← Back to topic list

Musk: "Am changing the Tesla mission wording from: Sustainable Abundance To Amazing Abundance. The latter is more joyful"

twinbee | 2025-12-24 22:44 | 427 views

Comments (187)
AutoModerator 2025-12-24 22:44

**I am a bot. This is a friendly reminder that unwelcoming toxic/griefing/pessimistic sniping comments that are not on topic and don’t move the discussion forward will be removed. A ban will be issued if necessary. Consider this before commenting. Report posts or comments that violate the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/mod/teslamotors/rules/). Thank you.** If you are unable to find it, use the link to it. We are not a support sub, please make sure to use the proper resources if you have questions: [Official Tesla Support](https://www.tesla.com/support), [r/TeslaLounge](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/) personal content | [Discord Live Chat](https://discord.gg/tesla) for anything. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/teslamotors) if you have any questions or concerns.*

twinbee 2025-12-24 22:45

I think "overflowing abundance" would be a further improvement.

maksidaa 2025-12-24 22:47

Abundant abundance

OlorinDK 2025-12-24 22:51

So Unsustainable Abundance

[deleted] 2025-12-24 22:51

[deleted]

annabiler 2025-12-24 22:52

It was never about sustainability

qwenydus 2025-12-24 22:57

It's also less sustainable.

nametaken_thisonetoo 2025-12-24 23:01

I just wish they'd stop lying about what it's capable of. A little bit less deception abundance would be a nice change

Spudly42 2025-12-24 23:01

As an employee, I hope this is a joke. One of the top employee concerns (at least in engineering) is already about the mission changing away from sustainability.

[deleted] 2025-12-24 23:02

The latter is also dumber. Sustainable abundance actually makes it sound like the company cares about something and won’t just wreck whatever they can to grow as a company. wtf is “amazing abundance”?

[deleted] 2025-12-24 23:04

[removed]

checkout7 2025-12-24 23:05

Amazing abundance is “make me the first trillionaire at all costs”.

AllPintsNorth 2025-12-24 23:05

lol, you must know the mission changed to “make musk the first trillionaire by any means necessary” a long while ago.

devoid0101 2025-12-24 23:08

I miss the original Mission Statement where selling the expensive cars funded mass production of a cheap car for everyone.

maksidaa 2025-12-24 23:11

Always has been

[deleted] 2025-12-24 23:11

[removed]

kapara-13 2025-12-24 23:12

IMO it's just him having fun with words. Tesla is and will be about sustainability

NefariousnessIcy3430 2025-12-24 23:12

Mmmm how about Giga Abundance Max?

m3m4t 2025-12-24 23:16

I think that actually is the most accurate naming though. Autopilots are actually made for keeping a certain heading but don’t substitute fully the driver. On airplanes and ships you have autopilots but you also have pilots and the craft is never left unattended. Autopilot on Tesla works the same. I don’t know what’s in the “confused” people mind, but I guess it will blow their mind knowing that airplane pilots do not sleep while flying just because they have autopilot engaged… https://www.uavnavigation.com/products/autopilot-definition

twinbee 2025-12-24 23:18

Not really. Plenty of material left on Earth for new batteries etc.

Special-Bite 2025-12-24 23:20

Amazing Abundance [of cash into Musks bank account]

DrivingHerbert 2025-12-24 23:23

But at what lengths will we go to get them? >! It’s War. Endless war. !<

Any_Context1 2025-12-24 23:24

Why not sell an ICE-powered car then? Maybe ditch EVs entirely. Maybe buy some pollutants and get Trump’s permission to dump them in a river?

[deleted] 2025-12-24 23:25

[removed]

stevieoats 2025-12-24 23:29

Otto-Pilot

twinbee 2025-12-24 23:30

Why are you assuming they are mutually exclusive? Of course you can have overflowing AND sustainable abundance. We don't need to deprive ourselves with some perverse form of moral abstinence used as justification.

twinbee 2025-12-24 23:31

Amazing abundance is where ever the poorest people on Earth can have the kind of possessions us first worlders enjoy, because goods can be produced so cheaply (due to AI/robots). Think of it as an infinite money glitch.

sd_pl 2025-12-24 23:33

Go ahead and send a company wide email with your concerns bro, Jerry McGuire style.

twinbee 2025-12-24 23:35

Perhaps you could rephrase your last paragraph so I can approve it. I don't trust Reddit's algorithm to be logical.

