Elon Musk

[Angrboda]

Yeah, everyone knows electric cars and reusable rockets are impossible.  

Those weren't ex novo technologies. Electric cars were inevitable, and SpaceX wasn't his baby originally.

[AFTT47]

Nobody outside of China would be making electric cars without Tesla trailblazing the way. The legacy automakers were highly resistant to electric cars and had be dragged, kicking and screaming into the future.

Reusable rockets weren't a new technology? Are you serious? Practical, economic, reusable rockets were thought impossible in the aerospace business. Not by just the suits but engineers as well. Falcon 9 has absolutely revolutionized the rocket business forever.

Elon Musk may be a douche bag of the first order but he is absolutely to be taken seriously. The same was true of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison. Visionaries and revolutionaries aren't always nice guys.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Nobody outside of China would be making electric cars without Tesla trailblazing the way. The legacy automakers were highly resistant to electric cars and had be dragged, kicking and screaming into the future.

Reusable rockets weren't a new technology? Are you serious? Practical, economic, reusable rockets were thought impossible in the aerospace business. Not by just the suits but engineers as well.  Falcon 9 has absolutely revolutionized the rocket business forever.

Elon Musk may be a douche bag of the first order but he is absolutely to be taken seriously. The same was true of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison. Visionaries and revolutionaries aren't always nice guys.

Ford, GM, and Toyota beat Tesla to the electric car market by several years. SpaceX reusable rocket technology was based on the reusable solid boosters from the Space Shuttle programme (although Musk’s company admittedly made significant improvements).

Musk is less of an innovator than he is an opportunist.

Boru

[Fake Messiah]

And how would we pay for those high universal basic income checks from the federal government?

The answer cannot be from income generated by the robots/AI because why would the person that owns the robots/AI and no longer needs people want to fund billions of people? The person that controls the robots and controls the AI controls the world in this scenario and we are supposed to trust that?

Just take that a year ago, Elon Musk was threatening to start his own political party because he was angry about government spending. Now, he's pushing for robots to replace humans and the government to hand out basic universal income? What a change. Not a serious person.

And he shouldn't be taken seriously because, in his stupidity, he fired crucial people in the government without whom the government can't function.

Musk should also not be taken seriously about Mars because no one is going to Mars. It's just another of his pulp sci-fi delusions.

Musk's Hyperloop should also not be taken seriously because it can never work. Yet it managed to distract California lawmakers from building the high-speed rail project.

When it comes to his cars, the sales are so pathetic that he is inventing new ways to stay afloat, like $60-a-day rentals. Not to mention that he would have probably been in prison by now if Trump didn't let DOGE dismantle the entities that were investigating him for fraud. And the only thing keeping Tesla stock price from plunging are his ties to Trump, which is why they went into free fall the moment he started spatting with Trump.

Starship is also a joke. This thing will never come close to the Moon.

[AFTT47]

Nobody outside of China would be making electric cars without Tesla trailblazing the way. The legacy automakers were highly resistant to electric cars and had be dragged, kicking and screaming into the future.

Reusable rockets weren't a new technology? Are you serious? Practical, economic, reusable rockets were thought impossible in the aerospace business. Not by just the suits but engineers as well.  Falcon 9 has absolutely revolutionized the rocket business forever.

Elon Musk may be a douche bag of the first order but he is absolutely to be taken seriously. The same was true of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison. Visionaries and revolutionaries aren't always nice guys.

Ford, GM, and Toyota beat Tesla to the electric car market by several years. SpaceX reusable rocket technology was based on the reusable solid boosters from the Space Shuttle programme (although Musk’s company admittedly made significant improvements).

Musk is less of an innovator than he is an opportunist.

Boru

You surprise me, Boru. It isn't often that you post something so completely, utterly wrong.

Nobody mass produced electric cars before Tesla. The few curiosities that came before were few and far between and not remotely in the class of Tesla's vehicles. There would be no electric car industry were it not for Tesla. It was simply not in the interest of any of the legacy automakers to completely shift the way they make cars. There had to be a prime mover to force the change. The government could have done it but in the end it was Tesla.

The falcon 9 rocket shares absolutely nothing with the space shuttle. In fact, the space shuttle is the prime reason why the aerospace giants came to believe it was impossible to build a practical, reusable rocket. The reasoning was that NASA tried and failed miserably. Yes, the shuttle was partly reusable but instead of lowering cost, it became one of the most expensive ways to lift cargo to orbit ever made. It cost about $54,500.00 to launch 1 kilogram to orbit using the shuttle. Falcon 9 does it for $2,720.00. This is absolutely revolutionary. On top of that, it has launched 639 times to date with 636 full mission successes.

Did you know that SpaceX had a very difficult time hiring any engineers to develop the Falcon 9? So ingrained was the idea that practical, reusable rockets were impossible that most engineers regarded any attempt to build one as a fool's errand. Make no mistake, there was nobody on the horizon who was going to make the breakthrough that SpaceX did.

