
"But I'm telling you, there's a damn wolf this time and you can drive it."
Is Musk trying to say that his muskmobiles now identify as Wolves?
Someone should tell the President!
Tesla had a pretty dismal fourth-quarter of 2024 and a rough year overall, financially. But you wouldn't know it from the after-hours boost to its share price as CEO Elon Musk predicted a record 2025 buoyed by yet more promises of fully autonomous robotaxis. The EV maker missed analyst expectations on earnings per share (EPS) …
If you watch videos when Hitler did the salute he went from the heart to the heil. It was the underlings who would start with their hand down and lift it. Maybe it was supposed to be a difference of how the leader does it versus how the underlings do it.
Regardless of the noise if I was a public figure and I made a gesture that some people misinterpreted as a Nazi salute, and literal Nazis were on the social media platform I owned saying that the best thing they'd ever seen for their movement and now they no longer had to hide in the shadows etc. etc. you better believe I'd be shouting from the rooftops that I did not intend that as a Nazi salute, hated Nazis and wanted to see them all die, and maybe use some of my unlimited bank account to make a generous donation to some anti-Nazi organization by way of apology.
Instead from Musk we got silence while he let others try to fig leaf him, then a 'joke' on Twitter. No apology, no acknowledgement of why it could have been misconstrued but was not what he intended, no condemnation of Nazis, nothing.
So yeah, he is a literal Nazi and there is no longer any arguing that fact.
If you watch videos when Hitler did the salute he went from the heart to the heil. It was the underlings who would start with their hand down and lift it. Maybe it was supposed to be a difference of how the leader does it versus how the underlings do it.
In a lot of his salutes Hitler either put his arm up vertically and had his palm at about a 45 degree angle to the sky, or if on a balcony or high up he'd just put his arm out horizontally with his palm downwards.
He did tend to have the habit though of starting the salute from his chest as you say.
I occasionally wonder if that's because he was receiving the salute rather than giving it, so there was a different position for receipt - some of the other seniors seemed to ape Hitler's style too when receiving salutes, although that may just be to copy Hitler rather than anything formal.
As long as he says that it wasn't, you're not going to find many news organizations saying that it was. After all, proving that it wasn't him screwing something up will be difficult because he screws a lot of things up. He got an idiom wrong when the idiom consists of two words. Most reputable ones will have their one phrasing for what it was, but they won't be as definite as you had in mind.
It is clear that he made the gesture, but that isn't enough for newspapers to call it a "Nazi salute". There are two reasons for that. The phrase states, not just an action, but an intention. A paper could easily justify calling it a "Nazi-style salute", meaning only that it resembles one, but if they call it a "Nazi salute", then they are stating that he agrees with Nazis. A lot of newspapers have standards which basically forbid making such statements. They can say it looked like one. They can say that Nazis interpreted it as one. They can say that a lot of people thought it was one. They can say that Musk's actions suggest it was one. But while he is saying that it wasn't one, they're likely to stick an "alleged" in there to indicate that the intent was not proven, because there remains some chance that he had something else in mind, even if that chance is unlikely.
This is partially due to journalistic standards, but it is also because, if they suggest an intent, they can be sued for defamation. Not necessarily successfully, but it happens and the journalists don't always win. Musk is frequently litigious, and even though many of his cases fall somewhere in the range from dubious to obviously going to lose, it is a prospect that some papers don't take lightly. That is not the only reason why they may choose not to say it, but it is certainly one of them.
That's a thorough explanation of the journalistic coverage of the gesture, and thanks for it.
But Musk more than just about anyone is a man driven by public perception. He's rich mostly because his share of Tesla is so valuable, and (by market standards) that's quite out of proportion to its actual profit-generating ability. If people stop buying Teslas because of the perception that to do so supports anything on the far right, like maybe climate change denial, Tesla's profitability and therefore its share market value goes straight in the toilet
He hasn't denied his intent was fascist. He has only criticised people who described his gestures as such, not refuted them. He has had the means and opportunity to prove people calling him a fascist wrong, and he has chosen not to.
For the last eighty years anyone making that gesture in a political context has had a far-right intent. Unless he states unambiguously that white supremacism, anti-Semitism, belligerent nationalism, contempt for the rule of law, and all the paraphernalia of far-right extremism are wrong, he is content to have any thoughtful person who judges him by his actions believe that he thinks they're ok.
I absolutely agree. If he had a non-Nazi explanation, he had the opportunity to say it. He didn't try, only giving a cursory denial. That speaks volumes, but what exactly it says remains somewhat subjective which isn't good enough for reporters. My original reference to how frequently he fails to communicate wasn't meant to imply that I think he had some other meaning in mind, but to point out that a reporter would have to consider it before describing the incident. Unless he chooses to explain it, we are left with probabilities, and one that seems very likely to me is that he evidently doesn't much mind that Nazis are celebrating the gesture, whether he intended that or not. I would be pretty worried if Nazis were celebrating something I'd done, and that difference in attitude has a large effect on my opinion about him.
You guys should accept that you lost and Trump is a president now. It is not healthy to live your life full of hatred.
Trump derangement syndrome is damaging your health more than anything.
Why we in the U.K. can live without hating people who voted for the government we don’t like? Instead we try to figure out what we did wrong that lost out side the voters.
