Market politics

[wdolson]

Doesn't mean they are equal by any measure.

True

Funny and terrifying at the same time

The Hill on Twitter

The guy makes Forrest Gump look like a genius. I looked up a bit of data on wind turbine manufacturing. The #3 maker in the world is GE, and American company. Because transportation is an issue, most wind turbines are made close to where they are needed which puts wind turbine manufacturing facilities in almost every state in the US. The #2 maker is Danish and has a plant in Kansas. Siemens, the #1 maker is German, but they have a US factory too. Ohio has the most wind turbine manufacturing facilities in the country. Texas produces the most MHh of wind turbine capacity in the US.

Not only is most US wind turbine production in the US, most of it is in red states.

I'm sure the Chinese make some parts for wind turbines. They have their hand in just about everything these days. But they aren't a major player in the global wind turbine market.

And, of course, his ranting about the emissions from wind turbines is completely loony.

I commented to my SO last night when she read about this that he's like a 5 year old who heard one of his parents take some sort of stand on some issue and then he tries to take up the cause without really understanding what they were talking about. It can be kind of cute coming from a 5 year old. It's baffling coming from someone in his 70s. It's terrifying coming from the president of the US.

Someone in that Twitter thread pointed out Trump hates wind turbines because of the wind farm near his golf course in Scotland. He got into a major legal fight to get the wind turbines removed, but lost.

 

[Intl Professor]

I may have posted this before or from another source, but in my case at least, it is worth an additional read. Think of things this-away. A co-worker is obligated to report to appropriate authorities aberrant behavior in coworkers which might lead to violence or other missteps (talk of using guns on enemies or misuse of a machine that might injure others). Nancy Pilosi under laws in most states has an obligation to effect intervention, medically, in Trump's case. Read, but be forewarned, this is really scary.

Yale psychiatrist: Pelosi can submit Trump for involuntary evaluation

Edit: There are of course examples of psychiatric abuse, hopefully in the past and this may be an example in Nixon's case. His "shrink" is memorable for publicly advocating screening of every six-year old for danger if later running for president.

 

[DragonWatch]

@Intl Professor ~ I have long since passed the stage of mental health ~ either mine or our country’s so called leadership.

Actually, I think Trump himself provided/handed our country the solution to the 2d amendment. Every child or adult murdered by gun violence should receive a letter signed by the president, every senator, congressperson, supreme court justice, And every most high senior leader of every religion expressing their condolences and acknowledging their ineptitude. Inside the envelope should be a check for each family member lost for five million dollars. The amount goes up annually by 5% regardless of inflation. The check must be delivered within 14 working days. Trump demanded Saudi Arabia caugh-up compensation for their citizens shooting. Looks to me like a legal standing.

Okay, that is my rant. For the last decade or so I have been in search of the truth ~ actually all my life. Truth really boils down to the old perspective of art ~ “truth is in the eyes of the beholder.” If your dogma dictates that only someone of your cult says the truth, then nothing I say can ever change the others opinion.

The Truth right now rests with whomever is in power ~ they are the beholder, the cult leader, and the rest of us are blind to their truth.

For the record; I had a psychology evaluation as a part of my approval of a Top Secret screening. The doc wanted me to count backwards from one hundred by seven. He got pissed because I got pissed since he would not allow me to use my fingers. I passed My brain does not work like the average brain.

FYI ~ I have lived thru gun violence since the college bell tower shooting back in the sixties. I was hand picked to be a scout rifle instructor at fifteen. I have fired all kinds of weapons to include rockets and missiles. Never, never with the intention of taking another human life or in personal defense. When my wife asked me to get rid of my 22 cal in 1978, I did ~ weapons have never been in the house since or owned by me. We have always owned an Irish Setter; and I made it clear to my military peers that if they attacked me; well, they might kill me, but they would never enjoy sex again as a human. Hell, in my hay day I was 5’-5.5”; now I am lucky if I can hit 5’-3” by jumping

The rules, and the laws are so severely broken; I am not sure we can ever put Humpty Dumpty Back together Look at who the Kings men are

Agree with me; agree with me not. Trump and people that think his way will never be invited into my inner circle. To some that makes me crazy; to others I am intelligent. What do you see? Can you see, or are you blinded? I have no idea what I am. Been called a lot of names though.

