Submissions tenuously related to economics, light on economic analysis, or from perspectives other than those of economists will be removed. This will keep /r/economics distinct from the many related subreddits. Further explanation.
--
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
Tesla is worth $1.37 trillion. Their revenue is down YOY, profits are down 80% from 2 years ago, the cyber truck is a disaster, China is going to hand them their ass with their cheaper models and yet, the stock goes up. Musk is a master at market manipulation
It's honestly insane how resilient the stock market has been. It survived tariffs, the BBB, the war in Iran, the attacks on the fed, hysterical fiscal policy, persistent inflation. I'm kinda convinced that if it wasn't for the tax cuts it would be essentially flat. There is absolutely no reason for it to be this high and the red flag are pe indicators raising without any justifiable growth in the real economy
Its not insane if you look outside the market at the wider economy over the long term, particularly if you note where the wealth has been going since the 80s, ie upwards
Instead of the expanding middle class that we had until the 80's world switched with Reagan and co to funneling the money to the top 10% and corporations.
For while they were spending some of it (new mansions, jets, buying up the competition), but as social mobility has slowly decreased they are spending an ever decreased amount (because wealth is now generational and each gen does not need new mansion and when there are only 2-3 big players left in your sector no one to buy) so they been shifting more and more to investment, putting the money to work to make more money
20 plus years of massive tech growth in the US kept them happy, lots of options and good returns
But as the sector has matured/stabilized they have not had really anything new to absorb the amounts of money they have have coming in, especially nothing with the level of returns they want, so they have been lowering the 'quality' of what in investing in and jumping at whatever fad comes along, be is Tesla, Crypto, AI and next will be SpaceX (and if this IPO is successful expect every stock in the sector to shoot though the roof..and people will start doing stupid shit like renaming to '<insert company name> Space' and getting a 10% share price jump)
For 50 plus years everyone has kind of used the stock market as weathervane for the wider economy, its time to get out of that thinking, its completely divorced from reality, by this point never mind the economy because they literally have more money than they know what to do with
If stock market represents anything anymore, its how the 10% feel, not how the 90% are actually doing economically
I'm in the process of helping a friend buy her first home. In NZ we had a huge housing bubble. Like, when we bought our house the "value" went from. $600k, to over $1.2million in two years. And it's a piece of shit with no road access. The "value" has dropped to about $800k, and I know we couldn't get close to that if we sold right now, which is fine with me.
There were a lot of people who bought at the peak who now need to sell as interest rates have gone up. We are finding a lot of them who just cannot accept that the market has fallen and their asset is worth less. We are offering, for example, $550k, which is a fair price, for places that people paid $650k two or three years ago, but they refuse to sell because they still think it's worth more. My friend can't pay more because the cost of everything else has skyrocketed, and the banks are lending less now.
Is it possible that the stock market has a bit of that sorta mentality going on as well?
Thats purely marketing. They have not created any new major tech in years. In fact their only real tech is cars, and they are bombing hard compared to whats coming out of China.
Their FSD for cars is really good, and only requires cameras and a decent computer. They can lease that tech out to any car company. Waymo is better, but their cars require a lot of expensive hardware and aren't for public.
That's a lie! They can't put it working right just with cameras. And they're lying to customers for years, saying their cars are FSD ready but now they recognised that will be impossible for older cars (up to HW3 version!).
Nobody wants to lease or licence such a unsafe tech.
Optimus simply don't work and even if it does what's the point of it?
Is amazing but has a tendency to hit emergency vehicles (or break hard and stop anywhere just by "seeing" the lights). It also has a problem with train crossings... And problems with low sun or any other thing that messes up with the cameras and doesn't have a radar backup!
Again, none of which is really innovative. And Musk released alot of the Tesla car patents to the public back in the early 2010s.
Tesla's main revenue source is cars (about 75%). Honda also makes trains. Toyota makes forklifts. All of them make significant revenue through financing. No one thinks they are anything else than a car company.
Because there is no market for self-driving tech. Even the residents of the SF bay area can't stand it. The Waymo cars are a nuisance more than an asset. Established companies are not going to waste time and resources on technologies that will not generate a return.
There absolutely is a market for self driving tech. Most Americans commute, and It's amazing for that. Most drivers are also shitty, and self driving tech is pretty much as good or better than the average driver already.
How many self driving cars have killed people, and compare that to human drivers.
Just for reference... that's almost the entire UK's annual government budget.
Tesla, a company that sells fewer cars worldwide than almost every single other car manufacturer you've ever heard of, in some cases by an order of magnitude or more... is somehow "worth" more than the ENTIRE UK spend on defence, social care, every infrastructure project, etc. etc. etc. of 80m people?
Stats please. Because Ford sold 2,204,124 vehicles in 2025. Tesla sold... 1,636,129.
Just because they sell only a small handful of models doesn't mean they outsell any other manufacturer. It's like saying iPhone outsold a particular Android model.,, true, but Android outsells Apple 72% -> 18%.
It's not even like it's their flagship model that they sell most of... in fact, the opposite. And mostly to themselves!
There's Tesla, the stock and then there's Tesla the company. Both used to be connected - but aren't anymore. Nothing the company does has any effect on the stock. The stock is traded like a memecoin. Just hodl it.
And exploitation of government handouts, don't forget that. Without consumer purchase credits and carbon offset programs, they'd have gone out of business decades ago. They're the highest valued auto company in the world and they still sell a fraction of the cars their competitors do.
This has never been the case; the primary subsidy intended for electric vehicle manufacturers took the form of a tax credit for EV buyers and, consequently, had absolutely no impact on Tesla's revenue. Furthermore, environmental credits are tied to overall EV production volume and have, therefore, consistently accounted for less than 10% of Tesla's revenue.
Tesla is not, nor has it ever been, a monopolist in the electric vehicle market. All companies selling their electric vehicles in the U.S. received the exact same tax credit. Moreover, there was a period during which everyone with the exception of Tesla and GM received this credit.
The primary subsidies Tesla has taken advantage of are California's Zero-Emission Vehicle program and the federal government's CAFE standards. Those programs require automakers to produce and sell a specific percentage of non-polluting vehicles. The programs also allowed companies to sell excess production credits to other automakers. These credits represented billions of dollars for Tesla every year. There were even some quarters in the past few years where the credits were the only reason Tesla showed a profit that quarter. The elimination of those credits is a big part of the huge drop in profitability mentioned elsewhere. All of this in addition to the sale credits you mentioned.
This program was available to all electric vehicle manufacturers. Furthermore, it did not involve a single cent of government funding. Manufacturers who failed to meet the regulations paid those who exceeded them.
And as you can see, even with the complete elimination of this program, Tesla remains profitable.
>Manufacturers who failed to meet the regulations paid those who exceeded them.
The price of which they then passed on to consumers. So if the government orders you to give somebody $50, it's not a subsidy as long as they never touch the money?
>Without consumer purchase credits and carbon offset programs, they'd have gone out of business decades ago.
CAFE and ZEV (the abovementioned offset programs) are government handouts. Tesla was able to grow and maintain itself as a result of these government programs, that reallocated consumer dollars into Elon Musk's pocket in the name of growing the electric car industry. That Tesla is profitable now (for the moment, anyway; now that the CAFE credits are gone there are already occasional quarters where their profit is negative) doesn't change the fact that Tesla owes its existence to the State of California and the Obama Administration stacking the deck in its favor.
