Likely the stupidest and most grossly dishonest Tesla article ever

Discussion in 'General' started by 101101, Apr 1, 2018.

To remove this ad click here.

  1. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    Walhman is possible the worst shill on Tesla there is but this is about the worst bit of misinformation there has ever been put forth on Tesla (that I'm aware of) and for some reason this is pegging sponsored search: Not surprising given sponsored search (dishonest as opposed to honest) is an even greater conflict of interest than the bribe based censorship/spin based preemptive filtering ever present veto that is sponsored media- lobbying is made possible by sponsored media and the public is expected to fund it. Now even the sponsor filter is filtered for with paid SEO. Can you imagine how radical a force for the good honest search would be- especially with a semantic component? AI good or bad will hit search first- nothing more powerful than the questions we ask. But honest search would also tear lies like what Walhman is putting out apart.

    Walhman is on about a theme petrol has been trying to push but its in the most dishonest format I've ever seen- its like the new face of climate change denial its so supid, these are the ironic new Luddites, they take axes to EV and smash them on freeway dividers and fund the broadcast of lies. The underlying lie here isn't new, its just more belligerent than ever. The message is that petrol isn't a helpless total welfare case that has placed the world solidly on the road to serfdom now for decades. The like here is a variant of saying that petrol retail cost somehow matters when it goes low in a way that perpetuates or helps petrol- that again it isn't a helpless brittle broken total subsidy case. That ICE and petrol and its supply can can compete or recover when that is impossible. The number he should be working with for an electric is 3 cents a kwh and dropping and he should do his math right and stop trying to push the myth that people won't have access to their own roof tops, because the petrol scam doesn't want it. Even with out that petrol will never make economic sense or be competitive. Petrol's time was up 70s years ago- it played a vital role up to that point but by the time nuclear hit we should moved on and certainly by 50 years ago we should have been done with it.

    We have to keep in mind that petrol fuel energy is impoverishing the globe and has been for a long while (even as other tech has been lifting things, the drag is becoming way too much) but also that there is a solid orders of magnitude overnight replacement that some economies are starting to take advantage of and it will give them an insurmountable strategic advantage. Petrol is a toxic 1.2 trillion dollars a year in revenue (about 1% of gross global product) that takes a 10 trillion dollar totally destructive bite out of the global economy (imagine burning down new houses just to rebuild them and calling that economic activity) even before its totally destabilizing debt is added in and the cost of its bailouts phony petrol wars and financial collapses. So again that's 1.2 trillion in revenues, 1.6 trillion in direct state subsidies and 6-7 trillion in externality costs but that doesn't include the destabilization of the financial sector with its bad debts covering stranded assets- stranded to 75% politically stranded and close to 100% economically as green is way way under parity now
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    (without the massive subsidies which more than half a century ago amounted to theft and a culture of theft) being so bad that in the face of a replacement its brought on the US tariffs to cover the lower cost of goods that the pump cutting world now has with its radical strategic advantage with with a 90% economic efficiency green energy base for its cost of goods vice the parasitic sub threshold 13% ceiling for petrol which is built out and at scale and mature across the globe.

    Petrol is like a super high cost toll road- long ago paid off, faced with a replacement that from an economic stand point pays you to use it- so petrol wants to shoot at people from its tool booth. Remember the right in the early 70s trying to leverage the scam embargo showing fat democratic politicians getting out of the Lincoln Town cars? Its basically a terrorist industry that is holding hostage the US financial system, US retirements and US politics and radically adding to unnecessary instability in the world and driving unnecessary war and imperialism. And all to protect people who made terrible business and investment choices as far back as 50-70 years ago putting themselves and everyone else at risk. And think of the costs to the world so far including all the phony wars and the recent financial melt down covering the totally foreseeable predictable regular melt down of bad petrol debt in derivatives (that you can't audit because they are such bad debt that if they were transparent it would impossible to force banks to assume it.) The bill is due on petrarchy and it must be paid.

    We should look at the bigger picture context to see how we got here. Since the advent of the state the world has been ruled by technocrats. This is because the primary glue in a society past a certain scale is tax, its supplements sex and heredity at scale. It creates demand to keep people socializing and continuing to identify with a society, it is a primary or at least crucial supplementary glue that helps hold it all together. Fiat currency or quantized demand is just an expression of this, money is just tax in the final analysis. Two other organizing principles that supplement technocratic power beyond tax and heredity are scarcity and nukes (butter and guns in more revelatory forms)

