Anecdotally - I just read a note saying the past four week period is "peak gasoline" in the USA, surpassing a prior peak demand back in 2007. These are your fellow co-workers, mom and pop and other economic entities using the fuel in their daily lives. Some buying "even bigger" vehicles to do so. (which is why I sell OTM puts in the refiner and sometimes oil space as well as RV). The EV future is there - it really is. But right now it is at the hobbyist level and needs to be kicked up a notch by lower vehicle prices *and* ownership costs. I believe Tesla really needs to offer free supercharging with the Model 3 to take it to the next level and get the consumer interested in that to lower their TCO. Please be careful out there as the more Teslas that crash into storefronts or run off the road, the higher insurance costs will be for fellow EV owners. My own case, Allstate, charges more for EVs because they are "more expensive to repair". My agent is very electric-savvy, test drove a Tesla twice and said that the excess acceleration actually made him sick and backed off. A case of too much roller coaster and not enough common sense by the Tesla employee during his test drives. An insurance agent shouldn't try to be sold on "Insane mode" driving. I told him that if he wanted to drive electrically, consider just getting a used Leaf for 2 years (under $10k) and then taking a look at a Model 3 in 2018.
-
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
Gerardf
Active Member
Sorry, but that is not the same Montana Skeptic as on SA.
The one on SA is often repeatedly using information that he already knows is not correct, thus intentionally spreading misinformation. And he keeps doing that after he is informed that he does not have his facts (or at least his interpretation of these) correct.
To me he certainly seems to be on a mission to damage Tesla as much as he can, even if he has to be dishonest to accomplish that.
@bonaire : do you really think it is Montana Skeptic's goal to share fair and balanced information about Tesla and Elon Musk in his articles and comments ? He is often using your input, even referring to you as one of the contributors to his articles, thus I feel it should matter to you.
Of course he will fail to hurt Tesla in the longer term, and I am sure he knows that. He is probably rewarded in another way. Problem is of course that many small investors might lose money as a result of his very biased or even misleading articles. If he is such an honest guy with just good intentions, why hide his identity ?
Regarding mentioning me, I know that no article is written to be unbiased. The TV news lives by "if it bleeds it leads, if it cries it flies" and so on. Tesla is an emotional equity and authors do concern themselves with which "side" they are on. I think people believe I am short or that I am against Tesla. I think it is amazing that in a world that wants fairness, that Tesla is doing as good in the stock market as it is and it seems to be due to the "big boys" continuing to support the stock price.
As a company, Tesla is one thing. As a stock, it is another. MS and other pundits may have a goal to support a stock or option position. For me, I won't trade tesla or solar city. I have tried in the past to profit from what "is supposed to happen" and it always went the opposite way. This spells more of a collusive force that I have of no right to try to figure out. All it would take in today's low-volume environment for TSLA, the stock, is the three or four main players acting "even slightly" in concert to make it swing any which way they want. As one manager in the financial world told me in 2014 "there are forces beyond our control and we cannot foresee their actions". Good advice - never assume you are right before the event occurs...
I have tried primarily to figure out the sales numbers based on tracking production levels that are visible. Now, it appears nobody wants to even talk about their recent orders and have slowed substantially in self-reporting. Either they have went dark - or the number of custom orders has slowed substantially and the swing really is to inventory selling. Why order when the car design you may desire already exists nearby - just bring that car to you and maybe even offer a slight discount to do it. Tesla is changing before our eyes and it is really hard to "trade" an equity of a company in-macrolevel-flux.
What I warn people about is "don't believe everything you hear" whether it is from a lot salesperson or a CEO. They are all trying to impress in one way or another. I've worked with and for lying CEOs in my past. It is normal to "dream". To tell employees "don't you want to cash-out if this works?" is something I have heard before. I've seen IPOs waived off and potential millionaire co-workers vanquished. I have seen a CEO lie too often and crater a public company. I think that is better than the crash that comes after dreams are dashed in the real world. It hurts more to fall from grace than to just dream of it and then not see it happen. Good luck to "both sides" of the debate. For me, I like EVs and I know it will take decades for them to become commonplace. it is a nice middle-of-the-road position to be in. Slow and steady builds the strongest change. Nebulous "hockey-stick" exponential growth is built upon the weakest of bedrock. And would you like Hampton Creek vegan mayo on that sandwich while waiting for that Theranos blood work to come back? And which Keurig flavor do you want today? Did your order from pets.com come in on time back in 2001? Always be verifying. Always be closing. A cup of Keurig 2.0 is for closers - who verify.