pjohns24 2025-12-24 23:35

Is this satire? You can’t seriously be this delusional to believe that to be true.

elchico14 2025-12-24 23:35

Cars driving themselves is quite amazing

twinbee 2025-12-24 23:37

I think you're exaggerating. The shift to LFP (no cobalt/nickel) is already a giant step in the direction of fully sustainable.

sailirish7 2025-12-24 23:39

Or maybe just not as much of a pessimist as you.

twinbee 2025-12-24 23:40

Hoodwinked by the Reddit mob I see. I'm sorry you won't be seeing the fruits of a further 10x stock multiplier. I'll be doing the opposite of you, and even investing in SpaceX eventually, thus enjoying continued profits.

sailirish7 2025-12-24 23:40

They already achieved that mission.

Mront 2025-12-24 23:41

The problem is, that's not how an average person uses the term "autopilot" on a day to day basis. Like, there's a reason why the idiom ["on autopilot"](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/on-autopilot) means "doing something without thinking", and not "doing something with constant supervision". Or let's look at a different example. Tomato is objectively a fruit. But when someone asks you to buy some fruits for a fruit salad, you wouldn't come back with a bag of tomatoes, because you understand the implied meaning of "fruit". Similarly, you wouldn't add a watermelon to a berry mix - it's obvious what the implication of "berry" is here. When you're advertising a product, you can't just base everything on objective definitions. You also need to consider what your name implies, and what your audience/your customers *believe* the definition is.

pc772 2025-12-24 23:43

Sustainable abundance was already pretty loosey goosey

Spudly42 2025-12-24 23:45

I've seen plenty of people fall on their swords for a cause over the years, pretty much never successfully. This kind of thing will just hurt already bad morale and more people will rest and vest.

kfar87 2025-12-24 23:47

I’m really sorry you guys are in that position. I’m incredibly thankful for all of the hard work many people put in for years to bring EV’s and sustainable energy to market.

otatop 2025-12-24 23:49

No no no no no, people here will tell you that even though he has a net worth of ~$750 billion he's actually cash poor and we should pity him.

maydock 2025-12-24 23:50

something a second grader would say

devoid0101 2025-12-24 23:50

Untrue. The model 2 and dedicated Mexico factory were cancelled or postponed. A stripped down model 3 and robotaxi were released in its place.

AreasonableAmerican 2025-12-24 23:51

It’s the bestliest abundance, all the top people are saying it.

sprashoo 2025-12-24 23:52

I imagine anyone actually the least bit concerned about sustainability working at Tesla for the last few years must be feeling pretty damn conflicted.

twinbee 2025-12-24 23:56

Are ***YOU*** serious? Do you seriously think AI and robots won't change the whole concept of money and goods in general? AI is starting to replace all jobs. We'll all be needing a UBI scheme soon!

FrankLangellasBalls 2025-12-24 23:57

lol that you think this

theavatare 2025-12-25 00:03

Being at that point in a company when its clear the moral part is gone. Really sucks. Sorry to hear that man. Hopefully your equity keeps ya warm

MidnightSun_55 2025-12-25 00:03

is he having brain damage due to age and will eventually become like Trump? What are those words man. Next time he will change Amazing Abundance to "A lot of cool stuff"

Spudly42 2025-12-25 00:05

You are absolutely correct. The reality is, morale is way lower, many of the best have left and for most of the rest of us, it has just become a normal job instead of something highly motivating that we feel good about. For me it's still a good job, but I do feel my legacy was somewhat erased by Elon's actions.

AwkwardlyPositioned 2025-12-25 00:05

Think of who said it and it all makes sense.  Of course it wouldn't actually make sense.

pc772 2025-12-25 00:13

?

