4 ms·

There are trillions of dollars at stake here and a lot of very powerful people want to keep the status quo. There is a very good reason their healthcare, educa

by grecy 8y ago

There are trillions of dollars at stake here and a lot of very powerful people want to keep the status quo. There is a very good reason their healthcare, education, banking and a whole lot more have not improved in 30+ years. Elon is just one example of someone (or something ) that is disrupting the status quo, and many extremely powerful and rich people will fight tooth and nail to derail any such attempts.

justtopost 8y ago
He is the status quo at this point. Selling him as a disruptor is a bit rich for my blood.
zeroname 8y ago
> Elon is just one example of someone (or something ) that is disrupting the status quo, and many extremely powerful and rich people will fight tooth and nail to derail any such attempts. This is a naive argument. The "rich and powerful" have the most to gain from hyping Elon's companies into the sky (and then profit again on the way down). Think about it, why make an effort to protect barely profitable "status quo companies" when you can just cash out on the personality cult around Elon, who himself is one of the richest and most powerful people in the world. This is mostly about Tesla, the SpaceX stuff is so minor it's not even on the radar of the "rich and powerful". It's a hobby for Boeing and a hobby for Elon Musk. Nobody is going to fight "tooth and nail" to prevent this. They're doing a little bit PR, it's par for the course.
- grecy 8y ago
  > Think about it, why make an effort to protect barely profitable "status quo companies" I don't think Ford, GM, VW, etc. are barely profitable. Neither are Shell or BP or any petroleum company. Neither are ULA or Arianespace. Keep in mind I meant the more general case to - America's healthcare system and education system are fundamentally built the way they are to make very rich people very much richer.
  - zeroname 8y ago
    Company, Market Cap, Profit Margin (5Y avg) Ford, 36 billion, 4.3% GM, 48 billion, 3.79% VW, 85 billion, 3.41% Tesla, 45 billion, -14,8% So, Tesla, even while it is bleeding money, if you had bought in a few years ago, your return even today would easily be 10X. Those other companies stayed relatively flat. Again, I ask you, what's the better deal if you're "rich and powerful"? What's the way to make more money? You'd be stupid to fight tooth and nail to protect those "status quo" companies. You'd make less money and lose. Why not profit both ways? If you are rich and you want to stay rich, you diversify. You don't care if Tesla wins and GM loses because of that, because you have money in either one.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > So, Tesla, even while it is bleeding money, if you had bought in a few years ago, your return even today would easily be 10X. Those other companies stayed relatively flat. You're using the cashflow accounting method, which obviously gives dramatically different results for an expanding company than an established one. If you invest a billion dollars in a battery factory, from a cashflow perspective you have a billion less dollars but that tells you nothing about the value of the new facility. And you're not taking risk into account. Tesla is worth a lot more now than five years ago but there was no guarantee of that five years ago -- otherwise the price would have been higher five years ago. > Again, I ask you, what's the better deal if you're "rich and powerful"? What's the way to make more money? You're taking this from the perspective of something like a mutual fund manager. Why don't they invest in both Tesla and GM? Well, they do. Now take it from the perspective of an oil company executive. You can produce oil at a breakeven price of $45/barrel. If oil prices are at $75/barrel, you're making a nice fat profit margin. If somebody comes along and starts mass producing solar panels and electric cars, that could reduce demand for oil and bring prices closer to your breakeven point, or even below it. You're sitting on top of a hundred+ billion dollar company that could be in big trouble if this catches on. You can't just say they should invest in solar panels and electric cars. Most of the oil production costs are already sunk. The annual revenue difference for a $20/barrel shift in the price of oil for just one oil company is more than Tesla's entire market cap. How are they each going to make up more than $60 billion dollars every year by investing in a company worth under $50 billion dollars in total? There are seven major oil companies. Even using ridiculously optimistic numbers, Tesla isn't going to be worth trillions of dollars ten years from now. But they could cost the oil companies that much.

by grecy 8y ago

justtopost 8y ago

He is the status quo at this point. Selling him as a disruptor is a bit rich for my blood.

zeroname 8y ago

> Elon is just one example of someone (or something ) that is disrupting the status quo, and many extremely powerful and rich people will fight tooth and nail to derail any such attempts. This is a naive argument. The "rich and powerful" have the most to gain from hyping Elon's companies into the sky (and then profit again on the way down). Think about it, why make an effort to protect barely profitable "status quo companies" when you can just cash out on the personality cult around Elon, who himself is one of the richest and most powerful people in the world. This is mostly about Tesla, the SpaceX stuff is so minor it's not even on the radar of the "rich and powerful". It's a hobby for Boeing and a hobby for Elon Musk. Nobody is going to fight "tooth and nail" to prevent this. They're doing a little bit PR, it's par for the course.

grecy 8y ago
> Think about it, why make an effort to protect barely profitable "status quo companies" I don't think Ford, GM, VW, etc. are barely profitable. Neither are Shell or BP or any petroleum company. Neither are ULA or Arianespace. Keep in mind I meant the more general case to - America's healthcare system and education system are fundamentally built the way they are to make very rich people very much richer.
- zeroname 8y ago
  Company, Market Cap, Profit Margin (5Y avg) Ford, 36 billion, 4.3% GM, 48 billion, 3.79% VW, 85 billion, 3.41% Tesla, 45 billion, -14,8% So, Tesla, even while it is bleeding money, if you had bought in a few years ago, your return even today would easily be 10X. Those other companies stayed relatively flat. Again, I ask you, what's the better deal if you're "rich and powerful"? What's the way to make more money? You'd be stupid to fight tooth and nail to protect those "status quo" companies. You'd make less money and lose. Why not profit both ways? If you are rich and you want to stay rich, you diversify. You don't care if Tesla wins and GM loses because of that, because you have money in either one.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > So, Tesla, even while it is bleeding money, if you had bought in a few years ago, your return even today would easily be 10X. Those other companies stayed relatively flat. You're using the cashflow accounting method, which obviously gives dramatically different results for an expanding company than an established one. If you invest a billion dollars in a battery factory, from a cashflow perspective you have a billion less dollars but that tells you nothing about the value of the new facility. And you're not taking risk into account. Tesla is worth a lot more now than five years ago but there was no guarantee of that five years ago -- otherwise the price would have been higher five years ago. > Again, I ask you, what's the better deal if you're "rich and powerful"? What's the way to make more money? You're taking this from the perspective of something like a mutual fund manager. Why don't they invest in both Tesla and GM? Well, they do. Now take it from the perspective of an oil company executive. You can produce oil at a breakeven price of $45/barrel. If oil prices are at $75/barrel, you're making a nice fat profit margin. If somebody comes along and starts mass producing solar panels and electric cars, that could reduce demand for oil and bring prices closer to your breakeven point, or even below it. You're sitting on top of a hundred+ billion dollar company that could be in big trouble if this catches on. You can't just say they should invest in solar panels and electric cars. Most of the oil production costs are already sunk. The annual revenue difference for a $20/barrel shift in the price of oil for just one oil company is more than Tesla's entire market cap. How are they each going to make up more than $60 billion dollars every year by investing in a company worth under $50 billion dollars in total? There are seven major oil companies. Even using ridiculously optimistic numbers, Tesla isn't going to be worth trillions of dollars ten years from now. But they could cost the oil companies that much.