In this case, people are buying Tesla cars, and Tesla is making adequate profit on each car.
I agree with the first clause - people but Teslas - but not the latter. Tesla has a negative margin on each car. Additionally, they are getting blown past by GM, Toyota, even Ford as the market slowly evolves. Most likely Tesla will end up purchased by a Chinese consortium looking to market the brand in Asia. They probably will not go out of business, brand value being what it is. But maintaining themselves as an independent entity? If you're still losing money on your basic product (COGS is larger than MSRP), you simply won't survive.
If the world was one country where people could move to areas that are now productive, and capital flowed as easily, you might have a point, but that is not the world we live in.
We have NEVER lived in that world. And we probably never will - at least, you and me (maybe 30+ generations down the line...) People live, people die, people move, climate changes - and it has always changed. 10K years ago, all that fertile Canadian and Northern US farmland was buried under 1500 meters of ice. In another 10K years, it'll probably be the same thing. Ocean levels were 300 meters lower back then, and will be again in the future. Man adapts, and as our technological baseline grows, so does our ability to adapt.
What law prohibits hiring a foreign worker for a campaign? Because the FEC is quite explicit and while a foreign national cannot contribute money or tangible assets, they can work for a campaign.
And you do realize that Dick Morris was one of the most powerful men in the first Clinton term, and directed Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign until he we caught letting a prostitute listen in on Presidential phone calls. But I guess because he goes on Fox every once in a while he's a bad guy?
From the article about fines for Obama's campaign:
The resulting fine, one of the largest ever handed down by the FEC, is the result of a failure to disclose or improperly disclosing thousands of contributions to Obama for America during the then-senator's 2008 presidential run, documents show.
That means they did not disclose or did so improperly. And then it goes on to cite they illegally accepted donations above $46,000. Sorry, just because you "gave it back" does not mean you didn't violate the law. If I steal from you, and then give it back - doesn't make it right, I still broke the law in the first place.
That is a silly statement/question. You can nearly buy everything you want with bitcoin.
Really? I'm going to dinner tomorrow night at Mastro's Ocean Club. Can I pay for it with Bitcoin? How about my trip this coming weekend to Singapore - I'll be staying at some nice hotels, going to a trade show, I can pay for that with Bitcoin?
Per the EO, if you owned the Venezuelan cryptocoin before January 9th, 2018 - you can keep owning. If you trade it, sell it, give it away, or purchase more - you're in trouble.
Per executive order 13692, you cannot send any property to Venezuela. The IRS considers cryptocurrencies as property. Thus trading - sending or buying - in Venezuelan crypto is not legal. Unless, of course, the underlying executive order is illegal - but that's not been determined yet.
Based on the above, it is quite clear that President Trump didn't add anything new, just explicitly listed Venezuela's cryptocurrency as banned - which it already was, per the earlier EO and existing IRS statutes.
The Northern tiers of Canada are amazingly productive in terms of AG - it's just that they are covered with snow and ice for a big chunk of the year. If that changes, we actually gain MORE arable land. Same with the Eurasian continent - there is more land higher up in latitude.
According to this report, about $125 billion over 5 years - so about $25 billion a year. That would fund Yang's approach for about 4 days. How do we fund the other 361 days?
There are 323 million people in the US, and about 60% of them are between 18 and 65. That is around 194 million people. Yang's idea is to give each of them $1,000 per month. That is a $194 billion monthly expense. For 12 months, that would be $2.3 trillion. The current US Federal budget is $4.15 trillion and has a budget deficit of $503 billion. This would not only increase the Federal budget by more than 50%, it would more than quintuple the budget deficit. And this is a good idea - how?
Federal tax receipts are way up, when you adjust for inflation. For example, back in the 1950s when we still had those 94% top tax rates (and the last time the US ran an actual, real surplus - meaning it did not have to borrow money), the Federal Government took in about 25% of what it does today. We had half the number of people back then - around 150 million. Meaning that, today - adjusted for inflation and population growth - the Federal Government receives nearly twice the taxes than it did back with those high rates.
The effective tax rate back in the 50s, overall, was about half of what it is today. Deductions were larger and more plentiful, and the income tax was much more progressive (meaning the top rate applied to maybe the top 2%, rather than the top 15%). The statutory rates look really high - but the effective rate, after all deductions and the like, was about half of what it is today just by looking at the total revenue per capita. The bottom line is that the Federal Government today is piling on the debt, even though it has historically high tax income per capita, and spending is at an all-time high. Maybe the problem is the spending, not the income...
You know, it is tax season, and you can voluntarily donate as much as you like to the Federal Government! Perhaps you should set an example for us all, and donate every penny above $59,000 that you make (for that is the median income in the US).