Honestly, it's not entirely his fault at this point. Retail traders blindly hailing his grifting ass as some sort of master CEO of future tech is much of a bane in the justification of his companies' valuations. The idiots trading Elon's "dreams" are literal brain dead profit chasers with no diligence in investing. If these people were more mature and critical thinking, pathological liars like Elon wouldn't have had it so great in the first place. The stock market now essentially became a playing field for retail gamblers to speculate based on vibes and not fundamentals.
I hear retail all the time. Is there really that much capital for a single stock from retail investors to prop this shit for this long. I am juat bewildered. Versus buying any other AI stock in this market. Feels like an opportunity cost. Wonder how they will prop both SPCX and TSLA now.
"Ghengis Khan is about to conquer the entire globe after killing and raping the citizens. Dont you guys think you should celebrate our complete and total destruction rather than criticizing all the raping and pillaging?"
Okay so you're trying to compare a modern day tech entrepreneur to a 13th century Mongolian warlord. Obviously that's not something that can be taken seriously.
> Don't you think he should be celebrated for that rather than criticized?
If you want to celebrate a Nazi who is campaigning/calling for the end of the European Union and other democratic systems, go ahead, but most people will not follow you down that road.
Bitcoin keeps going up too, and that has no underlying value at all. There comes a point where even though everyone knows it's a pyramid scheme, if people keep buying it it keeps working.
Market manipulation with these people is post a couple memes per day on your social media app to blend in the with "funny guys" and name things under "child humor" names and all of a sudden you've gained a following of the most degenerate man children in the world
I hate they are considering changing the IPO inclusion rules allowing these mega-IPO's to join indexes after trading for only a few months rather than a year which is the current S&P500 rule. NASDAQ 100 just went to 15 days since May first.
These companies get to choose the moment they go public, at maximum hype, giving the initial investors a profitable exit. Index funds being forced to buy them guarantees liquidity at the expense of the passive investor since these IPO's almost always drift lower once the hype dies down.
Very serious question, is it possible to have your 401k opt out of participating in this obvious scam? I don’t want to be some billionaires exit liquidity. I don’t want a penny of mine going into that mess.
I work in 401K admin. The investment options are chosen by the plan administrator (usually the guy who owns your employer) under advice from the financial adviser. If those options only have index funds, then your only recourse is to put your balance in cash until the SpaceX crash happens, which obviously is not great. I would definitely talk to/email my boss and/or the FA if you have their contact info to see if they can add an option that won’t be exposed to this huge risk. Worse thing they can do is say no.
Your % risk is extremely small. It won't make up that much if any normal fund (<2%... More like 0.2% tho). Also, if it crashed (and nothing else crashed) it would get balanced out at some point
Sorry you are completely sanewashing what is happening.
The point is that they are stealing a few hundred to a few thousands of dollars from millions of people who are passively investing in their 401k. We are being used to provide exit liquidity to the billionaire pre-ipo investors. Including the investors in garbage like Twitter.
Sure our other investments may do well and eventually offset our losses but they still stole our money and we would be better off if the money they stole was invested in actually profitable companies.
Everyone should be angry here and not just saying “oh they will only steal a few percentage of your portfolio”
Log into your 401k and check? Previously I was 90% sp500 and 10% itl equities. Ive rebalanced to 5 different funds that still have holdings i like and that will not be including space x. Feelsgood
It is crazy that this grift is illegal. And the people on the S&P committee who make these decisions about the investments of millions of people get to stay anonymous.
Could have told them that a long time ago. His businesses are way overvalued so that he can ~~grift~~ get more loans to buy more businesses and then give himself US government contracts to get paid to keep his ~~grifts~~ businesses afloat.
the free market can't exist in fascism, fascism is defined as the merging of public and private spheres. fascists choose winner and losers, they choose who gets no-bid contracts, choose who gets to waltz into the SEC and bury any investigations into their own companies.
this is why the market is so irrational, it's not about good or bad quarters, it's about who is and isn't chosen by the leader, because of this there is systemic instability in fascist economies.
Elon gets to decide what programs get funded and which get cut, so his stocks go up
Tim Cook brings a stupid gift to Trump and his wife, so apple goes up
Paramount donated $20 million to Trump's presidential library fund, so they're allowed to buy Time Warner.
Amazon makes some absurd AI documentary about Trump's wife so Bezos gets a new contract with NASA
I read along time ago an article about the American stock and bond market. It said foreign investment in US was because of a strong rule of law in the country. Foreign investors knew that fraud and malfeasance of corps would be dealt with in accordance with US law. Now, not so much. I think that is going to be a large factor going forward.
Not to mention the federal government purchasing stakes in corporations. I know Intel for one. It's not a free market if corporations are being nationalized. You go too far left or right it's the same shit. Winners are chosen, shit is nationalized, and the 1% get to live it up while the rest of us eat shit. The hilarious part is all the MAGA chuds think they will get to be winners once this shit runs it's course.
You are thoroughly confused. All modern governments heavily merge the private and public spheres. The CCP owns 51% of every company in China, but it's communist. The US seized wealth (gold), jailed the Japanese, drafted citizens regularly, and directed private companies' production in times of war. Ongoing regulatory control in some industries is severe to almost total, e.g. banking, energy sector, etc.
Fascism was a political response to the encroaching bolshevism from Russia and their ongoing atrocities. Its distinguishing feature is that it was ethno-nationalistic, not that it directed the private sector. Fascist Germany and Italy interfered less in private markets than modern governments do at their peak levels of interference.
It's not your fault. History is written by the victors, after all.
I chose the two largest economies in the world. Should I have cherry picked semi-socialist northern european ethnic monocultures and deceived readers instead? That seems to be the go-to for this subreddit.
Oh jeez. I was following up until this BS. Are you the type to argue that universal healthcare wouldn't work in America because of issues relating to "ethnic monocultures" ... or are you making fun of those types?
Fascism was a response to the encroaching socialist revolutions in their own countries. German, Hispanic and Italian liberals collaborated with fascists to crush their own working class and blame everyone else for the horrible living conditions they created.
You overstate the domestic communist threat, misattribute working class suffering primarily to liberals while ignoring WWI, Versailles, and the Depression, and awkwardly lump Spanish fascism in with Italy and Germany. You capture the dynamic, but frame it as a clean ruling-class conspiracy.
Yeah, I was going to say that that this is polemic. Fascism was driven largely by revanchism after World War I, at least for Germany. Germany's economy was motivated less by the rise of Bolshevism, though Germany's upper class were certainly concerned with the rising tide of socialism across Europe and abroad. However, what primarily drove people into NSDAP's arms were the fact that Germany was in no position to recover due to the unreasonable reparations that they were being forced to pay since they lost World War I and the impact that was having on their economy.
Meanwhile, Hitler was tapping into revanchist sentiment by stoking German pride, finding an "other" to blame on everything that went wrong in World War I, etc.. If Fascism was a natural response to Bolshevism and communism, Hitler would not have temporarily allied with Stalin.
