Musk Droppings (5 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 2, guests: 4)
Huntn

Huntn

Misty Mountains Envoy
Joined
Mar 8, 2023
Messages
758
Reaction score
806
Location
Rivendell
Offline
www.theguardian.com

SpaceX’s Starship explodes in second failure for Musk’s Mars program

Back-to-back mishaps indicate big setbacks for program to launch satellites and send humans to the moon and Mars
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

The failure comes just more than a month after the company’s seventh Starship flight also ended in an explosive failure. The back-to-back mishaps occurred in early mission phases that SpaceX has easily surpassed previously, indicating serious setbacks for a program Musk has sought to speed up this year.
 
Sendai said:
If you had invested in Tesla the first trading day of April, 2024 , then today, the first trading day of April 2025, you would be up 61%.
Click to expand...
And if you'd invested in Tesla in April 2022, you'd be down 25%.

It's a volatile stock that has not performed particularly well since 2021 (where it is now is about where it was in January/February then).

It is reasonable, as @TampaJoe says, that investors would currently be annoyed because they were looking at a substantial high just a few months ago, which has since come crashing down. Speculating arbitrarily, as you do, that they might have invested during one of the previous dips and would hence still be relatively up now does not change that. The trend is bad.

It's also reasonable, as others have said, to consider Tesla to be over-valued generally, and personally I'd suggest it's probably kind of screwed, since one of the reasons it's over-valued is the hype Musk brought, so if they don't get rid of him, they're stuck with all the toxicity he has now, but if they do get rid of him, they're looking at losing the hype too.

Still best to get rid of him and focus on being a fundamentally sound car manufacturer, but I think it's more likely it ultimately crashes and burns. Like the cars do sometimes.
 
Meanwhile: https://www.reuters.com/business/au...iveries-weak-demand-musk-backlash-2025-04-02/

Tesla's first-quarter deliveries fell 13%, hurt by backlash against CEO Elon Musk's political stance, rising competition and its aging line up of electric vehicles, sending its shares down more than 4% in premarket trading.​
​
It delivered 336,681 vehicles in the first quarter, down from 386,810 units a year ago. Tesla was expected to report about 372,410 vehicles, according to an average estimate of 15 analysts from Visible Alpha.​
​
Apparently making this Tesla's worst quarter since 2022, and putting Tesla behind BYD.
 
Last edited:
MT15 said:
Kudos to you if you truly mean that. We would differ on putting Musk in charge I assume (and then lying about him being in charge). Too many conflicts for me and he’s not well mentally.

I don’t think putting these kids (relatively speaking) in charge of anything was a rational idea. They don’t know what they are doing. Hence the spurious claims about Social Security fraud, and nearly everything else they’ve tried to say they are doing. The firing and rehiring of various staff was just ridiculous.

If one was truly serious about cutting waste, one wouldn’t do it this way. Which shows me that cutting waste isn’t their goal. Their goal appears to be to break and disable anything they can get their hands on, which includes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Musk’s stated goal of disbanding the Fed and killing the US Dollar as a viable currency are concerning. Nobody elected him to do any of this.
Click to expand...
We wouldn’t differ in regards to putting musk in charge.

I’ve done this work several times - “I support studying and evaluating the federal bureaucracy. Then planning a rational approach to improving cost and efficiency. Eliminate the unnecessary. Remove bloat.” - there are serious and skilled professionals that should have been used.
 
Sendai said:
We wouldn’t differ in regards to putting musk in charge.

I’ve done this work several times - “I support studying and evaluating the federal bureaucracy. Then planning a rational approach to improving cost and efficiency. Eliminate the unnecessary. Remove bloat.” - there are serious and skilled professionals that should have been used.
Click to expand...
You're still not getting it.

You say you've done "this work" several times, i.e. you still seem to be labouring under the delusion that they're trying to improve cost and efficiency. No, they're not. They're not doing "this work". They're butchering the structure of the government to replace it with a pseudo-technocratic oligarchy - with heavy emphasis on the oligarchy.

I'm pretty sure you haven't done that work.

The "cost and efficiency" work is a lie. That's not what they're doing. You can't get them to do it. They cannot, and will not, do it properly, because that fundamentally is not what they're doing.

What you're doing here is the equivalent of saying you disagree with a barber murdering his customers and selling their bodies as pies, but you think hair-cutting is still important, and then going into how you think hair-cutting should be done.

And I mean, sure, but at this point, it's clearly totally irrelevant to what's actually happening.
 
RobF said:
You're still not getting it.

You say you've done "this work" several times, i.e. you still seem to be labouring under the delusion that they're trying to improve cost and efficiency. No, they're not. They're not doing "this work". They're butchering the structure of the government to replace it with a pseudo-technocratic oligarchy - with heavy emphasis on the oligarchy.

I'm pretty sure you haven't done that work.

The "cost and efficiency" work is a lie. That's not what they're doing. You can't get them to do it. They cannot, and will not, do it properly, because that fundamentally is not what they're doing.

What you're doing here is the equivalent of saying you disagree with a barber murdering his customers and selling their bodies as pies, but you think hair-cutting is still important, and then going into how you think hair-cutting should be done.

And I mean, sure, but at this point, it's clearly totally irrelevant to what's actually happening.
Click to expand...

exactly - had he "done this work" before, in the manner in which its being conducted, would have been his first and ONLY time doing such work.

the ole "cant see the forest for the trees" adage comes to mind
 
Sendai said:
I’ve done this work several times - “I support studying and evaluating the federal bureaucracy. Then planning a rational approach to improving cost and efficiency. Eliminate the unnecessary. Remove bloat.” - there are serious and skilled professionals that should have been used.
Click to expand...

Please stop posting this, seriously you've done it like a dozen times

and it's been pointed out about as many times this statement doesn't really say you're against what Musk has done and doesn't say you hate what DOGE is doing, doesn't say you're saddened by the lives and families affected or careers (maybe decades long) ended (you're awfully concerned about Tesla employees or investors though)

What Musk and DOGE have done and is doing is the opposite of the reasoned and rational approach you've said (repeatedly) you wanted but you don't seem too broken up about what they've done or the way they've done it at all

"Serious and skilled professionals" have most definitely not been used at DOGE and you more or less shrug your shoulders
 
Last edited:
The entire MAGA premise about government is fundamentally flawed. Running a government is not the same as running a business.

Key Differences Between Government and Business:
  • Business Goal: The purpose of a business is to generate profit. To achieve that, businesses invest in machinery, workers, and infrastructure.
  • Government Goal: The purpose of government is to provide the best possible services to the people who elected it, within the constraints of tax revenue. It is not about making a profit, nor is it about serving only the wealthy and powerful.

A well-run government must balance the needs of its people with the amount collected in taxes. In most countries, the majority of citizens rely on government support for education, healthcare, and a social safety net. Only a small fraction of the population—the wealthiest—can afford these essentials without assistance.

A government’s role is to optimize all of its resources, and that includes its citizens. A well-fed, healthy, and educated population is more productive, earns higher wages, and ultimately contributes more in taxes—strengthening the economy and increasing revenue for the state. This is no different from a business investing in new machines or maintenance: while there is an upfront cost, the long-term benefits far outweigh it.

A business that continuously cuts back on maintenance and investment will eventually collapse. The same applies to a country—if a government refuses to invest in its infrastructure, education, Social support and healthcare, it will ultimately weaken its economy and society.

Governments exist to serve their people, not to turn a profit. Running a country like a business isn’t just misguided—it’s a recipe for disaster.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Share this page

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Back
Top Bottom