Hillary Clinton hired a foreign worker herself, and I don't remember you ranting about that... Not that you should have, because it is NOT illegal to hire overseas contractors, but it IS illegal to accept overseas contributions as Obama did, not to mention the Obama campaign was fined for illegal donations.
Last Thanksgiving, coming back from Las Vegas, the I-15 was jam packed, so Google maps rightly routed us through Pahrump and then down the 127. Getting into Baker, the 127 was backed up 45 minutes, so Google maps suggested Well Road and Mill Road. These turned out to be no more than offroad trails around Baker, and one car which had attempted it was stuck in a 3 foot deep ditch that crossed the road (but could be circumnavigated by going further off-road about 100 feet). Using tiny dirt trails as roads is a pretty sure sign that Google does more than just major roads. And this is for a highly-traveled path from Las Vegas to Los Angeles.
Climate change is actually quite natural - we cannot stop it without significant geo-engineering. We've had countless ice ages in the past, with a mile of ice covering most of the Northern US up until around 10K years ago. Climate will always change, the question is can we mitigate the results. And the answer is quite obviously yes. Look no further than the Netherlands on how to deal with sea level changes, and how even the 18th century UK survived the little ice age when the Themes regularly froze over and crop yields were low.
Bjorn Lomborghas done an interesting analysis and his conclusion is that fighting climate change is, economically, a terrible idea. Essentially the costs of treating the results is much lower than trying to stop the effects in the first place, if you factor in the benefits from readily available, low cost energy.
ahhh so you don't know the difference between profit margin for a company and margins on a product.
I do. The latter doesn't matter; the former is what keeps a company afloat.
Delivery rates, lynnwood logic. They haven't so therefore they never will !!
Much better to just make up a number like you did and go with that. yes?
For manufacturing, past performance is usually a good indicator of future performance. Companies can turn it around, but with manufacturing it usually takes several years to achieve that. The Model 3 was supposed to be in full swing production last October. Now it's slid to Q2, a solid 9 months. Same thing with each model released so far - late deliveries. My guess, based on past and current performance, is you won't see 5K per week until sometime in Q3, if at that. Meaning it will be a solid year before they deliver their first 100K units. It will probably take another 2 years to complete the "preorder" builds, and at that point the car will be pretty long in the tooth, meaning it will need at least some smallish redesigns to freshen up before regular sales take off.
There's a reason so few Kickstarter companies actually succeed - it's one thing to sell a one-off concept in boutique quantities; it's another to actually build a reliable consumer brand. Tesla's Model 3 sales model is much more akin to a Kickstarter than an actual automotive company. And given the lack of profits for the company, it may end up like most Kickstarter companies - shipped a few interesting things to a few early adopter, but fade away after that.
RE: delivery rates. Tesla has NEVER hit a projected delivery rate. Ever. Your faith is quite deep, however!
RE: margins. Tesla has NEVER had a positive margin for a year, and has only had one quarter in the last 5 years where it had a positive margin. I posted the graph, it's for profit margin. Margin is always negative. Your faith notwithstanding.
TSLA's bonds are junk-rated; their finance arm - a different legal company called Tesla Finance LLC, has good ratings. But that's because of the credit-worthiness of those leasing from Tesla Leasing, not because of TSLA.
You have zero facts to back up your statements, and you keep stating things that are blatant lies. TSLA has never turned a profitable year, has had one quarter of a positive margin in the last 5 years. Indisputable. Factual. If you cannot accept that - you're simply deluding yourself and have proven to be completely divorced from reality.
No, it doesn't. You are allowed to protect yourself from imminent danger and threats. It's not a murder, it's self-defense. It is actually defined to what you claim it isn't, and has a legal standard which fits. If you believe you are imminent mortal danger, and can reasonably prove that your belief was valid, then it's self-defense and not murder. And being half the size of an attacker can easily grant that. You do not need to be armed to be deadly...
But I suggest you look at Bjorn's own data. It supports the exact same finding as Edmunds - about a 100 mile (160 km) range, at 55 MPH (Bjorn does 80 kph, about 50 MPH), for about the same size trailer (medium, 1100 pound trailer) gets about 600 Wh/mi. I think the issue isn't the data - it is consistent. The issue is that you don't like what is found by either Edmunds or Nyland, and thus have somehow romanticized it in your mind to something that simply is a fantasy.
Bottom line: Edmunds' data is 100% corroborated with Nyland's data, and if you're towing a smallish, lightweight, aerodynamic trailer at low freeway speeds, you're going to get about 100-130 miles between charges. Meaning you drive for 2 hours, then sit and charge for an hour.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case, people are buying Tesla cars, and Tesla is making adequate profit on each car.