Last edited:
"Montana Skeptic" has attempted to mock me in Seeking Alpha comments and in a tweet directed at my Twitter account. I proudly display my real name and real photograph here at Tesla Motors Club, at Seeking Alpha and at Twitter where he reposted one of my Tesla Motors Club posts. If he is going to publish full articles and not just comments at Seeking Alpha, then he should feel unashamed to reveal his real name and to include his photograph. If Seeking Alpha were a respectable publication, it would not consider publishing full articles not attributed to an author by his real name. This internet age allows for an unimaginable lack of integrity compared to my days in television financial journalism. If he wishes to comment about me again, I ask that he only do so if willing to tell who he really is.
Last edited:
Gerardf
Active Member
Thank you for your reply. I also want to add that I value your input on this forum highly.
I agree many articles are biased, specially on a stock as polarizing as TSLA. However, that does not mean we have to accept that, and that we should not try to prevent intentional misinformation being spread.
Reading your response, as I interpret it, you seem to value honesty highly. This makes me wonder why you allow Montana Skeptic to use your information and refer to you are a contributor. He is not 'bit biased' and it is very easy to point to many articles where he is simply dishonest and intentionally spreading misinformation. For me he is showing all qualities of exactly the "lying CEO" that you refer to. Someone who is not afraid to intentionally spread misinformation in order to benefit himself, at the cost of others.
If you do not like the big institutional investors that happen to have a big percentage of the shares, why blame Tesla and Elon Musk for that. In fact Elon is keeping a very significant percentage of shares himself to dampen short term shareprice manipulations as much as he can.
In short, I fully respect your opinion, I just do not fully understand it.
Again, I do value your contributions to this forum highly, and I indeed do not think you are a short or have such agenda.
Last edited:
You know, who knows. Like I said, there are bigger powers out there than we can control. And it only takes one small thorn to give someone a flat tire. And a metaphors are a piece of cake to come up with. I think we've all lived through shenanigans in the marketplace. "Great Recession". Internet bubble. Savings & Loan crisis. Failure of firms like Executive Life (1980s), 1987 Black Monday (I got physically sick that day - went to an interview - on the way home, only then heard news of the market crash - sixth sense?)
Last night's debate brought forward a "two sides argument" that still is yet to be settled. However, who is right(er) and who should be right to help the most people? And how is helping some people but not others truly right? Lots of morality be served up in different ways. One side says "don't give subsidies to (these) people" and the other side says the same thing, only with different (these) people as their targets.
Great exercise I learned when attending an Aspen Institute training long ago about 1997 or so at the Wye River center (where they had the Wye River accords long ago).
Sit two guys down in arm-wrestling fashion.
The rules are simple.
1. win an arm-wrestle get a virtual $5000.
2. You have 30 seconds to win as many times as possible.
3. and go....
This was done in groups of two without further instruction.
Who figured it out best? Those who went limp and flopped arms back and forth as fast as possible. You could "win" over $100,000 virtual dollars - on both sides - if you just "flapped" your arms and lost to each other in a concerted fashion.
Now, the guy I got was from Russia. He liked to win. He also took over many of our group discussions as having all the answers. I saw nearly immediately others who were flopping arms and went "limp" myself. I thought he would see the same thing but simply just kept trying to win against me, no regard to "my side" of the fight.
That's our problem with politics and most modern problems. We are trying to win "for our side" and not doing a "win-win" for both sides. What I see is a two-sided argument that I sum up like this. Let's use our oil as best we can now to take engineers to work as quickly as possible to come up with new energy solutions so we won't need oil in 50-100 years when it eventually runs out. However, we must tell our children that the day is coming and make them aware. Not just languish in "oh, let's have a couple more kids and buy an even bigger SUV because we can afford it!" type of thinking. That is not sustainable. Living like the Amish? Very sustainable (even with families having lots of kids). Both sides of the problem are facing each other. We just need proper leadership to guide this humanity through the next 50 years without causing some sort of resource/population bottleneck stress along the way.
We need and even playing field but we need the judges who "measure" that playing field to be unbiased and trustworthy. We need to be gracious when we "lose" a subsidy and forthright in our leadership so that we are not caught in a trap at some future time.
Last night's debate brought forward a "two sides argument" that still is yet to be settled. However, who is right(er) and who should be right to help the most people? And how is helping some people but not others truly right? Lots of morality be served up in different ways. One side says "don't give subsidies to (these) people" and the other side says the same thing, only with different (these) people as their targets.
Great exercise I learned when attending an Aspen Institute training long ago about 1997 or so at the Wye River center (where they had the Wye River accords long ago).
Sit two guys down in arm-wrestling fashion.
The rules are simple.
1. win an arm-wrestle get a virtual $5000.
2. You have 30 seconds to win as many times as possible.
3. and go....
This was done in groups of two without further instruction.
Who figured it out best? Those who went limp and flopped arms back and forth as fast as possible. You could "win" over $100,000 virtual dollars - on both sides - if you just "flapped" your arms and lost to each other in a concerted fashion.
Now, the guy I got was from Russia. He liked to win. He also took over many of our group discussions as having all the answers. I saw nearly immediately others who were flopping arms and went "limp" myself. I thought he would see the same thing but simply just kept trying to win against me, no regard to "my side" of the fight.
That's our problem with politics and most modern problems. We are trying to win "for our side" and not doing a "win-win" for both sides. What I see is a two-sided argument that I sum up like this. Let's use our oil as best we can now to take engineers to work as quickly as possible to come up with new energy solutions so we won't need oil in 50-100 years when it eventually runs out. However, we must tell our children that the day is coming and make them aware. Not just languish in "oh, let's have a couple more kids and buy an even bigger SUV because we can afford it!" type of thinking. That is not sustainable. Living like the Amish? Very sustainable (even with families having lots of kids). Both sides of the problem are facing each other. We just need proper leadership to guide this humanity through the next 50 years without causing some sort of resource/population bottleneck stress along the way.
We need and even playing field but we need the judges who "measure" that playing field to be unbiased and trustworthy. We need to be gracious when we "lose" a subsidy and forthright in our leadership so that we are not caught in a trap at some future time.
Ah, you're totally wrong there. I've been tracking the adoption curves. They'll be commonplace in less than 10 years. I don't feel the need to explain the details; you just need to look at the adoption curve in China.
Agreed.
I understand the need for anonymous publication when you're revealing evidence of crimes which will cause powerful, violent government organizations to try to kill you or imprison you (like Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning). Or when you're advocating the overthrow of the government. Or when you have reason to believe that a killer will come after you if you reveal your name, like some abused spouses.
In the investment world, the only thing in this category is an insider leak of the sort which will get you fired if your boss finds out you ratted on him.
For a stock market opinion piece? Give your name or you aren't worth being published.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
MS seems to have a different view of his own actions:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/400...53&commenter=1&comments=show#comment-73250225
Yes, he's quite the experienced level headed "parent", just trying his best to keep the "kids" on track
MS seems to have a different view of his own actions:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/400...53&commenter=1&comments=show#comment-73250225
Yes, he's quite the experienced level headed "parent", just trying his best to keep the "kids" on track
Montana S responded to a question from me about his motivation. He's pretty reasonable if one asks politely, so I expect a reply to my follow-up question:
_________________
Montana
"My purpose is to chronicle one of the most fascinating cult movements of our time, led by one of history's greatest charlatans, propped up by some of the most ill-advised government policy in the history of industrial civilization, helped along by a groveling gaggle of boot-licking "journalists," and cynically exploited by several powerful investment banks."
Many thanks for the considered reply. The vehemence of your reply explains your dedication to the cause
It's intriguing to me that we all have access to the same information, history, interview video clips and online commentary, and yet we have polar opposite views on Musk, Tesla and SpaceX.
