Was a typo. Supposed to be call a person a pedophile (pedo guy). You haven’t read any of the many many news articles about journalists whose accounts were banned and then unbanned? Those are facts. Read up on it. I called Elon your hero as a snarky response. It wasn’t constructive but I don’t hold the same standard that you do. You however insulted schiff’s career without any response to his ideas, which is against the standard you proposed. an unreasonable standard is one that isn’t defendable because of its requirement of absolute right and wrong. facts are truth and the truth is that Elon is a hypocrite on his stance for absolute free speech. And you are on your stance about name calling. One example of hypocrisy: Elon believes in absolute free speech but bans a guy who uses public data to track his plane. Elon claims it is for safety. So it was okay to violate the kid’s free speech? Not very absolute then, is it?
I think Tesla has a lot of potential and i might throw some money at it as a long term gamble. A lot of people are forgetting Tesla isn't just another car company, it's also a technology company. Take their self driving for example, the industry is going to move in that direction and they are so far ahead of the competition, the data they have over their competition from all these years of (ongoing) testing and collecting, it's crazy.
Something is either true or it's not. Facts are not subject to interpretation. Right and wrong is up to a person's morals, which they have to live with. Facts are absolute or they are not facts. An un-defendable position is one that is not fact based. You like censorship when it goes your way. Not good. When the left controlled Twitter, you were fine with conservatives being banned, but now they have a voice, you want those on the left who weren't truthful to be protected. That's a double standard. I think everyone should get their voice, I believe in the 1st Ammendment, as written and intended. I don't think name calling in a debate is useful. I can't control what public figures do, but in my own discussions, I know the first person in the debate who calls names loses. It's a "tell" that they are rattled, so they try to shut the other party down or throw them off their game by attempting to evoke an emotional response. Emotion is why people name call. The first one to name call is showing they have lost control of their emotions. It's the crack in their armor, every time. Be as snarky as you want, I can take it, it reflects on who you are, not me. At least you were more honest and self-aware admitting it was trying to take a chap shot, so I respect you manning up to recant it. The other guy isn't able to do that, which simply tells me I'm having a better month of trading than he is, since "emotion is the only reason traders lose money." Happy trades!
Tesla is still higher than it will be, so play for the next trough. The self-driving thing might sound good, but it's the same problem as with why flying cars never came to being: maintenance. As soon as self-driving car owners lapse on the expensive maintenance (which happens with all cars over time), the accident rates will rise, so it's unlikely to have a world like that. It will only take a few high-fatality accidents to get them all banned. TSLA is over-valued (normal valuation is 5x-10x earnings), Tesla shares are mountains above that. It will drop more as other EV makers eat away market share. Good luck!
I don't really use candle charts, but it was a nice spread of tickers to look at. I've traded a lot of SQQQ and UVXY this year, done pretty well with SQQQ. Nice to talk shop, and get away from all the other blah-blah, that's just tit-for-tat, nothing to do with making money, which I know you and I both like to do. Thanks
Tesla already has way less (heavy) accidents when autopilot is active compared to people driving themselves. I am not saying we will go to a 100% self drive world, but there is no doubt that it is way safer, statistics prove it. Look at Volvo for example, not fully self driving but it is proof that technology is much safer than human input. Regarding the maintenance, then the driver is liable for the accident ... Just like they are when they cause an accident now. Cars already need to get tested every 4 years where i live to make sure they are safe and road legal, wouldn't be that hard to include such technologies in those checks. Also wouldn't be hard to sell cars with maintenance included on some sort of subscription basis for example. Very easy fixes for what you mentioned.
The vehicles in self-driving tests are all highly maintained, so it doesn't illustrate when 10-year old cars, poorly maintained, are everywhere. All cars are less safe as they age, because they receive less TLC. I can foresee a lot of accidents in lower income areas. People fudge vehicle inspections all the time, they'll do it here. Most highway fatalities involve DUI, speeding, and phone use while driving. Someone will find a way to "hack" self-driving tech eventually, for either carjacking, or accident-causing inputs. Also, the EV future is all artificially maintained. The U.S. gets 80% of it's electricity from coal and natural gas plants, solar and wind are only reliable 10-30% of the time globally. To produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear power plant, a solar panel "farm" require 450 times the amount of land area to create the same amount of power. China gets 70% of its EV power from dirty coal burning plants. They are now on track to build more new coal plants in the next five years than the entire planet has built in the last 50 years. How does EV make anything clean? Massive solar and wind farms dramatically harm the eco-system where built. In short, EV's aren't practical, they just displace pollution, not remove it. The U.S. has the cleanest air and water since 1970, there's no problem. India and China create the most global pollution and it's not going to change. Just read some of the labels from all the plastic in the Pacific. Very little of it is in English. An EV creates 12 metric tons of carbon emissions to build each car. A gasoline powered car creates 8. The EV doesn't catch up to the gasoline powered engine vehicle in overall carbon footprint until about 160,000 miles, so there's no benefit to the environment until then, and only for the last 20-40,000 miles. Lithium is extremely dirty to make, as is recycling batteries. EVs are also significantly heavier and put more wear and tear on the infrastructure. I don't want to get into a big, long debate about this. Everyone can do their own research and draw their own conclusions, but if EVs were better, they'd already be more widespread. The fact that they receive so many subsidies and are now starting to be forced on us through mandates says that they aren't what they claim. The market sees this, but the government, which loves control, wants to force "clean and green" on a country with the cleanest air and water we've had in our lifetimes. Happy trades!
That's fine, I don't mind wrapping it up, I have a lot of work to do so back and forth on this isn't high priority. Have a great night and happy trades, hope you make a bundle! All the best, Cheers.