Musk out as Chairmen, Climate Change, and the Oil Ecomomy.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by DearthnVader, Sep 30, 2018.

  1. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #1
    Musk is being forced to resign as Chairman of Tesla:

    https://www.scmp.com/news/world/uni...n-musk-removed-tesla-chairman-will-remain-ceo

    Musk screwed up, made an off hand Twitter remark, seems to be a growing theme. However, I feel he is a key player in combating climate change, we need to innovate, I just don't buy complex cap and trade schemes.

    In the US we all benefit from the oil economy and the petrodollar, at the expense of our environment, and no one benefits more then the Federal Government, as they are able to keep the dollar as the world's reserve currency, and issue virtually limitless amounts of debt at very low interest rates.

    I don't want to delve into conspricy theory surrounding this, but it does leave one to wonder.

    Musk is a threat to the status quo, a threat to western economic dominance, and a major threat to the oil economy, pumping billions into innovation of electric autos, and battery tech.

    We can't tax our why out of the threat of climate change, we have to innovate our way out of it, and I just hate to see a key player moved in this way.
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    Cap and trade is a Republican idea. And it worked well to tackle acid rain.
     
  3. DearthnVader thread starter macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #3
    I don't really care who's idea it was.

    Saying something was Republicans idea doesn't buy it any credit with me, the Civil War was also a Repubican idea.:eek::p
     
  4. MarkusL macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2014
    #4
    Cap and trade has the downside that the emissions ceiling set by the authorities has a tendency to turn into both a floor and a ceiling at the same time. When the goal is close to being achieved, the price for polluting drops and the incentive to further decrease the emissions goes away. It would be much more effective to just tax CO2 emissions and sit back and watch the polluters go out of their way to find less polluting ways of conducting their business.
     
  5. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #5
    Musk's settlement with the SEC was, IMHO, appropriate.

    As the chairman of a publicly-traded company, you simply cannot go on Twitter and make rash statements like that. Whatever the benefits of taking a company private, there is an established format for making such announcements. And blurting out cryptic comments on Twitter seriously damages the interests of all the other shareholders. (Would that the SEC could apply similar punishments to another public figure who rashly blurts out nonsense on Twitter...)

    Yes: We as a nation and a civilization need to address both climate change and our dependence on fossil fuels. But there is no one simple answer to that problem. It will take a holistic approach, involving everything from tax incentives to foster the use of alternative energy; government investment in infrastructure and research. I wish I could say that the current Administration was doing this. But they seem more anxious to move us back into the steam age.

    I am overall a Tesla skeptic. I think that companies like Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, and GM will ultimately make the electric cars that prove to be a tipping point in the wider acceptance of such vehicles. As consumers we may have to accept compromises in electric vehicles. An electric car with a range much over 500 miles per day seems impractical. And the physical energy constraints of battery power make semi-trucks powered by batteries even less practical. On the other hand, there are numerous applications (taxi cabs, local delivery vehicles, etc.) that actually make battery power more practical. The person who creates an affordable electric vehicle to replace the couple of million tuk-tuks currently fouling the cities of South Asia will make a fortune and save the planet millions of tons of CO2 emissions.
     
  6. s2mikey macrumors 68020

    s2mikey

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Location:
    Upstate, NY
    #6
    Right...and destroy numerous jobs and the economy with that. Just sit back and watch people.... what? Lose their livelihood? Easy for those to say that aren’t affected by such thighs as usual.

    As another posted said, you can’t tax and fine your way to a better energy policy. It had to be an innovation and will require taking some chances. It won’t be easy or happen overnight. But forget taxing and stifling the economy. That does nothing but piss people off and rightfully so.
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    Bigger storms also threaten livelihoods...
     
  8. MarkusL macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2014
    #8
    For my understanding, do you not pay taxes today? Like property taxes, income tax, and possibly sales tax? Why would it be so terrible to replace a part of those taxes with a tax on pollution?
     
  9. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #9
    Right. The lesson here is not to publish your brain droppings about your own corporation. It's a hard, expensive lesson for Musk, but Tesla will continue to operate with Musk as its CEO. He just lost his board membership.

    Yep. The fact that renewables are easily cost-competitive is telling. We should be investing in these because they're undoubtedly the future of energy production. And, we need to think hard about how we use energy. We waste huge amounts of power too, and we need to think hard about building design and construction, too.