"Why we in the U.K. can live without hating people who voted for the government we don’t like?"
Hmmmm. I'll grant you that our current premier is disliked but not hated*, but there's still huge and bitter acrimony and angry abuse from the Remain camp over the Brexit referendum, and several of our many recent Tory prime ministers have been widely hated often as much by their own party as their opponents (mostly for very good reason).
* Other than in the bile-filled columns of the Daily Vile and it's even less pleasant comment forum.
Fo those of you who don't know the definition of TDS, I'll save you the effort of looking it up:
"The term has mainly been used by Trump supporters to discredit criticism of him, as a way of reframing the discussion by suggesting that his opponents are incapable of accurately perceiving the world."
And also,
"It is not healthy to live your life full of hatred."
I totally agree. That's why it's a tragedy that Trump got back in. His key way of governing is to spread hatred and fear, and that's straight out of any totalitarian playbook.
"His key way of governing is to spread hatred and fear"
If only this was correct. What we saw last year, and pretty much from 2016 onwards was a constant outpouring of hate to those who voted for Trump. Trump has been living rent free in so many people's brains for the last 9 years its unreal. Videos of people completely unhinged, wide eyed, screaming. This is not normal.
The dehumanising of those who supported Trump, same for Brexit supporters and anyone who voted Tory in the UK. MAGAts and gammon. We're seeing similar in Germany and France.
All we had from the US media in 2024 is 'Trump is <insert insult of the day>', 'Trump is going to do <insert current made up thing> to <insert group>' and we can't forget 'the walls are closing in'. I suppose they had to do anything they could to deflect from the ramblings of old corn pop and his kid sniffing antics.
**** the definition of TDS
The only people who suffer from TDS are the ones who faithfully support the Florida Orange Man no matter what he says or does.
**** His key way of governing is to spread hatred and fear, and that's straight out of any totalitarian playbook.
Yup. His playbook also includes producing prodigious quantities of bullshit, used to overwhelm opponents through sheer volume.
Over the past 40-odd years in which I've had an active interest in UK politics, I've seen and continue to see more than enough evidence to suggest that your idyllic belief in our ability to get along without being filled with hatred towards our elected representatives would have been a difficult one to sell at any point over that period, and continues to be wide of the mark.
The level of hatred that was and in some places continues to be hurled at Thatcher, is perhaps the most obvious counter to your belief, but you can also look to more recent times and the level of hate hurled at Khan in London for another immediately obvious example. And let's not overlook that, in some people, their level of discontent with establishment figures has led to them doing more than merely uttering hateful words - the USA isn't the only place where politicians have paid the ultimate price.
"hurled at Thatcher"
Imagine people singing 'ding dong the witch is dead' about a Labour MP. Labour MPs moan and groan but no-one has tried to blow them up.
I've seen comments that as Corey Comperatore was at a Trump rally he deserved to die as he was an evil person.
>Labour MPs moan and groan but no-one has tried to blow them up.
Roy Mason had an armed police guard for life after he was Northern Ireland secretary in the 1970s.
Jo Cox was killed by a far right activist in his constituency
Jack Renshaw from National Action was sentenced to prison for planning to murder Rosie Cooper in an act of terror.
Might not be explosives involved, but the far right have been targeting Labour MPs for several decades - even when not in power.
He's rich mostly because his share of Tesla is so valuable, and (by market standards) that's quite out of proportion to its actual profit-generating ability.
Tesla stock is incredibly over valued. The market cap is higher than Ford, GM, and Toyota combined. And it produces fewer vehicles than any of them. Tesla had a 12.3% market share in 2023. For comparison, Tesla sold less than twice as many cars as Subaru.
Tesla's market cap is 20 times it's book value, which means that IF it was debt free, stockholders own 5 cents on the dollar.
Tesla stock is not dissimilar to a game of pass the parcel with an IED. You stay in the game by finding a greater fool to take your stock off you, but if you're holding it when everything comes home to roost then you're busted. But greed keeps most of the players in the game, and they can't even see how things will finish.
But the same is true for all the big US tech stocks - valuations utterly unsupported by the underlying fundamentals for a long time, and divorced from real businesses that do real stuff. Zoom out on the timescale and NASDAQ is ramping up on an exponential curve, and it's a wave looking for a reason to break. DeepSeek almost did it, but wasn't quite enough, but with Trump in charge there will be something that will trigger a repeat of the dot com bubble burst.
> If people stop buying Teslas because of the perception that to do so supports anything on the far right, like maybe climate change denial, Tesla's profitability and therefore its share market value goes straight in the toilet
But this entire article is about how people have stopped buying Teslas, their profitability is headed for the toilet and yet the share price and Musk's fortune have increased.
Tesla's share price has nothing to do with how many cars they sell, it is a meme stock bouyed by a cult of personality for their Dear Leader.
Musk is a Nazi and we can judge that not from a couple of gestures, but from what he says and does. When you say things like "the AfD are the only people who can save Germany", it becomes rather obvious.
On the subject of Germany, the satirical magazine Titanic published a cover of Hitler saluting, labelled "Did Hitler make a Musk salute?" They know what he's about.
I have asked a few people I met at Superchargers over the last few days. About 50/50 split between not really caring who builds their car, and strong feelings that this would be their last Tesla solely because of who builds them. I'm in the latter camp, after eight years owning my Model S, I will be replacing it with something non-Tesla when the time comes.
