Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, The Royal We said:

 

Did Gina Raimondo go on CNBC and tell Americans to buy Stellantis or Ford stock? 

I assume their CEOs also donated ~$250MM to Biden's campaign too? 

Other than that, yea, totally the same thing. Both sides indeed.

 

Are you confused perhaps by the offices of a regulator like the SEC or an economy stabilizer like the Fed, with implicit neutrality, versus that of the the *Commerce* office, whose job is as an advocator?

When the Biden administration invited manufacturers to bring electric vehicles to the WH lawn for the signing of his executive order mandating EV sales, but specifically excluded Tesla, was that “choosing winners and losers”? 

When he credited the GM CEO with “you electrified the entire automotive industry; im serious”, for having sold 1 electrified car to Tesla’s 100, what would you call that? An anointment, or a gaffe, or both?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
On 3/20/2025 at 8:38 PM, tbone_ said:

I hope maga loads up on it. And averages down all the way to bk.

 

How’s DJT doing btw?

 

On 3/21/2025 at 8:36 AM, Blotto said:

Pretty damn well considering it's still trading for a market cap of $4.4B, or greater than 1000X revenue ($3.6M). And they somehow managed to lose $400M last year while generating that revenue. 

This market is broken.  Fundamentals and business models don't matter.  Tesla doesn't trade based on their car business anymore. They were always overvalued in that aspect and still are. They're going to live and die based on robotics and robo taxi.  

  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, royiv said:

I think @52-80 needs a new avatar.

 

Ah yes, if only your party had more billionaire support, it could have won.

I think maybe you need to stick to the topic, instead of sticking to me.

This is the statement from the Department of Commerce

Quote

Through its 13 bureaus, the Department works to drive U.S. economic competitiveness, strengthen domestic industry, and spur the growth of quality jobs in all communities across the country

Why were you unmoved when POTUS flaunted a Dutch car in front of the white house, but aggrieved when the Sec of Commerce promotes a domestic company?

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Why were you unmoved when POTUS flaunted a Dutch car in front of the white house, but aggrieved when the Sec of Commerce promotes a domestic company?

Good lord man get a hold of yourself lol. Telling people to go buy specific shares in a company is not in the same solar system as "hey look at these efficient and hybrid vehicles". Although keep reaching, I'm curious to see how far you can stretch

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
3 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Ah yes, if only your party had more billionaire support, it could have won.

I think maybe you need to stick to the topic, instead of sticking to me.

This is the statement from the Department of Commerce

Why were you unmoved when POTUS flaunted a Dutch car in front of the white house, but aggrieved when the Sec of Commerce promotes a domestic company?

 

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Good lord man get a hold of yourself lol. Telling people to go buy specific shares in a company is not in the same solar system as "hey look at these efficient and hybrid vehicles". Although keep reaching, I'm curious to see how far you can stretch

This. The Department of Commerce should be promoting general economic development of sector in line with strategic objectives. It should be promoting US companies to foreign investors and businesses. It should not be advocating that the American public buy a particular stock. Surely @52-80 you can see the difference between these actions? 

Posted
36 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The Department of Commerce should be promoting general economic development of sector in line with strategic objectives. It should be promoting US companies to foreign investors and businesses. It should not be advocating that the American public buy a particular stock. Surely @52-80 you can see the difference between these actions? 

I agree, politicians should be more promoting entire domestic sectors and industries than cherry picking single companies.

But since you guys brought up the cherry-picking (I never posted on it before), what's your stance when the last administration did it? And since a govt representative advocating a single stock run such afoul of your morals, what's your stance when one antagonized that single stock just last week? 

Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

I agree, politicians should be more promoting entire domestic sectors and industries than cherry picking single companies.

But since you guys brought up the cherry-picking (I never posted on it before), what's your stance when the last administration did it? And since a govt representative advocating a single stock run such afoul of your morals, what's your stance when one antagonized that single stock just last week? 