 

[DragonWatch]

I may have posted this before or from another source, but in my case at least, it is worth an additional read. Think of things this-away. A co-worker is obligated to report to appropriate authorities aberrant behavior in coworkers which might lead to violence or other missteps (talk of using guns on enemies or misuse of a machine that might injure others). Nancy Pilosi under laws in most states has an obligation to effect intervention, medically, in Trump's case. Read, but be forewarned, this is really scary.

Yale psychiatrist: Pelosi can submit Trump for involuntary evaluation

Edit: There are of course examples of psychiatric abuse, hopefully in the past and this may be an example in Nixon's case. His "shrink" is memorable for publicly advocating screening of every six-year old for danger if later running for president.

Thank you for the article, I have long wondered why the phycology world was silent ~ apparently they are not all silent, and I am grateful.

But, Nancy will not pull the plug. Nancy has too much including history preventing her from demanding a psychological review.

I no longer have any influence; mostly because I want to deal with healing myself. Hence my slogan “small footprint.”

Nancy has been cornered twice now with two, not just one call for impeachment. Remember George W? Not Nancy’s responsibility as Congressional Leader, but remember Bill? Oh, and there was Richard. We are so horribly split, no one can be elected President without knowing they will probably face the call for impeachment.

I get a kick out of Nancy’s holding off passing the impeachment ball onto the kangaroo court. It is like playing the Mitch game ~ wait for the new senate elected by the people to decide.

 

[wdolson]

I may have posted this before or from another source, but in my case at least, it is worth an additional read. Think of things this-away. A co-worker is obligated to report to appropriate authorities aberrant behavior in coworkers which might lead to violence or other missteps (talk of using guns on enemies or misuse of a machine that might injure others). Nancy Pilosi under laws in most states has an obligation to effect intervention, medically, in Trump's case. Read, but be forewarned, this is really scary.

Yale psychiatrist: Pelosi can submit Trump for involuntary evaluation

Edit: There are of course examples of psychiatric abuse, hopefully in the past and this may be an example in Nixon's case. His "shrink" is memorable for publicly advocating screening of every six-year old for danger if later running for president.

I don't think she can actually force an involuntary evaluation. The federal government, especially the top tiers work very differently from any other workplace. If the Speaker of the House could force an evaluation, Republican speakers would have forced Democratic presidents just to mess with them.

This isn't for this congress to decide, but if the Democrats controls everything next term, they can add new criteria for making the president unable to serve to the 25th amendment, which I think they should. I think they should create a presidential commission made up of former top federal officers who no longer hold a government position who can be called to convene and evaluate the president. They can order medical and psychological tests if they think it's called for and on a 2/3 vote, they can invoke the 25th amendment.

People who are done with politics are probably the only people who can give anything close to a fair assessment of a situation like the one we're in now. Every former president who might sit on that commission would probably take Trump's instability very seriously and probably would vote to suspend him, even GW Bush. Most top cabinet officials, former supreme court justices, and possibly even past top officers of Congress might vote to suspend him.

 

[Intl Professor]

Another approach is educating potential presidents which is already done. Liberty University for example, or Harvard for Liberals and Yale for "Conservatives."

 

[Intl Professor]

@Intl Professor
Uh, the one in Lynchburg Virginia?
Um, no freaking, thank you.
That’s the one or similar to where the hairy eared preacher, Nehemiah Scudder went when the US became a theocracy for around a desolate century starting around now.
“If this goes on” written by Robt A Heinlein in the 1940’s/50’s
If we could “bobble” them down the timeline to 50 mega years maybe.

