Grotesque stock valuations for companies.

[acbytesla]

SpaceX has not generated a net profit since it was formed. Instead, the company has accumulated a multi-billion-dollar net deficit over its lifetime, primarily driven by massive, ongoing capital investments in research, development, and infrastructure like the Starship program and the xAI division.

How exactly is it overperforming?

 

[acbytesla]

Here, Elon Musk has led two companies to be worth trillions of dollars. Neither of which has produced much in the way of profit.

Great system we have there.

My question is, how is this tenable?

 

[Ziggurat]

SpaceX has not generated a net profit since it was formed.

So what?

Instead, the company has accumulated a multi-billion-dollar net deficit over its lifetime, primarily driven by massive, ongoing capital investments in research, development, and infrastructure like the Starship program and the xAI division.

Do you think that's a bad thing? Seems like investing in future capabilities is a really good idea.

How exactly is it overperforming?

SpaceX launches about 80% of the global payload mass to orbit. That's remarkable.

 

[acbytesla]

So what?

So what? Where's the money coming from if not from profit?

Do you think that's a bad thing? Seems like investing in future capabilities is a really good idea.

It's fine. But at some time, it must produce profit. Not just hot air.

SpaceX launches about 80% of the global payload mass to orbit. That's remarkable.

So? Most of that is self dealing. IE Starlink.

 

[acbytesla]

What I see is a giant Ponzi scheme where eventually Tesla and Space-X share prices will collapse leaving institutional investors like pension funds and IRA's worthless and holding the bag

 

[Ziggurat]

So what? Where's the money coming from if not from profit?

Investors and lenders make up the gap between expenditures and revenue. Did you not know this?

It's fine. But at some time, it must produce profit. Not just hot air.

Much like Amazon, they can probably do that whenever they want to by just slowing down their rate of development.

But at this point, why would they? If Starship works (yes, that's not guaranteed, but it's a good bet), then their launch costs are going to drop even further.

So? Most of that is self dealing. IE Starlink.

Starlink is also impressive, and provides quite a bit of revenue.

 

[acbytesla]

Investors and lenders make up the gap between expenditures and revenue. Did you not know this?

So? Tesla has been operating for two decades and has produced very little profit. Investors will only be willing to do that for so long and then the bubble bursts and later investors won't know what hit them.

Much like Amazon, they can probably do that whenever they want to by just slowing down their rate of development.

Neither is even close to Amazon.

But at this point, why would they? If Starship works (yes, that's not guaranteed, but it's a good bet), then their launch costs are going to drop even further.

Who gives a crap? Where's the actual need to go further out in space? Amazon at least fills a consumer need.

Starlink is also impressive, and provides quite a bit of revenue.

LMAO. No, not really.

 

[theprestige]

SpaceX has not generated a net profit since it was formed.

So? You'd hate them even more if they were generating a profit. Imagine being so hard up for ideas that the investor class has more nuanced and varied ideas of a company's value than you do.

 

[acbytesla]

So? You'd hate them even more if they were generating a profit. Imagine being so hard up for ideas that the investor class has more nuanced and varied ideas of a company's value than you do.

Absolutely not. Their institutional investors which are made up by retirement accounts would be paid back. So when people grow old they will have the funds to take care of themselves.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's rather telling that in your response to rising debt, you don't seem to consider the option to reduce spending.

it's been tried, and yet Defense and law enforcement spending is just going up and up and up. To a degree that is completely out of whack with requirements or any other country in the world.

increasing revenue is super-simple: collect the taxes owed.

The U.S. Forgoes Hundreds of Billions of Dollars Each Year Due to Unpaid Taxes

Cracking down on the tax gap would not only introduce more fairness into the system, but it could be a big help for our nation’s fiscal imbalance.

www.pgpf.org

of course, this is EXACTLY what Republicans want: make sure that the IRS can't function, which is why they keep cutting funding.
But hiring IRS enforcement personnel is the best ROI you can get anywhere.
Guess Republicans hate making money, because with more taxes there would be no reason to steal food from children.

 

[theprestige]

Absolutely not. Their institutional investors which are made up by retirement accounts would be paid back. So when people grow old they will have the funds to take care of themselves.

You lost me. Pay back with what?

Most publicly traded companies don't pay out profits as dividends to shareholders. The revenue to retirement funds comes from the buying and selling of stocks, not the holding of stocks for their dividends.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2063587273506197748

The main thing to be learned from that X post is that Thomas Sowell doesn't know when to use and when not to use an apostrophe.

 

[acbytesla]

You lost me. Pay back with what?

Most publicly traded companies don't pay out profits as dividends to shareholders. The revenue to retirement funds comes from the buying and selling of stocks, not the holding of stocks for their dividends.

