dmckinstry
Model X 2019
He may mean what he says literally, but I'm not convinced what he meant yesterday is what he means today, or what he'll mean tomorrow.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
I'm just stupid. I deleted the original and tried to undelete it, but could not, and then reposted it as though a virgin post. I've always wished birth control were retroactive, but that probably wouldn't work either.
I think you completely misunderstand. As we just found out, Sterling and Google's former head of autonomy, Chris Urmson, were forming a brand new self-driving company, aka a combination of self-driving "titans" from Google and Tesla. I think the tweet makes perfect sense.
Last edited:
3Victoria
Active Member
Obviously the large $ signs were enticing. Start-up, run a bit, and get bought out for billions ... nice gig. If the allegations are true, then a very large display of lack of ethics.
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
I was concerned about trump having to negative impact on the market. I still believe that that will probably happen in the long-term 4+ years. For example the long term financial impact of wasting up to a trillion dollars on a wall, instead of useful and necessary infrastructure.
But in the more immediate future I have the cynical view that there are two ways that people could respond to being woken up in the middle of the night, and coming on deck on the titanic. The rationale response is that we're in big trouble.
But I believe that the market is going to respond like, hey the band is playing, let's drink champagne and have a party.
Trump wants 20% tax on imports from Mexico to pay for wall - CNN
Trump wants 20% tax on imports from Mexico to pay for wall - CNNPolitics.com
I'm assuming we can't discuss this here since there is no 'direct to tesla' correlation now emphatically shunned,
It certainly crosses the 'politics' line as it is induced ONLY for reasons of a border wall
But despite its clear indirect implications to Tesla and TSLA must be relegated to the Politics thread.
In protest of this, I post it here anyway as demonstration of the following observation:
Tesla is now intrinsically and directly affected by all related politics because:
1) It's founder, leader, majority owner says the ONLY reason Tesla exists and its continuing mission is to address Global Warming for the human race
2) The newly elected President and his party controlling Congress explicitly deny this is even an addressable issue, is largely a hoax, and is now explicitly gagging all federal dissemination of related facts
3) The Tesla CEO is now (and for the first time ever) finding it necessary to be 'lobbying' for Tesla, no less as a primary committee advisor directly to the POTUS, and is actually tweeting about the prospects of the new Sec of State (who's position is important but periphally related to Global Warming policy)
4) For the first time in the history of this country we have a 'non-political' president (quick docile description of what we all know) and are building Walls on our borders, etc. etc.
5) If the CEO and founder of Tesla finds his time and Tesla's direct well being are served by the 'politics' we find ourselves in,
Then so do I.
Until this changes, I'll continue to post political relevance here; direct, indirect, or otherwise (or I'm banned from the board, whichever comes first). I'm perfectly happy to just read anyway...
Trump wants 20% tax on imports from Mexico to pay for wall - CNNPolitics.com
I'm assuming we can't discuss this here since there is no 'direct to tesla' correlation now emphatically shunned,
It certainly crosses the 'politics' line as it is induced ONLY for reasons of a border wall
But despite its clear indirect implications to Tesla and TSLA must be relegated to the Politics thread.
In protest of this, I post it here anyway as demonstration of the following observation:
Tesla is now intrinsically and directly affected by all related politics because:
1) It's founder, leader, majority owner says the ONLY reason Tesla exists and its continuing mission is to address Global Warming for the human race
2) The newly elected President and his party controlling Congress explicitly deny this is even an addressable issue, is largely a hoax, and is now explicitly gagging all federal dissemination of related facts
3) The Tesla CEO is now (and for the first time ever) finding it necessary to be 'lobbying' for Tesla, no less as a primary committee advisor directly to the POTUS, and is actually tweeting about the prospects of the new Sec of State (who's position is important but periphally related to Global Warming policy)
4) For the first time in the history of this country we have a 'non-political' president (quick docile description of what we all know) and are building Walls on our borders, etc. etc.
5) If the CEO and founder of Tesla finds his time and Tesla's direct well being are served by the 'politics' we find ourselves in,
Then so do I.
Until this changes, I'll continue to post political relevance here; direct, indirect, or otherwise (or I'm banned from the board, whichever comes first). I'm perfectly happy to just read anyway...
This is too long, but check out FiveThirtyEight periodically. Otherwise here are some links with my take on the highlights. Skip the highlights if uninterested; the link titles are pretty clear.
Digest of Significant Articles on 538, 1-26-17
Presidents Before Trump Have Meddled With The EPA — It Didn’t Go Well
This is a good argument from history, but what always lurks are hidden changes we have not perceived as yet. Will public outrage at deliberate attacks on the environment check this or a future administration? That is the question. With apologies to the Bard, “it depends upon what is to be.”
