The market deserves this for being so irrational; the people who sold probably all made profit because they bought it far lower, and then it'll bounce back up - where the long-gamers will repurchase it at a discount taking a risk/gamble that they'd expect irrational dump of stock for the opportunity to buy when it's low.
Stock market games aren't as obvious as people make them out to be - and they wouldn't be happening if Elon wasn't convinced by someone to not take Tesla private like he wanted to.
We have tons of laws restricting speech -- against false advertising, against fraud, against libel. Contrary to your opinion, these laws are not against the first amendment.
Similarly, officers of a publicly traded company are prohibited from sharing types of information about the company except at certain times and places. No serious judge or legal scholar considers this to be contrary to the first amendment.
The first amendment isn't a slogan, it's led to an entire jurisprudence around it which you could familiarize yourself with if you so chose.
It's possibly all three.
Whatever the case, it resembles a lot what my ADHD did when it was completely unmanaged and at peak. But I didn't have a few billion dollars to make people have to put up with me. It definitely smells like impulse control/executive function in some way or the other.
I bet he won't.
> there are rigorous rules about what you can and cannot say, and when, to ensure a fair playing field for investors.
Many of such rules when applied would have put half the wall street in jail after 2008. Instead they got bailouts. Many things that Trump has done would have got presidents impeached 50 years ago.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
And are you even claiming personal access to Elon Musk?
That's the operative bit. Lay people on HN speculate all the time about pretty much everything that graces the front page.
It would be difficult to separate the diagnosis criteria from what is reasonable for Elon to do when running a money burning company.
His marketing efforts to build a dedicated fanbase seems prudent for Tesla and spaceX. Differentiating excess grandiosity and claims of high status from his business life is difficult. His life is grand and he does have a high status, npd or not.
Specifically if a CEO decides to just destroy a company then investor can personally sue him or her.
Overall from what I see the concept of free speech is being misused so much it becomes quite difficult to understand which variant people are referring to.
But Trump already had a public history of crazy tweets (global warming is a Chinese hoax) and statements (grab them by the pussy) and he got elected anyway, so I guess the bar for sanity and impulse control is higher for a CEO in the eyes of the American public than for a President.
Or maybe not, since it doesn't seem like either has actually suffered any material, significant consequences for their actions.
I love how white collar crimes which involve stealing money get punished by.....requiring them to pay money.
Someone can probably minmax the right amount to steal to make sure they make a profit at the end of it all.
He's going to lose his position on the board, for real.
-> You mean, like the man that runs the country he lives in ? :)
Almost as if bots are monitoring this forum, and downvoting anything negative about their overlord.
I dare you to try!
I didn't claim that I find comments on voting boring, I cited the guidelines.
I didn't feel obligated to respond, I felt it was useful and helpful to the community to respond.
Your argument is a non sequitur. If I did find a pattern of behavior boring, I might comment on it to discourage it to improve the overall quality of my experience of the site.
it is just so tiring to see your own tribe, my tribe, have standard so low in term of what constitute a valid criticism.
> What makes you feel he is not deserving of criticism?
The focus on that comment was the nature and quality of the criticism, not the simple fact of some criticism occurring.
For those of us who feel very strongly that there is some very important criticism we should be focused on, it can be frustrating and disheartening to see a media establishment, and millions of uncritical viewers, making the worst types of criticism (criticism based on lies and false reasoning).
The most important (and valid) criticisms get lost in the noise. Further, moderately critical thinkers can become desensitized due to the low quality criticism. When they hear that he has done some new terrible thing, some of them start to tune it out as 'most likely another lie'.
(Appending paragraphs with edits)
One part of the problem is click-bait journalism. Hyperbolic claims get more eyeballs, more clicks.
Incidentally, I agree with the second half of your statement.
The criticisms are described as "methodically wrong", but I disagree. In fact, while the US P frequently dabbles in ad-hominem, most criticisms of him seem valid and well presented. I don't feel he is being unfairly targeted by falsehoods, since much of the critique is a direct result of what comes out of his mouth, rather than hearsay.
I do agree with you on click-bait journalism. I think the current US P has given the media an unbelievable boost, and they must be (secretly!) hoping he stays in office forever. I mean, they have probably never had such a sensational political soap-opera to report on! Yet only part of the sensationalism can be blamed on the media - much of the story is sensational in its own right, thanks to the person involved!
At this point are we on the same page, that the GP was claiming that "methodically wrong" criticism occurs, not that all the criticism is methodically wrong?
The total volume of media criticism is huge. It's possible that you, me, and the parent poster are simply looking at different portions of the criticism being made. When you say "much of the critique" I take this to mean "much of the critique that you've seen", and when I say I "see a media establishment...making the worst types of criticism" I'm speaking to what I've seen.
