
Elon Musk Thinks Tesla Will Become the World's Most Valuable Company, but This Glaring Problem Could Instead Lead to a 70% Plunge
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) stock ended 2024 with a gain of 63%, partly because of President Donald Trump's November U.S. election win. Investors speculated that a looser regulatory environment -- and CEO Elon Musk's closeness with Trump and his inner circle -- could pave the way for Tesla to bring its autonomous driving and humanoid robotics platforms to market more quickly.
According to Musk, these products could make Tesla the most valuable company in the world one day -- in fact, he thinks there is a possibility it could be worth more than the next five largest companies combined. Today, those five companies would be Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, and Alphabet, which are worth a combined $12.9 trillion.
But there's a glaring problem which has already sent Tesla stock plunging by 41% from its December record high: The company is experiencing a sharp decline in its electric vehicle (EV) sales, which still account for most of its revenue. Here's why Tesla stock could buck Musk's prediction and deliver more downside instead.
Tesla's first-quarter delivery numbers are in, and they aren't good
Tesla used to be the world's largest EV brand by sales, but China-based BYD snatched the throne by delivering more cars in the last two consecutive quarters. People appear to be choosing cheaper options like BYD's Seagull EV, which sells for just $10,000 in its domestic market, and is now moving into other regions, including Europe. Tesla simply can't compete at that price point.
But the rise of other EV manufacturers is only part of the story. The Tesla brand also appears to be losing some of its shine organically, because it failed to grow sales during 2024. The company delivered 1.79 million cars for the year, which was a 1% decline compared to 2023. The result came just one year after Musk told investors he planned to grow EV production by 50% per year for the foreseeable future -- which simply isn't possible if the cars aren't selling.
This year is is shaping up to be even worse. Tesla just revealed that it delivered 336,681 EVs during the first quarter (ended March 31), which was a whopping 13% decline compared to the year-ago period. The number was also significantly below Wall Street's average forecast of 377,590, which analysts had already revised down in the weeks leading up to the official release.
Musk's involvement in global politics seems to be a key reason why many people are steering clear of Tesla. There have been growing reports of violence against Tesla dealerships and privately owned vehicles over the last few months, not just in the U.S., but also across Europe. Musk's leadership role in the Department of Government Efficiency -- an external group that's working with the U.S. government to cut what it calls "wasteful" spending to reduce the national debt -- is especially divisive among Americans.
Tesla's long-term catalysts could be more valuable than the EV business
Tesla has a market capitalization of $886 billion as of this writing, making it three times more valuable than Toyota, despite selling 83% fewer cars last year. Simply put, Tesla's valuation isn't grounded in the realities of its EV business right now. Instead, investors are focusing on a series of future products that haven't actually hit the market yet.
One of them is the Cybercab, which is designed to run on the company's full self-driving (FSD) software. Tesla's goal is to establish a ride-hailing network where its robotaxis can autonomously haul passengers and earn revenue for the company around the clock (like Uber, except without human drivers). Tesla's FSD software isn't approved for unsupervised use on American roads just yet, but Musk is hopeful it will be active in Texas and California sometime this year.
There are some substantial expectations for the Cybercab on Wall Street. Dan Ives from Wedbush Securities thinks autonomous vehicles represent a trillion-dollar opportunity for Tesla, and Cathie Wood's Ark Investment Management predicts that autonomous ride-hailing alone will catapult the company to a $8 trillion valuation by 2029.
But Musk is eyeing an even bigger opportunity: humanoid robots. He believes they will outnumber humans by 2040 as we defer repetitive jobs, dangerous tasks, and even household chores to them. Tesla plans to build several thousand of its Optimus humanoid robots during 2025, but Musk thinks annual production could top 100 million units in the coming years.
It's unclear whether demand will ramp up equally fast, but nevertheless, Musk recently told investors that Optimus could bring in a mind-boggling $10 trillion in revenue over the long term.
Tesla stock could plunge by another 70%
As bright as Tesla's long-term future might be, EV sales still account for 79% of the company's revenue, so the recent declines are going to have highly negative effects on its financial results. Tesla's 2024 earnings per share (EPS) plunged by 53% to $2.04 on the back of the modest decline in EV sales last year, so its bottom line could take an even bigger hit in 2025 should the company not improve on its delivery numbers.
Tesla stock trades at an eye-popping price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 130.9. That makes it four times as expensive as the Nasdaq-100 index, which hosts most of Tesla's big-tech peers and trades at a P/E ratio of just 29.2. It's also significantly more expensive than Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, and Alphabet.
TSLA PE Ratio data by YCharts.
In order for Tesla to become more valuable than all five of those companies combined (as Musk predicts), its stock would have to soar by 1,350% from where it trades as of this writing. Its current P/E ratio makes that practically impossible, especially if the company's EPS continues to shrink -- which is likely if its EV sales continue to head south.
Products like the Cybercab and Optimus aren't expected to go into mass production until 2026 or later, which means Tesla has to find a way to buoy its EV business for at least the next couple of years. Unfortunately, it's facing so many headwinds -- from brand damage to competition -- that righting the ship could take a significant amount of time.
