Elon Musk’s Big Oil Conspiracy Theory

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Elon Musk has launched a twitter tirade in which he appears to accuse reporters of lying about Tesla, to attract advertising from other car makers and fossil fuel producers (last tweet in the quote below).

Elon Musk complains of ‘holier-than-thou hypocrisy of big media companies’ in tirade

Tesla CEO Elon Musk criticized media companies.

Musk said distrust of journalists was responsible for President Donald Trump’s election.

Robert Ferris | @RobertoFerris

Published 3:38 PM ET Wed, 23 May 2018

Elon Musk is not happy with Tesla’s recent media coverage, to put it mildly.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/23/elon-musk-complains-of-holier-than-thou-hypocrisy-of-media.html

I don’t agree with Elon Musk’s assertion that journalists just want to attract big oil advertising money. I think most journalists want to do the right thing, even if many of them are are hopelessly biased on some subjects.

Perhaps the stress of watching Tesla Inc. burn through an estimated $7,430 / minute is finally getting to Musk.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 25, 2018 9:22 pm

I think most journalists want to do the right thing

As long as they can get maximum clicks or views while doing it.
Not all though.

Reply to  Jeff
May 26, 2018 4:41 am

Is capitalism still a thing? Why are newspapers so obviously disinterested in the preservation of what remains of their capital of credibility?
Why do all sources say that Macron outsmarted Marine Le Pen (“MLP”) in the presidential debate, that he had the answers, that he was “like a professor”?
But Macron didn’t seem to know that you can pay your employees in currency X and sell in currency Y: Macron (who is just an actor, and who married his drama teacher), made a face like “this is the most ridiculous idea I ever heard” when MLP suggested that in the future French companies could pay their employees in Francs (if we recreate the French Franc) while at the same time being paid by customers abroad in Euros. It was an extremely disturbing moment (I feel disturbed writing about it); obviously the inherent imbalance of equal debate time (*) prevented MLP from refuting the silly nonsense.
(*) When you have equal time as your political opponent whose every false claim is defended by hundreds of media sources, when you have been constantly challenged on the weaknesses of your proposals and the more inane proposals of the other running candidates are never challenged, that’s inherent imbalance of equality of time.
Macron had no idea what the ECU (the former name of the Euro) was. He believed it was not a currency (the media had to work a lot to convince the French people that it wasn’t and that Macron was right and that the ECU wasn’t really money, and not usable for paiement of goods, an object lie). The guy is an uber-ignoramus even in the only business where he had real experience (Macron is a banker), he gets almost every fact wrong, he lies about pretty much everything, yet the “fact checkers” treat him like a winner who got almost everything right (even an ignorant child who knows nothing can read the fact checkers and see that Macron got almost everything wrong, as a child can compare the claims of the fact checkers and they don’t match).
I have never witness a train wreck as bad as the display of Macron during that debate; not even Hillary closing up a dull display in the debate by honoring a South American overweight former Miss involved in a crime was a bad IMO. (And MLP wasn’t very good either on finance, but what did you expect: MLP is copying communist ideas of the PCF of the eighties, and when were extreme left candidates expected to understand finance?)
Yet the consensus was that MLP was inept and agressive and Macron was smart – in reality, Macron used typical language of the “extreme right” of the thirties against MLP (even calling her a “parasite”) and got away with it (Macron shows so many of the typical signs of the so-called “extreme right”, the fascistic left of Mussolini, it’s disturbing).
MLP said that Macron sold the French societies Alstom, SFR… It’s like saying Hillary “sold” Uranium One; neither “sold” anything as they didn’t own either, they just authorized the operations to go through obviously. It’s idiomatic, it’s a matter of context, intelligent people don’t act surprised when “you sold” is used colloquially in place of “you allow the transfer of ownership of a corporation to happen”. The fact that Macron was the person who gave the permission for these operations (that were heavily criticized and that other officials wanted to prevent) was well known, the media reported these facts, but after the presidential debate, the same French media went all in with the obvious disinformation, as if they had to sacrifice everything to prevent MLP from gaining votes.
I still cannot explain that display of volatility of the reporting on past events. It isn’t even the same as the volatility of the possibility that the US elections could be hacked (“elections cannot be hacked” -> “Russia hacked the election”/”Putin stole the election”).
That the media went all in in such a dangerous way may mean different things:
– MLP was closer to winning then expected
– there was an apparence that MLP was closer in the polls
– the MSM believe they can get away with literally anything, and I literally mean literally
Either way, it’s a quite serious issue when the few intelligent commentators in France say that the Pravda of the Soviet Union was not less reliable or trustworthy than current French media, and they are not joking.

Reply to  s-t
May 26, 2018 5:54 am

Specious sophistry distraction, that never mentions the topic article or the article’s subject.

Reply to  ATheoK
May 26, 2018 6:02 am

I’m sorry that were “distracted” from the “topic”, which apparently has no relation with journalistic integrity.
Can you define the topic?

Bryan A
Reply to  s-t
May 26, 2018 2:58 pm

Elon Musk

Thought you’d say that. Anytime anyone criticizes the media, the media shrieks “You’re just like Trump!” Why do you think he got elected in the first place? Because no ones believes you any more. You lost your credibility a long time ago

Actually, Mr Musk, Mr Trump was elected because Ms Clinton was unelectable to a portion of her constituency sufficient to give him the edge in 5 key States. Ms Clinton lost because her own people couldn’t back her.

Reply to  Jeff
May 27, 2018 5:55 pm

You are exactly right with the clicks. There is an excellent independent journalist called Tim Pool who Youtube’s daily:
He has done several pieces on the decaying MSM. Note: Tim is best described as centre-left or classical liberal politically, so he is not a natural enemy of the MSM politically.
I have picked up many interesting points from his videos on the news media. Take the click bait stories usually plastered at the end (or even side) of MSM news stories online. Most would not realise that these third party sites are designed to click through several pages which are then logged to the MSM media site. The reason for this is to claim said clicks when it comes to attracting advertising dollars.
Tim does some excellent work, but the sad fact is that idiots doing stupid stuff or voluptuous ladies prancing around in yoga wear or bikinis generate orders of magnitude more YouTube subscribers. As long as this is the case the MSM has no real competition. Some days I think I should down a bottle of minus IQ pills (check out the spoof ad … quite funny) so I can lead a blissfully ignorant lifestyle.

Javert Chip
May 25, 2018 9:32 pm

Mr. Market can be a bitch.
Unfortunately, he has developed an unfortunate habit of showing up late to the dot.com, unicorn, etc party.
Seems to be spending time with GE.

Reply to  Javert Chip
May 26, 2018 4:45 am

People in pretty much any areas are mostly sheep.
The jobs are simply too intellectual for most people, so the majority is following the consensus, that is the majority.
Even excellent scientists in a narrow field too often show poor intellectual abilities outside their narrow field. I wonder why that is.

James Fosser
Reply to  s-t
May 26, 2018 3:08 pm

There is an excellent American saying for that. ”Professor in the class, dumb on the bus”.

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
May 25, 2018 9:47 pm

But, he does make a good point about the media’s obsession with Trump bashing. I hear it on the radio and TV stations in Perth all the time. Even on the sports and morning shows, they will bring Trump into a comment to get a cheap laugh amongst themselves. It is pathetic.

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
May 25, 2018 10:22 pm

It’s exactly the same in the UK with the BBC.

michael hart
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Yes, the BBC rarely pass up an opportunity to report on something they think or hope will be bad for Trump, carefully omitting many relevant facts which often give a rather different appearance to the day’s anti-Trump story. They probably treat Vladimir Putin more fairly than Trump when you consider what they exclude.
While they generally don’t go in for provable lies, visit the BBC website and you’ll find that they are so focused on their task that they usually forget to enable comments, thus not allowing readers to fill the voids in the story they tell.
And Elon Musk certainly can’t complain about the comfy ride given to Tesla by the BBC. The free advertising given to his products would cost millions and millions at any other media company. You would think that there aren’t any other car manufacturers making alternatives to the traditional internal combustion engine-powered car. Off the top of my head, I would say that only Twitter comes to mind as a corporation receiving more free advertising from the BBC. As with their global warming propagandising, and the let’s-try-and-destroy-the-world’s-plastics-industries, the BBC simply thinks the rules don’t apply if they’re saving the planet at the same time. You see the same noble cause-corruption with many environmentalists and dubious charities sailing too close to the wind.
Not only do the BBC make no pretence of obeying their legally mandated charter requiring impartiality, they’ll be damned if they’re going to let the public do their job for them in an age where alternative information sources are often only a few clicks away. If the managers and trustees of the BBC truly believed in public service broadcasting, they would be actively looking for innovative ways to make use of the vast knowledge base and good will of the British public. As it is, the 28-gate affair showed they spend more time, effort, and money trying to make sure that public is excluded from discussions when the BBC is deciding what their policy is on subjects where they are not even supposed to have a policy at all.
They aspire to educate the world, yet they cannot even educate themselves.

Reply to  John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
May 25, 2018 11:56 pm

Trump is unconventional and unpredictable much like Musk, that alone is going to get both coverage.
Trump isn’t left and politically correct like many in the media want and are biased towards and he was always going to get a rough reception.
I suspect what much of the media is finding out is that there views are not the majority held by the population and many see thru the bias. They have been caught out in elections all around the world of which Italy was just the latest. The world population is lurching right and the media doesn’t understand it and doesn’t agree with it.
An interesting question to probably ask the media and those who politically lean left is why the world is lurching right? I suspect the answer will be very telling and few of them will want to confront it.

