[awkwarddaturtle]

> Amazon had almost 20 years in business without "making any money" except a few quarters where they accidentally eked out some non-trivial profit.

AMZN could get away with it because it was growing and expanding nearly monopolistic company. It was similar to a social media company in that regards. There is only ONE AMZN and was a pioneer in a new "industry/sector".

TSLA is different. They are trying to invade an industry/sector with a lot of heavy hitters and established companies with lots of money.

If you think TSLA is going to be the sole monopoly in the car/electric/etc sector, then you might have a shot. And if you think TSLA could expand into other sectors like AMZN did ( IE cloud ), then you are right.

> It's amazing just how many people on different sites (stocktwits, seeking alpha, reddit) continue the "they're losing money, why are they valued so highly?" comments.

It isn't amazing. It's sensible. The problem with a company like TSLA is that there are a lot of people with vested interests to only talk about the "good side".

I owned TSLA for a few years and I sold last year. Probably sold too early but couldn't justify not cashing out after more than a 400% gain.

I may buy back in if it drops significantly, but it looks like it's gonna keep going up for a while. Who knows. In an era of easy money it's hard to valuate a company. Especially an "all-or-nothing" stock like TSLA.

One similarity between TSLA and AMZN is the backing they both had from the hedge funds/wall street. And one of the reasons why I invested in TSLA is that Musk was able to get people with money to trust him. The same way bezos did.

But one thing I don't like is the near religious/cultish craze over musk that didn't exist with bezos.