>a direct result of what comes out of his mouth
[Unless full context is given,] this is often not sufficient to ensure that the criticism is fair, and accurate. Consider, for example, the way the media lied about his comments on Charlottesville. They used the actual words out of his mouth, but selectively omitted the most important words necessary to understand what he was actually saying. By omitting those words, they painted a false picture in which he appeared to say the opposite of what he was saying. In my experience at the time, I saw no left leaning outlets reporting accurately on this.
Regarding the critique, please tell me how you'd interpret this video: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/trump-disinfec... ? Before this statement was made, the US P's supporters were saying that he was referring to "advanced treatments" that detractors were unaware of. Now the US P comes out and says that his comments were made sarcastically (huh?!), completely killing the "advanced treatments" theory.
I am eager to know what you make of this? Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion?
My point was in a completely different direction. My statement is that the tribe I care about has very low standards for what constitute valid criticism. Together with my personal emotional reaction of this being sad and disheartening because I always assume my tribe was better than that.
Matters of majority/minority are inconsequential for this point, (they can be relevant to other points) my point is that those criticism that are fruit of blatant lies are not discarded, as if people did not care that they are false.
Not at all. Only that there is enough to warrant the expression of concern which the GP made. We each have different tolerances.
>the US P's supporters were saying that he was referring to "advanced treatments" that detractors were unaware of.
Are you viewing US P supporters as a monolith?
I heard those claims from some people. I thought it was unlikely because he has demonstrated substantial scientific illiteracy in other situations.
Regarding 'sarcasm', I think, most likely, he was saying whatever he thought, at the moment, would help him move on and put that embarrassing situation behind him.
>Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion?
Which criticism, exactly? Because I saw headlines implying that Trump got up on stage, addressed the American people, and suggested to the American people that they should inject bleach into their bodies to cure this disease.
This is a good example of what I'm talking about. The man is not science literate, and he says some amazingly dumb things. You don't have to spin what he says to criticize him, and yet some in the media still dialed it up to 11 and painted a [dishonest] representation of events.
Edit:
Just to emphasize this, when you ask Is the criticism he faced for this valid in your opinion?, he most definitely deserved to be criticized for what he actually said. The fact that he deserves to be criticized doesn't mean the form, content, and nature of all of the criticism that everyone makes is okay.
We need to exercise a bit of common sense now, and realise that the benefit of the doubt has been granted way too many times for there to be any further doubt that this guy is anything other than a buffoon!
I wish this site would allow me to self-detach my own sub-thread. There are things I'd like to say which might not be wholly aligned with the site guidelines. At least most people seem to be ignoring our conversation. :) I'll just say that I don't disagree with this sentiment.
>If you or me said the things he said, we'd be considered idiots by our peers.
Absolutely true.
>the benefit of the doubt has been granted way too many times for there to be any further doubt that this guy is anything other than a buffoon!
I think you are simply saying that it is well established that Trump is a buffoon. Granting that premise, I still believe we should each investigate the veracity of any subsequent claims about him before accepting them as true. And push back if they prove false.
Personally, I do not feel no anger or the need to move away from the guidelines; I disagree with you, but that's okay :) Honestly, I was hoping to understand your point of view, while presenting mine.
So far, your point of view comes across as: "yes, he may be a buffoon, but the media overplay it, and every new action must be taken on its own merit".
I think that's fair enough argument, but you cannot gloss over the "he is a buffoon" bit by defending it using the "the media overplay it, and every new action must be taken on its own merit" bit.
I guess what I'm saying is that the US P should not be/come across as a buffoon.
If the topic is "Is Trump a buffoon?" then yes, that's a fair characterization. It is also my opinion that he is much worse than a buffoon, while also not being nearly as bad as he is often portrayed.
>the US P should not be/come across as a buffoon.
I agree.
>I do not feel no anger or the need to move away from the guidelines
I wasn't angry when I wrote that. Just like I can be angry and say something that's clearly not flamebait, I can be dispassionate and say something that is taken as flamebait. Many of my opinions about Trump, both positive and negative, add absolutely nothing of substance to the conversation, I mention some of my negative ones here partly to clarify the boundaries of agreement and disagreement between you and I.
>Honestly, I was hoping to understand your point of view, while presenting mine.
I appreciate the respectful exchange, and your open mindedness.
After his SEC agreement expressly requires him to have his tweets vetted first, and he didn't?
What is the man thinking. He's not an idiot. Is he self-destructing? Does he have the impulse control of a 5-year-old?
He's going to lose his position on the board, for real.
And he deserves to at this point.
When you run a publicly traded corporation, there are rigorous rules about what you can and cannot say, and when, to ensure a fair playing field for investors. The same way there are rigorous rules against insider trading.
If he wants to act irresponsibly, then he should have kept Tesla a private company.
Seriously. The guy is simply not exhibiting the mental self-control to run a publicly traded corporation. It's becoming clear he simply can't do the job as is required, no matter how smart he may otherwise be.