191–200 of 387 posts
I find myself confused about the purpose of stock markets. How can we arrange our society around a system that is so massively irrational? A few years ago Tesla was worth as much as the rest of the car industry put together . Even if you believed Tesla was going to become a perfect monopoly, its valuation still would not have been justified. Now people are acting like the sky is falling when this pipsqueak manufactur…
RE the Twitter thing, you’re benefiting from hindsight a bit there. Musk almost immediately started trying to get out of the deal, and it was far from clear that he’d actually be forced to complete. It was quite reasonable that there’d be some price uncertainty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he wants to joke, he should give up the CEO's office for a clown gig.
And then he can use as much drugs as he wants without it introducing new and interesting avenues for geopolitical instability.
Tesla PE is still high compared to other automakers. So based on growth expectations, it should be between 30-90.
If they had zero growth from 2022 Q3 for a year, then it's P/E be about 26 with the current stock price.
I find myself confused about the purpose of stock markets. How can we arrange our society around a system that is so massively irrational? A few years ago Tesla was worth as much as the rest of the car industry put together . Even if you believed Tesla was going to become a perfect monopoly, its valuation still would not have been justified. Now people are acting like the sky is falling when this pipsqueak manufactur…
> > I find myself confused about the purpose of stock markets. How can we arrange our society around a system that is so massively irrational? Is there any rationality in giving one man (POTUS) more power than all the other 320M citizens combined? Arguably more power than ALL the other humans combined. What about Hollywood and the acting business? If you picked a random theatre actor would it really underperform Dani…
The argument here would be that running a country requires fast decisions. Putting that in the hands of millions wouldn't allow us to respond fast enough. The rational decision here is to choose a representative of the people, allowing that person to make decisions quickly and more efficiently than the entire population.
Its berfectly rational to trade speed for accuracy depending on the situation.
>What about Hollywood and the acting business? If you picked a random theatre actor would it really underperform Daniel Day Lewis so bad to warrant Lewis paycheck?
People have limited time. They don't choose movies based on a close analysis of the quality of a given movie; that would be an irrational use of effort on something that you'll only spend 2 hours watching. Instead, the rational thing to do is to use other proxies for "quality" or "enjoyment value."
One of those is to see which actors are in the movie. If you like a particular actor and know that there is a baseline level of quality, you are much more likely to choose that movie. This is a large part of the value that Daniel Day Lewis provides, justifying his paycheck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then he can use as much drugs as he wants without it introducing new and interesting avenues for geopolitical instability.
Yeah but Ambien tweeting is so much more thrilling when you’re a billionaire CEO. We’ve all been there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe this is a good lesson that when you’re the CEO of major companies and publicly speaking with a member of a government engaging a genocidal war of aggression, it’s just not smart to make any of these “le epic trolling” style jokes
It feels to me that there's something of a Motte-and-Bailey going on in these discussions. It proceeds like this: Arguer: Musk is a pro-Russian asset who praised a Twitter thread in which a Russian government official predicted the fall of the West! Respondent: That was trolling/sarcasm which Musk made clear in a subsequent tweet, if it wasn't already obvious. Arguer: I just don't think CEOs of major companies should…
1) Some people believe it should be something akin to Warren Buffett, Bill Gates or the late Queen of England Elizabeth II.
2) Some others believe it should be something like LBJ, Donald Trump, Howard Hughes/Elon Musk.
In reality the 'end of the road' looks different depending on the prevalent personality of the individuals who are being blessed by enormous amounts of luck to get in such high positions.
The amount of conspicuous consumption is approximately the same and cuts across all the different personality types.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > I find myself confused about the purpose of stock markets. How can we arrange our society around a system that is so massively irrational? Is there any rationality in giving one man (POTUS) more power than all the other 320M citizens combined? Arguably more power than ALL the other humans combined. What about Hollywood and the acting business? If you picked a random theatre actor would it really underperform Dani…
>Is there any rationality in giving one man (POTUS) more power than all the other 320M citizens combined? Arguably more power than ALL the other humans combined. The argument here would be that running a country requires fast decisions. Putting that in the hands of millions wouldn't allow us to respond fast enough. The rational decision here is to choose a representative of the people, allowing that person to make de…
Sure but at that point isn't it better to have a lottery to establish who gets to be POTUS instead of going through the motions of campaign expenses and constant media coverage just to shove down people's throats the idea that POTUS is much better and more qualified of a person than all the other citizens combined?
> > One of those is to see which actors are in the movie. If you like a particular actor and know that there is a baseline level of quality, you are much more likely to choose that movie. This is a large part of the value that Daniel Day Lewis provides, justifying his paycheck.
You just described survivorship bias: Movie with Daniel Day Lewis is better because Daniel Day Lewis is in it.
What I find interesting is nobody complained about Musk's social media antics when he proclaimed himself to be Technoking of Tesla or when he hyped dogecoins with diamond hands. Both evidence of bizarre behavior for a CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation. But only now - after the stock took the proverbial Acapulco cliff-dive - are investors condemning his 'erratic tweets hurting the stock'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elon doesn't exactly tweet like a rational logical being at the moment. It seemed to me he was praising the tweet because it mentioned him and said he was going to be president of the US (or something like that) so he thought it was cool. Then he just snuck back in and denounced it later when he remembered he has a security clearance. He's already taken calls with Putin and randomly decided to announce Ukraine should…
Someone who's dependant on us goverment contracts defense/nasa really shouldn't be interacting with high ranking russian officals.. even if it's for the lulz espcially since the us has sanctions targeted at medvedev by name, it's no joke
Providing support to Ukraine (via starlink) is not enough. Proper denunciation speech is paramount.
(I am being sarcastic.)