discuss Tesla has lost half its value since December

[Pete Griffin]

I guess there are consequences for throwing Nazi salutes out willy-nilly!

Tesla shares plunge by at least 15% to $222 - meaning it has lost more than half its value since December while the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite closes down more than 4%.

US shares fell sharply again on Monday amid uncertainty in the American economy, with President Donald Trump refusing to rule out a recession.

Tesla shares plunged by at least 15% to $222 - meaning it has lost more than half its value since its peak at $479.86 on 17 December. But Elon Musk said on X that "it will be fine long-term".


The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite closed down more than 4% on Monday while the S&P 500 slumped about 2.7% - its biggest daily percentage drop since 18 December.

The CBOE Volatility Index, often dubbed Wall Street's "fear gauge", surged over 3.6 points to hit 27, marking its highest level since 18 December.

Airlines and other companies that need US shoppers feeling confident enough to spend also saw sharp losses. Bitcoin fell below $79,000 from more than $100,000 in December, with richly valued US tech stocks bearing the brunt of the recent sell-off on Wall Street.

Financial markets have been volatile in recent weeks as rising trade tensions - with tariffs of up to 25% against goods from Canada and Mexico - and signs of slowing US economic growth weighed on consumer confidence and business activity.

China has also been targeted with tariffs and the European Union could be next, from 2 April, when Mr Trump has promised to ramp up his "America first" ambitions.

China's retaliatory tariffs on select US imports are set to take effect on Monday, with US tariffs on certain base metals anticipated later in the week.

US shares drop sharply after Trump refuses to rule out recession

Tesla shares plunge by at least 15% to $222 - meaning it has lost more than half its value since December while the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite closes down more than 4%.

news.sky.com

Anything that hurts a racist is good in my book. Anything that hurts a billionaire racist nazi-sympathiser is doubly good!

I just feel sorry for the ordinary people of the US who shall suffer for the next 4 years under Fuhrer Musk and his pet president.

 

[Harsh World]

Put your money where your mouth is and short Tesla.

I'm sure that'll play out well for your 401k.

 

[Apsara]

They also say, Trump wants rare minerals from Ukraine because Musk needs them for Tesla.

 

[Pete Griffin]

I'm sure that'll play out well for your 401k.

What a 401k?

They also say, Trump wants rare minerals from Ukraine because Musk needs them for Tesla.

That’s a lie. Ukraine holds substantial lithium reserves, estimated at approximately 500,000 tons, making it one of Europe's largest sources. However, Southern Arkansas is estimated to contain between 5 to 19 million tons of lithium, potentially exceeding current global demand. Tesla doesn't need Ukraine's Lithium. There is enough in the United States to satisfy battery production for centuries if not longer.

This is not about exploiting Ukraine's mineral wealth, it's about controlling Ukraine's mineral wealth. If you control all of the supply you can set the price. Economics 101.

 

[Harsh World]

They also say, Trump wants rare minerals from Ukraine because Musk needs them for Tesla.

Whether Musk gets them or not is irrelevant because he would pay a fair market value for the rare earths. Of which, 50% would go to Ukraine and 50% to the US, as we have poured billions of dollars into the war already and will not see a return on that without the minerals deal.

Further, it wouldn't be Musk getting them. Musk is incapable of processing the rare earths himself with any companies he owns that I know of. He might influence companies that can get ahold of it over other buyers, but he would not directly be purchasing them for his own refining purposes.

Either way, it's irrelevant who gets the minerals as it'll be up to the highest bidder. Who knows? Maybe Ford will outbid Tesla and get them for their batteries? And again, 50% of the purchase goes back into the US' pocket for paying $200+ (maybe $300+) billion to Ukraine that we'll never see without this deal.

 

[Pete Griffin]

....as we have poured billions of dollars into the war already and will not see a return on that without the minerals deal.

There's two points here. The first is that, is this really about the money? Ukraine is a sovereign nation under threat from a belligerent enemy. We, the 'free world' should protect freedom whenever it is challenged. We did it in 1914, we did it in 1939. We did it in Kuwait in 1990. We did it in Bosnia in the 1990s. The principle is clear: aggression should not go unchallenged. If we let it slide now, where does it stop?