pc772 2025-12-25 00:13

Delusion at its finest imo, Tesla was so much better when they were focussing purely on good cars and sustainable energy

m3m4t 2025-12-25 00:14

On a certain extent, I agree with you.. but doing things “on autopilot” is, indeed, doing them “without thinking”….but if you’re going against a wall you’ll sort of “wake up” and gain control of yourself. It does not mean “let someone else do the work for you”. Autopilot di per se is the correct term, with the correct definition, for what the car does. I think that every engineer can agree with it and since it has probably been chosen by engineers, I get why they thought it would fit perfectly. It’s so limited in its “independence” that Tesla changed its name to define the version that actually drives by itself: Full Self Drive (FSD). Autopilot does not imply that, in any mean possible. What was VERY confusing was (and probably, to some extent, is) what Elon touted when he spoke about the Autopilot capabilities. In 2016 they were absolutely above the average, but far away from what FSD can do today. He did not realize, at the time, how difficult the last 20% of the journey was. This is the error that many do when talking about autonomous systems in general: doing “something” good is quite easy. We have many universities doing it every year! Doing something that works everywhere, everyday.. and overcomes the last 20% .. it’s 80% of the job (as Pareto teaches us ! ) At the end of the day, my opinion is that it’s not a naming issue (because the name is perfect) but a marketing issue: Elon was selling a dream (that eventually is becoming true), not what the system was capable at the time…

sailirish7 2025-12-25 00:17

Model 3 was for the masses. Tesla can't control macro economics.

Smallpaul 2025-12-25 00:23

Elon Musk has allies himself with Donald Trump and is building natural gas plants to power AI. He downplayed climate change while campaigning last year. He hasn’t been interested in sustainability for a decade.

Smallpaul 2025-12-25 00:25

I was going to agree with you but I did the research and the base model 3 is below the average sale price for a car in America so it’s fair to call it affordable IMO.

Smallpaul 2025-12-25 00:29

I disagree. I think that so years ago Musk actually was and is (in his own way) an idealist. After he took his PayPal money, his next projects all had some big aspiration associated with them. He has a God complex and he wanted to save the world(s). But then it turned out to be really hard and he got bored and decided to pivot to just meddling in US politics and harassing trans people. Of course he also imagines these to be saving that world missions too. “The fate of western civilization is at stake.” The saviour complex is the same but the object of attachment shifts like the wind.

lowerlevel18 2025-12-25 00:30

Yeah I need my hardware 4/5 retro fit then .

ByHeight 2025-12-25 00:33

The abundance part is all that matters. Makes wealth irrelevant.

NO_REFERENCE_FRAME 2025-12-25 00:39

What a terribly uninformed opinion

SchalaZeal01 2025-12-25 00:39

As long as tariffs exist for Mexico, that's on the ice.

omgwtfbyobbq 2025-12-25 00:42

There were supposed to be 2 generations of affordable cars, not just the 3/Y. https://www.tesla.com/secret-master-plan I guess you could stretch things and call an $80k+ S/X an affordable car, but most wouldn't.

omgwtfbyobbq 2025-12-25 00:43

It is more affordable than the Roadster/S/X, but there are supposed to be two generations of affordable cars.  https://www.tesla.com/secret-master-plan

admin_default 2025-12-25 00:45

I’m honestly surprised employees still believe the mission was ever about sustainability. https://tennesseelookout.com/2025/07/07/a-billionaire-an-ai-supercomputer-toxic-emissions-and-a-memphis-community-that-did-nothing-wrong/

admin_default 2025-12-25 00:46

Funny how cutting “sustainable” from the mission coincides with this: https://tennesseelookout.com/2025/07/07/a-billionaire-an-ai-supercomputer-toxic-emissions-and-a-memphis-community-that-did-nothing-wrong/

blergmonkeys 2025-12-25 00:52

What are you involved in?

foolbox 2025-12-25 00:55

Nice try, Elon

footbag 2025-12-25 00:58

It was probably his idea

sailirish7 2025-12-25 01:00

Compared to the roadster, they are affordable. Step 3 is the model 3.

Lucaslouch 2025-12-25 01:07

Sustainable implies it is done with reason, balance and in a way, beneficial for all. Amazing can mean anything. So my first thought is, not everyone will benefit from this abundance and I’m guessing it’s only the people Musk would like to see succeed. And it’s not good

Lucaslouch 2025-12-25 01:09

I feel you. I was only an investor but I felt the same. I don’t have the thrill I had driving my car either

Lucaslouch 2025-12-25 01:10

If you expect overflowing AND sustainable you could put both words in the mission statement. The fact is « Amazing » has been added but « sustainable » has been removed.

GameRoom 2025-12-25 01:15

When you count the plummeting value of their cars on the resale market, it actually did kind of happen.

mapoftasmania 2025-12-25 01:40

When he said “joyful” he meant “profitable”.

omgwtfbyobbq 2025-12-25 02:01

Tesla said affordable, not less expensive or comparatively affordable.  1. Build sports car 2. Use that money to build an affordable car Is a new Bentley affordable because it's less expensive than a new McLaren?

soldieroscar 2025-12-25 02:01

So its impossible to make it sustainable. Got it. Giving up.

Dry_Weekend_7075 2025-12-25 02:26

Law of diminishing returns

11111v11111 2025-12-25 02:28

Partial Full Self Driving (Supervised) Robo Automatic Oversee Beta

marriux2 2025-12-25 02:32

Imagine writing this with a straight face

Miami_da_U 2025-12-25 02:33

Given the fact Tesla only makes sustainable products why would that be an issue

lost_signal 2025-12-25 02:40

Model 3 new is $38.6K reversing inflation back to the year Tesla was founded (2008) is $25K. Median new car is $50K

CousinEddysMotorHome 2025-12-25 02:43

Thats already going to happen. Besides, his measure of wealth is also relative. The billionaires of the 1800s and 1900s were probably technically wealthier when you factor in inflation, which biden fucked through the roof and we are dealing with its effects now.

lonnie123 2025-12-25 03:06

Didn’t Trump send out the first bunch of money that also contributed to the inflation?

lonnie123 2025-12-25 03:07

Musk went full Trump in the way he talks about 4 years ago so this tracks

lonnie123 2025-12-25 03:09

Sports car ~> model s/x ~> model 3/y It’s literally laid out in the bullet points at the end of that post. The models after that were brought up later, but not laid out in that particular master plan. The model 3 was always the end goal

checkout7 2025-12-25 03:11

I’m sorry, Biden had nothing to do with Elon removing the word “sustainable”. What has changed is that Elon always claimed he started Tesla for sustainability and now it seems Elon’s only priority is maximizing his personal net worth.

lonnie123 2025-12-25 03:15

The model y was the best selling car in the world a short while ago… I’d say enough people are affording it to meet that definition

MoneyElevator 2025-12-25 03:35

Man, all we used to hear about was the employees busting their ass for the mission, it was tough work but it was worth it because they believed in what they were doing. So disappointing to see the decline unfold in slow motion and your post just brings it home.

badDuckThrowPillow 2025-12-25 03:54

Musk has done a lot for Tesla. Arguably it wouldn’t be where it is without him. But at some point you gotta start wondering how much he’s hindering Tesla too.

Logitech4873 2025-12-25 04:07

You're a very gullible character.

Logitech4873 2025-12-25 04:16

I'd love to see Tesla without him today. Would make it possible to recommend the brand to people again.

pancakes4jesus 2025-12-25 04:25

Even if rich people long ago were very wealthy for their time, today’s billionaires have much more real control over companies, markets, media, politics. Inflation today does not mean old billionaires were richer. It mostly shows how money and assets are now concentrated at the top, giving todays billionaires more influence than anyone had in the past.

Dramatic-Comb8525 2025-12-25 04:32

I'm totally going to forget the start of '25 and get another Tesla when my lease rolls next year now!  Jk.  No chance.

dead_ed 2025-12-25 04:45

"Amazing" means *not sustainable*.

[deleted] 2025-12-25 04:45

Yeah, really wish they would’ve picked a different CEO. Would love to see one of the engineers step up after all the crap this year and worried it’ll happen all over again in 2028. Especially with how much his wealth has grown.

dead_ed 2025-12-25 04:46

That B in "UBI" is doing a lot of work.

elmundo-2016 2025-12-25 05:40

The used car market gets to that target. Can find them for $18,000 to $24,000 in Minnesota. The model 2 is not necessary.

elmundo-2016 2025-12-25 05:43

Same here, I don't like companies that rely too heavily on 1 individual. The company needs to be self-sustainable and same for the stock.

TormentedOne 2025-12-25 05:43

That would still require accomplishing the mission.

TormentedOne 2025-12-25 05:45

What has changed about sustainability? Are we producing diesel trucks now? I think the Tesla semi goes along way toward furthering the mission.

TormentedOne 2025-12-25 05:47

Bullshit, he left the trump administration in 2017 because Trump pulled out of the Paris climate accord.

TormentedOne 2025-12-25 05:50

Robotaxi has been seen testing in the wild and in the crash test area. If we can pull that off it will save so much more energy and emissions than just selling EVs.

