4 ms·

> "I think there was some hubris there with the X," [Musk] added, before reiterating that it was "the best car ever." Musk sounds like Trump sometimes. Reminds

> "I think there was some hubris there with the X," [Musk] added, before reiterating that it was "the best car ever." Musk sounds like Trump sometimes. Reminds me of this other line of his: > Musk is a self-described American exceptionalist and nationalist, describing himself as "nauseatingly pro-American". According to Musk, the United States is "[inarguably] the greatest country that has ever existed on Earth", describing it as "the greatest force for good of any country that's ever been". Musk believes outright that there "would not be democracy in the world if not for the United States", arguing there were "three separate occasions in the 20th-century where democracy would have fallen with World War I, World War II and the Cold War, if not for the United States".

mikeash 10y ago
At least Musk has reviews from reputable organizations to back him up there.
- hourislate 10y ago
  Maybe it's just me but I don't really find Consumers Reports useful or that reputable. Especially their vehicle reviews. Having several mechanics in the family and being a car enthusiast myself I find their past recommendations of Hyundai and Kia laughable.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    The car reviews are awful. They like who they like. I remember one Honda that had a transmission recall, defective radio and a tendency for body trim to fall off (according to the little blurb) and was rated awesome. The equivalent Ford was dinged because the OEM tires were noisy.
    - kodis 10y ago
      > The [CR] car reviews are awful. They like who they like. So do they like Tesla or dislike Tesla? Only a year ago or so they rated the Model S as the best car they had ever reviewed; then there were a few Autopilot failures and some troubles with the Model X -- now the honeymoon seems to be over. It's not that I think CR does a wonderful job with cars -- or with any other product that I'm familiar with -- but I think that their biases are more complex than a simple "they like who they like".
      - prostoalex 10y ago
        Their ratings are comprised of two parts - CR's own driving tests as well as reader survey that goes into painful details of each car owned, number of malfunctions and costs of fixing those malfunctions over the previous year. Model S was a fairly new vehicle, so in year one they only did the first part - there weren't many Tesla owners who were also CR subscribers who also have had the car for at least a year to generate a reliable corpus of reader ratings. Things changed in year two when reader surveys started trickling in, with Model S owners reporting higher than average amount of issues, which impacted the overall ratings. CR's own driving tests still earned Model S a "CR Recommended" badge, it just no longer came with a spotless 100-point score they've previously assigned.
  - JoBrad 10y ago
    Regardless of whether their ratings work out for you, in particular, they have an incredibly reliable method of rating a huge variety of consumer goods, and they do it in an open way that shows you that the advertisers aren't biasing the results. That allows you to simply +/- their ratings in a certain area, depending on how well their rating lines up with your personal experience. It's hard to do that with similar types of organizations, where it really comes down to the person who reviewed it, and sometimes even how they felt that day.
eddieh 10y ago
Oh man, I thought I was the only one. It drives me nuts. Their disciples (for lack of a better term) sound alike as well.
- sheer_horror 10y ago
  Well, it shouldn't drive you nuts. That implies that the truth drives you nuts. WW2 didn't look great before the USA stepped in. World wide innovation has been driven by the USA in almost every frontier. And you cannot expect a CEO to regard his product as anything but the best. The thing that drives me nuts is the lengths people such as yourself will go to in order to rationalize their dislike of him. Calling people who like him and the car 'disciples' is also pretty terrible.
  - doe88 10y ago
    > WW2 didn't look great before the USA stepped in. Wow, disregarding Soviet Union's role is a bit shortsighted.
  - eddieh 10y ago
    Well we can split hairs over this all day, but Musk and Trump (Bernie Sanders too) fit the definition of demagogues IMO. People like the cars because they view them as antiestablishment. e.g. better than what other car makers are building — because the establishment car makers are crooks with no regard for the world and would allow the destruction of nature for a dollar. Meanwhile the data shows that cars are a minuscule contributor to global warming in comparison to burning coal. And that electric cars are not necessarily cleaner than gas cars when you consider what source they are charged from. If you want to do something about global warming that will have an actual impacted you must turn China and India into rich countries that can afford be green (to use the common vernacular). Musk's whole brand and "popularity [is based on] exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people" (from the Wikipedia article on demagogue). Again, this drives me nuts.
    - sheer_horror 10y ago
      This is not splitting hairs! These are basic facts. The whole idea behind Tesla and Solar City is to have solar power generation and electric cars. 100% clean and renewable, and that's the long term goal. You cannot criticize the means to get there -- powering Teslas with current electricity generation -- when that's so much better than Fossil Fuels already. People like the cars because they are better than what the other car makers are making. Model S is the safest, fastest, and most efficient sedan on the market. That's a fact! Cars are minuscule contributors? The EPA site says 14% Co2 is from cars, which is substantial. That's also a fact! If Tesla keeps going, it will replace generation and consumption of fossil fuels with a fully renewable cycle. How is that not the best thing ever? That's fantastic! We might be cutting more than 30% of our CO2 emissions. You need to re-evaluate your standpoint. Also, when you're struggling with cognitive dissonance after reading this, consider this: Your brain's attempts to discredit my argument, and paint Elon backers as mindless followers/disciples, is the real example of psychological trickery, not Elon exploiting some prejudice.
darawk 10y ago
Personally I agree with Musk on the issue of American exceptionalism and nationalism. Not that the US is without faults, but on balance I absolutely agree that it is the greatest single force for good the world has ever seen. Now you can take that as an indictment of the world or an exaltation of America. In my opinion it's a little of both.
- GuiA 10y ago
