Elon Musk - Charlatan/Stooge?

[Belligerent Savant]

.

I don't believe we've focused a thread on Musk yet. There's plenty of content within this forum that can be cross-posted here.

For now I'll start with the below as a placemarker as it offers hints -- can't expect much more from a soft-hitting/Empire-friendly entity like "Business Insider".

Tesla quietly revealed it got a government coronavirus bailout after Elon Musk opposed another stimulus package

Jul 28, 2020

- Tesla on Tuesday revealed it received "certain payroll benefits" from "governmental responses" to the coronavirus pandemic.

- Last week, CEO Elon Musk lambasted further bailout efforts in favor of direct stimulus payments to citizens.

- Over the years, Tesla and other Musk companies have benefited from billions of dollars in government assistance.

Four days after CEO Elon Musk decried "special interest earmarks" in economic relief packages, Tesla revealed that it also received government aid in response to the coronavirus.

"As part of various governmental responses to the pandemic granted to companies globally, we received certain payroll related benefits which helped to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our financial results," Tesla said in a regulatory filing Tuesday.

It did not specify from which government the company received assistance or any dollar amounts. Tesla representatives did not respond to a request for comment.

The quarterly filing comes days after Musk used Twitter to urge lawmakers to authorize only more direct payments to Americans as they debate further stimulus measures on Capitol Hill.

"Another government stimulus package is not in the best interests of the people imo," Musk said on July 24.

"These are jammed to gills with special interests earmarks," he continued, likely referring to carve-outs for grants and loans to specific industries, like airlines. "If we do a stimulus at all, it should just be direct payments to consumers."

Earlier in July, Tesla reported a surprise profit for the second-quarter, solidifying its longest streak of profitability in company history. That success was made possible largely through sales of regulatory credits to other automakers and temporary worker furloughs and pay cuts, Tesla said.

Tuesday's disclosure is not the first time Tesla has benefitted from programs lambasted by Musk, who has also used his large online platform to promote misinformation related to the coronavirus. Tesla and SpaceX, also controlled by Musk, have received nearly $5 billion in government aid over the years, the Los Angeles Times found. The company also relies heavily on tax credits as a sales incentive for buyers.

https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-r ... ism-2020-7

[DrEvil]

I don't see the problem. $5 billion to help widespread adoption of electric cars, solar panels and batteries, and cheap and reliable access to space.

For comparison, the US fossil fuel industry gets about $20 billion in subsidies every year, which in turn means subsidies for the car industry as fuel is cheaper because of it.

Or for space, the SLS is currently at about $20 billion in cost plus contracts (read: unlimited pork. What's that? You went over budget? Here, have another stack of money!) with zero launches, and there's a good chance it will be obsolete in the next couple of years.

[mentalgongfu2]

It doesn't take a genius in accounting to figure out that "cost plus" contracts mean the more it costs, the more you get.

[JackRiddler]

It doesn't take a genius in accounting to figure out that "cost plus" contracts mean the more it costs, the more you get.

Not if the accounting of costs is honest, or strictly regulated by the payer. Then the profit is always equivalent to the 'plus'. A contractor whose costs are policed might prefer a fixed price, assuming it is high enough to begin with, because efficiencies then translate into higher profit rates, as opposed to lower costs with the same profit rate (and thus lower absolute profits). That might incentivize positive innovation. The negative of cost-plus is that it incentivizes fake costs that are ploughed into hidden profit, as you seem to imply. The negative of fixed-price is that it incentivizes cutting corners, such as pouring more sand into the concrete and hiring unqualified, cheaper labor. (I'll stop there and avoid adding a snarky bit about how none of this happens under the glories of enlightened socialist management. Also, I originally picked this up from a brief study of how Speer's switch from a cost-plus to a fixed-rate system spurred a 4x growth in German war production between 1941 and 1944. Which still didn't prevent the combination of U.S. and USSR from exceeding German war production by a factor of 10 in the same period. But now I'm definitely veering into my usual love of tangents.)

.

[Belligerent Savant]

.


Modern political economy is a littered with tricksters and schemes; finding a slush fund to prop up a business model that won’t work otherwise is child’s play these days -- Elon Musk a prime/front-and-center exemplar.