The last administration did not advocate buying a single company's stock. It did advocate for a certain direction for a particular industry (EVs for automotive) and in that context and in the context of passed legislation, highlighted many efforts of prominent American manufacturers, including GM and Ford. It did not specifically invite Tesla to the same event, and perhaps that was politically motivated, but I frankly don't see the exclusion of one market participant from a general promotional event as anywhere in the same universe as promoting the purchase a particular entity's stock. You're making a false equivalence and you know it. 

I'll also add that promoting consumers to purchase goods from certain companies and promoting them to purchase STOCK is entirely different. The former at least is in the general ballpark of what the Department of Commerce is supposed to be doing. The latter isn't and looks more like a pump and dump effort than anything else. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted

I assume the CEOs of Ford and GM also personally donated hundreds of millions to Biden's election campaign, were rewarded with being appointed the head of a brand new federal agency, and then got invited to the Pentagon to discuss top secret planning? Oh, while spending most free time publicly attacking critics of the president?

If we're going to be honest with our "both sides!" takes 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
31 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The last administration did not advocate buying a single company's stock. It did advocate for a certain direction for a particular industry (EVs for automotive) and in that context and in the context of passed legislation, highlighted many efforts of prominent American manufacturers, including GM and Ford. It did not specifically invite Tesla to the same event, and perhaps that was politically motivated, but I frankly don't see the exclusion of one market participant from a general promotional event as anywhere in the same universe as promoting the purchase a particular entity's stock. You're making a false equivalence and you know it. 

I'll also add that promoting consumers to purchase goods from certain companies and promoting them to purchase STOCK is entirely different. The former at least is in the general ballpark of what the Department of Commerce is supposed to be doing. The latter isn't and looks more like a pump and dump effort than anything else. 

You didn't answer the second question.

A politician (whose job is to boost US businesses) promoting a specific domestic company's stock is bad.  But a politician who actively cheered against a specific domestic company's stock is...what?

Posted
15 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Are you confused perhaps by the offices of a regulator like the SEC or an economy stabilizer like the Fed, with implicit neutrality, versus that of the the *Commerce* office, whose job is as an advocator?

When the Biden administration invited manufacturers to bring electric vehicles to the WH lawn for the signing of his executive order mandating EV sales, but specifically excluded Tesla, was that “choosing winners and losers”? 

When he credited the GM CEO with “you electrified the entire automotive industry; im serious”, for having sold 1 electrified car to Tesla’s 100, what would you call that? An anointment, or a gaffe, or both?

Other posters have raised some of my answers to this already, but c'mon man. I know you're a card carrying member of the elon fan boi club, but you're really grasping at straws here. 

The original post you responded to was my reaction to the current Secretary of Commerce suggesting the American public go out and buy a single company's stock. Coincidentally I'm sure, but the CEO of that company is also the largest donor to the GOP and (a lot of people are saying) the shadow POTUS. Did Raimondo (or Wilbur Ross or Pritzker or Bryson or...) ever make a similar suggestion? I think you are confused by the umbrage being taken here.

Biden did invite execs from GM, Ford, and Stellantis to the White House for meetings while excluding Tesla. I don't know why for sure, but I assume it had something to do with Tesla being the only non-union car manufacturer in the country. Is that really "actively cheering against" Tesla's stock?

I know nuance is tough these days, but ain't no fucking ballpark on this one.

 

Posted
6 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

Other posters have raised some of my answers to this already, but c'mon man. I know you're a card carrying member of the elon fan boi club, but you're really grasping at straws here. 

The original post you responded to was my reaction to the current Secretary of Commerce suggesting the American public go out and buy a single company's stock. Coincidentally I'm sure, but the CEO of that company is also the largest donor to the GOP and (a lot of people are saying) the shadow POTUS. Did Raimondo (or Wilbur Ross or Pritzker or Bryson or...) ever make a similar suggestion? I think you are confused by the umbrage being taken here.

Biden did invite execs from GM, Ford, and Stellantis to the White House for meetings while excluding Tesla. I don't know why for sure, but I assume it had something to do with Tesla being the only non-union car manufacturer in the country. Is that really "actively cheering against" Tesla's stock?

I know nuance is tough these days, but ain't no fucking ballpark on this one.

