 Wait, here is all on mask. Here we go. Everyone is talking about the infrastructure plan and the bill. And I wanted to ask you, say tomorrow, you get a phone call from Joe Biden. And he says, I think that's unlikely, but sure. He has said some not positive things about Joe Biden. So Joe Biden's unlikely to call. So it's nice to see a little bit of a sense of humor there. The other piece of sense of humor is that haircut, go figure, he could have come to say before he went on television, but I shouldn't complain. When you're a billionaire, when you're the richest guy on the planet, maybe on some days, and then you can afford to have whatever healthcare you want when you go on video with the Wall Street Journal. But by the way, this video is somebody edited it. It was nice because they've edited out all the parts that I wanted to talk about. You can find the whole interview itself, a 30 minute interview, 30 plus I think on the Wall Street Journal YouTube channel. This, they kind of pieced it out. Unfortunately, it does have background music and it has this yellow tint to it. But you can see in the background, the car, you can see the factory, you can see how lit it is. It's kind of actually cool. In the original video, it's much wider and it's much clearer. It's not quite as yellow, so it's a lot better. But anyway, this was more efficient because they've already spliced and cut it in terms of what I would like to talk about. Here we go. You know, he just gives you a call and he says, you know, I haven't been talking a lot about Tesla lately, but you know, what do you need from this bill? What are your needs? What do you answer him? I have to be totally frank. I don't know if we, at least no one in Tesla has actually brought up whether they care about this bill or not. I think if this bill happened or didn't happen, I don't know, we don't think about it at all, really. Okay. Well, one of the reasons they don't think about it at all is because, well, I mean, we'll talk about this, but the bill is clearly gonna help Musk's competitors and it's gonna not help him because he's been too successful with electric cars so he's not gonna get any of the tax subsidies that are gonna go to his competitors. And you know, so yeah, it really has very little relevance in that sense for Elon Musk, but the rest of what he has to say about this is interesting. It might be better, honestly. Notice how shocked she is. She's like, really, you have nothing to say about this? It might be better if the bill doesn't pass because we've spent so much money, you know, it's like the federal budget deficit is insane. You know, it's like $3 trillion. Federal expenditures are $7 trillion. Federal revenue is $4 trillion. That's a $3 trillion difference and if this was a company, it'd be a $3 trillion loss. So I don't know if we should be adding to that loss. That seems pretty crazy. Something's gotta give. You can't just spend $3 trillion more than your own every year and expect, you know, to expect something bad to happen. I mean, good for Elon, I mean, almost nobody, nobody. Out there in the world, in the political world, in the business world, just out there, nobody is talking about the fact that the US government is running these massive unprecedented deficits that, as he said, we don't know exactly what bad is gonna happen, but we know that it's not sustainable. We know bad stuff is gonna happen. Arguably, one of the consequences of these deficits, particularly right now, is the inflation we're starting to experience. But, you know, he is just saying it. When in the world out there, almost nobody says it. The other thing you recognize about Elon and if you've watched him over the last couple of years, he says stuff that other people are thinking and he just says it, even though he's CEO of a publicly traded company and most CEOs of publicly traded companies are very cautious in terms of what they say, even though government regulation is a big part of his business and therefore a lot of CEOs are very careful in terms of not to antagonize the government and not to say things that might antagonize the administration. Elon Musk, to his credit, just says what he thinks. Sometimes it doesn't necessarily make any sense. Some of his utterances, but in this case, he's absolutely right, he's courageous to say it, shouldn't be courageous to say it because it really is just a statement of fact, but in the world in which we live, in which government and business is so interwound, in which government regulates controls where government could penalize you so dramatically, it takes courage to tell the truth. And the other thing I like about what Elon is saying here is, he's not pretending to know what the outcome is going to be. He's not saying interest rates will go up or economic growth will be lower or inflation will rise so he's just saying, you know, if you run, if you run a government with a large deficit over and over and over again over time, bad stuff is going to happen. He's not pretending that he can predict what that stuff is and when it's going to happen, which is the right attitude to have. Yeah, I think, you know, this is not good. Well, Mr. Conn is actually saying it. And she's kind of shocked by the whole thing. I mean, she