Monday, June 22, 2026

Surging stock market, Trump policies boost wealth for top 1%

 

Surging stock market, Trump policies boost wealth for top 1%

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/6/21/800056215/business-and-economy/surging-stock-market-trump-policies-boost-wealth-for-top-1/ 

Surging stock market, Trump policies boost wealth for top 1%

Elon Musk speaks at a town hall in March 2025 inGreen Bay, Wis.
APElon Musk speaks at a town hall in March 2025 in Green Bay, Wis.

Elon Musk’s status as the world’s first trillionaire illustrates an accelerating trend.

By Tim Henderson for Stateline


When SpaceX, Elon Musk’s rocket and artificial intelligence company, began trading on the stock market last week, he became the world’s first trillionaire.

The SpaceX IPO made the world’s richest man even richer, grabbing headlines worldwide. But it is merely the most vivid illustration of a U.S. trend that has been accelerating since 2022.

The richest 1% of Americans held nearly a third of the country’s total wealth at the end of 2025, the largest percentage the Federal Reserve Board has recorded since it started monitoring the numbers in 1989. In 1990, the share was 22.5%.


Related | You’ve got 1 trillion new reasons to hate Elon Musk


The latest percentage, 31.9%, is likely the largest since the end of World War II, possibly heralding a return to the extreme wealth inequality of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. And it is likely to balloon further as a result of President Donald Trump’s tax cuts and other pro-business policies.

Today’s top 1% consists of about 1.4 million households with at least $12 million in net worth, holding a total of $55.9 trillion in wealth. The bottom 50% consists of 67.7 million households with less than $264,000 in net worth.

Using different methods than the Fed, French economist Thomas Piketty has asserted that the richest 1% of Americans held nearly half the nation’s wealth in 1928 and 1929, just before the Great Depression. Their share declined after that, during a period of high marginal income tax rates (the percentage of tax you pay on your last dollar of income) and widespread discomfort with astronomical pay for executives. Instead, corporations plowed their profits into expansion and higher wages for workers.

But the share of wealth held by the top 1% began rising again in the 1970s, according to the Piketty data.

Piketty, who theorizes that unfettered capitalism always leads to high concentration of wealth, told Stateline in an email that “there’s nothing natural about this — it’s all due to policies.”

“If the super-rich capture the state and pay little tax, then it’s easy to accumulate a lot, but history suggests that politics can revert quite quickly,” Piketty wrote.

Another prominent economist who recently studied the wealth of California billionaires, Emmanuel Saez, described the current spike in the share of wealth held by the top 1% as driven primarily by the stock market boom. Saez is director of the Stone Center on Wealth and Income Inequality at the University of California, Berkeley.

New taxes proposed

In at least a dozen states, including Illinois, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Virginia, lawmakers have proposed new taxes for the wealthiest taxpayers. Some of the proposals would tax annual incomes above a certain threshold while others would tax capital assets, including high-value stocks and real estate.

In California, advocates in April announced they had gathered enough signatures for a November ballot initiative that would impose a one-time tax on billionaires. The state’s billionaires held about $2.3 trillion in wealth as of June 10, assets that could generate almost $101 billion from the proposed tax.

This year, at least 12 billionaires left California. They include Lynsi Snider, who inherited the In-N-Out hamburger chain and moved to Tennessee, and car loan magnate Don Hankey, who moved to Nevada. However, moves into the state and new wealth created 23 new California billionaires this year. NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang has vowed to stay in California despite a potential $8 billion one-time tax bill.

Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang speaks during the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2026. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber)
APNVIDIA founder and CEO Jensen Huang speaks during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 21.

There are no state-level statistics on the top 1%, though Census Bureau estimates from 2022 show the states with the highest shares of households with more than $500,000 in net worth are Hawaii (48%), the District of Columbia (47%) and Washington state (43%). Hawaii also has the highest average net worth at more than $1 million, mostly because homeowners in that state have an average of $600,000 of equity in their homes. The states with the next highest average net worth are California ($792,000), and Massachusetts ($751,000).