Italy's fascist sentiment has a different origin, especially considering that Italy was on the winning side of WWI. However, more than half a million Italian men had died, over a million returned home wounded, and found their economy had also been left into ruins. They also were dealing with soaring inflation and mass unemployment. It was widely regarded in Italy as "vittoria mutilata" or the mutilated victory. To add salt into the wound, Italy was promised a ton of rewards with the Treaty of London to get involved with the war, but they essentially got robbed with the Paris Peace Conference.
While Mussolini was casting fascism as a defense against the rising tide of Bolshevism, he also tapped into a different sentiment of revanchism that was motivating Italians at the time. When there were a bunch of worker's revolts, Mussolini's black shirts basically used it as an opportunity to violently suppress them and this won them support with the upper middle classes, army, etc.. The rest is history, pretty much. The rising tide of Bolshevism was less the motivation, but more the opportunity.
Framing fascism as a response to Bolshevism is just wrong. I was being reductive but ruling class liberals enabling fascism against socialists gaining momentum is what actually happened in all three countries. There where also liberals who were sympathetic to socialists and helped them resist but they were (good) class traitors in this dynamic.
"forcing people to fight to death in a war" is not generally seen as market interference. The Jewish people that they seized those businesses from are the people who went to the internment camps. What the fuck are you doing here bud
I don’t see any part here where your and their points don’t align. You’re just pointing out the government controls and they’re just pointing out the private sector bribes.
No, I don't care to enlighten you further. My post went from many upvotes to many downvotes. It's obvious the commenters are suddenly not here in good faith. This subreddit is more psyop than public forum. Pass.
You are looking at my comment history. Why? What does that have to do with a conversation about the origins of fascism? Thanks for proving my point about not being here in good faith. Innocent readers should get a warning about this place.
Are you making a claim here or setting up the working definition for the rest of your comment? Fascism is notoriously hard to define, but I think it's fair to say that fascist example states featured a closer relationship between government and private business. To define fascism based on that, though, is very clearly a mistake as demonstrated by the comments below.
I think the general point you're making is fair even if I don't really agree with how you got there. Trump and his grift have taken away the free market which is the foundation of functional capitalism (along with some purposeful regulation to protect competition and stability). This should be a lesson to the standard Redditor that like to think that capitalism is the root of all evil (rather than human behavior). What we're seeing right now is as effective of an attack on capitalism as is possible in America, and the alternative to this society built up over years and years to slowly drag value to the masses out of the hands of the few is what you're seeing from Trump: a nascent kingdom where the king and his buddies choose who has and has not. We don't need to mislabel that fascism to make the point.
I know we live in crazy times but, even so, everything about this IPO rings huge alarm bells. I get that people might be easy and free with their support of people like Musk, and their optimism for the future.
But we're talking cold, hard cash here.
What I further don't understand is how people stupid enough to fall for this have high enough amounts of cash in the first place to be able to make such investments.
None of it makes sense, from start to finish. It feels like I'm an alien just landed on a planet.
Mainstay of the Musk playbook. Pump up the valuation beyond reasonable measure, borrow against it, then buy real assets to back it up while building up the debt.
Piece together contingencies ad hoc to cover that debt when absolutely necessary, such as government contracts, leveraged buyouts, or even higher evaluations.
Ok whose gonna unseat them as the biggest winner of government contracts then? They will need better governance when that time comes, but for now they are a money printer
TBH that probably won't happen any time soon, even with a change in president. They don't really have any competitors in terms of space launch capacity or in satellite communications. All the competitors have far worse services.
This isn't me simping for the fascist or anything, it's just that they offer services that can't immediately be replaced. Yes, I know that other telecommunications companies offer satellite internet, but not at the price, bandwidth, and reach that SpaceX does.
For launches there aren't really any other companies that can fully replace them in terms of launch cadence and payload capacity.
We're stuck with Musk/SpaceX for the forseeable future.
Space X is the first of many AI companies going public and wants to be the first horse out the gate because at the end of it, there will be no more money to pump up the other ones like this one. So people will go crazy for it to lose out to whales
TSLQ is an ETF that basically shorts Tesla, making it easier for investors to short that stock. I'm expecting there to be a similar fund for SpaceX, and it being a smart play to buy some of that to counter the large amount of SpaceX likely to be in every index or index-based fund.
A lot of 401k and Pension funds need to do this... They fast-tracked the rules for the explicit reason to fleece their investors and get exit liquidity.
Nobody's index fund would be buying that overvalued crap if they hadn't de-regulated and changed profitability margins. That asshole is cheating his way to trillionaire.
LOL, trying to make sense of SpaceX stock is pointless since it operates outside of the market regardless of the IPO, same as the other Musk dealings that Republicans have run protection for.
Elon made his first big win by selling an internet company he started (with a loan from daddy’s African emerald mine money) literally during the peak of the internet bubble. And then got lucky again with Paypal being ran by competent people after he got pushed out. Bro is just using the same strategy he used the first time but at an unprecedented scale. He is going to be a billionaire even if tesla and spacex go to zero LOL. And all of you passive investors have been facilitating it for years. Have fun with your VOO and chill when you get left holding the tesla+spacex+overvalued chip company bag of the next decade.
Elon begged Epstein to diddle kids at Epstein's island, and even Epstein was like nah bro, you're too weird and awkward.
And Epstein's entire schtick was getting billionaires into compromising positions so that he could control them.
Elon is desperate to be a pedophile, but even then he's not cool enough to be one. Even if he becomes the first trillionaire they'll shun him and he won't be able to molest kids.
Impact on voo won't be that significant. Even with SpaceX, it's still not remotely close to being the largest company in the index, and the index self adjusts over time when company's go tits up.
They aren’t the first. The only thing holding Twitter up is Tesla. The only holding Tesla up is space x. Guess what. There’s nothing holding space x up. It’s just rockets going to space. It has no value in the real world. That’s why nasa always ran it
I guess I'm the only one who sees the irony that this article was posted on the same day Blue Origin blew up their rocket & entire launch platform?
"Overvalued" is a relative statement. The gap between spaceX and any non-blue origin competitors right now is huge. Considering the importance of putting things in space over the next 10 years, that matters.
You forgot the other piece of shit companies he rolled in; The Boring Company, Tesla and Solar City. You buy SpaceX and you get the whole basket of losers.
Now now, let's remember to weight each according to their size. xAI is ~equal SpaceX in revenue (17% of SpaceX when including Starlink). that puts xAI on track this year to match Bing's 2025 revenue.
Sending stuff to space is not a huge industry and that isn't going to change within our lifetime because there isn't actually all that much that people can do in space. Sending up satelites only amounts to a few billion dollars in revenue per year and it's very unprofitable.
Which is why SpaceX is sold as an AI company with 90+% of supposed future revenue coming from AI. The rockets are literally just there to put on the investor prospectus while they are trying to tell you that in a few years the entire world economy will run on their AI. Meanwhile their AI is so bad that they had to give up even trying to get their own engineers to use it.
> Sending up satelites only amounts to a few billion dollars in revenue per year and it's very unprofitable.
Because it's too expensive. If it weren't so expensive, a lot more could be done - like starlink, or beginning to build a space elevator that will ultimately be critical for humanity's future in space.
