General Discussion: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[The Blue Owl]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the author sounds alot like those Club of Rome post-growth pundits and I don't see a post-growth world as a solution. In a world were the cake get's smaller the outcome will be not be kumbaya back to nature, it will get very nasty. So as an antidote to those lines of thinking that infected large parts of the intellectual world in the west, I suggest that book

https://www.amazon.com/Proactionary...&qid=1534629923&sr=1-11&keywords=steve+fuller

The 'proactionary principle' was introduced by transhumanists. Whereas precautionaries believe that we are on the brink of environmental catastrophe because we're too willing to take risks, proactionaries believe that humans stand apart from the rest of nature by our capacity for successful risk taking. In terms of current environmental problems, therefore, solutions lie not in turning our backs on our love affair with technology but by intensifying it – through finding new energy sources or even looking at the possibility of inhabiting other worlds.

People have knee-jerk reactions to her because of the association with the Club of Rome, whose positions have been attacked and ridiculed (like you are doing in your post) because many of its predictions didn't come to pass (yet). Reading what others say about what she actually wrote is just as misleading as reading what Business Insider says about what Elon Musk thinks. Once exposed to such crap, it's difficult to keep an open mind.

I recommend going directly to the source. There is as much politics in her writing as there is in Musk's thinking, which is to say, none. There is only observation and deduction from first principles informed by deep experience, that sometimes leads to uncomfortable and unescapable conclusions of high consequence when applied to the real world. Therefore, those conclusions become politically charged. That doesn't originate with the author, but with those of her readers (and even more who didn't read) who don't like those implications.

 

[Ovulation]

People have knee-jerk reactions to her because of the association with the Club of Rome, whose positions have been attacked and ridiculed (like you are doing in your post) because many of its predictions didn't come to pass (yet). Reading what others say about what she actually wrote is just as misleading as reading what Business Insider says about what Elon Musk thinks. Once exposed to such crap, it's difficult to keep an open mind.

I recommend going directly to the source. There is as much politics in her writing as there is in Musk's thinking, which is to say, none. There is only observation and deduction from first principles informed by deep experience, that sometimes leads to uncomfortable and unescapable conclusions of high consequence when applied to the real world. Therefore, those conclusions become politically charged. That doesn't originate with the author, but with those of her readers (and even more who didn't read) who don't like those implications.

You are right, the whole "Limits of Growth" thing triggered me and btw. It is a valid argument that the limits of growth that they figured out were way off.

If you acknowledge a problem like global warming you have options, for example, the club of Rome crowd advocates for a post-growth society in a world where billions of people hover a bit over the poverty line, or you develop scalable technologies that avoid greenhouse gases like the Chinese government pushes.

 

[22522]

No 'sound investor' would want Elon Musk to remain CEO of Tesla, says former GM exec Bob Lutz

Elon produces results.

 

[lklundin]

No 'sound investor' would want Elon Musk to remain CEO of Tesla, says former GM exec Bob Lutz

Elon produces results.

Yes, while Elon Musk produces results GM went bankrupt under Bob Lutz, whose continuously pessimistic judgment regarding Tesla no one needs.

 

[RubberToe]

During dinner at the sushi bar last night, I rhetorically asked Mrs. Toe if she bought TSLA on the dip. She follows Tesla too, mostly because I don't talk about anything besides it and the Cubs. She is sceptical and often echoes back the latest bearish headlines. We have also recently discussed how the media is complicit in pushing headlines designed solely to get clicks.

Much to my surprise, she said she bought on the dip! Proudest moment of my life.

RT

 

[The Blue Owl]

You are right, the whole "Limits of Growth" thing triggered me and btw. It is a valid argument that the limits of growth that they figured out were way off.

It is. They were way off because they made quantitative atatements based on limited computer models fed with flawed assumptions. Of course, the same used to be true about global warming. Plenty of earlier models made wildly inaccurate numeric predictions. But the core of the problem was correctly identified and the truth of the overall thesis is now beyond a reasonable doubt.

Like it or not, there are mathematical and physical limits to growth. It doesn’t mean the steady state has to be universal poverty. Plenty of people on the right side of the core issues believe and promote wrong-headed solutions. But when we avoid analyzing the root of problems because there are incurable alarmists in the world, some with political agendas of their own, we miss the point. The iceberg is still out there and we’re steering right into it.

