OK, you have two clients bidding to buy 30% of your next 3 years' of production. One has been turning a profit for the last 10 years. One has never turned a profit. The first is one of the top 5 manufacturers in the world. The second doesn't even rank in the top 50. So who do you make the commitment to? The one with a profit and a large, established market share? Or the one who loses money on every item they sell, is a niche player, and doesn't even rank in the top 3 of their own niche?
NAFTA doesn't allow you to use food regulations to ban or add tariffs to products. If they meet the agreed-to standards per NAFTA guidelines (and rBST was not considered) then you cannot place a tariff on the product. Canada may have higher milk standards, but per the NAFTA treaty they cannot add tariffs on milk. Canada is actually violating NAFTA.
You're welcome. Sheesh, it's politicians who love debating what the meaning of is, is. A different approach here is at least moving the process forward, a process that has seen 3 Administrations, over 24 years, basically appease North Korea and fail to control anything.
Seems to me we've had 60 years of cold war and appeasement with North Korea. Now that there's a different approach in place, we're actually negotiating, and the North and South are having talks. What is that old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?
So you like to threaten people and assault them, and you like firearms? Sounds like you're a risk, you should turn your firearms over to the local sheriff, you are too dangerous to keep them.
Oh, I've worked for a few, and did raise $60MM in a VC-backed venture (before being forced out by my two co-founders). When you have cash, it's easy to "think big" and "think long". The problem comes when you think too big, or think too long - then you run out of cash. Cash flow is king, and must be sworn fealty to eventually. In the case of TSLA, they have about 9 months left before finding either another big infusion or cash or liquidation (either by sale to another entity or closing altogether).
I hope you registered every single one of those firearms with the State of California, and that all of them (and any accessories such as magazines) are 100% compliant with our laws here. Otherwise you are once again breaking the law.
As a lifelong gun owner,, I've actually purchased guns from these characters.
Not legally in the State of California, where you reside. Private party transfers are essentially banned in the State of California, you must use an FFL dealer as an intermediary. Or did you avoid the FFL? Or buy out-of-State? Both of those would be illegal, too... Only exception would be those antique firearms, which are exempted.
“I’m a businessman. I contribute to everybody,” Trump said. “When I needed Hillary, she was there. If I say ‘go to my wedding,’ they go to my wedding.”
No more needs to be said about Trump's glowing statements of the Clintons. He knew they were for sale, and having powerful politicians in your pocket via legal payments is a great thing for a businessman. Trump loved the Clintons as long as they did what his money demanded. This is just proof of how corrupt the Clintons really are...
FCA (Fiat Chrysler) is up 250% in the last 24 months... If you wanted to make money on an automotive stock, FCA would have been a much better investment. If you wanted a stock that paid you to keep it - and hasn't really changed in the last year - you would buy Ford, with its 5.4% dividend. Tesla is like many high-tech hopefuls - flies high before profitability with a hope that it can eventually turn around. It's a big gamble, with stockholders taking the role of the VC firm.
Then why do they lose money making the cars? Tesla loses money before you consider R&D and capex spending... I bet the teardown MAY be accurate for a big company like VW or Mercedes who makes millions of cars a year, but for Tesla - those estimates are probably way too low (understand that Mercedes makes in 1 month the same number of cars as Tesla has ever built since 2003). In other words, the teardown cost estimates were assuming volumes orders of magnitude above what Tesla does today, and thus the costs are artificially low.
Bottom line: Tesla can guarantee to sell every car he produces for at least the next five years, more like ten years in reality.
Only if someone else decides to keep financing Tesla. Tesla currently loses money on every car they sell. At a burn rate of $2 billion a year, someone would have to be willing to finance Tesla with $10 to $20 billion, minimum, to keep them going. In fact, Tesla lost $17,000 per vehicle sold in Q1, 2018. That means that vaunted backlog of 500K cars represents $8.5 billion in losses at today's rates...
Tesla has yet to show it can deliver 3500 cars a week (although many are extrapolating Musk's recent claim that each step of the production chain could support that level). If they could, it would take nearly 3 years to clear the current backlog, not 12 months (I would love to see your quote supporting that).
And I guess you don't realize that the Nissan Leaf outsells all Tesla models combined, worldwide? And it is in second place - BAIC outsells Nissan (and thus also Tesla).
