He was definitely a communist, though. Do you know anything about the history of anarchist communism?
Actually, he did; you should try rereading the section about the money changers.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Well, the right-wing leaders in the US and several other western countries are in fact NOT pro-capitalism. They hate free markets. They want monarchy, monopolies, and government-granted (royal) patents. Capitalism is way too *anti-establishment* for them.
But that's a really unpopular position these days, so they pretend to support capitalism in order to get votes, and then subvert it into "crony capitalism", a.k.a. aristocracy.
If they didn't have to win votes they wouldn't pretend. Democracy is important. Of course right-wingers try to supress democracy too, with everything from throwing voters off the polling lists to gerrymandering.
I'm talking about the right-wing leadership, of course. Grassroots right-wingers are just... well, the politest way I can put it is that they're being conned.
This is actually a good question. Some possibilities:
-- I am not 100% sure that S demand is stronger than current S production (X is another matter), and I'm not sure how much they can switch from S to X (the production line is less switchable than they had hoped)
-- Both S and X have substantial manual aspects to production and maybe they are reassigning some of those workers to do something else. For instance, if the bottleneck is one station where they had extra workers, maybe those workers have been pulled off to do something else.
Just throwing ideas out.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
This is a common issue I observe: people believing that X input must lead to Y result.
“Will happen” is a huge Red Flag, whether it’s written by you, or an Uber Bull like Julian Cox.
And even if you were correct on valuation, the market can stay irrational far longer than you will be solvent. This is true for both sides of any stock bet. In any case, your increasingly fervent posts declaring your hope to be fact, do not show much confidence in the bear thesis. If you want valuation, stick with Blue Chips. TSLA is r/WallStreetBets material, where the reward is either a yacht worthy of Donald Trump, or the punishment is being able to show the rest of the subReddit a $0 RobinHood account balance.
This is such an insane list. Some of the companies on this list are ones I don't like, but they're all *much* too dangerous to short over a significant time period.
I agree whole heartedly. More companies of more sizes from more places make for better outcomes. I never said Tesla couldn't be competitive, and certainly have never said SpaceX couldn't be competitive. Government and especially defense contractors are the most inefficient monstrosities on the planet. Superbly ripe for disruption.
We're slowly filling in the picture of abiogenesis. Sounds like they may have filled two of the gaps here. Cool! Thanks for the link.
Wal-Mart is the most vulnerable in my opinion. Mainly because of amazon. Shorting amazon is one of the dumbest things you can do as far as I can tell. Hey guys let’s bet against the company that’s practically taking over the world.
bdy0627
Active Member
I find it interesting when political bickering gets so black and white, good vs evil, right vs wrong, naive vs wise. It's one big gray sludge to me, on all sides of the aisle. 
That list is ranked on dollar value shorted. For others in the list like Apple, the short interest is a very small fraction of the market value. A lot of these short positions, especially in Apple, are likely hedge positions.
Myusername: drive the car. Just take it out for a good long test drive (though overnight is better -- it took a couple of weeks for me to really appreciate this). I know you trade based on technicals, but you cannot understand the company unless you understand the product, and you don't understand the product.
You will not "think it was one of the best cars [you've] driven".... rather, you will start wondering what's wrong with all the other cars. Your entire viewpoint will shift and you will *only* consider 100% electric cars to be competition. There are very few people who have gone electric and then gone back to junky gasmobiles (I think Leonardo DeCaprio is one). It seems like you still haven't figured out that this is how it works.
This is why those of us who get it are looking intently at the *electric* competition and laughing at the ICE "competition". Take a drive and you'll get it.
It's not, though. The massive tax breaks for billionaires end up being a bad deal for middle and lower class Americans, because the billionaires turn around and spend the money bribing Congress to make things even worse for middle and lower class Americans. I've watched this happen too many times before. :-(
Also, it's a massive tax increase for middle class people in a state with an income tax, which are IMNSHO all the good states.
If the Republicans would propose a tax reform which didn't include massive tax breaks for billionaires and for billionaire corporations, then I'm sure it could get broad popular support. But for some reason they refuse to. (And yes, it's easy to do this: just take the rest of your tax reform proposal and add an Eisenhower-style 90% tax bracket for those with more than a million a year in income.) For some reason, the Republicans in Congress always (well, since 1980, they were different before 1980) refuse to propose a tax reform unless it has huge tax breaks for billionaires. Ever wondered why?
What you're missing is that Tesla isn't either. So far, I see the Renault Zoe, Hyundai Ioniq Electric, the Nissan Leaf (ha), the Chevy Bolt (self-inflicted production limits), and some Chinese startups. This is very similar to Ford's position when he produced the Model T -- actually Ford had *more* competition.
I will point out that Tesla is currently sacrificing some of the natural manufacturing simplicity gains from "BEVs are similar to manufacture than ICEs" by attempting to automate things which are usually done manually in other factories (like seat installation), which causes manufacturing complexity.
I think this is a worthwhile move.
If you pay attention to those of us who own Teslas, you will know that in the hardware they are doing exactly this constantly, at a MUCH faster rate than ANY other car company I have ever seen. My car (!) has version 2 of the side mirrors, something like the 29th version of the drivetrain, version 5 IIRC of the door handles, version 2 of the chargeport, etc.
You assert that, but it turns out not to be true with Tesla. Now you know.
People with $100K incomes may be considered filthy rich by the ignorant, but they're not actually.
Billionaires are filthy rich. Actually, this perception failure is a major political problem -- a lot of people just don't understand how rich billionaires are. Can't comprehend the idea that one person's wealth could set up 1000 people for life (and that would just be a billionaire -- for a 10 billionaire, it would be *10,000* people). There are a lot of people who think "rich" and think of a college professor or a doctor. Compared to a billionaire, college professors and doctors are poor people, and the billionaires certainly know this.
Yes. And to be the downer about Tesla for a change, the CEO seems unconcerned about legal compliance or customer communications, so those areas will be weak. Which they are.
Currently I think this isn't a fatal flaw, but it's worth watching.
It gets annoying listening to *silly* bearish arguments when I can make better bearish arguments based on Tesla's demonstrated weaknesses.
It's unearned (which doesn't mean it wasn't a gutsy gamble -- gambling income is also unearned). And I'm perfectly happy to pay normal tax rates on it; I don't need a discount. My stock, in this scenario, went up by a factor of 10 or 20. The difference between 20% tax and 40% tax? It seems chintzy to squabble over that. I'm willing to pay my fair share. I don't feel that I should get to pay a lower rate than someone who sweated for hours every day to make their money.
(P.S. I would complain if I had to pay *higher* rates on unearned income than on earned income, but right now it's earned income which pays higher rates than unearned income.)
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
