Think how successful Tesla could have been if he wasn't in the picture. Statements like a $25000 car being "pointless" are just wild; if they sold an affordable EV it would sell like crazy (well, could have once upon a time) I think people could care less about automation than having a safe and efficient vehicle
Is it a free market when Musk has unfettered access to the inner workings of the U.S. government? He just shut down an entire agency with a tweet. He is in a position to effect policies that favor him and his companies. How can anyone else compete fairly in that environment?
And that's why his stocks are doing fine despite him having alienated a huge chunk of the world with his fascist salutes.
Edit for clarity: the "Roman" in "Roman salute" is based on the idea that the ancient Romans did this salute. Historians have indicated there is no evidence to support this idea. The salute was popularized by the Italian Fascists, who also popularized the idea that it hearkened back to the Romans, which based on modern evidence appears to have been a fabricated narrative. Hitler liked it so he adopted it for the Nazis too.
Say what one will about Musk, but the salute itself has existed long before Fascism and Nazism. Look up the Bellamy Salute. Much like the swastika and the fasces, the so-called Roman salute does not originate or derive its meaning from the culture or ideology to which it is attributed. The belief that such a salute has always been fascistic, however, is no better than the mythic history concocted for it. Such claims only serve to legitimate the perception that the progenitors and proponents of these ideologies were unique and ingenious. They were not. As with the then-nascent propaganda/advertising industry, they plundered and mangled whatever symbols that could adopt for their own means and purposes.
The Bellamy Salute was similar but not exactly the same. Im sure that if Elon's "gesture" connotes no special meaning, there would be no problem with you making the gesture before your colleagues and customers.
An interesting theory that a colleague proposed to me recently is that it is indeed consistent with free market principles for monopolistic entities to emerge and influence public policy. Consumers presumably think very hard about every purchasing decision weighing both economic value proposition (are these bananas cheaper than those bananas) as well as social signaling (should I buy a beer that has an advertisement with a trans person). If they want a business to have more political influence, they will buy more of their products and services. Therefore operators of the business have a fiduciary duty to shareholders and customers to exert as much influence over public policy as possible.
An electoral majority of voters agree that handing him influence over federal government operations was better than the alternative. I am not aware of any widespread "regret" by voters over this issue; please correct me if I'm mistaken.
What does that have to do with anything? We are talking about free market with regards to EVs and I’m saying there isn’t one due to Musk’s influence in the U.S. government. Whether or not voters supported that or continue to support it is beside the point.
You're not mistaken. For those voters who chose him, this is all widely popular. There is surely some "regret" somewhere, but that's true of any election once it's over.
There is good reason to think that the leopards will start eating their faces eventually, but for the moment the leopards are mostly eating the faces they were sent to eat.
It's the context that they're planning a $25k robot taxi instead because automation is more important; it sounds like they can, and had wanted to make an affordable one, but Musk had a "vision" or something. Is a robot taxi really cheaper to make than a manual car? And who even wants that?
That said, Musk has brought nothing to the table that someone else couldn't have, he gets far too much credit. He's just a talker. For example, the Cybertruck apparently had some great design ideas before he overrode the design team
> Is a robot taxi really cheaper to make than a manual car?
If we only look at the future costs to supporting a consumer vehicle over the long term there could be significant savings by avoiding those costs.
No need to overengineer - design for X km not Y years. No need to engineer for fixing some accidents - maybe cheaper to write off vehicle: removes infrastructure costs and reduces parts inventory. No need to support vehicle after Y years - reduce long term maintenance. Design for fleet refreshes every Y years. Designing vehicle to be written off on accounts (depreciate - no resale): paper gains matter hugely to corporations. Optionality... If robotic hardware is improving rapidly then may be cheaper overall to build new vehicles than upgrade older fleet. Design for recycling. Handover old fleet from US to Mexico - keep using old vehicles in jurisdictions where liability and modern branding is less important.
That's a non-sequitor though. OP's claim is that Tesla would be doing better without Musk as Tesla would be selling 25k cars; however, if every other US car company is not doing 25k cars there is no support to an argument that an alternative CEO for Tesla would do 25k cars.
But to your actual question, the thing that matters is customers * margin. If each car comes with say 15k of overhead then even if you can double your units sold by dropping the price from 40k to 25k you are behind 20% in total profit.
> however, if every other US car company is not doing 25k cars there is no support to an argument that an alternative CEO for Tesla would do 25k cars.
Sure there is: people ain't gonna pay an extra $15k for gits and shiggles. Unless those $40k cars are substantially better than the $25k cars, people are going to try to buy the $25k cars first.
> If each car comes with say 15k of overhead then even if you can double your units sold by dropping the price from 40k to 25k you are behind 20% in total profit.
So aim to sell double and a half, and then you've hit the same profitability as those $40k cars. Every extra sale past that would represent increased profit from the lower price-point.