MoneyElevator 2025-12-25 05:50

We’re pivoting to robotaxi and Optimus. Vehicles are an afterthought just to pay the bills

twinbee 2025-12-25 05:51

A rising tide lifts all boats.  Wealth is not a zero sum game.

TormentedOne 2025-12-25 05:51

Robotaxi is coming out next year, why are we all acting like it is not?

twinbee 2025-12-25 05:54

No you're just cynical, pessimistic and lack long term foresight.  Providing the robots don't turn on us, it's not a matter of if but when that we'll see such prosperity.

shellacr 2025-12-25 06:00

The data centers use a shit ton of energy.

TormentedOne 2025-12-25 06:23

Ok... So does making cars. Autonomous vehicles will save way more energy than data centers use. Got to crack a few eggs for this stuff. We are still rowing in the right direction.

TormentedOne 2025-12-25 06:24

Both of those things can go a long way toward a sustainable future.

[deleted] 2025-12-25 06:29

You sound insufferable

PM_ME_YOUR_THESES 2025-12-25 06:53

Counterpoint: no they don’t

lonnie123 2025-12-25 06:59

Electric Trucks + Taxis will absolutely be a game changer in that regard In terms of replacing commuter cars en masse it still needs to get cheaper. I'd love to get rid of a car but its still too expensive for my use case to use Uber by a LONG shot so Robotaxi has to chop a lot off that. My Model Y + Insurance + Electricity + maintenance was probably like $800/month, or about $25/day so really if they can make something that costs about $20/day to make use of that becomes interesting, and if they can get it down to $10/day that becomes REALLY interesting (this doesnt take into account cost of ownership after you pay off the car though.)

omgwtfbyobbq 2025-12-25 08:15

Definitely. After robotaxi hits volume production in whichever next year it comes out in, Tesla will have finished/succeeded with their first master plan.

twinbee 2025-12-25 08:20

Problem is there's often an insinuation of limitation or scrimping when you use the word "sustainable".

omgwtfbyobbq 2025-12-25 08:24

It wasn't S/X after the Roadster, it was the first Gen of affordable Teslas. They couldn't pull it off, but that was the plan. 1. Build sports car 2. Use that money to build an affordable car 3. Use that money to build an even more affordable car 4. While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options The 3/Y are affordable and Tesla just needs to release the robotaxi and they'll be there. This isn't a knock against Tesla. I prefer a company that sets aggressive goals, even if takes longer to hit them. The current version of the auto industry complains they can't do something other companies can, and when they "try", they self-sabotage to the point where they aren't really trying.

omgwtfbyobbq 2025-12-25 08:26

For sure. The 3/Y 100% meet number 2. Tesla just needs the robotaxi/Model 2 to hit number 3. 1. Build sports car 2. Use that money to build an affordable car 3. Use that money to build an even more affordable car 4. While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options

Smallpaul 2025-12-25 08:32

My mistake. Thanks for the reminder. Almost a decade ago he seems to have cared about climate changed. Then reversed course dramatically and publicly.

lonnie123 2025-12-25 08:52

Roadster was point #1, model S/X was #2, and model 3/Y was #3

Noctew 2025-12-25 09:33

Sorry, but Tesla is an international company. Just because most people in the US buy high-spec pickups and SUVs and a base Model 3 costs less than that does not mean „mission accomplished“. Do you know what we call a Model 3 sized car in Europe? F*cking huge and expensive. Size needs to go down, cost needs to drop below €25000, ideally €20000.

checkout7 2025-12-25 09:37

This isn’t a question of if AI and robots will replace jobs, but ***who will benefit*** from that. What you’re proposing is that billionaires and politicians will suddenly grow a conscious and socialize the profits (ie. provide reasonable UBI to continue current first world standard of living, health benefits, guaranteed housing, etc.) from AI and robotics. Nothing billionaires and politicians have done so far support this. In fact, billionaires have been lobbying politicians to prevent any AI regulations. Republican Congress members tried to insert wording in the ‘big beautiful abomination’ to prevent states from being able to regulate AI. Billionaires want to continue to hoard profits - including (especially) those from AI. They don’t want to socialize ***any*** profits from their ventures. They will get to decide what is ‘basic’ in UBI - that may be having a family of 4 in a 500 sq. ft. studio apartment with thin mattress on the floor and with a 20 year old car or only bicycles — while they continue to cruise the seas on private yachts and fly in private jets. They have no interest in sharing their wealth to bring a first world standard of living to everyone - in fact they have every interest in hoarding wealth and lowering the standard of living for everyone other than themselves. Another case-in-point of this approach is Blackrock commercializing residential homes to prevent ownership and make people reliant on lifelong renting. They’re growing profits at the expense of the average person. They have no moral dilemma about this and most politicians are unwilling to restrain these companies. There have been several legislative bills introduced to curb this but none have passed so far. As others have stated, to me, you seem to be extremely naive in your expectations that either (1) private, for-profit companies will voluntarily socializing their profits, and/or (2) politicians will force companies to socialize these profits. You really need to read a lot more about how we got to the wealth inequality we have today.

twinbee 2025-12-25 10:22

Your entire comment is based on the false assumption that the prosperity pie size is fixed. Wealth is not a zero sum game. The pie gets bigger for everyone. We can all be 'richer' and have more prosperous lives even if the money supply total stays the same.

canon12 2025-12-25 10:24

I actually appreciate Tesla vehicles but would never buy one because of Musk. Things often happen for a reason and I am glad I didn't buy one before we found out exactly what Musk is made of. Not much different than Trump. Vomit.

checkout7 2025-12-25 10:57

That’s not my premise at all. My premise is based on determining who controls the wealth - I don’t care if it’s $1 or $100 trillion. If the top 0.01% of people control 50% of the wealth, and the bottom 50% of people control under 1% of the wealth, it doesn’t matter how big the pie is. The fact is, if/when AI and robotics replace workers, there will be more people unemployed and there will be more entitlement from the billionaire class justifying their ever-increasing wealth inequality because they programmed the AI or they produced the robots. Those profits will need to be socialized to benefit the masses, or the masses will suffer. …And given recent history the profits very likely won’t be socialized. You’re not accounting for greed. In the USA, in Q1 1995, the top 0.01% of people controlled 3.1x the amount of wealth compared to the bottom 50% of people ($2.94 trillion compared to $940 Billion). Just 30 years later, in Q1 2025, the top 0.01% of people controlled 5.4x the amount of wealth compared to the bottom 50% of people ($22.07 trillion compared to $4.06 trillion). Put another way, the wealth controlled by the top 0.01% grew by 7500% whereas the wealth of the bottom 50% grew by only 4320%. By proportion, the top 0.01% controlled 10.9% of the wealth in 1995 which ***increased*** to 13.8% of the wealth in 2025. In contrast, the bottom 50% controlled just 3.5% of the wealth in 1995 and despite this low amount, this ***reduced*** to 2.5% of the wealth in 2025. That was without any AI and with only minimal robotics compared to what’s coming. (Source: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/#quarter:143;series:Net%20worth;demographic:networth;population:all;units:shares) We can argue about whether it is or is not a “zero-sum game”. What can’t be argued is that there is a calculable finite number of wealth for every person. And the distribution of the number between the top 0.01% of the population and the bottom 50% is what will determine the quality of life for the masses. And I don’t see many tech billionaires offering up their profits to benefit the bottom 50%.

VideoGameJumanji 2025-12-25 11:24

Blaming Biden is wild lmfao

eekh1982 2025-12-25 11:39

I could picture Trump calling it, 'big beautiful abundance'... ;)

Prod7AM 2025-12-25 11:57

Tesla subpage, ur bound to get atleast one all in conservative nimrod

lommer00 2025-12-25 12:21

That's why the word "abundance" is in there. It's the opposite of "limitation or scrimping". Whereas amazing doesn't really tell you anything about the mission. Every company wants to tell you its products are amazing. I liked sustainable abundance, but I am very concerned about removing the word sustainable.

twinbee 2025-12-25 13:18

Yes, Elon [said](https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1806280020949668336): "I think it will be universal high income".

devoid0101 2025-12-25 14:38

No, for years Elon spoke specifically about a $25,000 model 2.

devoid0101 2025-12-25 14:40

THIS

mjezzi 2025-12-25 14:46

This is so stupid and embarrassing. Take the one thing that is still defensible for Tesla and replace it with something meaningless.

necroforest 2025-12-25 15:23

you forgot 69420

moldy912 2025-12-25 16:05

Bro your mission has been to make Elon as much money as possible the whole time.

m8_is_me 2025-12-25 16:50

![gif](giphy|rVhdqCd3ros1BlDwOa)

Melodic-Control-2655 2025-12-25 17:36

no, Rockefeller used to hold that title with $435 billion GDP adjusted, but not anymore.

