RedState91%

Elon Musk’s SpaceX Is Coming for Your 401(k), and the Left Is Going to Hate This 32%

By Ben Smith50%

7/7/2026, 12:15:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 19.1% saturation with 133 hits. Analysis detected 1,478 faulty-reasoning hits from 696 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.9% and a BS Rank of 32% (15,013 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 68.60% of the article peer group.

SpaceX joins the Nasdaq-100 on Tuesday, 25 days after Elon Musk took the rocket company public. 
For millions of Americans with passive funds inside a 401(k), the company that made Musk the first trillionaire in recorded history may soon land inside their retirement account too. 
SpaceX opened at $150 a share on its first day of trading, moved higher, pulled back, and closed Monday at $160.42. 
Nasdaq confirmed SpaceX would enter the Nasdaq-100 on July 7. 
Funds that track the index will buy the stock. 
Many of those mutual funds and exchange-traded funds live inside retirement plans held by workers who never bought SpaceX directly and never made a personal call on Musk. 
That part will be funny for the people who spent June melting down over his wealth. 
Sen. 
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) wanted a wealth tax after Musk crossed the trillionaire mark. 
Sen. 
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) used the milestone to pitch lifting the Social Security tax cap. 
Graham Platner, the disgraced Democrat running for Senate in Maine, posted, “Let’s make sure he’s also the last.” 
Despite their whining, a few weeks later, SpaceX heads into the Nasdaq-100. 
JPMorgan estimated the inclusion could draw $4.3 billion in passive inflows. 
Funds tied to the Nasdaq-100 include Invesco’s QQQ and QQQM. 
No government body made SpaceX valuable, and none of these crusty senators built the rockets. 
Investors looked at the company, the vision, and the future and bought. 
SpaceX did not wait years for index entry either. 
Read More: Elon Musk Becomes the First Trillionaire in Human History  and the Left Immediately Lost Its Mind 
The Elon Musk Trillionaire Talk Is Back As SpaceX Locks in a $1.77 Trillion Valuation 
Major indices relaxed requirements this year for newly listed companies, including rules tied to profitability, trading history, and shares available for public trading. 
SpaceX became eligible after 15 trading days. 
That number will make some people sweat. 
SpaceX also has an actual business behind it, which makes the usual political whining harder to take seriously. 
The company dominates commercial launches, operates Starlink, holds major NASA and Defense Department contracts, and sits in the middle of the artificial intelligence infrastructure race. 
The old space order had decades. 
Musk beat it with a company founded in 2002. 
Investors did not need Elizabeth Warren’s permission to notice. 
The first exposure inside index funds will be limited. 
SpaceX sold less than 5 percent of its total shares in the June public offering, and employee lockups keep most shares off the public market for now. 
Nasdaq adjusts for the amount of stock available to trade, so SpaceX will enter the index below 1 percent. 
A retirement account holding a Nasdaq-100 fund did not become an all-in SpaceX bet overnight. 
But roughly $800 billion in mutual funds and exchange-traded funds track the Nasdaq-100. 
Those funds now need SpaceX shares to mirror the index. 
One financial planner gave the standard retirement-account answer. 
"You are picking strategies, not stocks. 
If that strategy includes SpaceX, it might still be appropriate, even if you don't like individual stocks in that strategy." 
Which is fine, until the index changes under you. 
The saver picks a strategy. 
The index moves without asking. 
One market strategist said demand helped drive the fast-track move, while warning that some skeptics think the stock remains overvalued. 
"Clearly, there's a lot of demand, that's why they fast-tracked the integration into the index. 
A lot of people will be happy with it. 
Some fund managers less so, the skeptics amongst them, us included. 
We think the stock is overvalued." 
S&P Global took a slower route. 
It said it would not change requirements for SpaceX and would wait at least 12 months before considering the company for its major indexes. 
Maybe SpaceX stumbles. 
Newly public stocks punish overconfidence all the time. 
Musk has punished plenty of overconfident critics, too. 
SpaceX went public on June 12. 
By July 7, funds tied to hundreds of billions of dollars were preparing to buy. 
Warren can call for a wealth tax. 
Sanders can write another plan. 
Retirement funds may buy the rocket company anyway. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.2%Ben Smith: 2.8%RedState: 7.0%Confirmation Bias2.2%This article: 4.0%Ben Smith: 2.4%RedState: 0.8%Anchoring Bias4.0%This article: 7.6%Ben Smith: 2.8%RedState: 3.4%Availability Heuristic7.6%This article: 1.3%Ben Smith: 0.7%RedState: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic1.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 2.1%RedState: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Ben Smith: 11.1%RedState: 9.2%Framing Effect12.4%This article: 8.2%Ben Smith: 1.5%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion8.2%This article: 0.9%Ben Smith: 0.4%RedState: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.3%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.4%Ben Smith: 0.8%RedState: 1.7%Optimism Bias2.4%This article: 2.4%Ben Smith: 1.0%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias2.4%This article: 19.1%Ben Smith: 8.8%RedState: 13.9%Negativity Bias19.1%This article: 3.3%Ben Smith: 2.6%RedState: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias3.3%This article: 6.2%Ben Smith: 1.4%RedState: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error6.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Ben Smith: 1.8%RedState: 4.7%In-Group Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.0%RedState: 3.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Ben Smith: 1.0%RedState: 2.0%Halo Effect7.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.3%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 1.2%Recency Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%Ben Smith: 4.2%RedState: 6.9%Ad Hominem12.6%This article: 1.3%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 2.6%Straw Man1.3%This article: 12.9%Ben Smith: 2.7%RedState: 3.3%Appeal to Authority12.9%This article: 1.7%Ben Smith: 1.6%RedState: 2.4%False Dilemma1.7%This article: 0.7%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.6%Ben Smith: 5.1%RedState: 10.1%Hasty Generalization6.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.9%RedState: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.6%Ben Smith: 0.4%RedState: 0.9%Bandwagon3.6%This article: 18.1%Ben Smith: 4.7%RedState: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion18.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.8%Ben Smith: 2.6%RedState: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 0.9%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.3%RedState: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.1%Ben Smith: 1.5%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal1.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.9%Ben Smith: 1.5%RedState: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.6%Ben Smith: 1.7%RedState: 2.4%Unattributed Quote7.6%This article: 5.3%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection5.3%This article: 18.7%Ben Smith: 10.1%RedState: 21.5%Biased Writer Voice18.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 2.8%RedState: 4.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 12.5%Ben Smith: 0.4%RedState: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias12.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 9.1%RedState: 15.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 2.6%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

696 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers13%attributed speech606writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageNasdaq • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Warren • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageBernie Sanders • 14 words • 100.0% coverageGraham Platner • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageJPMorgan • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageS&P Global • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Graham Platner

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words20% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+98.7 ptsWriter: 1.3%Graham Platner: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+96.9 ptsWriter: 3.1%Graham Platner: 100.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+90.8 ptsWriter: 9.2%Graham Platner: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+81.5 ptsWriter: 18.5%Graham Platner: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.