God works in mysterious ways; just covering all options since our Prez is the chosen one.

 

[Curt Renz]

Electrek - this morning: https://ww.electrek.co/2019/12/28/c...rolls-back-over-80-environmental-regulations/

 

[wdolson]

Another approach is educating potential presidents which is already done. Liberty University for example, or Harvard for Liberals and Yale for "Conservatives."

A lot of conservatives attend Harvard law too.

 

[Intl Professor]

Here's one for you clever jokesters. There's a reason for the New Yorker's reputation.

Life of Einstein

 

[Coolio2000]

I think the answer is that the Republican (conservative) movement has splits in it, and people in the conservative media don't want to get permanently identified with the losing faction. If Tesla is wildly successful, you don't want to be in the camp that says Tesla is a zero. You lose credibility when that happens.

Right now there's an ultra-conservative branch of conservatives that is actively working to undermine scientific claims about climate change plus working to keep fossil fuels profitable. People like Charles Koch and his now-departed brother David personify the ultra-conservatives. They didn't even identify with the Republicans years ago. Instead, David ran as a candidate of the Libertarian party. Social security, involvement in foreign wars, border enforcement (they like cheap labor), public education, and any form of welfare are just considered hippie voodoo by these people. They long for a world where government basically does little more than protect the financial interests of its citizens.

In recent years, the ultra-conservatives such as the Kochs have migrated into the Republican party and have realized that they are now old people who are near the ends of their lives but have billions in wealth and want to do something with that money that is positive (in their minds), so they fund think tanks, lobbyists, and policy groups that substantially influence politics and try to keep things "as they are". There is an incredible amount of money being thrown at politics by these ultra-conservatives.

The tug-of-war in the party is between the economic ultra-conservatives and the more mainstream Republicans. Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson created a tempest when he suggested that the Kochs aren't good for the Republican Party in this June 2019 video. Then there's the issue of Trump. He's not nearly the ultra-conservative as these other billionaires, and his strong borders stand really bugs some of the ultra-conservatives. My guess is that he adopted the strong climate denial viewpoint not because he doesn't understand the issue (his daughter is smart enough to lay it out fairly) but because he wanted to bring the money of the ultra-conservative billionaires into the party and to support his candidacy. Trump was practically the last choice the ultra-conservatives wanted to become their candidate, and so Trump is now working to mend the wounds by supporting fossil fuels.

In the meantime, expect Republican commentators to read the direction the wind is blowing and be influenced by it. A successful Tesla on its way to becoming the world's most successful auto manufacturer with lots of manufacturing in the U.S.A. is a stunning example of how U.S. companies can thrive in a competitive world environment and is no threat to real conservative values. Rather, it's a threat to fossil fuel prosperity and is therefore opposed by the ultra-conservative billionaires. Thus, there's a natural conflict within the party regarding Tesla.

Isn’t that what ultra liberal billionaires: Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, and worst of all George Soros are doing?

 

[Jovian]

I think the answer is that the Republican (conservative) movement has splits in it, and people in the conservative media don't want to get permanently identified with the losing faction. If Tesla is wildly successful, you don't want to be in the camp that says Tesla is a zero. You lose credibility when that happens.

Right now there's an ultra-conservative branch of conservatives that is actively working to undermine scientific claims about climate change plus working to keep fossil fuels profitable. People like Charles Koch and his now-departed brother David personify the ultra-conservatives. They didn't even identify with the Republicans years ago. Instead, David ran as a candidate of the Libertarian party. Social security, involvement in foreign wars, border enforcement (they like cheap labor), public education, and any form of welfare are just considered hippie voodoo by these people. They long for a world where government basically does little more than protect the financial interests of its citizens.

In recent years, the ultra-conservatives such as the Kochs have migrated into the Republican party and have realized that they are now old people who are near the ends of their lives but have billions in wealth and want to do something with that money that is positive (in their minds), so they fund think tanks, lobbyists, and policy groups that substantially influence politics and try to keep things "as they are". There is an incredible amount of money being thrown at politics by these ultra-conservatives.