Reply to  LdB
May 26, 2018 5:05 am

Trump may be unpredictable in the very short term but the problems he is treating and the overall strategy he uses were explained before the elections; yet people act surprised when Trump isn’t treating like a holy cow what Trump criticized for years.
Trump sees the problems of economy and finance as linked, as every even moderately intelligent person does. World economy and geopolitics are not independent and the advantages for both consumers and producers of unimpeded exchanges of goods across the world do not always exceed the dangers of empowering countries that are no homo economicus.
The ideas of peace through strength, a threat of force can influence more than the use of force, leverage is better than destruction, collective punishment should be avoided when possible… nothing exceptional here.
The fact is that you cannot destroy a thing twice, that the destruction of the ZTE brand would not fix the US-China issues, and that leverage on ZTE is better than disappearance of ZTE … all these seem to be beyond the intellectual abilities of most GOPers.

Reply to  LdB
May 26, 2018 8:49 am

Global political and financial stagnation for 20 years?
Taxpayers money being spunked by conservative politicians, as though they were socialists?
The EU run by unelected bureaucrats with questionable influences?
The left wing regime of Obama stifling the US free market economy?
The left wing reactionaries like anti-fa demonstrating they are worse than whoever they target?
Where do we start?

Reply to  John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
May 26, 2018 4:31 am

Do yourself a favor. Quit watching the “idiot news.”

Reply to  John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
May 26, 2018 10:44 am

“But, he does make a good point about the media’s obsession with Trump bashing. I hear it on the radio and TV stations in Perth all the time.”
I think what this tells us is that radical Leftwing partisans have taken over the mass communication organs of Western society and are employing them for leftwing propaganda purposes.
Since the Leftwing has control of communications, it is difficult to tell who the majority really is. The MSM make you think the leftwing position if the dominant position in society, but then along comes Trump and gets elected. So who really has the numbers/majority?
It seems to me that it is fairly evenly split between the Right and the Left, but with the Left in control of the news the perceptions are skewed.
The elections in 2018 and 2020 will tell us a lot about our society and its compostion. Are we doomed to head down the socialist/authoritarian road, or will individual freedoms prevail?

Ernest Bush
Reply to  TA
May 27, 2018 8:24 pm

Trump’s election tells the story. The country is split between Democrat-held cities and the rest of the U.S. It’s about 50-50. The middle of the country finally woke to the fact that the country has practically been stolen from them by an extreme socialist/fascist/communist party (take your pick) and so they stood up (as we say) and voted en masse. The Left has destroyed liberalism in America.
The problem is that there is practically no real media left in the U.S. There is a belief system in what is now a propaganda machine that says the rest of the country believes as the leftist propaganda machine does. They think most Americans believe the daily blasts aimed at the Trump administration despite polls that say otherwise. It will eventually be a fatal mistake. Rush Limbaugh has theorized that the media has control of the Democrat Party and that the elected representatives are now taking their marching orders daily from what the MSM publishes. There is some evidence that backs up this assertion.

Commodore Model 3 Robotic Assembly Device
May 25, 2018 9:53 pm

Elon good Elon save planet he good

Reply to  Commodore Model 3 Robotic Assembly Device
May 25, 2018 9:59 pm

The eventual collapse of Tesla and its big assembly plant in the SE SF Bay area of Fremont will be a seismic shock to Cal’s economy. Think Grapes of Wrath reversed.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  joelobryan
May 25, 2018 10:04 pm

No it won’t. The former NUMI plant currently employs a fraction of what it did when GM owned it.

Reply to  joelobryan
May 25, 2018 10:32 pm

It is not just assembly line workers, but all the design and engineering staff. The sales and promotion staff.. The software groups writing code and testing. All of that is concentrated in Fremont.

George Daddis
Reply to  joelobryan
May 26, 2018 7:23 am

Remember, the Fremont plant was already closed until the Toyota/GM joint venture re-opened it.

Reply to  Commodore Model 3 Robotic Assembly Device
May 26, 2018 6:10 am

Clap hands for Chairman Elon!!

Reply to  Commodore Model 3 Robotic Assembly Device
May 26, 2018 1:45 pm

I sort of admire Musk for being a generally smart & imaginative guy, but the facts remain:
Tesla Car Batteries Not Remotely Green, Study Finds
Tesla car battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving
‘Inconvenient’ Fact: Electric Cars Create More CO2 Than They Save
Tesla battery, subsidy, and sustainability fantasies
Tesla Cars Aren’t As Carbon (And Taxpayer) Friendly As You Think

Reply to  Wally
May 26, 2018 2:39 pm

…and then there’s the spontaneous combustion, spontaneous acceleration, and steering off the road thing…
…but darwin seems to be taking care of that

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Wally
May 27, 2018 8:33 pm

Another serious fact that is never looked at: Electric cars are actually fueled by the coal and natural gas used to generate most of the electricity in the U.S. If they were to catch on big time then more natural gas and, hopefully, nuclear plants would have to be built. In the winter, when the northeast grid and elsewhere is stretched to the limit, large numbers of electric cars and trucks could take grids down due to the poor battery performance. Heating the batteries is dangerous and will consume even more electricity.

Reply to  Ernest Bush
May 28, 2018 8:17 am

The Autolib in Paris is a rental car service, it’s a “public service” (the taxpayers have to foot the bill for this fantasy). The car is the Bolloré Bluecar.comment image
“Heating the batteries is dangerous”
The battery is heated all the time when the car is plugged. (How much power do they consume in Paris? They don’t advertise on how many they waste heating parked cars.)
We are told that the plugged cars are safe, but people have noticed that the number of case of fire (when parked) among the relatively few Bluecars (one thousand) is disproportionate for the fires of cars.comment image
See: http://www.caradisiac.com/Deux-Autolib-en-feu-dans-Paris-ce-matin-89865.htm

May 25, 2018 9:57 pm

The increasing antics of Mr Musk are certainly just the tip of the iceberg we can see in public. The 90% we can’t see will make for good books and movies in about 10 years when Musk’s House of Cards collapses. No doubt Tesla’s internal finances are much worse than admitted, even with the SEC looking over their shoulder as a publicly listed company.

May 25, 2018 10:02 pm

Not that I have followed TSLA and Musk that closely. But recently, his board of directors voted that people with huge stock positions, ie Musk, should limit their margin borrowings. Some are concerned. Then more recently Musk turned defensive and critical on phone conferences with research analysts. He needs their support 24/7.
Without specific knowledge, the guy is highly leveraged in his own stock.
In 1929, it was Clarence Hatry in England, a wheeler-dealer whose last leveraged scheme was to take over a big US steel company. Early in that fateful year, he had promises of funds to finance his ambition. During the summer, these promises faded away. Knowing the size of his potential disaster Hatry went to the governor of the Bank of England. No help or sympathy there.
His liquidity problem did not cause the crash but was symptomatic of many stock operators.
Many of today’s over-leveraged operators could become desperate if the stock market rolls over after August.
Taking electric cars, windmills and solar cells with it.
Bob Hoye

Reply to  subtle2
May 26, 2018 4:00 am

Why would the stock market roll over after August?

Reply to  bsl
May 26, 2018 6:49 am

There are powerful seasonal forces in play.
The peak in Bitcoin in December likely concluded that bubble. In a period of intense speculation the seasonal narrowing of credit spreads, which have been narrowing, runs into around May- June and then reverse. Industrial commodities were likely to be positive into the same time window, and they have. Crude and lumber have clocked speculative excesses.
Usually, these are the forces behind the old “Sell in May and go away”.
In the financial and political markets, this is one of the most exciting times in history to be alive and alert.
Another item is as with the turning points in 2000 and in 2008, the US dollar has turned up.
Bob Hoye

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  bsl
May 26, 2018 8:57 am

We’re about due for a correction. They seem to happen with amazing regularity every 8 to 10 years.

R. Shearer
Reply to  subtle2
May 26, 2018 7:55 am

I’d like to short TSLA except that shorts account for almost 30% of its float.

Tsk Tsk
May 25, 2018 10:05 pm

I think most journalists want to do the right thing, even if many of them are are hopelessly biased on some subjects.

And there’s the problem right there. They want to do something instead of just reporting the facts. And the easiest way for them to do that it to spin the narrative so the unwashed masses don’t get confused by all of those pesky details.

Greg Cavanagh
May 25, 2018 10:10 pm

I take it then that Elon believes his own spin on how good his product is, but he’s upset that the majority don’t buy it = Therefore it’s the media’s fault.

May 25, 2018 10:35 pm

I agree that Elon Musk is off track here and that he definitely needs to refocus on getting the Tesla mass production issues resolved instead of blaming everything else other than himself.
However, he has been an innovator and game changer in the EV market and this market is now being dominated by the Chinese. Fossil fuels are on the way out and prices like these are only going to encourage a consumer shift to EV in the longer term: http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/25/news/economy/gas-prices-memorial-day-summer/index.html

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 25, 2018 11:05 pm

Who said ‘end our need’ as if this is being forced in some way? Market forces will determine this.
China is aiming to have most people driving EVs and that is giving a huge impetus to the EV market and the consequential lowering of costs.
The conventional auto manufacturers obviously want to resist this – why should they make the voluntary switch to EV? – but will either have to adapt or die.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 25, 2018 11:26 pm

It won’t happen any time soon.

Total EV sales since 2010, ­including estimates for Tesla ­because it declines to release figures, suggest that in a total passenger fleet of 14 million there are 8000 EVs on Australian roads, equivalent to one in every 1750 cars.

they amplified its disadvantages: heavy, short on range, slow to ­recharge and too expensive by far.

