Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[22522]

Forward Observer

Curren thought. . .

Toyota does not want to go electric due to the number of job losses. Failure to think of job loss due to overwhelming EV purchases by human public ~ losing sales in fossil fuel. From my view.

Tesla block buster sales/deliveries 1Q21

Ford, un-event sales (sales were in-events) of EVs, thinks human public not really interested. Failure to demonstrate commitment towards EVs.

Tesla block buster sales/deliveries 2Q21

GM CEO claims they can for sure lead the EV market by 2025 +/-. Failure in leadership.

Tesla block buster sales/deliveries 3Q21

I have either lead or taught leadership all my life. Do not let the retired rank of Major fool you. The fossil fuel CEOs are managers, and in no way leaders. The only leaders, are Elon, Rivian, Nio, or Lucent. The commoner, like me, know what we want regardless of mouthpieces.

Purchases by companies like Hurtz are demonstrating leadership, not follower-ship/management.

Tesla has always had a block buster 4Q

Lucent?

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Market cap up $22.5B in the after hours session. Lol

 

[StealthP3D]

Now the goal is to save the local auto industry by replacing existing players, so skilled workers would still have their living without moving across continents.

Looking forward to GigaDetroit!

If we judge the automotive engineering talent and innovation by the products that come out of Detroit, it's not clear it would be worth it for Tesla to go out of their way to build a factory there unless it made a ton of sense on multiple levels. Even the line workers will be tainted by years of habit of doing things the old way.

Years ago I was hired as a chef's assistant in a small, fancy restaurant at a Montana Ski Area that was jam packed every night and had the best food in the region. The owners were very experienced and successful restauranteurs. After I got the job the owner told me she hired me because I didn't have significant cooking experience and that she had a number of bad experiences hiring people who already "knew" how to cook. She wanted a blank slate so I could be trained properly one time without having to over-come previous bad habits.

Personally, I think Tesla might do well to avoid moving to Detroit in search of exceptional talent. I'm sure there's a decent amount of talent in the region, it's mostly an issue of whether Tesla wants to reteach them how to do things. Removing ingrained preconceptions can be more difficult than starting with someone who is equally brilliant with the right learnings but has a blank slate when it comes to the proper way to get something done. First principles thinking is difficult for people who have become set in their ways to adapt to.

 

[Ipcress]

Anyone want to take bets on how long it would be until Tesla has one of those walking around the Gigafactory if there was a GigaDetroit?

I give it 6 months......tops. Tesla is a company run by sci-fi geeks after all

New Detroit model, the M3000SUX!

 

[StealthP3D]

Ford had a really good quarter honestly, but it had nothing to do with the Mach-E and everything to do with the new Bronco.

I like the Bronco, Ford did a great job designing it and hopefully they have a full EV Bronco coming down the line because I think it would sell very well.

Huh? The new Bronco get's appalling MPG for a small vehicle (or any vehicle for that matter). And the most common configurations get even worse than the EPA figures indicate. It also have very limited utility as a truck. Almost no one needs it's unique capabilities so it is most often purchased as a fashion statement that is incredibly blind to the climate crisis facing humanity. We need less gas guzzling cars on the road, not more.

 

[LYTRIDR]

I see where you're coming from but the Supreme Court already ruled on this in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920) and related cases. I'm not a lawyer either but their opinion clearly states that the constitutional amendment for income taxes was intended in the common dictionary definition of the term "income".

To wit, "Mere growth or increment of value in a capital investment is not income; income is essentially a gain or profit, in itself, of exchangeable value, proceeding from capital, severed from it, and derived or received by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit, and disposal...Here, we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived" -- that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal -- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description."

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

Eisner v. Macomber

supreme.justia.com

As far as I know from reading about this subject today, there is a long judicial history (dating all the way back to discussions the Founders had in writing the Constitution) about "direct" vs indirect taxes, and a personal tax on individual wealth would cleanly fit the definition of a direct tax whereas corporate earnings taxes would be indirect, making the Bitcoin mark-to-market accounting rule an impertinent point of comparison, because the apportionment clause applies solely to direct taxes.

So I still believe it is absurd to believe that Elon is suddenly going to be required to start selling off his stakes in Tesla and SpaceX due to this federal wealth tax proposal. If the goal is to tax ultrawealthy individuals more in the USA, there exist legal ways of doing it but I feel certain this proposal would be unenforceable if signed into law.