The tug-of-war in the party is between the economic ultra-conservatives and the more mainstream Republicans. Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson created a tempest when he suggested that the Kochs aren't good for the Republican Party in this June 2019 video. Then there's the issue of Trump. He's not nearly the ultra-conservative as these other billionaires, and his strong borders stand really bugs some of the ultra-conservatives. My guess is that he adopted the strong climate denial viewpoint not because he doesn't understand the issue (his daughter is smart enough to lay it out fairly) but because he wanted to bring the money of the ultra-conservative billionaires into the party and to support his candidacy. Trump was practically the last choice the ultra-conservatives wanted to become their candidate, and so Trump is now working to mend the wounds by supporting fossil fuels.

In the meantime, expect Republican commentators to read the direction the wind is blowing and be influenced by it. A successful Tesla on its way to becoming the world's most successful auto manufacturer with lots of manufacturing in the U.S.A. is a stunning example of how U.S. companies can thrive in a competitive world environment and is no threat to real conservative values. Rather, it's a threat to fossil fuel prosperity and is therefore opposed by the ultra-conservative billionaires. Thus, there's a natural conflict within the party regarding Tesla.

Great analysis as always Papafox! I was going to wait until after delivery numbers discussion slows down to make this post, but it seems you gave a great jumping point, so I will post it now.

I know there is a separate thread for politics, but I feel this issue could be incredibly important to Tesla (and the majority of our posting resources remain on this thread).

I’ve been having issues quantifying the upcoming 2020 presidential election in reference to its direct impact on Tesla and therefore tsla. I think this could present some headwinds and I’m trying to figure out how much risk it entails and for how long this risk prevails.

Our most likely outcomes of the 2020 presidential election will either be Trump, Biden, Sanders, or Warren. So I think focusing on those 4 candidates would be the best use of our brain power although there remains a possibility that neither of them win (ie: Yang, Bloomberg, some Republican dark horse winning).

I read a post on twitter which I don’t know if is real or not about how Pelosi presented Trump with the spending bill and he said he wouldn’t sign if it included a Tesla subsidy, which Pelosi removed and Trump then signed. (reference is here John Batchelor on Twitter). Obviously Trump is trying to slow the green movement (with his recent introduction of a coal subsidy and removal of green subsidies), if he wins another election will he be justified in taking even further steps?

Jim Chanos hosted a fundraiser for Biden last year so I don’t know how much pull Jim has with the man (Greek-American James Chanos Hosts Fundraising Event for Joe Biden - The National Herald). Also Biden seems to be the most moderate of the 4 likely candidates so although I don’t think he’d push clean energy as hard as Sanders or Warren, he’s also unlikely to attack bigger corporations or wealthier CEOs. I personally think Biden presents the least risk, but also the least potential upside, so little volatility from him.

Sanders and Warren are progressives when it comes to clean energy which is obviously a good thing when it comes to Tesla, but are against massive wealth disparity. I can’t imagine they’ll be okay with Elon’s CEO compensation plan, which may make him a target, and I don’t know how/if that would affect Tesla? Also would they be against Tesla growing to a certain size or gaining some exorbitant market share of car sales in the future? Would they limit Tesla’s profit potential in the future from the car/solar/energy sales or robotaxis?

These are all my guesses, but if anyone feels they have a better grasp on this I’d love to hear it. Obviously there are other elections happening at the same time, but let’s ignore that in this thought exercise because it just introduces more variables and the conversation may get diluted.

 

[Intl Professor]

You've pretty much covered the waterfront of possibilities.