doesn't exactly know what to do with it. If I may elaborate on that, the deficit is more than three trillion when you look at the future obligations. So it's seven trillion of current expenditures, but it's much more than that if you look at future obligations for social security, Medicare and so forth. So. And he's absolutely right. Of course, that's not really technically the deficit. You know, that's not the annual deficit. You would have to say that contributes to the aggregate but absolutely a seven trillion deficits today. Seven trillion, sorry, three trillion of added deficits, seven trillion of current spending. I can't remember what the total debt of the United States is right now. It's well over 20 trillion. It's well over 100% of GDP. But then if you add to that, all the what we call unfunded liabilities, that is the gap between what's so security is promising to pay people over the next 50 years and the taxes it collects. And if you do that in social security, that gap is there, it's relatively small. But the real gap is what Medicare is promising to pay over the next 50 years and the tax revenue from Medicare that rises up. Now you've got the equivalent of government debt, of cumulative government debt over the long run, well in excess of a hundred trillion dollars. That is what really is unsustainable. That is what will bankrupt this country and force this country to really change the way it functions, either by through mass default, either by dramatic increases in how poor we are or by massive shrinking of government, which I think would be good, but the current world thinks would be a frigging disaster. But something is gonna have to give at some point, how to tell exactly when, but at some point, and Elon is kinda giving us a little bit of a warning and the beauty about Elon Musk saying it is, if I say it, maybe 5,000 people listen to what I say between the podcast and the video and everything else, when Elon Musk says it, millions and millions and millions of people listen to what he says. So in that sense, he is speaking truth to millions and millions of people and that's incredibly powerful and it's great to have somebody of Elon Musk's status as a celebrity really, speaking truth. And he has some credibility because he's Elon Musk because of his history as a successful entrepreneur. Now we'll get some of the other stuff he says in a minute. I'm not gonna be super positive on Elon Musk throughout this, they're gonna be points where I'm gonna have to be quite critical. We're running this incredible deficit. Someone's gotta give, I don't know, this can't keep going. Well, Mitch McConnell said something similar, that it wasn't too, not as extreme as you, but just, okay, so let's think this follow up question is, okay, Elon, you don't think we need to spend anything on the infrastructure, if he says to you, what is the biggest improvement we can make to the US infrastructure? What do you, what do you, what do you say? I think we generally could have better airports, better highways, especially in cities that are congested. We've gotta do something to deal with the extreme traffic. This is very unusual for somebody to actually talk about extreme traffic. Environmentalists wanna get rid of cars. They wanna get cars off the road. They don't wanna have to deal with extreme traffic. The city governments in places like San Francisco and Los Angeles, and generally leftist cities, which is most cities, would like to find ways to get rid of cars. Even Austin, Texas, one of the reasons you're getting a lot of congested development, high rises, condos in downtown, is because they're trying to drive people to come downtown. They don't want them in the suburbs. That's their solution to deal with traffic. If you look at the big parts of LA, of San Francisco, even a place like Austin, there's very little construction of highways. There's very little improvement of highways, particularly around the downtowns. And nobody wants to talk about this. And if you live in Southern California and you get stuck in traffic jams where it should take you, I don't know, 45 minutes and instead it takes you three hours, which often happened to me. Just going from Orange County to LA. That's a big chunk of your life. And the reason it's not being done is because nobody wants to solve this issue of traffic. And Elon is suggesting, but the fact that he's willing to talk about it. And again, the fact is that the environmentalists out there, our politicians, the people who can affect us, sadly, our roads and our private, the people who can affect us have no interest in talking about this. I mean, if you really wanted an infrastructure bill, that's what it should be focused on, but of course it should be paid locally. I mean, California should solve California's infrastructure problems. Why should people in Kansas pay taxes in order to solve the infrastructure problems in California? All of these issues are local issues. They're not federal issues. Now it's true that the highways are quote, federal. They shouldn't be. They should be given to the states and let the states fund them. Which I think is some combination of double-decorating freeways and building tunnels. Double-decorating in tunnels. I mean, I always think about