 

I know you have a blindspot but can you comment on a govt official on stage celebrating a domestic company's value going down. Can you compare the egregiousness of that to a govt official cheering for 1, but not all domestic companies? That was last week, w/ a current governor and ex VP candidate, not the ex President.

The Biden WH event was not a union event, signing a jobs order.  It was an EV event, signing an EV order. Don't need nuance to figure that one out.

If you want to argue the manufacturing and employment angle -- which is the right thing for the POTUS to promote-- which company employs more workers in America, the American one, or the Dutch one?

 

Posted
16 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

I know you have a blindspot but can you comment on a govt official on stage celebrating a domestic company's value going down. Can you compare the egregiousness of that to a govt official cheering for 1, but not all domestic companies? That was last week, w/ a current governor and ex VP candidate, not the ex President.

I'll attempt an answer even though you keep dodging every question coming your way here. I'd say it's unseemly, but I understand. To put it in terms that you might understand, let's say someone, (George Soros?) owned a company and that company's stock made up a huge chunk of his wealth. And let's say he used that wealth to help his preferred party win a presidential election and buy himself unprecedented access to levers of power in government. A government that has provided massive financial assistance to many of ole George's  companies btw. Could you understand why someone like Greg Abbott might celebrate publicly if George's company stock price tumbled? I seem to remember this exact thing happening with the "controversy" with Bud Light, 'member?

16 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

which company employs more workers in America, the American one, or the Dutch one?

You keep doing this for some reason. Was Jeep the only company invited to the White House, or was it Jeep, GM, and Ford? Indeed, which White House guests have more American employees?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Not to entirely change the subject, but what’s the argument against shorting TSLA?  That investors have already baked in potential revenue loss from fleeing US/Euro buyers?

Posted
Just now, LCHorn said:

Not to entirely change the subject, but what’s the argument against shorting TSLA?  That investors have already baked in potential revenue loss from fleeing US/Euro buyers?

That the current US administration has a policy goal of not letting that specific stock tumble, and will bend policy to ensure that it happens. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Foosters said:

That the current US administration has a policy goal of not letting that specific stock tumble, and will bend policy to ensure that it happens. 

The most likely support is with tax credits and I’m very skeptical there’s consensus support for that in the House.  Reps like Massie and our very own Chip Roy also appear sufficiently ideological that the transactional give and take of lawmaking is going to be, best case, slow.  
 

It’s not that it can’t be done, it’s that it’s going to be subordinate to a tax cut, which will likely require wringing every bit of outstanding political capital before 2026 campaigning begins.  Moreover, the tax cut it’s likely going to be unpopular (like the last one was).  
 

None of this is particularly hard for the investor to imagine.  So what’s the magical thinking that supports 100+ price/earnings?  Patents?  The Mar-a-Lago accords?  I’m a little surprised the whole market isn’t piling into shorts because narratively it just seems to follow the historical pattern of a founder/CEO thinking they are special and not lucky.  

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

You didn't answer the second question.

A politician (whose job is to boost US businesses) promoting a specific domestic company's stock is bad.  But a politician who actively cheered against a specific domestic company's stock is...what?

What politician and what statement are you referring to? I'm not aware of Biden, or any part of his administration, "cheering against" Tesla while he was President. Some other politician who isn't the current executive of the country criticizing Tesla or Elon would be completely irrelevant to this discussion. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted
5 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:


I mean, I don’t feel like maga types are the ones that are buying Tesla stuff anyway.

There’s one on this page just a few posts up. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Jkwellborn said:


I mean, I don’t feel like maga types are the ones that are buying Tesla stuff anyway.

They weren't. But they may be the only ones doing it now. 

Posted
3 hours ago, LCHorn said:

Not to entirely change the subject, but what’s the argument against shorting TSLA?  That investors have already baked in potential revenue loss from fleeing US/Euro buyers?

The market can be irrational for a longer time then you can be liquid. There has been a good argument to short Tesla for a long time.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
On 3/12/2025 at 11:56 AM, hornfan785 said:

I hate putting bumper stickers on my cars, but I might have to give in and get one of those Anti-Elon stickers.

