Comments by "snuffeldjuret" (@snuffeldjuret) on "Elon Musk Takes SHOTS At Bernie Sanders Over Taxes, "Bernie Is A Taker, Not A Maker"" video.

@aylio3745 that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. He bought into Tesla because pretty much no one else wanted to take the risk.
12
honestly, anyone with the tiniest insight knew Elon had to dump stock soon, as Elon has been open about that a long while. If we didn't know that, people would not have voted yes in those numbers.
6
@aylio3745 ???
5
As I like both Bernie and Elon, this.. well, not an interchange this time, so this.. well, what to call it, was fun to watch :).
3
@aylio3745 dude, are you really this misinformed? Blue Origin didn't get any real money. Also, do you have any idea what Boeing has gotten for the SLS? Any idea at all?
3
I thought I missed Emily, then she spoke.
2
@Xalgucennia imagine assuming everyone with 28k will become the richest person in the world :P.
2
@davidnguyen7891 You really need to put a dollar number on it, if you can't do that you don't really know how rich they were, you are just speculating. Speculating is fine, but you should not pretend that it is anything but speculating.
2
@douglaslangley9251 aren't his workers quite happy with him? Especially compared to other companies.
2
@douglaslangley9251 those are not good arguments though. SpaceX workers are ridiculously satisfied with their CEO and Tesla looked well enough on glassdoor.
2
SpaceX is less of a taker than any space company, but they could not compete if they didn't take anything, so it is not hypocrisy, it is reality.
1
@manwithoutacountry it depends on what that person preaches.
1
@CaliMeatWagon obviously no exploitation of foreign land and labour there :P.
1
terrible point about innovation. Did you even try?
1
@havable "... he still did not invent the company." Strange point, as no one has ever invented a company. "Most likely he only bought it b/c he knew there would be subsidy and he wanted some." Or you know, he believed in the cause. Why do you assume the absolute worst about someone you don't even know? "SpaceX is almost entirely govt funded." Quantify that. What percentage do you mean when you say "almost entirely"? DO you have any idea how many billions SpaceX has raised from private entities? "NASA has only had one rocket fail in its entire career." Which one? Do you not consider the space shuttle a rocket or NASA's? Two of them failed. "Musk has had several in the short time SpaceX has been around." Again, not with people on them, and a lot cheaper rockets, so your point is moot. "Who is actually more efficient?" The most cost effective one, SpaceX. "... what they should have done is refunded NASA after Reagan starved it." Wouldn't have made the rockets cheaper. Not sure what you are trying to do here, NASA is on my side on this one, not yours. They are extremely happy with SpaceX.
1
@havable "He came along later, after all the risks had been taken by pluckier individuals than he." You still peddle this lie? Tell me, what was Tesla and what had they done before Musk came in?
1
@davidnguyen7891 "Both of his parents were rich." How rich, according to you?
1
@davidnguyen7891 that is not very descriptive. Also "during the apartheid in South Africa" seems like a pathetic attempt at throwing shade given that the mine was in a completely different country, and one that was publicly against the apartheid if I recall correctly. Do you know what the mine cost to buy?
1
@davidnguyen7891 if it is still up for speculation, you can't say he came from wealth. It is a relative expression that means nothing.
1
"But he’s sooo horrible when it comes to labor" Isn't Tesla and SpaceX well rated on glassdoor?
1
@ClownCarCoup he wines about people wanting to tax him on unrealized gains, so that he'll lose control over his companies...
1
@ClownCarCoup he can be, but you don't think having stocks in a company helps controlling it? I guess that is why I decide how Tesla is run because I have no stocks in it...
1
@ClownCarCoup not sure what wordplay you are trying here. Definition of control: "the power to influence or direct people's behaviour or the course of events."
1
@ClownCarCoup haha ya, right. Dream on baby.
1
@kipplockwood1368 do you think there ever is a reason not to join a union? If you make working at Tesla so good that they vote against joining a union, is that really a bad thing? Especially if that union is caught in corruption scandals?
1
@kipplockwood1368 I agree that competition between unionizing and non-unionizing ought to create the best situation. As I understand it, Musk sees unions as something that makes a company less flexible, and flexible is exactly what a new electric car company needs to be to be able to survive (a bankrupt Tesla can't have any workers at all). To make sure the Tesla workers don't unionize, he has to incentivize them not to, like giving them stock options for working etc. Somehow the workers owning the means of production via stocks isn't something Bernie etc talks about when it comes to Tesla :D.
1
obviously not green, you need a bike for that.
1
@kekwayblaze3176 no matter how you twist and turn it, the government saved money by betting on spacex.
