Tesla is a product of the loosest monetary policy in the history of the world. Failing that, Tesla would be forced to compete in the context of a profit/loss system where loss-makers fall by the wayside instead of getting propped up through easy money and meme-stock theatrics. And a loss-maker it is. Over the last 10 years, properly calculated, Tesla has produced a cumulative $18 billion in negative free cash flow despite massive amounts of taxpayer subsidy.
"...Tesla is less interesting as a subject of investment research. Rather, it should be viewed as performance art..."
Over the past 253 calendar days (as of the latest data available before December 30, 2024):
Tesla (TSLA): According to posts on X, Tesla has seen a significant return. The most recent data from these posts shows Tesla up by about 73% since the start of 2024.
S&P 500 (SPX): The S&P 500 has had a return of approximately 26% over the same period.
Total Return Comparison:
Tesla (TSLA): +73%
S&P 500 (SPX): +26%
Therefore, over the past 253 calendar days, Tesla has significantly outperformed the S&P 500 in terms of total return.
When Steven “Hans Gruber” Guilbeault first bloviated about eliminating IC engine cars in Canada, I suggested to some friends that we find a big barn somewhere and fill it with good used Honda Civics to sell at huge markups when they legislate only new EVs can be sold.
Curious, why was this last dated (April 2024) post highlighted today? Its core argument remains valid but enough is dated to require updating before posting. For example, Tesla stock rather down 41% YTD is currently near its all time high.
As av electrical engineer, I'll just say that electric drive, even motor per wheel, is superior, usefully & environmentally. And, indeed chemical charge storage is behind what's needed.
Batteries weigh at least 1800 times the electrical (electron) mass storage needed. An d the chemical demands: waste, recycling, etc. mean onboard storage is far behind. We are making progress, as with the ultra-capacitor, but for now, hybrid vehicles are best.
Remember, one of the 1st electric trucks was a Bavarian beer truck, with a DC motor i each wheel.
Christopher Clugston's book 'Blip: Humanity's 300 year self-terminating experiment with industrialism,' published in 2019, is an update of his book 'Scarcity: Humanity's Final Chapter (2012).
The Epilogue in 'Blip' relates Clugston's communications with Walter Youngquist over the last five of Walter's ninety-seven years.
Walter was relatively optimistic in his view that industrial civilization could make it to 2100, whereas Christopher puts his stake in the ground at 2050, with the caveat that the 2030's and 2040's will take us places that are unthinkable.
William R. Catton Jr., author of 'Overshoot' in 1982, wrote in the introduction to 'Scarcity,'
"Chris Clugston has pulled together such an array of facts about the path ravenous humanity has trod and the consequences we now confront that no person who fails to read this book should be eligible for election to high office."
The Epilog to 'Blip' ends with:
"Our other recurring topic was how fortunate we both felt to have lived during humanity's industrial era, and how we felt especially fortunate to to have experienced industrial humanity's heyday - the period between the end of WW2 and the oil shocks of the 1970's. Times were never better - literally - especially for those of us who lived in the West. After lamenting the fact that the human generation coming of age today will never experience the reality with which his (greatest) generation and my (baby boomer) generation grew up .... Walter would typically sum up our good fortune in having experienced the best of industrial humanity's 300 year 'blip' by signing off with "It's been a great ride!"
CA policy, not political party, is driving EV adoption. Triple whammy of generous income tax credits, insanely high gas prices and extra perks such as use of car pool lanes distort the market.
I’m surprised a company hasn’t swooped in to make small affordable EVs with low ranges for local use. A neighbor has a vehicle that was briefly made in the early 2000s that went out of business but he still uses it. I’d buy one if it was in business. The majority of Americans live in metro areas and the majority of drives are shortish commutes. Lots of people are buying e bikes for this reason. But if a Tesla that has wayyyyy too much tech goes for $40k it stands to reason that a very simple small battery vehicle could go for under $10k, use 1/5 of the battery minerals and actually save families money by allowing them to replace one of their gas cars with something cheaper. Personally I’d love a car with zero tech, just a golf cart with some windows that gets me across town. It’s odd no company is trying to fill this. It’s either a $2k e-bike or a $40k+ supercharged iPhone on wheels. I don’t need a 10 second quarter mile to go to the grocery store.