Then Elon will just bork your car remotely. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Quote

Tesla (TSLA) sales in the European Union (EU) tumbled for a second consecutive month in February, even as overall new electric vehicle registrations increased.

According to the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association, Tesla EU new car registrations, which serve as a proxy for sales, plunged 47% year-over-year to 11,743 cars in February, a month after they plummeted 50%.

Meanwhile, battery-electric vehicle (BEV) registrations in the bloc jumped nearly 24% overall.

Doesn’t seem good for the health of the enterprise.

Posted

I'm honestly surprised that European sales only fell 47%, year over year, in February.  How much has Tesla sunk into it's Gigafactory Berlin and its Austin Cybertruck factory?  

I know MAGA can prop up the stock, but at some point the company will be in serious trouble of running out of capital due to low sales. 

Posted
7 hours ago, LCHorn said:

Not to entirely change the subject, but what’s the argument against shorting TSLA?  That investors have already baked in potential revenue loss from fleeing US/Euro buyers?

Whales love when people trade based on emotion. It’s kind of their thing.

Posted
7 hours ago, LCHorn said:

Not to entirely change the subject, but what’s the argument against shorting TSLA?  That investors have already baked in potential revenue loss from fleeing US/Euro buyers?

 

3 hours ago, hornmpa96 said:

The market can be irrational for a longer time then you can be liquid. There has been a good argument to short Tesla for a long time.

As hornmpa points out, TSLA has been irrationally overvalued for years and far more shorts have been burned than have profited. It's stock price is a joke, but I won't short it because there is no telling what Elon and Donnie can cook up to inflate TSLA stock price. The president has been recommending people buy the stock and the cars already, whats to stop them from artificially propping up the price by buying shares through the sovereign wealth fund, or the US army to decide to buy a million cybertrucks? Who is going to say no? Trump could declare it's in the interest of national security or some shit, and all will be greenlighted. There are simply very few checks on their power right now.

There are plenty of other overvalued stocks to consider shorting that aren't in the middle of our idiocratic culture war, and subject to the whims of Donnie and Elon. When there is no rationale for a stocks valuation and it trades irrationally for years, you might as well just go to Vegas and score some coke and hookers while you're gambling.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
17 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

What politician and what statement are you referring to? I'm not aware of Biden, or any part of his administration, "cheering against" Tesla while he was President. Some other politician who isn't the current executive of the country criticizing Tesla or Elon would be completely irrelevant to this discussion. 

A current state governor who just ran to be Vice President.

Is a politician of that prominence shitting on an American company as egregious as SecCom boosting an American company?

(The funny thing is while he was gloating about this, his state's pension fund owned 1.8M shares of the company...)

 

 

18 hours ago, The Royal We said:

I'll attempt an answer even though you keep dodging every question coming your way here. I'd say it's unseemly, but I understand. To put it in terms that you might understand, let's say someone, (George Soros?) owned a company and that company's stock made up a huge chunk of his wealth. And let's say he used that wealth to help his preferred party win a presidential election and buy himself unprecedented access to levers of power in government. A government that has provided massive financial assistance to many of ole George's  companies btw. Could you understand why someone like Greg Abbott might celebrate publicly if George's company stock price tumbled? I seem to remember this exact thing happening with the "controversy" with Bud Light, 'member?

You keep doing this for some reason. Was Jeep the only company invited to the White House, or was it Jeep, GM, and Ford? Indeed, which White House guests have more American employees?

How about an analogy that you'll understand: Biden celebrates the energy beverage industry, it helps keeps him awake for 2 hours a day. He brings a can of Red Bull (Austrian) and Celcius (US) to the podium. He signs an executive order mandating the government buys more energy drinks. And then he says "Thank you Celcius, you invented the energy drink industry; you started it all".

The thrust of this conversation started on accusation of cherry picking of winners and losers. Do you think that was not a deliberate cherry pick against Monster, and a perversion of obvious facts?

Cool of you to bring up Soros.  He donated a minimum of $200M since the last midterm to his preferred party. Do you find issues with his access to levers of power in government?

