Elon Musk’s Vision Still Matters for Tesla

On a recent episode of the Sanity Podcast, hosts Dave Briggs and Allison Camarada sat down with Ross Gerber, an early Tesla investor who once held nearly 500,000 shares. Gerber’s take? Elon Musk’s political stances, his Twitter antics, and his role in slashing government spending via DOGE have turned Tesla into a “pariah brand,” tanking its stock and alienating owners. He’s sold off much of his stake and wants Musk out as CEO, pointing to a board he claims is overpaid in stock options and lacks independence. As a Tesla shareholder who’s voted twice to back Musk’s compensation, I’ve got a different view—one that sees Gerber’s complaints as shortsighted and the hate for Tesla as misplaced. Here’s why Musk’s vision still matters, and why Tesla wouldn’t be Tesla without him.

Stock Options Align Incentives, Not Greed

Gerber griped about Tesla’s board getting rich off stock options instead of flat pay—$600 million for chair Robyn Denholm, he says, versus the $400k norm at companies like Disney. But isn’t that the same deal Musk has? Back in 2018, when Tesla was a $50 billion company, shareholders like me voted for his pay package: for every $50 billion in value he added, up to $650 billion, he’d get a payout. The media called it absurd, saying Tesla would never hit that mark. Guess what? It did, and then some—12xing my investment. We voted again in 2024 to reaffirm it, with 75% approval. So why’s Gerber mad when the same stock-based incentives that rewarded Musk also rewarded him 20-fold? The board and Musk win when shareholders win—when Tesla provides value to the world. That’s not a flaw; it’s the point. The only ones whining are Gerber and an activist lawyer pushing a BS lawsuit with a guy who owns nine shares. Most of us aren’t mad—we’re counting our gains.

Tesla’s Success Isn’t Luck—It’s Elon

Gerber wants Musk gone, but look at the alternatives. Ford’s stock has been stuck at $9 since 1989. GM went bankrupt in 2008, wiping out shareholders like me (I lost $100—not much, but still). Meanwhile, Tesla’s the only new U.S. car company to thrive in a century. Why? Musk’s vision. He’s not just churning out cars—he’s pushing grid-scale Megapack batteries, humanoid robots, and electric semis. New EV players like Fisker and Canoo crashed and burned; Tesla didn’t. People think CEOs micromanage daily ops, but that’s not the gig. A CEO makes a few big calls a year to set the course. Compare Musk to GM’s Mary Barra—stock flat since their bankruptcy—or Ford’s latest CEO, whoever that is. Musk sees where tech and the world are headed; they don’t. Without him, Tesla might coast for 10-15 years on Model Ys and 3s, but the visionary spark would die.

Apple’s Lesson: Visionaries Matter

Take Apple. People see it as a juggernaut now, but in 1998, it was nearly bankrupt. They’d kicked Steve Jobs out in 1985, and for over a decade, the company floundered—until they brought him back in 1997. Jobs turned it around with the iPod, iPhone, and more, making Apple a titan. Since his death, though? They’ve coasted—new iPhones, sure, but nothing revolutionary. Tesla could follow that path if Musk were axed: profitable for a while, but stagnant, no longer dreaming big. Gerber might not care, but I do—because that’s where the real value lies.

The Hate’s Misplaced—And It Hurts the Wrong People

Yes, Musk’s dive into politics stings for Tesla owners. I get it—nobody likes being hassled for driving one. But the pain isn’t from Elon; it’s from people attacking us for his views. I don’t see folks boycotting Amazon over Jeff Bezos, or GM over Barra. Why Tesla? Gerber notes Musk owns just 13% of the company—87% is us: shareholders, pension funds, workers. Protests at Tesla stores, keying cars—that doesn’t hit Elon; it hits regular people. Tesla owners now have to worry their cars will be vandalized every time they go oujust because they drive a Tesla. It’s unfair, and it’s missing the point: Tesla’s still fighting climate change, even if Musk’s tweets rile up the culture wars.

Musk’s Not Perfect, But He’s Proven His Worth

Is Musk distracting? Sure, sometimes. Twitter was a wild move, and his Trump endorsement after the assassination attempt raised eyebrows. But Gerber’s wrong that it’s all downhill. Musk’s quirks—political or otherwise—come with the genius. He took Tesla from a cash-strapped EV geek dream to a global force. When Biden snubbed Tesla for GM and Ford in that EV summit, Musk fought for the credit he’d earned—because he built the industry they’re now riding. And DOGE? If it’s slashing waste, I’m not crying over it—especially when Gerber admits the SEC’s understaffed anyway. Musk’s not “taking his eye off the ball”; he’s juggling more balls than most CEOs could dream of.