    By around 1970 it was realized that the "economic problem" problem, the scarcity problem had been solved. This wasn't as big a deal as it might seem as it only reinforced technocratic power. But it did mean the real end of the capital constituency because it meant the end of labor which as part of the integral demand cycle or other side of the labor coin was also made obsolete. But you have to put it in context, capital was never the driver it was just a bunch of rent seekers or a leisure class. Still, to placate them a wholly unnecessary layer of artificial scarcity was introduced (it had been there with gold) by tying what is really a pure fiat currency to oil (even worse than gold,) was criminal. Side benefit for the delusion of a superfluous capital class retaining the illusion of wealth and power was a pusher model for energy that would create a pretense to stupid preemptive wars and imperialism under a nuclear umbrella, but think
    of the cumulative cost and the pent up ill will which the perps now ironcially try to leverage as terror.
  4. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member


    Sure petrol made sense up to about 1950, but after that it was just a horrid scam with its
    sub threshold economic efficiency, it was just a means to hollow out the public sector so it couldn't be finally used to properly retire long obsolete capital. This is why Tillerson tried to bargain a carbon tax to fund Social Security- they try to say no legitimate left side welfare unless illegitimate theft base long ago paid off right side toll road welfare is maintained and prioritized. Its why Goldman was saying big oil (petrol) was never that big that they had to borrow to pay their dividends (petrol's profits have always been imaginary- always was a subsidy game- so petrol should have run at cost without profits and dividends across its full history or at least after 1950) and this is also why General Kelly said the civil war could have been prevented if there was a compromise on a right to exploit human beings (slavery) yes a damn compromise on slavery (slavery is defacto murder or genocide) because he knows that petrol is slavery (economic slavery more even than wage slaver) and it cannot continue to exist just like slavery of blacks in the South couldn't continue to exist without an evil 'right to exploit" to treat other human beings like domesticated animals- so called 'management.'

    Technocracy is just crowd control, and to a large extent this is what tax is as well. When they call the crowd by a name it responds and at base this is so because of the habit and culture of taxation- the chief reinforcement of state power or state based societal organization. This goes back to the domestication of crops and animals, holding or storing the seed for a future crop is a biological pattern. But here is the killer and why petrol must die as fast as humanly possible and die retroactively- we are working more now at inane soul killing useless tread-milling jobs in this time of Quantum AI and artificial reality than we did during the hunter gather period prior to language and tools. A life of enslavement is not a life worth living and enslaved for the security and benefit of what? A group of non contributing people or net negative contribution people that want to feel special in the lime light of their echo chamber sponsored media? The petrol scam is the answer to that question. When the now long useless capitalists are gone the technocrats will remain but most people should be living under a high indexed GAI not being pimped out in sweatshops.

    We should be down to less than 2 hours a day at work at most but people are working more than ever because the useless hollowing out that petrol drives- all that difference is owed by the capitalists going back 5 decades due immediately with interest. People can't even retire or afford formal education or health care. All the things people wanted in the US they had 1960 (minus some crucial social and political progress) we've gone massively backwards mainly due to the petrol scam and the push for massive unnecessary artificial scarcity to prop up permanently defunct capital. Climate change is just illuminating pending end run case on the unsustainable externality of obsolete capital via petrol .
  5. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member


    In the post scarcity era you don't do things for money that you wouldn't otherwise do. You're like Torvalds when they kept asking why he wouldn't cash in (anathema to the open movement) and he basically said to paraphrase in tone and response I came from a place where they don't intentionally distend children's bellies with hunger in an effort to put a ring through their noses for the remainder of their life over scarcity. He was saying the people could grow a spine, they were unbroken undomesticated and could support power sharing and civic responsibility they had an opinion and an intact will and were not sacrificed on the alter of contorted insane conceptions of security Malthusian ideology- who wants to be rich and powerful in the middle of a decript slum- kids weren't sacrificed for slum lords- so he didn't need to cash in because wealth was in context where he came from in terms of its value- "greed was disincentivized."

    Look at the symbolism of the US school children's revolt. That elementary classroom is where the indoctrination first begins the corralling together of people the crowd control and there is now push back at the beginning at the point of domestication. Make the parent pay the tax and insist that the child be sent to a little prison where the child is harmed and the local government district is indemnified but tell the parent they will be jailed if their child doesn't participate even though the tax has been paid and threaten over the outrageous hypocrisy of citing child labor laws when in actuality the kid will grow up to spend most waking hours in a sweat shop cubical or a for profit prison work camp.

    So petrol is not just another tax, a private tax, its an intolerable imposition. Social mobility has flamed out over it. The benefits of tech (our collective inheritance) are being denied people. We have to get more out of being part of society than not being a part, society has to be a net positive proposition if it can be called a society. And again we can't be in denial any longer, the phony economy with all its fake jobs is over and idiotic rhetoric about wage slave "job creators" is over. It takes more skill to drive to work than to do 90% of jobs. And self driving cars show even unconsciously how over it is and make the point for most people- the money in their pockets on the basis of wage slavery vice high indexed GAI might as well be monopoly money. It was 7 years ago, an eternity at the current pace of tech, that an AI (shallow or not and rigged as the show is) beat the two best human jeopardy champs ever and apparently even then it could have done it in liquid speech in real time and still won... IBM probably didn't want to scare people too much.