Trump’s Election Doesn’t Mean Americans Are More Opposed To Immigration
Two takeaways to consider:
Trump Could Really Mess Up Mexico’s Economy
Many factors are considered here. Standout items include the impact of foreign direct investments (FDI), remittances of something like two billion dollars monthly to families in Mexico, plus changes in NAFTA that might hurt not just Mexico but Canada and the U.S. economy as well.
My thoughts: I’ve changed my mind about getting Mexico to pay for the Wall previously thinking it was impossible. If Trump really puts the squeeze on Mexico he could destroy the economy if backed up by Congress. Of course the Mexican President had to cancel the planned visit, but Trump does have enormous leverage.
Whether he should destroy the Mexican economy in any case is really counterproductive. Illegal immigration was dented during the Great Recession because jobs here were less available. With an improving economy here that should encourage returnees. Furthermore, a ruined Mexican economy might unleash a flood more who are desperate before the Wall is complete, assuming it is effective, which it will not be.
I haven’t bothered to check the Los Angeles Times directly but a secondary source claims former CIA Director, William Colby, worried about actions worsening the flood of immigrants from Mexico because of a worsening economy. (Los Angeles Times, June 6, 1978.) I remember him saying he was more worried about Mexico than the Soviet Union.
Recent historical evidence, namely, the increase in refugees to Europe because of the Syrian civil war, augurs concern that our nearest, as well as even distant neighbors should have healthy economies. That is core to our military’s conclusion that global warming is our greatest long term threat.
Ohio Was A Bellwether After All
Here he follows through with his analysis of New York Times reporting. One, admitted by the Old Grey Lady is a need for more “shoe leather” reporting on the ground through random interviews of real people, not just interviews of political “spin doctors.” Further, which was news to me, but I’m not an Americanist, is that similar states, even though more distant, may catch or mirror what is going on elsewhere or so far undetected there. Looking up what is happening state by state, alone as you are counting electoral votes, may miss this.
Digest of Significant Articles on 538, 1-26-17
Presidents Before Trump Have Meddled With The EPA — It Didn’t Go Well
This is a good argument from history, but what always lurks are hidden changes we have not perceived as yet. Will public outrage at deliberate attacks on the environment check this or a future administration? That is the question. With apologies to the Bard, “it depends upon what is to be.”
Trump’s Election Doesn’t Mean Americans Are More Opposed To Immigration
Two takeaways to consider:
- “You might remember that after Romney’s 2012 loss, the Republican National Committee commissioned an autopsy that concluded that immigration was a major liability for the GOP.”
- And from his conclusion: “ Given how much public rhetoric focuses on immigration from Mexico, we thought that immigrants from Mexico might generate more opposition than those from elsewhere. Instead, it was immigrants from Iraq who generated the strongest opposition."
- "Still, it is wrong to read Trump’s November victory as an endorsement of his immigration policies. In fact, over the course of the 2016 campaign, supporters of both major parties have moved away from supporting a border fence and deportation, the two policies at the heart of Trump’s first executive actions on immigration.”
Trump Could Really Mess Up Mexico’s Economy
Many factors are considered here. Standout items include the impact of foreign direct investments (FDI), remittances of something like two billion dollars monthly to families in Mexico, plus changes in NAFTA that might hurt not just Mexico but Canada and the U.S. economy as well.
My thoughts: I’ve changed my mind about getting Mexico to pay for the Wall previously thinking it was impossible. If Trump really puts the squeeze on Mexico he could destroy the economy if backed up by Congress. Of course the Mexican President had to cancel the planned visit, but Trump does have enormous leverage.
Whether he should destroy the Mexican economy in any case is really counterproductive. Illegal immigration was dented during the Great Recession because jobs here were less available. With an improving economy here that should encourage returnees. Furthermore, a ruined Mexican economy might unleash a flood more who are desperate before the Wall is complete, assuming it is effective, which it will not be.
I haven’t bothered to check the Los Angeles Times directly but a secondary source claims former CIA Director, William Colby, worried about actions worsening the flood of immigrants from Mexico because of a worsening economy. (Los Angeles Times, June 6, 1978.) I remember him saying he was more worried about Mexico than the Soviet Union.
Recent historical evidence, namely, the increase in refugees to Europe because of the Syrian civil war, augurs concern that our nearest, as well as even distant neighbors should have healthy economies. That is core to our military’s conclusion that global warming is our greatest long term threat.