Dave_the_lighting_gu 2025-12-25 18:45

Oh yeah let's forget the 2t thats been added to the economy this year with plans for more qe once powell is ousted. Blame Biden all you want, but it's certainly shared by the 3t injected by trump in his first term along with everything added this year.

drivingaddictionchan 2025-12-25 20:01

Tesla is the number one selling car in America.

marriux2 2025-12-25 20:14

... thought we were talking about affordable EVs?

arnthorsnaer 2025-12-25 20:46

Remember when thinking was in style?

TheJuiceBoxS 2025-12-25 20:59

What a joke

drivingaddictionchan 2025-12-25 21:41

There’s a reason why lucid and rivian aren’t the top selling cars. Because they’re not affordable.

marriux2 2025-12-25 21:57

Just because some buyers are more willing to go into car debt for a Tesla than for a Lucid or Rivian doesn’t mean it’s affordable in the way the original mission implied.

drivingaddictionchan 2025-12-25 22:13

It’s not just some buyers. Wasn’t the original mission to sell a model 3 for 35k? Tesla offers 35k now

nataleef 2025-12-25 23:12

It’s also objective and not trackable.

thefloatingguy 2025-12-25 23:37

Get happy, get divorced, or get out.

farfromelite 2025-12-25 23:55

Everyone is saying my ambulumlance is huge. It's the biggest Ah-ced-uv - well, let’s see. Amblumdunce. It's huge anyway, everyone is talking about how huge it is.

sailirish7 2025-12-26 00:43

I don't have to imagine. I wrote it. You should imagine making a point. :)

CousinEddysMotorHome 2025-12-26 01:19

Do you not know how much control those moguls had under their control in the legislature? Media? Their papers at the time? Did you skip that part or something? Youre pretending that's a new thing, it is not. Not new at all.

marriux2 2025-12-26 01:25

Are you confused? You were not op...

Gsgunboy 2025-12-26 03:16

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

sailirish7 2025-12-26 04:14

Can you read? You replied to my original comment...

deckeda 2025-12-26 04:15

Waiting for their announcement of a new ICE vehicle. I think that'll track with where leadership is headed.

thomashearts 2025-12-26 08:08

You know what else is amazing? $1T dollars

smithy_dll 2025-12-26 08:57

It doesn't actually matter what they called it, people would have found a way to imagine autopilot as full self driving \[1\]\[2\]. Otherwise the whole "auto" industry and "auto mobiles" are also a problem name. \[1\] [Drivers woefully overestimate hands-free driver tech, study shows - Ars Technica](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/10/drivers-woefully-overestimate-hands-free-driver-tech-study-shows/) \[2\] [Confusing cruise control with self-driving cars](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lvxSBqaGzA)

binary_blackhole 2025-12-26 09:35

I love good engineering, and for sometime now I’ve been saving to buy a tesla, but now that I have the money I’m so conflicted, and I don’t know what the future of the brand will be. Other manufacturers are light years away from tesla, so I’m not very thrilled about buying another brand. We really need elon to go, but it doesn’t seem likely that he’ll leave.

marriux2 2025-12-26 10:01

Oh yeah you're right well enjoy the downvotes

BaronSharktooth 2025-12-26 10:40

Yes but that has been going on for a long time. He supported stopping all EV subsidies. (Note I don’t care either way because I hate all politicians equally.)

OlivencaENossa 2025-12-26 13:44

Sustainability is no longer a core US goal.

li_shi 2025-12-26 14:25

The semi it’s something they put for the good headlines. Or it would be a thing that exists like its competitors instead of ??? I’m not even sure what is it now.

hof_1991 2025-12-26 16:26

Money won’t be needed in the abundance future. Meanwhile I’m grabbing all of it I can get.

FANGO 2025-12-26 16:44

That point was at least 5 years ago

TormentedOne 2025-12-26 19:24

It is a massive factory that just finished construction right outside the Nevada gigafactory. They are planning to build 50k a year. Do you think these things materialize or of thin air?

sailirish7 2025-12-26 20:09

Weird way to apologize for being wrong, but you do you.

marriux2 2025-12-26 20:32

I have given out: 0 apologies.