The second point is a little more complex, and that is, war is good for business. Ukraine were given stockpiles, they were given items already manufactured which means that the military-industrial complex grinds into action to produce replacement arms. This is a boon to the economy. It creates jobs and jobs create wealth.

 

[Harsh World]

The first is that, is this really about the money?

Yes. Taxpayers are tired of paying for proxy wars.

which means that the military-industrial complex grinds into action to produce replacement arms.

And who is paying for that? Again, the US.

There's no mythical money man who gave the military-industrial complex billions of dollars for replacement arms. No, it came from the US taxpayers, running up our debt even more. If the minerals deal can pay for that, then it is a fair trade: minerals for arms.

 

[Pete Griffin]

Okay, @Harsh World, I'll break it down for you into easily understandable steps. Standby. This will require me firing up the old grey matter:

• Stockpiles and Military Aid: When Ukraine receives military aid from Western countries, much of it comes from existing stockpiles. Equipment, weapons, and ammunition that were already produced and stored.
• Replacement and Replenishment: Once these stockpiles are depleted, the donor countries (e.g., the U.S., U.K., and EU nations) need to replenish them. This means ordering new weapons, vehicles, and ammunition from defence contractors like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BAE Systems, and others.
• Boost to the Military-Industrial Complex: These companies ramp up production to fulfil new government contracts. This increased demand fuels economic activity in the defence sector, leading to more jobs in manufacturing, supply chains, and research and development.
• Job Creation and Economic Impact: Defence contracts create jobs not just in the companies producing weapons, but also in related industries like logistics, transportation, and raw material supply. More jobs mean more wages being spent in the economy, contributing to overall economic growth.
• The Historical Pattern: This isn’t new. Wars have often spurred economic growth in arms-producing nations. World War II pulled the U.S. out of the Great Depression. The Cold War led to massive defence spending that stimulated technological advancements and industrial expansion. Even in more recent conflicts, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the defence industry saw significant profits.
• The Ethical Debate: While this economic boost benefits certain industries, it raises ethical concerns. Critics argue that war should not be seen as an economic opportunity because of the human cost. However, from a purely economic perspective, war-related spending injects large amounts of money into the economy, driving industrial and technological growth.

Major arms manufacturers like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and BAE Systems have seen record profits since the war in Ukraine began. Their stock prices have risen, and they have expanded operations. The economic benefits of supporting Ukraine are huge. The ethical benefits of supporting Ukraine transcend (or should, in decent, moral people) economic concerns. Or do you think we should leave Ukraine to the mercy of Putin?

Russia is a kleptocracy. Putin has already stripped Russia of its assets, now he is turning his attention to Russia's neighbours. If Ukraine falls, does Putin stop there? Does he test NATO resolve against by invading the Baltic States? There is a deep concern within Europe, as can be seen by the recent news reports coming out of France. It is right that Europe steps up and defends itself. We, the collective European nations, have relied on US protection for too long. There is a serious concern that, if we invoked Article 5 of the NATO charter, the US would not uphold their agreement to their allies.

Trump said, "Do you think they're going to come and protect us? Hmm. They're supposed to. I'm not so sure."

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-...ve-defense-europe-doubt-us-treaty-commitment/
​

Personally, I find this insulting. When the United States invoked article 5 after 9/11, NATO answered the call. Do you not see what a charlatan the man is? NATO stepped up and he's questioning if NATO would step up. Trump doesn't look at the evidence. He doesn't care about truth. Man, you don't realise how frustrating it is to see obviously intelligent people like you, people I am developing a healthy respect for, blinded by the bullshit.

 

[Harsh World]

Or do you think we should leave Ukraine to the mercy of Putin?

Yes. It wasn't our war to begin with. Unless we had some formal agreement wherein they would repay us for our aide, we shouldn't have ever gotten involved. Otherwise, it's like racking up debt to remodel a random neighbor's home 4 blocks away before they sell it. Why would you want to do that unless you could get 2-3% on top of your investment after the deal closed?