So, expect a big drop-off in car sales figures over the coming years, perhaps. Although that might not matter if the Robotaxis are viable (yeah, I know...).
GJC
Yet the Cult of Musk was right there for us to see... Whooping and Hollering at his every word.
The 3 & Y have largely remained the same for years. Just two mainstream cars.
Other makers have been working hard and have far much more choice of vehicle, finish and especially charging speed with 800v architecture.
Yet the cult still think that Tesla is 10 years ahead of everyone.
It won't be far off a decade since Elon announced FSD and is still not there.
That is the snake oil salesman at its finest.
Robotaxi's? Ok for some but are they the answer for everyone? No way Jose.
Tesla is falling behind a lot of the competition especially BYD and HMG.
Elon needs to choose. Car/Space company CEO or Trump's lackey. He can't do both properly.
I've said this before, but we're heading towards the end of car ownership.
When they get robo-taxis working well enough that the profits outweigh the lawsuits then the cost benefit of ownership erodes.
$120k for a car becomes hard to swallow when it spends most of its life on a driveway, you can pay a few bucks to robotaxi anywhere you're going (as the driver's the most expensive bit). More and more people making this switch means your local dealership folds and the mechanic as robo-taxi services will have in-house, so cost of maintenance goes up along with purchase price with fewer competitors. As fewer people drive, the cost of insurance soars with less people to spread the risk and more people switch away. Driving instructors can't afford to stay in business so the cost of entry climbs, cutting off the next generation.
Then comes the pivot, when the robo-taxis claim all their accidents are caused by the humans in the other cars and their cars would be better without them (whether true or not, statistics can say what you want), when enough people are in tobo-taxis and few left actually owning a car it will no longer be political suicide to outlaw driving because "won't someone think of the children" (and their pac) and you're toast, whoever owns the biggest fleet of taxis simply uses this position to monopolise or cartel with a few like minded to have the air of accountability and we get America ISP level of service in car form..
This is what Musk is salivating over, every trip you take is money in his pocket, selling your tracking data is the cherry on top..
People have called me a pessimist for saying this in the past, but, we're heading towards it - I've not owned a car in eleven years, as renting out the parking spot in our apartment has yielded more income than I've spent on rentals and taxis each year (partner's an accountant, there's benefits to dating someone who's even more of a nerd than I am. they do the math every year, each year we are over a thousand of dollars up..), if you really look at the cost of car ownership vs the driving you do, you may come to a similar conclusion before the floor falls out of Uber and the eliminate all their "ride partners" for "AI"...
" you can pay a few bucks to robotaxi anywhere you're going"
And when they aren't going and you have children that need to be picked up from sports/dance/school or other activity, what do you do? I know a dance studio that will fine parents for late pickups. The people there want to go home too and waiting around until the children are picked up when parents are late had become a big problem.
Several Chinese companies produce for the domestic market for under $20,000 new. Anybody buying a $120,000 car aren't getting it for commuting to and from work 5 days a week. There are those that will spend half of that for the purpose and I don't think they've got their priorities straight. Expensive cars that depreciate like Wyle E. Coyote going off a cliff aren't a good buy.
We are a long way from cars that can drive themselves anywhere by themselves. Even Waymo cars have issues and they are geofenced into an area that's been massively scanned so should be nearly flawless. And then the cell service goes on holiday.....
"That often backfires - with people seeing it just as a late fee, and that additional childcare being worth the cost."
If the studio keeps track, the parent will have to find something else since the child won't be allowed to re-enroll at the next renewal. It's a private company so there's no requirement on their part to enroll kids and there may be a clause that ends the enrollment if a child isn't picked up on time a certain number of times or too many times in a row. If the kid likes the classes, the parent would just wind up penalizing the child.
We are _almost_ in such a situation, but don't live in a city. The timings are such that getting a bus from here _always_ meets a tram to the little city, and the tram _always_ meets a regular train service into the big city (+/- five minutes).
The problem is the frequency of the buses. Returning from the big city means a potential wait at the tram station (for the bus) for twenty or thirty minutes, if you don't get the one-in-three that actually meets the bus. (The same problem going out, of course, but you can select your starting time to be at the bus stop when the bus arrives).
Last weekend, returning home from Prague took three and a half hours to Berlin (call it 300km) by train. From Berlin to Potsdam, 30km, just under an hour. From Potsdam to our little village, 10km, another hour...
It's not that the service isn't good. It's that it runs at the efficient times, in terms of usage, and doesn't cope with 'I want to go _now_'. And can't, of course, until there is significantly more traffic at off-peak times. Personally, I'd like to see at least three buses an hour from the interchange, and ideally six (to match the trams) - but I'm not at all sure I could pay for it.
So for now, the car stays on the drive.
"if you don't get the one-in-three that actually meets the bus."
I have that same issue in the US. I can't take the bus from my house to the train station to get to mom's as the train that makes a quick connection to the second train leaves before the bus service starts. It's the same coming back so I have to drive to the train station. That is if I don't want to stay overnight since the train station is in a dodgy part of town and the car park isn't secure to leave a car overnight. This means I have to drive the 3 or more hours. I mainly just do day trips because of that. Driving can be 3 hours if there are no issues, but it's taken as long as 6-7 hours due to an accident on the roads or some other slow down.
