Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Needs different headlight treatment.

And I'd be interested in the Cd and CdA numbers for that thing...

"Bad".

I'm sorry, but anyone can make some concept car (is it even functional?), claim it has every piece of tech in the book, throw all engineering design considerations (such as drag, weight, manufacturability, or regulatory compliance) out the window in favour of "looking good" and put out a bunch of CGI images of it. That in no way, shape or form means that the thing has any likelihood of ever seeing the light of day at all, let alone in the form they're presenting it today.

How is it that people here haven't learned this yet?

I swear, Tesla (barely) succeeds at starting a new auto company, and all of the sudden everyone and their cousin thinks it's as easy as sliced bread. History is littered with the corpses of those who tried to climb this hill, and very few survivors at the top.

ED: Oops, just caught up to the moderator note. I will not write any more on this topic. That said, I think that this comment is quite relevant re: Tesla's serious competition, or more to the point, the lack of it.
 
I wish the word "perilous" was not on the cover. It's only perilous if we have the likes of Xi, Putin and Trump puffing out their chests and behaving like dicks.

But thanks. Will ensure a copy is under the Christmas tree.

I think you miss the point that these issues have been brewing for decades of bad policy on both sides of the aisle.

The current leaders do seem to be accelerating the inevitable though.

The trend of the growing current account and trade deficits over the last few decades is unsustainable.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Drax7
This is incorrect. It actually *requires* us to run larger deficits and print more money than we want to, and reduces our control over the money supply.

One way to conceive of it is as "leakage" out of the country.

In a normal country, most of our printed currency circulates in the US, promoting US economic activity. If you end up with a reserve currency, a bunch of it "leaks out" to foreign countries and is used to promote their economic activity, so we have to print extra. If they suddenly decide to return it, we get inflation -- if they have a boom and start using more of it, we have a recession unless we print more money.

It's like we have to be the central bank for the world, not just for the US.

Being the central bank of the world does allow us to export inflation to the rest of the world. That's a benefit.

Being able to project our power across the world through financial sanctions is also a benefit.

I don't see our leadership letting go of this power without a fight.

I do agree that there are negatives for the majority of the US population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCash
There are certainly a lot of refugees thanks to climate change and there will be more. This is certainly a big problem for the world.

The refugees, peaceloving (because they flee war) and entrepeneurial (you have to be to travel long distances on foot or boat with no visa) tend to be exactly the people we want in this country. Somalian refugees have made Buffalo, NY great again. So there's your answer. It's the one Canada is adopting. Grab the refugees ASAP, before another country gets them -- they're the best and the brighest, and we want to benefit from these countries' sad brain drain.

This isn't racist Germany or France. (Well, I don't know about the Deep South, but up here in the Northeast it isn't.) The younger generation in the Northeast and West Coast is on board with hardworking, peaceloving refugees.

The demographic trends are guaranteed death for the Republican Party, which has for bizarre reasons:
(a) tripled down on racism, now being systematically bigoted against black, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, and Asian people, as well as mixed-race people, which means basically everyone;
(b) doubled down on misogyny, which is exceptionally unpopular among women, and also unpopular among younger men;
(c) openly declared hostility to cities (starving them of funding and redirecting their taxes to the countryside), defying the 10,000-year trend of urbanization and guaranteeing that rich white male city-dwellers who would otherwise support Republicans will support Democrats (this is happening *very consistently*);
and of course (d) attempted to impoverish 99% of the population into serfs while creating an unaccountable billionaire overlord class -- fairly successfully; there's been no gains in pre-tax income for 50% of the US population since 1980;
Oh. Then they (e) drag the serfs into destructive and pointless foreign wars. Eventually the serfs become pretty cynical...
Oh, and (f) they're also alienating most of the new class of white male billionaires from the tech industry, because they're *just that deranged*.

It's perhaps no surprise that having deliberately alienated practically everyone, they are now openly trying to destroy democracy by election theft, gerrymandering, etc. The Republican leadership knows they can't win honest elections any more, so they cheat.

It is true that as young people get older and experience life, their vote patterns are changing... they're voting LESS Republican and MORE Democratic, like the rest of the country. (Last I checked, every birth-year bracket is voting less Republican than they did 10 years ago.)

(If the Republicans were replaced with a different, saner second party, that would be different; the Democrats would bleed support to that new party immediately. You can tell this by the huge and growing numbers of independents.)

This is by way of explaining my "disagree".

Thank you for explaining though it seems you agree with both my points (see bolded text above in your response), so I don't get the "disagree" (beyond the run of the mill shaming we've got here in California for even suggesting anything that might be construed as right of left of left). There was little to disagree with if you read what I wrote.