If you acknowledge a problem like global warming you have options, for example, the club of Rome crowd advocates for a post-growth society in a world where billions of people hover a bit over the poverty line, or you develop scalable technologies that avoid greenhouse gases like the Chinese government pushes.

I agree with you, and I think those suggesting we must embrace poverty are wrong. But when the alarmists, on both sides, claim the alternative to relentless growth is poverty, they are just stating a false dilemma. That our current development model is unsustainable and that it can be fixed without sacrificing civilization can be true at the same time. I presume we must share this belief on some level, since we are both following an enterprise engaged in a life-and-death battle on a very large scale in order to prove this very point.

What I find most tragic in this context is that we (collectively) are losing our ability to dispassionately reason our way out of this chaos because of emotional reactions trigerred by association. So, here: I am making a strong claim that the book I mentioned, particularly the chapter about leverage points, is an exquisite piece of thinking. Forget about politics for a moment; just find a quiet spot, turn off distractions, and read. I think you will find it provides genuine insight.

 

[lklundin]

Much to my surprise, she said she bought on the dip! Proudest moment of my life.

RT

Presumably not counting that one time with her when you said "I do".

 

[RubberToe]

9,000 VINs registered in the last 24 hours:

 

[RubberToe]

This chap seems to have a pretty good attitude. I think Tesla should keep him around for a bit. What do you think?

 

[mblakele]

This chap seems to have a pretty good attitude. I think Tesla should keep him around for a bit. What do you think?

Just adding a link: Peter Villa on Twitter

 

[neroden]

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that today's wave of lies, aka FUD, is really just the beginning. There is a finite amount of time to maximize the damage to Tesla/Musk before the stock goes (hopefully) private. Everything including the proverbial kitchen sink is going to be thrown at the company until then.

As a Long, I'm going to keep shaking loose dry powder and purchase additional shares at a discount.
(Not an Advice)



Here's my FUD prediction: (more realistic the the BS I've seen lately from the "news")

The "military grade" question during the Q2 call will be the basis for the (paid for by Petro dollars) Congressional hearing to determine if Musk is exporting advanced technology in violation of federal law.

and/or

If by becoming private Tesla will allow foreign investors access to advanced technology.

Exports of Tesla vehicles will be halted and/or Tesla will be prohibited from going private until the inquiry is complete.

Yeesh. I hope not. I think this isn't going to happen, but you're right, the lunatics in the Trump administration might try it.

 

[neroden]

We have gone form the media saying Tesla is cash burning dumpster fire that might not make it to 2019 without paying junk rates in a capital raise to Tesla is a jewel of American industry with key technology of the future and foreign investment in Tesla must be highly scrutinized. e.g.

How Trump could ruin Elon Musk's plan to take Tesla private

Yeesh. I expect the deal will have to give the Saudis non-voting shares (a la Snap) which will probably eliminate any concerns.

 

[neroden]

It's the weekend again, so here is the book recommendation of the day: Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Trust me, it's very much on topic. If you don't have time to read it all (should only take 4-5 hours), just read chapter 6, which can also be freely read on this site dedicated to the author's work. It should be required reading not only for managers, politicians, and anyone else in a decision-making position, but for everybody who is impacted by those decisions (i.e., all of us).

Even though this was written long before the world had heard of Elon Musk, it is very much about Elon Musk. After reading it, you will have a much clear view of the way he sees the world and will understand much better why he operates in a way that seems incomprehensible to so many.

What does it say about me that all of the stuff in this chapter seems obvious to me?

 

[neroden]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the author sounds alot like those Club of Rome post-growth pundits and I don't see a post-growth world as a solution. In a world were the cake get's smaller the outcome will be not be kumbaya back to nature, it will get very nasty. So as an antidote to those lines of thinking that infected large parts of the intellectual world in the west, I suggest that book

https://www.amazon.com/Proactionary...&qid=1534629923&sr=1-11&keywords=steve+fuller

The 'proactionary principle' was introduced by transhumanists. Whereas precautionaries believe that we are on the brink of environmental catastrophe because we're too willing to take risks, proactionaries believe that humans stand apart from the rest of nature by our capacity for successful risk taking. In terms of current environmental problems, therefore, solutions lie not in turning our backs on our love affair with technology but by intensifying it – through finding new energy sources or even looking at the possibility of inhabiting other worlds.

Right, so this is wishful-thinking bullshit, like all of transhumanism is.

The precautionary principle, introduced to politics by Lionel Jospin, is actually *correct*.

There is a fundamental distinction between population growth, which has to be nearly stabilized -- even Einstein pointed out that no quantity in the real world can continue exponentially growing forever, and he bemoaned people's inability to comprehend that -- and *quality of life*, which can rise indefinitely. Technology allows us to have higher quality of life without growing like a cancer. *If it's used carefully*. If it's not, we all end up with lead poisoning.

 

[neroden]

Actually, in Elon’s interview with MKBHD, he discussed one of the items they failed to automate - having a robot connect two different cords together. He also discussed the failure of flufferbot as well in the past. In general, it seems that robots are not able to handle objects that deform or require fine motor control.

Correct.

I think this will be alleviated by AI advances in the next few years.

I'm quite sure it won't. Nobody's got the first clue how to start solving the problem.

This is going to be solved in a much simpler way: the cords are gonna be more rigid. They don't have to be perfectly rigid, they just have to be a lot less wobbly than they are now.

This is like the solution for the automated bolting: threading the bolts was too hard until they used bolts with tapered ends, and *then* the robots could handle it (information from a previous article).

 

[neroden]

But when the alarmists, on both sides, claim the alternative to relentless growth is poverty, they are just stating a false dilemma. That our current development model is unsustainable and that it can be fixed without sacrificing civilization can be true at the same time.

Agreed.

The precautionary principle says that we should actually do testing on the effects on human health and the environment before using a new chemical, and that we should eliminate chemicals known to be highly toxic; the chemical companies fight to prevent this. The precautionary principle suggests that we should offer sex education and birth control to everyone to use voluntarily, because there can't possibly be any *bad* effects of this and it might help deal with certain problems caused by overpopulation; the fanatics say that we need to force women to unwillingly give birth to more babies because God, or Decency, or Growing the White Race, or Male Supremacy, or Need For Workers, depending on which branch of fanaticism it is.

I think it is clear which is on the side of civilization and which is not, in both cases.

 

[ktrivedi70]

This chap seems to have a pretty good attitude. I think Tesla should keep him around for a bit. What do you think?

Dammit, got something in my eye. Back in a sec.

 

[neroden]

Folks like Mr. Villa deserve to have this smear campaign ended. This is, as Musk explained to his employees, why the company needs to go private.

I don't think the smear campaign will ever completely end -- we have Big Oil (by which I mean the market-listed oil companies, not the national oil companies), the National Automobile Dealers Association, the incumbent automakers, and probably Russia running smears. But I've become convinced that the biggest smear campaign *is* from short-sellers and other financial manipulators. Why?

The timing. They've been releasing their smears to coincide with planned bear raids, such as the July 4th weekend bear raid (done two years in a row). Or, in this case, they're reacting to Musk's proposing to go private. Big Oil, NADA, Russia, and the automakers wouldn't care about such timing; they would time their disinformation to match *product releases* or store openings -- and in fact, they *have* done so in the past -- or they'd just drip it out steadily. The accelerated piles of disinformation associated with *financial events* says to me that the smear campaign is primarily from financial manipulators. They are completely hysterical about the possibility that they won't be able to do more financial manipulations.

This says to me that it actually will stop most of the smears if Tesla goes private.

 

[generalenthu]

Looks like there is more FUD lined up for tomorrow. Martin Tripps sleaze ball lawyer is on teevee at 9:45 AM EST.

Stuart D. Meissner on Twitter

 

[Intl Professor]

Yeah, but I think the world is such a complex system that we are hardly able to produce intended effects and no that doesn't mean we can switch off your brains and don't consider potential dangerous, but the overemphasis of unintended consequences comes very much from a place of privilege and saturation, sure an upper-middle-class westerner thinks the world is good and wants to preserve it, so the mindset of the precautionary principle creeps in (which by the way is in the EU, with the saturated welfare states, even more prevalent than in the US, think of the GMO panic). The technocrats in China, who have to lift 1 billion out of poverty so they stay calm, have a different mindset, they need growth and the know technology form the 20th century is not able to create it in such a scale.

I'm thoroughly convinced as are others, this will be known as the Chinese century just as ours was labelled for the last. The current drift to restoring the past weakens us. Not only is it bad for the environment it contradicts what seems to be a biological imperative, innovate or become extinct. When you go to great lengths to cover your ass you've already dulled any cutting edge you had, as Satchell Paige put it so well. "Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching." And then there's the more famous one about looking back.

For more, see: The Official Satchel Paige Quote Page