    I tend to think that the 500 mile requirement is arbitrary. Most people drive far shorter distances regularly, and there are cars and SUVs on the market that cannot go 500 miles without a refuel. Arguably, a battery-powered car can be driven to work, where it can be charged for 8 hours, before it's driven home.

    And, with regenerative braking a lot of in-city driving makes sense. Good point about the tuk-tuks, and there's also millions of scooters that could easily be swapped to electric vehicles.

    This is why I think we're going to get bypassed. Places like China and Vietnam, who don't have to worry about people bitching about their taxes, will just force electric vehicles into their markets. These places will also reconfigure cities to ensure rapid mass transit, and move hard on renewables.

    We're already seeing how China seized the solar market. I expect the same will happen with electric cars and scooters. And, Tesla's batteries will be made by massive factories in those places soon enough. The Third World is clamoring for cheap power without the copper infrastructure, and they will buy up these technologies quickly.
     
  10. ActionableMango macrumors G3

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #10
    Authoritarian governments do have the advantage of forcing the collective to do whatever the government wants.

    I think you are giving China too much credit. Their track record with the environment is terrible and all the good news coming from there has to be taken with skepticism.

    For example they got lot of credit for halting production of coal power plants, yet it turns out that was a lie: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45640706
     
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #11
    I'm not in support of these actions, and authoritarian governments have massive problems. (See Russia) But, when it comes to action, they seem more able to move, while we just dither in often pointless arguments about taxes.

    Good point.

    I wasn't really trying to give China credit per se, rather that when these countries decide to make an environmental move that's beneficial, they'll just do it.

    But, you're right to point out the other thing authoritarian governments are good at: propaganda.
     
  12. acorntoy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    #12
    Musk was being really, really stupid lately. He's been aggressive to investors, and likely did this to hurt some, as somebody who is a champion of climate change, running massive companies, he shouldn't be doing things such as smoking in interviews, it looks bad. It isn't the drug choice, we know CEO's probably drink, but do we want to see them hammered? It also just lends major evidence to the theory that he chose the $420 stock number as a cannabis joke.

    The day this was announced he tweeted it was ridiculous, the next day he announced he was stepping down and paying $20m, he did something. He didn't try to fight this, he accepted a settlement because he did something stupid to hurt the daytraders that like to bet against his company.

    For a man people like to compare to Tony Stark this part of Musk's life is starting to look real Iron Man 2.
     
  13. ActionableMango macrumors G3

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #13
    I understand why Musk was fined $20 million--he committed securities fraud. That may be the most costly marijuana joke of all time.

    But I don't really understand why Tesla also has to pay $20 million. Tesla as a company, and it's shareholders, are not responsible for one man's tweet.
     
  14. acorntoy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    #14
    Is Tesla itself also paying the fine? I thought it was only from Musk. He’d probably do it again for 40m, he’s not a fan of daytrading.
     
  15. ActionableMango macrumors G3

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #15
    Yes, Musk and Tesla are each paying $20 million for a total of $40 million in fines to the SEC.
     
  16. acorntoy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    #16
    And the stock jumped that’s utterly hilarious. The market decided that 20M was more than a fair price to pay for getting him out :eek::p
     
  17. RootBeerMan macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #17
    The whole thing was the SEC creating a money grab for themselves. They saw the opportunity to enrich their coffers and they took it.
     
  18. Solomani macrumors 68040

    Solomani

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Alberto, Canado
    #18
    It's a token slap in the wrist. Everyone needs to realize that:

    #1. He's still the single largest investor in TSLA

    and

    #2. The SEC allowed him to remain as the company's CEO.

    So ummmm yeah, he still has a large say and huge amount of control in the company. Sure, he got ousted as "Chairman of the Board" whoop-dee-doo, but he's still there in positions of power and influence.

    IMHO, the fines should not be paid to the ***** SEC. The fines should be given back to TESLA shareholders. They are the ones that were the (potential) victims of the stock-market-manipulating Twitter Stupidity. Give the fine back to the company's shareholders, perhaps as a one-time dividend, all shareholders get that dividend except for Musk himself.
     

Share This Page

17 September 30, 2018