the domestic abuse stuff does seem like a bear fever dream fwiw

He's not evil, he's just a grandiose narcissist with solid conman skills and pretty low intelligence/organizational ability, whose rich daddy and capable brother have bailed out over and over. And then taxpayers and then shareholders via his Cult of Musk careful PR efforts picked up the tab. Elizabeth Holmes wasn't "evil" either, neither was Madoff. They're just accomplished conmen given a halo via carefully constructed PR (until it all collapsed).

Musk is also a pathological liar with a hero complex, but that doesn't make him evil either. He's just a loser, like the people who look up to him and "believe" in him. The only difference between Musk and a hobo is his conman skills, a few lucky runner runners, and his rich parents/capable brother.

That's three differences.

Is this recent blowhard-ary related to your prop bet?

It's bad grammar.
No, it's related to the years-long pro-Elon blowhardary by people like heltok and ChipRick. Those clowns actually believed the gro-private at $420 was real and going to happen, that most of his projections and claims about the future were real, because they (and you?) were too stupid to realize what's obvious about Elon Musk.

I think the chance of Elon Musk getting to the place he is currently at by sheer dumb luck, circumstance of birth, and good PR is almost certainly zero. Stupid, jealous people say things like that.


I don't particularly care about tesla or elon but the more you wax rhetorical about this the more skeptical I am about any of your claims.


Even if you are right about all your unsubstantiated claims about the man, the vast majority of the public are dumb and they think teslas are cool and want to own one, so it doesn't matter. Anyway, it was just a few short months ago you were implying EV were poised to completely take over the marketplace.

What about Elizabeth Holmes, the youngest female billionaire? What about Donald Trump, a billionaire and the president as an outsider? Is it only stupid, jealous people who say the kind of things about them that I say about Musk? Just checking if you're intellectually consistent or out at sea.

It's not like it's unprecedented for conmen/sociopaths to be lauded as geniuses and have a lot of success before their structurally unprofitable ponzis collapse. It's in fact quite common.

Elon Musk is driven and has willpower and isn't afraid of taking risks. Those are good qualities, great for a startup. But he's also a disorganized cuck with a poor intellect and horrible organization skills (which he overcomes with energy and willpower). There isn't a single genius who's a hairball coder, for example, yet Musk is. Highly intelligent brains just don't do that, just the same as functional people don't go ****ting on the floor (the real-world equivalent of hairball/spaghetti coding)
My "claims"? We now have lots of hard evidence now that Musk is the things I describe. They are no longer claims. They were claims before Musk recently provided ample evidence that my previous psychoanalysis was true.

No question people want Tesla. They also all want BMWs rather than their ****ty Kias. And therein lies the rub.
EV are poised to completely take over the marketplace in the next decade. That's why Tesla are screwed.

Hero worshippers in general are a pretty loserish demographic, the musk ones are just a different level

What about them? Do examples supporting your general theory about incompetent charlatans in high positions somehow support your assertion that Musk falls into that category? Well no. No they dont.

Sure it's common. That still doesnt support your assertions about Musk. That aside, it's even more common for envious people in low positions to simply assume that people above them must be lucky, or psychopaths, or conmen. Those people dont even know what they dont know. It's like the occupy wallstreeters who have no idea why CEOs make as much money as they do. They just 'know' that the CEOs have no skillset they dont have that deserves that much money.

Do you know the man? How can you make such loose and certain claims about someone you've never even met? This just sounds like a lot of the rest of your rhetoric. I'm not here defending musk, cause I could care less. I'm more here to deflate your hot air.

This is simply false, and further illustrates your reliance on rhetoric over reason. EV wont take over the marketplace until it's more cost effective than hydrocarbon. That will likely never happen. After all, the ev industry is totally reliant on the hydrocarbon industry at this point, with no clear path to independence. This is in fact one of the claims you yourself are making about Tesla!

The only reason it has/will have a market share at all are because there are non cost aspects of its demand (environmental, coolness factor, novelty, etc.)

I don't think Elon Musk is evil. I think he's extremely narcissistic. The explanation fits his behavior and decision making. It also fits what his actions demonstrate and his words imply as to what is important to him. He's obsessed with what other people think about him and loses his **** when things do not go his way.

I just want to be clear I don't place a high percentage on the possibility he physically abused Grimes. But I also would have zero surprise were that to come out as something that actually happened. My point was to show that people truly do not understand the type of person he is and why he's in the situation he is in now.

He didn't just "say some stupid things". He's done way more than that and could be liable for millions, possibly billions of dollars, in the midst of running a company that is on life support. And he isn't just trying to keep his company out of bankruptcy, he's the reason they're nearly in it in the first place. Dumb **** like buying SolarCity and worrying about the stock price and some arbitrary production number in a quarter should leave you totally unsurprised he's not making decisions to optimize the health of Tesla. He's stressed out because he's busy trying to carry the weight of his own ego.

You said this:
My response giving examples of incredibly successful people (who later to turned out be total frauds) getting to their positions by precisely that is an answer to the bolded. It shows your assertion to be false. Try to keep up, ok?

Even funnier, now you contradict your earlier statement:
It wasn't intended to support my assertions about Musk. It was a reply to your idiotic statement. Take the luck aspect. Musk himself admits multiple times that he got highly lucky. Was on the point of bankruptcy multiple times then things went his way (like the last-chance rocket not exploding in a business with a very high explode rate). His daddy also bankrolled his early ventures. Tesla survives entirely on subsidies and capital raises - it can't survive without those billions. The statements I made were correct.

The ample evidence Musk has provided supports my assertions about Musk.
Again, I have detailed extensive evidence of Musk's incompetence. He was pushed out his early companies because of his total incompetence. He's a hairball coder. He's now messing up Tesla in a big way. Even the bulls are saying that.