Okay, @Harsh World, I'll break it down for you into easily understandable steps. Standby. This will require me firing up the old grey matter:

I understand all of those points. The fact still remains that the US taxpayers are paying for the replenishment. That money comes from somewhere, and it's debt. Doing this over and over only adds to debt ceiling complications and inflation, unless it's paid for at some point in time, which the 50/50 deal would.

does Putin stop there?

Yes, as it would be a very, very stupid move to attack a NATO country. It would be initiating WWIII at that point because of Article 5, something neither Russia nor China is capable of winning.

 

[Pete Griffin]

Yes. It wasn't our war to begin with.

When the United States got involved in WW1 that was not your war. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 that wasn't your war. When North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, that wasn't your war. When Serbia was committing genocide in Bosnia in the 1990s, that wasn't your war. When ISIS was butchering civilians in Syria and Iraq, that wasn't your war. But you got involved. Because sometimes, standing by and doing nothing is the worst choice. Like I said, The ethical benefits of supporting Ukraine transcend economic concerns.

Perhaps its just a simple case of US - not ignorance - but a lack of immediacy. The U.S. is an ocean away, physically distant from the conflict, so the urgency isn’t felt the same way it is in Europe. Over here, Russia’s aggression isn’t some abstract geopolitical event, it’s a direct threat to stability. Countries like Poland, the Baltics, and even Germany see the stakes clearly because they’re next in line if Ukraine falls.

For the U.S., it might feel like just another foreign conflict, one of many. But for Europe, it’s a fight happening on our doorstep, with consequences that go far beyond Ukraine itself.

Ultimately, defending Ukraine is the right thing to do.

Yes, as it would be a very, very stupid move to attack a NATO country.

But here's the thing. Trump is Putin's poodle. Trump said Vladimir Putin was “doing what anybody would do” after Russia launched a massive missile and drone strike on Ukraine. Russia is the aggressor here. Ukraine is defending itself. ‘We’ do not trust Trump. The relationship between the US and the rest of the world is deteriorating, which is exactly what Putin wants. It seems to me as if the United States is entering a new period of isolationism. Yes, we (collective Europeans) have benefitted from American protection. We are grateful. But there is a significant portion of the population who do not believe the US would come to the aid of her allies should the worst happen.

 

[Harsh World]

But you got involved.

Yes, and we're now in an era where that is going to stop to put America first.

The ethical benefits of supporting Ukraine transcend economic concerns.

So, Americans should suffer for the cost of their war? Or should we still prosper by getting something out of it? Wars are not free. They caused great turmoil in the US as well.

World War I was a significant contributor to the Great Depression. We fought it because we had to, though. These other proxy wars, they're not our problem, until they become our problem.

Ultimately, defending Ukraine is the right thing to do.

Sure, you can argue that. But what happens when Ukraine "wins" (they're going to have to cede territory, but the fighting will stop). Who is going to pay the bill? The US, and the American economy taking a hit due to the debt, or Ukraine, through a minerals deal?

It seems to me as if the United States is entering a new period of isolationism

I would say nationalism: To take care of our own first and not to prioritize other countries over our own citizens.

Yes, we (collective Europeans) have benefitted from American protection.

And, you should pay your fair share. America shouldn't have to shoulder that debt.

We are grateful. But there is a significant portion of the population who do not believe the US would come to the aid of her allies should the worst happen.

I'm almost certain that the US would because it would inevitably come to our shore at that point if we didn't cut it off before it got out of hand. That said, it would rock our economy if European nations weren't also funding it. Everyone should share in the equal economic turmoil that a war like that would cause.

 

[Pete Griffin]

Ultimately, defending Ukraine is the right thing to do.

Sure, you can argue that.

I have to go out with the wife so I'll ask this and then be on my way. Do you agree that defending Ukraine is the right thing to do?

A yes or no is fine.

(and then maybe we will get back on topic and save this for another discussion at another time)

 

[Harsh World]

A yes or no is fine.

Yes, for as long as Americans do not have to suffer in doing so. The minerals deal is a great compromise as it would end the war, with America recouping its losses, Ukraine able to rebuild (hopefully not as a dictatorship as it has been), and Russia getting the land it conquered (which started under Obama with Crimea).

Russia would be very foolish to attack Ukraine with an American presence getting those minerals (because their targeting systems suck). An attack on Ukraine that killed an American is essentially an attack on the US. They wouldn't do it. End of war.