What we’re seeing, in other words, is the transformation of the US economy into a Potemkin Village capitalism in which government largesse backed by Ponzi financing props up a thin imitation of prosperity over the top of spreading impoverishment. It’s not accidental that Elon Musk, one of the most highly touted of the new generation of capitalist grandees, runs all his businesses on government subsidies.

Even 'Starlink' can't get off the ground without subsidies. All his ventures paid for by taxpayers [or perhaps more accurately, govt entities].

But it's the amount of govt funding Musk receives that should minimally raise eyebrows. Musk is largely framed in media as a 'Tony Stark'-esque entrepreneur working on behalf of 'humanity', but there is reason to believe his role is primarily on behalf of govt interests, first and foremost. With respect to Starlink and Space-X, this likely involves the militarization of space (serving the military-industrial-complex's interests at its core, rather than those of the general public). There's the outward optics of what Musk represents, and then the role he actually plays for his 'donors'.

Here's a few snippets that barely scrape the surface:

@StanphylCap

For those of you unaware, Tesla commits blatant accounting fraud by classifying obvious warranty repairs as "goodwill," thereby "justifying" massive warranty under-reserves on new car sales and inflating gross margins.
Apparently @pwc & @Timothy_F_Ryan happily indulge this fraud.

@PlainSite

More evidence of the $TSLA "goodwill" service accounting scheme has been filed in a Los Angeles County lawsuit. Ara Kirakosyan, et al. v. Tesla, Inc.:
https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/4jccu ... tesla-inc/

@davellorens
·
Replying to
@StanphylCap

The crazy thing is how across-the-board it is. Not like they're slipping in a non-warranty as goodwill here and there, like 100% of them.

https://twitter.com/StanphylCap/status/ ... 57443?s=20

@StanphylCap
·
May 16

Narrator: Reusable rockets were extensively tested in the 1990s. (You can find some videos on YouTube.) They were abandoned because it was realized they'd lose money.

Guess what? Like ALL Musk companies, SpaceX loses money!

https://twitter.com/StanphylCap/status/ ... 98439?s=20

Space-X loses money but continues to receive govt funding. Why? Musk isn't losing his own money (however actualized that sum may be) with these ventures.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-s ... 1573159578

New York State Writes Down Value of Tesla Plant in Buffalo

Accounting change reduces assets by more than $1 billion


ALBANY, N.Y.—State officials recently wrote down more than $1 billion in economic development investments on several high-tech projects across upstate New York, including the solar-panel factory in Buffalo operated by Tesla Inc., documents show.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo first announced the factory in 2013 as the cornerstone of an effort to jump-start the upstate economy with manufacturing facilities developed by the State University of New York’s Polytechnic Institute. The state spent $959 million to build and equip it.

The Buffalo plant, as well as other factories near Syracuse and Plattsburgh, is owned by the Fort Schuyler Management Corp., a nonprofit entity led by officials from SUNY Poly and other state agencies. In financial statements posted on its website last month, Fort Schuyler wrote down the value of the Buffalo factory by $884 million and other high-tech projects by $311 million. The statements haven’t been previously reported.

Auditors said in the documents that they re-evaluated the terms of the facilities’ leases and determined the corporation “will not likely receive the direct financial benefits associated with ownership of the manufacturing facility and equipment.” Fort Schuyler’s financial statements, which cover the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, valued its land, buildings and equipment at $94.8 million, down from $1.2 billion in 2017.

The change is refueling debate over the Democratic governor’s economic development programs and whether they deliver a good return for taxpayers. State officials insisted the write-downs were merely an accounting change, but critics said they show the facilities have little residual value for the taxpayers who built them.

“This is black and white evidence that they wasted $1.2 billion of taxpayer money,” said E.J. McMahon, research director of the Empire Center for Public Policy, a fiscally conservative think tank.

DMV probing whether Tesla violates state regulations with self-driving claims

May 17, 2021 12:28 PM PT

Tesla is “under review” by the California Department of Motor Vehicles to determine whether the electric car maker misleads customers by advertising its “full self-driving capability” option, the agency told The Times.