I just hope we don’t have to start paying subsidies for them.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 25, 2018 11:28 pm

Just to continue on this theme so you understand:
You rarely get an incumbent e.g. Ford, GM, VW that disrupts themselves e.g. the carriage makers had some brand names that did not become car companies. Nokia had a very large profit pool in cellphones; when Apple came along with the smart phone they couldn’t make the transition.
The traditional auto makers will need to put billions of dollars just to shift from a combustion engine to AV, but the market is still the same market so will they be able to get payback if they cannot sell more cars than normal?
Also, let’s take a look at some policy iniatives around the globe. The mayor of Paris recently announted that by 2030 you won’t be able to drive into Paris with a combustion engine car. China, the U.S. and Germany will push the adoption of EVs forward, with the rest of the world following closely behind. Many analysts believe that by 2040, the global EV market could exceed 60 million vehicles sold per year.
On the AV part and Greentech China dominates, taking it a lot more seriously than the rest of the world. In the United States you’re apparently promoting coal. China also currently has an edge as it has devoted serious attention to the entire supply train, from lithium cobalt, the battery technologies and so on. Looking ahead to 2040, China is forecast to capture more than 40 percent of the world EV market, according to a recent report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), as well as nearly 30 percent of total new wind, solar and nuclear capacity additions.
For more on this subject, I suggest you take a look at this: ‘China holds the keys to the electric car revolution’ http://www.businessinsider.com/china-holds-the-keys-to-the-electric-car-revolution-2017-12?IR=T

Phil Rae
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 25, 2018 11:28 pm

The need for effective & efficient commerce will determine this……and until fantasy-land electric cars and trucks can accomplish what regular vehicles can already do already at a comparable cost, both in terms of manufacture and infrastructural costs, there is no hope in hell for your preferred scenario. I hate to disillusion you, but our old friend the internal combustion engine will be around for a long time yet.
Incidentally, if you want to see how desperate things can get VERY quickly when supplies of vital hydrocarbon fuels dry up, check the news on the truckers’ strike in Brazil today. Pandemonium and chaos, partly from the clogged roads, but more especially from the lack of fuel delivery & distribution. Now, just imagine the same thing in Los Angeles, or London or Paris!

Bryan A
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 26, 2018 12:17 am

The Chinese EV revolution exposed in the new Mercedes AA class

All joking aside I would need a gun to my head to force me to buy anything like a Chinese made EV. China, the place where children’s toys are painted with Lead and fake jewelry is made from lead (closest to gold weight)

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 26, 2018 12:23 am

@ ivankinsman
I really love the graph in your article it looks so convincing like it is graphing something real until you realize we haven’t even got to the sixth bar along. So then you go and look at who provided the research
So I guess if you believe that then you better go buy uranium stocks
You might notice the PS down the bottom.
So then I decided to track the graph back to it’s history
The whole article is a sales pitch for copper stocks and the lower part of the graph appears with reference to some internal research.
The bottom line is your view and evidence to us is a copper stock pitch graph 🙂

Eric Stevens
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 26, 2018 2:14 am

New Zealand is currently anticipating NZ$3/Litre! 🙁

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 26, 2018 9:01 am

Man, you pay gas prices like we pay gas prices on Southern California! Most stations in the Ventura area are at $4/gallon or more… And that is in a State that produces 13MM barrels of crude a month!

Bryan A
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 26, 2018 3:01 pm

Actually Dan there are 3.785 liters in a gallon so gat at $3 per liter is gas at $11.35 per gallon

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 27, 2018 12:21 am

Ivankinsman, the mayor of Paris is a communist who recently organized an exhibit honoring the murderer Ernesto Guevara, and has allowed illegal immigrant hoboes to put up tents and makeshift camps all over the city, making it look like a trashed third world city. She will either get voted out of office or Paris will become a giant slum. In which case nobody will drive cars anyway.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 27, 2018 5:46 pm

Bryan A … ummm no. You can peruse the following list at your leisure:
Uranium is probably not the best substitute for gold, density-wise, but tungsten is suitable in this role. In fact, tungsten has been used to mimic gold in bars:
Interesting side fact… China is the world’s largest producer of both tungsten and gold.

Bryan A
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 27, 2018 7:45 pm

But, Bulldust, Lead is far cheaper than Tungsten and many Chinese manufactured toys have been found to contain lead.
Tungsten, with an atomic weight of 183.86 is lighter than gold at 197 and Lead is heavier at 207.21.
Lead costs $1.22 per pound and melts at 621.4F while Tungsten costs $19.85 per pound but melts at 6,192F making it far more costly to buy and use than lead.

Bryan A
Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 12:05 am

Not until the electric market produces a vehicle that can travel 250 – 300 miles after being recharged for 5 minutes and travel more than 750 miles a day with a vehicle that costs under $20,000 to buy. Fossil Fuels rule….
Only then will electric vehicles replace fossil fueled vehicles. At $36,000 the Tesla Model 3 comes close on price and per fill driving distance but not on refill time or daily distance requirements.

Reply to  Bryan A
May 26, 2018 8:35 am

The $36,000 Model3 doesn’t exist. It was a marketing gimmick. They can’t sell it for under $45,000 without losing money. Tesla is trying to sell fully equipped $75,000 model 3’s to make money.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
May 26, 2018 12:30 pm

I always thought they called it the 3 because that’s how many have been produced

Reply to  Bryan A
May 26, 2018 2:01 pm

Elon Musk made a Tesla battery changing robot.
Where is the robot now?

Michael Keal
Reply to  Bryan A
May 26, 2018 4:13 pm

Yes, it’s not about the internal combustion engine. Electric motors have many attributes making them superior to IC engines. Remember trolley busses anyone?
Rather it’s about the good old petrol (gasoline) tank. Cheap as chips, lasts the life of the vehicle with ease, quick to fill up and pound for pound holds a great deal more energy than batteries. Oh and they’re safer too. Tend not to spontaneously combust when short-circuited, something that can easily happen in an accident.
And Ivankinsman if you think the Chinese really are all gung ho about EVs because they’re worried about carbon dioxide then ask yourself why they’re building coal-fired power stations as fast as they can.
Of course they’ll build EVs for export as long as governments in the West are stupid enough to squander taxpayer’s cash subsidising them. For themselves? I for one don’t believe everything we’re told on that score.

Reply to  Bryan A
May 26, 2018 10:48 pm

” … if you think the Chinese really are all gung ho about EVs because they’re worried about carbon dioxide then ask yourself why they’re building coal-fired power stations as fast as they can. …”
I’m wondering how these two topics, of mass EV adoption, and coal power growth, are somehow mutually exclusive within your mind?
They’re completely compatible, the EV owne does not have a political or technological preferrence as to where or how the electrons are generated, they use whatever is supplied, so what are you talking about?
If the Chinese want both, they will produce both.
And frankly, I hope they do.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
May 27, 2018 11:19 am

I thought I saw that robot standing in lime at the EDD seeking its unemployment subsidy

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 6:53 am

Paris has a rats problem, a migrants problem, a road congestion problem, a lack of affordable housing problem and you believe the people who mismanaged or caused these problems will be reelected to cause even more problems?

Reply to  s-t
May 26, 2018 7:23 am

Visited Paris last year for 5 daysand it is a fantastic city. NYC has all the same problems so what is your point?

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 11:43 am

“Visited Paris last year for 5 days”
So you have no experience living everyday, moving around, working, finding someone to repair something in Paris?
Do you know that the overhead cable for trains uses elements that are so old they are so produced anymore so the train company has problems just finding replacement for broken stuff?
Do you know that insecurity is rising in many areas?
Do you know that Jews are moving out? Do you understand what that means in long term? Do you know that few politicians (outside the “far right”) have denounced the rise of antisemitic attacks?
Do you know what population replacement is? Institutionalized racism? Destruction of a nation?

Reply to  s-t
May 26, 2018 12:41 pm

Ok that is a different topic and I am as anti immigration as you are.
However France is a very organised and innovative country. Paris is highly congested car-wise and pollution bad so a steady change to EVs would be a positive development.
I took a bus in from Beauvais airport and it was bumper to bumper the whole way in both directions.

Reply to  s-t
May 26, 2018 1:44 pm

Of course the air pollution isn’t coming from cars. But who cares when you have a fake news story to sell.
For most cities, the air coming out of a car’s exhaust pipe is cleaner than the air entering in through the air filter.

Reply to  s-t
May 26, 2018 3:47 pm

Paris is fighting fine particulate air pollution, notably from diesel cars; people should use public transportation not cars. But the air of the metro has several times more fine particulates than the surface!

Reply to  s-t
May 26, 2018 11:31 pm

” … For most cities, the air coming out of a car’s exhaust pipe is cleaner than the air entering in through the air filter. ”
You realise you’d die in under 10 minutes from breathing the carbon monoxide and carbon dioxiide in modern ICE car exhaust? Make no mistake Mark, carbon monoxide is highly toxic and will kill you. I was poisoned by carbon monoxide once, I was driving an old Land Rover, and the rubber boot around the gear shift was worn and torn, and it let some exhaust into the cabin. Carbon monoxide is insideous, it builds up in your blood, and takes many hours to clear from your blood, and it is a poison. So as I drove there was not enough exhaust coming through the boot to nake me immeduately sick as I had the window partly open. And this is what makes it really dangerous, because as you drive, for hours, it keeps rising slowly in your blood, so you feel a bit off, so you have a rest stop. But the level doesn’t fall, so you get back in the car and the level just keeps rising more, untill you get ill, pass out, or have an accident.
But it occurs so slowly that you just think you have a viral illness coming on, or something, plus it dulls your mind and senses, so you keep driving, and you get properly poisoned by it. You will feel wretched, you don’t want to try it.
Fortunately it didn’t cause an accident in my case, and I was ok in about 12 hours, but make no mistake, modern car exhaust is very toxic and deadly. It is anything but clean as filtered air!
Many pilots of ICE single engine aircraft have also been incapacitated and killed by carbon monoxide poisoning due to small holes or perished gromets in the firewall. Peo
You do NOT want to be breathing ICE engine exhaust at ANY time. People also regularly die due to using ICE generators, in or too close to their homes. NEVER let the wind blow the fumes inside a house,or garage, it will kill you, you’ll just feel sick and fail to realise what is causing your illness, so you lay down or pass out. And that’s how it kills.
Never ever tell ANYONE that engine exhaust is ad ‘clean’ as filteted air, you could not be more wrong, it is absolutely lethal to think or act in that way.