that when I'm on LA. How would you solve this problem? And it's obvious that what you need are express lanes that are double-deckers or express lanes that are tunnels. You don't need exits in every place, but you need, one alternative is to have an express lane in one level and the off-ramps on another level. I mean, there's so many ways you could do this. And you gotta put the civil engineers on it, that's the only thing that you should be using really infrastructure on airports. Again, should be funded by the airlines. It should be funded by the airport authorities. Or you should sell the airports. Airports are easier to privatize and have competition between airports, given that they serve as hubs. That's not that hard to do. And then have the airlines fund and we pay higher FAs in order to construct infrastructure, which makes sense. If you use it, you should pay for it. If you don't use it, somebody who doesn't fly shouldn't be taxed in order to pay for airports. This is why the best way to pay for infrastructure on highways is to use toll roads. And you don't even need to use toll roads anymore. You could just put a GPS tracker in every car, in a sense. But for that, you would have to secure the information and so on, but at least on the highways that would read and you would pay by use rather than everybody paying for the infrastructure, whether they use it or not. If you don't do something, we will be stuck in traffic forever. As autonomous vehicles come to the fore and it's easier to drive without going through the pain of having to drive yourself, which is absolutely coming and will be one of the biggest transformations ever in human civilization. There will be more cars on the road and the traffic will get much worse. Want to just stay a little bit more on the role of government, you said at this conference. I mean, I'm not sure autonomous vehicles, traffic becomes worse. I think autonomous vehicles potentially drive faster, they drive safer, you get fewer accidents and they drive faster, they're better. You know, people slowing down to look at an accident on the other side of the highway that causes traffic jams on your side of the highway, won't happen, autonomous cars won't slow down. So the problem is going to be, the real traffic nightmare is going to be the transition from when you've got both autonomous drivers and regular drivers on the road, that is where you're gonna get bogged down and that's where you're gonna have problems. But when you actually get close to 100% conversion to autonomous driving, there should be a lot less traffic jams. Actually a year ago that you think government should really just be hands off when it comes to innovation. Though with this bill, there is a lot of support for EVs and it could be the biggest change that we've seen throughout the country in terms of the infrastructure of EVs and it helps Tesla. What do you think the role of government should be? I think the role of government should be that of like a referee, but not a player on the field. Generally, government should, I think, just try to get out of the way and not impede progress. This is great, again, it's great to have somebody of his caliber and his status saying these things. Now, I think he undermines it, we'll see in a minute, but I think he undercuts it in the end because of the history of Tesla. I think this Tesla is very problematic in terms of the government not being a player, in terms of the government just being a referee, in terms of keeping hands off. That is a real problem coming from the CEO of Tesla, as we'll talk about in a little bit. I think there's a general problem, not just in the US, but in most countries where the rules and regulations keep increasing every year. Rules and regulations are immortal. They don't die, occasionally you see some law with a sunset provision, but really, otherwise the vast majority of rules and regulations live forever. And so if more rules and regulations are applied every year and it just keeps growing and growing, eventually it just takes longer and longer and it's harder to do things. And there's not really an effective garbage collection system for removing rules and regulations. Yeah, good for him. All of this is good stuff. And so gradually, this hardens the arteries of civilization where you're able to do less and less over time. So I think government should be really trying hard to get rid of rules and regulations that perhaps had some merit at some point, but don't have merit currently. But there's very little effort in this direction. This is a big problem. But just going back to that infrastructure bill for a second, because sometimes the criticism of Tesla is like, hey, Tesla gets all these subsidies. But it's worth noting that for the vehicle purchase tax credit, the $7,500, Tesla stopped getting that two years ago. Yeah. So Tesla stopped getting the $7,500 tax credit in 2018. But Tesla got the $7,500 tax credit during the most important time in its life. The early adoption period. The period in which Tesla sold very few cars. A period in which EV was an unproven technology. A period in which buyers might have been hesitant to buy it. A period in which Tesla's were generally very expensive. Basically, Tesla got the $7,500 