    The capitalists were paid off a long time ago, the gig is up, what they have now is 50 years of unpaid massive debt due immediately for criminal behavior. You know what the competitive wage actually is? Its the wage that allows someone to become a competitor- see what a scam its been? So the people that built the society, the ones that sacrificed for it with blood, sweat and tears, the ones that
  6. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    gave even their children, the ones that provided most all of the innovation and the ones that ultimately paid all the bills because they did all the work and the ones that financed all the McDonalds and consumed its toxic food and even constructed the stores are now being told by the rent seeking 'owners' you're services are no longer needed go figure out how to farm the desert or die in it because the fruits of automation belong to use even though you put it in place and are the real owner of it all because society exists for the sake of society not some oppressor class... and in response the people who made it all possible are evicting the rent seekers and tearing up their franchise agreements and taking back the power that was theirs all along. Completely cutting the cord on petrol is the necessary and maybe sufficient first step.

    Last comment- note the fear in Wahlman's PR, petrol is terrified of Tesla, the fear is finally going in the other direction. Petrol has been nothing but fear since the embargos, how many more Enrons and 911s and Iraqs and Afganistans are we supposed to suffer for this obsolete nonsense?
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. Martin Williams

    Martin Williams Active Member

    Opinions differ. Is he right about the relative running cost per mile though?
  9. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    One can find outrageous Tesla bashing on the stock market investor's forum Desperately Seeking Liars Seeking Alpha every single day. Dozens or sometimes hundreds of posts appear daily, and on many or most days there are new blog posts (which on SA qualify as "articles") about Tesla. About 80% of the Tesla-related "articles" there are short-seller blog posts full of anti-Tesla FUD; perhaps 20% or so of them are biased in the pro-Tesla direction, Tesla cheerleading blog posts from Tesla "bulls" or "long" investors. Very, very few Tesla-related articles on SA are balanced and non-biased.

    It's definitely the central gathering place for Tesla haters. The amount of what is called "short activity" regarding Tesla's stock is simply astounding. It's often the most shorted stock on the market. I wasn't familiar with the practice of stock shorters posting FUD* to social media to promote their short position until I started following the story of Tesla, but I certainly learned fast after I did! The sheer volume of Tesla hater FUD is sometimes astounding. As they say: "Haters gonna hate"!

    I don't know that I'd try to identify the single worst Tesla hater. I mean, there are so many contestants for that "honor"... ;)

    *What is FUD? According to Wikipedia:

    Fear, uncertainty and doubt (often shortened to FUD) is a disinformation strategy used in sales, marketing, public relations, talk radio, politics, religious organizations, and propaganda. FUD is generally a strategy to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information and a manifestation of the appeal to fear.​
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2018
  10. Martin Williams

    Martin Williams Active Member

    Fear Uncertainty and Doubt all had clear definitions long before Wikipedia appeared. All three have their place in deciding a course of strategy, just as optimism has. Indeed, all three are far more likely to help one spot problems than the sort of blind optimism that seems to be adopted so often here. The estor affair demonstrated the truth of this, surely.

    I ask my simple question once more about whether he is right about the cost per mile of electricity versus petrol. I'm pretty sure he would be wron in the UK. I am curious about the USA though.
  11. BRog

    BRog New Member

    He is wrong in the USA too. He arrives at his cost per mile by assuming that Tesla owners do all of their charging at Tesla Superchargers at an average cost of $0.24 per KWh. More specifically, he divides the world of Tesla owners into those who can charge for free where they work, versus "regular" people who cannot charge at work and who live in apartment buildings and can't charge at home. So they do all their charging at Superchargers. Anyway, that's how he gets his cost per mile of $0.06 for the Tesla. For reference, the residential electricity cost varies across the USA, but averages about $0.12 per KWh. So a Tesla owner who charges at home would pay around $0.03 per mile. But apparently the author feels that charging at home is so rare as to be not worth considering.
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    I'd be happy to discuss the subject of cost per mile, atho I'll demur at reading the OP, another post from an apparent Russian troll farm employee.

    Cost per mile for a BEV has been estimated as low as 2¢ by some of the more enthusiastic BEV advocates, altho I'm sure that's an outlier figure and assumes charging at night on reduced rates. A more objective estimate for the average price might be something like 5¢ per mile, altho it's going to vary a lot in different regions as some areas of the U.S. have a rate for electricity that's nearly twice as high as the national average. Now, I'm assuming here you're talking about only the cost to power the car, and not the estimated amortized TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) including car payments and annual maintenance costs.