1
@kekwayblaze3176 as I said, no matter how you twist and turn it, the government saved money by betting on spacex.
1
@douglaslangley9251 oh you are one of those? sorry I mistook you for a serious person. Goodbye.
1
@aylio3745 NASA is terrible at designing rockets, so while they don't need it becomes a lot cheaper. Which in other words actually is need because a government never needs anything.
1
@aylio3745 nice try, but two errors. You said it was two companies, and now you listed three so you are moving the goalpost. Not only that, Blue Origin was just one of four companies getting that 600 mill. A far cry from the 6 billion bid of The National Team. "It is about equivalent to what the companies i just posted about received and we are receiving two functional rockets out of it with the potential for more." What are you talking about? "That money is also going to a well established company that has done good work for nasa for decades." SpaceX has done much better work for NASA, so your point is moot. "In other words its a much more sound investment with a guaranteed return of functioning rockets that Nasa will own" Are you actually trying to say that the SLS was a sound investment?
1
@havable "SpaceX has has more fails in its short history than NASA's one failed rocket." Do you really think that is a good argument? Fails only really matter when people are onboard, and at that NASA has been terrible. When people are not on board, it is a cost question and there as well NASA has been terrible.
1
@havable "Aylio's question is legit" misinformed people can ask good questions, so not sure what your problem is... "Musk takes in profits which means some of the money the govt gives him to run SpaceX is wasted on him instead of the project of space exploration." A good attempt at a good point, but the only thing that matters is what it costs NASA to do things, and those costs are reduced when NASA contracts SpaceX compared to Being etc, so your argument actually defeats your own point :).
1
@aylio3745 "If you value just a couple of years of SpaceX over the partnership that has been going on for decades then thats just a value assent difference I dont care to debate you on." This is a ludicrous statement. I value the cheaper and more innovative option. Your whole "well they are older therefor better" argument is crushed by the Starliner vs Crew Dragon situation, Boeing still hasn't sent people to the ISS.
1
@aylio3745 not sure what you mean with "... a private entity engaging with their own space program." Boeing/ULA sends up rockets that has nothing to do with NASA. Boeing are also involved in Blue Origin + Sierra Space's planned space station Orbital Reef. "I'd rather NASA have the monopoly on the American space program as they had in the 60s and for decades after." Seems like a different topic of conversation.
1
@havable "Because of the many fails, I would never set foot on an incompetent SpaceX rocket" Ah I see, you don't even attempt at being reasonable. Do you even know the difference between the Falcon 9 and Starship? "You don't know the full cost of a SpaceX rocket b/c Musk only tells you about the 5% of it that he pays for. That doesn't make it cheaper, it just makes the cost harder for you to see." It is still cheaper as it is cheaper than all alternatives, especially a Starliner launch with Atlas V. "SpaceX vs Boeing is apples and oranges." No, it is literally apples and apples with the Commercial Crew Program. "Take an advanced econ class and then tell me all about how economies work, pal." Tell me what a cost-plus contract is, Mr. Educated. "You have not addressed my argument that the private sector wastes money on profits instead of putting all resources toward completing a project." I did by pointing out that what matter is the bottom line. "Seems to me like that is the actual conversation and you don't want it to get a hearing. You want to instead distract us with your billionaire worship." If this is the actual conversation you want to have, you both should just stop talking about things you don't know about and don't want to talk about. I don't care for nostalgia like you, I am only here to correct you on things that are obviously wrong.
1
@aylio3745 "Not seeing how they wouldn't be connected. You seemed to be suggesting that Boeing was just firing off rockets on their own like Space X to essentually develop their own space infrastructure/program." Why do you exaggerate what I say? Do you think that makes for a good conversation? "I guess that's what I was getting at there." There are definitely differences in what SpaceX and other companies do, but that difference is just a lot about success than anything. ULA would launch more satellites if the buyers wouldn't choose SpaceX so often, although ULA never sent that much up, the commercial sector generally looked at other space agencies in the world for commercial launches if I recall correctly. "The biggest thing I heard of them doing is sending a car out to space and reusing rockets." SpaceX have sent 14 people to the ISS, and I think you downplay how amazing it is with rockets that land. The Starship program is more ambitious than the SLS as well, and is now along with the SLS a crucial part of the Artemis Program. Not sure what point you are trying to make here though.
1
@havable "They've had one fail in the history of NASA ...." As I said in the other thread, this is completely false. They lost two crewed Space Shuttles. And then there is Apollo 1.
1
@stephm.3407 NASA actually needs SpaceX to send astronauts to the ISS. They never got as many as they wanted having to rely on the Russians.
1