So it's more a statement against laziness than it is against rogues. I can absolutely support that stance.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?
- Thread starter Robert.Boston
- Start date
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
Determining motivation is always tricky. Especially when motivations are diverse and many of the players are anonymous online. Here are some things I have observed. I spent a lot more time on this in the 2009-2013 time frame:
- In real-life conversations (which I have had thousands of since 2009), I almost never hear this stuff. Sometimes people repeat what they've heard, but it's often posed as a question and they are happy to consider new data.
- However, you absolutely can't avoid it online - it's everywhere, and many people are VERY set in their beliefs. Given 1 and 2, it seems likely to be a fairly small number of people, but ones that are very highly motivated. Which makes sense - most people are fairly reasonable and honest, but a few bad apples really screw things up for everybody else
- Things have shifted over time. The main sources (given the arguments, locations and job titles of some frequent posters) used to appear to be potential competitors to EVs (like hybrids, hydrogen, diesel, etc). Now it seems to be more people trying to play volatile stocks - it seems more targeted at TSLA, and more of it is repeated in financial "news" sources that anybody can offer content to, like Seeking Alpha.
1. potential competitors to EVs (i.e. a producer of power-dense batteries that are good for hybrids but not EVs, or a supplier of diesel vehicles to the DOD)
2. former Tobacco denialists newly funded by petroleum corporations (this was exposed in a documentary and seemed to stop for quite a while; I actually don't see a lot of this unless they hide it well)
3. auto dealers trying to keep people from switching to a new brand or a business model that doesn't include them
4. auto manufacturers trying to keep people from switching to a product or business model that they can't or don't offer
5. conservatives fighting anything that environmentalists are for, no matter how good it is for the US economy and national security
6. environmentalists that fear cleaner cars will distract people from moving to mass transit and bicycles. Or H2 if they really think that is cleaner
7. investors that want to make quick money by convincing people to take the same position they have in a volatile stock
8. freedom fighters that believe anything environmentalists are for is really a communist plot to grow government, raise taxes, and steal our freedoms and so must be stopped
9. fiscal worriers that really seem to be motivated to reduce government spending; and don't believe in investments with returns, and don't believe that every type of fuel, transportation and infrastructure is subsidized (I haven't found a way to verify any of these guys are real and not just one of the others faking their position)
You will note that is an extremely wide range of players and motivations (which is why I am often dismayed to see EV advocates downplay any negativity with "he's an oil shill", which I think is often not the case and starts a new round of off-topic arguments). While I personally find motivations interesting, I don't think motivations are nearly as important (or as clear or easy to discuss) as the fact that they are lying. Lying bothers me no matter why you are doing it. There are many gray areas, inherent trade-offs and things worthy of discussion, but deliberately misrepresenting the facts is a non-starter that fortunately few are willing to do - though those few unfortunately seem to be quite vocal in their efforts, and reasonably successful at attracting lazy readers to their cause.
While some of these details of who and why are specific to EVs, the general tactics absolutely are not. It's just the way some (only a few) people are.
Last edited:
dauger
Member
ChadS, I agree with and appreciate your excellent analysis. Would you agree with the following extension on its conclusion?
I propose that the tactic you identify has a name: propaganda
Propaganda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
particularly where the definition says "the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or political agenda".
I'd say that June 17 Jenkins WSJ editorial qualifies as both propaganda and an application of disinformation:
Disinformation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Would you agree with either or both?
dc_h
Active Member
Great thoughts. I think this is very helpful. Some people are reactionary for different reasons. Address everyone who disagrees as an uninformed boob, or an evil liar ends all discussion. No opinions change and no progress is possible. You can challenge Holman Jenkins and other paid shills, but long term you need to address specific fears. Elon gets much less govt support then Boeing. Tesla gets no direct federal govt subsidy and has no loans. EVs run better. National security is served by EVs. Things like global warming increase defensive responses for many Americans. They do associate environmentalism with socialist power grab. You can think these opinions are all nonsense, but until these opinions are addressed, Holman and his ilk will have a rapt audience.
I already posted this question on the short term investor thread, but then I started digging into the other investor related threads and it seems like this one is perfectly suited for my question.
A recent Standsberry newsletter article was handed to me from someone that seemed to think it was an accurate prediction of the Tesla/Solar City merger. It seemed rather negative both short and long term so I was wondering if there is historical validity both in the newsletter in general, but also previous articles about Tesla. Thanks.
A recent Standsberry newsletter article was handed to me from someone that seemed to think it was an accurate prediction of the Tesla/Solar City merger. It seemed rather negative both short and long term so I was wondering if there is historical validity both in the newsletter in general, but also previous articles about Tesla. Thanks.
@supratachophobia
Don't know the article in question (maybe you could post?), but here's a link to a commentary about stansberry research in general.
Note the commentary indicates they are into Value investing. TSLA and SCTY are typically categorized as Growth companies. This often affects company analysis (e.g.--early Amazon/Apple, etc...)
Stansberry Research Review - Scam or Legit?
Don't know the article in question (maybe you could post?), but here's a link to a commentary about stansberry research in general.
Note the commentary indicates they are into Value investing. TSLA and SCTY are typically categorized as Growth companies. This often affects company analysis (e.g.--early Amazon/Apple, etc...)
Stansberry Research Review - Scam or Legit?
Gerardf
Active Member
Just when you thought you had seen everything in the past few days.. 