The problem is that the busses (a couple of operators) and the trains are all operated by different entities what don't seem to communicate. Ideally, there should be some lining up of schedules so one can take the bus to the train station and get there before the train leaves. The train stations should also be bus stations and there should be rapid connections to airports as well if there isn't a train stop there as well. I don't fly anymore (strip searches don't do it for me), but the airports I would use are only accessible by car unless I'd want to ride a bus stopping every 1/2 mile for hours.
This is fine when public transport works.
I have a bus stop right outside my house, with buses every 10 minutes, starting at 05:11 am. Unfortunately that stop serves a route that runs to the next town, and I work elsewhere.
I've just discovered there is a bus that goes from near my house to near my work, with a 10 minute walk either side.
Unfortunately, the first bus leaves 14 minutes after I'm supposed to start work, and arrives near work 1 hour and 20 minutes later, not bad for a 17 mile journey.
Maybe I could do flexi-time and work later?
Maybe not, as the last bus leaves 20 minutes before my normal workday ends.
Yeah, public transport is great if it works for you...
"In a city it is possible to have no car, but busses and trains also exist."
If there is good public transportation, many people can get by without a car. I will usually take the train to visit my mom, but my business requires me to haul about a bunch of equipment when I'm doing field work that would be too much to schlep onto busses. If I was doing on-call work and needed to visit a site in the middle of the night, the public transport would need to be able to get me there and in a reasonable amount of time. Some systems are shut or severely curtailed at night.
Politicians don't seem to get how busy public transport is. Train platforms can be choked during rush hours (a problem with the "corporate clock") and as soon as more lines are put into service, they often fill up quite quickly. Another good clue is property prices near stations that feed directly into a city such as London. If there's direct service, the home prices go way up as people that need to work in the city yet want more than 75sqm of living space look to get out of town. Maybe there is something in this public transportation lark.
Fortunately, there aren't many people who drive 120k cars. My little run around, which did just over 1400 miles in the last 12 months, cost 11k when I bought it and is now free of finance so costs nothing/month.
I'm keeping it until the wheels fall off or I die (which could, in theory, be at the same time).
"My little run around, which did just over 1400 miles in the last 12 months, cost 11k when I bought it and is now free of finance so costs nothing/month."
It costs a lot more than nothing - you forget the alternative world where you locked the 11K away at 5% and earn 550/year. So you're paying 40p/mile on your 1400 miles, even before adding insurance, maintenance and other running costs.
OP says his car does 1400 miles a year. Car life may not be entirely related to mileage but, as OP suggests, it might outlive him. So why should he care about depreciation? Consumables will be entirely related to mileage and maintenance partly so.
Now what mileage is the robo-taxi doing? Consumables will still be entirely related to mileage even if they are cheaper. Maintenance and depreciation will be almost entirely related to mileage. And then you're paying for the operator's profit which is exactly zero for the OP.
> So why should he care about depreciation?
I have never cared about that either as I also run them until the end.
Now retired thinking of the next one which may well also be the last one I ever need as by the time it dies I will probably be handing my licence back by then.
It will cost a bit but less than £20k
So because you suffer *all* of the depreciation then you don't care?
No - you just end up with all of that cost each time you replace a vehicle. It's still a cost, and realistically it should be spread over the exepected lifetime of the vehicle, that's what depreciation is.
"I have never cared about that either as I also run them until the end."
The issue crops up when you buy a car that drops in value like a brick as soon as you sign the sales contract. Insurance doesn't often pay for a replacement, but pays a sum equal to it's "value" according to some guide such as the Kelly's Blue Book. If you have an accident where the car is a total write off, you may only be paid by the insurance company an amount less than you still owe on a loan. Loan companies require you carry insurance to protect their exposure, but it doesn't always line up and your down payment will be toast in any situation. This is why I buy used. That giant drop in value has been passed so it's a much more gradual depreciation from there and some of that can be mitigated by doing all of the regular maintenance. I run the wheels off my cars since they don't define me. I'm fine with one that's a few years old and in good, but not perfect, nick. Older Honda's and Toyota's can be awesome. Any defects will have been ironed out early and they respond well to being taken care of properly.
"It costs a lot more than nothing - you forget the alternative world where you locked the 11K away at 5% and earn 550/year. So you're paying 40p/mile on your 1400 miles, even before adding insurance, maintenance and other running costs."
Now deduct from that the cost of transportation needed when one doesn't own a car and that said transportation might not be available or not available when needed. If there was good public transportation nearby that ran on a useful schedule, your argument for putting the money away (at more like 3.5%) is a good one. I'd suggest getting into a home if one doesn't already own one rather than stacking money in CD's or retirement accounts. There are pros and cons with any financial plan, but after having rented housing for a good portion of my life, I'm a true believer in owning.
"your argument for putting the money away (at more like 3.5%) is a good one."
No one seems to be taking inflation into account :-) UK inflation is currently at 2.5%, was 4% last year. It might be "cheaper" to invest that 11K in a car and let it depreciate over the next 10 years of usage while gaining the convenience of owning the car than to have the cash sit in a bank and potentially devalue while doing nothing for you.
"It costs a lot more than nothing - you forget the alternative world where you locked the 11K away at 5% and earn 550/year. So you're paying 40p/mile on your 1400 miles, even before adding insurance, maintenance and other running costs."