when it mattered. Today, when it's producing tens of thousands of cars, it matters less. But would Tesla have survived as a company if it hadn't gotten the $7,500 credit when it mattered the most in its early years? Probably not. But it's much more than that. I mean, this is where Elon Musk is not being honest. In 2010, when Tesla was in dire straits and on the verge of bankruptcy, the government gave it a $465 million loan from the government. Now that's not the government playing referee. That's the government being a player on the field. That's the government picking winners and losers. But all of that is dwarfed by the fact that the government provides Tesla with carbon credits. In other words, what the government does is if your fleet generates less than a certain amount of carbon emissions as it's run, if your cars produce less than a certain amount of emissions. They don't count the batteries. They don't count the production of the car. They only count the car as running. Then you get credit. Credits then you can sell to companies that need those credits in order to fulfill the regulatory requirements that every car company must have. Carbon emissions below a certain amount. If they're below a certain amount, they get credits. But if they don't get credits, they can buy the credits. Who do they buy the credits from? From companies that get them from the government. Tesla, because it's all electric and therefore qualifies, gets huge amounts of these credits. And then what happens is that Chrysler, General Motors, Ford, other auto companies in Europe, in Asia, buy those credits from Tesla. Last year, for example, I think it's last year, Tesla generated $500 million of tax credits. Guess what the profitability of Tesla was last year? Just a little under $500 million. In other words, without the tax credits, Tesla would break even today or actually take a loss. And this has been true forever. Without the tax credits, Tesla would have never survived, would have never had the capital to invest in their cars, would have never been able to grow, and would have never been profitable to this day. It's not profitable net the carbon credits. So yes, they no longer get the $7,500 credit. You know why? Because the $7,500 credit that the government gives is only to get you started, right? So once you, I think, produce more than 20,000 cars, you don't get the tax credit anymore. So Tesla has passed that, it doesn't get it. So the tax credit today is going to other manufacturers of EV cars, of electric cars, that are producing small batches. They're getting that advantage that Tesla got when it was small. So it would be very convenient for Tesla, very convenient for Tesla. If none of its competitors got the benefits it got when it was started, for example, the $7,500 credit, actually Biden's bill increases that credit to $4,500, an additional $4,500, but only for companies that use labor unions, labor, so union labor. Now, of course, I'm against that, but note that Tesla does not use union labor. So it does not qualify for this credit. So of course, at the very straightforward level, Elon Musk benefits enormously from these laws and these rules and from these massive carbon credits that they get and tax incentives. Now, I'm all for tax incentives, but for example, Nevada and other states have given Tesla a bit. At the end of the day, you know, fine. They're getting credits. They're getting tax credits. They're getting carbon credits. That's the law that, in a sense, working within the system. But for then, Elon to say, well, we don't get any benefits anymore. We don't get any tax credits anymore. A little disingenuous, a little disingenuous to say, don't give any tax credits our competitors when we got them for years. I mean, it would be nice if you at least acknowledge, look, we got them. I'm sorry we got them. We shouldn't have got them. The government should have never been involved. But then you would have to say, the reality is we wouldn't exist today if not for those tax credits. This is where people like Elon, it's very complicated. It's very hard to know how to think about them on the one hand, heroic and positive, and says a lot of good things, and says the right things, role of government, other things we'll get to. But then he kind of, in a sense, is dishonest about what Tesla has been all about. Whereas everyone else, I think, except for GM, still gets the $7,500 tax credit. But there's a reason for that. Once you produce more than X number of cars, you don't get any more. So it's there to get you started. So you got it when you got started. GM got it when they got started. Since those two companies are producing enough cars now, now that tax credit is going to all the other people who are in that position. And yet you want that to go away, really? Is that really your stance now that you established because you benefited from all those government favors? All of our sales this year and last year were had nothing to do with the tax credit because we had made so many electric cars. Tesla has made roughly two-thirds of all the electric cars in the United States. True. I'm not sure most people are aware of that, yeah. And how much of that would have been possible without the government support? So Tesla