There are things that make him obviously incompetent. For example, his kid-like view that he could outrobot the major car producers fell flat on its face, so badly that he had pull them all out after his grandiose narcissist plans failed, and build a tent to hand 1970s-style hand manufacture cars to meet even his twice delayed production goals. Anyone with a slight amount of intelligence could have told you that was impossible. But he was far too stupid and grandiose to realize what everyone in the car industry did.

There is no hot air. I've been spot on. Sorry man, but I have. I argued that Musk was lying about self driving improvements: correct. I argued that Musk was lying about production rather than just optimistic: correct. I argued that Musk's $420 tweet was stock fraud: correct (the bulls got this way wrong).

No one but pathological narcissists in Musk's public position lash out at total strangers, calling them pedophiles repeatedly with zero evidence. That's ****ing weird, man. Perhaps you're a weirdo like Musk, and don't see that as weird, but if you're not, tell me another CEO who has done this?
When you're this ignorant you should simply shut your mouth. Total cost of ownership of EVs is equal to ICE right now. Cost parity on purchase price is being in 2021/2022 by all projections.

EVs will rapidly take market share because they'll soon be cheaper than ICE cars in every single way. I mean, you're 180 degrees wrong on the very basics of the industry as agreed by all parties. Go home, bro.

I dont have time to respond in detail but your last claim is as uninformed as all your other ones. The studies showing ev to be cheaper happen in a few very high infrastructure areas (cause ev is 100% untenable in the vast majority of the world at the moment.
) in places where government subsidies such as tax breaks for driving ev exist. Places like california and Japan. This is akin to the government giving someone a million dollars a year to support a million dollar a year drug habit and TS saying there's no financial burden to being a drug addict.

These types of laughable responses that you accent with a pretty extreme level of arrogant certainty make me embarrassed for you.

You're rarely spot on about anything, bro. You're just a mediocre internet troll.

Again, this isn't hard.

For the consumer, EVs will be cheaper to buy than ICE for equivalent features in 2022, then they will get cheaper and cheaper until they max out at about 15% cheaper.

EVs are already cheaper in total cost of ownership.

When mass adoption gets to >~20% of all cars, there will be large externalities (having to build more power plants and grid updates mostly; other infrastructure is small and irrelevant). But that's irrelevant for the market in EVs, which is what we're talking about. It could overtake ICE for 5 years at 40 million/year before the limit is hit, and in the meantime, buildout will happen.

This remains an amazingly ignorant statement that both bulls and bear are gonna "wtf" about. You've beclowned yourself bro.
The underlined in particular is mega WTF. EVs are certain to be 90% of all cars on the road within 30 years. They're cleaner, far more energy efficient than any alternative including hydrogen, have highly superior performance, noise and service profiles, cheaper to build as of 2022, cheaper to run, and have no issues with peaking oil supply.

*facepalm* Because of government subsidies, you mong. That means they are more expensive, just taxpayers are footing the difference. This is, of course, because there is no real cost incentive
to switch from hydrocarbon.


In other words, we will simply be burning the same (and likely more) amount of hydrocarbon to generate electricity needed to power all the evs. So not only is there no cost incentive, there's little environmental incentive as well.


I dunno what you do for a living, but you definitely dont work in the energy sector. Even if I granted that ev cars took over 90% of the demand for cars on the road in 30 years (which is ludicrous) they would still be totally dependent on hydrocarbon. Electricity is generated by....ding ding ding!....burning hydrocarbon. More evs means more electricity demand which means more hydrocarbon burning electricity generation and higher cost of electricity. Do you even basic economics bro?

You. Home. Go!

WOW

Tesla drops from 302 to 282 instantly on news of criminal charges over Musk statements

I think this is it. Big drop coming .

Wow

Whew I just bought a tiny $1000 chunk of Oct 19 puts this morning... In addition to my bigger chunk of 2020 puts.

That big Oct 19 bet now seems a bit shady doesn't it?

If it was a new position not big boy hedging then yeah, that guy knew something. Crazy.

Well lets see if this move follows through, rallying back to 300 would suck.

Better get to Mars now Elon, 'cause there's no hiding place down here.

turns out, making stuff up to boost your marketcap by 10b$ might have been illegal. who would have thought?

That news had to be priced in to some extent. I don't see it going sub 200 or anything just on this...right?

No, you clown, no. EVs built without subsidies buying electricity at market rates have substantially cheaper total cost of ownership.

By 2022 they will also be cheaper to make than ICE cars. They're substantially simpler with far fewer components - it's purely down to battery cost, which is falling rapidly.

Hey since you "work in the energy industry":

- What's the efficiency of gasoline in a car engine, including all losses?
- What's the efficiency of coal burning going into a battery, including all losses?

This is incredible - someone who works in the industry utterly ignorant of the very basics. The bolded is completely false.

You need to read my response again. You not only don't understand the energy industry, you can't parse basic text. Amazing stuff. I mean, I literally said this:

Overall, energy usage for transportation will decline substantially with EVs, due to the far greater efficiency of the EV cycle in turning energy into motive power.
Yes, and power plants will simply be built at the current cost to meet new demand, so no, the price won't increase as it will happen slowly and supply will meet demand. What's more, there's substantial unused spare capacity in the grid during charging times, which are flexible (for example, late at night). This is another source of efficiency in EVs due to the slow thermal cycle of baseload. EVs soak up the pure waste up to a substantial percentage of cars.

You want to go a fourth round of utterly beclowning yourself? Why is everyone that argues with me incredibly ignorant?

I feel like probe is non news


Like did anyone think there wouldnt have to be a probe of sorts?