A Tesla equipped with the $10,000 full self-driving package can change lanes, take highway exit ramps, and stop at traffic lights and stop signs on its own, the company says. However, it is not capable of fully driving itself, according to widely accepted engineering standards.

Asked for detail, DMV spokesperson Anita Gore said via email, “The DMV cannot comment on the pending review.” She did list the penalties that might be applied if a company is found to have violated DMV regulations that prohibit misleading advertising concerning automated vehicles.

In small print, Tesla says on its website that full self-driving “does not make the car autonomous” and that “active supervision” is required by the driver. But social media are rife with videos showing drivers, mostly young men, overcoming Tesla’s easily defeated driver-monitoring system to crawl into the back seat and let the Tesla “drive itself” down public highways.

...

In July 2020, a Munich court ruled that Tesla had been misleading consumers about the capabilities of its autonomous systems and ordered the company’s German subsidiary to stop using phrases such as “full potential for autonomous driving” on its website and in advertising materials.

The DMV has said that Autopilot and full self-driving as currently deployed qualify as Level 2 driver-assist technologies that require full driver attention, as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers, and so are allowed on California highways without the data reporting that’s required for autonomous vehicle testing. Other automated driving technology companies — including Waymo, Argo AI, Cruise, Zoox and Aurora — provide such data to the state. Those companies use rigorously trained safety drivers to test automated technologies on public roads. Tesla does not.

The Society of Automotive Engineers’ detailed J3016 standard for autonomous cars lists “self-driving” as a term that “can lead to confusion, misunderstanding, and diminished credibility” when describing levels of automated vehicles.

“Tesla seems to be asking for legal trouble on many fronts,” law professor Smith said. “From the FTC and its state counterparts for deceptive marketing. From the California DMV for, potentially, crossing into the realm of autonomous vehicle testing without state approval, from competitors with driver assistance systems, competitors with actual automated driving systems, ordinary consumers, and future crash victims who could sue under state or federal law.”

Tesla is facing hundreds of lawsuits. At least several deaths have been connected with use or misuse of Autopilot. NHTSA has more than 20 investigations open on Tesla, though how long they’ll take to be resolved, NHTSA won’t say. China, through its state-controlled media, has been drubbing Tesla for weeks with stories detailing crashes, brake issues and customer complaints about quality.

Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk has been stating since 2016 that fully automated Teslas are coming soon. Although Musk has yet to deliver a fully automated car, Tesla continues to test automated features on public streets. Recently it deployed what it calls full self-driving “beta” software to select customers, who are experimenting with the software’s ability to automate vehicles not just on divided highways but on city streets and through residential neighborhoods.

The latest release includes automated right- and left-hand turns. An even more feature-laden beta version will be released soon, Musk tweeted in April. “Beta” refers to software that’s released to some customers but still has bugs to be worked out.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/ ... lot-safety

[DrEvil]

Stanphyl Capital is a hedge fund parasite with a long history of shorting Tesla, so maybe not the most objective source of information.

Not that Tesla doesn't have issues, especially with the monumentally stupid decision to name the driver assist 'autopilot' when it clearly is not. His estimates for full self driving are also wildly off (there's a reason people talk of Musk Time), and their decision to go with cameras only, no lidar, is probably going to bite them in the ass.

SpaceX isn't a public company, and most of their money comes from private investors and Musk's original stake. By now they're making money on every commercial launch, but they're plowing all of it back into Starship and Starlink. Same reason Amazon didn't turn a profit for the first twenty years or so.

What they get from the government is peanuts compared to old space (Boeing, Lockheed etc.), and in return they're delivering reusable rockets (they just launched the same booster for the tenth time) at a fraction of the usual cost (62 million for a new Falcon 9, estimated 2 billion for an expendable SLS with a launch cadence of once a year). The US had to depend on the Russians to launch astronauts to the ISS for years before the Falcon 9 and Dragon was certified, and Falcon 9's have been delivering cargo to the ISS since 2012.