  Yeah, you and Mr. Musk are both entitled to your opinions, but unless you're willing to expound in details about how one would measure exactly the "greatest single force for good the world has ever seen", apply these measures systematically to every major world entity history has seen, and show that the US comes out on top, this is just basically 1am THC fueled dorm school debate.
  - RodericDay 10y ago
    I really like this french article detailing how public opinion about "which nation contributed the most to victory in WW2" has changed dramatically over time in France. In May 1945, 57% of the respondents claimed the USSR, 20% the USA, 12% the UK. By 2015, the figures are 23% USSR, 54% USA, 18% UK. Wonder if American WWII movies have anything to do with it? http://www.les-crises.fr/la-fabrique-du-cretin-defaite-nazis/ http://www.les-crises.fr/la-fabrique-du-cretin-defaite-nazis...
    - jernfrost 10y ago
      Back then people knew more about what happened. The generation that grew up afterwards was fed pro-American propaganda. I know because I grew up in the 80s and remember the school books. We got told lies about how e.g. the Soviets killed children in Afghanistan with bombs shaped like toys. Because of the threat of communism most western democracies saw it as important to emphasize American contribution over the USSR.
      - tpm 10y ago
        More likely there isn't one single true answer to this question - it's open to different interpretations.
fetbaffe 10y ago
about World War I, not true.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  Can you elaborate? I was looking up why US entered WWI the other day, and one such reason appeared to be an ongoing stalemate between the various powers, with a 100% correlation to the losing side occurring with America's entry and military expansion within 2 years. I'm open to counterpoints, given the recurring theme of "we could have just not"
  - thesimon 10y ago
    > Can you elaborate Not sure about the high impact of the US. German troops and the resources were quite exhausted (malnutrition and bad equipment) and the Brits were effectively blocking the seaway. France was also able to encrypt the German communication, giving them an edge. The strategy of the Germans contained a lot of flaws as well, so their success at least of the Army was quite limited. One might argue that the Germany Navy wins over Britain (which was one of the reasons the US entered) could've turned the war, but I'm sceptical.
    - fetbaffe 10y ago
      Correct. When the Germans did the Spring Offensive 1918, with substantials reinforcements from the Eastern front after the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk, they found shops filled with all types of food in the areas they where advancing, when they at the same time severely lacked food supplies. This lead to looting and a break down in morale. And by that time, the German civilian population had severe war fatigue by years of blockade. US troops balanced the German reinforcements from the Eastern front, and thereby removed the German advantage, however it did not grant the victory. Remember that when Armistice of 11 November 1918 was signed, Germany was not occupied by any forces of the entente. It was Germany that was on the offensive. This was the motive for the Stab-in-the-back myth (Dolchstoßlegende), the army was not beaten, but the politicians made peace behind their backs.
allemagne 10y ago
Although Trump ostensibly doesn't believe that America is great (rendered an utter wasteland by Obama and Crooked Hillary's failed polices!). In any case, lavish praise of America is kind of a common American thing... no one person or group really owns that.
jernfrost 10y ago
I am a big fan of Elon Musk and I generally think he has very good analysis, but I'd like to have seen his analysis for this because this seems poorly reasoned. I'd disagree with every case. Elon Musk could not possible have research this very thoroughly. Especially claiming WWI seems nuts. Back in those days France, Germany and other neighboring countries had had many wars, but it was seldom about complete dominion. They stole some land from each other. Germany only planned to take some chunks from France and take over Belgium. Secondly Germany was hardly some crazy fascist dictatorship. Thirdly if you read discussion of this Americans don't seem to have had that much direct effect on the battlefield. Its seems like the allies would have won eventually, just slower without American participation. They controlled the sea and was ramping up war production way beyond Germany. And finally none of the above might have matter at all since the real end was the German revolution which produced the Weimar republic. The new democratic leadership was not interested in any war of conquest. The US had more influence on WWII, but 80% of German forces got destroyed on the east front. The Soviet Union was a formidable opponent and it seems unlikely that they could have ever held it even if they had had more success without US support of the USSR. Germany was poorly prepared for occupying such a large country. Without the US the war would likely have dragged on longer but I think Germany would have had to give in eventually. The alternative outcome would likely have been an undemocratic Germany, however Stalin would likely not have had the strength to occupy eastern Europe, and we might actually have ended up with more democracies. This is what I hate about the rose tinted description of WWII outcomes. WWII started because Britain had pledged to keep Poland free. At the end of the war Poland was a communist dictatorship. So was all the other east block countries. So WWII didn't result in a lot of democracy. The US surely stopped Japan, but Japan wasn't spreading dictatorship in a free world. They were frequently replacing one colonial power for another. Who knows China controller by capitalist dictatorship in Japan might have been preferable over a communist dictatorship led by Mao. Finally the last assertion is on even shakier ground. Quite the contrary I'd claim the US mostly did things worse in the cold war. The Vietnam war was a big waste of resources. Vietnam turned capitalist in the end just like China. US meddling in Afghanistan during the cold war screwed up the country more and laid the seeds for modern day jihad. In some cases like Cambodia, US meddling more likely caused communism to happen than prevented it. Communism got rotten from the inside. They started stagnating in the 70s and economic problems got worse through the 80s while those living behind the iron curtain increasingly became aware that they were falling far behind the western democracies. Groups like solidarity sprung up in Poland. Communism got destroyed from the inside. The US was hard on the communist rhetoric but ultimately I don't think that was what mattered. We can't prove it would end one way or the other for sure. But I think it is dangerous to end up in this kind of hero worship of the US. I think a lot of failed American policies has happened precisely because of the idea of American exceptionalism. If America had less inflated ego, it might have accomplished more IMHO.