has made basically twice as many electric vehicles as the rest of industry combined. And we don't need the $7,500 tax credit. That's right. Once you reach a certain size, you don't need the tax credit anymore. Now you're big enough, you dominate the market. But it's curious that once you're big enough that you're not getting the tax credit anyway, now you're advocating for its rejection. I'm curious if anybody knows if Elon Musk was arguing pre-2018, maybe 2012, 14, 16, was he arguing then that we should get rid of this credit, $7,500 credit? I doubt it. Credit. I would say, honestly, I would just can this whole vote. Don't pass it. That's my recommendation. What about the support, though, for the charging? This is the best part. There are parts of this bill. No? No. I mean, do we need support for gas stations? I mean, that's the best answer he gave. Do we need support for gas stations? It's what I mentioned when I analyzed the infrastructure bill, and a lot of the money is going for these charging stations. And I talked about the fact that why do you need them? There's a profit motive in that. Once you get enough of that to cause and we're getting there, why wouldn't gas stations add them on? Ultimately, they would replace the gas stations. Why do you need government to intervene? Did government build the original gas stations? I mean, Elon Musk gets it. But when it comes to actually benefiting from it, he's eager to jump into it and maybe even lobby for it when he's the direct beneficiary, when he has the ability to step back and take a look and evaluate without it impacting his actual business, then he gets it. He really does. Don't. So there's no need for support for charging. Absolutely. I would delete it. Delete. Delete. OK, all right. I'm literally saying get rid of all subsidies. He's literally saying get rid of all subsidies. And I commend him for saying that. I commend him for saying that. I wish most CEOs would say that. I wish everybody in the industry would say that. But it's much easier to say that after you don't get the subsidies anymore. But also for oil and gas. And that's kind of cheating, because also for oil and gas, oil and gas don't get subsidies. I hear this all the time, but they get their equipment written off in terms of taxes and things like that. So does every other business. There might be some favorable treatment for certain types of arrangements for the oil and gas industry. But yeah, let's get rid of all subsidies, all subsidies. Let's get rid of all deductions from corporate taxes and make it, I don't know, really, really simple, really, really straightforward so the tax code cannot be manipulated. Or how about what I've always advocated for, which is basically zero corporate tax. And then there's no way to game the system. And so I just wish he had done this. When he was the direct beneficiary of the subsidy, which he's talking about. Now, is Elon Musk for getting rid of the carbon credit, which generates half a billion dollars in revenue for his company? I don't know. I doubt it. I haven't heard anything about it. Does he consider that a subsidy? Maybe. I hope so. I hope that's what he includes with let's get rid of all subsidies. If you think about also how this affects your competitors, is that impact how some of your view on this? I mean, maybe they need it. I don't know. But I think just generally, I'm in favor of deleting subsidies. I mean, when we started Tesla, there were no EV subsidies at all. And gasoline was super cheap. We did not anticipate any subsidies. That came later. It came late at key points in Tesla's development. The $75 tax credit came as a result not of Tesla activity, but of General Motors loving for it. I would just say, just delete them all. All right, but there are some other good things in this bill that some would argue. I mean, a lot of money earmarked for R&D, would you want to put that towards something? No. All right, we're going to move on from the bill, because I think we get what you're saying. Seriously, we should pass it. In general, if we don't cut government spending, something really bad is going to happen. This is crazy. This is good. Our spending is so far in excess of revenue, it's insane. You could zero out all billionaires in the country. This is almost like anti-billionaire BS. Well, if you zero out all billionaires. Well, that's pretty cool for a billionaire that says there's a lot of anti-billionaire BS. I mean, there you go. That's the kind of courage that we need to see more businessmen have. That's the kind of non-equivocating that we need to see more billionaires have. It's only when businessmen stand up and say the kind of things Elon Musk is saying right now that the world is going to change. And I'm encouraged by his willingness to say it, disappointed that he's not willing to fully admit the role government played and the role these subsidies played in Tesla's own development. I'd like to see him analyze that and prove me wrong and show me that it didn't have a big impact on the development. But good for him for standing up against the tax on billionaires. Good for him for standing up for all of this. All the billionaires, you still wouldn't solve the deficit. I'll ask you another question around the