 

[Shawn]

I wouldn't buy a Tesla or any other EV if my life depended on it.

I like my gas guzzling 4x4 truck.

EV... just two more letters need to be added: IL

 

[Harsh World]

I wouldn't buy a Tesla or any other EV if my life depended on it.

The only reason why I would buy an EV is if they gave a tax deduction. In Japan, you are taxed yearly based on your displacement (in cubic centimeters). A 4x4 that I'd like, and likely import, would be a Toyota Tundra. However, since the engine is so big, the tax comes out to a local currency equivalent of $1000 per year.

You would think that since there's no engine displacement (how it's traditionally measured) in EVs, and they're pushing them, they wouldn't charge or charge as much. If they went based on a kei car displacement (66cc capped at 63hp), which a Model 3 would be, it would come out to be about $60 a year, plus you wouldn't need to purchase a city parking decal. But they charge the same as any 2L-3L, so there's no financial incentive to get one.

I'd also do it because it's sunny here, so I could get free gas for the rest of my life.

That doesn't go without saying that I'd still get what I can, a Toyota Hilux, as it's a more reasonable tax of $400, so I could also get a dirtbike to go out to the mountains and have fun later.

 

[Shawn]

If they made a really good EV 4x4 truck, I might be okay with it.

But the places I go have no EV charging. That's why I am not big on it. I don't want to give up going to those places, either.

 

[Pete Griffin]

Interested to understand, what's illegal about a boycott? Maybe this is just, I don't know, a consequence of being an arsehole?

 

[Harsh World]

Interested to understand, what's illegal about a boycott? Maybe this is just, I don't know, a consequence of being an arsehole?

Nothing is illegal about a boycott.

Everything is illegal about breaking and entering, damage of property, unlawfully discharging of a firearm posing risk to others, and of course, your favored "insurrectionist" charge of trespassing on properties owned or operated by Tesla.

 

[Pete Griffin]

Nothing is illegal about a boycott.

Just more Donnie D Cups lies? Got it.

 

[Jason]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, generally, but the Tesla trucks are too futuristic looking.

 

[Harsh World]

Just more Donnie D Cups lies? Got it.

I take my point back. There are instances when boycotting can be illegal. I briefly read this and shrugged it off as, "So people don't want to buy cars, so what?"

But, if the case goes deeper, where there are unions within Tesla putting pressure on suppliers to either charge more or not deliver, it can cross the legal line. I don't know if that's the case here, but it does appear that union interferences are going on in other countries than the US.

 

[Pete Griffin]

Everything is illegal about breaking and entering, damage of property, unlawfully discharging of a firearm posing risk to others, and of course, your favored "insurrectionist" charge of trespassing on properties owned or operated by Tesla.

Not just illegal, it would seem, but domestic terrorism. Domestic terrorism.

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1j90a1z/trump_says_he_will_label_violence_on_tesla

The January 6th Insurrectionists who tried to overthrow a democratically elected government, storming the Capitol killing five and injuring many others. They were 'Patriots' and 'great people' according to Agent Orange, and they were eventually pardoned.

People damaging a store, however, they're domestic terrorists. Elon Musk has Trump in his pocket. Here are his handwritten notes for hawking Swasticars:



This makes perfect sense, really. Trump has always given off an air of being a used car salesman. He's unfit for higher office.

 

[Jason]

The most goofy cars of the 70s and 80s still look better than Tesla trucks.

 

[Harsh World]

Not just illegal, it would seem, but domestic terrorism. Domestic terrorism.

The definition of terrorism:

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

If attacking Tesla drivers or vandalising their property when left untended to destroying Tesla dealerships doesn't fit this definition because they do not support Elon Musk or the actions of DOGE, I don't know if there's any convincing you that it's not domestic terrorism.

 

[Jason]

The definition of terrorism:


If attacking Tesla drivers or vandalising their property when left untended to destroying Tesla dealerships doesn't fit this definition because they do not support Elon Musk or the actions of DOGE, I don't know if there's any convincing you that it's not domestic terrorism.

Yeah, you can't justify this stuff legally, but it does give strong insight into how extremist the Republican message has gotten.