mikeash 10y ago

At least Musk has reviews from reputable organizations to back him up there.

hourislate 10y ago
Maybe it's just me but I don't really find Consumers Reports useful or that reputable. Especially their vehicle reviews. Having several mechanics in the family and being a car enthusiast myself I find their past recommendations of Hyundai and Kia laughable.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  The car reviews are awful. They like who they like. I remember one Honda that had a transmission recall, defective radio and a tendency for body trim to fall off (according to the little blurb) and was rated awesome. The equivalent Ford was dinged because the OEM tires were noisy.
  - kodis 10y ago
    > The [CR] car reviews are awful. They like who they like. So do they like Tesla or dislike Tesla? Only a year ago or so they rated the Model S as the best car they had ever reviewed; then there were a few Autopilot failures and some troubles with the Model X -- now the honeymoon seems to be over. It's not that I think CR does a wonderful job with cars -- or with any other product that I'm familiar with -- but I think that their biases are more complex than a simple "they like who they like".
    - prostoalex 10y ago
      Their ratings are comprised of two parts - CR's own driving tests as well as reader survey that goes into painful details of each car owned, number of malfunctions and costs of fixing those malfunctions over the previous year. Model S was a fairly new vehicle, so in year one they only did the first part - there weren't many Tesla owners who were also CR subscribers who also have had the car for at least a year to generate a reliable corpus of reader ratings. Things changed in year two when reader surveys started trickling in, with Model S owners reporting higher than average amount of issues, which impacted the overall ratings. CR's own driving tests still earned Model S a "CR Recommended" badge, it just no longer came with a spotless 100-point score they've previously assigned.
- JoBrad 10y ago
  Regardless of whether their ratings work out for you, in particular, they have an incredibly reliable method of rating a huge variety of consumer goods, and they do it in an open way that shows you that the advertisers aren't biasing the results. That allows you to simply +/- their ratings in a certain area, depending on how well their rating lines up with your personal experience. It's hard to do that with similar types of organizations, where it really comes down to the person who reviewed it, and sometimes even how they felt that day.