It's not any different than the demand for cell phone networks in 1995. The technology was 20 years old. Penetration was low. Cell phones were bulky and expensive and not very reliable. The shifts that became possible as they became cheaper, lighter, and more reliable are the core properties of innovation. Thus, the cost savings that spaceX has achieved - which are staggering and obliterate every prior attempt - are critical for the future.
> is sold as an AI company with 90+% of supposed future revenue coming from AI.
Then we'd be talking about the upcoming IPO of xAI. But we're not. The IPO and most of the excitement is about spaceX.
xAI was bought by SpaceX and you can make up all the arguments you want, but SpaceX itself is very clear on what it sees as its main business and it's not rockets. Most of the money is spent on AI and the IPO pitch literally sais that nearly all of the future adressable market for SpaceX is in its AI division.
As for the rest of what you wrote, it's just nonsense. What space elevator? That's just total science fiction. There are no plans for something like that because to even theoretically make it work you would need to invent and be able to mass produce completely new materials with properties far beyond anything that exists on earth today. It's not happening in our lifetime. And what does that have to do with SpaceX going public, anyway? Why would SpaceX have anything to do with that?
And outside of that your argument is just Starlink. And the problem for Starlink is that it only makes sense for regions with bad or no functioning internet infrastructure. Anywhere where you have the infrastructure earth based internet is faster, cheaper and more reliable than Starlink and there is no real argument for why that would change.
Economics-ModTeam | 19 hours ago
Submissions tenuously related to economics, light on economic analysis, or from perspectives other than those of economists will be removed. This will keep /r/economics distinct from the many related subreddits. Further explanation.
--
If you have any questions about this removal, please contact the mods.
JonnyBravoII | a day ago
Tesla is worth $1.37 trillion. Their revenue is down YOY, profits are down 80% from 2 years ago, the cyber truck is a disaster, China is going to hand them their ass with their cheaper models and yet, the stock goes up. Musk is a master at market manipulation
Bloodyfinger | a day ago
I honestly believe at this point Tesla the company could cease operations, claim they're a memecoin, and the stock would go up.
JonnyBravoII | a day ago
That stock price is something I just do not understand at all. Tesla is worth $500 billion more than the other top 10 car companies combined.
Long-Blood | a day ago
Government is trying really really hard to stabilize the ponzi scheme of a stock market right now.
Most of them make more money trading stocks than they do from their paychecks.
And a stock market crash guarantees their party loses the next election
Shoend | a day ago
It's honestly insane how resilient the stock market has been. It survived tariffs, the BBB, the war in Iran, the attacks on the fed, hysterical fiscal policy, persistent inflation. I'm kinda convinced that if it wasn't for the tax cuts it would be essentially flat. There is absolutely no reason for it to be this high and the red flag are pe indicators raising without any justifiable growth in the real economy
jaredsfootlonghole | 23 hours ago
When few people have the lion’s share of the wealth, the poor are forced to follow or be manipulated against.
https://inequality.org/article/billionaire-wealth-keeps-growing/
Lashay_Sombra | 23 hours ago
Its not insane if you look outside the market at the wider economy over the long term, particularly if you note where the wealth has been going since the 80s, ie upwards
Instead of the expanding middle class that we had until the 80's world switched with Reagan and co to funneling the money to the top 10% and corporations.
For while they were spending some of it (new mansions, jets, buying up the competition), but as social mobility has slowly decreased they are spending an ever decreased amount (because wealth is now generational and each gen does not need new mansion and when there are only 2-3 big players left in your sector no one to buy) so they been shifting more and more to investment, putting the money to work to make more money
20 plus years of massive tech growth in the US kept them happy, lots of options and good returns
But as the sector has matured/stabilized they have not had really anything new to absorb the amounts of money they have have coming in, especially nothing with the level of returns they want, so they have been lowering the 'quality' of what in investing in and jumping at whatever fad comes along, be is Tesla, Crypto, AI and next will be SpaceX (and if this IPO is successful expect every stock in the sector to shoot though the roof..and people will start doing stupid shit like renaming to '<insert company name> Space' and getting a 10% share price jump)
For 50 plus years everyone has kind of used the stock market as weathervane for the wider economy, its time to get out of that thinking, its completely divorced from reality, by this point never mind the economy because they literally have more money than they know what to do with
If stock market represents anything anymore, its how the 10% feel, not how the 90% are actually doing economically
kinkysubt | a day ago
It’s completely divorced from reality right now
PrayForMojo_ | 21 hours ago
The stock market is a hype tracker. It has nothing to do with actual value.
Key_Gap9168 | 19 hours ago
It's a glorified casino.
AlarmingAerie | 17 hours ago
is it? Market is betting that they will inflate debt away, market is skipping the crashing part.
tehifimk2 | 21 hours ago
I'm in the process of helping a friend buy her first home. In NZ we had a huge housing bubble. Like, when we bought our house the "value" went from. $600k, to over $1.2million in two years. And it's a piece of shit with no road access. The "value" has dropped to about $800k, and I know we couldn't get close to that if we sold right now, which is fine with me.
There were a lot of people who bought at the peak who now need to sell as interest rates have gone up. We are finding a lot of them who just cannot accept that the market has fallen and their asset is worth less. We are offering, for example, $550k, which is a fair price, for places that people paid $650k two or three years ago, but they refuse to sell because they still think it's worth more. My friend can't pay more because the cost of everything else has skyrocketed, and the banks are lending less now.
Is it possible that the stock market has a bit of that sorta mentality going on as well?
guisar | 21 hours ago
Yes, alal GME as an example
karmavorous | a day ago
Eight years ago the government would give middle class people $7500 to buy their first Tesla.
That's gone away now, and there are other options in the EV market.
And yet the stock just keeps going up.
Lashay_Sombra | 23 hours ago
8 years ago Tesla was pretty much only game in town, now its not even the biggest player.
And if US gov was not protecting it from the Chinese manufacturers it would already have folded
SpliTTMark | 22 hours ago
Toyota's stock is down alot in the last couple months
And only up 14% in the last 5 years
_Smashbrother_ | 22 hours ago
It's because Tesla isn't just a car company. It's really a tech company.
bassman9999 | 21 hours ago
Thats purely marketing. They have not created any new major tech in years. In fact their only real tech is cars, and they are bombing hard compared to whats coming out of China.
_Smashbrother_ | 21 hours ago
Their FSD for cars is really good, and only requires cameras and a decent computer. They can lease that tech out to any car company. Waymo is better, but their cars require a lot of expensive hardware and aren't for public.
They also have Optimus robots which seem ok.
CurrentTreacle8514 | 21 hours ago
That's a lie! They can't put it working right just with cameras. And they're lying to customers for years, saying their cars are FSD ready but now they recognised that will be impossible for older cars (up to HW3 version!). Nobody wants to lease or licence such a unsafe tech. Optimus simply don't work and even if it does what's the point of it?
_Smashbrother_ | 20 hours ago
Why wouldn't they be able to use it in other cars as long as they have the same camera and computer hardware (which isn't hard to do in modern cars)?
Yeah the older HW cars can't handle the newest FSD release, but that's a separate issue. The newest FSD is amazing.
CurrentTreacle8514 | 20 hours ago
Because all other manufacturers don't rely only on cameras, they use Radar and LiDAR, that give an extra layer of safety!
