SyzygistSix

If sounding as infinitely punchable for how he said it as well as what he said is better.

People say bushwhack in the US. It means not using an established trail when out in the woods/wilderness.

>as far as light sitcoms go

Well, there you have it.

An anecdote I remember was that during the 2008 recession German precision manufacturers did not lay off their workers. They reduced hours, sent a bunch to continuing education programs, and retooled for even more high tech manufacturing. When the recession eventually ended, they had retooled foctories with highly trained workers while US companies had to rehire and retrain their work force. Which again brings the focus back to long term versus short term profits.

I think the more objective measure might be the holes in the domestic supply chain that represent vulnerability and a lack of robustness.

Are you saying Jeff Bezos and Boeing/ULA had less resources than Elon did? They had far more resources. And SpaceX hires from the same pool of talent as they do.

For the most part Musk (and his businesses) and the administration, as well as US auto manufacturers, are playing nice now and realize they need to work together. The sniping between them has decreased a lot and is mostly coming from elsewhere while their collaboration has increased. Mostly because the economics of EVs have shown resistance is futile and SpaceX' capabilities are so useful.

There are similar reports from people like Jim Cantrell, Robert Meuller, and Jim Keller. They aren't blowhards and don't need to kiss anyone's ass.

The price and hype are based in part on not being a manufacturing company but the business model is certainly based on being a manufacturing company. And the manufacturing segment of both that is expanding. Just because the stock price is ridiculous does not mean the business models are unsound. They are a great example of bringing manufacturing and vertical integration back. They have made their factories work in California, Beijing, and Berlin.

It is fairly typical for poor, undeveloped countries to use a more centrally planned economy. The sheer lack of capital, as well as business and industrial know-how dictates that. Socialism and Communist parties were relevant in the 70s and 80s in Western Europe but later on were rejected as they were no longer relevant to their developed economies.

It makes me recall one of my favorite cars that was never built, the Norwegian Troll. The government decided not to expend their limited capital to the company as they could trade fish for Ladas to get cars.

For short term profit that I can walk away with? That is very different from building long term value. Both are profit. One profits from creation and has long term recurring benefits, the other profits from extraction, which only happens once. Both building a fire and building a house profit from a supply of wood. But they are pretty different in terms of long term pay off.

Can you imagine the magnitude of the humanitarian and environmental crisis China would be if they had not industrialized and joined the global market? A country that size full of uneducated farmers and first generation coal power plants would be a nightmare for everyone, not just China.

Hard drugs don't need to be made available to non-addicts just because the sale is legalized and formalized.

True but the quality is quite high nowadays. No one is diluting it with dangerous shit.

>Wealth is transfer from one part of the economic system to another

So no wealth is created? The vast amount of medical technology and technology in general would immediately show that this statement is completely false.