Still not a lawyer here, but I can’t quite let this go so easily. The ability of the government to enforce mark to market accounting with regard to securities investing makes it difficult for me to accept that some similar treatment might not be acceptable for individuals.

I present for your review a law review concerning and again while I don’t profess expertise in this area, I’ve quoted the most relevant section.

“Though the Court never formally overruled Macomber,6 it effectively did so in Glenshaw Glass.7 There, the Court held that the Macomber definition of income “was not meant to provide a touchstone to all future [constitutional] gross income questions” and that a better definition should encompass all “instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.”8
In the century since Macomber, the Court has never declared a federal income tax statute to be unconstitutional.9 The Court’s behavior constitutes a remarkable example of American tax exceptionalism because in most other countries income tax laws are subject to constitutional review and are frequently held unconstitutional.”

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1171&context=djclpp

 

[Bet TSLA]

Still not a lawyer here, but I can’t quite let this go so easily.

Combining ignorance and persistence is not a virtue. The whole business is way off topic as well.

 

[ruralectric]

I see where you're coming from but the Supreme Court already ruled on this in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920) and related cases. I'm not a lawyer either but their opinion clearly states that the constitutional amendment for income taxes was intended in the common dictionary definition of the term "income".

To wit, "Mere growth or increment of value in a capital investment is not income; income is essentially a gain or profit, in itself, of exchangeable value, proceeding from capital, severed from it, and derived or received by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit, and disposal...Here, we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived" -- that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal -- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description."

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

Eisner v. Macomber

supreme.justia.com

As far as I know from reading about this subject today, there is a long judicial history (dating all the way back to discussions the Founders had in writing the Constitution) about "direct" vs indirect taxes, and a personal tax on individual wealth would cleanly fit the definition of a direct tax whereas corporate earnings taxes would be indirect, making the Bitcoin mark-to-market accounting rule an impertinent point of comparison, because the apportionment clause applies solely to direct taxes.

So I still believe it is absurd to believe that Elon is suddenly going to be required to start selling off his stakes in Tesla and SpaceX due to this federal wealth tax proposal. If the goal is to tax ultrawealthy individuals more in the USA, there exist legal ways of doing it but I feel certain this proposal would be unenforceable if signed into law.

I don't know. It seems to me that a better way to tax unrealized gains would be to tax loans that are taken out against unrealized gains. It might not generate as much revenue from a few billionaires in a single pop, but it would probably get a lot more wealthy individuals paying their fair share of taxes who borrow against their unrealized assets as a tax shelter.

 

[printf42]

I don't know. It seems to me that a better way to tax unrealized gains would be to tax loans that are taken out against unrealized gains. It might not generate as much revenue from a few billionaires in a single pop, but it would probably get a lot more wealthy individuals paying their fair share of taxes who borrow against their unrealized assets as a tax shelter.

Reading this I felt being targeted for a crime I haven’t committed yet.
Way OT…
Forgive me…

 

[LYTRIDR]

Combining ignorance and persistence is not a virtue. The whole business is way off topic as well.

OT? A quarter of the conversation today was regarding the Billionaire tax. It might be dead for now, or it might not.

Also, guessing you didn’t read the link or the quote which directly rebutted the previous post.

 

[BitJam]

Huh? The new Bronco get's appalling MPG for a small vehicle (or any vehicle for that matter). And the most common configurations get even worse than the EPA figures indicate. It also have very limited utility as a truck. Almost no one needs it's unique capabilities so it is most often purchased as a fashion statement that is incredibly blind to the climate crisis facing humanity. We need less gas guzzling cars on the road, not more.

Engineering Explained made a hilarious review of the new Bronco: there's even an Eco mode so that instead of getting 15 MPG like Car and Driver achieved, you can get IDK maybe like 16 MPG or something.

 

[elasalle]

When he pulled out, i was thinking to myself "Gee...you're gonna buy in at a higher price" and then $TSLA declined and he got back in at a lower price (made him look like a genius) and now its at its ATH. I mean, do we here really care when he pulls out? We just go along our merry way, adding along the way, and then ride the rocket to new ATH's next month, next year, in 2 years, etc.

atleast, Gary understands EVs and batteries now
Still not there on AI/FSD though

One of good things for a retail investor(like me) is to get freebies/knowledge share from people like Gary who have the real world Market experience. Lifelong learner here ... cheers!!