Another genuine question - how do you account for the thousands of elite Tesla and SpaceX employees donating their souls to the cause (temporarily), and the huge swag of Silicon Valley luminaries and power brokers around the world who very much approve and support what Musk is doing? Is everyone collectively missing some vital clue that only you and a handful of your colleagues have managed to tease out.
In other words, and seriously, is everyone else way less smarter than you?
Genuine question.
Cheers from NZ
Gerardf
Active Member
Bonaire, thanks again for your reply. However I am still puzzled. Well, even more so to be honest.
As I interpret what you write (please correct me if I am wrong) you are in favor of the world moving to sustainable transport, and your main issue would be how we should get there.
The Tesla vision is very clearly in line with that : About Tesla | Tesla
"Tesla’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy."
( This is version 2 of the mission, it used to read "transport" instead of "energy")
IMHO both friend and foe agree that Tesla has been a very big and positive force towards that goal. I dare to say it becomes more clear every day that we are now at a point where one can see that it will be possible to reach that goal in the future. Virtually everybody would agree that without Tesla and Elon Musk this process would have been much, much slower.
You also mention subsidies and an even playing field..
Maybe you have a problem with the subsidies ? It is very easy to argue that these can not be held against Tesla. And the playing field is indeed not even, in the current situation EV's (and Tesla) are treated much worse than the 'other side'.
So, why are you assisting someone who is spending all his time and energy to hurt (and thus slow down) Tesla as much as he can ? It does not matter if he can, what is important is that that is what Montana Skeptic is working hard to try to do. And as I wrote he is not afraid to intentionally spread misinformation in order to do that. While doing all that he is often mentioning you as one of his contributors to these articles, thus using YOUR credibility as one of the foundations of these articles.
You might argue that Montana Skeptic isof good intentions and just trying to protect non-institutional shareholders. But, I have to disagree with that. As posted above by JRP3, that is NOT what is driving him. It is very easy to point to much more proof of that. And (as Curt Renz says) if Montana was of good and honest intentions, he would not hide behind anonymity. Note that even in case Tesla / Musk would be doing something evil, bad or misleading, two wrongs do not make a right.
I did notice you do not seem to disagree with me that Montana Skeptic is intentionally spreading misinformation.
Do you really want to be part of that ? Because at the moment you are, by allowing Montana to refer to you in those articles.
That is a pity, because the delivery estimates you spend so much time to gather in an honest way (excellent work BTW !) are used by Montana in a dishonest way, to be used as a cover for all the misinformation and biased insinuations in his articles.
I feel you deserve better, much better. There must be other authors who can use your data in an open and honest way to signal and spread the worries and warnings you seem to have. Proof that such is possible is actually this forum, where you are a long time highly respected contributor, no matter if somebody likes or dislikes the data, facts and opinions you offer to share with us. It would be great if such would also be possible places, like at SA.
P.S. thanks for the positive discussion about this.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
We certainly have a different view of "reasonable" if you consider the vitriolic response I quoted to be "reasonable". I see it as irrational and divorced from reality.
GerardF - I have been a fan of "electric power" since my youth. Grew up within walking distance of two 2+ GW hydro plants. Yes, Niagara Falls NY - home of Nikola Tesla's first big accomplishment.
Now, what this plus the advent of "cheap oil" has done is seed a "new age" of crazy, gluttonous industry and population explosion behind that. All the while, we reap (and strafe) the earth's resources. It's not about CO2, really, it is more about how we actually come down to population control and resource "resolution". Currently, we are a "virus with shoes" (thanks Bill Hicks). We have world politicians and leaders wanting to bolster the economy. The only way to do it really is to continue to grow world population. I don't see politicians and even Elon Musk doing anything about that other than "pumping" some new space-fiction idea to take 100 people at a time to Mars. I don't see any leadership in the religious areas (which are essentially at war at this time) facing this issue with proper leadership.
In terms of helping MS - I don't think I am. I don't want to help anyone in particular, I want to provide information to all. I could write for hours but that's not what this thread is for. I just face the same future as all of us - one which is being mismanaged by our world leaders all in the name of economics and "human farming" (as I put it). The more we look down the rabbit hole, the worse it gets.