Ohio Was A Bellwether After All
Here he follows through with his analysis of New York Times reporting. One, admitted by the Old Grey Lady is a need for more “shoe leather” reporting on the ground through random interviews of real people, not just interviews of political “spin doctors.” Further, which was news to me, but I’m not an Americanist, is that similar states, even though more distant, may catch or mirror what is going on elsewhere or so far undetected there. Looking up what is happening state by state, alone as you are counting electoral votes, may miss this.
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
Don't you understand that "clean coal" is non existent? It's a complete scam. The coal companies tout it until its suggested that they implement it, at which point it's slammed as an attempt to kill coal. It's never going to be even close to cost effective compared to wind or solar plus batteries, even if it existed.
Clean coal means carbon sequestration. What's clean about mountain top removal or breathing toxic emissions?!
Last edited:
No reason to delete the post. But a hyper important piece of the puzzle you omitted led you to your erroneous #1 copied above:
Mr Musk's endgame is not addressing global warming but colonizing Mars. One could make the argument that exigencies for SpaceX are trumping those regarding Tesla Motors.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I'm not sure that's correct. He does have children, and he knows there is no guarantee that Mars will be habitable for them any time soon, if ever. I think he's equally vested in keeping earth habitable.
That's his personal end game that's true and a good point it MAY be his motivational for current. It's also true he's clearly vocalized this end game to be a decade away, with current priority to life on this planet, so seems like a stretch to me.
Regardless, the fact you acknowledge this possibility makes the politics relevant for discussion here where prior to recent events would not be the case. Given the politics of SpaceX seems neutral to this event, your hypothesis feels a little red in the herring! Still, thanks for making a good point in that regard - (your moderation efforts are much appreciated)
For example:
Elon Musk Floated the Idea of a Carbon Tax to Trump, an Official Says
"A senior White House official said Musk floated the idea of a carbon tax at the meeting but got little or no support among the executives at the White House, signaling that Trump’s conservative political orbit remains tepid on the issue. "
Last edited:
Agree with the current political climate has direct relationship with Tesla. What's not appreciated is the name calling and opinions on the matter that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
What's worse is the blinding obvious the new administration is helping Tesla than hurting it.
Call it lucky as the mod is on the same side and the rants get out of hand to me anyways.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
My understanding of things around immigration, is that people immigrate from places with bad economies, to places with good economies. That immigration from Mexico to America has slowed dramatically the last few years, not so much because jobs became hard to find in America, but because Mexico's economy was running better.
Besides being a reasonable way to look at things (you leave where it's uncomfortable / bad, and go where it's comfortable / good), the Syria example would seem to support this particular idea (namely, people fleeing an area with a bad economy and war, and going to an area with a better economy and a notable lack of gunfire).
If this is true, then your larger point about Trump being able to make a reasonable run at hurting the Mexico economy badly, looks to me like a method by which Trump can ensure increased immigration from Mexico to America. A wall or not isn't going to stop people who can't pay their bills and/or are desperate for a decent quality of life, to crossing that border to find what they're desperate for.
I'm in complete agreement with the conclusion - that our own security is aided and abetted by having neighbors with healthy economies. I'm really hoping we don't wake up in a few months/years and realize that we've been actively doing things to create an outcome, which actually create the desired bad results we're trying to get away from.
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
There are two crucial items if you are correct, and I believe that you are:
1. To be absolutely sure not to mistake a huge move for a small rise, which could lead to selling and missing much of the rise.
2. Having a good idea of the timing of, and the magnitude of the settling. About how much did TSLA settle after the first squeeze?
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
It's not obvious
How about your rants and negative posts?!
The problem with the moderation seems to me to be not paying attention to the quality of the posts. It's the posts by known *tr***s that generate pages and pages of repetitive and obvious, but well intentioned facts, that are the problem (the posts and the replies).
Last edited:
Agree with that- I'm appreciate of AB's firm hand regarding name calling and rants. Although, That doesn't distinguish discussion of presidential behavior regarding suppression of real facts and its associated effects on Tesla.
I view the mere fact Elon needs to spend time with this as a detrimental effect. I'm guessing EM sees it as a necessary distraction he would prefer not to engage (as he did with the previous administration). That's just conjecture on my part of course..
Went from low 30s in early 2013 to 190 in Sept., jogged down to 120s in November, then back to 240s in spring 2014. You could have doubled your money in a couple months in early 2013, sold out, and commenced to kicking yourself, repeatedly. Obviously, past performance does not predict future results, this is not investment advice, make your own investment decisions, etc. etc.
hockeythug
Active Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