CurrentTreacle8514 | 18 hours ago
Is amazing but has a tendency to hit emergency vehicles (or break hard and stop anywhere just by "seeing" the lights). It also has a problem with train crossings... And problems with low sun or any other thing that messes up with the cameras and doesn't have a radar backup!
_Smashbrother_ | 15 hours ago
And still better than the average driver.
bassman9999 | 21 hours ago
Again, none of which is really innovative. And Musk released alot of the Tesla car patents to the public back in the early 2010s.
Tesla's main revenue source is cars (about 75%). Honda also makes trains. Toyota makes forklifts. All of them make significant revenue through financing. No one thinks they are anything else than a car company.
_Smashbrother_ | 21 hours ago
If it's not innovative, then why doesn't every car company in the US have equal or better self driving tech?
Their valuation is definitely based on future hype for sure though.
bassman9999 | 21 hours ago
Because there is no market for self-driving tech. Even the residents of the SF bay area can't stand it. The Waymo cars are a nuisance more than an asset. Established companies are not going to waste time and resources on technologies that will not generate a return.
_Smashbrother_ | 20 hours ago
There absolutely is a market for self driving tech. Most Americans commute, and It's amazing for that. Most drivers are also shitty, and self driving tech is pretty much as good or better than the average driver already.
How many self driving cars have killed people, and compare that to human drivers.
xTheatreTechie | 21 hours ago
Isn't that what they did? They announced they're not a car company anymore and are now a robotics/AI company like a few months back.
Bloodyfinger | 21 hours ago
I mean they could literally just close up shop, fire all employees, and do literally nothing.
Binkusu | 20 hours ago
Sounds like a dip, which means it's time to buy
ledow | a day ago
Just for reference... that's almost the entire UK's annual government budget.
Tesla, a company that sells fewer cars worldwide than almost every single other car manufacturer you've ever heard of, in some cases by an order of magnitude or more... is somehow "worth" more than the ENTIRE UK spend on defence, social care, every infrastructure project, etc. etc. etc. of 80m people?
I don't think so.
bpitas | 4 hours ago
It had literally the best selling car model in the world over several periods - I don’t think you realize how big Tesla is.
ledow | 3 hours ago
Stats please. Because Ford sold 2,204,124 vehicles in 2025. Tesla sold... 1,636,129.
Just because they sell only a small handful of models doesn't mean they outsell any other manufacturer. It's like saying iPhone outsold a particular Android model.,, true, but Android outsells Apple 72% -> 18%.
It's not even like it's their flagship model that they sell most of... in fact, the opposite. And mostly to themselves!
bpitas | 3 hours ago
Tesla Model Y was best selling model in 2023, then in 2024 the RAV4 beat it by a little bit.
KookyDig4769 | a day ago
There's Tesla, the stock and then there's Tesla the company. Both used to be connected - but aren't anymore. Nothing the company does has any effect on the stock. The stock is traded like a memecoin. Just hodl it.
Sherm | a day ago
And exploitation of government handouts, don't forget that. Without consumer purchase credits and carbon offset programs, they'd have gone out of business decades ago. They're the highest valued auto company in the world and they still sell a fraction of the cars their competitors do.
Ambitious-Wind9838 | a day ago
Trump repealed all of that, and Tesla still has a net profit.
Sherm | a day ago
Does that retroactively make the 18 years where Tesla's primary revenue was government handouts not have happened?
Ambitious-Wind9838 | a day ago
This has never been the case; the primary subsidy intended for electric vehicle manufacturers took the form of a tax credit for EV buyers and, consequently, had absolutely no impact on Tesla's revenue. Furthermore, environmental credits are tied to overall EV production volume and have, therefore, consistently accounted for less than 10% of Tesla's revenue.
teakwood54 | a day ago
?? That would obviously allow more consumers to purchase them, increasing Tesla's revenue.
Ambitious-Wind9838 | a day ago
Tesla is not, nor has it ever been, a monopolist in the electric vehicle market. All companies selling their electric vehicles in the U.S. received the exact same tax credit. Moreover, there was a period during which everyone with the exception of Tesla and GM received this credit.
el_diego | a day ago
https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/tesla-inc
Sherm | a day ago
The primary subsidies Tesla has taken advantage of are California's Zero-Emission Vehicle program and the federal government's CAFE standards. Those programs require automakers to produce and sell a specific percentage of non-polluting vehicles. The programs also allowed companies to sell excess production credits to other automakers. These credits represented billions of dollars for Tesla every year. There were even some quarters in the past few years where the credits were the only reason Tesla showed a profit that quarter. The elimination of those credits is a big part of the huge drop in profitability mentioned elsewhere. All of this in addition to the sale credits you mentioned.
Ambitious-Wind9838 | a day ago
This program was available to all electric vehicle manufacturers. Furthermore, it did not involve a single cent of government funding. Manufacturers who failed to meet the regulations paid those who exceeded them.
And as you can see, even with the complete elimination of this program, Tesla remains profitable.
Sherm | 14 hours ago
>Manufacturers who failed to meet the regulations paid those who exceeded them.
The price of which they then passed on to consumers. So if the government orders you to give somebody $50, it's not a subsidy as long as they never touch the money?
Ambitious-Wind9838 | 11 hours ago
We're discussing here the amount of government money credited to Tesla's accounts.
Sherm | 10 hours ago
No, we're not. My original statement was:
>Without consumer purchase credits and carbon offset programs, they'd have gone out of business decades ago.
CAFE and ZEV (the abovementioned offset programs) are government handouts. Tesla was able to grow and maintain itself as a result of these government programs, that reallocated consumer dollars into Elon Musk's pocket in the name of growing the electric car industry. That Tesla is profitable now (for the moment, anyway; now that the CAFE credits are gone there are already occasional quarters where their profit is negative) doesn't change the fact that Tesla owes its existence to the State of California and the Obama Administration stacking the deck in its favor.
Beautiful_Finger4566 | a day ago
the government handouts were crafted specifically to exclude Tesla cars
Tesla changed their manufacturing so that they actually could be included
Sherm | a day ago
> the government handouts were crafted specifically to exclude Tesla cars
Do you have any evidence CAFE credits and California ZEV standards were crafted to exclude Tesla?
S1gorJabjong | a day ago
Honestly, it's not entirely his fault at this point. Retail traders blindly hailing his grifting ass as some sort of master CEO of future tech is much of a bane in the justification of his companies' valuations. The idiots trading Elon's "dreams" are literal brain dead profit chasers with no diligence in investing. If these people were more mature and critical thinking, pathological liars like Elon wouldn't have had it so great in the first place. The stock market now essentially became a playing field for retail gamblers to speculate based on vibes and not fundamentals.
ameerricle | a day ago
I hear retail all the time. Is there really that much capital for a single stock from retail investors to prop this shit for this long. I am juat bewildered. Versus buying any other AI stock in this market. Feels like an opportunity cost. Wonder how they will prop both SPCX and TSLA now.
Clayp2233 | a day ago
It’s not just retail, it’s hedge funds and corporate leaders who gaggle his balls bad call him the greatest inventor of our time
KookyDig4769 | 20 hours ago
Has anybody noticed that he's not called a genius anymore? I wonder what happened...
KFSX | a day ago
Elon is about to be the world's first trillionaire with the SpaceX IPO. Don't you think he should be celebrated for that rather than criticized?
