If bailouts, subsidies and government grants are considered to be favoritism and market distortions, how can correcting market failures not be considered the same? Keep in mind that Tesla received billions of taxpayer money to keep it afloat. How is this not considered to be favoritism? Is it because it's green tech so it doesn't count?

It is, and Tesla is largely a fraudulent company, yes.

>>60603461
Green tech gets a pass because it's supposed to be something that is beneficial towards everyone. And it makes sense to an extent, but when people are so careful about calling bailouts crony, subsidies and grants as market distortions, at the same time giving millions of dollars to a green tech business somehow is not considered to be any of those things, and is ''correcting market failures''. It makes sense that clean air and vehicles that don't pollute should, at least in theory, be considered to be a public good and consequentially justify subsidies. But ''correcting market failure'' by giving billions towards a business for the sole reason of it being environmentally friendly without anyone batting an eye, does seem to be a bit weird and the line between providing a public good and favoritism gets blurred.

>>60603530
You're just now realizing everything the governments peddling is bullshit?

>>60603434 (OP)
Government in the USA
(and everywhere else?) is basically a thief's marketplace for the buying and selling of the freedom and fortunes of the public. And, of course, there is usually a cover story should anyone pay close attention to a particular corrupt transaction. Welcome to Scamerica!