 

[RobDickinson]

Mercedes bets entry-level EV buyers will accept shorter range

The automaker will not use expensive nickel-based batteries that deliver performance and range for its smaller electric cars such as the EQA and EQB.

www.autonews.com

Mercedes to switch to LFP cells for lower range cheaper cars.

I know not everyone needs 400mi range but with Mercedes efficiency this could be a problem.

 

[Prunesquallor]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1453479688832180228

 

[RobDickinson]

They plunder the job creators and destroy their control of their own companies , replace them with offshore investors etc for a tiny slice of a short term problem they create.

$750bn goes to the US military it seems no one mentions this in Congress.

 

[22522]

Huh? The new Bronco get's appalling MPG for a small vehicle (or any vehicle for that matter). And the most common configurations get even worse than the EPA figures indicate. It also have very limited utility as a truck. Almost no one needs it's unique capabilities so it is most often purchased as a fashion statement that is incredibly blind to the climate crisis facing humanity. We need less gas guzzling cars on the road, not more.

2021 Ford Bronco SUV production finally kicks off, models headed to dealers

Ford is spending $750 million and adding 2,700 jobs to build the new Bronco in Michigan.

www.cnet.com

There is a video with the lead designer here.

 

[JRP3]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1453479688832180228

Isn't the 3.5T over 10 years? And does the debt really matter? I've seen conflicting debates on the topic.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Spending is THE problem. Guys accumulating, sitting on, and then passing to their kids $300B is also A problem. Guess what.....it's not black and white. And I would argue that extreme inequality is a far far greater threat to American and human society than debt. It's un-American.

Lets also not forget Elon is not an insignificant percentage of that government spending. Yes he's saving us billions in spite of ourselves, but that's just less wasteful military spending. Launching Space Force crap into orbit is, in it's entirety, wasteful.

This is not a great look for Musk. Not terrible, just not great. He has 1/7th the wealth of the entire bottom 50% of the nation, and that'll get far far worse once inflation hits and this housing bubble pops.

I've had a short fuse with folks here the last few days with all the they're-gonna-tax-my-millions-that-landed-in-my-lap talk. I walked through a volunteer run covid testing/vaccination site in North Philly on Monday and it was one of the most depressing things I've ever seen. I live adjacent to extreme poverty every day so I see plenty, but on occasion in Philly you get to see something so wrong it makes you sick all week.

If we can't talk TSLA investment, lets at least focus on price movements in long Chevron puts.

 

[Gigapress]

Still not a lawyer here, but I can’t quite let this go so easily. The ability of the government to enforce mark to market accounting with regard to securities investing makes it difficult for me to accept that some similar treatment might not be acceptable for individuals.

I present for your review a law review concerning and again while I don’t profess expertise in this area, I’ve quoted the most relevant section.

“Though the Court never formally overruled Macomber,6 it effectively did so in Glenshaw Glass.7 There, the Court held that the Macomber definition of income “was not meant to provide a touchstone to all future [constitutional] gross income questions” and that a better definition should encompass all “instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.”8
In the century since Macomber, the Court has never declared a federal income tax statute to be unconstitutional.9 The Court’s behavior constitutes a remarkable example of American tax exceptionalism because in most other countries income tax laws are subject to constitutional review and are frequently held unconstitutional.”

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1171&context=djclpp

Interesting paper, thanks for posting it. I agree with all the arguments in it.

I still think comparison of corporate federal tax law to individual federal tax law isn't appropriate because the Constitution restricts only the "direct", individual taxes in this manner. All the examples from the Duke paper were examples of ways an individual can receive something of value *without* it counting as income, and the beef they had with it was based on it failing the equal protection clause. I didn't see anything suggesting that mere unrealized capital gains appreciation can be construed as income. Also, there's extensive SCOTUS precedent establishing that appreciation of land and buildings, at least, is not income taxable without apportionment per Amendment 16 until the asset is sold. Business equity such as Elon's stocks include the value increase of land and buildings.

 

[Gigapress]

I don't know. It seems to me that a better way to tax unrealized gains would be to tax loans that are taken out against unrealized gains. It might not generate as much revenue from a few billionaires in a single pop, but it would probably get a lot more wealthy individuals paying their fair share of taxes who borrow against their unrealized assets as a tax shelter.

I agree, assuming this version of taxing it is actually legal, as it's effectively equivalent to selling, because they're extracting value based on the possibility of selling.