Ouch. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that the dealers are fighting tooth and nail to protect their business.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
New thread following news today:
Tesla Pouch Cells
Tesla Pouch Cells
"A new report finds that Tesla saved the consumers of each dealer roughly USD 700'000" would be another way to write this.
Not so.
If Tesla sold at the same MSRP, but had dealers who got 5% of the gross, consumers would be unaffected.
Edit: Also, that 700,000 is gross revenue. At 50k ASP, it works out to 14 less cars sold per dealership.
"A new report finds that by not having dealers Tesla increased profits by the equivalent of $700,000 times the number of new car dealers in California."
Dealers seem eager to add their markups regardless of MSRP. Imagine what they would have done when Teslas were scarce.
"Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing." --George Orwell, 1984Me too! (since Apollo). Kids need to have dreams to aspire to, and role-models to follow, to have a healthy childhood. We owe them that, 'cuz we had one...
But you didn't swing at my slow curveball? Maybe I should have picked "1988" instead? I could have easily said "1958" w/o being Capraesque. It's been "not urgent" for so long we're running out of time to turn this ship, and it steers like a pig.
Friend, you are a divine mingle-mangle of guts and stardust. So hang in there!
One of the strongest Tesla clubs is in PA. I've attended several of their excellent virtual Tesla 101--new owners orientation sessions, road tripping, and they have FSD training, meet-ups and merch. I'm in MA, but our club has reciprocal membership for events.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
For context, I've taken a case to a "court of record," presenting it myself. I've literally thrown up on the courthouse lawn after learning firsthand how these people in positions of public trust put their personal interests before the oath they are presumed to have sworn to abide by.Don't take it personally. I am busy (these are 16 hr days, 5-yrs now, less sick time and funerals). I generally stop reading a comment after the first incorrect assumption. I'll reread your entire statement... You began with the 1st-Person voice, as if stating your own opinion. Perhaps if you'd described this as the SEC's position rather than your own, we would not be here right now (sidebar follows).
Were you a high school debater? Here's an example* of the basic structure of an argument:
In debate (the classical form is based on the study of Greek rhetoric), if you can demonstrate that either the major or minor premise is false, the argument is not made (not compelling; not agreed upon).
- Major Premise: ie: "All Men are Mortal"
- Minor Premise: "Plato is a Man"
- Conclusion: "Therefore Plato is Mortal"
You missed the mark, while attempting distraction with a strawman argument. Your additional statements (which I did not quote in my first reply) also did not address the actual issue I raised, which is SEC's "valid contract" basis for denying Elon's 1st Amendment right to free speech. BTW, the link to your complete comment did appear in my reply, for anyone with the time and interest to follow up.
The SEC used duress to force Elon to accept a multi-million dollar penalty (which he knew was unjust) to avoid the death of his multi-billion dollar company. The SEC knew that too, that's the 'intent' part of their misconduct, which itself should be reviewed by the Courts. This is not a valid contract under basic tort law (also at the high school level). To continue the dissection of the SEC argument, their position is that:
I hold that the Minor Premise #2 above is false: The contract is not valid because it was entered into under duress.
- Constitutional 1st Amendment rights can be surrendered via contract,
- Elon entered a valid contract with the SEC to accept limits on his free speech, and
- Therefore Elon surrendered his first Amendment rights.
"A party who is forced into an act or contract under duress can rescind the contract, rendering it null and void. In a duress defense, the party admits to committing an act, but unwillingly. Even though the act was illegal, the act was entered into under extreme pressure or threat to cause bodily harm or even death."Duress - Overview, Requirements, and Categories | CorporateFinanceInstitute.com (Dec 10, 2022)
BTW, the Major Premise #1 above is also likely false (due to the "certain unalienable rights" phrasing of the preamble to the US Contitution. As in, "No, SEC you don't have the legal right to place limits on free speech" regardless of the mechanism. But as a strategy in Court, you'd likely focus on your strongest argument.
Pro Tip: this is not about you or me. This is about the SEC, their dubious conduct, and how it continues to have negative effects upon Tesla investors. It's at times like this when I miss @Fact Checking (top-notch amateur legal mind, now lost to the twits...).
Why not just say it outloud then? These are mafia-like crooks in expensive suits, and need to be held accountable. Big Carbon is paying these big legal bills, along with the Wall St. banksters who finance them. It's obvious now (has been since 1978) that the root cause of enviromental, climate, and human rights issues world-wide is Wall St. greed and avarice, with their unquenchable thirst for more dirty fuels, moar dirty money, dirty lawyers and dirty politics.
Do you think Big $$$ can be beaten at the game they invented and rigged, at the Casino they built? I don't (Elon won two legal cases last week; the losers have already refiled the same suits). It's endless, like their greed. The trick with these groups is that they don't actually give a *sugar* about whether or not something is true, or if their case is false. The trial is just for show, the results are decided in advance. They just keep going no matter what, as long as they have $$$. And their casino lets them print unlimited money, no wonder they love the game. They won't stop, or accept defeat.
Gloomy? No! The secret is to change the game. HOW!? Make a better game! One which is sustainable. Changing the Game is Elon's superpower. Rockets? Reuse 'em! Dirty Cars? Electrify 'em? Boring Traffic? Boring-Co! Wi-Fried? Sky-Net! Save the Earth? Make a backup! That's how we win, by challenging assumptions, and proving them false (they said we couldn't but we did it anyway).
This is why I fight (Artful Dodger | TMC, March 11, 2020).
Cheers!
#SEC #DIRTYCOLLARCRIME #REFUSETOLOSE #CHANGETHEGAME
*BTW, wrt Plato the Major Premise is false because all Men haven't died yet, so it is TBD if all men are mortal (even though Big Carbon may tries hard as they might)
I was able to successfully deny the court's jurisdiction and the prosecutor's authority to present the case. They were unable to rebut this. The case was eventually dismissed. I won.
Part of the argument I made cannot be made by an attorney as it brought into question whether or not the attorney's own license met the qualifications outlined in the statutes. (It seems that no attorney holds a legitimate license in this state. This is likely true for other states.)
So, I have fought this good fight in court, in person, and have some perspective. The rules are fine, but the authority must be questioned at the get-go. Using an attorney will miss this opportunity, as they will not question the validity of their own license nor the sham where the "state" is presented as a legal person. (the state is a body politic, not a legal person with status in court) The time for me to raise this objection is at arraignment.
One of their tricks is to steamroll through arraignment on the presumption that all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed, when in fact they may not be. Once the presumption is established the court can run with the case if there is no objection made. (they call this "tacit agreement" on the part of the person who never questioned these things)
As for Elon and the SEC, I suspect that to enter into the corporate game there was a contract that volunteered the company's officers into the jurisdiction of the SEC. It would make sense to do it this way. I'm not sure the argument I used would be of much help to Elon. But, if I were him, I'd have begun the defense at the point where jurisdiction is established and make sure that everybody has their oaths and licenses in order as per the governing rules rather than tacitly agree that everything was legit by doing nothing at that point.
You cannot beat people like this on their home court if you do not completely understand the rules they play by in order to find where they have fudged things to slide past some technicality. That is the chink in their armor. If it seems like what they are doing is a travesty, it probably is. Determining how to question it in such a way that puts the burden upon them to prove they are legit is the logical approach.
Doing this sort of research is an incredible time sink and it is probably well worth someone like Elon/Tesla to pay a million dollar fine, as, in the time it would take to learn which rule has been bent and use that to their advantage, he could have applied his intellect to make several millions more.
The system and the tricks are designed to be a pain in the keister for this very reason. At the very essence of it, the rules must meet the constitutional and common law tests. Finding where the powers-that-be have side-stepped the rules is how to thwart such practice. But, it comes at a price of inconvenience that most cannot afford. As was the case when Elon agreed to the terms because they seemed to have him over a barrel and he didn't see any way out in a timely manner that wouldn't have a negative effect on the company.
