February 27, 2026
How much lower can Tesla and Trump's DJT stocks go?
The maximum a stock can go down is 100% of its current valuation. Both Tesla and DJT have been hammered recently, down about 40% and 50% respectively from recent highs. While neither one is expected to bottom out to zero, both stocks can be expected to continue going down for a while before settling at about 40% of their respective all time highs.
On December 18, 2024, Tesla Inc. (TSLA) reached an all-time intraday high of $488.54. As of February 27, 2025, Tesla's trading price is $281.95 per share. This represents a decrease of 42.3% ($206.59 per share and about $423 billion in market value) in a little over two months or 71 days to be precise.
On October 30, 2024, the Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. (DJT) reached an intraday high of $47.53 on October 30, 2024. As of February 27, 2025, DJT's stock closed at $23.80 per share. This represents a decrease of about 50% ($23.73 per share and about $5 billion in market capitalization) in about four months.
These substantial declines reflect the stock's volatility and the dynamic nature of investor sentiment surrounding the companies associated with the Batman and Robin duo making America great again, Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
Should we feel sorry for Trump and Musk?
No one should feel sorry for the apparent economic loss that Trump and Musk are suffering on paper. Trump is the most powerful man in the world after Vladimir Putin. Elon Musk is the richest man in the world after Vladimir Putin. By their political power and clout, Trump and Musk have almost unfettered access to the U.S. Treasury. Like Putin, they can play with government contracts to increase their power and wealth to levels never seen before in human history except perhaps by the level or power and wealth achieved by their mentor, Vladimir Putin.
What can Trump and Musk learn from Putin?
Vladimir Putin's ascent to wealth and power is often attributed to a network of loyal associates who have secured substantial government contracts, enriching themselves and, by extension, consolidating Putin's influence. This strategy has fostered a class of oligarchs whose fortunes are closely tied to the Kremlin, ensuring their allegiance and reinforcing Putin's control over Russia's political and economic spheres.
Key Figures and Mechanisms:
-
Arkady Rotenberg: A longtime confidant of Putin and his former judo sparring partner, Rotenberg has amassed significant wealth through government contracts. In 2015 alone, his companies were awarded approximately $7.8 billion in state orders, including major infrastructure projects like the Crimean Bridge. These lucrative deals have solidified his status among Russia's elite and underscored the symbiotic relationship between the Kremlin and favored businessmen.
-
Yevgeny Prigozhin: Dubbed "Putin's chef" due to his catering enterprises serving Kremlin events, Prigozhin expanded his ventures to include the Wagner Group, a private military company. His firms have secured extensive government contracts, notably a $1.2 billion deal in 2012 to supply meals to the Russian military. Profits from such contracts have allegedly financed operations like the Internet Research Agency, implicated in political interference activities.
-
Nikolai Shamalov: A co-founder of Rossiya Bank and another close associate of Putin, Shamalov has been linked to significant financial undertakings, including the construction of an opulent Black Sea estate, often referred to as "Putin's Palace." Whistleblower accounts suggest that funds for this project were siphoned from state resources and facilitated through complex financial schemes involving Putin's inner circle.
Strategic Outcomes:
By channeling state resources and contracts to trusted allies, Putin has effectively:
-
Ensured Loyalty: The financial prosperity of these oligarchs is intertwined with Putin's regime, incentivizing unwavering support and discouraging dissent.
-
Consolidated Power: Control over key economic sectors through loyalists fortifies Putin's grip on Russia's political landscape, marginalizing opposition and independent enterprises.
-
Obscured Personal Wealth: Utilizing proxies and confidants allows Putin to distance himself from direct ownership, complicating efforts to trace and attribute wealth directly to him.
This intricate web of patronage and economic favoritism not only enriches those within Putin's close network but also reinforces a system where political loyalty is rewarded with economic privilege, perpetuating the centralization of power in Russia.
Elon Musk's companies, notably SpaceX and Tesla, have a longstanding history of securing substantial contracts with the U.S. federal government. Over the past decade, these enterprises have been awarded at least $18 billion in federal contracts, with SpaceX accounting for approximately $15 billion and Tesla receiving around $3 billion.
In December 2022, SpaceX introduced Starshield, a derivative of its Starlink satellite constellation tailored for government and military applications. By September 2023, Starshield secured its inaugural contract with the U.S. Space Force, aiming to provide customized satellite communications for military operations.
In the next years, it can be expected that the Trump administration will grant a record dollar amount in ultra lucrative multi-billion dollar contracts to Musk. Part of this money will surely come back to Trump as kickbacks disguised as political donations.