I feel conservation and education would better serve man than a trillion dollar spend on renewables as a "solution to keep living our gluttonous ways while we just replace one energy form with another". Spending a trillion on renewables hoping it fixes something is mis-guided. Don't forget that after 30-40 years, all the solar PV modules we have in place today will degrade a large amount and we will need to just constantly replace them. All forms of energy production has degradation - from depleting fuel sources to rundown and dismantling of the plant (from coal to solar to wind to nat gas). The only true energy solution is conservation, living well within our means and stop thinking that the earth is not finite in resources. Could we feed everyone with better logistics? Sure. Should we? Hmm. That's where religious leaders come in from all angles. I think monetary inflation was supposed to help slow down economic growth - however, our fiat currencies have just moved economics the "lowest cost provider" and marginalized millions along the way. Not exactly sustainable. Soon, the world will eventually become a barter system of everyone working based on volunteering. You get fed if you work for the day. We are seeing this happen in the USA now just as it does in Vietnam, the new capital of low-cost labor.
Anyway - I'll end here. But I don't see Elon Musk, MS, you me or anyone in particular doing anything other than shuffling chairs on the deck of a very large Titanic. Until we find ways to conserve and act smarter in our ways. We have new ways of visualizing the world resource consumption that are beginning to be reviewed by leaders at Davos and other locations and hopefully they will figure out a slow glide-path for this all to slowly unwind. I live in a country where people are "coal rolling" with their pick-up trucks, half the southern states are believing that the earth was created 6500 years ago and that the resources were made for us to "control" until the rapture. How to fix that? How to fix overfishing the seas because "seafood is yummy" to the Asians? If someone landed here from another planet, they'd surely call us crazy dumb animals.
Now, what this plus the advent of "cheap oil" has done is seed a "new age" of crazy, gluttonous industry and population explosion behind that. All the while, we reap (and strafe) the earth's resources. It's not about CO2, really, it is more about how we actually come down to population control and resource "resolution". Currently, we are a "virus with shoes" (thanks Bill Hicks). We have world politicians and leaders wanting to bolster the economy. The only way to do it really is to continue to grow world population. I don't see politicians and even Elon Musk doing anything about that other than "pumping" some new space-fiction idea to take 100 people at a time to Mars. I don't see any leadership in the religious areas (which are essentially at war at this time) facing this issue with proper leadership.
In terms of helping MS - I don't think I am. I don't want to help anyone in particular, I want to provide information to all. I could write for hours but that's not what this thread is for. I just face the same future as all of us - one which is being mismanaged by our world leaders all in the name of economics and "human farming" (as I put it). The more we look down the rabbit hole, the worse it gets.
I feel conservation and education would better serve man than a trillion dollar spend on renewables as a "solution to keep living our gluttonous ways while we just replace one energy form with another". Spending a trillion on renewables hoping it fixes something is mis-guided. Don't forget that after 30-40 years, all the solar PV modules we have in place today will degrade a large amount and we will need to just constantly replace them. All forms of energy production has degradation - from depleting fuel sources to rundown and dismantling of the plant (from coal to solar to wind to nat gas). The only true energy solution is conservation, living well within our means and stop thinking that the earth is not finite in resources. Could we feed everyone with better logistics? Sure. Should we? Hmm. That's where religious leaders come in from all angles. I think monetary inflation was supposed to help slow down economic growth - however, our fiat currencies have just moved economics the "lowest cost provider" and marginalized millions along the way. Not exactly sustainable. Soon, the world will eventually become a barter system of everyone working based on volunteering. You get fed if you work for the day. We are seeing this happen in the USA now just as it does in Vietnam, the new capital of low-cost labor.
Anyway - I'll end here. But I don't see Elon Musk, MS, you me or anyone in particular doing anything other than shuffling chairs on the deck of a very large Titanic. Until we find ways to conserve and act smarter in our ways. We have new ways of visualizing the world resource consumption that are beginning to be reviewed by leaders at Davos and other locations and hopefully they will figure out a slow glide-path for this all to slowly unwind. I live in a country where people are "coal rolling" with their pick-up trucks, half the southern states are believing that the earth was created 6500 years ago and that the resources were made for us to "control" until the rapture. How to fix that? How to fix overfishing the seas because "seafood is yummy" to the Asians? If someone landed here from another planet, they'd surely call us crazy dumb animals.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
More efficient use of energy and resources is obviously necessary, as well as population control. You act as if they are mutually exclusive.