I don't think Tesla's upcoming products will come to market fast enough to offset its floundering EV business, which is why I believe its stock is likely to plummet from here. It would have to decline by 73% just to trade in line with the P/E ratio of Nvidia, which is one of the fastest-growing companies in the world. It would also have to decline by 78% just to align with the P/E ratio of the broader Nasdaq-100. Those scenarios could be on the table in the coming year or so.
Don't miss this second chance at a potentially lucrative opportunity
Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this.
On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves:
Nvidia: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you'd have $244,570!*
Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you'd have $35,715!*
Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you'd have $461,558!*
Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.
*Stock Advisor returns as of April 5, 2025
Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Anthony Di Pizio has the following options: long April 2025 $200 puts on Tesla and long April 2025 $210 puts on Tesla. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Tesla, and Uber Technologies. The Motley Fool recommends BYD Company and recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Toronto Sun
an hour ago
- Toronto Sun
JONAH GOLDBERG: Trump shows that loyalty is all that matters to him
President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office of the White House, Thursday, June 5, 2025, in Washington. Photo by Evan Vucci / AP Photo Last week, the Court of International Trade delivered a blow to Donald Trump's global trade war. It found that the worldwide tariffs Trump unveiled on 'Liberation Day' as well his earlier tariffs pretextually aimed at stopping fentanyl coming in from Mexico and Canada (as if) were beyond his authority. The three-judge panel was surely right about the Liberation Day tariffs and probably right about the fentanyl tariffs, but there's a better case that, while bad policy, the fentanyl tariffs were not unlawful. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Please forgive a lengthy excerpt of Trump's response on Truth Social, but it speaks volumes: 'How is it possible for (the CIT judges) to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?' What other reason could it be? I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions. … In any event, Leo left The Federalist Society to do his own 'thing.' I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten!' Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Let's begin with the fact that Trump cannot conceive of a good explanation for an inconvenient court ruling other than Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's irrelevant that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 law the administration invoked to impose the relevant tariffs, does not even mention the word 'tariff' or that Congress never envisioned the IEEPA as a tool for launching a trade war with every nation in the world, the 'Penguin Islands' included. Also disregard the fact that the decision was unanimous and only one of the three judges was appointed by Trump (the other two were Reagan and Obama appointees). (The decision has been paused by an appeals court.) Trump is the foremost practitioner of what I call Critical Trump Theory — anything bad for Trump is unfair, illegitimate and proof that sinister forces are rigging the system against him. No wonder then that Trump thinks Leonard Leo, formerly a guiding light at the Federalist Society, the premier conservative legal organization, is a 'sleazebag' and 'bad person.' Note: Leo is neither of those things. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. But Trump's broadsides at Leo and the Federalist Society are portentous. Because Congress is AWOL, refusing to take the lead on trade (and many other things) as the Constitution envisions, it's fallen to the courts to restrain Trump's multifront efforts to exceed his authority. That's why the White House is cynically denouncing 'unelected' and 'rogue' judges on an almost daily basis and why Trump's political henchman, Stephen Miller, is incessantly ranting about a 'judicial coup.' The supreme, and sometimes seemingly sole, qualification for appointments to the Trump administration has been servile loyalty to Trump. But that ethos is not reserved for the executive branch. Law firms, elite universities and media outlets are being forced to kneel before the president. Why should judges be any different? This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Trump has a history of suggesting 'my judges' — i.e., his appointees — should be loyal to him. That's why he recently nominated Emil Bove, his former personal criminal lawyer turned political enforcer at the Department of Justice, for a federal judgeship. The significance of Trump's attack on the Federalist Society and Leo, for conservatives, cannot be exaggerated. The legal movement spearheaded by the Federalist Society has been the most successful domestic conservative project of the last century. Scholarly, civic-minded and principled, the Federalist Society spent decades developing ideas and arguments for re-centering the Constitution in American law. But now Trump has issued a fatwa that it, too, must bend the knee and its principles to the needs of one man. The law be damned, ruling against Trump is ingratitude in his mind. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Read More Speaking of ingratitude, the irony is that the Federalist Society deserves a lot of credit — or blame — for Trump being elected in the first place. In 2016, the death of Antonin Scalia left a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Many conservatives did not trust Trump to replace him. To reassure them, Trump agreed to pick from a list of potential replacements crafted by the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society. That decision arguably convinced many reluctant conservatives to vote for him. In the decade since, the Heritage Foundation has dutifully reinvented itself in Trump's image. The Federalist Society stayed loyal to its principles, and that's why the Federalist Society is in Trump's crosshairs. Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast RECOMMENDED VIDEO Sports Sunshine Girls Sunshine Girls Columnists World


Toronto Sun
an hour ago
- Toronto Sun
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
Published Jun 08, 2025 • 4 minute read Fans are reflected in a Disney+ logo during the Walt Disney D23 Expo in Anaheim, Calif., Sept. 9, 2022. Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON / AFP / FILES / Getty Images OTTAWA — Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments _ estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association_Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain _ shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. Read More Sports Sunshine Girls Sunshine Girls Columnists World


Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
Apple, Amazon and Spotify challenging CRTC's Canadian content rules in court this week
Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association-Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .