon Musk warned that firms maintaining significant short positions in SpaceX over time face “very low” survival probability.
The statement comes amid post-IPO volatility for the rocket company, now trading under the ticker $SPCX.
The survival probability of firms who maintain a significant short position in SpaceX over time is very low
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 17, 2026
Five weeks after what was described as the largest IPO in history, the stock had fallen roughly 30% from its peak above $2.6 trillion, briefly surpassing Microsoft and Amazon in market value. Short sellers celebrated gains of about $8.7 billion, but Musk’s reply underscores his long-term conviction.
The warning directly echoes a detailed bullish analysis arguing that Starship’s cost reductions could unlock a multi-trillion-dollar space economy. Projects ranging from solar power beamed from orbit and asteroid mining to orbital data centers and Mars terraforming were projected to create over $100 trillion in new market capitalization.
In this vision, SpaceX acts as the essential infrastructure provider, akin to AWS for cloud computing, capturing monopoly-like revenues from launches, crew transport, and data traffic across a rapidly expanding frontier.
This is far from the first time Musk has targeted short sellers. With Tesla, he has repeatedly framed persistent bears as destined for major losses. In July 2024, Musk declared that once Tesla achieves full autonomy and volume production of Optimus robots, “anyone still holding a short position will be obliterated. Even Gates,” referencing Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates’ reported short bets.
Elon Musk reveals what Tesla stock surge could do to Bill Gates
Earlier, in 2018, he taunted shorts that they had “about three weeks before their short position explodes,” a remark followed by sharp stock gains. Musk has also called short selling “value destroying” and once suggested it “should be illegal,” viewing it as betting against innovation and progress.
Critics often dismiss Musk’s optimism as hype, especially when near-term metrics like quarterly deliveries or stock fluctuations disappoint.
Yet his pattern remains consistent: framing short positions against his companies as fundamentally misjudging exponential technological leaps. For SpaceX shorts, the message is clear: betting against multi-planetary ambitions and the infrastructure monopoly they enable carries existential risk for the firms involved.
As Musk and supporters see it, the space economy’s upside dwarfs Earth-bound valuation models, making today’s dips temporary in a decades-long ascent.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla’s reason for Starlink integration on Cybercab might surprise you
Tesla Robotaxi program expands in Florida to two new cities