The computer you are typing on and the smart phone you are using were "science fiction" not that long ago as a simple example.
Going to Mars and the rest of the Solar System used to be "Science Fiction", just no longer
perhaps you just need a little inspiration, (Me, I remember the US losing to Sputnik.)
{see below for inspiration, if not for you, than your kids and grandkids}
WANDERERS -Short Film
this is incorrect, I also have been following renewable energy and PV since the 1960's
PV are warrented for 25 years and 20% degradtion, meaning still 80% and experts who directly study this (from at least since the mid 1980's) are saying it is much less
ASK THE EXPERTS: PV Longevity & Degradation | Home Power Magazine
No, they are incredibly inclusive. I do not see this humanity being able to work toward higher efficiency on the aggregate. 2.5 Billion people in the Asian arena want to replicate the middle-class that the USA enjoyed in the 1950s. Except we did it with 250 million people and now 10x the number are wanting to enjoy the same.
Or, do we just strive for this? 6-Square-Meter Apartments in Shenzhen Sell Within Hours
Kiwi - that's the issue. Can we really trust a visionary or are they way over their skis and just trying to find the maximum gullibility of all of us? I have no idea. I like the Regan term "trust but verify". I will be on board the first scientist, true scientist, who finds the "root cause" of gravity and can start to control it as a propulsion system. Otherwise, we are really still level-0 by using rocket engines. And, if "they" already have it figured out but are keeping it locked up because by releasing it, it would implode the world economy (ie. free energy) I do understand that aspect. Since our world economy is based on the time-value of labor intrinsically built upon the leveraging of fossil fuels - then yeah, it's a big deal to have reasonably good oversight of this.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
So what's your argument then, Elon should be working on involuntary sterilization techniques instead of sustainable energy use? Elon is working on a necessary part of the equation, it's up to others to work on the other part of the equation.
You cannot make money on sterilization, conservation and other "stop-use" techniques. It must be done with "whole new products and industries which can be monetized". The Pope (or pick-one) could make trillion dollar economic sweeping changes if he started proclaiming that the R.C. church should become very strong in the area of family planning. Would do wonders for CO2 and planetary resource containment. However.... Think that will ever happen? Economic and national leaders need constant growth.
"An economy that requires constant growth in order to survive will eventually do neither". That is something I believe in and until leaders face this fact - we are constantly eating the spring seed every winter. (oh by the way, Bayer buying Monsanto - think that works out well where they will basically control the seed and insecticide for most of the planet?)
Renewables are a good supplement. Heck, I have an 8.1 kw array.
but, what happens when the real energy runs out? Nat Gas / Propane / oil - the BTUs generated by those dwarfs all our current renewables. What's the solution there? Have you tried to heat a typical home with a battery for five days during heavy cloudy conditions and under 10*F ? Let's get the grid up to near 30% renewables before going "crazy" with batteries and work the engineering up for more and more cycles so batteries have less capacity loss per cycle.
Oil was a drug, we know that. It lured us into building larger families without the real data for what the future holds. Now is the time to face what is most important - teaching our kids to live smaller and consider not having kids of their own in order to survive with some semblance of success.
Last edited:
Gerardf
Active Member
Just ran into this ..
Hints of some more FUD being prepared for publication on Bloomberg by our 'friend' Niedermeyer ?
.. timed in response to good numbers next week ??
P.S.
@bonaire: Are you the same 'Bonaire" ?? To be honest I very much hope you are not :-(
I very much liked that first reply to Mr. Niedermeyer (his response does not sound very professional, specially for a journalist).
That second statement however is very disappointing.
Hints of some more FUD being prepared for publication on Bloomberg by our 'friend' Niedermeyer ?
.. timed in response to good numbers next week ??
P.S.
@bonaire: Are you the same 'Bonaire" ?? To be honest I very much hope you are not :-(
I very much liked that first reply to Mr. Niedermeyer (his response does not sound very professional, specially for a journalist).
That second statement however is very disappointing.
Last edited:
Similar threads