Has the Republican party provided massive finance assistance to Elon's companies? Tesla's govt loan (which it was the first to pay back) was under Obama. The bulk of SpaceX's contracting was under Obama and Biden. The EV policies were all Dem pushed. Trump campaigned on repealing EV mandates and the federal credit. And while he's now chums with Elon, that remains his policy aims. You Elon's involvement in politics is motivated by money?

Do you remember people burning up Bud Light factories and store displays?

Maybe bring up a point of discussion that won't backfire...

 

Posted
31 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

A current state governor who just ran to be Vice President.

Is a politician of that prominence shitting on an American company as egregious as SecCom boosting an American company?

(The funny thing is while he was gloating about this, his state's pension fund owned 1.8M shares of the company...)

 

 

How about an analogy that you'll understand: Biden celebrates the energy beverage industry, it helps keeps him awake for 2 hours a day. He brings a can of Red Bull (Austrian) and Celcius (US) to the podium. He signs an executive order mandating the government buys more energy drinks. And then he says "Thank you Celcius, you invented the energy drink industry; you started it all".

The thrust of this conversation started on accusation of cherry picking of winners and losers. Do you think that was not a deliberate cherry pick against Monster, and a perversion of obvious facts?

Cool of you to bring up Soros.  He donated a minimum of $200M since the last midterm to his preferred party. Do you find issues with his access to levers of power in government?

Has the Republican party provided massive finance assistance to Elon's companies? Tesla's govt loan (which it was the first to pay back) was under Obama. The bulk of SpaceX's contracting was under Obama and Biden. The EV policies were all Dem pushed. Trump campaigned on repealing EV mandates and the federal credit. And while he's now chums with Elon, that remains his policy aims. You Elon's involvement in politics is motivated by money?

Do you remember people burning up Bud Light factories and store displays?

Maybe bring up a point of discussion that won't backfire...

 

Again with the false equivalences. Politicians can shit on private companies all they want. Whether it is politically wise to do so is a different matter, but there is nothing improper about it. The fact that you don't see the difference between the executive office of the United States implying to people to buy the troubled stock of his billionaire friend and the governor of state making a joke criticizing the actions of said billionaire friend says a lot about you.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

Finally got to drive a friend's Rivian R1S.  Its fit and finish is so comically better than Tesla, it's like they're not even playing the same sport.  I have no interest in buying an electric car until charging time improves dramatically, but if I'm forced to buy one, it would be Rivian 10 out of 10 times.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

A current state governor who just ran to be Vice President.

Is a politician of that prominence shitting on an American company as egregious as SecCom boosting an American company?

(The funny thing is while he was gloating about this, his state's pension fund owned 1.8M shares of the company...)

 

 

How about an analogy that you'll understand: Biden celebrates the energy beverage industry, it helps keeps him awake for 2 hours a day. He brings a can of Red Bull (Austrian) and Celcius (US) to the podium. He signs an executive order mandating the government buys more energy drinks. And then he says "Thank you Celcius, you invented the energy drink industry; you started it all".

The thrust of this conversation started on accusation of cherry picking of winners and losers. Do you think that was not a deliberate cherry pick against Monster, and a perversion of obvious facts?

Cool of you to bring up Soros.  He donated a minimum of $200M since the last midterm to his preferred party. Do you find issues with his access to levers of power in government?

Has the Republican party provided massive finance assistance to Elon's companies? Tesla's govt loan (which it was the first to pay back) was under Obama. The bulk of SpaceX's contracting was under Obama and Biden. The EV policies were all Dem pushed. Trump campaigned on repealing EV mandates and the federal credit. And while he's now chums with Elon, that remains his policy aims. You Elon's involvement in politics is motivated by money?

Do you remember people burning up Bud Light factories and store displays?

Maybe bring up a point of discussion that won't backfire...

 


Go Ahead Yes GIF
 

Keep digging. 

Posted
21 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Finally got to drive a friend's Rivian R1S.  Its fit and finish is so comically better than Tesla, it's like they're not even playing the same sport.  I have no interest in buying an electric car until charging time improves dramatically, but if I'm forced to buy one, it would be Rivian 10 out of 10 times.

