Last of two parts
The claim that the "Tesla Takedown" campaign led to a decline in both Tesla’s automobile sales and its stock value from the start of the year has been disputed by several economic and media experts, which makes sense. After all, correlation doesn’t automatically imply causation, and various other elements might be influencing these outcomes.
In recalling from part one of this series published on Tuesday, Tesla’s vehicle deliveries have decreased significantly—by 11% to 75%—in key markets during the initial two months of this year when compared with last year. In stark comparison, overall sales of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) have risen by around 30% annually within the same period. Consequently, Tesla's share prices have plummeted, dropping slightly above 45% since the start of the year and falling more than 50% below their peak value recorded in mid-December 2024. These declines coincide with the rapid escalation of a grassroot protest movement targeting both Tesla and its controversial leader, Chairman and CEO Elon Musk.
If not for the protests and Musk joyfully taking on an unappointed position as the destructor of the U.S. federal government in response to repeated investigations, sanctions, and regulations due to his unethical business tactics, Tesla Inc. might still be facing a substantial decline today. The protests may have sped up this process rather than altering its course significantly. Before its downfall began, Tesla’s stock was extremely overpriced, carrying a Price-to-Earnings (P/E) ratio of 197.96 at the close of 2024. This figure is nearly quadruple the typical P/E ratio for companies within the electric vehicle (EV), automotive, and truck manufacturing sectors, which stood at 56.14 by the end of 2024.
A high price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio might be reasonable if a firm demonstrates impressive figures regarding sales, revenue, and profit. However, this does not apply to Tesla. The primary vehicle models they offer haven’t seen significant updates since launch, whereas competing companies have rolled out various advancements in functionality and design. For instance, Elon Musk’s promised Roadster hasn’t come into fruition despite the company collecting—and holding onto—tens of millions of dollars in reservations over almost ten years from enthusiastic buyers who remain unpaid as refunds were not issued. Furthermore, even standard models like those driven by President Biden face ongoing problems; apparently, the Model S he owns carries 39 unresolved recall notifications.
Moreover, several of Tesla’s major concepts have turned out to be significant failures. The company’s electric semi-truck, with only a few hundred units manufactured, has proven to be mechanically problematic, leading to dismal sales figures. Similarly, Elon Musk’s favorite venture, the Cybertruck—often dubbed “Wank Panzer” on social platforms—is considered an embarrassment within the automobile industry because of its poor build quality, inadequate safety features, and subpar functionality. As unsold Cybertrucks accumulate, production appears to have ceased temporarily at Tesla, redirecting staff to work on their other vehicle models instead.
Tesla made significant strides in entering the Philippine market when they opened their own flagship store, which has been managed locally by a distributor for about two years now. This occurred shortly after New Year’s, specifically two days prior to Elon Musk's controversial gesture during Donald Trump's inauguration. Although preparations for launching this venture started earlier in the previous year. During the official launch event, President Marcos welcomed them without knowing how inappropriate his offer of inviting Tesla to produce cars in the country might seem due to recent events happening only weeks later.
Aside from the broader ethical concerns surrounding backing the primary operations of a self-proclaimed fascist who tried to sway elections in two significant democratic nations—managing to do so in the U.S., yet failing in Germany—and personally overseeing cuts to crucial public services within the United States, leading to hundreds of thousands losing their jobs, there are specific grounds why both the Philippine government and citizens shouldn’t support Tesla. The dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) came about following orders relayed via the U.S. State Department; however, this move was driven by Musk’s desires. He felt aggrieved due to USAID initiatives in his home country of South Africa, perceiving these efforts as favoring Black communities over white ones. This frustration intensified when USAID launched inquiries into potential contractual discrepancies involving his company, Starlink, under a project backed by USAID in Ukraine.
Musk’s sudden anger led to the cancellation of various USAid-funded projects worth at least PHP 20 billion in the Philippines, which included PHP 4.5 billion allocated to the Department of Education. This resulted in at least fifty—and potentially dozens more—Filipinos losing their jobs immediately. At present, purchasing a Tesla in the country feels akin to willingly handing over cash to the schoolyard bully who has already hit you and taken both your lunch money and wallet.
By the end of February, the Department of Energy listed 583 BEV models eligible for tax and other incentives under the Electric Vehicle Industry Development Act. Among these, around eight or nine areTesla variants. This leaves approximately 575 alternatives available for Filipinos looking to buy aBEV without appearing like someone supporting extremist ideologies that undermine essential areas such aspublic health,education,fiscal responsibility,andenvironmental conservation—causing harmto their community membersfor dubious reasons.
ben.kritz@manilatimes.net
Bluesky: @benkritz.bsky.social