Conservative and liberal experts agree that a soaring stock market and business profits have made it a good time for the wealthy, while middle-class and lower-income people are doing less well, especially as inflation gobbles up wage increases. There’s also widespread agreement that Trump’s tariffs (since struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court) disproportionately harmed lower-income and middle-class people, and that the tax cuts in the broad tax and spending measure Trump signed last summer (commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) will disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

The combined effects of the tariffs and the tax and spending law will help households with the top 10% of incomes most and hurt 70% of households between now and 2034, according to a June 1 report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank that drew on information from the Budget Lab at Yale University.

Chuck Marr, the center’s vice president for federal tax policy, pointed to the law’s extension of  a deep corporate income tax cut that dates from Trump’s first administration.

“Trump’s whole policy has really leaned into increasing this disparity,” Marr said. “You’ve got AI coming and globalization has shifted income and wealth upward, and instead of pushing back against that, Trump and others have leaned into it.”

Nevertheless, Kyle Pomerleau, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said the U.S. government’s tax and spending policy is “still highly progressive in that low-income households receive benefits from the high-income households paying taxes.”

“It’s a little less so than it was prior to the passage of the (Trump tax and spending law) and the tariffs, but it’s still the case. It hasn’t changed the story that much,” Pomerleau said.

Marr agreed that the federal tax system is basically progressive, in that it uses taxes on high income earners to pay for the needs of low-income residents. But tax collections are low in the United States compared with other wealthy countries: Of the 20 wealthiest nations, only Ireland collects less government revenue as a share of GDP.

“Compared to other countries, inequality is high because we redistribute so much less money,” Marr said. “It’s a progressive tax system but it doesn’t raise a lot of money.”

Inflation divide

The Federal Reserve’s Beige Book, an accounting of national economic conditions released June 3, found a divide in how inflation, which has increased as a result of the war in Iran, has affected American spending.

“Higher-income households remained resilient and less sensitive to price increase, while middle-income households were described as ‘squeezing more life out of every dollar before deciding to spend it,’ and low-income consumers showed greater financial strain,” the report said.

The “squeezing” analogy for the middle class came from a roundtable discussion of hospitality executives in the Kansas City, Missouri, area in late May, said Jeremy Hill, a regional economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Hill said there was a gasp in the room when one high-end restaurant chain executive said the chain could raise prices at will and keep expanding, hampered only by a shortage of high-end chefs to staff locations. Meanwhile, hotels, bars and restaurants serving the middle class are struggling to get people to come in and spend.

“It’s not that they (wealthy people) don’t care about inflation. They’re worried about what it might do to future demand or their own stocks,” Hill said. “But today, it’s not impacting the way they spend.”


Related | There are no good billionaires—but a couple are better than others


The stock market’s recent run has contributed the most to the consolidation of wealth at the top. Rising real estate prices also have also added to wealth, especially for longtime homeowners.

“This has disproportionately helped those who already hold assets while the average American pays higher prices for everyday essentials,” said E.J. Antoni, chief economist for the conservative Heritage Foundation. “In other words, Wall Street got rich while Main Street got inflation.”

White Americans own outsized shares of assets such as stock and real estate, according to the federal statistics. White people are 57% of the population but own 82% of the assets, while Black and Hispanic people, who make up a combined 24% of the U.S. population, have less than 7% of assets. Asians are included in an “Other” category, which is about 9% of population and holds about  11.3% of the nation’s total assets.

(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

By generation, Baby Boomers born between 1946 and 1964 hold almost half of wealth, while Millennials and Gen X hold the lion’s share of liabilities, such as mortgages and consumer debt, that detract from net worth. Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) have about 42% of liabilities and Gen X (1965-1980) have 35%, compared with 22% for Baby Boomers.

It’s not necessarily a bad thing for young people to be in debt as they build careers and pay off student loans, said Pomerleau, the American Enterprise Institute economist.

“Doctors with $450,000 in medical school debt might be in the bottom 10%, yes, but that person is going to be in the top 1% of wealth at some point in their lives,” Pomerleau said.

“You enter the labor force with a net liability, but you save over time, that liability is paid down, you’re paying off your mortgage, and that’s when your wealth starts growing.”

We'll get straight to the point: The financial hardships that Daily Kos is facing this year are tough.

We continue to be paywall-free. We continue to be supported by our readers, not billionaires or corporations. But we need to bring in more revenue. We are leaning on our community more than ever to help make ends meet.

$
OR
Donate with

Was this story worth reading?

Recommending and sharing stories helps us decide which stories are most important to show our readers.