Yes, immigration is a good thing. But, yes also, countries must address this "big problem for the world" and this is obvious to voters and will be more obvious in the future. If a party's response is to hop up and down calling "racist" rather than offering a solution how does that help assuage a voter's genuine concerns (regardless of party)?

As for young people changing with experience, I was thinking along the lines of the ones footing the bill increasingly voting with their feet as they tire of their tax bills (California Losing Residents Via Domestic Migration [EconTax Blog]).

And, surely, not counting your chickens before they hatch is always sound advice, especially on a market action thread.;)
 
Thank you for explaining though it seems you agree with both my points (see bolded text above in your response), so I don't get the "disagree" (beyond the run of the mill shaming we've got here in California for even suggesting anything that might be construed as right of left of left). There was little to disagree with if you read what I wrote.

Yes, immigration is a good thing. But, yes also, countries must address this "big problem for the world" and this is obvious to voters and will be more obvious in the future. If a party's response is to hop up and down calling "racist" rather than offering a solution how does that help assuage a voter's genuine concerns (regardless of party)?

As for young people changing with experience, I was thinking along the lines of the ones footing the bill increasingly voting with their feet as they tire of their tax bills (California Losing Residents Via Domestic Migration [EconTax Blog]).

And, surely, not counting your chickens before they hatch is always sound advice, especially on a market action thread.;)
Nah that entire post you replied to was founded entirely on ridiculousness starting with the premise that "they're peaceloving because they flee war". Please! Shoot at a lion, or a t-rex, or Hitler and they're gonna run. Climate change has nothing to do with the movements of these migrants, and uneducated people who refuse to assimilate are NOT a magical antidote to any country's problems. Europe now has anti-free-speech laws in place to gag conversation about the reality of what these people do there, and Canadians I know do nothing but complain about the unfettered immigration. It's not a good thing

This is way off topic but the faulty lefty logic is approaching critical mass here.

original_146344118.gif
 
Last edited:
I don't agree that there are refugees because of climate change. Yet.

Most are fleeing a drug war (caused by the US) and a Middle East war (caused by the US). Both wars are supported by both parties.

climate refugee

The International Red Cross estimates that there are more environmental refugees than political refugees fleeing from wars and other conflicts. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) says 36 million people were displaced by natural disasters in 2009, the last year such a report was taken. Scientists predict this number will rise to at least 50 million by 2050. Some say it could be as high as 200 million.
 
If a party's response is to hop up and down calling "racist" rather than offering a solution how does that help assuage a voter's genuine concerns (regardless of party)?
Its not about immigration - its about … "identity". That's why.

As for young people changing with experience, I was thinking along the lines of the ones footing the bill increasingly voting with their feet as they tire of their tax bills (California Losing Residents Via Domestic Migration [EconTax Blog]).
People leave CA because its expensive (primarily housing).
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
Maybe it's the definition. A volcanic eruption that displaces 250K people is not due to climate change. Should we also include earthquakes?
But we do need to include severe storms (remember Katrina ?) or extensive wild fires (like the recent CA one) etc.

Climate refugees are not just because of the Alaskan villages that are sinking - but people who are forced to flee patterns of weather that are consistent with what is predicted because of climate change.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Lucky_Man
Has any offer been made to assist workers looking to relocate to Reno or Sparks?

Plenty of people here on the West Coast who would be and are happy to take those jobs .... maybe Mr. Bob Putz will take over at GM and save the day? I wouldn't hold my breath.

This is and has always been a losing proposition as factory work as we have known in the past is simply not coming back to this country .... I realize it's not the kind of thing you say to win an election but I'm not running for anything. Trump conned the entire manufacturing community (well not all but many....) into voting for him and I'm sure at some point a few of them will wake up to the fact that they have been had.

Elon has been telling everyone for a while now how human labor will be replaced by robots and even though Tesla had issues with the Model3 line it will just be a matter of time before they get that worked out. Either way you slice it, outsourcing labor to other countries or replacing with robotics the fact is manufacturing jobs in this country are declining and will continue to do so.

Don't even get me started on the coal industry ....

Cheers to the longs ....

And frankly .... I hope the orange clown pulls EV subsidies as the only thing he will accomplish will be making it even harder for domestic car manufacturers to compete with Tesla.
 
But we do need to include severe storms (remember Katrina ?) or extensive wild fires (like the recent CA one) etc.

Climate refugees are not just because of the Alaskan villages that are sinking - but people who are forced to flee patterns of weather that are consistent with what is predicted because of climate change.
I think we can almost all agree that climate change is an exponentially increasing problem for humanity, and that wartorn, drug ravaged, or disaster-stricken peoples should be afforded as much opportunity and sanctuary as possible. It's when people start preaching that all immigration is good or necessary that the conversation goes off the rails and all kinds of inconsistencies regarding racial realities and cultures are casually tossed around. We need to do better as a species. Pointing fingers where they don't belong and denying obvious facts isn't productive.
 