And this assumes that the extra sales volume (and therefore the production volume to satisfy it) wouldn't translate to reductions in that overhead due to economies of scale. If that doubled volume translates to a 16.67...% reduction in overhead, that'd also be enough to hit the same profitability as those $40k cars. Every extra sale or extra reduction in overhead past that would represent increased profit from the lower price-point.
> You can't just replace Musk and Tesla starts selling a 25k car.
Can't you?
As a shareholder, I'd welcome a proposal to fire Elon Musk, whether his replacement could produce a 25k car or not. It's clear to me that he has no interest in the success of the brand and will gladly see it fizzle if he has his way.
A majority shareholder vote decided to authorize an otherwise unnecessary payment to Musk, presumably to keep him as CEO. After that, a proposal to fire Musk would surely fail.
Tesla is already best value for money EV, people demanding lower is hard. But Tesla showed it’s possible to cut costs even more. A lot of people do indeed want smaller car than M3.
I don't think anyone would have bought a Tesla if it wasn't for Elon Musk's charisma. By buying a Tesla, you're not buying a car. You're buying a vanity product whose value is tied to the image of the celebrity promoting it.
No not quite, at least five years ago the model 3 was far superior to competing electric cars and a very comparative price. The whole vibe around it was a bit of a deterrent, not as much as it is now mind you. It was just a better car with better performance and more range, not to mention the one board integration with the supercharger network. The whole Elon aura played a role differently over time.
A Tesla was genuinely an exciting car that many wanted. Sure, it lacked polish (and fit and finish were meh) but it was by far the best EV you could get for a long time. There was also the "other" factor before they were mainstream , or why some rich drive Land Rovers, Mercedes G class and so on, then it was just the hip car in the Bay Area and now everyone is driving them so why bother.
Not saying people stopped buying them because of Musk, just that it wasn't necessarily his charisma that used to get people to buy them.
You could be right, though I'd like to think the engineers there still would have made a great car that could have stood on its own without needing a hype-man
That's especially true of the Cybertruck, the only car Elon actually contributed to the design of (besides the charging port location on the other models)
What little charisma Elon Musk had in 2019 had no influence on my decision to buy a used Model 3 at the time. If anything, Musk's "charisma" pushed me away from Tesla entirely, but the car's performance and charging network wasn't just better than the competition, it was fantastic, period. Elon or not, the deal I eventually got on a used one was worth it.
Today, 250k miles later? Because of Elon Musk's "charisma", I'm both highly motivated to sell it, but also can't. That's because you're not entirely wrong. Turns out, when a celebrity billionaire starts let his evil show openly, the products he shills start to lose their appeal.
You put 250k on a Model 3? I would love to hear your experiences.
> I'm both highly motivated to sell it, but also can't.
I'm sure Musk's antics affect new car sales, but it must be muted for the used market. But 250k is a lot of miles for any vehicle, and electric cars have an early smartphone era problem: each iteration brings much bigger improvements than you'd see in a more mature platform.
I've actually only put about 50k miles on myself, but it's still perfect for my needs. Battery health isn't at 100% any more, but I still get an actual 250-300 miles of range.
Mechanically, the car is solid. Doesn't rattle or squeak. Clear, chip-free windows. No quirks of any kind, really. Pretty remarkable considering the number of miles on it. I have a Toyota van with fewer miles and with the exception of the bullet proof engine, the rest is barely holding itself together. Had a window literally just fall off it recently, as the glue had given up.
I know Musk's antics are impacting my ability to sell my own car - someone recently drew the word "swasticar" (which is pretty clever, I'll admit) in the layer of salt/dirt/grime one gets during the winter on my car. I have to think that had something to do with Elon.
Local used inventory has rapidly grown as well recently. I've been checking weekly for about a year, and today, there are probably 3x as many available on the market than there were a year ago. Obviously there are a lot of variables at play when it comes to used markets, but I doubt I'd be wrong to believe that Elon's behavior has contributed to that.
I know five real, actual people (two who are actively looking for an electric car) who will never buy a Tesla because of Musk, I think you're right about that.
Tesla’s brand is taking a hit from the top. People are actively trying to unload their vehicles. Novelty wears off and nobody wants to be saddled with a negative status symbol when they can test drive something less conspicuously authoritarian with better build quality at a reasonable price point. First move has come and gone.
I'm sure that Elon isn't helping, but I've read that Tesla sales were always expected to decline due to no new car in years (outside of the Cybertruck which is seen as a gimmick) and market saturation from Tesla's continued monopoly on the American EV market. Basically everybody who wants an EV already owns a Tesla and has nothing to upgrade to.
> Basically everybody who wants an EV already owns a Tesla
The EV market is not the totality of the auto market. EVs are, in my opinion, better products than gas cars even removing environmental concerns, and thus EVs should be growing market share. Tesla shares were never expected to decline, otherwise their stock wouldn't be trading at such insane multiples. It's entirely at the feet of Tesla management that their sales are declining in CA and in the EU.