29
Share:





Conversation

|

All comments are subject to our Community Guidelines. The views expressed in comments are those of the individual authors and don't necessarily reflect the views of Daily Kos.

All Comments

  1. Comment by Stratosaurus.

    You know, there are a lot of amateur rocket enthusiast groups out there who have had better results than Musk......their rockets don't explode all the time. Give some of these groups the money.

  2. Comment by Dodgin Es.

    Also, it's NOT a surging stock market. It's a massively surging tiny slice of the stock market, a microcosm of the overall economy WITHIN a segment of the economy that already has almost no relevance outside the world of the wealthy.

  3. Comment by xerorest.

    This is the thing that the MAGAs and most independebts don't understand. When Trump says we're taking American back he isn't talking to you and me he is talking to the 1%ers. Listen to everything he says. He has no concept of what life is like for the rest of us living paycheck to paycheck nor does he care. that is the real dog whistle. The race one is just window dressing.

    • Reply by Dodgin Es.

      Correct, the rhetoric is aimed at his racist followers "taking back" America from minorities and women. But in reality, he is "taking back" America for the billionaires (who had never really lost much of it anyway).

  4. Comment by A Citizen.

    The right has been trying to get us back to the Gilded Age for a century. Ayn Rand was just a useful hack. I firmly believe that the popularity of Atlas Shrugged was a mirage, and the book was artificially hyped. I remember when the Atlas Shrugged movie came out, people on the right were so excited thinking it would transform society. It bombed badly, basically no one even noticed that it existed. There simply wasn't a market of Atlas Shrugged fans just waiting for the movie. Rand claimed that she had no antecedent in philosophy, except for a little Aristotle, and then only in logic. But her stuff is just warmed over Ludwig von Mises - I call it Mises for the Masses. It's also Nietzsche's Übermensch, Spencer's Social Darwinism and Descartes. She keeps shouting "A=A", which is similar to Descartes Cogito - "I think therefore a am" in that Descartes wanted to build knowledge on a premise that could not be doubted. It didn't really work, it just builds a house of cards. Similarly, while A=A is essential to logic, A=A doesn't actually lead to any conclusions. There's a reason that we out an end to the Gilded Age. These people don't have our interests at heart, there's a reason they were called Robber Barons.

  5. Comment by Sanityisagoodthing.

    We need an UBI of 1 billion per month and a wealth tax of 100 percent on all wealth over 10 billion dollars. Yes take Musk's trillion away. Nationalize.

  6. Comment by TB50.

    "It’s not necessarily a bad thing for young people to be in debt as they build careers and pay off student loans, said Pomerleau, the American Enterprise Institute economist."

    There are so many erroneous assumptions in this statement I hardly know where to begin.

    I am convinced these people live in an imaginary world that only exists between their ears and is never challenged by reality. It is from this angle they craft their delusional dogma.

  7. Comment by Aspiring Polymath.

    Well the Washington Post editors has a big sad about California and other states taxing billionaires. Bezos and his billionaire compatriots feel no loyalty to the state that often gave them their start and set them on the way to riches. They really feel no loyalty to the U.S. either, transferring billions overseas together with huge portions of their businesses. Some have acquired dual citizenship and are ready to bail whenever the tax heat gets higher than their comfort level.

    Now Israel and lots of other countries have laws against massive transfer of capital and personal wealth out of country. China just enacted a more draconian version of such a law and is even restricting the leaving of human capital, engineers, scientists and others the state values. Such a law could be enacted in the U.S. as a tax law which is highly resistant to Supreme Court interference. We don't forbid the transfers; we tax them at a very hight rate if they try to pull them out of country. We could also manipulate the federal tax code such that the states were essentially forced to maintain a similar state income tax level. Combinations of tax credits, deductions for income taxes but not above a certain amount. No deduction for state sales taxes but some for state income taxes. You could create a fairly uniform taxation system in the U.S.. But this requires control of the Congress and the Presidency with a unified political direction. Something similar to Roosevelt's New Deal. You would have to pack the Supreme Court to avoid disruption of your initiatives but this nonsense of billionaires leaving states and threatening to pack their wealth (often earned after federal and state loans and tax assistance helped create that wealth) and leave the country. Our tax code should not allow the existence of a billionaire and the absurdity of a trillionaire who owes so much of his fortune to a massive transfer of federal technology to his companies as well as federal tax credits, loans, advances and assistance. Both Tesla and Space X were given massive federal aid, contrary to the beliefs of the Musk fan boys.

    This nonsense about they somehow single handedly built their empires is pure nonsense. Tesla would not have existed with federal startup grants. Space X is still highly dependent on federal development funds and NASA and military launch programs for their funds. So taxing them is just getting some of the public investment back.

    No one can accumulate that kind of money if they are paying their fair share of the public costs of creating that fortune.

  8. Comment by GrannyCT.

    Don't it Just warm the cockles of your heart knowing Elon is now a trillionaire?

  9. Comment by sgkos.

    Well duh. Trickle down didn't. And so many voters are too stupid to figure that out...

  10. Comment by kck.

    The Fed's been the pipeline through banks to FIRE and industrial investors, all the AI investments. What I don't understand is (a lot, IANE) is why the Fed has been raising (is skyrocketing an exaggeration?) The money supply (M2) so fast and high for the last 2 years, far higher than they needed to do to send pandemic aid to everyone, and it's all going to the top earners fueling inequity rising as M2 has. And at low immigration and expansion no less. If the govt can create this much more money while Americans finances worsen and inequity rises then the top 1% is being largely funded by the Fed. The Fed is generating income and wealth disparity to grow faster. Some of that govt money should be supplied to the workers and consumers and that would increase expansion and affordability. It seems too expensive to America - us, all, all small and medium businesses - for the Fed to stimulate the economy and increase GDP while pricing the people out of health care, living expenses, that "American Dream" always required public investment in families and new grads. It's as if expansion from investing public funds directly into Americans is taboo no matter the ROI, like a religious principle to these men.

  11. Comment by davedave.

    well yes and no....the 'markets' really haven't figured out the dangers of trump's idiotic policies...and 'fear of missing out' is the thing folks always mention when chasing bubbles..

    AI and crypto are today's tulip bulbs but at the end, at the 'correction', this time there will not be any flowers...even if those things pan out not all will be winners.

    the tell is when all the market people throw up their hands and say 'this time it's different!!' it IS different, but it rhymes..

    • Reply by GrannyCT.

      What will it cost us to bail all those 'too big to fail' assholes out this time?

    • Reply by TB50.

      Yep, they will pull all their money out right as the next Dem president is sworn in.

  12. Comment by Betty Lou.

    That's all that matters to Trump. You can't afford gas, well that's too bad. You can't afford to buy groceries, well that's too bad. You can't afford to pay your rent or your mortgage, well that's too bad. You can't afford health insurance, well that's too bad. The most important thing in Trump's world is making sure the millionaires, billionaires and now a trillionaire don't pay one extra dime in taxes so they can afford yet another yacht, another mansion, another private island etc etc the low income and working poor can go and suck eggs as far as he's concerned.

    • Reply by Truth Will Out.

      Loser trump brings modern meaning to the “Let them eat cake” symbolism.

  13. Comment by Things Come Undone.

    "“Compared to other countries, inequality is high because we redistribute so much less money,” Marr said. “It’s a progressive tax system but it doesn’t raise a lot of money.”"

    I think we need to redefine the term a progressive tax system if not enough money is redistributed to maintain not raise maintain current living standards which have dropped since Reagan then you do not have a progressive tax system.

    Imagine you buy a plane ticket the jet runs out of fuel halfway during the flight to Progressive so you never get to a Progressive tax system.

  14. Comment by vwbacon.

    It's a good thing Gavin Newsom is opposing the billionaire's tax in California. We can't have the Democrats be the party that is trying to take the billionaire's money. We'll need those billionaire donors to keep backing moderate, corporate Democrats.

    • Reply by Things Come Undone.

      I hope Gavin dreams of being President or VP are over.

  15. Comment by Things Come Undone.

    But But if the banks, the stock market the ultra rich are not bailed out then who will buy our Debt the dollar will collapse!

    The rich can all be taxed and the money used to pay the National Debt or we can have a revolution which would make the interest on US debt unsustainable and the dollar worthless.

    We are the golden goose that lays the eggs they take the eggs live very well and have been complaining we eat too much, then they complain the eggs are getting smaller.

    It is an abused wife situation they do something bad but they blame us, then because of the results of doing something bad they blame us more now they talk about going to other states and countries like an abusive husband brags about other women.

    Cut the guy off stop paying his bills force him to get a real job we can nationalize industries and give them to the workers. Current management can stay and take a pay cut or they can go work picking crops.

    Look at China's economy now just a few generations after the Cultural Revolution the rich stay in their lane and out of politics.

  16. Comment by amoverton.

    So, I guess there’s nothing to worry about since all of us who aren’t millionaires just need to patiently wait a few years for our medical degrees to pay off.

  17. Comment by Things Come Undone.

    After the market crashes we can expect to hear from both sides what we heard after the bank bailout. We need to bailout the banks out or the international banking system will collapse.

    Who cares get the rich to bail themselves out they could sell their assets rather than last time our tax dollars bailed them out they got bonuses and we lost our homes because we still had to pay our homelands which the banks artificially inflated.

    Let's see what the bank and the pawn brokers will pay for Jeff Bezos's yacht?

    • Reply by TexasTom.

      I don't think the plutocrats will get the same sort of bailout that the banks did, for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that in 2008, the government had to do something in order to prevent our financial system from essentially freezing up and causing a complete collapse. One can argue that what the government did was not the best way to prevent that collapse, but the reality is that inaction wasn't really an option. In contrast, a bunch of plutocrats losing money would not have similar consequences -- bluntly, if someone like Elon Musk loses 99% of his net worth, he's the only person who would be hurt.

      If that first reason is complicated and unsatisfying, the second reason is the opposite. Simply put, if our government tries to bail out the plutocrats, we're likely to see lynching of both the politicians and plutocrats. I'm not advocating any such thing, but I'd say it is pretty clear that the mass public really is that angry right now -- my suspicion is that even a lot of the MAGA cultists would be unwilling to accept such a thing, not even if it came from their orange god.

    • Reply by Aspiring Polymath.

      I hope you are right about people not allowing the bailout of the plutocrats. The deafening silence that greeted the half trillion dollar increase proposed for the defense budget on top of the 100 plus billion dollar Iran war makes me think nothing will happen. I was not happy about a lot of the 2008 bailouts although the auto company bailouts were fully repaid to the government with interest. The bank bailouts were not fully paid back and served to keep some financial institutions afloat who deserved to go bankrupt. The did it to preserve confidence in the financial system, but it bailed out and enriched many who had exploited that same system to make themselves obscenely wealthy while paying almost no taxes. Some of those investors and bankers deserved to go to jail. Some in Europe and Japan did. They committed massive malfeasance and breaches of fiduciary duties to protest peoples' savings and retirement. Much of the derivative scandal was a result of criminal fraud. Not one person went to jail.

    • Reply by amoverton.

      If Elon lost 99% of his net worth, he'd still be worth $10 billion.

    • Reply by A Noah Count.

      Disgusting, isn't it?

  18. Comment by Robpos.

    I hope I’m wrong, but SpaceX could be the biggest pump and dump scheme ever hatched.

    For those who don’t know about pump and dump schemes, a classic example is when a broker has a large inventory of stock and pressures its clients to purchase the stock, which drives the stock price up briefly, then, when they’ve cleared out their inventory, they stop driving their clients to purchase the stock and it falls back to its truer valuation and the clients are left holding the proverbial bag and taking the loss. They’re buying high and most likely selling low.

    Elon Musk has a long history of over promising and under delivering. Think of FSD (full self driving) as an example of his propensity to engage in this behavior.

    Anyway, with the IPO, which drives prices up and allows the original investors an opportunity to cash out, after which the price declines.

    SpaceX, as far as I know, basically has one source of reliable income, government subsidies. But with the rule changes associated with its IPO and its immediate inclusion in the stock market indexes, the managers of index funds will be forced to take a position and buy the IPO shares, in addition to individual investors and the price will rise, the pre IPO owners of SpaceX will cash out, and the investors who own index funds will pay the price.

    I hope I’m wrong.

    • Reply by jjohnjj.

      SpaceX is not subsidized by the government. It *sells* orbital launch services and satellite communications to the government. It also develops new spacecraft under contract to NASA, and it builds satellites for the Pentagon.

      SpaceX received $500 million in R&D grants from NASA twenty years ago, because the USA was in a hurry to develop a replacement for the Space Shuttle. The Pentagon estimates that reduced launch costs have *saved* the U.S. Government $40 billion in the last decade. So if the NASA grants had been a loan, they would have been repaid by now.

      Tesla is a different story. It got a startup loan (not a grant) from the Department of Energy of $465 million in 2010. That loan was repaid in 2013, with interest, nine years early - after Tesla raised a billion dollars in private capital.

      I can be argued, however, that Tesla was sustained by government-related subsidies for years: 1) Consumer tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles is the obvious one. 2) State tax exemptions for Tesla manufacturing plants is another. But the big one is 3) The sale of carbon pollution credits to legacy car-makers- probably worth $11 billion over a decade.

      There is nothing shady about these benefits. Tax credits were available to all low and zero-emission car makers. The carbon credits were not intended as gift to Tesla. They were to prod Detroit to build more hybrid and electric cars.

      Despite EMusk's efforts to ingratiate himself with the MAGA Republican Party, numbers 1 and 3 are *gone*. So Telsa's profitability is at much greater risk that SpaceX.

      In any case, the SpaceX investment frenzy was driven by its AI division, not its space operations. Grok is a piece of junk, but SpaceX is the first AI company to go public (OpenAI and Anthropic won't hit the markets until later this year or early next).

      EMusk is the king of investor razzle-dazzle, but his companies actually do make and sell things.

    • Reply by Robpos.

      But do they make and sell the things Musk promises or do they sell the promises that Musk makes…?

      Do they give refunds on the rockets that blow up on the launch pads or otherwise fail?

      I would doubt that.

      BTW, what’s the difference between *sells* and a subsidy?

    • Reply by jjohnjj.

      Colonizing Mars is a public relations stunt, not a promise.

      Waymo got ahead of Tesla on self-driving cars, but Tesla's supervised "driver assist" is a very capable hands-free driving system which - unlike Waymo taxis - can used on highways in all 50 states. Is that a broken promise?

      SpaceX does not offer refunds for failed launches. But the contracts typically offer a replacement flight at a discount or no additional cost. The loss of the payload is usually covered by third-party insurance purchased by the customer.

      We buy products or services that provide tangible value. We subsidize activity that constitutes a less intangible "public good".

      There are plenty of reasons to hate on Elon Musk. But if we keep picking the wrong ones, we won't persuade many voters that he needs to be reined in by a Democratic majority in Congress.

    • Reply by Robpos.

      > Is that a broken promise?<

      Yes it is, since Tesla states that drivers must remain alert enough to take control back from the FSD at a moment’s notice. You should not be texting your bud while it is engaged.

      That is not self driving…

    • Reply by jimerthy.

      Well...Tesla also got a bunch of tax breaks for things like the Gigafactory. When (Texas!) government cited them for all the pollution, they promised to create an "ecological paradise." It included things like expanding wetlands, storm water treatment ponds, miles of walking and biking trails, wildlife corridors, and 290 acres of waterfront green space open to the public. Several years later, they filed a preliminary site plan covering 28 acres that includes a boardwalk.

      It is a tangible step forward. But it's just a preliminary sliver of the original promise. Next steps include things like traffic control, floodplains, and an assessment arborist. And there isn't much reason to believe they won't similarly drag their feet on those next steps. It isn't like they have a meaningful incentive to push forward with this.

      The original promise didn't have a timeline. So this technically isn't a broken promise (unlike FSD). But it certainly feels like one to people who believed in Tesla's original focus on improving the environment. And it fits with a pattern that they've repeated at other locations.

      He is notorious for over-promising and under-delivering. https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-failed-to-deliver-on-2025-promises has a list of some from just 2025.

    • Reply by Robpos.

      Self driving is self driving…

      Anything less is not self driving…

    • Reply by Dejah.

      Pump and Dump, you mean like what Leon Mush did with DogeCoin?

  19. Comment by No Dolls 4 Donny.

    There’s some great public housing available for Lone Skum.

    Elon Musk imprisoned at Alligator Alcatraz.
  20. Comment by R Nathan.

    This is insane. The prices of stocks are not sustainable. Every sane person should see that. When the correction comes (and it is inevitable) the crash will be catastrophic.

    • Reply by cbastian.

      And then it will build up again. My wife believes a correction is coming, but we're not attempting to rebalance our investments or cash out.

 

No comments:

Post a Comment