The Nissan Leaf. Chevy Bolt, and Volkswagen eGolf have all been in this category for years. Maybe not under $10k but far cheaper than the competition and small and short range just for around the town
Aren't alot of the short, around town trips done to pick up stuff (groceries, home project things, etc etc) and bring it back home, not just to transport a person or persons to a destination? What's the cargo capacity of a golf cart-sized EV?
Golf-cart-like small cars that cannot exceed 35mph do not require most of the NTSA stuff. But neighborhood only is a little too restricted unfortunately.
Can't the Fed simply print electricity and wires and transformers and pylons and robots to assemble it all and computers to run it all? Maybe Jared Bernstein (or other Bidenenomics geniuses) can figure it all out, since to him (them) the who and why money is printed and what is the relationship between printing and to the bond and general markets seems too complex.
It’s always interesting to see how figures are used to support a belief. The author’s bias is clear throughout.
No talk of how petro companies shut down early EV attempts, then claims EVs have been available for 100 years with insignificant success. No talk of how Tesla’s vehicles are out of reach of most people. No talk of the rapidly lowering prices of EVs.
Perhaps better to use a comparison date of less than ten years to analyse the success of the international EV market. The USA seems to have structural issues in purchasing from China but the rest of the world is rapidly increasing their EV purchases.
I have an Ebike that rules! In the end it takes 8hrs to charge and you get 2hrs of ride time. That is 2hrs of moving under power. So, for fun it's great. For business...... it can't compete with an IC engine. I see no way for an electric WORK VEHICLE to replace a diesel truck.
How did "petro companies shut down early EV attempts" that's a myth and even today the current low number of EV's are no threat to oil companies. How does an petro company shutdown a startup and who were they? EV's have been around for 100 years with insignificant success - how is this false? The major problem with EV's are the batteries and even after 100 years of development they are still very low energy density devices and maybe solid state batteries will help but they are still 10+ years off. It took Li-ion more than 20 years to go from lab to mass production.
EV purchases in the EU have also hit a wall since the early adopters have bought them already and the rest of us do not want to compromise on range, refueling, towing, etc. and what do you do when your battery loses too much range due to age. The average age of vehicle on the road is 12 years and a 12 year old EV will have lost almost 25% of its original range this does not happen with an ICE vehicle.
Mass adoption of EV's are still in the future and really will not arrive until a new battery technology enters mass production that is well beyond the limited energy density of Li-Ion's. I suspect by 2040 most of us will be driving some sort of hybrid EV+ICE vehicle but it will not be fully electric for a multitude of reasons.
I stand corrected on petro company interference with EV companies early last century. The technology just wasn’t sufficient early last century. However, petro companies are highly active today in making it hard for EVs. Their financial model is under threat with the world having agreed to zero net carbon emissions by 2050.
Mass adoption of EVs and batteries is already here but surely will increase as technologies are improved.
Chinese car brands are missing from the US market. That is one reason why it appears that EVs will not penetrate much of the market. China is pushing the world forward with their EV production and competition. However in the US 2023 EVs increased by 40% on 2022 numbers. World wide sales continue to increase rapidly but not exponentially. In contrast with the U.S. and EU, Norway is not imposing tariffs on electric cars imported from China. Government policy is key in encouraging the uptake of new low carbon technology. Norway is near 100% EVs. Petrol and diesel engine cars in Norway are “pretty much taxed so much that they're getting less and less interesting to buy." Carbon emissions and climate change is the driving force behind all of this.
Tesla is a product of the loosest monetary policy in the history of the world. Failing that, Tesla would be forced to compete in the context of a profit/loss system where loss-makers fall by the wayside instead of getting propped up through easy money and meme-stock theatrics. And a loss-maker it is. Over the last 10 years, properly calculated, Tesla has produced a cumulative $18 billion in negative free cash flow despite massive amounts of taxpayer subsidy.
"...Tesla is less interesting as a subject of investment research. Rather, it should be viewed as performance art..."
https://mtsobserver.substack.com/p/tesla-avatar-for-the-everything-bubble?utm_source=publication-search
EVs are one thing. Tesla is another. People who would buy an EV don’t want to be seen in a Tesla, especially a Tesla truck.