First Wahlman with his wierd article : No, Brexit Is Not Bullish For Tesla
And now Santos moving Tesla from "short" to 'Neutral" .... (!)
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3984582-tesla-likely-see-margin-improvement
Quote :
"There are reasons to believe Tesla is going to see visible gross margin improvement."
and
"The short thesis is now entirely based on coming competition, but true competition will only arrive during late 2017/2018. That's too far away for it to influence most investors. A better timing will probably be had closer to that event."
First Wahlman with his wierd article : No, Brexit Is Not Bullish For Tesla
And now Santos moving Tesla from "short" to 'Neutral" .... (!)
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3984582-tesla-likely-see-margin-improvement
Quote :
"There are reasons to believe Tesla is going to see visible gross margin improvement."
and
"The short thesis is now entirely based on coming competition, but true competition will only arrive during late 2017/2018. That's too far away for it to influence most investors. A better timing will probably be had closer to that event."
Last edited:
Gerardf
Active Member
Correction, this was Wahlmans article. Even wierder than his normal articles.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3984441-brexit-extremely-bullish-tesla-automotive-industry
Other link was a response to this one. Very hard to keep up with TSLA post on SA these days.
So yes, first Wahlman who writes something Tesla bullish and today Paulo....
Makes me ALMOST think tftf was not sarcastic in the sort-term thread the past days.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3984441-brexit-extremely-bullish-tesla-automotive-industry
Other link was a response to this one. Very hard to keep up with TSLA post on SA these days.
So yes, first Wahlman who writes something Tesla bullish and today Paulo....
Makes me ALMOST think tftf was not sarcastic in the sort-term thread the past days.
I have no idea what motivates these guys but Santos' article still seems to lean long-term bearish. For example he suggests Tesla is still overvalued but there may be a better entry points for shorts after what he calls the GF "hype event." I think he is giving himself some wiggle room to go back to a short position if the stock gaps up.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
To be fair to Santos he has in the past posted articles when he felt a short position in TSLA was not as much of a "sure bet". I think he feels it makes him seem more "balanced".
Gerardf
Active Member
Wow, and an other super positive article for Tesla from Anton Wahlman. The source that now keeps on giving !
http://seekingalpha.com/article/398...sla?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-widget
He is trying to disquise it as a negative one, however we are now aware of his secret love for Tesla and Elon Musk.
So do all the commenters on it.
In fact what he posts is great news for Tesla, basically VW giving one move push confirming the EV by installing a charger network for all these Model3's
http://seekingalpha.com/article/398...sla?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-widget
He is trying to disquise it as a negative one, however we are now aware of his secret love for Tesla and Elon Musk.
So do all the commenters on it.
In fact what he posts is great news for Tesla, basically VW giving one move push confirming the EV by installing a charger network for all these Model3's
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
I hit the paywall so didn't see the whole article, but from Curt Renz's description, it sounds like it clearly meets the definition of propaganda. Although that's not too shocking; I'd hazard a guess that a majority of internet content meets that definition.
I am not familiar with Jenkins' past work; but given his position as a WSJ writer and Renz's description again, it sounds like it's likely disinformation as well.
I'm always happy to hear contrary opinions; in fact I often seek it out - I can either learn something, or sharpen my own position. But people that write disinformation (i.e. John Peterson, Bjorn Lomborg) even after being offered correct information are not interesting to me; I don't read their stuff anymore.
Agreed! I have long suggested offering clear, friendly information no matter what the opposition is doing. Ignore their insults (or maybe use humor), and don't bother questioning motivations. Just offer information in a friendly fashion. It's hard sometimes (I have erased many, many things after typing them and started over), but far more effective. it may never change the mind of somebody really dug in, but it helps a LOT with the silent masses reading along that are not experts in the field.
a cynic might think motivations could be, Santos has over 1,000 articles on SA. pennies for articles can add up. Anton if you search is short TSLA and is a top author for clicks, comments and eyeballs. who pays for SA, look to both sides of the article and see lots of targeted ads that are very easy to click on. controversy generates clicks and eyeballs. just a cynical thought though. note "silent" anton wrote an article about a gasoline powered Tesla that was picked up by the electronic automobile association a few years ago.
has anyone had a chance to view and comment on Julian Cox's presentation on the model 3? i am presenting this here as it deals with destruction of ICE auto industry (investing). How & Why Tesla Model 3 Crushes The Auto Industry - Gas 2
it did need more than a whiteboard. I knew most of the stuff so not new to me, but probably new to others. I get the feeling it was a "we need a presenter, are you up? its in an hour. otherwise ok. Julian does know his stuff i agree, except I thought he looked differant.
It's a long lecture and the speaker is not the greatest. I had some college professors like him. However the content is fantastic. I've seen a similar pattern coming after the Model 3, but he makes a case that it will be much more apocalyptic for the ICE industry than I thought it will be.
Who knows what it will do to the world economy if most of the ICE companies blow up and die. While many start ups are scrambling to get a piece of the EV pie. Industries have been catastrophically disrupted before, but never an industry this large which employs as many people as the car industry does. He makes the point that the oil industry will go down after the car industry, but it won't be right away. It's going to take a long time to replace all the ICE cars in the world and all those legacy ICEs will need to be fueled. But most ICE drivers will be grumbling.
The attached article sums up the lecture, but I wanted to listen to it while doing something else.
Similar threads