 

Just curious, what about charging time do you feel needs to be vastly improved? You can go from 0-60 in basically 20 minutes for most vehicles (charging north of 60 percent takes longer). For my road trips, I generally go with shorter 10-15 charge stops or however long it takes to go to bathroom, get snacks, etc. That's usually roughly 15 minutes and gets you enough charge to drive a couple of hours until the next stop. Obviously you can charge longer if you're actually getting a full meal. But the dedicated charging stops don't end up being significantly longer than I would stop with gas vehicle. It is definitely less convenient if you're driving very long road trips multiple times a month, but if you're only doing the occasional road trip, it isn't noticeable. And, if you can charge at home, you literally never have to stop and "buy gas" during the regular weeks. As an example, we go to Austin from Houston a couple of times a month (family). We leave with a full charge so we don't have to stop on the way there. We might stop for 15 minutes on the way back just depending on how much we were able to charge in Austin.  

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Again with the false equivalences. Politicians can shit on private companies all they want. Whether it is politically wise to do so is a different matter, but there is nothing improper about it. The fact that you don't see the difference between the executive office of the United States implying to people to buy the troubled stock of his billionaire friend and the governor of state making a joke criticizing the actions of said billionaire friend says a lot about you.  

implying was supposed to be "imploring" - stupid autocorrect!

Posted
11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Just curious, what about charging time do you feel needs to be vastly improved?

I drive from Austin to Colorado twice a year. Several stretches there would give me heartburn.  

BYD did just announce ultra fast chargers that only take 5 minutes.  Once those get widespread at gas stations, I would start to consider an electric vehicle.  The only other stumbling block I would have is that the car value is tied to the life of the battery.  Replacement costs need to come down also so you don't have a worthless trade in after 8 - 10 years.

https://electrek.co/2025/03/26/byds-new-1000-kw-ev-fast-chargers-are-ready-and-could-hit-china-as-early-as-next-week/

As promised, BYD confirmed its new 1,000V Super E-Platform on March 17, capable of charging 1MW+ (1,000 kW) rates. The new EV architecture, supported by a new line of BYD fast chargers, enables up to 400km (249 miles) of range in a mere five minutes of charging.

Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

I drive from Austin to Colorado twice a year. Several stretches there would give me heartburn.  

BYD did just announce ultra fast chargers that only take 5 minutes.  Once those get widespread at gas stations, I would start to consider an electric vehicle.  The only other stumbling block I would have is that the car value is tied to the life of the battery.  Replacement costs need to come down also so you don't have a worthless trade in after 8 - 10 years.

https://electrek.co/2025/03/26/byds-new-1000-kw-ev-fast-chargers-are-ready-and-could-hit-china-as-early-as-next-week/

As promised, BYD confirmed its new 1,000V Super E-Platform on March 17, capable of charging 1MW+ (1,000 kW) rates. The new EV architecture, supported by a new line of BYD fast chargers, enables up to 400km (249 miles) of range in a mere five minutes of charging.

Batteries don't die after 10 years and don't need to be replaced. That's just fearmongering by others. I also think there are more fast chargers than you think. Colorado is also pretty well covered with fast chargers, especially if you have access to the Tesla Supercharger Network (which most vehicles do now or will soon). Hard to find where there would be any concerning distance between chargers here. Although I admit some of those uphill climbs may be concerning if you don't have a good amount of charge coming into them (but downhill gains energy, so that's nice). 

 

image.thumb.png.b6ab7897fb7f3d0194963d220824be07.png

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted
4 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Has the Republican party provided massive finance assistance to Elon's companies? Tesla's govt loan (which it was the first to pay back) was under Obama. The bulk of SpaceX's contracting was under Obama and Biden. The EV policies were all Dem pushed. Trump campaigned on repealing EV mandates and the federal credit. And while he's now chums with Elon, that remains his policy aims. You Elon's involvement in politics is motivated by money?

Lulz

Quote

Then, hours after the articles were published, the State Department appeared to remove the word “Tesla” from the spreadsheet and uploaded a revised version to its website, though a version of the list including Tesla was still online on another State Department web page Thursday afternoon.