So Tesla stock took off like a rocket. What did you get wrong? Or maybe you will be correct but your timing was off. Like to see a follow-up.
Substack is forever!
Over the past 253 calendar days (as of the latest data available before December 30, 2024):
Tesla (TSLA): According to posts on X, Tesla has seen a significant return. The most recent data from these posts shows Tesla up by about 73% since the start of 2024.
S&P 500 (SPX): The S&P 500 has had a return of approximately 26% over the same period.
Total Return Comparison:
Tesla (TSLA): +73%
S&P 500 (SPX): +26%
Therefore, over the past 253 calendar days, Tesla has significantly outperformed the S&P 500 in terms of total return.
Fair enough. TSLA's stock has been volatile. When I wrote this piece, its stock was down. Now it's up.
I’m sorry but doesn’t that car look like a giant can of sardines?
“Tesla’s stock is down 41% so far this year.” ????? I must be using the wrong stock symbol
When Steven “Hans Gruber” Guilbeault first bloviated about eliminating IC engine cars in Canada, I suggested to some friends that we find a big barn somewhere and fill it with good used Honda Civics to sell at huge markups when they legislate only new EVs can be sold.
Curious, why was this last dated (April 2024) post highlighted today? Its core argument remains valid but enough is dated to require updating before posting. For example, Tesla stock rather down 41% YTD is currently near its all time high.
"Tesla’s stock is down 41% so far this year."
Seriously?
As av electrical engineer, I'll just say that electric drive, even motor per wheel, is superior, usefully & environmentally. And, indeed chemical charge storage is behind what's needed.
Batteries weigh at least 1800 times the electrical (electron) mass storage needed. An d the chemical demands: waste, recycling, etc. mean onboard storage is far behind. We are making progress, as with the ultra-capacitor, but for now, hybrid vehicles are best.
Remember, one of the 1st electric trucks was a Bavarian beer truck, with a DC motor i each wheel.
This is not about EVs, it’s about control of the populace by the WEF. Orwell’s World is here and now.
Thanks Robert, great read.
Christopher Clugston's book 'Blip: Humanity's 300 year self-terminating experiment with industrialism,' published in 2019, is an update of his book 'Scarcity: Humanity's Final Chapter (2012).
The Epilogue in 'Blip' relates Clugston's communications with Walter Youngquist over the last five of Walter's ninety-seven years.
Walter was relatively optimistic in his view that industrial civilization could make it to 2100, whereas Christopher puts his stake in the ground at 2050, with the caveat that the 2030's and 2040's will take us places that are unthinkable.
William R. Catton Jr., author of 'Overshoot' in 1982, wrote in the introduction to 'Scarcity,'
"Chris Clugston has pulled together such an array of facts about the path ravenous humanity has trod and the consequences we now confront that no person who fails to read this book should be eligible for election to high office."
The Epilog to 'Blip' ends with:
"Our other recurring topic was how fortunate we both felt to have lived during humanity's industrial era, and how we felt especially fortunate to to have experienced industrial humanity's heyday - the period between the end of WW2 and the oil shocks of the 1970's. Times were never better - literally - especially for those of us who lived in the West. After lamenting the fact that the human generation coming of age today will never experience the reality with which his (greatest) generation and my (baby boomer) generation grew up .... Walter would typically sum up our good fortune in having experienced the best of industrial humanity's 300 year 'blip' by signing off with "It's been a great ride!"
CA policy, not political party, is driving EV adoption. Triple whammy of generous income tax credits, insanely high gas prices and extra perks such as use of car pool lanes distort the market.
I’m surprised a company hasn’t swooped in to make small affordable EVs with low ranges for local use. A neighbor has a vehicle that was briefly made in the early 2000s that went out of business but he still uses it. I’d buy one if it was in business. The majority of Americans live in metro areas and the majority of drives are shortish commutes. Lots of people are buying e bikes for this reason. But if a Tesla that has wayyyyy too much tech goes for $40k it stands to reason that a very simple small battery vehicle could go for under $10k, use 1/5 of the battery minerals and actually save families money by allowing them to replace one of their gas cars with something cheaper. Personally I’d love a car with zero tech, just a golf cart with some windows that gets me across town. It’s odd no company is trying to fill this. It’s either a $2k e-bike or a $40k+ supercharged iPhone on wheels. I don’t need a 10 second quarter mile to go to the grocery store.