The Bottom Line

Gerber’s selling because he’s cashed out his 20x gains and doesn’t like Musk’s vibe anymore. Fine (we, other Tesla Shareholders, don’t like him! Go start your own company Ross!)—he’s free to buy Ford or GM instead. But for me, and plenty of other shareholders, Musk’s the reason Tesla’s not just another failed startup—or a coasting has-been like Apple post-Jobs. The stock’s down 40% from its peak, sure, but it’s still worth more than Ford, GM, and Stellantis combined. BYD’s cheaper cars don’t touch Tesla’s software edge, and robo-taxis? Good luck finding a better bet. Tesla’s not dying—it’s evolving, and Musk’s the one steering it. If you don’t like it, nobody’s forcing you to buy the stock—or the car. Me? I’m still in, because vision beats complacency every time.

How to keep your house – Gary Economics

“ the US government or every government in the world is the largest spender of things and they are pushing the price of things up. For example, all the money that the US spends on buying tanks and airplanes and other things consumes some steel and electronics and such and that pushes the price up when Ford or John Deere or Apple wants to buy steel or electronics for their cars or tractors or phones.”

I like Gary Economics. He has a book and a youtube channel. But his message is just so diluted and garbled and he is blinded by his knowledge that he misses some things. 

To start off with, I don’t hate rich people. But this is probably one of the best descriptions of the actual problem with wealth inequality.

How To Keep Your House – Gary Economics – Youtube

And to note, if you have even $50,000 worth of assets, you are probably in the top 10% of the world. So, well this guy is describing the difference between multi-millionaires and billionaires and the middle class he could just as easily be describing the middle class in the USA out paying for services of people in India. For example, many Indian doctors come to the United States and leaves less doctors in India.

Anyway, his whole message is a little garbled all the time. I’ve read his book and listened to enough stuff that I get it but I feel like he’s not that great of a communicator. In general, his argument is we need to tax the rich because they have too much money and push the price of goods up.

 If you heard the bit where he was talking about the rich buying doctors services to do cosmetic surgeries instead of normal surgeries that does a similar thing to Medical care costs as we talked about house is getting the monetary premium. So his argument is we need to have the rich have less buying power so they can’t push the price of goods up for the average person

You sent

And he is right to some point. But a thing he misses is that the US government or every government in the world is the largest spender of things and they are pushing the price of things up. For example, all the money that the US spends on buying tanks and airplanes and other things consumes some steel and electronics and such and that pushes the price up when Ford or John Deere or Apple wants to buy steel or electronics for their cars or tractors or phones.


The whole world is at competition for goods and services. This is explained in a great book, Economics in One Lesson – Henry Hazlitt which you can read here for free or buy here

Canada and Mexico Tariffs Feb 2025

Donald Trump imposed a 25% tariff on goods imported to the USA from Canada and Mexico. I am hoping to do a small experiment tracking a few goods from each country to see how their prices change as well as a few similar goods in the USA as a baseline to compare to track inflation.

I know that John Deere 6E tractors are imported from Mexico, 1 oz Gold Mexican libertads  are also imported from Mexico and 1 oz gold Canadian Maple leaves are imported from Canada. I am interested how the price of these goods changes over the next years. 

I am also going to track a few things that are made in the USA.

One will be a John Deere 8R that is manufactured in the USA and also 1 oz Gold buffalos and 1 oz Gold eagles. 

Base prices on 2-2-2025

1 oz gold maple

Spot price – $2,803.50 Monument metals price, $2,808.03 SD Bullion price

SD bullion – $2,898.02

Monument Metals – $2,852.68 (Sale price)

1 oz Mexican Libertad 

2024 SD bullion – $3,058.03

1 oz American Gold Eagle – random year

SD bullion – $2,878.02

Monument Metals – $2,921.52 (Sale price)

Below is the same data as above but put in a table for quicker reference.

Below are the John Deere tractors that I will be tracking

John Deere 6105E – $89,977.00 (made in Mexico)

John Deere 8R wheel 230 hp – $414,435 (mace in USA)

My hypothesis is that the John Deere 6E made in Mexico might be priced at $125k in 1 year or 2 assuming 25% tariffs. 

I expect the John Deere 8R to also increase in price, but perhaps only about $3%-5% over the year due to inflation. 