I shocked my buddies at lunch last month by suggesting if the Dems were seriously out to beat Trump come Hades or highwater, they would nominate Bloomberg. He's a perfect opponent. Infinite money for a self-financed campaign, against a guy who has used and misused both the tax code and bankruptcy to cover his stupidity as a businessman. For any chance of survival he would have to avoid any whiff of debate. On the rough nights of despair about the election I rock myself to sleep imagining such a debate with Bloomberg flaying the skin off of the orange to reveal the sniveling coward he is. He must be the most insecure man ever. I pity him and pray that any God there is help him to do that god's will.

I was initially impressed by Buttigieg for his ability to handle himself. When faced with a local problem with racial overtones, he obviously lacks deep knowledge of racial identities. Whites must have long and intimate relations with people of color in order to work around the way we are raised in all-white communities.

My favorite is Andrew Yang who has enough of a crystal ball to imagine solutions to the robotics problem which are shared by many here. He is much more imaginative than Warren—and further sighted.

I have problems with Biden. He shows signs of senility and is so old fashioned.

The Dems have to center their platform about the Green New Deal, and either Warren or Sanders should win in a fair fight. As Musk has shown, we need to get much closer to the Sun. That is the new wave of growth too. The public knows it, but must be better educated. That's what campaigns are for.

I don't worry about Musk. In a year or two, maybe less some years. the growth of his companies should cover a mere 2% per annum wealth tax.

 

[ggr]

Biden lost me when he said he wouldn't testify if subpoenaed. He since corrected himself to say that of course he would comply with a lawfully issued subpoena, but for me that was too late. One of the articles of impeachment was obstruction of Congress, and he just said he'd do it too.

Of course I'll still vote for him if it is Biden v. Trump, but I'd rather it be OneOfTheOthers v. Trump.

 

[wdolson]

Biden lost me when he said he wouldn't testify if subpoenaed. He since corrected himself to say that of course he would comply with a lawfully issued subpoena, but for me that was too late. One of the articles of impeachment was obstruction of Congress, and he just said he'd do it too.

Of course I'll still vote for him if it is Biden v. Trump, but I'd rather it be OneOfTheOthers v. Trump.

I cringed at what Biden said. He is right, but his explanation was terrible. What he should have said is that it is inappropriate for him to be called at a witness because he knows nothing that would be germane to the issue on trial. He knows nothing about Trump's phone call in July and the surrounding cover up that any other member of the public who has been paying attention to the news. He couldn't contribute anything more than anyone in this tread.

 

[Intl Professor]

I cringed at what Biden said. He is right, but his explanation was terrible. What he should have said is that it is inappropriate for him to be called at a witness because he knows nothing that would be germane to the issue on trial. He knows nothing about Trump's phone call in July and the surrounding cover up that any other member of the public who has been paying attention to the news. He couldn't contribute anything more than anyone in this tread.

Careful buddy, you demean the thread by comparison.

 

[Intl Professor]

With recent exchanges here, even by the old style of politics, Biden seems to have lost whatever he had, and that was laughed off then as, "that's just good old Joe, always subject to gaffs." We can do better than that. Look for someone to surprise us at the S. Carolina primary.

 

[JRP3]

This is not going to be good

Iran IRGC Leader Qassem Suleimani is Assassinated @ Energy EXCH
Report: Iran's top general Qassem Soleimani killed in airstrike on Iraqi base

 

[EVNow]

This is not going to be good

Iran IRGC Leader Qassem Suleimani is Assassinated @ Energy EXCH
Report: Iran's top general Qassem Soleimani killed in airstrike on Iraqi base

Not just Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis and Qassem Soleimani, but probably also Naim Qassem.

https://twitter.com/tobiaschneider/status/1212914891788558336?s=20

UNCONFIRMED but word spreading via Arabic media and usual channels that Naim Qassem, deputy leader of Lebanese Hezbollah, was also killed in the strike. If true close to decapitation of the Iranian network in the region. Unbelievable.
​

All this seems to have started with Trump pardoning the war criminal who killed civilians - including children - on purpose.

 

[JRP3]

That tweet seems to be gone.