It took three years to have my case dismissed. But, I had both the time and the inclination to persevere. Elon and Tesla did not have the luxury of time, so they did the best they could in that moment. Maybe, some day, they will find a chink in the armor to use to get out of this rather annoying aspect of the agreement they entered into. I'm rooting for them.
GhostSkater
Member
This one is a head scratcher
Volume is to low for anything significant, but also really high for lab scale sample testing. Too low even for just 12 V/ 48 V batteries
Unless Tesla has a ton of options to test new formulations of every single component and they are brute forcing their way into it, test all possible combinations to have a lot of data
There was an AI Battery Material Selections hire a while ago no?
Paracelsus
Active Member
Actually it was investing in TSLA since 2013 that led me to this conclusion. I doubt I would have changed my mind about a lot of beliefs I once held very closely if it weren’t for following all things TSLA and Elon just as closely. Elon’s pursuit of more noble goals for people and Planet has required those behind the curtain to reveal themselves once in awhile in their struggle to remain dominant.
Dikkie Dik
If gets hard, use hammer
On a phone it’s still there in landscape. In portrait it’s missing.
Quite annoying to be frank.
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Paracelsus
Active Member
Respectfully @phantasms - Then I am confused by your adamant disagreement- for it sounds like we do agree that both ‘sides’ of the media have falsely attacked Elon/Tesla in the past, and perhaps even multiple administrations have now done so directly or indirectly. This all rather famously started with Broder’s NYT fake range story in 2013 in my TSLA experience. Thus the bigger question for me is why do any of us post links to these same sources as Fact beyond the likelihood of Cognitive Dissonance. I certainly am not claiming to be immune from that trap that the people behind the curtain deploy against us daily through media sources on both sides of the aisle. I was shocked to see that 2013 Op-Ed in the NYT when I thought they would be ‘more supportive’ of EVs based on their image management. But shame on me, because in hindsight it was the same NYT whose WMD stories helped put my boots on the ground in Desert Storm IMO. Could there be a common thread between WMD articles and anti-EV Op-Ed’s beyond an Editor’s desk decision? Could Corporations possibly influence both sides of the aisle? Neither article seemed good for People or Planet looking back on them. But they arguably didn’t hurt the Fossil Fuel or ICE industries, among others. Asking if Corporations try to influence both sides regarding their concerns thus seems a very fair question.
And almost everyone would agree that none of us are perfect, thus we cannot expect to hold Elon to such an unrealistic standard. I certainly appreciate his more Stoic ‘Marcus Aurelius’ moments more, but I can’t fault him for his reactions to a relentless and unwavering SEC attack under multiple administrations on both sides of the aisle for instance - which have taken more than their pound of flesh from Elon. So I simply try to enjoy his happier moments and his successes, because those successes tend to make me happier while also rooting for People and Planet in that struggle that @Artful Dodger and @joh01652 were referring to IMO.
And almost everyone would agree that none of us are perfect, thus we cannot expect to hold Elon to such an unrealistic standard. I certainly appreciate his more Stoic ‘Marcus Aurelius’ moments more, but I can’t fault him for his reactions to a relentless and unwavering SEC attack under multiple administrations on both sides of the aisle for instance - which have taken more than their pound of flesh from Elon. So I simply try to enjoy his happier moments and his successes, because those successes tend to make me happier while also rooting for People and Planet in that struggle that @Artful Dodger and @joh01652 were referring to IMO.
The head scratcher is why they need to apply for "Permission" from anyone for such a minor thing.
Dikkie Dik
If gets hard, use hammer
German road side assistance (and much more) organisation ADAC concluded Model3 is the most reliable EV
This is pretty huge actually, the ADAC is known beyond Germany for these tests.
This is pretty huge actually, the ADAC is known beyond Germany for these tests.
Last edited:
I love how for once its not a Tesla vehicle and its a BMW in the picture with a negative headline
Finally, real world data. The poor JD power results based on warranty claims and software “recalls” were bogus. I’ve had Teslas and an ICE side by side for ten years now. No teslas left me stranded, but the ICEs did about 5 times.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