Bryan A
Reply to  s-t
May 27, 2018 11:25 am

The current state of the majority of available EVs will most certainly ease congestion if adopted countrywide. Most of them would be sitting in driveways or garages being recharged over 12 hours so they can be driven for a single trip

Bryan A
Reply to  s-t
May 27, 2018 11:50 am

The CO2 level in car exhaust could be breathed from tailpipe emissions with little effect. The CO2 and other toxics are the different story.
Modern auto exhaust produces little CO2. For example the Audi A6 produces only 231 g/km driven. The average human exhausts over 40,000ppm with every exhalation which equates to 72,000 mg or 72 grams so the exhalation of 3 people in a closed room is similar to what the Audi exhausts while traveling the distance of a single kilometer
The Ford Focus at 136 grams would be like 2 people breathing.
The CO2 Is meaningless the others are the toxic problem with car exhaust

Bryan A
Reply to  s-t
May 27, 2018 11:55 am

Stupid autocorrect
The CO2 level in car exhaust could be breathed from tailpipe emissions with little effect. The CO and other toxics are the different story.

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 7:02 am

Another specious link to fake news sites; bogus!
Christopher Booker:

“The National Grid is warning us that if you are charging your electric car at home with a high-speed charger you won’t be able to boil an electric kettle at the same time, because it could blow your fuse box.
They add that you could get round this if you use a standard charger — but then it could take 19 hours to charge your car fully.
Meanwhile, if you’re thinking of driving an all-electric car from London to Edinburgh, even if you make it to a service station with high-speed chargers, you might still have to stop three or four times for an hour-long charge on the way, plus of course almost certainly endure waiting for a charging point to be free.”

“It is not just the thought of being unable to boil a kettle while waiting all those hours for a car battery to charge that’s putting people off.
There is also a massive national shortage of charging points. If all cars were electric-only, we would need an additional 400,000 public charging points, at a cost of £30 billion, for all the drivers who would need to ‘refuel’ on journeys away from home.
And this investment would be needed at a time when the Government was losing the £27 billion a year it rakes in on tax on cars’ fossil fuels.”

About that costs claim: “Short Circuit: The High Cost of Electric Vehicle Subsidies

“The newest ZEVs are impressive technologically. But there is no economic basis for the billions of dollars spent subsidizing their adoption. The entire premise for subsidizing ZEVs and the infrastructure needed to power them—reduced air pollution and lower CO2 emissions—is flawed.
The simple fact is that, because of stringent emissions standards and low-sulfur gasoline, new ICVs today emit very little pollution, and they will emit even less in the future. Compared with new ICVs, ZEVs charged with the forecast mix of electric generation will emit more criteria air pollutants—SO2, NOx, and particulates— not less.
And although ZEVs will emit less CO2 than ICVs, the projected reduction in CO2 emissions, below 1% of total forecast U.S. CO2 emissions, will have no measurable impact on climate and, hence, no economic value.
ZEV subsidies also impose disproportionate costs on lower-income consumers to benefit higher-income ones. Historically, ZEV purchasers have had much higher household incomes than average. Moreover, ZEV purchasers are primarily homeowners, who benefit not only from subsidies to purchase their vehicles but also from subsidies to install charging and solar PV systems.
ZEV purchasers who install behind-the-meter solar PV reap additional subsidies by not paying the full costs of providing them with backup power, not paying the full costs for upgrading local electric utility distribution systems to support their ZEVs, and not paying the full costs of utility-owned public charging stations that
they can use.
To be sure, at a local level—e.g., a crowded downtown— air quality would likely improve if all existing ICVs were replaced today with ZEVs. But similar improvements in air quality also would be realized by replacing existing ICVs with new ICVs, because new ICVs emit very little pollution. Moreover, depending on where air pollution emitted by electric-generating plants disperses, local air quality in urban areas could decrease with additional ZEVs. Finally, local variations in electricity sources and the times at which ZEVs are charged can change the relative emissions of ZEVs and ICVs.
For example, a ZEV that is charged when electricity demand is highest is likely to be charged with electricity from less efficient and higher-emissions generating resources, such as oil-fired peaking plants.
Absent continued subsidies that significantly reduce the costs of ZEVs and charging infrastructure, breakthroughs in battery technology that are commercialized successfully, or bans on ICV sales, there appears to be little likelihood that ZEVs will—or should—replace a large fraction of ICVs in the U.S. for the foreseeable future.
The bottom line is that the economic and environmental rationales for subsidizing ZEVs do not withstand scrutiny. These subsidies, along with mandates for ZEV adoption, should be eliminated.

Christopher Booker again:

“But it is not just the politicians. In fact, just as worrying is the most recent forecast by National Grid, the formerly state-owned company responsible for ensuring that we have electricity whenever we need it anywhere in Britain.
Its latest report talks of how by 2030 we will need 80 per cent more electrical generating ‘capacity’ than we have now, of which nearly half, it says, will come from wind farms and solar panels.
But as it well knows, thanks to the intermittency of both the wind and the sun, the actual output from both these ‘renewable’ sources is likely to be a quarter of that.
To cover itself, National Grid assumes that by 2030 we will still have enough gas-fired power stations to provide instant back-up for when wind and sun are failing.
But these would provide nothing like enough power to bridge the gap when we have no more coal-fired power stations, and more gas-fired plants have closed.
The Grid also claims, extraordinarily, that by 2030 we will also be able to import six times as much electricity as we do now, from countries such as France which is planning not only to close down many of its own nuclear power stations but also to switch to electric cars.
It was always make-believe that electric cars saved anything like the amount of CO2 claimed for them, not just because most of their electricity came from fossil fuels, but because so much more CO2 is emitted in the process of making them in the first place.
But now we are faced with the biggest fantasy of all, that we can all be forced to give up cars powered by petrol and diesel, which are the most efficient, user-friendly form of personal transport ever devised — to rely instead on electric cars for which there will often be no electricity.”

Analysis summation, except for those produced in cloud cuckoo land; is that EVs are more expensive and will require massive amounts of infrastructure buildout.
Infrastructure buildout that increases burdens upon the poorer taxpayers and benefit, almost solely, the wealthy.
Current solar and wind farms are intermittent power sources that still require 100% dependable backup; hydroelectric, nuclear, gas, coal and oil.
It is common to both the fantasy claimants and the honest practical analysts to minimize both pollution and costs impacts attributable to EVs. A practice that ignores the costs and emissions caused by maintaining a 100% reliable electric generation capability backup.
EVs increase costs and cause increased total emissions.

Reply to  ATheoK
May 26, 2018 7:30 am

Rome wasn’t built in a day.
I am 56 years old. When I was 20 there was no wireless infrastructure, hardly anyone used a mobile phone and the Internet was only being used by boffins.
When my son who is 13 is my age people will be looking at petrol/diesel cars as collector’s items.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  ivankinsman
May 30, 2018 6:06 pm

Not if you’re counting on current or on-the-horizon battery technology. The advantages of an electric drivetrain are clear; but the drawbacks of current batteries are equally so. Putting the two together yields a transportation package which is considerably less convenient for most people than an IC-driven vehicle of the same price. Simply put: EV cars are not competitive for most potential buyers. All the discussion of tax incentives and CAFE mandates just serves to prove that given a choice, most buyers will not go for EVs — you have to “make them an offer they can’t refuse”.

Find some other way to supply power to an electric drivetrain and the landscape changes. You may be correct that in another 40 years we will have electric cars, but if so I don’t think they will be running on batteries.

Reply to  ATheoK
May 26, 2018 7:44 am

No it will be to hot to go outside if you believe every piece of junk written.

Reply to  ATheoK
May 26, 2018 8:48 am

@Ivankisman: Go out and see the reality. The transformation to an EV mass society will fail because of lack of energy (electricity). Not even 2,000 Tesla 3 per month will change that. Other providers also offer EVs and their number remains manageable.
An EV is an aberration that requires you to generate twice. Once the form of energy and secondly the end user. This is different with fossil energy. This is already available and only needs to be processed cheaply.
At the most a new development could happen, that an EV becomes a luxury for the super-rich and the average has nothing, neither EV nor SUV. It is most amusing to see which castles in the air are being built here, which completely bypass the physics and available resources.
Almost as if science fiction read is a new escape from reality.

