I think everyone gets the joke. Whether you’re willing to say it out loud largely depends on your partisan persuasion and, relatedly, your willingness to quietly countenance the flagrant as long as it squares with your politics.

Personally, I can’t call a spade anything other than a spade. I’m unsparing in that regard, and I don’t give out passes, even to myself.

Someone who’s likewise disinclined to politeness where it isn’t warranted or where being polite would be tantamount to dishonesty is JonesTrading’s Mike O’Rourke. I don’t always agree with Mike, but he shares my steadfast commitment to calling things what they are, and he knows just what this is:

That’s Tesla, of course, but it’s also, as O’Rourke put it, an “absurd” example of “pervasive greed in an already extremely expensive market,” catalyzed in this instance by one of the single-most successful government capture campaigns in modern history.

“We continue to find ourselves clueless as to who would need to own Tesla [this] aggressively in a thin environment if they did not own it already,” he went on.

Mike didn’t pass judgment on whether the means by which Musk secured a direct line to the Oval Office, and the near instantaneous rewards he received, are an affront to the spirit of American democracy. And let’s face it: You could pretty easily argue Musk isn’t doing anything that lobbyists and special interest groups haven’t been doing since the dawn of the republic. But… well, as lobbying efforts go, this one paid quickly and handsomely.

The figure above’s just an updated Tesla market cap chart. There were a couple of pullbacks, and you’re reminded that the big gain in October was kinda/sorta based on company “fundamentals,” such as they are at Tesla. But the bottom line — and the answer to O’Rourke’s question — is that no one needs to own Tesla the car company this aggressively, but if recent developments are any indication, everyone needs to own Musk aggressively, and Tesla’s just Elon with intraday liquidity.

As discussed here yesterday, Musk appears poised to wield an enormous amount of influence over the US government going forward, and in my opinion, that’s a very bad idea. But setting that aside, and coming full circle, this just is what is, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise: Musk paid — both in campaign contributions and, more importantly, through relentless advocacy on “X” — to curry favor with the incoming administration and for his trouble, his net worth is up $75 billion since the election, the President-elect is poised to fast-track a federal framework for self-driving vehicles (the benefits of which will obviously accrue to Tesla) and Musk has been given a pseudo-cabinet post.

No matter your politics, and no matter whether you think Musk and his “DOGE” are exactly what the US government needs, it’s incumbent upon honest people to call a spade a spade, even if that means finding a non-prejudicial way to say it. The “extreme market enthusiasm” for Tesla, O’Rourke went on, “indicates that Elon Musk’s investment in Donald Trump’s election to the Presidency may have the greatest ROI of any investment ever.”

Of course, it also ties Musk inextricably to Trump. If something goes wrong — and what could, right? — he’ll be guilty by association.