During President Donald Trump's second term, Elon Musk's influence within the administration has notably expanded. After Musk essentially bribed Trump with a $270M political donation during the presidential campaign, Trump appointed Musk as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
As DOGE Director, Musk has been instrumental in directing federal initiatives, including significant cost "reduction" programs. The goal of the cost reduction may be to find federal dollars for Musk's companies. Musk's prominent role in the Trump administration has positioned his companies favorably for future government contracts. For instance, Starlink, a subsidiary of SpaceX, is poised to acquire a $2.4 billion contract from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to modernize the nation's air traffic control communication systems, potentially replacing the existing contract held by Verizon.
Musk's dual capacity as a federal official and CEO of major government contractors has raised concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest. Critics argue that his influential position could unduly benefit his enterprises, especially as they continue to secure substantial federal contracts.
In summary, Elon Musk's companies have historically engaged in significant contracts with the federal government. His elevated role within the current administration appears to further align his enterprises for continued and potentially expanded milking of the federal government and American taxpayers.
Racism is Not Free: The Cost of America’s Anti-Immigrant Backlash and the Rise of an Autocrat
America’s long-standing struggles with immigration have always been intertwined with race, identity, and political power. In the early 21st century, the nation’s desire to purge itself of mostly brown-skinned undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Latin America fueled one of the most significant political shifts in U.S. history—the election of a convicted felon who vowed to reshape America’s democratic system.
In exchange for a promise to make America a little whiter and less "woke" (progressive or liberal), voters knowingly or unknowingly handed the keys to power to a man who explicitly stated that there would be no more elections and, in doing so, may have made him America’s first dictator.
The blame does not lie solely with those who elected him. Democrats bear responsibility as well. Whether they actually implemented an "open border" policy or simply failed to counter the perception that they did, they allowed a backlash to build—a backlash that resulted in a presidency that could permanently alter America’s democracy.
1. The Immigration Issue and the Drive for Whiteness
America has always had conflicted feelings about race and immigration. The country was built by immigrants, yet waves of newcomers—especially those who do not fit the white, Anglo-Saxon mold—have often been met with hostility.
- The Post-2020 Border Crisis: With record numbers of migrants crossing into the U.S., often from Latin America, public frustration mounted.
- The "Invasion" Rhetoric: Right-wing media and politicians described the influx as an "invasion," fueling white anxiety over demographic change.
- The Appeal of an Authoritarian Solution: When democracy failed to "fix" the issue in the eyes of many Americans, they turned to someone who promised a brutal, unapologetic crackdown—regardless of constitutional limits.
The result? Voters supported a leader who promised mass deportations, drastic policies that would reshape the racial and ethnic composition of the country, and an end to democratic elections to ensure these policies could never be reversed.
2. The Role of Democrats: Incompetence, Perception, and the Backlash
While progressives championed immigration reform, they failed to effectively control the narrative or address real concerns about border security.
- Open Border Accusations: Whether fair or not, many Americans believed Democrats had no control over illegal immigration.
- Failure to Address Voter Concerns: Instead of crafting a strong, clear immigration policy, Democratic leaders downplayed the issue, allowing the opposition to exploit voter frustration.
- Alienating Moderates: Some centrist and working-class voters who might have supported economic policies from the left instead gravitated toward hard-right candidates because of their stance on immigration.
In essence, Democrats enabled the rise of an authoritarian by either embracing lax policies or failing to push back effectively against the perception that they had.
3. The Cost of Racism: The Potential Death of Democracy
The political backlash against immigration did not just stop at removing undocumented immigrants—it paved the way for authoritarian rule.
- "No More Elections" Becomes Reality: The elected leader made good on his promise to end elections, ensuring that once he achieved his vision of America, it could never be undone.
- From Immigration to Dictatorship: Voters who prioritized racial and cultural "purity" found themselves in a nation where even their freedoms disappeared—a price they may not have anticipated.
- The Irony of the Anti-"Woke" Movement: Those who voted against progressivism, liberalism, and diversity now potentially live--without knowing it yet--in a country where freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and political choice may be gone.
Conclusion: The Ultimate Price of the Anti-Immigrant Crusade
History has shown that when a democracy prioritizes racial and cultural purity over freedom, it often leads to authoritarianism, oppression, and regret. America’s desire to "fix" its immigration problem at any cost may have ended up destroying democracy itself. The most tragic part? Many of those who cheered on the deportations, cheered on the end of "woke politics," and celebrated the whitening of America may now find themselves powerless in a country ruled indefinitely by Trump, Musk, and a few other oligarch wannabes not unlike in Putin's Russia.
Now you know it.
www.creatix.one
Comments
Post a Comment