Elon Musk

@elonmusk

Double-digit growth is coming within 12 to 18 months.

If applied intelligence is proxy for economic growth, which it should be, triple-digit is possible in ~5 years.

8:20 AM · Dec 24, 2025

·

3.2M

Views

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832313&forum_id=2#49654723)

Jeffrey Weichsel

@jeffreyweichsel

·

Dec 24, 2025

Massive deflation of goods and services plus unprecedented economic growth equals universal prosperity for all humanity.

Thank you, Elon!

***

Has anyone investigated whether TBF's last name might be "Weichsel"?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832313&forum_id=2#49654750)

IMO, people with money who think that Elon Musk (aka by far the richest man in the world -- he's now literally 2.5x as rich as the 2nd richest man thanks to his various tech companies) is some kind of delusional midwit retard who doesn't understand finance / tech and is just pulling shit out of his ass should absolutely be shorting TSLA, since that's the only way to directly place a bet against him. And it's a "win-win" for them because just as long as their short hits, they also score a nice big easy payday!

OP: you seem like you're probably very smart and successful, and you clearly hate Elon -- so are you using any of your own substantial assets to short TSLA? ;)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832313&forum_id=2#49654761)

I'm like dude no one in my ultra liberal progressive area killed themselves over not being trans. Like do you people at least acknowledge that no one actually ever killed themselves because they couldn't transition? No one thought about it. And I'm from a place that's as gay and left wing as anywhere in the Bay Area.

When I was growing up we had a ton of homos in school, we had girls who were really into cutting themselves. That was the thing. But nobody, not one kid stood up and say actually I'm a girl. Not one. No one thought about it because it wasn't on the menu. And there were no suicides. So what is this ridiculous myth that people were killing themselves because they couldn't go trans? This is utterly ridiculous there's zero evidence for it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832313&forum_id=2#49655851)

You're making the same analytical mistake that was the basis of the Cass Report -- that the only relevant metric for evaluating the efficacy of "gender-affirming care" should be its effect on suicidality. If you think about it, you'll realize that there are precisely zero other healthcare interventions where that is considered the only relevant metric. For example, we aren't administering SSRIs to 30% of white women because they would kill themselves if they didn't get it, but just because they self-report improvements of QOL. Same with Finasteride, Adderall, boob implants, penile implants, leg-lengthening, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832313&forum_id=2#49655869)

Just to be clear are you 100% unequivocally agreeing that suicidality is not a major concern when it comes to transitioning minors? I assume you now agree with the lawsuit out of Westchester where the doc and psychologist told the mom that her daughter would literally be dead if she didn't get a double mastectomy? Per your point of view, that was not true. Are you fully admitting that the people who said would you rather have a living son or a dead daughter were lying? Do I have this 100% absolutely clear?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832313&forum_id=2#49655891)

It is in fact a major concern, because kids with gender problems have more than four times greater rates of suicide attempts compared with their cisgender peers. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9991447/. My point (which shouldn't be confusing to any intelligent person) is that that isn't the *only relevant consideration, although it was treated as such in the Cass Report. And obv these people have lots of other mental health problems such that gender affirming care wouldn't be expected to bring their suicidality equal to that of cis-kids.

Your other argument is also reflective of the intellectual limits of xo2026: "That's great data, BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS ANECDOTE I SAW ON MY TWITTER FEED??!"

It's plain that you lack either one or both of the interest or the intellect to really explore these issues, which is why I much prefer engaging with gunneratttt.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832313&forum_id=2#49655971)

Let's agree on some facts. Kids who seek a sex change are way more likely to be nuts than the average kid. Ok we can agree on that. They're more likely to be schizo, (perhaps?) come from a fucked up family, suicidality, you name it. It's obviously not something normal, healthy people do. Minor (heh) quibbles aside, let's just establish this axiom. These kids are nuts. You can stack up all the comorbidities you want.

Now I read the Cass report but I can't remember a single word it said because I subsequently forgot about it and moved on with my life. In your first poast you argued that suicidality was not the only factor. I said well if it's not the only factor, is it a factor at all? Now you're telling me it is a factor, but still not the only factor. It's having your cake and eating it too. You (not you personally, but your side) can waive around the notion that trans kids are suicidal and need are help in order to bully people into thinking they need this care. But then on the back end you're saying, well, 𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘴 these kids are fucked up so now it's not a matter of life and death, they may just be nuts anyway, there's little we can do, but the proper course of action is to listen to them with radical empathy and if they want to make an irreversible life-altering decision at an incredibly young age (young enough that we arrest chomos for going near them because they cannot consent) society should accept this and proceed. But we've now seen with detransitioners a lot of people come out and say, 'this therapy didn't fix my problems.'

You essentially made an argument that gender transitioning is palliative care. It's not the end all be all of a person's problems (surprisingly, agreed!). You said it's for a person's comfort and quality of life, just like how some people booze, take pills, or SSRIs. No acknowledgment whatsoever that people who medicate or self-medicate can always, you know, stop without permanent life-altering changes to their bodies.

