gotta go with Vrinshpun on this one ... The time to be magnanimous is just AFTER you have crushed your foes. Don't mean to go all Conan on you, with the lamentation of the women thing, but nothing less than a complete ZEV ass whooping and objective lesson will provide the necessary corrective action to the aberrant behavior we are witnessing. It's like Bull Durham....skip, what should I do? Crash Davis...they are kids...scare em'.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
gotta go with Vrinshpun on this one ... The time to be magnanimous is just AFTER you have crushed your foes. Don't mean to go all Conan on you, with the lamentation of the women thing, but nothing less than a complete ZEV ass whooping and objective lesson will provide the necessary corrective action to the aberrant behavior we are witnessing. It's like Bull Durham....skip, what should I do? Crash Davis...they are kids...scare em'.
I disagree with some of your points. I find it unlikely that ICE car makers are deliberately trying to mislead society into believing that switch-over to BEV is not possible.
It is more likely that they just follow their economic interests first and their thinking may get biased in following their high stakes in ICE technology. Something akin to heavily biased TSLA shorts and their false claims and beliefs about Tesla.
It is also likely that many executives of ICE car makers are not biased at all. They are just doing their job to ensure the profitability of their business. The shift towards bevs does not fit well into their strategy. Very long term business sustainability or society sustainability is not what drives them. At least it does not concern them enough to push them into a choice which is risky, costly and might jeopardize their job and their business.
Their choices are:
1. Keep profitable ICE business on course and satisfy regulatory compliances in the least costly manner. This strategy can be sustainable for say next 15 - 20 years.
2. Shift towards new technology, suffer huge costs, loss of profitability, in a short term, in order to develop new technology car that will cannibalize and eventually kill off their profitable ice models. This strategy is likely to jeopardize short term sustainability of both CEO and the business.
Their choices are rational economic choices that make a lot of sense from their perspective.
maxwell
Member
The Blue Owl
Endangerous Herbivore
The fact that economic entities, through their representatives, act in their best interests doesn't mean that some of their actions are not malicious.
By that logic, the Kochs aren't deliberately trying to mislead the world with respect to climate change. Auto dealers aren't deliberately trying to mislead the public about their utility to the market. The United Launch Alliance isn't deliberately trying to mislead Congress about the costs and risks of their technology compared to SpaceX. Incumbent power utilities aren't trying to mislead and rig the rules to exclude their solar competitors. After all, they are merely acting in their best interests in a rational way.
It is actually very common for such actors to actively try to distort the facts and/or subvert the rules for their own benefit. The fiduciary responsibility fig leaf is their most common justification, and it is, sadly, too easily accepted. Ascribing the best intentions to your fellow humans is a good guide in personal relationships, but when it comes to large organizations with billions at stake, it's frankly naive.
Last edited:
Not sure what would class as malicious. That is subjective.
Can't comment on many entities that you mention, I do not know much about them.
I did not ascribe the best intentions to anyone, just plain fight for economic survival or betterment.
We agree on one thing, it is common for people or entities to try to distort the facts and /or subvert the rules for their own benefit. I think that most people do it. Most people ascribe such behaviour to others but fail to recognize the same behaviour when they do it.
The Blue Owl
Endangerous Herbivore
And every time they do it, they should be called out.
And that's why they should be called out.
pz1975
Active Member
Anyone else think TSLA is poised to bash through resistance at 240 next week? It keeps bumping up against it and retreating back. In the absence of negative TSLA or macroeconomic news, I think it is inevitable.
I was hoping it would bash through by today past 245, but 240 proved "sticky." I agree with the earlier 260 projection in this near-term push on technicals barring no fundamentally different news, but this market is a tepid and fickle one this summer and I don't have a firm pulse on when movement might happen, so I'm largely in stock and LEAPS.
I'm not seeing a push past low $240s in absence of news. That was a strong resistance going down and will be again going up. In absence of GF or other solid news, my current thoughts are we'll have to get in closer to ER to punch through that. Like Flux, I'm currently in stock-LEAPS with a solid position
Last edited:
green1
Active Member
At this point I don't know how much higher we're likely to go without any news. I do however think that any little positive tidbit that comes out will push us in to another upward surge. The market is looking for an excuse to go higher, Tesla just needs to provide it.
pz1975
Active Member
I completely agree with this. People are waiting for any small news to push TSLA up another big jump. It "feels" the opposite of 265 --> 180 when it seemed like any small news (ie. New Jersey blocking Tesla sales)was an excuse to push it down.
jhm
Well-Known Member
Reconfigured my unicorn sightings:
Looks like the price is right where it ought to be. No need for it to go any faster.
More on unicorns, I mean, technical analysis:
TSLA is looking nicely bullish, as is the general market. ADX is bullish with a strong trend at 29. MACD is bullish. Also, interesting observation that TSLA has had a 2.5 week periodicity of something interestnig happening every 2.5 weeks since Feb 24. Most of these were marked by a major price change. Given that there is a strong bullish trend I am calling for a 3-5% up week next week. (last week was +4% so that is not so crazy). That would put us in the high $240's.
TSLA is looking nicely bullish, as is the general market. ADX is bullish with a strong trend at 29. MACD is bullish. Also, interesting observation that TSLA has had a 2.5 week periodicity of something interestnig happening every 2.5 weeks since Feb 24. Most of these were marked by a major price change. Given that there is a strong bullish trend I am calling for a 3-5% up week next week. (last week was +4% so that is not so crazy). That would put us in the high $240's.
I'm of the opinion that these small news events no longer move the stock. I'm not sure that we will always get a clear answer on why the stock goes up or down. Specifically, stories like this are less likely to have an impact since it has already been established that the Model S is an incredibly fantastic car. Confirmation of this is not likely to move the market since it is already accepted and baked into the price. When the Model S wasn't a known quantity, this might have been different or if it is from a key tastemaker in a new and important market, then it could have made a difference.
A Valid Comparison? i think not
Has anyone else seen this article?
http://www.thestreet.com/story/1276...sel-is-the-secret.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO
It just goes to show you how good the Model S is. The basis of this articel is how much better this Audi DIESEL is than the all ELECTRIC Model S. His annual cost expenses are kind of amusing especially since he does not mention the cost of oil changes, belt replacements, fuel filters, oil filters, etc. Unless of course Audi covers all this. Please correct me if i'm wrong.
One point where he is blatantly incorrect based on assumption is the Model S battery degredation. I've seen many owners here who have had the car for more than a year with no complaints about a battery degradation. Again, correct me if i'm wrong.
Has anyone else seen this article?
http://www.thestreet.com/story/1276...sel-is-the-secret.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO
It just goes to show you how good the Model S is. The basis of this articel is how much better this Audi DIESEL is than the all ELECTRIC Model S. His annual cost expenses are kind of amusing especially since he does not mention the cost of oil changes, belt replacements, fuel filters, oil filters, etc. Unless of course Audi covers all this. Please correct me if i'm wrong.
One point where he is blatantly incorrect based on assumption is the Model S battery degredation. I've seen many owners here who have had the car for more than a year with no complaints about a battery degradation. Again, correct me if i'm wrong.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked