Not sure what you are talking about: Tesla delivered 1.79 mio cars last year, less than the year before and not much more than BYD (source). Just for comparison: Toyota alone sold more than 2.3 million cars in North America in 2024 (source)
The 7 million cars you mention without a source can only refer to all the cars Tesla has ever sold. That would still be fewer than Toyota sells worldwide in one year.
That's what I'm getting at: on the stock market today, it hardly matters whether a business model is actually successful or not - or even whether there is a realistic possibility of success. Tesla is certainly a company with sustainable technology. But does that justify Tesla being worth more than the 5 largest car manufacturers combined, each of which sells way more cars per year than Tesla? Especially in view of the considerable competition in the EV market.
The difference, however, is that Ford actually sold a lot of cars. Musk is essentially being paid for the assumption that he will sell a lot of cars. At some point, maybe...
It's also kind of a Bruce Lee movie for goths - and I mean that in the most morbid sense, unfortunately.
No path in vain: for example, always take plates with you and put them directly in the dishwasher when you are on your way to the kitchen anyway.
Sure. But the Hornets aren't interested in the child, they're only interested in marketing. The only way I can explain this is that either some employee wanted the PS5 and just took it from the kid or the Hornets' marketing department thinks that even bad publicity is free publicity. Maybe they intentionally planned for the predictable media coverage on this matter because it also brings attention. If the Hornets wanted to buy this kind of exposure, that paltry $500 wouldn't even begin to cover it.
Compared to the marketing expenses of even very small companies, a PS5 is so ridiculously cheap that these costs are not even worth mentioning.
C'mon, we can't expect the coroner to blow the whistle on the actual cause of death. If we did, there would soon be no coroners left.
And so it begins...
Edit: ...or ends, depending on the situation.
I agree. I hope that one day I will be remembered as a decent person by everyone who has gotten to know me a little. If that is the case, I think I will have lived my life well.
Since a healthcare system does not have to be designed in such a way that people inevitably fall by the wayside, this depiction of the trolley problem seems to me to be a pretty US-American thing.
I see it like this: the guy on the lever is also the CEO of a health insurance company and chooses the option of eliminating a competitor, accepting that his even more profit-optimized approach will lead to even more helpless people dying, which would not have been necessary if he had left everything as it was and not eliminated the competitor. The US thing about this is that there is no third option in the first place, where nobody dies because of the healthcare system. This very basic fact is not noticed, addressed or even criticized by anyone. Instead, even those who will die unnecessarily agree with the guy in charge in his decision to sacrifice them on the altar of higher profits because a hated person will die with them - they even agree with his statement that it would be for the greater good, instead of asking why it is even necessary for them to be tied to the tracks and run over.
This seems odd to me, but is probably only logical if you're used to seeing the healthcare system as a business like any other. I don't really get it tho.
I think it's like this:
Due to their rarity, gold and silver are only available in limited quantities. This makes them suitable as a means of payment, as the limited availability of these materials allows them to have a relatively stable exchange value. They are also durable and easy to work with. So as a means of payment, gold and silver became representative of goods that can be purchased with them.
Coins made of gold or silver, which were used as currencies early on, were not very forgery-proof. However, as the materials themselves are rare, good forgeries were only possible if the material was available. And the rarer the material used, the more forgery-proof the coin became, which is why it made sense to mint coins with a high exchange value from rarer materials (bronze or copper for lower value coins, silver or even gold for coins with higher exchange value).
Early examples of inflation illustrate quite well how value and material are linked: In ancient Rome, for example, silver coins were used as a means of payment. Under Emperor Gallienus, there was massive inflation because he had the silver content of coins reduced to below 5% in order to finance military campaigns and other expenses (he basically created value out of thin air with this move). This ultimately led to a loss of confidence in the currency and thus to a decline in the value of the coins, as they were not inherently forgery-proof (it became quite easy to mint counterfeit coins with such a low silver content).
Still, the value of the material itself has always been variable and depended heavily on its rarity: When the Spanish imported large quantities of silver from their colonies in South America in the 16th century, the value of silver fell because the material became less scarce. This eventually led to massive inflation throughout Europe at the time.
However, the value is not so much determined by the material itself, but by the value that people ascribe to it at a certain time. There are also great historical examples of how speculative bubbles work: In the 17th century, tulip bulbs were at times traded at enormously high prices in the Netherlands because they were difficult to obtain and therefore rare - this made them coveted as a status symbol. However, this bubble finally burst in 1637 when traders could no longer find buyers due to the astronomical tulip bulb prices - demand was covered; the "Tulipmania" had ended. As a result, the merchants began to sell these tulip bulbs in "panic sales" at ever lower prices in order to recoup at least part of their investment. As a result, the price fell to near worthlessness.
Such speculative bubbles still exist today, of course. This is demonstrated very impressively time and again by cryptocurrencies, for example, which are not even material and have no central regulatory authority (such as a central bank) - their value results basically just from what someone is willing to pay at a certain point in time.
So gold and silver were and are valuable not only because of their utility value, but also because of their use as a means of payment, whereby the value - as with today's currencies - results from a (more or less stable) consensus on the exchange value in goods attributed to a material or currency.
As gold in particular has historically been used as a means of payment for a very long time, most countries still have gold reserves to back their currencies to a certain extent, even if their currencies are generally no longer directly linked to an equivalent value in gold as they used to be. Nevertheless, the US, for example, still holds large amounts of gold at Fort Knox and elsewhere to counteract the fact that paper money, and especially its virtual equivalent in some digital form, is materially worthless.
It ain't easy being grumpy
What I mean is that I am not aware of any other country that privatizes state sovereign rights in the way that the US does: If someone is sentenced to prison for any crime, it is a punishment that the state determines and thus usually carries out. In the US, however, it is possible for a private company to enforce the sentence "on behalf of the state". This is a very US-American procedure which, as far as I know, is not implemented in this way anywhere else. I may be wrong, but where I come from, Europe, this is unthinkable because private companies are not allowed to take on government tasks as important as these - at least not to this extent. Another example is the privatization of the military, as Blackwater, now Academi, and others have been doing for decades in the US (recently also Musk with Starlink). In Europe, this is also a matter for the state and the state alone. Even in Russia under Putin's regime, private armies are officially illegal, although of course they still exist (not officially tho).
Cool. Still, don't get caught three times smoking weed in a state where it's illegal. Otherwise: enjoy the weekend and smoke up.
Don't ask me since I'm from Europe. But even I know that this candidate could not possibly have been Trump.
I assume you mean the problem of going to prison for a little weed, right? Or are private prisons illegal in 24 states? That would be news to me.
I don't think anything will change about people being sent to prison for trivialities as long as there are private prisons. Because if you organize this matter according to capitalist logic, the illusion arises that people in prison would not cause costs in the public budget, but just profits for private companies - just like in a hotel where the beds have to be occupied as best as possible. In my opinion, this fundamentally contradicts the purpose of prisons. It is not about generating profits, but about ensuring the functionality of society - in the worst case by locking people up because they are a danger to society. In a capitalist logic, you lock them up for trivialities because that generates profits. That should never be the case. There are purely economic arguments against this approach, namely that the labor of those imprisoned unnecessarily is lost and at the same time costs are incurred for all citizens as a result of this imprisonment. For this reason alone, private prisons are absurd. They are also morally wrong because they create monetary incentives where there should be none.
Are you serious?