Don't forget to offset those "costs" against the "profits" gained from the added convenience. Have fun calculating the value of the latter :-)
"Don't forget to offset those "costs" against the "profits" gained from the added convenience. Have fun calculating the value of the latter :-)"
Intangibles are always a real bastard to figure. Not having transport can also affect advancements at a job. If you can only get to work and back when the busses are running, you might not be considered for a promotion if it would mean needing to work outside of bus hours and require being on-call. People moving up to a junior management role in a shop will often have to move to a different schedule so the general manager can go home in time for supper and have more regular 8-5 hours. There are a plethora of other examples that vary with where one lives. If one lives in NYC or London, trains and busses do run much later/all night so it's not as much of a problem.
"Then you're in trouble when nobody want to rent that parking space, aren't you?"
There are cities where not having somebody to rent a spot in a garage or outside space would be an oddity. If it's a decision between building an annex to run a holiday let or a basic garage, it might make sense to have a garage for rent even when not in a dense city center. A holiday let might go for more on a nightly basis, but a garage could rent long term and there isn't all of the faff with permits/permissions and upkeep.
That is exactly why we are being forced into hated electric cars - to end private car ownership - and the freedom they give us. Give it another ten years the government will be able to decide whether YOUR journey is acceptable and instruct your car on whether it’s allowed to carry out the journey or not. Run out of carbon credits? Geo-fence you. Going to see the wrong person? Geo-fence you. Wrong political opinion? Geo-fence you. You get the idea – the technology is here – it just a matter of contriving the right political climate to enforce it. Petrol and diesel cars are a problem to big-state – you can store fuel and command them fully as the driver. That will never do.
"That is exactly why we are being forced into hated electric cars"
I'd love to have an EV. My needs fit well into an EV. I can charge at home which means that the trip I want to make tomorrow doesn't mean I need to pop out today and fill the petrol tank so I can leave early. I don't have an EV presently as I have a perfectly good ICEV that's older, but would be an order of magnitude less money to have a newer engine fitted and be repainted than a budget EV would cost. If there comes a point where I need a new car and I have the money saved up, I'd get an EV. The benefit of not having to stop at a petrol station to refuel is valuable to me. I work in the field about every other day so I have plenty of time to recharge even if I don't plug in overnight. One of the first modifications I might do is disconnect the car from all telemetry. Don't need it, don't want it.
Sales are one thing, profits another an Tesla made most of its profits from emissions certificates. As it can no longer do that and is facing competition from cheaper and better vehicles
"Hey, Elon have some more of our money!" said a guy in a red baseball cap…
How long will those Gov subsidies last now that Trump 2.0 is out to decimate all Gov spending? They tried last week and got stopped... this time. Next time? he'll probably get away with it.
Elon is a master Snake Oil Salesman but the 'Cult of Musk' seem to think that he walks on water.
They'll fall out within 6 months and it'll be the worst breakup you ever saw. Trump has already started getting annoyed with Elon hanging around at Mar-a-Lago before the inauguration, and now that Elon has been denied an office in the White House (he has to work out of another Federal building, I believe the OEOB although I could be wrong) that has shown the power dynamic at play - Susie Wiles, the Chief of Staff, has put Elon in his place and Trump hasn't overruled her, which will be damaging to Elon's ego and plans to pull strings from the sidelines.
"Elon has been denied an office in the White House"
The White House is rather limited for offices. Much of the building is grand spaces and a private residence that's sectioned off for security purposes. What offices exist are used for executive staff that the President needs to have immediately to hand.
As a Federal Employee, I wonder if Elon will be subject to random drug testing. (j/k. Like that's going to happen)
"As it can no longer do that and is facing competition from cheaper and better vehicles"
That's where the tariffs come in. There isn't that much choice for EV's in the US. Those that are sold tend towards the higher cost end of the spectrum. If Chinese companies could bring in ~$25,000 models with basic features and can go ~250-300 miles on a full charge as well as charge quickly enough, the bottom would fall out for Tesla and most of the budget end of the petrol car market. The college near me just finished installing a pretty good rank of chargers. The DCFC's are 50kW. Not that fast by today's standards, but it probably let them provide some without having to drag in a really big new feed. The rest are Level 2 of some flavor. An EV is a good choice for students if they can charge while in classes. I have no idea about pricing, but it may not be too bad if the school isn't seeing it as a profit center. A $25,000 EV as a "starting college" kicker from parents is a decent deal. The car would be new so shouldn't need endless repairs. Since I'm in an area that gets loads of sun, rooftop solar PV has a good return on investment as long as you have a place to use the leccy. Selling it back to the grid is useless.
I think Tesla's problem going forward is now Musk himself. His association with Trump, the Nazi salute, the backing of far right parties in the UK and Germany. These might be things that put people who are centrist or lean politically left off buying a Tesla, because they don't want to give money to a company run by someone who is looking like they are becoming more far right as the days go on.
You mean those guys who swear that EVs were invented by Satan to make people go "woke" or something along those well thought-out lines?
Pretty improbable.
In fact I currently fail to see how a very outspoken CEO publicly and offensively aligning himself politically with consumers who hate the product of its company could possibly play out financially.
I guess Tesla might follow the Twitter, er, "lead", shedding half its value until year end...
