4 ms·

I find it hilarious that Bloomberg thinks it knows whats going on at Tesla. They are desperately trying to give tesla one last black eye before it goes private.

robertAngst 8y ago
I'm over this elon cult. Or marketing company.
- supernovae 8y ago
  over what? How is Tesla any different from any other company out to make money? I sort of wish many of the places i worked/work at went private... the market is a joke.
kolbe 8y ago
This isn't 'Bloomberg'. It's Matt Levine's Opinion, and his opinions (which always come with ample justification, unlike yours) are very highly regarded.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  The problem is he doesn’t provide a reasonable explanation for why Musk made his comments. It doesn’t take a genius to think, as the CEO of a public company, saying you have funding confirmed when you don’t might land you in hot water. So the most likely scenario is he understood all of this and said it anyway. Why?
  - tanderson92 8y ago
    It's not knowable at this time why Musk made his comments. As a writer the best Levine can do is contextualize the situation and how it compares to norms of corporate finance, try to probe at possible plausible explanations for Musk's behavior, and evaluate the relative likelihood of each as well as the potential pitfalls. Of course none of the proposed explanations are really tenable. It isn't Levine's task to explain why Musk made the comments -- that falls rather squarely on Musk, or, perhaps, the SEC.
  - nopriorarrests 8y ago
    Here is NYT answer: Two people familiar with the chain of events said that in a conversation with an informal adviser about the mess he had gotten himself into, Mr. Musk said he had taken to Twitter impulsively. He said he had done so because he was not the kind of person who could hold things in, and was angry at the company’s critics. [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/business/dealbook/tesla-elon-musk-saudi-arabia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/business/dealbook/tesla-e...
- DanielGee 8y ago
  He's a bloomberg opinion writer. He is a bloomberg staff member. So it is bloomberg. There are people who highly regard matt levine. But there are also plenty of people who have a low opinion of him. Not sure why you attacked the guy for giving his opinion.
  - kolbe 8y ago
    >He's a bloomberg opinion writer. He is a bloomberg staff member. So it is bloomberg. That's only your opinion of what it means '[to be] bloomberg'. If you have a good argument for why that is the case, then give it. But unless you do, I'll stick with the definition of an oped[1], and that Matt Levine himself took the job because Bloomberg gave him the creative freedom to write what he'd like to write in the manner that he likes to write. >Not sure why you attacked the guy for giving his opinion. I didn't attack him. I just noted the large difference in how much support Matt Levine gave for his opinion, and how little the poster gave for his. [1]"An op-ed ... is a written prose piece typically published by a newspaper or magazine which expresses the opinion of a named author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial board." (wiki)
    - DanielGee 8y ago
      > That's only your opinion of what it means '[to be] bloomberg'. No. It's a matter of fact. He works for bloomberg. He gets paid by bloomberg. Hence it is bloomberg. Now if it was an non-bloomberg employee wrote an op-ed piece for bloomberg, nytimes or any other publication, then you would be correct. > But unless you do, I'll stick with the definition of an oped[1], and that Matt Levine himself took the job because Bloomberg gave him the creative freedom to write what he'd like to write in the manner that he likes to write. Right. He works for bloomberg. He represents bloomberg. He is a bloomberg employee. > [1]"An op-ed ... is a written prose piece typically published by a newspaper or magazine which expresses the opinion of a named author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial board." (wiki) That's my point. Matt Levine is affiliated with the editorial board. He is affiliated with the founder of bloomberg itself - michael bloomberg, who pretty much handpicked his op-ed staff. You do realize that michael bloomberg himself writes op-eds for bloombergview right? Are you saying that doesn't represent bloomberg? Yes. If an op-ed is written by Dimon or Tim Cook or anyone not affiliated with bloomberg, then you are right. It isn't bloomberg. But someone who works for bloomberg writing an op-ed is bloomberg. Hope that clears it up for you.

robertAngst 8y ago

I'm over this elon cult. Or marketing company.

supernovae 8y ago
over what? How is Tesla any different from any other company out to make money? I sort of wish many of the places i worked/work at went private... the market is a joke.

kolbe 8y ago

This isn't 'Bloomberg'. It's Matt Levine's Opinion, and his opinions (which always come with ample justification, unlike yours) are very highly regarded.

sheepmullet 8y ago
The problem is he doesn’t provide a reasonable explanation for why Musk made his comments. It doesn’t take a genius to think, as the CEO of a public company, saying you have funding confirmed when you don’t might land you in hot water. So the most likely scenario is he understood all of this and said it anyway. Why?
- tanderson92 8y ago
  It's not knowable at this time why Musk made his comments. As a writer the best Levine can do is contextualize the situation and how it compares to norms of corporate finance, try to probe at possible plausible explanations for Musk's behavior, and evaluate the relative likelihood of each as well as the potential pitfalls. Of course none of the proposed explanations are really tenable. It isn't Levine's task to explain why Musk made the comments -- that falls rather squarely on Musk, or, perhaps, the SEC.
- nopriorarrests 8y ago
  Here is NYT answer: Two people familiar with the chain of events said that in a conversation with an informal adviser about the mess he had gotten himself into, Mr. Musk said he had taken to Twitter impulsively. He said he had done so because he was not the kind of person who could hold things in, and was angry at the company’s critics. [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/business/dealbook/tesla-elon-musk-saudi-arabia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/business/dealbook/tesla-e...
DanielGee 8y ago
He's a bloomberg opinion writer. He is a bloomberg staff member. So it is bloomberg. There are people who highly regard matt levine. But there are also plenty of people who have a low opinion of him. Not sure why you attacked the guy for giving his opinion.
- kolbe 8y ago
  >He's a bloomberg opinion writer. He is a bloomberg staff member. So it is bloomberg. That's only your opinion of what it means '[to be] bloomberg'. If you have a good argument for why that is the case, then give it. But unless you do, I'll stick with the definition of an oped[1], and that Matt Levine himself took the job because Bloomberg gave him the creative freedom to write what he'd like to write in the manner that he likes to write. >Not sure why you attacked the guy for giving his opinion. I didn't attack him. I just noted the large difference in how much support Matt Levine gave for his opinion, and how little the poster gave for his. [1]"An op-ed ... is a written prose piece typically published by a newspaper or magazine which expresses the opinion of a named author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial board." (wiki)
  - DanielGee 8y ago
    > That's only your opinion of what it means '[to be] bloomberg'. No. It's a matter of fact. He works for bloomberg. He gets paid by bloomberg. Hence it is bloomberg. Now if it was an non-bloomberg employee wrote an op-ed piece for bloomberg, nytimes or any other publication, then you would be correct. > But unless you do, I'll stick with the definition of an oped[1], and that Matt Levine himself took the job because Bloomberg gave him the creative freedom to write what he'd like to write in the manner that he likes to write. Right. He works for bloomberg. He represents bloomberg. He is a bloomberg employee. > [1]"An op-ed ... is a written prose piece typically published by a newspaper or magazine which expresses the opinion of a named author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial board." (wiki) That's my point. Matt Levine is affiliated with the editorial board. He is affiliated with the founder of bloomberg itself - michael bloomberg, who pretty much handpicked his op-ed staff. You do realize that michael bloomberg himself writes op-eds for bloombergview right? Are you saying that doesn't represent bloomberg? Yes. If an op-ed is written by Dimon or Tim Cook or anyone not affiliated with bloomberg, then you are right. It isn't bloomberg. But someone who works for bloomberg writing an op-ed is bloomberg. Hope that clears it up for you.