Porn0323 | a day ago
"Ghengis Khan is about to conquer the entire globe after killing and raping the citizens. Dont you guys think you should celebrate our complete and total destruction rather than criticizing all the raping and pillaging?"
Thats what you sound like 👍
KFSX | a day ago
Okay so you're trying to compare a modern day tech entrepreneur to a 13th century Mongolian warlord. Obviously that's not something that can be taken seriously.
OhItsBeenBroughten | a day ago
What kind of weirdo celebrates a stranger’s obscene wealth hoarding? What is wrong with you?
KFSX | a day ago
Well it's celebrating people's success, but that is a bizarre reinterpretation on your part lol
OhItsBeenBroughten | a day ago
Simp behavior.
KFSX | 23 hours ago
Okay so clearly you have some personal issues if you feel the need to attack random people for having positive perspectives on things.
dust4ngel | 22 hours ago
trillionaires are market failures
AmateurLobster | 23 hours ago
It will eventually come to light that it's due to illegal fraud and his 'achievement' will forever have a star next to it.
CradleCity | 20 hours ago
> Don't you think he should be celebrated for that rather than criticized?
If you want to celebrate a Nazi who is campaigning/calling for the end of the European Union and other democratic systems, go ahead, but most people will not follow you down that road.
Pick better role models.
Lashay_Sombra | a day ago
Past blaming Musk, this is actually more fault of modern trading methods now.
ie fundamentals? WTF are fundamentals? Its all about candle length here mate!!
Thurwell | 21 hours ago
Bitcoin keeps going up too, and that has no underlying value at all. There comes a point where even though everyone knows it's a pyramid scheme, if people keep buying it it keeps working.
DrowningKrown | 23 hours ago
Market manipulation with these people is post a couple memes per day on your social media app to blend in the with "funny guys" and name things under "child humor" names and all of a sudden you've gained a following of the most degenerate man children in the world
Ateist | 22 hours ago
Its most lucrative prospective products (self-driving taxi, semi-truck and humanoid robots) haven't yet hit the market.
PicoRascar | a day ago
I hate they are considering changing the IPO inclusion rules allowing these mega-IPO's to join indexes after trading for only a few months rather than a year which is the current S&P500 rule. NASDAQ 100 just went to 15 days since May first.
These companies get to choose the moment they go public, at maximum hype, giving the initial investors a profitable exit. Index funds being forced to buy them guarantees liquidity at the expense of the passive investor since these IPO's almost always drift lower once the hype dies down.
Edit: Spelling.
Celestrael | a day ago
Very serious question, is it possible to have your 401k opt out of participating in this obvious scam? I don’t want to be some billionaires exit liquidity. I don’t want a penny of mine going into that mess.
ygg_studios | a day ago
the point is to steal your 401k and pensions
JonnyAU | a day ago
I work in 401K admin. The investment options are chosen by the plan administrator (usually the guy who owns your employer) under advice from the financial adviser. If those options only have index funds, then your only recourse is to put your balance in cash until the SpaceX crash happens, which obviously is not great. I would definitely talk to/email my boss and/or the FA if you have their contact info to see if they can add an option that won’t be exposed to this huge risk. Worse thing they can do is say no.
the_pwnererXx | 23 hours ago
Your % risk is extremely small. It won't make up that much if any normal fund (<2%... More like 0.2% tho). Also, if it crashed (and nothing else crashed) it would get balanced out at some point
FUSe | 20 hours ago
Sorry you are completely sanewashing what is happening.
The point is that they are stealing a few hundred to a few thousands of dollars from millions of people who are passively investing in their 401k. We are being used to provide exit liquidity to the billionaire pre-ipo investors. Including the investors in garbage like Twitter.
Sure our other investments may do well and eventually offset our losses but they still stole our money and we would be better off if the money they stole was invested in actually profitable companies.
Everyone should be angry here and not just saying “oh they will only steal a few percentage of your portfolio”
the_pwnererXx | 19 hours ago
I'm directly countering the claim the above poster made saying it's a "huge risk"
SkySoul27 | a day ago
Log into your 401k and check? Previously I was 90% sp500 and 10% itl equities. Ive rebalanced to 5 different funds that still have holdings i like and that will not be including space x. Feelsgood
FerrisWheelOnFire | a day ago
I'm considering moving to Dimensional funds for this purpose.
AlpineDrifter | 21 hours ago
If you can self-direct investments. You’d need to make sure you’re not buying any indexes that will include SpaceX.
FUSe | 20 hours ago
You can switch to international market investments. Anything domestic is going to be wild
orthic_lambda | a day ago
It is crazy that this grift is illegal. And the people on the S&P committee who make these decisions about the investments of millions of people get to stay anonymous.
BluCurry8 | a day ago
Holy Bernie Madoff!
trilobyte-dev | 19 hours ago
Considering? It’s done. Index funds will be forced to buy and push the value up so the pre-IPO investors will get paid.
SweaterSteve1966 | a day ago
Could have told them that a long time ago. His businesses are way overvalued so that he can ~~grift~~ get more loans to buy more businesses and then give himself US government contracts to get paid to keep his ~~grifts~~ businesses afloat.
NicolasCageFan492 | a day ago
I’m convinced Elon Musk is the fascist’s piggy bank. Once he gets to a large enough number, he’ll just buy everything and the game will be over.
Digital_Artifice | a day ago
the free market can't exist in fascism, fascism is defined as the merging of public and private spheres. fascists choose winner and losers, they choose who gets no-bid contracts, choose who gets to waltz into the SEC and bury any investigations into their own companies.
this is why the market is so irrational, it's not about good or bad quarters, it's about who is and isn't chosen by the leader, because of this there is systemic instability in fascist economies.
Elon gets to decide what programs get funded and which get cut, so his stocks go up
Tim Cook brings a stupid gift to Trump and his wife, so apple goes up
Paramount donated $20 million to Trump's presidential library fund, so they're allowed to buy Time Warner.
Amazon makes some absurd AI documentary about Trump's wife so Bezos gets a new contract with NASA
tms2x2 | 23 hours ago
I read along time ago an article about the American stock and bond market. It said foreign investment in US was because of a strong rule of law in the country. Foreign investors knew that fraud and malfeasance of corps would be dealt with in accordance with US law. Now, not so much. I think that is going to be a large factor going forward.
xSaviorself | 23 hours ago
Money used to flow in to the U.S. and now it just flows out. Some of it ends up in convenient slush funds. U.S. Private Equity is just toxic.
Altruistic_Story257 | a day ago
Not to mention the federal government purchasing stakes in corporations. I know Intel for one. It's not a free market if corporations are being nationalized. You go too far left or right it's the same shit. Winners are chosen, shit is nationalized, and the 1% get to live it up while the rest of us eat shit. The hilarious part is all the MAGA chuds think they will get to be winners once this shit runs it's course.
MrMadden | a day ago
You are thoroughly confused. All modern governments heavily merge the private and public spheres. The CCP owns 51% of every company in China, but it's communist. The US seized wealth (gold), jailed the Japanese, drafted citizens regularly, and directed private companies' production in times of war. Ongoing regulatory control in some industries is severe to almost total, e.g. banking, energy sector, etc.
