And again, don't ignore the part where he used his entire PayPal fortune to build a company that he thought had a high probability of failure. That's key to this conversation about risk.

The government chose to take on the risk of providing subsidies in order to get the benefits it enjoys today due to Musk's efforts, which is a growing electric vehicle industry. That wasn't Musk's choice to socialize risk, it was elected officials'. And that choice has paid off well for everyone.

Government officials didn't risk anything, they risked other people's money (tax payers). That's literally the meaning of "socializing the risk."

It was certainly his choice to apply for government aid and to use his exposure in the media to give himself leverage over politicians.

It's fine to think well of Musk but to suggest that it's all perfect and fair game is extremely misleading.

Him and the rest of the Paypal mafia have been hoarding attention in the media for decades... Hoarding opportunities.

Government has its own accounts, therefore it has its own money to spend. It doesn't matter that they get that money from taxpayers, it belongs to the government by law.

> leverage over politicians

What leverage over politicians was used and what objectives did it achieve? Please give specific examples. AFAIK, the EV credits were designed to get more EVs on the road to reduce pollution and were successful at doing that. They are also not limited to Tesla.

> hoarding attention

What does that mean? You're complaining that people write articles about Musk?