eddieh 10y ago

Oh man, I thought I was the only one. It drives me nuts. Their disciples (for lack of a better term) sound alike as well.

sheer_horror 10y ago
Well, it shouldn't drive you nuts. That implies that the truth drives you nuts. WW2 didn't look great before the USA stepped in. World wide innovation has been driven by the USA in almost every frontier. And you cannot expect a CEO to regard his product as anything but the best. The thing that drives me nuts is the lengths people such as yourself will go to in order to rationalize their dislike of him. Calling people who like him and the car 'disciples' is also pretty terrible.
- doe88 10y ago
  > WW2 didn't look great before the USA stepped in. Wow, disregarding Soviet Union's role is a bit shortsighted.
- eddieh 10y ago
  Well we can split hairs over this all day, but Musk and Trump (Bernie Sanders too) fit the definition of demagogues IMO. People like the cars because they view them as antiestablishment. e.g. better than what other car makers are building — because the establishment car makers are crooks with no regard for the world and would allow the destruction of nature for a dollar. Meanwhile the data shows that cars are a minuscule contributor to global warming in comparison to burning coal. And that electric cars are not necessarily cleaner than gas cars when you consider what source they are charged from. If you want to do something about global warming that will have an actual impacted you must turn China and India into rich countries that can afford be green (to use the common vernacular). Musk's whole brand and "popularity [is based on] exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people" (from the Wikipedia article on demagogue). Again, this drives me nuts.
  - sheer_horror 10y ago
    This is not splitting hairs! These are basic facts. The whole idea behind Tesla and Solar City is to have solar power generation and electric cars. 100% clean and renewable, and that's the long term goal. You cannot criticize the means to get there -- powering Teslas with current electricity generation -- when that's so much better than Fossil Fuels already. People like the cars because they are better than what the other car makers are making. Model S is the safest, fastest, and most efficient sedan on the market. That's a fact! Cars are minuscule contributors? The EPA site says 14% Co2 is from cars, which is substantial. That's also a fact! If Tesla keeps going, it will replace generation and consumption of fossil fuels with a fully renewable cycle. How is that not the best thing ever? That's fantastic! We might be cutting more than 30% of our CO2 emissions. You need to re-evaluate your standpoint. Also, when you're struggling with cognitive dissonance after reading this, consider this: Your brain's attempts to discredit my argument, and paint Elon backers as mindless followers/disciples, is the real example of psychological trickery, not Elon exploiting some prejudice.

darawk 10y ago

Personally I agree with Musk on the issue of American exceptionalism and nationalism. Not that the US is without faults, but on balance I absolutely agree that it is the greatest single force for good the world has ever seen. Now you can take that as an indictment of the world or an exaltation of America. In my opinion it's a little of both.

GuiA 10y ago
Yeah, you and Mr. Musk are both entitled to your opinions, but unless you're willing to expound in details about how one would measure exactly the "greatest single force for good the world has ever seen", apply these measures systematically to every major world entity history has seen, and show that the US comes out on top, this is just basically 1am THC fueled dorm school debate.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  I really like this french article detailing how public opinion about "which nation contributed the most to victory in WW2" has changed dramatically over time in France. In May 1945, 57% of the respondents claimed the USSR, 20% the USA, 12% the UK. By 2015, the figures are 23% USSR, 54% USA, 18% UK. Wonder if American WWII movies have anything to do with it? http://www.les-crises.fr/la-fabrique-du-cretin-defaite-nazis/ http://www.les-crises.fr/la-fabrique-du-cretin-defaite-nazis...
  - jernfrost 10y ago
    Back then people knew more about what happened. The generation that grew up afterwards was fed pro-American propaganda. I know because I grew up in the 80s and remember the school books. We got told lies about how e.g. the Soviets killed children in Afghanistan with bombs shaped like toys. Because of the threat of communism most western democracies saw it as important to emphasize American contribution over the USSR.
    - tpm 10y ago
      More likely there isn't one single true answer to this question - it's open to different interpretations.

fetbaffe 10y ago

about World War I, not true.

