News
The NJ mafia puts contract hit on Tesla
Elon Musk is always one step away from pushing the envelope further. Is calling New Jersey the mafia state enough of a wake up call?
Governor Chris Christie exemplifies modern politics clichés by turning around his previous decision legally working with Tesla Motors to follow suit with Texas and Arizona. Is there a pattern? Far from engaging in politics at Teslarati, we can’t help but wonder why those states known for their free markets ideals turned their back on the rhetoric? Where is competition and free market these days?
Does anybody remember freedom of choice?
Elon’s post rightfully reminds us of the disconnect between politicians and their constituents by saying: “the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, composed of political appointees of the Governor, ended your right to purchase vehicles at a manufacturer store within the state” on his post. Governor Christie promised to put a vote to Tesla selling directly, but once the very big, and very powerful auto dealer lobby voiced their concerns, a backroom deal was cut, thus circumventing the legal process. Essentially, the auto dealer association pressures Chris Christie to force anyone buying a new vehicle through middlemen in New Jersey.
Essentially, Elon Musk accuses the Administration and the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission of: “going beyond their authority to implement the state’s laws at the behest of a special interest group looking to protect its monopoly at the expense of New Jersey consumers.”
Automotive Dealerships is a humongous lobby.
We’ll let you gauge how powerful the National Automotive Dealership Association is. Last year, there were 17,600 dealers of new cars and trucks in the US, yielding over $676 billion of sales, accounting for about 15 percent of all US retail activities. The automotive dealership is a substantial part of the country’s economy and its $86.8 million of dealership monies continuously spends $57 million funneled on state election across the country since 2003.
A few days back, we wrote about how the inevitable has to happen, bringing back our country to its foundation of freedom of choice. Dealerships don’t have the best reputation, and certainly very few people praise their services. Is it any wonder they push for an old, worn out self-serving business model? Tesla’s model is so modern, answers the needs of our current era and reflects a very real demand for freedom of choice. Simply put, dealerships do not offer the added services they once did, and are not able to change that quickly. Sounds familiar? Carmakers feel the same. Tesla Motors creeps under Detroit’s car manufacturers’ skin. They feel the inevitable, that change is a constant and you cannot turn around a big corporation instantly. Does that mean we don’t need car dealerships? Certainly not.
Tesla Motors is about now.
If we put everything into perspective, we find Tesla Motors answers our urgent need for elegant performance cars that run on an efficient energy means, electricity. Carmakers are left in the less enviable position of making petroleum derivative powered cars that pollute, smell bad and make awful noises. What truly isn’t fair is to expect these big carmaker and their dealerships to turn on a dime and start manufacturing batteries and electric motors. They are not tooled for this, and the investments would be gargantuan.
The Tesla stores frighten auto dealerships.
Why wouldn’t they be frightened by the Tesla stores, conveniently located inside malls, at the mercy of any onlooker? If you are relegated to the outskirts of the city, next to other car dealerships, knowing how people dread going to look for that new car, carefully maneuvering pushy salesmen, deciphering the unintelligible jargon and financing pitfalls, wouldn’t you fear Tesla? What do you do against a Tesla store that has a list of Model S drivers who will let you ride and sometimes drive their personal car? Know anyone who that with the internal combustion engine (ICE) drivers? Neither do we. But, why would you fight this marvelous system?
In the meantime, it’s hard not to feel sorry for politicians seeing constituents losing faith and car dealership lobbies facing better business models. Would you be frightened, or would you take the opportunity to change and adapt, once and for all?
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
In a striking revelation that underscores the lucrative crossover between Big Tech and space exploration, Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company, disclosed a massive $94.1 billion equity stake in SpaceX following the rocket company’s blockbuster initial public offering earlier this year.
The disclosure came in Alphabet’s quarterly filing, marking the first time the long-held private investment has been publicly valued at market prices. Google was an early backer, investing alongside Fidelity in 2015 with roughly $500-900 million at a time when SpaceX was valued around $12 billion.
That bet has delivered extraordinary returns, roughly a hundredfold, transforming a strategic play on satellite internet and launch capabilities into one of Alphabet’s largest assets.
Google, $GOOGL, has said they hold $94 billion in SpaceX, $SPCX, shares after IPO.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) July 23, 2026
Of the total holding, approximately $80 billion remains subject to short-term post-IPO lockup restrictions, preventing near-term sales. An additional $14.1 billion faces longer-term restrictions, extending into the third quarter of 2027. This structure limits immediate liquidity but protects against market volatility as SpaceX transitions into public trading.
The SpaceX position contributed significantly to gains in Alphabet’s broader investment portfolio, which also includes a major stake in AI leader Anthropic. Combined, these holdings helped drive nearly $100 billion in investment gains during the second quarter, providing a substantial boost to net income amid ongoing AI spending pressures.
Analysts view the disclosure as validation of Alphabet’s venture strategy beyond its core search and cloud businesses. The investment aligns with deeper ties, including reported multi-billion-dollar deals for AI computing capacity on SpaceX infrastructure. As SpaceX advances Starship flights, Starlink expansion, and ambitious Mars goals under Elon Musk, Google’s stake positions it to benefit from the commercialization of space.
For Alphabet, the windfall highlights how patient, forward-looking bets in transformative sectors can yield outsized rewards. While lockups temper short-term impact, the holding cements SpaceX as a cornerstone of Alphabet’s diversified portfolio in an era where aerospace, AI, and connectivity increasingly intersect. Investors will watch closely as restrictions lift and SpaceX’s public performance unfolds.
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
Elon Musk is not happy about this Tesla Full Self-Driving approval delay