I just got around to watching the Axios interview and did a quick transcript of the Tesla part. The beginning of the interview was AI and Neuralink. The Tesla questioning was really just focused on his personal pain and not the company.

---

Interviewer: "But you’ve said, this has been the toughest year for you, the most sort of taxing year for you, why?"

Elon: “Yeah, well, Tesla really faced a severe threat of death due to the Model 3 production ramp. Essentially, the company was bleeding money like crazy, and just, if we didn’t solve these problems in a very short period of time, uh, we would die. And it was extremely difficult to solve them.”

Interviewer: “How close to death did you come?”

Elon: “We were within single digit weeks.”

Interviewer: “(22?) hours a day, how many hours?”

Elon: “(unintelligible) 7 days a week, sleeping in the factory, worked in the paint shop, general assembly, body shop…”

interviewer: "You ever worry about yourself imploding, like it’s just too much?”

Elon: “Yeah, absolutely. No one should put this many hours into work. This is not good. People should not work this hard. They should not do this. This is very painful.”

Interviewer: "Painful in what sense?"

Elon: "It hurts my brain and my heart. This is not recommended for anyone. I just did it because, if I didn’t do it, then Tesla…good chance Tesla would die.”

The next and last question was, “Do you believe in God?”, and then they ended it kinda abruptly.
Sorry, I have Bolero in my head right now...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Artful Dodger
I just got around to watching the Axios interview and did a quick transcript of the Tesla part. The beginning of the interview was AI and Neuralink. The Tesla questioning was really just focused on his personal pain and not the company.

---

Interviewer: "But you’ve said, this has been the toughest year for you, the most sort of taxing year for you, why?"

Elon: “Yeah, well, Tesla really faced a severe threat of death due to the Model 3 production ramp. Essentially, the company was bleeding money like crazy, and just, if we didn’t solve these problems in a very short period of time, uh, we would die. And it was extremely difficult to solve them.”

Interviewer: “How close to death did you come?”

Elon: “We were within single digit weeks.”

Interviewer: “(22?) hours a day, how many hours?”

Elon: “(unintelligible) 7 days a week, sleeping in the factory, worked in the paint shop, general assembly, body shop…”

interviewer: "You ever worry about yourself imploding, like it’s just too much?”

Elon: “Yeah, absolutely. No one should put this many hours into work. This is not good. People should not work this hard. They should not do this. This is very painful.”

Interviewer: "Painful in what sense?"

Elon: "It hurts my brain and my heart. This is not recommended for anyone. I just did it because, if I didn’t do it, then Tesla…good chance Tesla would die.”

The next and last question was, “Do you believe in God?”, and then they ended it kinda abruptly.
Last question was their lead-in to their next segment on Evangelicalism. Elon probably didn’t know they were using him as narrative device in this episode.
 
It's not the income tax credit Trump is referring, it is ZEV credits from their electric cars
I don't see much discussion of this - but this is a near term thing that can affect TSLA quite a bit.

First, POTUS can't in any way change the income tax credits unilaterally. Second, ZEV credits are a CA (and other ZEV states) subject. He can't do much with that.

I think its likely that Trump (if he really wants - and doesn't get distracted with something else tomorrow, which is quite possible) can propose and get a EV income tax change passed in the lame duck session (with or without Dems).
- Limit credits to domestically made EVs (or may be made in N.A.). Good for Tesla (see below).
- Make it a large pool that helps all OEMs instead of per OEM cut off (my favorite). Good for Tesla.
- Have a cut off MSRP after which tax credits won't apply. Not that good for Tesla.

But, the question is, how will the other countries respond. Some of them (China) already have "credits only for domestic EVs". Some others don't. They may retaliate by using the same rule - which won't be that good for Tesla. Ideally the change should be "Limit credits to domestics plus made in any country that doesn't cut off incentives to US made EVs". This would be reciprocal - so good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Esme Es Mejor
  • Disagree
Reactions: neroden and UrsS
Pointing fingers where they don't belong and denying obvious facts isn't productive.
Are you saying anti-immigration has nothing to do with Racism ? I think its obvious it does. Afterall, Trump supporters don't care about Melania (possibly out of status or "illegal" in the past) - but exclusively about non-white immigrants.

Personally, I'm not an open borders guy - that is impractical. But we do need to take care of people already here for years - to make sure they are not being taken advantage of.

ps : This is really OT, should be moved to Market politics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.