If Musk was just an asset/stooge for intelligence/whatever he wouldn't be mass producing Starships, he would be mass producing the Falcon Heavy. However crazy it may sound to you, he really means it when he says he wants to colonize Mars. As a fellow space nerd his enthusiasm is unmistakable.

I would be more worried about the evangelical, far-right billionaires spending their money on think tanks, model legislation, election campaigns and the Federalist Society. They're the ones fucking with your life and trying to turn the US into a laissez-faire theocracy.

[JackRiddler]

.

The profitability of the so-called private sector as a whole is thanks to state subsidy and externalization of costs in every part of the "value creation" chain. This is an argument against capitalism and for public and socialized forms of ownership generally, not so much for singling out Musk among the private corporate entities who benefit (as opposed to all the other billionaires and contractors getting as much or more) and using other capitalists' self-interested sophistry against their competitors.

Otherwise it is an argument for directing investment differently. It is an argument against Indirectly giving Wal-Mart billions in subsidies of their woefully underpaid labor, or the carmakers billions in free infrastructure, or Boeing and Lockheed billions to make machines useless for anything other than murder and maintaining the global death-empire. All of these have to rank as bigger problems than investing in electric cars and reusable space rockets, where the problem is not the development of the tech itself or that it costs money to develop these in the first place, but that maintaining "private" ownership means a share is diverted to Musk when it could be done by public companies.

.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Wait: Billionaires are evangelical? This is news to me. (Per DrEvil's last line above). I think the billionaire classes -- regardless of outward presentation -- have other interests in mind, though of course their methods/objectives may vary.

JR:

...singling out Musk among the private corporate entities who benefit (as opposed to all the other billionaires and contractors getting as much or more) and using other capitalists' self-interested sophistry against their competitors.

Agree that Musk is certainly not alone in this regard, but the optics around Musk, outwardly at least, are distinct, and it's my position this isn't merely happenstance, nor a byproduct of Musk alone.

Many of his takes are often either outright wrong or playing to fallacious mainstream talking points of the day, such as his recent take on Bitcoin energy consumption. Side-note: did he not perform his due diligence on Bitcoin prior to his massive investment into the currency? If he didn't have clarity on Bitcoin's actual energy consumption prior to his investment in the coin, this makes him a very poor businessman, at the least. Of course, there's more to this recent development than blared on news headlines.

In most any other scenario he'd face SEC violations given the influence his tweets have on markets/sentiment (yet another clue/hint that he's likely being managed, minimally -- or do we truly believe any 1 person can continually have such sway on their own?). But no such rules exist, at the moment, for crypto.

I've yet to hear anything particularly insightful come out of his mouth during interviews. He's not the 'brilliant mind' as presented in media (or by his fawning fans).

My point is simply that he's a willing tool for certain interests -- in addition to the above points raised.

...

On the face of it, many of Musk's recent tweets about bitcoin and dogecoin (DOGE-USD) — another Musk favourite — have similarities with "pump and dump" scams. Musk tweets bullishly about a token, sending the price higher. The price crashes again when the sentiment turns out to be more hype than reality — or when Musk's jokes on Saturday Night Live fall flat.

...

...the hastiness of the U-turn has led to questions about what went on behind the scenes.

Mati Greenspan, a cryptocurrency analyst at Quantum Economics, called the recent about-face "bewildering".

"This is just Musk being Musk," Greenspan wrote in a note last week. "We've seen him intentionally manipulating financial markets so many times before that it's not even funny."

Musk's use of twitter has got him in trouble before. Musk got into hot water for tweeting about Tesla in 2018. The billionaire tweeted that he had secured funding to take the electric vehicle company private at $420 a share. That was a significant premium to the share price at the time and the stock jumped on the back of Musk's tweet.

The funding never materialised. Tesla and Musk were ultimately forced to settle fraud and securities law charges brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission. A $40m penalty was paid and Musk was forced to step down as chairman of Tesla.

Public market executives are legally bound to make truthful and not misleading statements about their businesses. Laws govern things like when insiders can buy and sell shares in their own company, how they disclose information to the market, and what must be disclosed.

In the world of cryptocurrencies, no such rules exist.