If you have any other products you know are made in USA or Canada that might be interesting to track please let me know.

The Fed has no power to stop government spending, which is the root cause of inflation!

The Fed has no power to stop government spending, which is the root cause of inflation!

Below is a quote from Senator Elizabeth Warren, during a grilling of Fed Chair Jerome Powell

Senator Warren: In other words, you don’t have a plan to stop a runaway train if it occurs. You know, Chair Powell, you are gambling with people’s lives. And there’s a pile of data showing the price gouging and supply chain kinks, and the war in Ukraine are driving up prices. 

You cling to the idea that there’s only one solution: lay off millions of workers. We need a Fed that will fight for families. And if you’re not going to lead that charge, we need someone with the Fed who will. – original link here

What does Senator Warren think he is going to do about price gouging and supply chain kinks, and the war in Ukraine?

The Federal Reserve literally has 1 tool in their tool box, and that is to raise rates. He can’t stop the war in Ukraine. He can’t fix supply chain kinks. While she has identified some things that are nominally impacting inflation, it’s not all of them. There is 1 big one she is missing, which she could impact as a Senator, Government Spending!

To be clear, what the Fed is trying to do is reduce spending by individuals so they aren’t buying so many things. They try to reduce spending by offering higher rates on bonds. The thought is that people will buy bonds paying 5% interest instead of spending their money on goods. The fewer people trying to buy goods, the less money is chasing the same amount of goods and the prices will go down. 

Elizabeth Warren lives in her own kayfabe financial world. She is bullying the Fed Chair, Jerome Powell, to lower interest rates because she thinks he is hurting the economy. She is right that higher rates are one of the things that is likely to hurt the economy in the long run. But the real thing that is driving inflation in the USA is government spending. The US government debt is rising by $1 trillion about every 100 days.

Like I mentioned above, if the goal is to reduce spending in the economy by taking individuals’ money out of circulation by getting them to buy bonds, then the government comes in and is spending $1T, there isn’t less money chasing the same amount of goods, there is more money!

The Fed has no power to stop government spending, which is the root cause of inflation!

More money chasing the same amount of goods causes inflation. It is that simple. 

Think of it as if you are at an auction and you have $100 in your wallet and 5 other people also have $100 in their wallets.. There is another bidder who has a printer who can literally print $100 bills at will and outbid you and all others at anything you want to buy. This bidder with unlimited buying power will bid up the price of things until they are beyond your reach. Are other bidders, who also all have $100 causing the problem? Or is the bidder with the money printing machine outbidding everyone causing the price of things at the auction to go higher?

It’s pretty clear in this situation that the money printer is driving prices higher. People don’t study fiscal policy (use of government spending and taxation to influence the economy) very often. Most people just want to work and then come home and live their lives. Because people don’t study it often, and it’s a pretty big and abstract thing to most people, it’s very hard to wrap their heads around. 

There is also, unfortunately, almost nothing anyone can personally do to impact government spending. 

I can only think of a few things you can do personally.

  1. Learn what is actually causing inflation instead of listening to the news tell you what they think is causing it.
    1. A couple of books I recommend to understand money and its role as a tool
    2. Broken Money: Why Our Financial System is Failing Us and How We Can Make it Better – Lyn Alden
    3. Gold: The Once and Future Money – Nathan Lewis
    4. Principles of Economics – Saifedean Ammous
  2. Have a personally sound balance sheet. Spend less than you make. Invest your excess income in sound assets. Stocks, Real Estate, Gold, Bitcoin. 
  3. Communicate with others about personal finances and government finances. If we all become more fiscally literate we might form a large enough coalition that we can start impacting government spending. But first we need to understand it ourselves. It is my hope that writing this and sharing it helps educate just 1 or 2 others about the topic. 
  4. listen to this podcast – Prices, Interest Payments, & The US Deficit: It’s All Going To Get Worse with Greg Crennan

As an addendum to the above, I have copied the 2023 Congressional Budget Office report below, in case it disappears in the future. It highlights how the government spending is projected to grow as a percent of GDP every year going forward. Do we really want the government spending more and more of our money? Do we think a central authority is better at knowing what we need than we ourselves do? I think not. 

I’ve also linked it below.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59014

Each year, the Congressional Budget Office publishes a report presenting its projections of what the federal budget and the economy would look like over the next 30 years if current laws generally remained unchanged. The long-term budget projections typically follow CBO’s 10-year baseline budget projections and then extend most of the concepts underlying them for an additional 20 years. This year, the long-term projections are based on CBO’s May 2023 baseline projections but also reflect the estimated budgetary effects of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Public Law 118-5), which was enacted on June 3, 2023.