Lastly, GM could buy batteries from Panasonic - just like Tesla. In fact, Panasonic and most other manufacturers would probably vastly prefer to sell to GM, Ford, Nissan, and others because of the financial stability (profitability) of those companies. They would be a much more likely stable, long-term client than Tesla who is losing over $2 billion a year (and loses money on every vehicle produced - before R&D and capex spending). Most companies like to bet on long-term, stable clients - not risky, money-losing ventures.
You do realize that Tesla loses money on each unit they make, don't you? The cost of the product minus the cost of administration and sales ends up as a loss. This is BEFORE any R&D spending or capital expenditures. Tesla could completely eliminate 100% of all engineering, and completely halt all spending on capital equipment and they still lose money on each car. It's why they are losing over $4500 per MINUTE, 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Of that list, PayPal actually became profitable, but that was also the one where others (such as Peter Thiel) had big input into the operations and financing. SpaceX, Boring Company, Solar City, Hyperloop? Big cash losers, much like Tesla! It's easy to start big, impressive companies with other people's money when you don't have to actually make a profit...
No need for others to fight Tesla; Tesla loses money on every car they sell, and the others all make money. Just bide your time, Tesla either needs to do another massive cash infusion (via dilution or junk-bond sales), or get bought out, or close. You cannot continue to lose money on every vehicle (before R&D and capital expenses) and stay in business.
Yes, you do not get your own facts. BAIC handily outsells Tesla. As does Nissan. Tesla is a pretty distant 3rd, worldwide. But if you want to restrict it to just US sales of EVs priced more than $50,000, then yes, Tesla wins. Of course, for EVs under $50,000 in the US, Tesla sells exactly 0.
Think about it - if they actually DID something positive with the money, then the reason for the flow of money would stop. And then they'd be out another revenue stream. Best to just collect the taxes, shuffle them around to enough places that nothing really positive happens, and then figure out how to create the next tax...
So, no facts. Just supposition, innuendo, and belief. You completely ignore that Ohio's final vote totals closely matched exit polling. But since you didn't like the results - you search for a conspiracy theory. Coming up empty once again!
Slashdot Mirror
OK, you have two clients bidding to buy 30% of your next 3 years' of production. One has been turning a profit for the last 10 years. One has never turned a profit. The first is one of the top 5 manufacturers in the world. The second doesn't even rank in the top 50. So who do you make the commitment to? The one with a profit and a large, established market share? Or the one who loses money on every item they sell, is a niche player, and doesn't even rank in the top 3 of their own niche?
NAFTA doesn't allow you to use food regulations to ban or add tariffs to products. If they meet the agreed-to standards per NAFTA guidelines (and rBST was not considered) then you cannot place a tariff on the product. Canada may have higher milk standards, but per the NAFTA treaty they cannot add tariffs on milk. Canada is actually violating NAFTA.
"Get rid of" - eliminate. No longer possess.
"Cease production" - stop building new ones.
You're welcome. Sheesh, it's politicians who love debating what the meaning of is, is. A different approach here is at least moving the process forward, a process that has seen 3 Administrations, over 24 years, basically appease North Korea and fail to control anything.
Seems to me we've had 60 years of cold war and appeasement with North Korea. Now that there's a different approach in place, we're actually negotiating, and the North and South are having talks. What is that old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?
Out and out editorials, no facts, nothing at all. Just a pure, garbage opinion piece.
So you like to threaten people and assault them, and you like firearms? Sounds like you're a risk, you should turn your firearms over to the local sheriff, you are too dangerous to keep them.
Oh, I've worked for a few, and did raise $60MM in a VC-backed venture (before being forced out by my two co-founders). When you have cash, it's easy to "think big" and "think long". The problem comes when you think too big, or think too long - then you run out of cash. Cash flow is king, and must be sworn fealty to eventually. In the case of TSLA, they have about 9 months left before finding either another big infusion or cash or liquidation (either by sale to another entity or closing altogether).
I hope you registered every single one of those firearms with the State of California, and that all of them (and any accessories such as magazines) are 100% compliant with our laws here. Otherwise you are once again breaking the law.
As a lifelong gun owner,, I've actually purchased guns from these characters.
Not legally in the State of California, where you reside. Private party transfers are essentially banned in the State of California, you must use an FFL dealer as an intermediary. Or did you avoid the FFL? Or buy out-of-State? Both of those would be illegal, too... Only exception would be those antique firearms, which are exempted.
“I’m a businessman. I contribute to everybody,” Trump said. “When I needed Hillary, she was there. If I say ‘go to my wedding,’ they go to my wedding.”