Reply to  ATheoK
May 26, 2018 10:26 am

“Rome wasn’t built in a day.”
No, neither was the infrastructure required for the IC engined revolution. It’s taken roughly 100 years for the technology to develop to the point where it provides efficient, clean transport for the masses, supported by a global infrastructure employing millions.
By contrast, the UK government insanely believes that process can be somehow compressed into the next 20 years just by saying so. France, even more insanely, tells us it’s possible in ten years.
The laughable thing about it all is that there will be very few pure EV’s. They will almost all be hybrid electric/IC power units that will not see the green nirvana of the death of the IC engine, but merely it’s perpetuation.
There will be no mass transition to an EV infrastructure because no country can afford it. No country has the electrical generation resources to power it either.
To somehow imagine that wind and solar could possibly meet demand in 10 or 20 years, when after the last 20 years, both add merely low, single digit percentages of electricity to the world’s power grids, is quite delusional.
The climate change driven, utopian green world, is coming to a grinding halt as subsidies for the failed renewables experiments expire.
Taxes in the UK are expected to rise by £1,500 per household over the next ten years or so to pay for just our NHS. Can you possibly imagine the backlash to when people realise £300Bn will be spent on climate change initiatives by 2050?
Sorry mate, it ain’t gonna happen in the UK, nor anywhere else for that matter.
What’s really amusing is, you won’t question your unshakable belief in a utopia that’s impossible.

Reply to  ATheoK
May 26, 2018 1:46 pm

They built the internet, therefore they can make a usable electric car.
Doesn’t take much to convince the acolytes.

Reply to  ATheoK
May 27, 2018 12:33 am

I have a patent for an EV continuous recharger. It’s a device the EV tows on long trips, this trailer is equipped with a small 40 hp gasoline generator, a 10 gallon gasoline tank, and 200 pounds of lead batteries to smooth the load. The trailer has a sleek aerodynamic shape, and includes a suitcase compartment and an optional heat exchanger to make hot water you can pipe to your EV in very cold weather. . The trailer plus your electric vehicle modifications to install a hot water heating system and the rear plugs, trailer hitch and wide mirrors sells for $7599 plus tax.

Reply to  ATheoK
May 27, 2018 9:39 am

“ivankinsman May 26, 2018 at 7:30 am
Rome wasn’t built in a day.

A totally irrational and false strawman distraction.
EVs, solar, wind and tidal use are solely driven by subsidies.
Which is not equitable to any sophomoric unrelated platitude. Especially one that ignores the minor fact that Rome was built in a day.
Over ten thousand years of human occupation, that population center became known as Rome during a historical blink.
That “Rome was not built in a day” absurdity is an acknowledgement that Rome lasted for centuries and still exists. Building Rome has nothing whatsoever to do with physically constructing, organizing, managing Rome, the population center.

“ivankinsman May 26, 2018 at 7:30 am

I am 56 years old. When I was 20 there was no wireless infrastructure, hardly anyone used a mobile phone and the Internet was only being used by boffins.

A classic, “introduce personal stuff” false argument.
Your experience or inexperience is utterly valueless, especially is topics where facts matter.
That you ignored all of the factual information to introduce your maudlin remembrances instead of addressing reality or facts.
Especially when you introduce memories from a period where you were more immature and inexperienced, than now. Those are not facts or knowledge; they are pure opinion.

“ivankinsman May 26, 2018 at 7:30 am

When my son who is 13 is my age people will be looking at petrol/diesel cars as collector’s items.”

Utterly delusional.
Again, nokin, extrapolates a technology completely dependent upon government enforced interference and funded by less wealthy taxpayers into some sort of imaginary market.
I am reminded of decades of socialist/communist propaganda claims that their government run economic models are more successful and gratifying than ordinary ambition-hard work capitalism. Only through government enforced interference, is that possible.
That belief ignores:
A) that electricity generation requires 100% reliable backups to meet customer needs. 100% renewable generation means 100% reliable energy generating facility backup plus 100% renewable installations; at far more than double the cost, coupled with massive land loss for renewable installations.
B) That EVs are incapable of serving customer basic use needs; unless a user never travels beyond a few miles.
C) That electric grids are incapable of supporting EV charging installations. Of course, the EV proponents never mention that electric grids require 100% rebuilds to support more than incidental EV use.
D) Current EV technology is not adaptable to all latitudes where humans live. High and low ambient temperatures greatly reduce EV capability.
Your fantasy reminds me of a “Time Machine” storyline by ‘Donald and Keith Monroe’ and published in “Boy’s Life” with fantasy futuristic illustrations:comment image?dl=0
Popular Mechanics regularly published similar nonsense for beliefs that never reached market sustainable technology.
Poor kid.

R. Shearer
Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 7:59 am

Get real, the majority of China’s electricity is still generated from coal and they are only just beginning to develop their shale resources.

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 1:41 pm

After subtracting inflation, gas prices in the US are back where they were in the 80’s.
Gas prices would have to get 10 times higher before EV’s start to look attractive.
Game changer in the EV market?
Is that anything like being the world’s biggest buggy whip manufacturer?

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 27, 2018 12:13 am

I don’t think Musk has innovated in the electric car field. He’s more of a promoter. He has innovated with Space X, which has elegant designs and shows he knows how to recruit outstanding engineers.

May 25, 2018 11:12 pm

While Elon Musk has a point, I think it is a mistake to point some things out. Telling sbd how bad they are doing things will not get them to do better things. It will make them angry and less inclined to give you any help. The only way to battle bad or unfair press is to find an alternative way to get your message across. If it cannot be with them, then with someone else, just cry louder than they do. But do it sending your message, not critizising those who send a different one.

John Hardy
May 25, 2018 11:12 pm

ivankinsman – right. They must adapt, die – or in some cases become niche players: and historically big established corporates are not good at adapting

Reply to  John Hardy
May 25, 2018 11:53 pm

Well, I think the ones who are starting the transtion now to AV will be the winners – I believe Saab is making a full transition and Scania Trucks made a recent announcement.
“Some auto manufacturers and suppliers have begun to reinvent their organization to align with the new eMobility reality. But those that have not will risk losing considerable market share at a time when a wealth of new opportunities will inarguably emerge.
Moreover, those that have been able to stay on the fence regarding EV viability will no longer be able to do so and remain competitive. The industry is entering a period that, in essence, is a window of decision. Not only must auto companies be prepared for the transition, but they must be prepared to act on it now. Time is running out.
Forward-thinking automakers will begin to put the same energy into building compelling EV brands as they did when marketing internal combustion engine-powered cars; enhance their EV value chain; and increase business alliances with car-sharing innovators to capitalize on the emerging ride-sharing segment. Dealers that want to succeed will accept the shift and focus on educating and understanding what consumers truly want in an EV model, especially since the low maintenance associated with EVs will impact traditional repair and service.”
source: ‘The EV Race is on, but is the Auto Industry Ready for It?’ http://www.industryweek.com/emerging-technologies/ev-race-auto-industry-ready-it

snedly arkus
Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 1:12 am

If you had done your homework you would know every major car maker has an electric in the works. They also have battery plants too. The only reason they are not mass marketing their stuff is that there is no market for electrics which is why governments are mandating them. Musk has done nothing innovative and all of his important technology was from his suppliers not in house. The handwriting has been on the wall for a long time that the world is headed towards electrics as governments and the filthy rich pour money into enviro activist groups. So Musk is neither a visionary or messiah to save the planet. What he is is an incompetent manager who has a company that under competent management would be turning a profit, selling toys to rich boys, instead of a company always on the verge of bankruptcy selling vehicles of abysmal quality. It’s the media that created the Musk myth and now that he has turned on the press they won’t be willing to write puff pieces about Musk’s genius and ignoring the glaring negatives of Tesla. Now there will be more truth telling and less fiction and it won’t be pretty.
Unless there is a breakthrough in technology there will never be a $35,000 Tesla. Musk admitted it recently when he was asked why he is only making optioned up Model 3’s. He said if they concentrated on making the strippos Tesla would go out of business. Motor Trend recently tested a 3 and it’s sticker was 60 grand.
All of your majors getting into electrics have deep pockets, real technology of their own, top notch experience building and selling vehicles, lots of cash in the bank, and can sell their electrics at far under cost and still make hefty corporate profits. They have name recognition and many have a huge reputation for quality. Tesla is not a technology leader and is behind all the large companies in being state of the art at manufacturing. All of which does not bode well for Tesla as they rack of billions in losses every quarter.

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 5:00 am

If you can’t get more than a tiny fraction to buy an EV when massive incentives are offered by governments and EVs don’t pay their fair share of the tax load now being carried by ICEs, what makes you think that buyers will fall in love with them when the incentives run out and road taxes start to apply? And what about the enormous build out that will be required to create the electrical grid needed to charge all those batteries, not to mention the fuel needed to drive the electrical generators?
Oh wait. I forgot. Wind turbines to the rescue!

Reply to  Trebla
May 26, 2018 6:13 am

It’s on a roll, the technology is improving annually and the preliminary infrastructure is being developed. You think their won’t be increased take up – think again my friend.

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 5:39 am

“every major car maker has an electric in the works”
Why? What for?

Reply to  s-t
May 26, 2018 6:13 am

Why not have a think about it Nokia-man.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 6:56 am

The top three best selling vehicles in the U.S. are all trucks: Ford 150 series, Chevy Silverado and RAM 500 series.
IF someone could make an electric vehicle that can do what those trucks do then, and only then, will they stop using ICE for power.

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 10:33 am

Why do you persist in citing media articles?
They are meaningless.

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 1:48 pm

The technology for internal combustion cars is improving as well.
And a lot faster than the improvements in electrics.

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 1:49 pm

s-t: Why? To meet government mandates of course.

Non Nomen
May 25, 2018 11:47 pm

Tesla Inc. is doomed. Musk is burning other people’s money and now has realized that the end is near. Now he starts wailing and complaining: it’s all the fault of jurnos and the media.
Rumors say that – Lo and Behold- Volkswagen is showing some interest in taking over the ruins Musk will leave behind. They got the cash and they get a foot in the door easily that way.
Well, other folks say Musk got a secret but very intimate relationship with a high-ranking General, be it Motors or Electric.
So come what may, Tesla Inc. is doomed.

