Tesla, described as “ostensibly Texas-based” [sic] deserves a lot of criticism but for lowering prices on their cars..? This definitely smacks of Elon derangement syndrome.
Kinda feels like our own versions of "too big (expensive) to fail".
>>> Elon derangement syndrome
The Tesla CEO promised that Teslas wouldn't depreciate like other cars do.
He promised that they would not only hold their value, they would increase in value over time.
He promised that they would be assets, earning income for their owners.
He stated that an owner could expect $30,000 in income per year from their Tesla acting as a robotaxi for hire while not being driven by its owner.
Perhaps it's "derangement" to take the CEO at his word.
A house, especially in a desirable location is much more rare, it is hard to produce. Land is limited, getting permits is difficult, labor can be expensive.
Houses have a better chance to keep pace with inflation which makes them more susceptible to being an investment.
> “I think the most profound thing is that if you buy a Tesla today, I believe you are buying an appreciating asset, not a depreciating asset.”
For people who bought a Tesla and saw rapid depreciation it truly does suck. For people who haven't but are thinking of buying a Tesla, well good for them. They get to buy it at a discount. I'm in neither camp so the story gets a yawn from me, but I can see how there are actually people in both of the other camps, with varied responses to the cuts.
The incantation of "[something] derangement syndrome", along with the misplaced attempts at [sic], makes this a pretty tenuous critique and kind of undermine your point. It makes you look oddly defensive of the world's richest man.
This discussion is almost entirely filled with "Leave Elon alone!" type rhetoric, which is actually "extremely weird". I cannot fathom the sort of derangement that motivates one to do that.
Sic is correctly used when it quotes an “odd or erroneous” phrase (Oxford English Dictionary).
In context those quotes are extraordinarily odd. They are both too flippant for a serious article and do not follow logically anyway.
Pointing out faulty logic has nothing to do with stanning Elon.
For that matter, what is the "faulty logic" [sic]? People who bought Teslas and saw the value of their purchase drop are pissed. People who haven't bought a Tesla aren't and probably don't even care about this story. People who might be looking to buy a Tesla would be delighted. Outside of those groups, who cares? I mean, you seem to really care that someone pointed out the first group, and it's weird.
And no, putting "sic" on comments because you think they are "odd" [sic] is an attempt at noisy pedantry. It is trying, in this case in futility, to deride the speaker. It's something people only do when they're really passionate about a subject so they desperately attempt to dismiss opponents as if they're unlearned and dumb.
You'll get upvotes from the incredibly strange Musk stooges, but everyone else groans.
You know what projection is yet resorted to infantile oneupmanship and insults on top, breaking posting guidelines?
You’re too upset to have a serious conversation with. Its wild to me that you are affected this much.
> I mean, you seem to really care that someone pointed out the first group, and it's weird.
Lets be real, you clearly care more than I do lmao.
Funnily, that was also a time when a buddy of mine ended up selling his 2019 model 3 for a 8k profit because cars were that expensive.
Exactly. The author is big sads that polices at their beloved Twitter changed and they will do anything in their very limited power to strike back.
Yawn.