Some, perhaps, but I suspect that the sort of people who can afford to go out and buy a brand new electric car are also the sort of people who are educated enough and critical thinking enough not to be persuaded by extremist ideologues.
And Musk won’t be making much money from people who buy their Teslas second hand - so he won’t care much about them either.
"but I suspect that the sort of people who can afford to go out and buy a brand new electric car are also the sort of people who are educated enough and critical thinking enough not to be persuaded by..."
The simple disproof of that theory is that those are the people that buy modern land-rover / range-rover products, consistently the least reliable & lowest customer satisfaction scores of any major manufacturer. Worse than that they tend to be repeat buyers, if any proof were needed that critical thinking & wealth don't automatically go hand in hand...
(That said, I've met plenty of people that own them, & that freely admit that they're objectively awful, but they like them & can afford to put up with their "foibles" which is fair enough, though mystifying to me.)
"I think Tesla's problem going forward is now Musk himself. "
You could stop there and have covered everything.
I need to take a trip to Las Vegas and check the back rooms to see if anybody is making book on how soon Elon and Donald will have a falling out, Elon gets ousted by Congress or Tesla's board grows some styrofoam ones (they'll never be brass) and kicks Elon to the curb.
But they don't, they're all Musk's mates and joined the board at his invitation (hence his obscene options award).
Musk has done to Tesla what the Fat Orange Arsehole has done to the Republican party. They've made a company/party that existed long before they came along into a simple dictatorship, with senior leadership who are appointed personally, and have status and reward purely at the Great Leader's personal whim, with all dissent silenced, no plurality of opinion, discussion, and with all threat and potential challenges carefully and intentionally purged. All managerial competence or political elder statesmen/women have been intentionally banished.
This can't end well. When Musk f***s off to Mars or to do something different, Tesla will have no good culture, no good corporate leaders, but it will be absent the drive that Musk does at least provide. Likewise the GOP is stuffed. In four years time Trump will (hopefully) take his greasy presence off to Mar-a-Lardo, and the Republican party will look round for a new leader, and find all that the cupboard contains is Trump's useless arse-lickers. There will be no governmental talent, no political skills, and a party that's demonstrated utter incompetence. Britain's Conservative party flushed themselves down the toilet in this manner, and their ineffectual rump presence in Parliament is the ghost of Christmas future for the Republicans.
The second Apartheid Clyde departs against his will is the moment the company is valued at its true market value in relation to actual financials, all serious players would immediately try to exit their positions and the stock price would crash like a Tesla smashing into a firetruck at full speed: abruptly and catastrophically.
Depressingly, knowing this, the board probably has a fiduciary duty to their share holders to keep him around for the foreseeable future.
That being said, there's nothing wrong with boycotting the business if you are a consumer, or boycotting the customers by asking them if they aren't a Nazi why are they happy to to support a (alleged [lol]) Nazi? Social stigma, never kiss a tesla driver, sort of thing. Then KetMan might come into contact with over-leveraged reality...
Americans seem to be too stupid to realize these azz hats work for them. Their taxes pay these guy's salaries. The public are their bosses. I don't know why you don't just bankrupt their azzes to begin with... I can't understand that part yet. I mean... their plan is to crash the economy and steal your money anyway. Just pull your money out and walk away.
But, if you insist on being on their websites, and giving them unnecessary clicks and attention, you should be telling them stuff like "get the f*ck off social and get to work, I don't pay you to be on your phone!" You are their boss. Act like it.
Who are you referring to? Politicians theoretically work for the public, and they get people shouting instructions at them all the time. They ignore those people. If you have a way of changing that, I'd like the details on that.
If you're talking about Tesla, though, then they don't work for the public. They work for their shareholders, the people who saw Musk make the same statements he always made and cheerfully bought more stock. The people who approved paying Musk billions. Enough of them evidently don't mind whatever Musk is doing. The rest of the public can do little to change this. They could refuse to buy anything from Tesla, but that only goes so far.
You are trying to tell me muskrat has never gotten government money (stares at you blankly)? Tesla and space ass and his crypto scams (of which is komrads just pulled another crypto crime btw) never received federal money? You DO know he is a federal employee who has an office over seeing federal funds now IN WASHINGTON ON PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
I swear talking to cultists is like talking to heroin addicts. They cannot be helped because they do not want to help themselves, they are too far gone.
Bankrupt these bitches. Before they bankrupt you. Then tell them they are fired.
Serb it is. sorry, I was on a rant and trying to make the connection between Tesla the man, and tesla the car... The more you know.
I still think you would be surprised how much power and money these newly minted "influencers" have on the American population and abroad. If you want to start a protest, get people to pull their money out.
end rant
No, I am not trying to tell you that Musk has not gotten government money. Most of his businesses rely on firehoses of government money that never turn off, and when he doesn't get it, he gets angry. I'm trying to tell you that, just because he has gotten government money, it doesn't mean individual citizens can do anything about it, especially if we're also referring to things he is doing as part of a business that aren't directly related to government money. His actions as a government employee are different from his actions running Tesla. Not that individual citizens have much chance of doing something about either of them, but the reasons why they won't have much effect are different for the two things. This article is about Tesla.