Reply to  Non Nomen
May 25, 2018 11:57 pm

The mass vehicle Tesla 3 model may be experiencing a bumpy production ride but the niche models are not. If it does go belly up, Musk should return to his niche high-end market and let the big boys focus on the mass market EV roll out.

Non Nomen
Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 12:07 am

I doubt Musk will have a good standing with financiers once he declares bankruptcy. Yet, he still has other assets, like The Boring Company and SpaceX. We’ll see…

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 9:07 am

Tesla hasn’t turned a profit. Even when it was just niche vehicles, where they bought rolling chassis from Lotus and putting motors and battery packs in. They lose money on every vehicle they sell – and that is BEFORE you include NRE costs like engineering and capital/facilities expenses. And that is with zero marketing spend as well.
Tesla simply is not set up to ever turn a profit. COGM is higher than sell price – guaranteed money loser from the start.

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 9:16 am

Why? They never made money with niche vehicles. The COGM is higher than sales price. They lose money on every vehicle, and that’s before NRE costs like engineering and capital equipment/facilities is factored in. And that’s also with zero advertising dollars.
Tesla’s business model simply doesn’t work to make profit. But it does get people to invest in stock… It’s a pump-and-dump scheme, really – but using Federal dollars and the Green movement to do a lot of the intermediate pumping.

Reply to  Shanghai Dan
May 26, 2018 11:09 am

But it does get people to invest in stock. Investors invest in a particular compant stock because they think that stock is going to rise – they are not forced to.
It is the investor’s judgement which might be completely different to your’s. Don’t make out that the business model as you see it is seen in the same light by everybody else – it isn’t.

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 10:45 am

“If it does go belly up, Musk should return to his niche high-end market and let the big boys focus on the mass market EV roll out.”
So now you’re a motor industry expert.
It really makes me wonder why you waste your valuable time on WUWT, it could be so much better spent advising governments and industry.

Reply to  HotScot
May 26, 2018 11:11 am

Why don’t you crawl back into the hole you just emerged from. To be frank I don’t give a f@#k what you think about this issue or the price of bread.

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 26, 2018 11:15 am

Reduced to puerile insults once again.

Reply to  ivankinsman
May 27, 2018 11:15 am

Which forgets that in ’25, that is, 1925, we had mass produced EVs. One day, maybe, we will have EVs as common as petroleum fueled ICEs. Somehow, the chemist in me doubts it, even with the occasional materials science advances we have seen.

Reply to  cdquarles
May 27, 2018 11:52 am

Who would have believed that technology would be as widespread as it is today 50 years ago? Mankind’s innovation is boundless and the pace of technological change increasingly rapid.

Bryan A
Reply to  ivankinsman
May 29, 2018 9:16 pm

Believe it when I see it…Don’t see it yet

snedly arkus
Reply to  Non Nomen
May 26, 2018 1:30 am

Unless Tesla files for bankruptcy and they auction off the assets at fire sale prices no one is going to buy Tesla at it’s current stock price. Stock is selling around $300 a share and book value is under $50. Tesla has nothing to offer, other than their name, that Volkswagon, and others, couldn’t develop on their own or buy from suppliers. Shortly Volkswagon is going to open a battery factory to make battery packs from purchased cells. What people fail to realize is that in every piece of business Tesla is in from cars to batteries to solar panels to Powerwalls there are established competitors out there with far more experience and technology. Case in point years ago one large company was getting out of the computer business which for them was a sideline. The media asked the CEO of one of the largest computer makers if he was going to buy up the other companies computer business. His reply: “I’m going to end up with their business anyway so why buy it.” Same goes for Tesla.

Non Nomen
Reply to  snedly arkus
May 26, 2018 11:03 am

I think that Volkswagen already has started to buy Tesla stocks on a very, very, very limited scale and certainly via a man in the middle. So they have certain stockholder’s right. But they will start the real McCoy when Tesla is down to the one-digit dollar zone or even trades as penny stock. Shortly afterwards it’ “Let the Mary Ellen Carter rise again” (Stan Rogers).

charles nelson
May 26, 2018 12:09 am

I cannot forgive a person who stole the name of Tesla, the founding father of modernity and utilised it to market retrogressive Edison style technology.
I refer to him as Elon Mush.

Reply to  charles nelson
May 26, 2018 6:18 am

charles nelson….I call him P.T. Barnum, the digital era huckster nonpareil…. 🙂

Reply to  Candy Jones
May 26, 2018 6:19 am

I.T. Barnum ,the digital era huckster nonpareil…. 🙂

Mihaly Malzenicky
May 26, 2018 12:14 am

Journalists are the extreme examples of how society is affected by various ideologies. It would be really best if they only reported impartially.

May 26, 2018 12:59 am

Now Obama isn’t handing out subsidies to Tesla, “Enron” Musk is finding life is a bit less forgiving.
I’m looking forwards to Musk’s subsidy driven dreams crash and burn.
Just like his cars.

May 26, 2018 1:14 am

>>I think most journalists want to do the right thing.
That is a very naive view. I have been involved in several media campaigns with ex-journos who are now private. All they ever wanted to do was dumb down the story into something that could be understood by a six-year-old (ie, a journalist), and to make some sensationalist headline grabbing claims. To that end they would ditch 95% of the story, and focus on largely irellevant subsections – simply because it might sell more copy.
The result of all this was clear – NEVER believe anything a journo says…..

Dodgy Geezer
May 26, 2018 1:38 am

…Musk said distrust of journalists was responsible for President Donald Trump’s election…
Um…yes, quite correct. Much the same happened in the UK Brexit vote.
You see, distrust of journalists, and the establishment, appears to be WELL JUSTIFIED….

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
May 26, 2018 10:47 am

Dodgy Geezer
Top comment.

May 26, 2018 1:38 am

I reminded his Twitter that it’s possible to believe BOTH meeja and Musk at the same time.

Len Jay
May 26, 2018 2:29 am

What a joyous occasion when the three hostages returned, freed from North Korea. However the journalist with the Australian Broadcast Commission churlishly reported on it by bashing President Trump for, as she saw it, turning into a self promoting event. I was thoroughly disgusted with her and felt ashamed to be an Aussie.

Reply to  Len Jay
May 26, 2018 10:50 am

Len Jay
Just feel ashamed she’s an Aussie. The rest of you (well, other than your insane politicians) are great.

Roger Knights
May 26, 2018 2:57 am

To follow numerous threads (mostly bearish) and news items on Tesla on the financial site SA (Seeking Alpha), click here:

Roger Knights
May 26, 2018 2:59 am

Diesels will bounce back:
At http://bit.ly/2I1MRC1 26 April 2018:
[short version]:

From the Bosch paper presented at the Vienna Motor Symposium this year (in April).
Bosch says it has solved diesel NOx problem; as low as 13 mg NOx/km even under RDE; refining existing technologies
Bosch says that its engineers have refined existing diesel technologies to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) so significantly that they already comply with future limits. Even in RDE (real driving emissions) testing, emissions from vehicles equipped with the newly premiered Bosch diesel technology are not only significantly below current limits but also those scheduled to come into force from 2020 (Euro 6d).
Because the solution leverages existing technology, there is no need for additional components, which would drive up costs.
A dynamic driving style demands an equally dynamic recirculation of exhaust gases. This can be achieved with the use of a RDE-optimized turbocharger that reacts more quickly than conventional turbochargers. … This means drivers can drive off at speed without a spike in emissions.
To ensure optimum NOx conversion, the exhaust gases must be hotter than 200 degrees Celsius. In urban driving, vehicles frequently fail to reach this temperature. Bosch has therefore opted for a sophisticated thermal management system for the diesel engine.
At a press event in Stuttgart Bosch had dozens of journalists, from both Germany and abroad, drive test vehicles equipped with mobile measuring equipment in heavy city traffic, under especially challenging conditions.
AI can further boost performance.
This will mark another step toward a major landmark: the development of a combustion engine that—with the exception of CO2—has virtually no impact on the ambient air.
Denner also called for a renewed focus on CO2 emissions. Denner said that consumption tests should no longer be conducted in the lab but rather under real driving conditions.
Moreover, he added, any assessment of CO2 emissions should extend significantly further than the fuel tank or the battery—a full well-to-wheels lifecycle approach.

Reply to  Roger Knights
May 26, 2018 9:01 am

Whether the diesel comes back again is very questionable. The German Federal Transport Authority is currently investigating Mercedes Benz, which is suspected of having used the same lousy tricks as VW on completely new models and engines (of delivery vans, the C-and B-Class), ie switching off exhaust gas measuring equipment. If this does not stop, has the development of BOSCH no chance, then is the diesel engine (as I mean for no reason and not earned) finally out of the race. Therefore, according to my opinion, a LEX diesel must be used to punish such offenses harder. It should no longer be considered as an “light” offense to lie to customers about allegedly low emission levels. This is a crime. The customers also lose a lot of money like in an ordinary fraud.
Therefore, such manipulators should go to jail. And not too short.

Reply to  Hans-Georg
May 26, 2018 11:05 am

This is, fortunately, what industry does. Develop technology to satisfy consumer demand, and, it has to be said, government mandates.
A company the size of Bosch can, does, and will, influence governments, especially when providing a cheap solution to a problem.
As for your contention that people should be jailed for the emissions scandal, who then should be jailed for increasing the price of energy so the poor and elderly who can’t afford to pay for it, die every winter?

