Saudi Arabia invests big in Tesla

[JonesBones]

Canada who?

What is their play here? Good for Tesla.


Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund has acquired a significant position in Tesla shares, according to a Financial Times report.

The media outlet said the Saudi's Public Investment Fund bought a three percent to five percent stake in the electric carmaker, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.

The Saudi fund approached CEO Elon Musk about buying newly issued shares, the report said, but Tesla declined. Instead the Public Investment Fund bought the shares in secondary markets.


Telsa shares rose 4.2 percent Tuesday after the report.


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/07/tes...audi-arabia-sovereign-wealth-fund-has-2-.html

 

[so creamy]

I like Tesla, but I don't like Musk

 

[Hognoxious]

Sounds like the Saudis are running out of oil.

 

[Chinballs]

Sounds like the Saudis are running out of oil.

Havent Saudis always invested into alt-energy? Most of the time to throw patents into vaults though.

 

[JonesBones]

Havent Saudis always invested into alt-energy? Most of the time to throw patents into vaults though.

Could be a hedge. Tesla stock is actually halted right now. Musk Tweeted about taking the company private. Some are accusing him of market manipulation.

This is the drama of the market today. All Tesla. As usual.

 

[lilelvis]

Better than bilking the U.S taxpayers out of, even more, billions...

 

[Not A Theist]

Interesting. In another thread, I heard a host of people saying that no civilized country should have dealings with Saudi Arabia. I wonder if that will extend to this type of arrangement?

 

[JonesBones]

Tesla shares halted after string of Musk tweets on possibly taking company private

• Elon Musk's Twitter account said the Tesla CEO is considering taking Tesla private at $420 a share.
• Tesla has not confirmed the tweet is legitimate.
• Tesla's market value at $420 a share would be about $71 billion

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/07/tes...eet-that-he-is-considering-taking-compan.html

Musk responded with what people are calling a non denial denial. He is toying with people.

 

[Son of Jamin]

Interesting. In another thread, I heard a host of people saying that no civilized country should have dealings with Saudi Arabia. I wonder if that will extend to this type of arrangement?

One would hope that the same companies that threaten to boycott states that are against trannies in optional bathrooms keep their moral absolutism when it comes to dealing with Saudi Arabia but at the end of the day, we should ask more from our government than corporations but that is just me...

 

[Not A Theist]

One would hope that the same companies that threaten to boycott states that are against trannies in optional bathrooms keep their moral absolutism when it comes to dealing with Saudi Arabia but at the end of the day, we should ask more from our government than corporations but that is just me...

I always thought that leaving the government - especially one like the U.S. Government - in charge of making policy along any but the most clear cut moral grounds seemed questionable, as the morality of the U.S. and many of its allies was questionable. The world order that the U.S. has founded, for intents and purposes, is one built on the pursuit of blood money and (to use generous terminology) pressuring foreign nations to march to the beat of a drum that benefit's the U.S. position as a global leader. Morality is the first to be jettisoned when tough decisions are to be made - but boy do the politicians tell a good story about spreading Democracy!

The whole "we should ask more from our government" is all good and fine, but Americans have asked for more many times, while quite happily letting the government do so much less. Asking more of the government is an empty platitude because Americans say
"we expect more" while happily reaping the benefits of the country doing so much less.

Now, simply put, the allies have also benefited from that same global order and talk a good game about scruples while reaping the benefits of basically having a friendly thug working for them, so this comment isn't a "U.S. bad, Germany good!" type thing - it's just an observation. Maybe we should expect more from our governments - and we sort of do. Gas prices start to rise a bit though, and suddenly we're voting with our wallets for our governments to continue doing things which are morally questionable.

 

[JonesBones]

I always thought that leaving the government - especially one like the U.S. Government - in charge of making policy along any but the most clear cut moral grounds seemed questionable, as the morality of the U.S. and many of its allies was questionable. The world order that the U.S. has founded, for intents and purposes, is one built on the pursuit of blood money and (to use generous terminology) pressuring foreign nations to march to the beat of a drum that benefit's the U.S. position as a global leader. Morality is the first to be jettisoned when tough decisions are to be made - but boy do the politicians tell a good story about spreading Democracy!

The whole "we should ask more from our government" is all good and fine, but Americans have asked for more many times, while quite happily letting the government do so much less. Asking more of the government is an empty platitude because Americans say
"we expect more" while happily reaping the benefits of the country doing so much less.

Now, simply put, the allies have also benefited from that same global order and talk a good game about scruples while reaping the benefits of basically having a friendly thug working for them, so this comment isn't a "U.S. bad, Germany good!" type thing - it's just an observation. Maybe we should expect more from our governments - and we sort of do. Gas prices start to rise a bit though, and suddenly we're voting with our wallets for our governments to continue doing things which are morally questionable.

There's the paradox. The government is us. It is circular logic that nobody understands. Who is actually responsible for the actions of the "system"? Because when I go to court, it is the people of the state of the NY against me. All of them have ceded their authority to one man. I got tens of millions of people putting me on trial. Supposedly.

Tolstoy nailed this. He was a theist.

“What is the cause of historical events? Power. What is power? Power is the sum total of wills transferred to one person. On what condition are the wills of the masses transferred to one person? On condition that the person express the will of the whole people. That is, power is power. That is, power is a word the meaning of which we do not understand. ”

― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

 

[Not A Theist]

There's the paradox. The government is us. It is circular logic that nobody understands. Who is actually responsible for the actions of the "system"? Because when I go to court, it is the people of the state of the NY against me. All of them have ceded their authority to one man. I got tens of millions of people putting me on trial. Supposedly.

Tolstoy nailed this. He was a theist.

“What is the cause of historical events? Power. What is power? Power is the sum total of wills transferred to one person. On what condition are the wills of the masses transferred to one person? On condition that the person express the will of the whole people. That is, power is power. That is, power is a word the meaning of which we do not understand. ”

― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

A large part of the confusion over such things stems from the idea of the liberal humanist self - the "I" or the "individual" - or, simply the notion of the cohesive, monolithic whole. The term "individual" as the indivisible, smallest unit of subjecthood, and the assumption of any sort of monolithic whole above that, is a functional, but absolute, mistake. Whether you're talking about the person, the community, or the state, ideas like that the "government is us" create an idea of a false unity which goes right down to the conflict within the individual unit of "us." You can go back to Plato and read about the individual being a series of conflicting drives, a tripartite soul, resulting in an individual which itself cannot get its own story straight as it competes against itself, its own unity characterized by conflict. You move up a few orders to a complex plurality of individuals like a state, represented by a government, and it is no surprise that the government is an organization in conflict. The unit, the polity, the individual, are not objects of harmony but are rather characterized by discord. Oftentimes, even at the individual level, the only way the unity continues to function is by, essentially, being a hypocrite. That "will of the people" Tolstoy is talking about is - as I think he is suggesting - going to be an object of outright contradiction.

I am not a theist, but I don't think that is any reason for me to pick a fight with Tolstoy.