No more needs to be said about Trump's glowing statements of the Clintons. He knew they were for sale, and having powerful politicians in your pocket via legal payments is a great thing for a businessman. Trump loved the Clintons as long as they did what his money demanded. This is just proof of how corrupt the Clintons really are...
FCA (Fiat Chrysler) is up 250% in the last 24 months... If you wanted to make money on an automotive stock, FCA would have been a much better investment. If you wanted a stock that paid you to keep it - and hasn't really changed in the last year - you would buy Ford, with its 5.4% dividend. Tesla is like many high-tech hopefuls - flies high before profitability with a hope that it can eventually turn around. It's a big gamble, with stockholders taking the role of the VC firm.
Then why do they lose money making the cars? Tesla loses money before you consider R&D and capex spending... I bet the teardown MAY be accurate for a big company like VW or Mercedes who makes millions of cars a year, but for Tesla - those estimates are probably way too low (understand that Mercedes makes in 1 month the same number of cars as Tesla has ever built since 2003). In other words, the teardown cost estimates were assuming volumes orders of magnitude above what Tesla does today, and thus the costs are artificially low.
You are wrong. BAIC (26K), Nissan (22K), then Tesla model S (11K).
Bottom line: Tesla can guarantee to sell every car he produces for at least the next five years, more like ten years in reality.
Only if someone else decides to keep financing Tesla. Tesla currently loses money on every car they sell. At a burn rate of $2 billion a year, someone would have to be willing to finance Tesla with $10 to $20 billion, minimum, to keep them going. In fact, Tesla lost $17,000 per vehicle sold in Q1, 2018. That means that vaunted backlog of 500K cars represents $8.5 billion in losses at today's rates...
Tesla has yet to show it can deliver 3500 cars a week (although many are extrapolating Musk's recent claim that each step of the production chain could support that level). If they could, it would take nearly 3 years to clear the current backlog, not 12 months (I would love to see your quote supporting that).
And I guess you don't realize that the Nissan Leaf outsells all Tesla models combined, worldwide? And it is in second place - BAIC outsells Nissan (and thus also Tesla).
Lastly, GM could buy batteries from Panasonic - just like Tesla. In fact, Panasonic and most other manufacturers would probably vastly prefer to sell to GM, Ford, Nissan, and others because of the financial stability (profitability) of those companies. They would be a much more likely stable, long-term client than Tesla who is losing over $2 billion a year (and loses money on every vehicle produced - before R&D and capex spending). Most companies like to bet on long-term, stable clients - not risky, money-losing ventures.
You do realize that Tesla loses money on each unit they make, don't you? The cost of the product minus the cost of administration and sales ends up as a loss. This is BEFORE any R&D spending or capital expenditures. Tesla could completely eliminate 100% of all engineering, and completely halt all spending on capital equipment and they still lose money on each car. It's why they are losing over $4500 per MINUTE, 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Of that list, PayPal actually became profitable, but that was also the one where others (such as Peter Thiel) had big input into the operations and financing. SpaceX, Boring Company, Solar City, Hyperloop? Big cash losers, much like Tesla! It's easy to start big, impressive companies with other people's money when you don't have to actually make a profit...
No need for others to fight Tesla; Tesla loses money on every car they sell, and the others all make money. Just bide your time, Tesla either needs to do another massive cash infusion (via dilution or junk-bond sales), or get bought out, or close. You cannot continue to lose money on every vehicle (before R&D and capital expenses) and stay in business.
I don't care about those, but FUCK YOU for keeping Steve Guttenberg a star!
Yes, you do not get your own facts. BAIC handily outsells Tesla. As does Nissan. Tesla is a pretty distant 3rd, worldwide. But if you want to restrict it to just US sales of EVs priced more than $50,000, then yes, Tesla wins. Of course, for EVs under $50,000 in the US, Tesla sells exactly 0.
BAIC outsells TSLA in terms of EVs. and Nissan has built more EVs than TSLA.
So about US$4.18 per gallon for gas? That's about what we pay in Ventura/Los Angeles...
Think about it - if they actually DID something positive with the money, then the reason for the flow of money would stop. And then they'd be out another revenue stream. Best to just collect the taxes, shuffle them around to enough places that nothing really positive happens, and then figure out how to create the next tax...
PS: if we don't have to prove citizenship to vote, then why do we need to prove it to procure a firearm?
So, no facts. Just supposition, innuendo, and belief. You completely ignore that Ohio's final vote totals closely matched exit polling. But since you didn't like the results - you search for a conspiracy theory. Coming up empty once again!