I encourage you to provide instructions on how we bankrupt someone we don't like. I have never bought a Tesla or Spacex product before. I am unlikely ever to do so. They don't seem too worried about this. If I dislike Musk, tell me, what other action can I take? I think you are overestimating what anyone, or even any largish group, can do about this, which is a problem because you're clearly angry at people for not doing something they can't.
They aren't working well for the shareholders, but they do have a requirement to act for them. Shareholders have the right to force Musk out of Tesla if they choose to, whereas taxpayers don't, no matter how much we might want to. Also, enough of the shareholders have supported Musk's actions that I have to conclude that they are fine with it. I don't understand why, but there seem to be people willing to live with the status quo and invest their money in that. If they want to give Musk far more in value than the company actually has, then I suppose it is working for them.
"Shareholders have the right to force Musk out of Tesla if they choose to, whereas taxpayers don't, no matter how much we might want to."
Maybe all of Elon's antics have chased out all of the more business oriented investors so what's left is biased heavily towards the fanbois who are unlikely to push for such a thing. Forcing a vote the BoD isn't on-board with is difficult. It can be done, but would take a really big number of shares represented to put through without the board's backing.
We're agreed that regulation is what's mostly standing in Tesla's way, and Musk has just been put in charge of, basically, doing away with whatever regulations he doesn't like, so... yeah. That's totally not a conflict of interest.
They don't even need to change the law, the executive branch can just direct the regulators to stop enforcing the relevant rules. We know that's within their power.
I think that you will be amazed by the surge of sales when American finally have the freedom to choose a gasoline powered Tesla. The goodness of Tesla and the patriotism of gasoline should see a huge surge in sales. Elon has just been holding back all the new Tesla models because California was stopping him selling the gasoline Wankenpanzers that are the future. Well that and the lack of government subsidies to develop a Tesla AI combustion engine, and subsidies for building new engine factories, and freedom subsidies for every gasoline car sold with xAI engine technology that increases prosperity by intelligently using more gasoline than other "old auto" manufacturers engines are even capable of.
"We're agreed that regulation is what's mostly standing in Tesla's way,"
I wouldn't say that. It's not regulations that stand in the way of Cybertruck being saleable. It's not regulations that stand in the way of Tesla making a coupe, wagon, fleet vehicle that could sell by the case to government entities. Did the government pass a law that prevented Tesla from getting the Semi into production in 2019 as promised?
That's an outrageous accusation. I mean, you'd be suggesting that he'd forcing the head of the FAA who'd suggested fining SpaceX to resign next...
"Err he IS releasing it in Texas. The article states test cars are running in Austin."
Elon says he's releasing robotaxis in Austin in June, but I expect that it's news to the mayor of the city and the state legislature. Elon was saying in the earnings call that Tesla has thousands of automated cars running around near the Fremont, CA plant. Thousands, eh? Would the fines be assessed per vehicle?
It's not far away from ten years since we were first told to expect fleets of autonomous taxis. Once upon a time, Ford was targeting 2017.
It'd been interesting tracking my own sentiment towards self-driving car tech. Back in those days I was incredibly optimistic but now I couldn't care less. I think it's obvious at this point that it will probably never make it.
"Mercedes has had level 3 autonomous driving for a while now."
Mercedes also accepts full liability if the car does a stupid. Tesla on the other hand will have their legal department lend you a hight-power microscope so you can read the full disclaimer. Drink a pot of coffee first so you don't nod off. BTW, you agreed to binding arbitration though an arbitrator contracted by Tesla and also agreed to not enter into a class action.
Depends how much is built and how much is assembled in the USA. Are the engines, for example, actually built in the USA? Real question, BTW, I have no idea how non-US car marques operate in the USA other than that they sell cars under their marques there.
I'm thinking here of the disastrous UK tariff system years ago that killed the UK electronics industry by putting tariffs on components which is how the manufactures got around the Made In Britain rules ie, they just assembled the units. I don't recall the exact details, but it was a 12-bore shot-gun to both feet.
"Depends how much is built and how much is assembled in the USA."
Are the percentages being calculated by mass, volume or cost? All of the electronics are made in Asia along with a bulk of forged parts. Pile all of that on a balance with the body and interior bits on the other side and, yes, the majority based on mass / volume is made in the US. Cost out those two piles and the winner goes the other way.
Musk's AI would probably lead the rest if he would swallow his stupid pride and put LIDAR or something similar on the car. The fact it's up there whilst relying totally on machine-vision is pretty impressive. The problem is AI is – well – artificial, (the clue is in the name) Humans can make do with flawed old vision on its own – computers need extra sensory input to compete. Yes that really is a stranded truck – now stop FCOL! Ain’t ever gonna do that reliably on machine-vision alone.
"Musk's AI would probably lead the rest if he would swallow his stupid pride and put LIDAR or something similar on the car. The fact it's up there whilst relying totally on machine-vision is pretty impressive. "
It's the less-than-optimal cases where that falls down and where something like LiDaR would make a big difference. Mercedes is using all sorts of sensory inputs so it can feel how the car is going and listen for sirens on emergency vehicles.
Musk's AI would probably lead the rest if he would swallow his stupid pride and put LIDAR or something similar on the car.