Roger Knights
Reply to  Hans-Georg
May 26, 2018 1:31 pm

“Whether the diesel comes back again is very questionable. The German Federal Transport Authority is currently investigating … If this does not stop, has the development of BOSCH no chance, then is the diesel engine (as I mean for no reason and not earned) finally out of the race. ”
German automakers are heavily committed to diesels. German investigators want to cut diesel emissions. Diesel buyers are happy with their cars until the recent scandal. Bosch is presenting all sides with a solution they can happily live with.
Even in the extreme case of German regulators banning diesels, automakers elsewhere will embrace Bosch’s tech and out-compete the German makers. This will occur to the regulators before they take such a radical step as banning diesels just because of their name.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Hans-Georg
May 26, 2018 3:56 pm

PS: Environmentalists also, until recently, liked diesels too, because they emit less CO2 per mile than gasoline engines. If Bosch can get rid of the particulates, NOx, etc., it’ll be back in their good graces.

Reply to  Hans-Georg
May 27, 2018 2:31 pm

From your comment, above, it looks as if M-B is competing with the VW-Audi Group for the title of Chief Chimp-Choking Cheat.
Not a pretty scenario – or outcome.
I certainly will not buy a VAG car [also SEAT, Skoda, Porsche, and even Bentley, etc.] [R-Royce is a BMW subsidiary].
So no M-B, either; and real doubts about BMW . . .
Personal opinions of course: others may be available.

Roger Knights
May 26, 2018 3:02 am

“There’s life in the old gal yet.” The gas engine abides.
Mazda Says New SkyActive 3 Engines Will Be As Clean As Electric Cars January 30, 2018
Here are four recent videos on Mazda’s new “spark-controlled compression-ignition” engine, the best of which is :
“Skyactiv-X: Mazda’s Revolutionary Engine Explained”
It’ll be coming in summer 2019, with a claimed 30% improvement in fuel economy. Here’s an article and two other videos on it:
“Spark Controlled compression-ignition” gasoline skyactiv X engine; Feb. 2018 article:
“Mazda Creates The Holy Grail Of Gasoline Engines – HCCI SkyActiv-X”
Mazda Skyactiv-X HCCI Engine Technology Explained | AutoExpert John Cadogan | Australia 8/17
A Feb. 24 YouTube video of a German test driver commenting on a pre-production version of the latest iteration of the Mazda 3 with its new SkyActiv X engine. He says it’s quiet and more powerful

Check the sidebar for additional videos on the new engine.

DC Cowboy
Reply to  Roger Knights
May 26, 2018 3:55 am

Would have liked to see John Cadogan’s piece, but, I turned it off at the beginning after his gratuitous shot at Americans.

Non Nomen
Reply to  DC Cowboy
May 26, 2018 11:07 am

Cadogan believes in CAGW, but still he is an independent mind. Be lenient. He is Australian.

Reply to  Roger Knights
May 26, 2018 6:33 am

Interesting, but seems like an effort to make a gasoline engine like a diesel. Simpler just to use a diesel….

Roger Knights
Reply to  beng135
May 26, 2018 1:20 pm

“Simpler just to use a diesel….”
Now that Bosch has found a way to clean up diesels, you may be right, at least in the long term. For now and for the next decade the much greater number of convenient gasoline filling stations and the leser weight of gas engines and their batteries will keep them around for a while. Also, gas engines are easier to start in cold climates.

May 26, 2018 3:53 am

Elon Musk:
“Why do you think he got elected in the first place? Because no ones believes you any more. You lost your credibility a long time ago.”
Hear hear!
Even Elon Musk can be right. A frozen watch is correct once a day.
“I think most journalists want to do the right thing”
Their compass for “doing the right thing” being “do I feel warm inside while pushing these ideas“, “wanting to do the right thing” isn’t sufficient. You need critical thinking.

Reply to  s-t
May 26, 2018 4:56 am

“A frozen watch is correct once a day.”
DIGITAL……………………..Yes.Once.Maybe.Depends on the ‘display”. Flat battery..no display..nothing.
ANALOGUE………………..No ! TWICE…unless you are going to claim that the other time is at night !

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Trevor
May 26, 2018 4:42 pm

Lol. So a broken watch is right once a day… and once at night.
At least we can tell if it’s day or night without the watch 🙂

Reply to  Trevor
May 27, 2018 12:25 pm

– not if you live in your parent’s basement, you can’t. Since that is the abode of most Leftists…

May 26, 2018 4:06 am

Even his Space X has strong competition from a company that actually uses batteries for space launch-
“New Zealand launches its first test rocket tomorrow as the nation plans to join the commercial space race
Space company Rocket Lab is planning the nation’s first space programme
Firm claims it will launch 50 rockets a year from New Zealand within a few years
Rocket Lab plans to specialise in disposable rockets with 3D-printed engines”

NZ Willy
May 26, 2018 4:08 am

Might just be Elon’s turn to be mugged by reality, starting on that well-worn path to conservatism which we have trod…

Craig W
May 26, 2018 5:03 am

Musk didn’t need to advertise because the media hype did it for him well ahead of the first car roll-out, despite lengthy delays.
Forget the fact(s) that environmental subsidies are the only thing keeping his companies afloat and that the average taxpayer cannot afford a Tesla.
Musk’s animosity toward the press probably has more to do with the negative press he has received after his “auto-pilot” cars killed and injure his customers.
Much like computer climate models, sleeping at the wheel when the auto-pilot is on could lead us blindly off the cliff.

Reply to  Craig W
May 26, 2018 5:17 am

“cars killed and injure his customers”
The level of damages in any single instance is often due to chance and not relevant for risk analysis. The level of “not avoiding things that should be avoided” is.
The media treats plane incidents when nobody was seriously hurt as minimally important stuff and not a measure of a serious issue in a plane company. When all signs are ignored and an unsafe landing is done finishing outside the runway and nobody is hurt, it’s a serious issue; but journalists don’t count it, they want to count accidents and dead people.
Dead people only matter for the past, they don’t matter in the future – they are already dead. They count for their families, we are not their families.
Only risks matter in the future. A count of casualties is almost always the wrong metric.

Craig W
Reply to  s-t
May 26, 2018 6:43 am

Good points.
FEAR has become the main tool for extremist sales-weasels from insurance, security alarm to environmentalists, politicians and journo-types.
What is the probability of anybody we know dying at the hand of a terrorist?
With 7.9 people on earth probably less than 1% … yet we’ve spent trillions fighting terrorism; which was mostly paid out to expert analysis think tank types who love globetrotting first-class and expensing out meetings at the finest resorts.
P.S. I used to read NTSB light aircraft accident reports, what struck me was that the main factor in most accidents happened just after takeoff and were usually caused by the pilot forgetting to switch to the full tank (A or B).

Reply to  s-t
May 26, 2018 12:18 pm

“What is the probability of anybody we know dying at the hand of a terrorist?”
I don’t think that is well defined, and in any case you wouldn’t be able to determine it by looking at statistics, unlike accidents:
– new trends in terrorism appear (car attacks, truck attacks, AK-47 in train, hammer, knife, gas cylinders, now ricine)
– many attacks fail because of difficulty with handling an AK-47, not being able of detonate a gas cylinder, or a terrorist literally shooting himself in the foot
– not every terrorist will always be that incompetent
– probably because President Trump is clueless, incompetent and has no idea how to fight ISIS, ISIS has apparently stopped being interested in holding a territory, but where are its trained fighters going?
– unlike extreme weather events, which has almost no true outliers (we have baseline over a century), mass terror attacks are outliers, with no baseline

May 26, 2018 5:30 am

Tesla will crash and burn and it will all be someone else’s fault. Entitlement mindset. A product of FED central bank easy money. All he knows how to do well is spend other people’s money.

Reg Nelson
May 26, 2018 6:07 am

“Problem is journos are under constant pressure to get max clicks & earn advertising dollars or get fired. Tricky situation, as Tesla doesn’t advertise, but fossil fuel companies & gas/diesel car companies are among world’s biggest advertisers..” ~ Elon Musk
This tweet made me laugh. MSM companies are completely biased toward the climate change political propaganda. Why would they publish Green “Chicken Little” articles on a daily basis if they feared retribution from the fossil fuel and traditional car companies?

May 26, 2018 6:18 am

At least he’s smart enough to realize journalists are corrupt in general. That’s a start….

Reply to  beng135
May 27, 2018 12:13 am

It would be good for the entire world to realise the fake news and endless BS and lies exist because it’s advertisement-sales driven. If Elon fans generally recognise this fact too, then it can’t be a bad thing for us all.
Take away the add sales and most of the BS on the internet would evaporate. BS ‘content’ for content’s sake is not worth it, when it’s all likely to be fake garbage. The more add space sold, the more fake news and lies we get. If you want the lies and manipulation to be wound back again, strangle the add sales revenues flowing to ‘content’ providers, and to google and friends.
We’ll have less junk-internet, and more quality internet, for a more balanced and aware population, and a less messed up and depressed younger-generation.

Reply to  WXcycles
May 27, 2018 11:35 am

“endless BS and lies exist because it’s advertisement-sales driven”
Which ads?
Ads for solar panels? Ads for wind turbines?
Ads for the Hyperloop?

Bryan A
Reply to  WXcycles
May 30, 2018 5:37 am

Constant doom and gloom from (Failed predictions in) Globull Warming articles certainly don’t cause the younger generation to be “messed up and depressed” /sarc

May 26, 2018 6:42 am

How does Tesla even exist in the business world?