Fascism was a political response to the encroaching bolshevism from Russia and their ongoing atrocities. Its distinguishing feature is that it was ethno-nationalistic, not that it directed the private sector. Fascist Germany and Italy interfered less in private markets than modern governments do at their peak levels of interference.
It's not your fault. History is written by the victors, after all.
PrimateOnAPlanet | a day ago
Choosing China as your example for a typical modern government certainly is a choice.
MrMadden | a day ago
I chose the two largest economies in the world. Should I have cherry picked semi-socialist northern european ethnic monocultures and deceived readers instead? That seems to be the go-to for this subreddit.
Twowie | a day ago
"Monocultures".
joshTheGoods | a day ago
> ethnic monocultures
Oh jeez. I was following up until this BS. Are you the type to argue that universal healthcare wouldn't work in America because of issues relating to "ethnic monocultures" ... or are you making fun of those types?
Dunklsta | a day ago
Fascism was a response to the encroaching socialist revolutions in their own countries. German, Hispanic and Italian liberals collaborated with fascists to crush their own working class and blame everyone else for the horrible living conditions they created.
MrMadden | a day ago
That's a polemic, not an analysis.
You overstate the domestic communist threat, misattribute working class suffering primarily to liberals while ignoring WWI, Versailles, and the Depression, and awkwardly lump Spanish fascism in with Italy and Germany. You capture the dynamic, but frame it as a clean ruling-class conspiracy.
paradoxpancake | 23 hours ago
Yeah, I was going to say that that this is polemic. Fascism was driven largely by revanchism after World War I, at least for Germany. Germany's economy was motivated less by the rise of Bolshevism, though Germany's upper class were certainly concerned with the rising tide of socialism across Europe and abroad. However, what primarily drove people into NSDAP's arms were the fact that Germany was in no position to recover due to the unreasonable reparations that they were being forced to pay since they lost World War I and the impact that was having on their economy.
Meanwhile, Hitler was tapping into revanchist sentiment by stoking German pride, finding an "other" to blame on everything that went wrong in World War I, etc.. If Fascism was a natural response to Bolshevism and communism, Hitler would not have temporarily allied with Stalin.
Italy's fascist sentiment has a different origin, especially considering that Italy was on the winning side of WWI. However, more than half a million Italian men had died, over a million returned home wounded, and found their economy had also been left into ruins. They also were dealing with soaring inflation and mass unemployment. It was widely regarded in Italy as "vittoria mutilata" or the mutilated victory. To add salt into the wound, Italy was promised a ton of rewards with the Treaty of London to get involved with the war, but they essentially got robbed with the Paris Peace Conference.
While Mussolini was casting fascism as a defense against the rising tide of Bolshevism, he also tapped into a different sentiment of revanchism that was motivating Italians at the time. When there were a bunch of worker's revolts, Mussolini's black shirts basically used it as an opportunity to violently suppress them and this won them support with the upper middle classes, army, etc.. The rest is history, pretty much. The rising tide of Bolshevism was less the motivation, but more the opportunity.
Dunklsta | 23 hours ago
Framing fascism as a response to Bolshevism is just wrong. I was being reductive but ruling class liberals enabling fascism against socialists gaining momentum is what actually happened in all three countries. There where also liberals who were sympathetic to socialists and helped them resist but they were (good) class traitors in this dynamic.
CrumbsCrumbs | a day ago
> Fascist Germany and Italy interfered less in private markets than modern governments do at their peak levels of interference.
I think "seizing Jewish owned businesses" might be a bit more market interference than anything that happens today but okay, sure.
MrMadden | a day ago
Seizing businesses is a bigger market interference than forcing people to fight to death in a war or putting them in internment camps? What?
CrumbsCrumbs | a day ago
"forcing people to fight to death in a war" is not generally seen as market interference. The Jewish people that they seized those businesses from are the people who went to the internment camps. What the fuck are you doing here bud
jaredsfootlonghole | a day ago
I don’t see any part here where your and their points don’t align. You’re just pointing out the government controls and they’re just pointing out the private sector bribes.
Care to enlighten us further?
MrMadden | a day ago
No, I don't care to enlighten you further. My post went from many upvotes to many downvotes. It's obvious the commenters are suddenly not here in good faith. This subreddit is more psyop than public forum. Pass.
jaredsfootlonghole | a day ago
Go back to the division video game stuff if you can’t hang in economics, kiddo.
MrMadden | a day ago
You are looking at my comment history. Why? What does that have to do with a conversation about the origins of fascism? Thanks for proving my point about not being here in good faith. Innocent readers should get a warning about this place.
jaredsfootlonghole | a day ago
You have a 1:15 ratio of comments there vs anywhere else.
It’s relevant.
Edit: Way to stealth edit you comment, too.
What a chump. Can’t handle discourse.
Blocked me, too. lol.
joshTheGoods | 23 hours ago
> fascism is defined as the merging of public
Are you making a claim here or setting up the working definition for the rest of your comment? Fascism is notoriously hard to define, but I think it's fair to say that fascist example states featured a closer relationship between government and private business. To define fascism based on that, though, is very clearly a mistake as demonstrated by the comments below.
I think the general point you're making is fair even if I don't really agree with how you got there. Trump and his grift have taken away the free market which is the foundation of functional capitalism (along with some purposeful regulation to protect competition and stability). This should be a lesson to the standard Redditor that like to think that capitalism is the root of all evil (rather than human behavior). What we're seeing right now is as effective of an attack on capitalism as is possible in America, and the alternative to this society built up over years and years to slowly drag value to the masses out of the hands of the few is what you're seeing from Trump: a nascent kingdom where the king and his buddies choose who has and has not. We don't need to mislabel that fascism to make the point.
M3tus | 19 hours ago
If you mean that the other billionaires are going to inevitably crack him open and split the spoils, yeah.
Dry-Interaction-1246 | a day ago
All institutional money should blacklist this shit and any fund that buys it.
LlorchDurden | 23 hours ago
And when does the rocket go kabum in this master plan?
lynxtosg03 | a day ago
So what you're saying is that SpaceX stock going to go up in value.
Beautiful_Finger4566 | a day ago
TSLA IPOed 16 years ago at $17
I'm sure anyone who bought back then highly regrets it 🙄
theranchcorporation | a day ago
Sure bud totally exactly the same thing. Nothing at all has changed in politics or the economy since then.
Delicious_Volume3306 | a day ago
I know we live in crazy times but, even so, everything about this IPO rings huge alarm bells. I get that people might be easy and free with their support of people like Musk, and their optimism for the future.
But we're talking cold, hard cash here.
What I further don't understand is how people stupid enough to fall for this have high enough amounts of cash in the first place to be able to make such investments.
None of it makes sense, from start to finish. It feels like I'm an alien just landed on a planet.
Bullylandlordhelp | 22 hours ago
The secret ingredient is crime. Musk has all the data and his own global internet. They aren't buying space X, they are buying access.
ledow | a day ago
The first of many, we can only hope.
Pension funds are SUPPOSED to be financially responsible for the long-term, not take dumb risks on stupidly inflated stock for short-term gains.
ICLazeru | a day ago
Mainstay of the Musk playbook. Pump up the valuation beyond reasonable measure, borrow against it, then buy real assets to back it up while building up the debt.
Piece together contingencies ad hoc to cover that debt when absolutely necessary, such as government contracts, leveraged buyouts, or even higher evaluations.