It was a gamble to keep production costs down. If it's just using machine vision they can simply do software updates to improve it's capability. If they had progressively added different sensors as the product matured and limitations were identified, they'd have to go back and upgrade all those cars that were pre-sold with FSD. To a degree they rolled the dice and lost anyway, since they have to upgrade the FSDv3 computers to FSDv4 computers. It wouldn't be surprising if they coded themselves into a corner trying to avoid retrofits, and end up spending more to trying to work around vision limitations. I wonder what happens to the people whose cars reach end-of-life before FSD is complete?
"It wouldn't be surprising if they coded themselves into a corner trying to avoid retrofits,
When I worked on rockets, the hardware and software were developed in parallel. When Elon was claiming that their cars were all hardware equipped for autonomous driving and all that needed doing was getting the software sorted, I saw a field of red flags. It put a huge straitjacket on the software team and it was more likely that the hardware would have to be replaced once the software was done. I also didn't see the point in fitting thousands of dollars of hardware on the cars that couldn't be used right away. Instead of selling people the lie that once the software was done it would be down to getting an OTA update, sell them a new vehicle a few years down the road that costs more, but is equipped and works. In the mean time, the cars would be less expensive. (probably cheaper as well).
We are seeing regular occurrences of people burning to death in their Tesla's - arguably a serious safety flaw when crashes lock the passengers inside the vehicle. Yet nothing is being done. And this is the guy who is going to deliver autonomous driving?
The admission that penetration of FSD is poor amongst the most enthusiastic early adopters on this planet is astonishing - note that suddenly he's not claiming this will be the reason for the company being valuable and has shifted to Optimus instead.
The stuff on Optimus is Trump level lies. Go and watch Boston Dynamic's videos. They are streets ahead on agility, function, robustness and actually delivering machines to customers. Then watch Unitree and a number of other competitors. Cheaper, faster, further advanced. More importantly, few of these companies are pretending that their robots will be watering your plants for you any time soon.
On AI in general, the recent DeepSeek announcement should have woken investors up to the basic fact that AI is not a defensive moat - once it is established how software can achieve a particular goal, other companies can and will replicate that functionality and improve on it. China in particular is being incredibly aggressive in this area, and it is China that has led the value destruction of Tesla as a vehicle manufacturer (remember when Musk claimed he was the greatest expert in manufacturing in the world?).
No rational analysis of the company can value it as it currently stands. But right now we don't live in rational times. If there is a correction, it is going to be painful - especially to the retail investors who currently have over $600 billion invested in promises of jam tomorrow.
"Go and watch Boston Dynamic's videos. They are streets ahead on agility, function, robustness and actually delivering machines to customers."
Go look in factories and notice that none of the robots look even vaguely humanoid. What will a humanoid bring to the factory that is better than a one-armed tool-slinger that already exists, has people that know how to program them and can be configured for many different jobs?
Elon is trying to "invent" "a plastic pal that's fun to be around". While he's at it, he needs to invent the Electric Monk to replace the legions of fansbois that will be dropping off and distancing themselves from Tesla and Elon.
"He wants a friend. Needs a friend. Desperately. "
Maybe not friends, but minions. Hmm, banana gets launched as a joke payload.... minions like bananas.
Anybody that disagrees with Elon gets the ol' heave ho. A friend would be the sort of person that should tell a mate they're being stupid. Hence, Elon wants minions.
"remember when Musk claimed he was the greatest expert in manufacturing in the world?"
Oh, but I'm sure he still is - unless he defers to his boss who may not have manufactured anything more than a great deal of ill-feeling but is still the greatest expert in - what was it again?
And the UK :-)
Driver stopped in Tesla Cybertruck banned in UK
A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester.
In a social media post, Greater Manchester Police (GMP) said: "Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck."
It said the vehicle, which was registered and insured abroad, was confiscated and they had reported the driver, who is a UK resident.
The owner will have to prove ownership and correct insurance prior to release."
"We have safety standards"
I refer you to the issue of Teslas locking their occupants inside to burn to death in the event of a crash. What exact safety standard is that?
And as for liability laws, I think you need to take a long hard look at the cases that Tesla has settled out of court, precisely to avoid admitting liability.
"I refer you to the issue of Teslas locking their occupants inside to burn to death in the event of a crash."
An even bigger issue is a design that seems purpose fit to cutting a pedestrian in half. Sharp edges that could inflict serious injury in a glancing impact. Razor sharp edges, doors that lend themselves to being operated in a way that could sever fingers. The list goes on and on.
No-one believes any of Musk's comments about self driving cars any more but it's doesn't matter because Tesla's stock has long been divorced from any sort of underlying reality.
At one point it was "priced for growth" as they say, more like a tech stock than a car maker. Now it's just a bubble, more akin to a cryptocurrency than a stock. People buy and trade it because other people are doing similar, without any underlying value or utility. And just as with crypto, people have been waiting for the bubble to burst for many years, but there are no signs of that happening.
I do wonder what it would take, but I'm hanging onto my popcorn. It's going to be glorious when it finally happens.
" Now it's just a bubble, more akin to a cryptocurrency than a stock. People buy and trade it because other people are doing similar, without any underlying value or utility. "
I'm in agreement with Warren Buffet's thinking on "productive assets". He's done a few talks on that thinking and others that have learned it from him have written books. Trying to make money by manipulating money is fraught with peril. It's too easy to wind up with nothing. While you might not make a profit investing in a farm, you still own a piece of that farm which will be worth something.