The Nissan Leaf. Chevy Bolt, and Volkswagen eGolf have all been in this category for years. Maybe not under $10k but far cheaper than the competition and small and short range just for around the town
Aren't alot of the short, around town trips done to pick up stuff (groceries, home project things, etc etc) and bring it back home, not just to transport a person or persons to a destination? What's the cargo capacity of a golf cart-sized EV?
In India or Florida?
A $10k vehicle would never pass the NTSA safety requirements and once all this is added on the price will be >$20k.
Golf-cart-like small cars that cannot exceed 35mph do not require most of the NTSA stuff. But neighborhood only is a little too restricted unfortunately.
We are not talking about golf-cart-like vehicles but vehicles people will use daily and can operate on highways.
Can't the Fed simply print electricity and wires and transformers and pylons and robots to assemble it all and computers to run it all? Maybe Jared Bernstein (or other Bidenenomics geniuses) can figure it all out, since to him (them) the who and why money is printed and what is the relationship between printing and to the bond and general markets seems too complex.
It’s always interesting to see how figures are used to support a belief. The author’s bias is clear throughout.
No talk of how petro companies shut down early EV attempts, then claims EVs have been available for 100 years with insignificant success. No talk of how Tesla’s vehicles are out of reach of most people. No talk of the rapidly lowering prices of EVs.
Perhaps better to use a comparison date of less than ten years to analyse the success of the international EV market. The USA seems to have structural issues in purchasing from China but the rest of the world is rapidly increasing their EV purchases.
I have an Ebike that rules! In the end it takes 8hrs to charge and you get 2hrs of ride time. That is 2hrs of moving under power. So, for fun it's great. For business...... it can't compete with an IC engine. I see no way for an electric WORK VEHICLE to replace a diesel truck.
How did "petro companies shut down early EV attempts" that's a myth and even today the current low number of EV's are no threat to oil companies. How does an petro company shutdown a startup and who were they? EV's have been around for 100 years with insignificant success - how is this false? The major problem with EV's are the batteries and even after 100 years of development they are still very low energy density devices and maybe solid state batteries will help but they are still 10+ years off. It took Li-ion more than 20 years to go from lab to mass production.
EV purchases in the EU have also hit a wall since the early adopters have bought them already and the rest of us do not want to compromise on range, refueling, towing, etc. and what do you do when your battery loses too much range due to age. The average age of vehicle on the road is 12 years and a 12 year old EV will have lost almost 25% of its original range this does not happen with an ICE vehicle.
Mass adoption of EV's are still in the future and really will not arrive until a new battery technology enters mass production that is well beyond the limited energy density of Li-Ion's. I suspect by 2040 most of us will be driving some sort of hybrid EV+ICE vehicle but it will not be fully electric for a multitude of reasons.
I stand corrected on petro company interference with EV companies early last century. The technology just wasn’t sufficient early last century. However, petro companies are highly active today in making it hard for EVs. Their financial model is under threat with the world having agreed to zero net carbon emissions by 2050.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/16/oil-industry-electric-car-1729429
Mass adoption of EVs and batteries is already here but surely will increase as technologies are improved.
Chinese car brands are missing from the US market. That is one reason why it appears that EVs will not penetrate much of the market. China is pushing the world forward with their EV production and competition. However in the US 2023 EVs increased by 40% on 2022 numbers. World wide sales continue to increase rapidly but not exponentially. In contrast with the U.S. and EU, Norway is not imposing tariffs on electric cars imported from China. Government policy is key in encouraging the uptake of new low carbon technology. Norway is near 100% EVs. Petrol and diesel engine cars in Norway are “pretty much taxed so much that they're getting less and less interesting to buy." Carbon emissions and climate change is the driving force behind all of this.
https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2024-09-11/Norway-s-car-market-is-94-EVs-and-a-quarter-of-them-are-Chinese-1wNcImL8k8g/p.html#:~:text=Norway%20is%20getting%20very%20close,94%20percent%20EV%20market%20share.
(from 2019) https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/16/oil-industry-electric-car-1729429