I KNOW! This is what I have been saying! It all comes from perceived value. This is how the system works.

What happens when that value is shown to be a fraud? Stock prices collapse and anyone who bought the stock suffers losses.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The underlying multiplier for all evaluations is:" how long do we think this system will continue to exit?"the longer, the higher.
Doesn't matter that company X doesn't make any profit, it will be around forever, and its stock price will go up forever.

 

[Ziggurat]

it's been tried, and yet Defense and law enforcement spending is just going up and up and up.

Defense and law enforcement are not the majority of government spending. The fact that you won't even mention cutting entitlements is again quite telling. And it's not like there's no room for cuts either. Just eliminating the obvious fraud and waste would save tens of billions.

increasing revenue is super-simple: collect the taxes owed.

I have no objection. Seems like we ought to try that before we try to radically increase tax rates or impose a wealth tax.

Guess Republicans hate making money, because with more taxes there would be no reason to steal food from children.

Don't lecture me about stealing food for children. That's primarily a Democrat problem.

 

[Ziggurat]

The main thing to be learned from that X post is that Thomas Sowell doesn't know when to use and when not to use an apostrophe.

Am I correct in assuming that you're joking?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Am I correct in assuming that you're joking?

Not joking.

Sowell and those who quote him on this appear to be referring to a restructuring proposal that acknowledges Detroit's high tax rates, which

are widely believed to have contributed to its population loss and economic decline. For a number of reasons, higher tax rates could have a negative effect on revenue.

The main reason for that belief is the belief that high tax rates have contributed to Detroit's "crippling population and job losses."

Some, however, have concluded (incorrectly) that the authors of that report are saying Detroit is simply on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. As the report plainly states, however (with my highlighting):

Although tax rate reform will likely lead to decreased revenue in the short term (which decreases may be partially offset by improved collection efforts), the City anticipates that the long term benefits promise to render such reform at least revenue neutral over a reasonable time frame.

That sentence doesn't make sense unless the authors of the report believe Detroit is on the side of the Laffer curve at which lower taxes result in decreased revenue.

Sowell and his fellow travelers are trying to make the report say something of the opposite of what it actually says. That is why there is nothing to be learned from what they're saying about the report. If we want to learn anything from what Sowell (apparently) wrote, then we must look to matters where he isn't telling lies.

His use of apostrophes, for example.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not joking.

Oh. That's... disappointing. The primary reason it's disappointing is that he rather obviously DID NOT write that. He spoke it. And he did not speak an apostrophe.

Sowell and those who quote him on this appear to be referring to a restructuring proposal that acknowledges Detroit's high tax rates

I don't know why you think this, but it's wrong. The proof it's wrong is not so obvious (unlike the difference between speaking and writing), but given that it's wrong, I have to wonder what made you think it in the first place.

I'll give you a hint about how I know for certain that it's wrong. That clip is from a much longer interview, which you can find here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyufeHJlodE
The clipped part is from around the 44:30 mark, if you want to confirm. But you don't have to watch any of the video to see why it's actually impossible for Sowell to be referring to your restructuring proposal. See if you can figure it out.

 

[acbytesla]

Defense and law enforcement are not the majority of government spending. The fact that you won't even mention cutting entitlements is again quite telling. And it's not like there's no room for cuts either. Just eliminating the obvious fraud and waste would save tens of billions.

Eliminating entitlements? What are people supposed to live on without jobs? You know, all the jobs that continue to disappear because of automation and other efficiency improvements.

Conservatives always talk about fraud and waste. But always refer to it generically. I'm always in favor of improving the system. But that's not what they do. They cut needed services

I have no objection. Seems like we ought to try that before we try to radically increase tax rates or impose a wealth tax.

Be ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ specific. We actually address that constantly.

Don't lecture me about stealing food for children. That's primarily a Democrat problem.

You're full of crap. I've NEVER EVER EVER IN 50 YEARS seen Republicans try and address problems to directly help anyone but themselves.

 

[Ziggurat]

Eliminating entitlements?

I said nothing about eliminating entitlements. I said cut back on entitlement spending.

What are people supposed to live on without jobs?

Are you under the impression that only unemployed people get entitlements?

That is very much not the case.

Conservatives always talk about fraud and waste. But always refer to it generically.

I just gave you a specific example.

Be ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ specific.

I just did.

You're full of crap. I've NEVER EVER EVER IN 50 YEARS seen Republicans try and address problems to directly help anyone but themselves.

I've never ever seen Democrats actually cut down on fraud and abuse.

Instead, they try to make it illegal to uncover fraud and abuse.