jabloomf1230
Minister of Silly Walks
So because Soros is Jewish, he's supposed to get a pass on . . . everything?
Soros hasn't always played nice in the sandbox with people.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So because Soros is Jewish, he's supposed to get a pass on . . . everything?
Soros hasn't always played nice in the sandbox with people.
Sadly I have started to hear strong anti Musk sentiment within my circle of friends too now. But I wonder if it has any business impact on Tesla. The reason is that I noticed that those of our friends who said things like "I've had it with Elon, so I would never buy a Tesla now" or "We want Twitter back" all have these things in common:While I support Elon's right to say what he wants to, I also do agree with your post and have seen similar responses from people I've talked to. Elon's behavior has had negative impacts on Tesla as a brand. The size of that impact is very open for debate of course, but the impact itself is real in my opinion.
Still, Tesla as a company is doing very well despite this impact.
Then we are doomed.Tesla customers on the other hand tend to be people who think for themselves.
This is very true and exactly why marketing will likely be very successful. The large majority of people would not fit in that group (independent thinkers) and the other group is exactly who needs to be convinced to even consider buying a Tesla.Tesla customers on the other hand tend to be people who think for themselves.
I think it could be a wash as Tesla is now gaining conservative customers who would have never given an EV a chance.Like it or not, but Elon has alienated a lot of people and many of them will absolutely refuse to buy a Tesla. Some of these people may eventually come around once they've had time to forget about why they're virtue signaling and have been exposed to conventional advertising.
I look at it like this: Nestlé's former CEO said "Clean water is not a human right". I expect almost everyone is against this statement, which is far worse than anything Elon ever said. How many of you still purchase Nestlé's products?This is very true and exactly why marketing will likely be very successful. The large majority of people would not fit in that group (independent thinkers) and the other group is exactly who needs to be convinced to even consider buying a Tesla.
Like it or not, but Elon has alienated a lot of people and many of them will absolutely refuse to buy a Tesla. Some of these people may eventually come around once they've had time to forget about why they're virtue signaling and have been exposed to conventional advertising.
"Former CEO" said one bad thing. See the difference?I look at it like this: Nestlé's former CEO said "Clean water is not a human right". I expect almost everyone is against this statement, which is far worse than anything Elon ever said. How many of you still purchase Nestlé's products?
"Former CEO" said one bad thing. See the difference?
He made the comments about water in 2005. He was elected chair of the Nestle BOD that same year. Did not step down as CEO until 2008, if there was some call-back to the statements he'd made previously it wasn't made into an issue at the time. Then he was made chairman of Formula 1 in 2012..."Former CEO" said one bad thing. See the difference?
Don't believe that was the reason he left. IIRC.
I neither said nor implied that's why he left, I simply pointed out that saying one should currently boycott Nestle for something a former CEO said is not the same as boycotting Tesla for what the current CEO is saying almost on a daily basis. I hope the distinction is now clear.He made the comments about water in 2005. He was elected chair of the Nestle BOD that same year. Did not step down as CEO until 2008, if there was some call-back to the statements he'd made previously it wasn't made into an issue at the time. Then he was made chairman of Formula 1 in 2012...
I don't really see this as being a super example of anything, but you should at least get your facts right.
Meritocracy is a failure, the state (robots) can just take over supply and demand. These are both things written by the same poster.Don't understand the discussion about communism etc. Has nothing to do with what anyone has suggested will have to happen.
Basic income does not mean equal income.
No it is a failure of your imagination. Basic income does not mean equal income. Reward is based on completely new metrics that are specific to human endeavour. Income and Reward may not even be money.Meritocracy is a failure, the state (robots) can just take over supply and demand. These are both things written by the same poster.
If you do not understand how this is communism, I am envious of your naïveté.
That’s the whole point of the pricing system and capitalism, it determines what something is worth, completely fairly and equitably.
Be nice, he just forgot the /sI feel much better about the stock market now. Thanks!
(Your argument is ridiculous)
Basic Income should be called Floor Income.No it is a failure of your imagination. Basic income does not mean equal income. Reward is based on completely new metrics that are specific to human endeavour. Income and Reward may not even be money.
Perhaps the argument is that there exists too many ‘corner cases’ in the first place, such that the exception is the argument and the ‘corner case’ is the rule. Going forward that perspective doesn’t change.I was talking about the economy, and specifically products/services that people buy, not the stock market. The stock market has a gambling element to it, mixed in with predictions about future worth of very complex entities (companies).
The vast majority of purchases people make in a non inflationary or non scarce environment (gotta put all these ridiculous disclaimers in since someone will try to argue by coming up with a corner case that has nothing to do with the central argument), are made with regard to utility right now, not future utility.
The point being that a non-distorted capitalism model (which we don’t have, our economy has many distortions) prices goods according to their utility and availability. Look, this is Econ 101, why do I even have to argue this? It’s like arguing whether or not statistical mechanics works, or whether chemistry as a science works.