    It also depends on the car. A Model S P100D is going to cost more to run per mile than an Ioniq Electric.
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2018
  14. Martin Williams

    Martin Williams Active Member

    It would seem therefore that he is correct that the cost of electricity from a Tesla charger can be higher than the cost of petrol on a per mile basis.

    My opinion is that the cost per mile is a hardly matters anyway. One doesn't spend tens of thousands of pounds MORE on a Tesla in the hope of saving more back on running costs. They are bought for quite other reasons such as imagined social kudos or a liking for quiet motoring or even the colour of the paintwork!
  15. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Can be? Sure, if you cherry-pick an extreme case of low cost petrol and a Supercharger fee in an area with unusually high cost for electricity.

    But only an EV basher would claim this is significant. Since something like 92-95% of PEV charging is slow charging, done at home or at work, the cost of fast-charging at Tesla Superchargers or other DCFC stations is generally important only when taking a long trip. That goes double for Tesla cars, with longer ranges than most BEVs.

    Talking about using fast-chargers as if that's the standard for PEV charging is a favorite FUD tactic of EV bashers.

    Tell us again, Martin, why are you here? I know you claim you are actually an EV supporter, but your comments pretty clearly show otherwise.
  16. Martin Williams

    Martin Williams Active Member

    I didn't claim any significance for the apparent fact that fast charging can be more expensive than petrol for mileage costs. I merely wanted to know if it was true or not, that's all. I couldn't tell from 101101s long series or posts or yours I'm afraid.

    I'm all for EVs. But batteries seem to be headed nowhere in my opinion. I will be very interested to see what replaces them. Hydrogen? Capacitors? A micro fusion reactor? Something else? Who knows?

    It is perfectly possible to be interested in a technology dispassionately, you know. It is not - as far as I know - a prerequisite for this site to be a besotted enthusiast of battery cars.
  17. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Gosh, a science denier complaining that he's not being spoon-fed enough detailed information, after repeatedly rejecting real science and real facts about the "hydrogen economy" hoax which have been repeatedly spoon-fed to him by several forum members, and after repeatedly claiming -- contrary to all evidence -- that batteries can't be significantly improved beyond current properties.

    My heart bleeds for you, dude. :rolleyes:
  18. Martin Williams

    Martin Williams Active Member

    All I got from your post and 101101 was outrage at the fellow making the point, but no clear denial of the truth of what he said.

    Now you have admitted his point was true we can move on. Hopefully we may see energy density rise significantly above the level of around 150Wh/kg we see now in car's battery packs. It's not impossible I suppose, but I will believe it when it actually happens.
  19. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    I think the hedge fund (name escapes me) does the same by concentrating on Tesla production. His fund is also 'shorting' Tesla. This is their last hurrah ... a desperate attempt to trash talk Tesla stock down so they won't take a well earned loss.

    Understand, I am not a fan of any pure BEV. We have plugin hybrids, 2014 BMW i3-REx and 2017 Prius Prime, so we can choose either electricity or gas. It works for us as both cars have to be efficient in the city yet still have +1,000 mi/day range.

    Bob Wilson
  20. Feed The Trees

    Feed The Trees Active Member

    "Shame! Shame on you! A curse be fallen upon you."
  21. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member


    Yes that would be David Einhorn @ 'green light' wink wink secret hand shake druid illuminist capital which according to a new Drive article is completely under water as a typical stupid Tesla shorter- he's loudly betting against his own physical survival and thinks that makes him brilliant.

    But as for price @martin and @Push-- Whalman is flat wrong! There is no equivocation here.

    You can get 50kwh hours in 3 power walls installed for about $20K total per the Tesla site. Don't know the service life but it is at least 10 years given the 10 year warranty. Presume that at 10 years from now you have to do maintenance for another 10 years and presume at that point it is another $10K dollars (guess) and then again at the 20 year point and it is another $5K dollars as the prices drop. So that would be $35K for the batteries for 30 years. In CA the installed price for solar cells to support a system that system that size is about 15K installed so total cost of system is 50K. Figure about $135 a month for 30 years or $150 a month for 30 years with financing.

    That system in California will eliminate the electric bill and natural gas bill and gasoline bill for a home from 2000sqft to 3000sqft with 2 electric cars that drive maybe 40 miles round trip each 5 days a week with weekend errands or trips. It also means no gas station visits and probably no plugging in now or in the near future. The key take home is that most people spend more than than that for electric and natural gas bills alone so the price of charge becomes free or negative. And this system means no black outs. This is Musk's vision, and it means Anton Wahlman has his head up his ***. Even at 2x this price it utterly destroys the whole petrol non echo system.

Share This Page