You like gunneratttt because he indulges you. I am listening to every word but still disagreeing. You should be a lot more hardened at this point to someone making legitimate rhetorical points, here. Sad to see you crash out over this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832313&forum_id=2#49656000)

This is part of the problem. The strength of rhetoric isn't based on the "feeling" of the speaker. Most dumb people strongly "feel" that their retarded assertions are strong. But the real issue is whether their arguments are logically sound.

"Let's agree on some facts." *spews without citation a bunch of assertions that aren't "facts" in any sense of the word "fact."

"Now you're telling me it is a factor, but still not the only factor. It's having your cake and eating it too."

Your brain has reasoned that problems should only have one factor, and the key to solving the problem is to figure out what that factor is and then focus on it. This isn't "intelligent."

And then you return to "OH SO YOU'RE SAYING" with "you're saying . . . it's not a matter of life and death, they may just be nuts anyway, there's little we can do." That's not at all what I'm saying, and it only takes a 70th percentile RC to read my posts for comprehension, if you really wanted to.

"people who medicate or self-medicate can always, you know, stop without permanent life-altering changes to their bodies." But what if the "permanent life-altering changes to their bodies" are in fact what they are seeking? I can think of many instances in which public policy *promotes the making of permanent life-altering changes to our bodies.

You'll never have the ability to understand and put forward intelligent arguments like gunneratttt does, okay? So give it up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832313&forum_id=2#49656165)

go put on a mask, get vaccinated, and look at the horrible shit you did to your children because

durr durr i was told to

durr durr i have a link!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832313&forum_id=2#49656054)

Can you link directly to the Tweet that comprises your data for this assertion?

Cf. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9991447/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832313&forum_id=2#49655979)

"MacGregor"

"Cyber Ninjas"

"FTX"

Trump never bombing Iran.

GOP keeping senate and house in 2026.

the list is fucking endless lmao

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832313&forum_id=2#49656191)

(tbf)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832313&forum_id=2#49655871)

1. Autonomous Driving & Robotaxis

Musk has predicted "full autonomy" nearly every year since 2014.

"1 Million Robotaxis by 2020" (2019): Musk famously claimed that by 2020, Tesla would have 1 million robotaxis on the road and that owning a Tesla would be an appreciating asset worth up to $150,000. As of early 2026, while a limited robotaxi service has launched in Austin (often with safety monitors), the fleet is nowhere near 1 million, and personal Teslas are not appreciating assets.

Cross-Country Autonomous Drive (2016): Musk promised a Tesla would drive itself from Los Angeles to New York without a single human touch "by the end of 2017." This demonstration has never occurred.

"Level 5" Autonomy (2020): In July 2020, Musk stated, "I remain confident that we will have the basic functionality for Level 5 autonomy complete this year." Level 5 (steering wheel optional, no human needed ever) has not been achieved.

2. SpaceX & Mars Colonization

Humans on Mars by 2024 (2016): At the International Astronautical Congress in 2016, Musk presented a timeline where the first crewed mission to Mars would launch in 2024. This window passed without a crewed launch.

Red Dragon Mission (2011/2015): SpaceX originally planned to land a Dragon capsule on Mars by 2018. The entire "Red Dragon" program was eventually cancelled in favor of Starship development.

Earth-to-Earth Rocket Travel (2017): Musk proposed using Starship to fly passengers anywhere on Earth in under an hour (e.g., NY to Shanghai in 39 minutes). While technically still a "goal," no commercial development or regulatory framework for this exists yet.

3. Tesla Product Delays & Specs

Tesla Roadster 2 (2017): Unveiled in 2017 with a promise to launch in 2020. It was touted to have "SpaceX package" thrusters and hover capability. As of February 2026, the car is still in pre-production status, with a "demo" tentatively pushed to April 2026.

The $39,900 Cybertruck (2019): When unveiled, the single-motor Cybertruck was promised to start at $39,900 with a 500+ mile range for the top tier. When it finally launched (years late), the base price was roughly 50% higher ($60,990+) and the range was significantly lower than promised without an external battery pack extender.

Tesla Semi Production (2017): Originally slated for production in 2019. While some units have been delivered to PepsiCo, volume production was delayed for years.

4. Infrastructure & Other Ventures

The Hyperloop (2013): Musk published a white paper for a "fifth mode of transport" that would shoot pods through vacuum tubes at 700+ mph. He claimed it would be "easy" and cheap to build. Over a decade later, most Hyperloop companies have shut down or pivoted to cargo, and no functional passenger system exists.

1,000 Solar Roofs Per Week (2019): Musk tweeted in 2019 that Tesla would be installing 1,000 Solar Roofs per week by the end of that year. Years later, installations have remained a fraction of that volume due to complexity and cost.

The Boring Company "Loop" Speeds: The original vision involved autonomous sleds carrying cars at 150 mph. The operational Vegas Loop currently features human-driven Teslas traveling at roughly 30-40 mph in standard tunnels.

5. "Funding Secured" (2018)

Musk tweeted he had "funding secured" to take Tesla private at $420 per share. It was later revealed that funding was not secured, leading to a fraud settlement with the SEC and Musk stepping down as Tesla Chairman.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832313&forum_id=2#49656202)

What Elon the Idiot really means is some tech comp profits are gonna go to 100% annualized

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832313&forum_id=2#49656206)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832313&forum_id=2#49656209)