While many cryptocurrency exchanges are now regulated, cryptocurrencies themselves are not. Part of the appeal for many investors is that most cryptos are decentralised — no one entity controls them. As a result, no one has authority to pull up Musk for sending bitcoin higher or lower with a tweet.

Similarities exist with regular currency markets. While national authorities can put restrictions on the buying and selling of currencies across borders, they can't stop people from talking up or down a currency.

https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/elon- ... 40214.html

His appearance on SNL was almost a wink and a nod confirming his status of stooge, though this is merely his outwardly-facing role. His function on behalf of the military industrial complex is more intriguing (this applies as well to his former business partner back in the Paypal days, Peter Thiel, with his [CIA front company] Palantir and related projects. Small world, eh?).

PRIVATE SPACE RACE

Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos’ bids to build US military rockets could reshape national security

The US Air Force has, traditionally, done a terrible job of buying new rockets.

Now, as lawmakers consider a total reorganization of the US military’s space operations, the Pentagon’s latest attempt to purchase new launch vehicles has become a hotly contested rivalry featuring the military-industrial complex and rocket billionaires Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. Of course, there’s a Russia angle, too.

[It'd be generous to call the above piece a 'limited hangout']

https://qz.com/1603659/elon-musk-and-je ... y-rockets/

[DrEvil]

.

The profitability of the so-called private sector as a whole is thanks to state subsidy and externalization of costs in every part of the "value creation" chain. This is an argument against capitalism and for public and socialized forms of ownership generally, not so much for singling out Musk among the private corporate entities who benefit (as opposed to all the other billionaires and contractors getting as much or more) and using other capitalists' self-interested sophistry against their competitors.

Otherwise it is an argument for directing investment differently. It is an argument against Indirectly giving Wal-Mart billions in subsidies of their woefully underpaid labor, or the carmakers billions in free infrastructure, or Boeing and Lockheed billions to make machines useless for anything other than murder and maintaining the global death-empire. All of these have to rank as bigger problems than investing in electric cars and reusable space rockets, where the problem is not the development of the tech itself or that it costs money to develop these in the first place, but that maintaining "private" ownership means a share is diverted to Musk when it could be done by public companies.

.

Exactly this.

@BelSav: Have you really not heard of Mike Lindell (My Pillow), or David Green (Hobby Lobby), or any number of other billionaires funding conservative, religious causes? They may not all be true believers, but they're funding true believers*. Or how about The Fellowship (national prayer breakfast)? These people wield far more influence than Musk, and I can almost guarantee their ties to the national security circus are far deeper. Religion is waning in the US, but it is still a powerful tool for control.

* Who also may not be true believers, but as long as they're pretending to be it's the same damn thing, only with more hypocrisy.


Edit: I'm still a little fuzzy on what exactly you think Musk's true role is? If he's an asset, what's his real purpose?

[Belligerent Savant]

.

'Far more' influence than Musk? How so?

What is your point raising these isolated examples? Are you putting forth the (preposterous, in today's climate) proposition these 'religious' billionaires are trying to 'convert' unsuspecting populace to... go to church more often? To tithe? Is this the Great Danger we face? What are the great dangers posed by organized religion, right now? Are any of these dangers, however valid, aligning to current trend lines?

[In any event, the probability is that -- as I alluded in my prior reply -- the actual interests/objectives of these disparate billionaires may be more closely aligned than outward appearances may indicate. It may well be the billionaires you reference have ties to national security/military industrial entities; this doesn't discount Musk's ties to the same. There are many rivers/streams that eventually flow to the same ocean]

Or is the greater danger our culture's New Religion in the form of blindly trusting "The Science", and along with it, the power wielded by The Science administrators/brokers in influencing, and coercing, millions to submit to experimental shots, myriad drugs with compounding side effects and other looming draconian measures already being rolled out (and also: eating bugs, lab-created fake meat and/or nutrient-depleted foods, cheering on 'space missions' with potentially hidden agendas, and agreeing to all manner of future initiatives in-line with Establishment's version of "climate change", etc)?

Which of these has been more harmful and influential over the last 20 years, with a trajectory to expand its base further in the years ahead (by conditioned 'choice' or otherwise)?