Horton_Takes_A_Poo | a day ago
Ok whose gonna unseat them as the biggest winner of government contracts then? They will need better governance when that time comes, but for now they are a money printer
rulepanic | 21 hours ago
TBH that probably won't happen any time soon, even with a change in president. They don't really have any competitors in terms of space launch capacity or in satellite communications. All the competitors have far worse services.
This isn't me simping for the fascist or anything, it's just that they offer services that can't immediately be replaced. Yes, I know that other telecommunications companies offer satellite internet, but not at the price, bandwidth, and reach that SpaceX does.
For launches there aren't really any other companies that can fully replace them in terms of launch cadence and payload capacity.
We're stuck with Musk/SpaceX for the forseeable future.
theranchcorporation | a day ago
They ain’t printing trillions bro. Reality will catch up eventually.
Horton_Takes_A_Poo | a day ago
They’re the only privatized company that does launches with a positive ebitda. Reality will take a little while to catch up.
LetsGoBubba6141 | 23 hours ago
Space X is the first of many AI companies going public and wants to be the first horse out the gate because at the end of it, there will be no more money to pump up the other ones like this one. So people will go crazy for it to lose out to whales
NinjaKoala | a day ago
TSLQ is an ETF that basically shorts Tesla, making it easier for investors to short that stock. I'm expecting there to be a similar fund for SpaceX, and it being a smart play to buy some of that to counter the large amount of SpaceX likely to be in every index or index-based fund.
dizzie_buddy1905 | 23 hours ago
1 year return of -63.7% and 3 years of -69%. Sounds like a good way to set money on fire.
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLQ/
NinjaKoala | 23 hours ago
Yeah, I often remind myself that the market can be irrational a lot longer than I can be solvent.
devliegende | 21 hours ago
A fund that focuses on a single stock must be the stupidest invention ever.
0o0o0o0o0o0z | 22 hours ago
A lot of 401k and Pension funds need to do this... They fast-tracked the rules for the explicit reason to fleece their investors and get exit liquidity.
taiwan_cat | 22 hours ago
Nobody's index fund would be buying that overvalued crap if they hadn't de-regulated and changed profitability margins. That asshole is cheating his way to trillionaire.
Memitim | 22 hours ago
LOL, trying to make sense of SpaceX stock is pointless since it operates outside of the market regardless of the IPO, same as the other Musk dealings that Republicans have run protection for.
kalterik | a day ago
Elon made his first big win by selling an internet company he started (with a loan from daddy’s African emerald mine money) literally during the peak of the internet bubble. And then got lucky again with Paypal being ran by competent people after he got pushed out. Bro is just using the same strategy he used the first time but at an unprecedented scale. He is going to be a billionaire even if tesla and spacex go to zero LOL. And all of you passive investors have been facilitating it for years. Have fun with your VOO and chill when you get left holding the tesla+spacex+overvalued chip company bag of the next decade.
GREG_FABBOTT | 23 hours ago
Elon begged Epstein to diddle kids at Epstein's island, and even Epstein was like nah bro, you're too weird and awkward.
And Epstein's entire schtick was getting billionaires into compromising positions so that he could control them.
Elon is desperate to be a pedophile, but even then he's not cool enough to be one. Even if he becomes the first trillionaire they'll shun him and he won't be able to molest kids.
HowdyDiarrhea | 20 hours ago
Impact on voo won't be that significant. Even with SpaceX, it's still not remotely close to being the largest company in the index, and the index self adjusts over time when company's go tits up.
CorporateCuster | a day ago
They aren’t the first. The only thing holding Twitter up is Tesla. The only holding Tesla up is space x. Guess what. There’s nothing holding space x up. It’s just rockets going to space. It has no value in the real world. That’s why nasa always ran it
EconEchoes5678 | a day ago
I guess I'm the only one who sees the irony that this article was posted on the same day Blue Origin blew up their rocket & entire launch platform?
"Overvalued" is a relative statement. The gap between spaceX and any non-blue origin competitors right now is huge. Considering the importance of putting things in space over the next 10 years, that matters.
MiniTab | a day ago
SpaceX = Good company
xAI = Piece of shit company (money furnace)
SpaceX + xAI = Poison Pill
StinklePink | a day ago
You forgot the other piece of shit companies he rolled in; The Boring Company, Tesla and Solar City. You buy SpaceX and you get the whole basket of losers.
EconEchoes5678 | a day ago
Microsoft = good company.
Bing, copilot, surface, MSVR = piece of shit products no one uses.
Therefore, don't buy Microsoft.
Phugasity | a day ago
Now now, let's remember to weight each according to their size. xAI is ~equal SpaceX in revenue (17% of SpaceX when including Starlink). that puts xAI on track this year to match Bing's 2025 revenue.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheVisualInvestors/comments/1tp0nn0/i_just_analyzed_spacexs_revenues_heres_what/
MiniTab | a day ago
Oh, is Microsoft at a 600 P/E now?
FUSe | 20 hours ago
I wish it was! I could retire.
Independent-Draft639 | a day ago
Sending stuff to space is not a huge industry and that isn't going to change within our lifetime because there isn't actually all that much that people can do in space. Sending up satelites only amounts to a few billion dollars in revenue per year and it's very unprofitable.
Which is why SpaceX is sold as an AI company with 90+% of supposed future revenue coming from AI. The rockets are literally just there to put on the investor prospectus while they are trying to tell you that in a few years the entire world economy will run on their AI. Meanwhile their AI is so bad that they had to give up even trying to get their own engineers to use it.
EconEchoes5678 | a day ago
> Sending up satelites only amounts to a few billion dollars in revenue per year and it's very unprofitable.
Because it's too expensive. If it weren't so expensive, a lot more could be done - like starlink, or beginning to build a space elevator that will ultimately be critical for humanity's future in space.
It's not any different than the demand for cell phone networks in 1995. The technology was 20 years old. Penetration was low. Cell phones were bulky and expensive and not very reliable. The shifts that became possible as they became cheaper, lighter, and more reliable are the core properties of innovation. Thus, the cost savings that spaceX has achieved - which are staggering and obliterate every prior attempt - are critical for the future.
> is sold as an AI company with 90+% of supposed future revenue coming from AI.
Then we'd be talking about the upcoming IPO of xAI. But we're not. The IPO and most of the excitement is about spaceX.
Independent-Draft639 | 23 hours ago
xAI was bought by SpaceX and you can make up all the arguments you want, but SpaceX itself is very clear on what it sees as its main business and it's not rockets. Most of the money is spent on AI and the IPO pitch literally sais that nearly all of the future adressable market for SpaceX is in its AI division.
As for the rest of what you wrote, it's just nonsense. What space elevator? That's just total science fiction. There are no plans for something like that because to even theoretically make it work you would need to invent and be able to mass produce completely new materials with properties far beyond anything that exists on earth today. It's not happening in our lifetime. And what does that have to do with SpaceX going public, anyway? Why would SpaceX have anything to do with that?
And outside of that your argument is just Starlink. And the problem for Starlink is that it only makes sense for regions with bad or no functioning internet infrastructure. Anywhere where you have the infrastructure earth based internet is faster, cheaper and more reliable than Starlink and there is no real argument for why that would change.