As to Musk being more of an opportunist than an innovator, I won't touch that. However he accomplished what he did, he did it.

[AFTT47]

And how would we pay for those high universal basic income checks from the federal government?

The answer cannot be from income generated by the robots/AI because why would the person that owns the robots/AI and no longer needs people want to fund billions of people? The person that controls the robots and controls the AI controls the world in this scenario and we are supposed to trust that?

Just take that a year ago, Elon Musk was threatening to start his own political party because he was angry about government spending. Now, he's pushing for robots to replace humans and the government to hand out basic universal income? What a change. Not a serious person.

And he shouldn't be taken seriously because, in his stupidity, he fired crucial people in the government without whom the government can't function.

Musk should also not be taken seriously about Mars because no one is going to Mars. It's just another of his pulp sci-fi delusions.

Musk's Hyperloop should also not be taken seriously because it can never work. Yet it managed to distract California lawmakers from building the high-speed rail project.

When it comes to his cars, the sales are so pathetic that he is inventing new ways to stay afloat, like $60-a-day rentals. Not to mention that he would have probably been in prison by now if Trump didn't let DOGE dismantle the entities that were investigating him for fraud. And the only thing keeping Tesla stock price from plunging are his ties to Trump, which is why they went into free fall the moment he started spatting with Trump.

Starship is also a joke. This thing will never come close to the Moon.

Yeah, and man will never fly.

Dude, stick with digging up conspiracies; you are the undisputed champion there. But you obviously don't know the first damn thing about technology. Ridiculing things you clearly have no understanding of makes you look like a fool.

[Paleophyte]

Yay! I can't wait for billionaires to give me free money.

Elon Musk’s proposal of ‘universal high income’ to combat AI job losses baffles economists: ‘So wrong on this’

Elon Musk turned heads Friday when he suggested that the federal government paying citizens a “universal high income” is the best way to combat AI-related job losses.

“Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI,” Musk said in a post on his own X platform shortly after midnight Friday morning.

Many economists, however, disagreed.

“He is so wrong on this,” wrote Sanjeev Sanyal, the former top economic advisor to India’s Minister of Finance.

“AI will certainly cause dislocation, but like all technology it will also create new jobs and opportunities in the medium term. AI and robots will also not produce goods and services in excess of money or demand that there will be no inflation,” he wrote on X.

“Elon Musk’s universal high income will bankrupt any government that attempts it,” he concluded.

Another skeptic, Pratyush Rai, the co-founder and CEO of Merlin AI, concurred.

“The basic math on UHI (Universal High Income) doesn’t add up. If everyone gets a high income check, everyone’s competing for the same houses, land, schools, lifestyle,” he posted on X.

https://nypost.com/2026/04/17/business/e...conomists/

Do you think that he understands that he's literally trying to reinvent communism? Isn't that their boogeyman?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Ford, GM, and Toyota beat Tesla to the electric car market by several years. SpaceX reusable rocket technology was based on the reusable solid boosters from the Space Shuttle programme (although Musk’s company admittedly made significant improvements).

Musk is less of an innovator than he is an opportunist.

Boru

You surprise me, Boru. It isn't often that you post something so completely, utterly wrong.

Nobody mass produced electric cars before Tesla. The few curiosities that came before were few and far between and not remotely in the class of Tesla's vehicles. There would be no electric car industry were it not for Tesla. It was simply not in the interest of any of the legacy automakers to completely shift the way they make cars. There had to be a prime mover to force the change. The government could have done it but in the end it was Tesla.

The falcon 9 rocket shares absolutely nothing with the space shuttle. In fact, the space shuttle is the prime reason why the aerospace giants came to believe it was impossible to build a practical, reusable rocket. The reasoning was that NASA tried and failed miserably. Yes, the shuttle was partly reusable but instead of lowering cost, it became one of the most expensive ways to lift cargo to orbit ever made. It cost about $54,500.00 to launch 1 kilogram to orbit using the shuttle. Falcon 9 does it for $2,720.00. This is absolutely revolutionary. On top of that, it has launched 639 times to date with 636 full mission successes.

Did you know that SpaceX had a very difficult time hiring any engineers to develop the Falcon 9? So ingrained was the idea that practical, reusable rockets were impossible that most engineers regarded any attempt to build one as a fool's errand. Make no mistake, there was nobody on the horizon who was going to make the breakthrough that SpaceX did.

As to Musk being more of an opportunist than an innovator, I won't touch that. However he accomplished what he did, he did it.

Mea culpa.

Boru

[Fake Messiah]

Last night was the biggest disaster in the history of Tesla.

Elon Musk got on the call and admitted (his words) that Hardware 3 "simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD."

He said he wished it were otherwise. He said the memory bandwidth is one-eighth of what Hardware 4 has. And that's the end of the conversation.

Approximately 4 million Tesla vehicles on the road right now have Hardware 3. Many of those owners paid $8,000 to $15,000 for Full Self-Driving capability based on Musk's repeated promises (going back to 2016) that the hardware was sufficient for full autonomy. As recently as 2022, Musk was publicly assuring owners that HW3 had the processing power to get it done.