You're focusing your attention on the WRONG religion. Perhaps because you subscribe to the New Dogma, eh?

[Karmamatterz]

Or is the greater danger our culture's New Religion in the form of blindly trusting "The Science", and along with it, the power wielded by The Science administrators/brokers in influencing, and coercing, millions to submit to experimental shots, myriad drugs with compounding side effects and other looming draconian measures already being rolled out (and also: eating bugs, lab-created fake meat and/or nutrient-depleted foods, cheering on 'space missions' with potentially hidden agendas, and agreeing to all manner of future initiatives in-line with Establishment's version of "climate change", etc)?

It's worse than a religion, it's a cult. The Covid Cult. Instead of Kool Aid they try to coerce you into a needle and experimental drug.

[DrEvil]

@BelSav:

You can't possibly be this dense.

Voter suppression, anti-abortion bills, creationism, school vouchers, deregulation, the Capitol riot, the Supreme Court, the Southern Strategy, the entire fucking GOP cult.

That's the influence they wield.

And what's Musk's influence? Some government contracts and subsidies? Totally the same thing.

The wrong religion is the one peddling myths and fairy tales and unquestioning obedience, not the one showing actual results. I'll take the flawed one with tangible results over the delusional one any day of the week, because it is actually possible to believe in science without believing it's perfect. Imagine that! A world that isn't black and white, good or bad.

Btw: You put climate change in quotes. What's your take on the reality of climate change?

[Karmamatterz]

Voter suppression, anti-abortion bills, creationism, school vouchers, deregulation, the Capitol riot, the Supreme Court, the Southern Strategy, the entire fucking GOP cult.

Voter suppression? Like the BS that is currently being peddled in the MSM?

Abortion? That's an opinion. Anybody has the right to oppose abortion, or favor it. It doesn't make you a better human being to favor abortion.

Creationism, that's a good one. I still have to laugh when zealots push this stuff. It's akin to the flat Earthers.

Deregulation? That is extremely vague.

Capitol riot? You mean the "insurrection?" The largely peaceful protest? Give me a break. The incident known to some as theater...where the guards let people wander in? Uh hmmmm...yeah.

Supreme Court? What about it? More vague nothingness.

It is easy to get wrapped into this two-party thing where one of them is supposedly a better turd sandwich than the other. It's pointless to continue this conversation if all you see it as is Democrat vs. Republican. Isn't RI supposed to be able to rise about the daily matrix stuff and see things for as they are and not get continually yanked into the mainstream media propaganda?

[Belligerent Savant]

.

DrEvil - you basically echoed purely Establishment 'partisan' talking points. It's no wonder you're at odds with a number of the points I raise here, and further (along with some others) equate my commentary as 'QAnon' or 'right-leaning'. You have been thoroughly conditioned to see the world through a fake-world 'partisan' lens.

You'll retort that I'm biased in my own right, because of course that'd be your position: you can't see it any other way given your currently-accepted constructs.
[that said: I acknowledge that I'm capable of bias as well. Does 'objectivity' truly exist? Even in physics, mere observation can impact results. Reality is not what we may believe it to be. But I do my best to be self-aware of any potential bias, and have re-calibrated my positions many times over the years]

I echo Karmamatterz' sentiment. How much longer can you (and all those that align with your views) continue to hold up these increasingly tenuous constructions? Their foundations are splintering; only a matter of time before they fully crumble. As often is the case with those that refuse to let go, what we're seeing instead is a 'doubling down': The Cult of Covid, Wokeness, and all that may be ascribed to the [in-name-only] "Left".

But back to Musk: I haven't seen any points disputing the position that he's a fraud. Or at least, a figment of Establishment's creation, like so many other caricatures on display. Their primary function: to distract, to maintain the facade, and to misdirect earnest inquiry.

[DrEvil]

How is he a fraud? Does Tesla and SpaceX not exist? There's plenty of legitimate criticism to be levied at Musk, like his various financial shenanigans, his wildly optimistic and misleading claims about full self-driving, and his tendency to say really fucking stupid things on Twitter, but what exactly is it that warrants the extra scrutiny of him in particular, and not the myriad other billionaires doing far shittier things?