cloudjacker 10y ago
Can you elaborate? I was looking up why US entered WWI the other day, and one such reason appeared to be an ongoing stalemate between the various powers, with a 100% correlation to the losing side occurring with America's entry and military expansion within 2 years. I'm open to counterpoints, given the recurring theme of "we could have just not"
- thesimon 10y ago
  > Can you elaborate Not sure about the high impact of the US. German troops and the resources were quite exhausted (malnutrition and bad equipment) and the Brits were effectively blocking the seaway. France was also able to encrypt the German communication, giving them an edge. The strategy of the Germans contained a lot of flaws as well, so their success at least of the Army was quite limited. One might argue that the Germany Navy wins over Britain (which was one of the reasons the US entered) could've turned the war, but I'm sceptical.
  - fetbaffe 10y ago
    Correct. When the Germans did the Spring Offensive 1918, with substantials reinforcements from the Eastern front after the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk, they found shops filled with all types of food in the areas they where advancing, when they at the same time severely lacked food supplies. This lead to looting and a break down in morale. And by that time, the German civilian population had severe war fatigue by years of blockade. US troops balanced the German reinforcements from the Eastern front, and thereby removed the German advantage, however it did not grant the victory. Remember that when Armistice of 11 November 1918 was signed, Germany was not occupied by any forces of the entente. It was Germany that was on the offensive. This was the motive for the Stab-in-the-back myth (Dolchstoßlegende), the army was not beaten, but the politicians made peace behind their backs.

allemagne 10y ago

Although Trump ostensibly doesn't believe that America is great (rendered an utter wasteland by Obama and Crooked Hillary's failed polices!). In any case, lavish praise of America is kind of a common American thing... no one person or group really owns that.

jernfrost 10y ago

I am a big fan of Elon Musk and I generally think he has very good analysis, but I'd like to have seen his analysis for this because this seems poorly reasoned. I'd disagree with every case. Elon Musk could not possible have research this very thoroughly. Especially claiming WWI seems nuts. Back in those days France, Germany and other neighboring countries had had many wars, but it was seldom about complete dominion. They stole some land from each other. Germany only planned to take some chunks from France and take over Belgium. Secondly Germany was hardly some crazy fascist dictatorship. Thirdly if you read discussion of this Americans don't seem to have had that much direct effect on the battlefield. Its seems like the allies would have won eventually, just slower without American participation. They controlled the sea and was ramping up war production way beyond Germany. And finally none of the above might have matter at all since the real end was the German revolution which produced the Weimar republic. The new democratic leadership was not interested in any war of conquest. The US had more influence on WWII, but 80% of German forces got destroyed on the east front. The Soviet Union was a formidable opponent and it seems unlikely that they could have ever held it even if they had had more success without US support of the USSR. Germany was poorly prepared for occupying such a large country. Without the US the war would likely have dragged on longer but I think Germany would have had to give in eventually. The alternative outcome would likely have been an undemocratic Germany, however Stalin would likely not have had the strength to occupy eastern Europe, and we might actually have ended up with more democracies. This is what I hate about the rose tinted description of WWII outcomes. WWII started because Britain had pledged to keep Poland free. At the end of the war Poland was a communist dictatorship. So was all the other east block countries. So WWII didn't result in a lot of democracy. The US surely stopped Japan, but Japan wasn't spreading dictatorship in a free world. They were frequently replacing one colonial power for another. Who knows China controller by capitalist dictatorship in Japan might have been preferable over a communist dictatorship led by Mao. Finally the last assertion is on even shakier ground. Quite the contrary I'd claim the US mostly did things worse in the cold war. The Vietnam war was a big waste of resources. Vietnam turned capitalist in the end just like China. US meddling in Afghanistan during the cold war screwed up the country more and laid the seeds for modern day jihad. In some cases like Cambodia, US meddling more likely caused communism to happen than prevented it. Communism got rotten from the inside. They started stagnating in the 70s and economic problems got worse through the 80s while those living behind the iron curtain increasingly became aware that they were falling far behind the western democracies. Groups like solidarity sprung up in Poland. Communism got destroyed from the inside. The US was hard on the communist rhetoric but ultimately I don't think that was what mattered. We can't prove it would end one way or the other for sure. But I think it is dangerous to end up in this kind of hero worship of the US. I think a lot of failed American policies has happened precisely because of the idea of American exceptionalism. If America had less inflated ego, it might have accomplished more IMHO.