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  ossqss
May 26, 2018 9:12 am

It doesn’t; it exists in the Silicon Valley world, where you can lose billions of dollars but as long as you are growing customer base, it doesn’t matter. Look at Uber, Snapchat, and many other companies who lose billions a year but still get more investments/stock sales.
SV money is fantasy money…

May 26, 2018 7:10 am

I don’t mind repeating it. Musk seems to be highly leveraged, his board has said “no more”, with the limit at 25%. Musk suddenly turned defensive on conference calls –with stock analysts!!!
Toyota could not make money operating the Fremont plant making ordinary cars. Costs in California are too high. Tesla won’t be able to charge (not intended pun) enough on the cars to make any money. I doubt that the company will survive the next bear market. Taking out the last low on the chart will prompt the end of the promotion.
Bob Hoye ( not long or short the stock)

Ernest Bush
Reply to  subtle2
May 27, 2018 8:52 pm

Musk has drunk whatever kool aid you drink to build any business in California. He may have doomed Space X by deciding to build his BFR rocket in the L.A. area. It blows this conservative mind that he didn’t simply keep rocket construction in Texas where there is space for testing and launching from their own base at a fraction of what construction in California will cost.

May 26, 2018 7:19 am

The definition of a promotion from the old and speculative Vancouver Stock Exchange is instructive. For TSLA as well as the climate story:
“In the beginning, the promoter has the vision and the public has the money.
At the end of the promotion, the public has the vision and the promoter has the money.”
Musk has had the use of some $5 billion of taxpayers’ money and the climate promotion has grafted 100s of billions of dollars of taxes.

May 26, 2018 7:25 am

To look at the numbers, TSLA closed the week at 279 and the hard-hit down to 244 in April is the key support level.

May 26, 2018 8:03 am

Off topic – a conspiracy? – What about Google continuously sending communications from my Republican congressional representative, Doug Lamalfa, to the spam file. Every time that occurs, I select not spam, yet future emails happen to end up in the spam file again and again.

Reply to  Chad Jessup
May 26, 2018 8:33 am

Chad, like the infiltration of the cultural marxism, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s right out in the open in plain sight.

Reply to  Chad Jessup
May 26, 2018 4:58 pm

Are these emails considered spam by other email services?
Do they include misleading links?

Gary Pearse
May 26, 2018 8:53 am

I wouldn’t have thought that much-disparaged empirical data in this post normal world would be so in the case of a car company that cant seem to turn out their cars. It just is. You have a big problem and it’s a shortcoming in your ramp up.
It aint big oil to blame and it is newsworthy. Believe it that all of the “progressive” mainstream media is actually in your corner. We see this with the climatalarmforce who have this same media in their pocket and yet they complain that they are failing because skeptics get all the good press!!
You had an opportunity to get in early on one of your critical material supplies but didnt do the deal (like the rest of the EV companies from the Big Car sector have done as a matter 9f course). Suddenly you are to be the worlds largest customer for lithium, cobalt, specialized computer units and parts…. and ‘suddenly’ isnt a good thing in any large manufacturing enterprise. That you also have stubborn glitches in the actual assemly line is the same kind of problem.
There is a is a steep learning curve in going from hand crafted niche cars, or cookies even, to mass produced international market supplier. Hubris prevented you from getting all the ducks in a row well in advance.
Did you have an outside engineering firm do your feasibility study. If not, better back up and do that or it could become a duct tape and bailing wire op.

John Robertson
May 26, 2018 9:09 am

Surprisingly I agree with Musk.
Our media is pathetic,lying by omission being the least of their sins.
As anyone who has been participant in a “news making incident”can testify,what shows up on the TV or printed page did not happen there.
These last few decades the reporters have become so certain of their narrative that they do not even bother to attempt to appear objective.
“Facts?. We don’t need no stinking facts”.
Canadians are so used to the media telling us what we “think” that we just ignore them.
Our media outlets are all in financial decline and sucking up to the weakminded politicians for taxpayer support.
Of course for Eldon and his taxpayer subsidized empire, the transition from being tongue bathed by these presstitutes as a saviour of the planet, to being called a bankrupt business and failed visionary,whose product incinerates its consumers..
That has to hurt, the poor boy has had such a good run.
Electric Good…Gasoline Bad.
You cannot “dumb down” a story more than this.

May 26, 2018 9:31 am

‘I don’t agree with Elon Musk’s assertion that journalists just want to attract big oil advertising money.’
Me neither. That would require them to think they work for a business. With P&L.
‘I think most journalists want to do the right thing, even if many of them are are hopelessly biased on some subjects.’
NFW. They are clueless tools of the Cultural Marxists.

May 26, 2018 9:56 am

Elon. one of your silly self-driven cars crashed into a fire truck yesterday.
Fix your stupid inventions, willya? I have no sympathy for someone who pumps a faulty product and whines about the media later on. Grow up.

Reply to  Sara
May 26, 2018 11:58 am

Isn’t that the crux of the matter, a decent concept being pushed too fast into an uncertain market.

Reply to  Sara
May 26, 2018 4:52 pm

But the car can see these obstacles in the way. It just doesn’t know how to react!

Reply to  s-t
May 27, 2018 8:12 am

The problem was that the sensor system for the SDV Tesla did not acknowledge the firetruck when the car in front of it changed lanes. It simply picked up speed and smashed the firetruck, and the test driver didn’t react, either. Must have been on his phone or something.

Dave Kelly
May 26, 2018 10:03 am

Well… looking on the bright side.
It looks like large number of relatively rich liberal eco-terrorist are likely going to be dealing with more smashed dreams and short a significant amount of cash… just at the point progressives will need cash for the mid-term elections.

May 26, 2018 11:57 am

Musk is just mad that he can’t afford to advertise the way normal companies do. He should be grateful for the free advertising which CNBC often throws his way. Although some of that has been a bit negative recently.

Curious George
Reply to  goldminor
May 26, 2018 3:10 pm

Why advertise? He is a master of subsidies. He knows that advertising to harvest more subsidies is a bad business plan.

Reply to  goldminor
May 27, 2018 11:37 am

Who in the world got more free press for its products than Elon Musk?

Reply to  s-t
May 27, 2018 8:12 pm

Donald Trump by a long shot. Hip hip hurrah!

Evan Jones
May 26, 2018 12:56 pm

Musk said distrust of journalists was responsible for President Donald Trump’s election.
Well, it had a distinct effect on my vote.

James Fosser
May 26, 2018 3:05 pm

My local Westfields shopping centre has had a Tesla Model X and a Model S near centre stage for the last two months. Having plenty of time to look at them whilst my wife shopped I was appalled at the poor builds (I was in the automotive industry for ten years). On my asking why no spare wheels. The salesmen told me that I would have excellent roadside assist in event of a puncture. In the interior of Australia? (70% of Australia is semi-arid or desert and is often met around 200 kilometres from the coast). They had no answer when I asked them why they were displaying vehicles costing around a quarter of a million Australian dollars in a low socio- economic area with the shopping carpark full of cars costing about $AUD25,000. They also said there was no accompanying toolkit in the cars.

May 26, 2018 5:55 pm

Watching Elon Musk and Tesla burn and crash will be rewardingly entertaining.

Peter Morris
May 26, 2018 6:18 pm

Hahahaha! Most just want to do the right thing.
Good one, Mr. Worrall!
Problem is, who defines what’s “right?”

May 26, 2018 10:32 pm

” … I don’t agree with Elon Musk’s assertion that journalists just want to attract big oil advertising money. … ”
That’s not what Musk said Eric, he said this:
” … Problem is journos are under constant pressure to get max clicks & earn advertising dollars or get fired. … ”
Which I agree with, as he’s right about that over-riding imperative.
Plus this is what we used to call (and recognise as) “cutting-down the tall poppies”, as any one who got too sucessful must be slashed down.

Paul Penrose
May 27, 2018 8:08 am

I’m not sure while people with no skin in the game (are not Tesla investors) care if Tesla makes money or not. Why does it matter to them if it is a success or crashes and burns? Don’t think electric cars have a bright future? Fine, then sit back and watch the show. But rooting for Tesla to fail just seems dumb to me.

Reply to  Paul Penrose
May 27, 2018 11:05 am

The story of Tesla is a story, like a Hollywood show. It’s a big illusion. But there is real money invested in it, and a lot of it comes from people who never choose to buy Tesla (bonds, shares or products).

Paul Penrose
Reply to  s-t
May 27, 2018 11:37 am

If you are in a properly managed fund, your individual exposure should be very small; that’s the purpose of such funds. And if Tesla makes you nervous, you have no business being in the type of aggressive funds that would include a stock like Tesla. None of mine do.

Reply to  s-t
May 27, 2018 4:37 pm

“If you are in a properly managed fund, your individual exposure should be very small; that’s the purpose of such funds”
Much more people are “exposed” than those who have shares of Tesla.
Those who made a down payment for a future car that may never exist, for example…

May 27, 2018 10:50 am

Some people refuse to accept that they failed on their own merits (or lack thereof).
1) A certain Austrian corporal claimed that Germany should’ve won World War 1 but was “stabbed in the back…” by you know who.
2) Hillary claimed that she should’ve won, but was “stabbed in the back” by Comey, Russia, Wikileaks, racists, misogynists, and a whole “basket of deplorables”.
3) Tesla is burning money at ridiculous amounts, notwithstanding that they are subsidized directly and indirectly by various federal and state/provincial governments. Musk blames the media. The media are irrelavant. Tesla production cannot keep up with current demand. Even if the media were fawning all over them, Tesla would not be able to manufacture any extra cars beyond current levels, and hence would not be booking any additional revenue. This is totally different from GM, oil companies, and the rest of the real world of business, where you have more production capacity than customers, and have to actually advertise and get good PR to convince people to buy more of your product.

Verified by MonsterInsights