NiceWeather4Leather 2025-12-26 21:14

Really? How does robots folding our washing for us make us more energy efficient?

TormentedOne 2025-12-26 23:49

Robots can bring down the cost of all sorts of things we need, such as building solar panels cleaning up the side of the freeway, picking weeds by hand instead of relying on chemicals. The options are limitless as the price of labor drops to zero.

NiceWeather4Leather 2025-12-27 00:00

Lol it does not, robots cost plenty of money & resources. There are also better robots for these jobs than a human shaped one. Funnily enough human shapes aren’t ideal for nearly any large scale repetitive laborious job and that’s why we build large robotic arms for manufacturing instead of having them small, limited range and attached to human shaped bodies, and we use lawnmowers for mowing lawns instead of human shaped robots with bloody scissors and wheeled crop sprayers instead of robots holding little human sized bottles of spray. Fucking lol.

Due-University5222 2025-12-27 01:44

That "injection" is simply intergenerational theft. The whole thing is funded with debt repaid by our children, grandchildren, great-great-...grandchildren.

Due-University5222 2025-12-27 01:48

No. The bulk of the folks who are poor beyond belief will not be helped by robots that cost more than the value of a decade worth of labor. The math does not work. Heck, where is the power going to come from in a place like sub-Saharan Africa?

Due-University5222 2025-12-27 01:59

Training a new LLM requires more power than a small city consumes in year. The inferencing done with these models still consume lot of power, albeit distributed. On the other hand the humans they replace can make some incredible decisions using less power than a flashlight.

ogpterodactyl 2025-12-27 02:00

I mean the goal is evil empire you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Zealousideal_Aside96 2025-12-27 03:43

And the second bunch

PM_ME_YOUR_THESES 2025-12-27 04:58

So? China produces 4 times as more energy as the US. The problem isn’t how much energy these things consume. It’s how little the US produces it, and also how much pollution the US produces per watt. Two problems that have a simple, safe, clean, reliable, and old solution: NUCLEAR.

TormentedOne 2025-12-27 06:26

That is not really true though is it. Humans require tons of energy and resources, you can't just act like you can use their brainpower without accepting the rest of the cost. The fact you have to be so disingenuous to make your point really demonstrates the weakness of your argument.

A55BAG 2025-12-27 09:21

Better to follow the trend. Sustainability has been in a dog house this year.

GigaChav 2025-12-27 18:20

How about "Amazing Pilot"

glmory 2025-12-28 02:18

At least Tesla showed the power of clear mission statements to get top talent to make big things happen. If Elon doesn't want to make big things happen anymore, we can at least thank him for showing the way. I am sure someone else is willing to step up and take his place.

Spudly42 2025-12-28 02:59

That was probably Elon's, but for the vast majority of the employees it was about climate change. And honestly we kinda crushed it at that goal for a long time, just not recently. So regardless of Elon's goal, the mission happened.

NewMY2020 2025-12-29 11:53

Tesla removing elon would be one of the best things to ever happen to the company. I sincerely mean that.

Moridin2002 2025-12-30 06:08

They were not wealthier. Peak wealth was with Rockefeller and depending on how you calculate, was somewhere between $200 and $450 billion. Musk has surpassed that several times. Just remember how much money Trump printed when Covid started and his first impeachment phone call with Ukraine that led to the Russian invasion and ensuing inflationary effects before you start blaming anyone else.

Moridin2002 2025-12-30 06:10

What is the mission?

TormentedOne 2025-12-30 17:28

Accelerating the world's transition to sustainable energy.

dead_ed 2025-12-31 01:22

damn right ^. UBI ain't happening. All evidence to the contrary. Well said.

CableBoyJerry 2025-12-31 03:18

What year is it right now?

TormentedOne 2025-12-31 04:01

2025.

GeologistNo2065 2026-01-01 21:30

Give a few a test drive, this isn't 2020 anymore, I love my 2021 model 3 SR+ and I'm going to drive it until it falls apart, but in honesty, the competition has really caught up in technology both battery and in car. Plus with more manufacturers moving to NACS the supercharging network isn't even a good reason to buy tesla anymore.

Moridin2002 2026-01-03 04:32

But isn’t it now “sustainable abundance?” Wait… “amazing abundance?”

Add comment

Login is required to comment.

Login with Google