billionaire BS. Say tomorrow you get the phone call from President Biden. Next day actually we decide we elect you to Congress. Somehow this happens. You're now working on tax bills. You're working on tax policy. What is, how do you tax someone like you? How do you tax billion? I mean, first of all, I pay a lot of tax. I mean, my marginal tax rate is like 15%. So that's not trivial. And then obviously there's like asset based taxes, the sales tax and everything else. There's also the estate tax. And generally, I think the estate tax is a good tax. Like if you think of assets beyond a certain level that are far beyond, let's say, somebody's ability to consume, then at a certain point really what you're doing is capital allocations. So he just said wealth tax is a good tax. You could say that the wealth tax is one of the least destructive taxes, but a good tax, this thing is a good tax as we know again. Consistency would be great. But this point he's about to make. And let me rewind this just a tad because I just captured the full context. This point he's about to make about capital allocation is really, really good. Again, from an economic perspective, more so I wish he had some more moral context for it. But this is a really, really good point he makes about taxing. It's a point I've made many, many times. And what happens when you tax the rich, the so-called rich? Let's say somebody's ability to consume. Then at a certain point really what you're doing is capital allocation. So it's not money for personal expenditures. What you're doing is capital allocation. And it does not make sense to take the job of capital allocation away from people who have demonstrated great skill in capital allocation and give it to an entity that has demonstrated very poor skill in capital allocation, which is the government. I mean, this is the point he's making. What do rich people do with their money? Beyond the point of consumption, beyond what they can consume. There's only so much you can consume. What do rich people actually do? What do wealthy people actually do with their money? Well, they save it, the equivalent of save. What does that mean? It means they invest it. They allocate capital. They invest in startups and businesses. They put it into their own business. They allocate capital in the economy. Rich people don't have a vote with all their cash sitting in it like Scrooge McDuck did in the cartoons. They actually have all this capital invested in businesses allocated to businesses. And what he's saying is when you tax that money, when you tax the Elon Musk, the Bezos, the Bill Gates of the world, what you're really doing is taking money from the smartest, best capital allocators in the world, from people who understand business, understand innovation, understand progress, and give it to an incompetent, pathetic entity, government, that has proven to be really, really bad at allocating capital. Why would you do that if you care about economic growth? Again, from the economic dimension, right? You could think of the government, essentially, as a corporation in the limit. The government is simply the biggest corporation with a monopoly on violence. There's a problem with viewing government as a corporation, which I'd love to get into with Elon Musk someday. But he's right. The government has the monopoly over the use of violence. That's what makes it government. But given that it does so many other things, do you want to give the entity with a monopoly over the use of violence, of force, the ability to do all these other things? And where you have no recourse. So how much money do you want to give that entity? Could you explain the last part? How much money do you want to give that entity, exactly? Last part quickly. And then I want to move on to some product stuff. Sure. I mean, I can talk for a bit longer if you'd like. He's enjoying this. If you're worried about getting through all your questions. But we have nobody else joining us at this conference. Yeah, I mean, government is a corporation in the limit. So it is the most corporate thing. It is maximum corporation. But it's also monopoly. And also, it's the only one that's allowed legally to do violence. So why would you want to give a corporation with no competition that can't even really go bankrupt? More money. It's not that I think the government shouldn't exist or that they're not good things that the government can do or things that are necessary for the government to do. So I'm not somebody who is sort of an extreme libertarian. I mean, I don't know what extreme libertarian is. He's not an anarchist, which is good. He could be more of a limited government than he is. It looks like in terms of how billion he is, he's about as good as he gets in terms of those who are willing to actually go in Canberra and talk about this stuff. And thinks the government should not do anything. I just think we should minimize what the government does, because the government's efficiency at spending is just going to be lower than a competitive commercial company, but by a lot. I'm going to shift. By a lot. That's perfect. Well said. Get away from government. Come back to your world. The workload at Tesla is quite a lot. Have you, and I know now you could regain the chairman