-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Elon Musk to advise Trump administration
- Thread starter Barklikeadog
- Start date
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
Because Donald Trump is a controversial person and elicits strong reactions from people.
While I believe that Mr. Trump is basically an immature egomaniac who gives little thought to the consequences of his words, I think his positive intentions towards the business community are sincere. It is better for Tesla and SpaceX to have a seat at the table for the next 4-8 years than to be left out.
Electrek's article on the meeting noted that Tesla and SpaceX were the lowest valued companies represented at the Trump Tower meeting yesterday. All of the other organizations were well north of 100B in market cap. Tesla has market cap in the 30-35B neighborhood, and I've seen SpaceX's private valuation at around 12-15B.
What does this tell us?
My guesses/inference: (1) Peter Thiel has substantial influence with Donald Trump, and successfully communicated to Mr. Trump the importance of Tesla and SpaceX to the future of the U.S. economy (2) Tesla and SpaceX are likely considered as important as the other companies at the meeting.
We know from Mr. Trump's speeches and rants that he likes "YUGE!" stuff, "winning", and anything "incredible". Fast cars, Mars rockets, and vast factory buildings are things that Donald Trump will understand and encourage.
So while I feel that the Trump victory in November was a terrible setback for civil discourse (and probably civil rights) in the United States, I don't expect much negative fallout for companies like Tesla and SpaceX.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Sam Harris said this today, and it says it all:
_______________________________
Missing Hitch
It has been five years, my friend.
Five short years since you taught us how to die with wisdom and wit. And five long ones, wherein the world taught us how deeply we would miss you.
Syria. Safe spaces. President Trump.
What would you have made of these horrors?
More times than I can count, strangers have come forward to say, “I miss Hitch.” Their words are always uttered in protest over some new crime against reason or good taste. They are spoken after a bully passes by, smirking and unchallenged, whether on the Left or the Right. They have become a mantra of sorts, intoned without any hope of effect, in the face of dangerous banalities or lies. Often, I hear in them a note of personal reproach. Sometimes it’s intended.
You are not doing your part.
You don’t speak or write clearly enough.
You are wrong and do not know it—and it matters.
There has been so much to say, and no one to say it in your place.
I, too, miss Hitch.
_______________________________
Me too.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I would agree it is great news, but you would have to be naive if it changes the overall direction of Trump's policies given who is in charge of the EPA and DOE. This panel was about job growth, and even though Trump might take Elon's advice on job growth, that doesn't mean the energy policy of the country won't be switching away green/low-carbon energy.
As another pointed out, even though the media didn't really focus on it, Mary Barra of GM is also on the same panel.
As another pointed out, even though the media didn't really focus on it, Mary Barra of GM is also on the same panel.
Ubbe
Member
...
--That Tesla and SpaceX is seriously undervalued, or at least that Facebook is equally overvalued when considering the respective worth of those companies to Humanity.
Anyways, regarding the meeting, it is at least some positive news that Tesla/SpaceX is held forth as important. Let's hope that at least some of the Alt-Righters scapegoating Tesla for "subsidies" will shut up now.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Put it this way, if Dick Cheney were back in charge Elon Musk's companies would be buried at all costs because they conflict with the established interests he supports. Trump is into things like revenge and flying cars, Elon shouldn't end up in his crosshairs at any point.
I think the reasonable reaction is that one doesn't effect the other. More people digging coal in west virginia doesn't hurt Tesla sales. GM isn't going to Trump to put Tesla out of business, they will go to Trump and ask not to be punished for the types of vehicles they produce. More oil drilling is not going to hurt Tesla sales. A lot to gain and nothing to lose here.
I think Trump, and of course Rick Perry, are guys who are for 'all of the above'
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Allowing GM to produce harmful vehicles without consequence is a subsidy for fools fuel... that DOES hurt Tesla and everyone else. CAFE standards exist for a reason. Enforcing an average fuel economy of ~54 mpg by 2025 would hugely benefit EVs.
Start with Toyota. They make the dirtiest large passenger vehicles, and their Green vehicles are dirtier than the other makes as well.
And they are the Big Mega ICE Car Company. Bigger than GM.
Look it up. No EV's, Worst fuel economy in all large SUV's and Pickups. No diesel pickups in US (actually cleaner than gas in BSFC).
Or is this just a random hate Americans post? If so, carry on. I believe GM is selling high tech to North Korea, and has mass graves of slave workers outside their Detroit building. (oppss, wrong country).
Last edited:
Aah. Of course. That's so obvious.
Just as you should not worry if the airline you run has the finest pilots on the planet, and therefore there should be no FAA or air traffic controllers handling the rest of the bozos out there. Regulations just get in the way.
If you choose (a) over (b) you either simply don't believe in being honest or you are compromising your principles.
That's how pragmatism works. It's a less idealistic form of utilitarianism.
If you choose (a) over (b) you either simply don't believe in being honest or you are compromising your principles.
That's how pragmatism works. Utilitarianism is a specific kind of pragmatism.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Theft is easier than working.... should we allow that? Same difference.
If you're foolish enough to use the atmosphere as a dumping ground then you need to pay for it.
Blind hate without a single action to back it up.
The DNC Presidential Campaign accepted over double the money from Big Oil as all the other parties combined.
Did you think it was for sex favors? Or political favors? The rich don't hand out jewelry just to because they like how a girl dances. They expect something from a diamond tennis bracelet.
The DNC Presidential Campaign accepted over double the money from Big Oil as all the other parties combined.
Did you think it was for sex favors? Or political favors? The rich don't hand out jewelry just to because they like how a girl dances. They expect something from a diamond tennis bracelet.
Absolutely not. The smart general understands you will need to concede a few battles on the way to winning the war. The idiot general is determined to win the battle at all cost.
Source, please.
That appears to be a severely twisted version of the truth - something that is in ever-scarcer amounts around here.
From the latest I've been able to glean quickly, which is from early September, the full story as reported by the Wall Street Journal - Hillary Clinton Raises More Than Donald Trump From Oil Industry is:
1. Clinton raised from what WSJ called Big Oil $525,000 vs Trump $149,000 as of late July. This primarily was from individual employees of petroleum-related companies.
2. Both those amounts are piddling in this age. Clinton's - because few in the industry liked her. Trump - because first, he spurned individual donations (that changed later in the cycle); second, because many in the industry despised him. Remember, the Dallas Morning Herald for the first time in 48 years would not endorse the Republican candidate, saying "Donald Trump is no Republican".
3. HOWEVER....the Journal's article then revealed that of the O&G industry's total political donations as of that time, which was $71 million, 90% went to Republican candidates. THIS is the appropriate metric, not how much went strictly to the Presidential campaign.
voyager
Active Member
Bottom line in any pitch to Trump should be: there's a lot more money to be made, innovation, jobs and other benefits to generate in greening the economy. Continue on the old fossil way will cost the U.S. economy dearly. If I know Trump, he will be more than glad not to get entangled any more in the Middle East because of oil.
You're right, Audubon, but you can't really engage McRat. He appears to get his information from some far-right propaganda site.
Source: His post claiming the popular vote was a dead-heat and that millions of Clinton votes were illegal.
But I digress. back to oil. Almost 90% of Exxon's PAC contributions this year were to Republicans:
Exxon Mobil: Total Contributions | OpenSecrets
Similar threads