BUT IT DIDN'T

Those promises are now officially broken.

The solution is a "discounted trade-in" toward a new car with Hardware 4.

Not a refund or a free upgrade...
A discount on buying ANOTHER Tesla.

Investor Ross Gerber said it too - all HW3 owners got screwed, and with roughly 285,000 FSD purchasers affected, the potential liability runs into the BILLIONS.

But that's not even the worst part.

Musk was asked if the current FSD v14.3 was ready for unsupervised deployment. He said yes. Then immediately walked it back and admitted Tesla has "major architectural improvements" in the pipeline that would significantly improve safety.

What he really means: the software isn't SAFE ENOUGH to deploy without a human watching. Full unsupervised FSD for consumer cars is pushed to Q4 2026. At the earliest... Maybe.

How many times has this deadline been pushed? I’ve lost count. And trust me, I’ve seen a lot of broken promises. But this one takes the cake.

Now let’s talk about the numbers everyone is celebrating:

---

Tesla reported $22.4 billion in revenue and $0.41 in non-GAAP earnings. A “double beat.” The stock popped 4% after hours. Victory, right?

WRONG

Dig into the actual filing:

The number one driver of operating income improvement wasn’t cost reductions, wasn’t volume growth, wasn’t FSD revenue. It was - and Tesla listed this FIRST in their own shareholder letter - “one-time benefits related to warranty and tariffs.”

They released warranty reserves. They booked tariff refund windfalls. They stretched supplier payments by 10 days. They took on billions in new debt. Then they presented everything through non-GAAP metrics that strip out over $1 billion in stock-based compensation.

GAAP net income was $477 million on $22.4 billion in revenue. That’s a 2.1% net margin. On a $1.4 trillion market cap.

Let me put that in perspective:

3.75 billion shares outstanding. Annualize the Q1 GAAP profit and you get roughly $1.9 billion. That’s a trailing P/E ratio north of 700. Use the adjusted number - strip out stock comp, which is a REAL cost to shareholders through dilution - and you’re still at around 250x earnings.

All of this is extremely bad, but I didn’t even talk about the CAPEX BOMB yet...

3 months ago, Tesla guided to “over $20 billion” in 2026 capital expenditure. Last night they raised it to over $25 billion. A $5 billion increase in a single quarter. That’s 3x their historical annual capex run rate - $8.5 billion in 2025, $11.3 billion in 2024. The CFO confirmed on the call that Tesla expects NEGATIVE free cash flow for the rest of the year.

So you have a company generating roughly $6 billion in annual free cash flow on a good year, and they’re about to spend $25 billion.

The math doesn’t work.

They will almost certainly need to issue equity. Which means dilution. Which means the $1.9 billion in annual earnings gets spread across even MORE shares.

The core auto business is literally deteriorating in real time:

Tesla delivered 358,000 vehicles in Q1 (missed estimates again).

They produced 408,000. That’s 50,000 cars sitting on lots that nobody bought.

Inventory days jumped from 10 to 27 in just a few quarters. California (their most important US market) saw registrations crash 24% year over year.

Their market share in the state fell from 9.2% to 7.7%. That’s on top of a Q1 2025 that was ALREADY weak from Model Y retooling. They’re declining off a decline.

And here’s what really kills the bull case...

The entire valuation rests on robotaxis, Optimus robots, and autonomy. So let’s put numbers on it:

Waymo - the actual leader in autonomous driving with 15 million completed rides in 2025 alone, over 127 million autonomous miles driven, operating commercially across 6 US cities with plans to expand to 20 more - just raised $16 billion at a $126 billion valuation.

That’s the market’s verdict on what the LEADING robotaxi company is worth. $126 billion.

And Waymo is YEARS ahead of Tesla in actual deployment.

Tesla has 3.75 billion shares outstanding. So even if you assign $126 billion in robotaxi value (giving Tesla full credit for matching Waymo despite being nowhere close) that’s $33 a share. Add the auto business at generous auto-industry multiples, maybe $20 a share. Throw in energy storage and services, $10-15.

Sum of the parts gets you to roughly $65-70 a share if you’re feeling generous. Maybe $50 if you’re not.

The stock is $387.

So what exactly are you paying for?

You’re paying for a STORY. You’re paying for PROMISES that keep getting pushed back, technology that keeps falling short, and a business plan that requires spending $25 billion a year while the core product sells fewer units at declining margins in a market where California sales just fell 24% and the federal EV tax credit is gone.

I managed the number one mutual fund in America. I founded two billion-dollar hedge funds. I’ve been doing this since 1981.

And I am telling you:

Tesla at $387 is one of the most egregious mispricings I have seen in my entire career.

THE CRASH WILL BE EPIC

---

https://georgenoble.substack.com/p/last-...t-disaster

[Fireball]

^ And the child-molester-in-chief will bail his ass out.