Deficits

In CBO’s projections, the deficit equals 5.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2023, declines to 5.0 percent by 2027, and then grows in every year, reaching 10.0 percent of GDP in 2053. Over the past century, that level has been exceeded only during World War II and the coronavirus pandemic. The increase in the total deficit results from faster growth in spending than in revenues. The primary deficit, which excludes interest costs, equals 3.3 percent of GDP in both 2023 and 2053, but the total deficit is boosted by rising interest costs.

Debt

By the end of 2023, federal debt held by the public equals 98 percent of GDP. Debt then rises in relation to GDP: It surpasses its historical high in 2029, when it reaches 107 percent of GDP, and climbs to 181 percent of GDP by 2053. Such high and rising debt would slow economic growth, push up interest payments to foreign holders of U.S. debt, and pose significant risks to the fiscal and economic outlook; it could also cause lawmakers to feel more constrained in their policy choices.

Spending

In 2023, outlays fall to 24.2 percent of GDP as federal spending in response to the pandemic diminishes. Outlays continue to decline through 2026 but increase thereafter, reaching 29.1 percent of GDP in 2053. (By comparison, from 1993 to 2022, outlays averaged 21.0 percent of GDP.) Rising interest rates and persistently large primary deficits cause interest costs to almost triple in relation to GDP between 2023 and 2053. Spending on the major health care programs and Social Security—driven by the aging of the population and growing health care costs—also boosts federal outlays significantly over the next 30 years.

Revenues

Revenues fall to 18.4 percent of GDP in 2023 and continue to drop until 2026, when the scheduled expiration of certain provisions of the 2017 tax act causes tax receipts to increase. Revenues generally rise thereafter, reaching 19.1 percent of GDP in 2053, as an increasing share of income is pushed into higher tax brackets. (By comparison, from 1993 to 2022, revenues averaged 17.2 percent of GDP.)

Changes From Previous Projections

Measured as a percentage of GDP, federal debt is now projected to be 2 percentage points higher in 2023 and 9 percentage points lower in 2052 than it was in last year’s report. Overall, CBO’s projections of debt have increased through 2042 and decreased in later years.

Letter to Politicians – Ban Stock Trading and Create Term Limits for Congress

I put on my goals for 2024 to write at least 4 letters to politicians this year. This is my 2nd letter. You can find the 1st here.  I believe I would find very few people who would be against these ideas. There have been multiple bills proposed to rectify both of these issues. But none has ever been passed by Congress. Why? Ask your politicians. Vote them out if they don’t fix this.

I write these so you can copy, paste, send to your politicians if you agree with these ideas. We often think writing politicians doesn’t do anything, and it might not. But if they know there is large enough support that people will act on (vote them out) if they don’t do what we want, they will eventually do the right thing.  

“Bans on stock trading & term limits for Congress are *wildly* popular, yet never get enacted because they run against the self-interest of Congressmen. Here’s the solution: propose legislation requiring it  & just “grandfather” exemptions for those enact it. It’d pass instantly.” – Vivek Ramaswamy, 1-31-2024 X post

I am writing you to encourage you to vote in support and show my support for 

S.2773 – Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act. 

Mr. Ossoff (for himself, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Warnock, Mr. Bennet, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Luján, Mr. Schatz, Ms. Baldwin, and Mrs. Shaheen) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Trust in the government, which you are a part of, has been eroding for over 60 years.

One of the reasons is that it appears that many politicians get into government after they are already rich and then proceed to use their positions to get even richer. 

There are multiple websites and X accounts to follow Nancy Pelosi’s stock trading.

 Nancy Pelosi Stock Tracker ♟- @PelosiTracker_

The 1 reason why I like Ron Desantis is he sold his stocks before he became a member of Congress to remove any show of insider trading. While I don’t agree with all his policies, I appreciate that about him. I wish others would follow him. 

https://rollcall.com/2023/08/14/desantis-says-he-sold-all-stocks-house-disclosures-show-otherwise/

The fact that there is a bill in congress that has been proposed multiple times to ban stock trading but has not been passed makes me trust Congress even less. 

I ask you why this bill has not been passed?

As mentioned in the original quote from Vivek, there is also a bill proposed to pass term limits for members of Congress. 

H.J.Res.20 – Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the number of consecutive terms that a Member of Congress may serve.

I also ask you, why has this not been passed?