Musk, Tesla’s chief executive, threw cold water on the issue. “I’m pretty sure Tesla isn’t getting $400M. No one mentioned it to me, at least,” he wrote on X at 1:30 a.m. ET Thursday.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Lulz

 

Every other public job in existence has strict conflict of interest requirements. A fucking city worker can't accept a donut from a potential vendor or customers without being reprimanded or potentially fired. But @52-80 is perfectly ok with the government appointing someone the head of an agency on government "waste" who is the current CEO of a public company vehicle manufacturer and the CEO and CTO of rocket company and defense contractor. And he is ok with another government agency begging the public to buy the stock of said CEO's company. And he thinks those things are the same fucking thing as random fucking politicians criticizing the actions of that CEO and his companies. Fucking dense as shit motherfucker. These are blatant red flags that in every other context would be such flagrant conflicts of interest as to disqualify for the person from the position AND would even result in potential legal and criminal action for bribery and fraud. But because it is @52-80's guy, it is all good. Fucking ridiculous.  

And I say all this as the owner of Tesla (and I still love my vehicle) and a general fan of what SpaceX has accomplished. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
23 hours ago, LCHorn said:

Not to entirely change the subject, but what’s the argument against shorting TSLA?  That investors have already baked in potential revenue loss from fleeing US/Euro buyers?

The forward PE ratio is 117 today. Is that ratio estimating unofficial future revenues that are falling off a cliff, or only officially reported earnings and future guidance?

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:

How do the fast and ultra fast chargers affect battery life?

They are rougher on the batteries. If that were the only way you charged, they would definitely decrease battery life long term. We're not talking useless battery in a few years, but you can probably add another 5%-15% capacity loss after 10 years. If you're doing 80-90% of your charging at home on a slow charger (which is how the vast majority of people would charge), then the effect is inconsequential. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted
On 3/25/2025 at 9:16 AM, Dahobbs said:

The last administration did not advocate buying a single company's stock. It did advocate for a certain direction for a particular industry (EVs for automotive) and in that context and in the context of passed legislation, highlighted many efforts of prominent American manufacturers, including GM and Ford. It did not specifically invite Tesla to the same event, and perhaps that was politically motivated, but I frankly don't see the exclusion of one market participant from a general promotional event as anywhere in the same universe as promoting the purchase a particular entity's stock. You're making a false equivalence and you know it. 

I'll also add that promoting consumers to purchase goods from certain companies and promoting them to purchase STOCK is entirely different. The former at least is in the general ballpark of what the Department of Commerce is supposed to be doing. The latter isn't and looks more like a pump and dump effort than anything else. 

You say this, but I've never seen any evidence that he's capable of understanding the distinction you're making. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
32 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You say this, but I've never seen any evidence that he's capable of understanding the distinction you're making. 

True. Can you imagine the (justifiable) uproar if Soros donated $60 million to Biden's campaign, Biden wins, Biden puts Soros in charge of overseeing all Federal funding, Soros stays CEO and largest shareholder of two prominent companies that receive federal funding, documents are released that said one of those companies was awarded $400 million under a Federal contract, and another federal agency head, ostensibly acting under authority of that role, recommended that the public buy Soros's stock? @52-80 would be spouting off in every fucking thread that this is unethical (true), a clear bribe (true), clear cronyism (true), and a misuse of public funds and authority (also true). 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

True. Can you imagine the (justifiable) uproar if Soros donated between $250 and $300 million to Biden's campaign, Biden wins, Biden puts Soros in charge of overseeing all Federal funding, Soros stays CEO and largest shareholder of two prominent companies that receive federal funding, documents are released that said one of those companies was awarded $400 million under a Federal contract, and another federal agency head, ostensibly acting under authority of that role, recommended that the public buy Soros's stock? @52-80 would be spouting off in every fucking thread that this is unethical (true), a clear bribe (true), clear cronyism (true), and a misuse of public funds and authority (also true). 

Then, Soros stated he was going to donate an additional $100 million to groups controlled by the Biden political operation while still being a quasi government official (i.e., co-president) while also saying he'd pay $100 to Wisconsin voters to oust a the state's Supreme Court, which he opposes.  