position. This is just fun to listen to. Have you thought about that? Have you thought about your title and your position there right now? I mean, it's interesting, these titles. You know that there's actually only three titles that actually mean anything for a corporation? It's president, secretary, and treasurer. And technically, they could be the same person. And all these other titles are just basically made up. So CEO is made up title. CFO is made up title. General Counsel made up title. Don't mean anything. I think a room of CEOs are. I mean, he's not right that they don't mean anything. He's kind of being flippant, but that's OK. It's always fun to watch. They don't mean anything from a legal corporate entity perspective, but they mean something a lot because they're contracts. As a CEO, you have a contract with the board, with the company that gives you certain authorities and certain responsibilities. So it's bogus to say because in the corporation incorporated documents, you only have those three titles, president, treasurer, secretary. Those are the only titles that exist anymore than you go to a middle manager and make him a director of research. That's meaningless. No, it means something. It means something. Now, he's being a lawnmower. This is where he gets a little flippant and a little ridiculous. You'll hear about the title he gave himself in a minute. How we feel about that. Yeah? It was like, obviously, just somebody's mocking experiment. So I guess I'll be more direct. Are you considering stepping down as CEO? Would you transfer, be chairman, and think about being chief product officer? I mean, since CEO title doesn't matter anymore. I changed my title to Techno King. He's Techno King. And by the way, this is a formal SEC filing. I'm legally a formal whatever, Techno King. I just did that as kind of like a joke because just a trope that these titles don't mean a lot. You can see what is actually legally necessary if you fill out the form for creating a C Corp. And then you'll see it's president, treasure, and secretary. I need a director to. But that's basically it. And then all these other chief, whatever officer, are basically just made up. All right. So I ended on that fun note from Elon Musk being Elon Musk. And he is now Techno King. He's not the CEO. He's the Techno King of Tesla. It would be interesting to study his management style and see what actually happens within the business. I don't think there are BS titles. I mean, firstly, because of regulations, the CEO has to sign off on financial statements. So the CFO, the CFO has all kinds of liabilities. You can joke and kid around about this stuff, but it's just not true. You need certain titles. Somebody has to be responsible for marketing. There is such a thing as chief marketing officer. And they do take on the responsibility of things like that. So when you're positioned that you are as Elon Musk is, you can poo poo these things. But for most companies, a lot of these things are crucial. It is a good interview. It was a fun interview. A lot of good, positive things were said. I wish Musk would just come clean on his view about all the subsidies that he got. It would be good to have a little PowerPoint presentation where he showed us they didn't matter. And Tesla would have been fine without the government loan in 2010 and without all the different subsidies and without the tax credits and without the carbon credits. I doubt he can do it because I don't think it's true. I think he built his company based on those and wouldn't have survived if not for those. But it's still great to see a CEO come out and talk about government spending the way he did. It's great to see a CEO come out and state that there should be no subsidies, even if he's not consistent applying that to his own company. It's great that that gets into the debate and that gets out there into the culture and that we start discussing these kind of issues. So I want to see many, many more CEOs do that. I'd like to see a lot more CEOs interact the way Elon Musk does with the world. And it would be good again if they were more straight up and didn't carry the baggage that Elon Musk carries. Unfortunately, he does because, I mean, it's not even the fact that it's not just Tesla, right? Solar City benefits enormously from all kinds of government regulations, controls, tax credits, all kinds of things like that that are created. So it's very, very hard when Musk says these things to take him completely seriously. And indeed, I saw a video of Zach Ria, who's like a, what is he, CNN, CNBC, I'm not sure, calling him on it and kind of saying he's a hypocrite. He's too open to that. And yet I still enjoy hearing it said. Still enjoy hearing it said. Thank you for listening or watching The Iran Book Show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening. You get value from watching. Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbrookshow.com slash support by going to Patreon, subscribe star locals and just making a appropriate contribution on any one of those, any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see The Iran Book Show grow, please consider sharing our content. And of course, subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.