Fixed for accuracy.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
20 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

True. Can you imagine the (justifiable) uproar if Soros donated $60 million to Biden's campaign, Biden wins, Biden puts Soros in charge of overseeing all Federal funding, slashing congressionally approved funding by fiat.  Soros stays CEO and largest shareholder of two prominent companies that receive federal funding, documents are released that said one of those companies was awarded $400 million under a Federal contract, and another federal agency head, ostensibly acting under authority of that role, recommended that the public buy Soros's stock? @52-80 would be spouting off in every fucking thread that this is unethical (true), a clear bribe (true), clear cronyism (true), and a misuse of public funds and authority (also true). 

fify2.0

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Batteries don't die after 10 years and don't need to be replaced. That's just fearmongering by others. I also think there are more fast chargers than you think. Colorado is also pretty well covered with fast chargers, especially if you have access to the Tesla Supercharger Network (which most vehicles do now or will soon). Hard to find where there would be any concerning distance between chargers here. Although I admit some of those uphill climbs may be concerning if you don't have a good amount of charge coming into them (but downhill gains energy, so that's nice). 

 

image.thumb.png.b6ab7897fb7f3d0194963d220824be07.png

Colorado itself is great with regard to chargers. I drive DFW to Denver about 8-10x per year. It's not a well supported route. The Supercharger network finally opening up helps, but in cold weather that stretch between Amarillo and Trinidad has kept me from converting so far. I'm eyeing a Rivian, but using the Superchargers still has me putting money in Musk's pocket

DDZFE8669.jpeg

Edited by topochico
map
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, topochico said:

Colorado itself is great with regard to chargers. I drive DFW to Denver about 8-10x per year. It's not a well supported route. The Supercharger network finally opening up helps, but in cold weather that stretch between Amarillo and Trinidad has kept me from converting so far. I'm eyeing a Rivian, but using the Superchargers still has me putting money in Musk's pocket

DDZFE8669.jpeg

Good information. There are a few non-Tesla fast chargers between in Dalhart and Des Moines on that route, but you never know how reliable those would be. I only have experience utilizing the Super Charger network. I definitely get that someone that didn't have access to that would have a much more difficult time. 

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, bluto said:

 

Quote

This hospitality venture is a way for the company to generate more revenue since customers are more likely to spend more money buying food than they would be sitting in their car while it charges. This can be a great source of income to mitigate the automotive revenue Tesla has already lost from the recent softening in car sales.  

If this Tesla diner is successful, not only would it help boost the company's growth and brand awareness, but it would also increase the chances for more to be built nationwide, bringing this innovation to more Tesla owners who currently have to scroll on their phones to waste time while their car charges. 

 

it amuses me that the article tries to put a positive spin on possible revenue contributions from a f'n diner. Tesla's revenue has been around $100B a year for the last two years. I just checked and Wendys, which has ~5800 locations in the US alone, reported revenues of about $2.5B last year, and net income of $195M. A single diner (or 1000 diners) is just noise in the TSLA revenue picture. 

Edit - having given this more than 10 seconds of thought, I have to assume that the Wendy's corporation revenue is just franchise royalties and fees. The total revenue is probably 2M per franchise, so call it ~$12B in revenue and being generous $2B in profit. But we also know, Tesla aint opening up thousands of restaurants. 

Edited by Blotto
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Blotto said:

 

 

it amuses me that the article tries to put a positive spin on possible revenue contributions from a f'n diner. Tesla's revenue has been around $100B a year for the last two years. I just checked and Wendys, which has ~5800 locations in the US alone, reported revenues of about $2.5B last year, and net income of $195M. A single diner (or 1000 diners) is just noise in the TSLA revenue picture. 

Edit - having given this more than 10 seconds of thought, I have to assume that the Wendy's corporation revenue is just franchise royalties and fees. The total revenue is probably 2M per franchise, so call it ~$12B in revenue and being generous $2B in profit. But we also know, Tesla aint opening up thousands of restaurants. 

All staffed by robots! Sells franchise locations and forces them to pre buy the robots, cmon bro it’s Elon you know he’s not lying about how close they are to mass production. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...