I agree with the first clause - people but Teslas - but not the latter. Tesla has a negative margin on each car. Additionally, they are getting blown past by GM, Toyota, even Ford as the market slowly evolves. Most likely Tesla will end up purchased by a Chinese consortium looking to market the brand in Asia. They probably will not go out of business, brand value being what it is. But maintaining themselves as an independent entity? If you're still losing money on your basic product (COGS is larger than MSRP), you simply won't survive.
If the world was one country where people could move to areas that are now productive, and capital flowed as easily, you might have a point, but that is not the world we live in.
We have NEVER lived in that world. And we probably never will - at least, you and me (maybe 30+ generations down the line...) People live, people die, people move, climate changes - and it has always changed. 10K years ago, all that fertile Canadian and Northern US farmland was buried under 1500 meters of ice. In another 10K years, it'll probably be the same thing. Ocean levels were 300 meters lower back then, and will be again in the future. Man adapts, and as our technological baseline grows, so does our ability to adapt.
Capitalist economies with strong social nets (in particular, it's called the which is a free market, capitalistic economy with a strong social net. Same thing for Germany, etc. They are NOT socialist countries, which is "characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production".
What law prohibits hiring a foreign worker for a campaign? Because the FEC is quite explicit and while a foreign national cannot contribute money or tangible assets, they can work for a campaign.
And you do realize that Dick Morris was one of the most powerful men in the first Clinton term, and directed Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign until he we caught letting a prostitute listen in on Presidential phone calls. But I guess because he goes on Fox every once in a while he's a bad guy?
From the article about fines for Obama's campaign:
The resulting fine, one of the largest ever handed down by the FEC, is the result of a failure to disclose or improperly disclosing thousands of contributions to Obama for America during the then-senator's 2008 presidential run, documents show.
That means they did not disclose or did so improperly. And then it goes on to cite they illegally accepted donations above $46,000. Sorry, just because you "gave it back" does not mean you didn't violate the law. If I steal from you, and then give it back - doesn't make it right, I still broke the law in the first place.
That is a silly statement/question. You can nearly buy everything you want with bitcoin.
Really? I'm going to dinner tomorrow night at Mastro's Ocean Club. Can I pay for it with Bitcoin? How about my trip this coming weekend to Singapore - I'll be staying at some nice hotels, going to a trade show, I can pay for that with Bitcoin?
Can you point to a socialist society that works well? (one where they are actually socialist, in action, not just name)
Per the EO, if you owned the Venezuelan cryptocoin before January 9th, 2018 - you can keep owning. If you trade it, sell it, give it away, or purchase more - you're in trouble.
Per executive order 13692, you cannot send any property to Venezuela. The IRS considers cryptocurrencies as property. Thus trading - sending or buying - in Venezuelan crypto is not legal. Unless, of course, the underlying executive order is illegal - but that's not been determined yet.
Based on the above, it is quite clear that President Trump didn't add anything new, just explicitly listed Venezuela's cryptocurrency as banned - which it already was, per the earlier EO and existing IRS statutes.
The Northern tiers of Canada are amazingly productive in terms of AG - it's just that they are covered with snow and ice for a big chunk of the year. If that changes, we actually gain MORE arable land. Same with the Eurasian continent - there is more land higher up in latitude.
According to this report, about $125 billion over 5 years - so about $25 billion a year. That would fund Yang's approach for about 4 days. How do we fund the other 361 days?
There are 323 million people in the US, and about 60% of them are between 18 and 65. That is around 194 million people. Yang's idea is to give each of them $1,000 per month. That is a $194 billion monthly expense. For 12 months, that would be $2.3 trillion. The current US Federal budget is $4.15 trillion and has a budget deficit of $503 billion. This would not only increase the Federal budget by more than 50%, it would more than quintuple the budget deficit. And this is a good idea - how?
Federal tax receipts are way up, when you adjust for inflation. For example, back in the 1950s when we still had those 94% top tax rates (and the last time the US ran an actual, real surplus - meaning it did not have to borrow money), the Federal Government took in about 25% of what it does today. We had half the number of people back then - around 150 million. Meaning that, today - adjusted for inflation and population growth - the Federal Government receives nearly twice the taxes than it did back with those high rates.
The effective tax rate back in the 50s, overall, was about half of what it is today. Deductions were larger and more plentiful, and the income tax was much more progressive (meaning the top rate applied to maybe the top 2%, rather than the top 15%). The statutory rates look really high - but the effective rate, after all deductions and the like, was about half of what it is today just by looking at the total revenue per capita. The bottom line is that the Federal Government today is piling on the debt, even though it has historically high tax income per capita, and spending is at an all-time high. Maybe the problem is the spending, not the income...
You know, it is tax season, and you can voluntarily donate as much as you like to the Federal Government! Perhaps you should set an example for us all, and donate every penny above $59,000 that you make (for that is the median income in the US).
Hillary Clinton hired Christopher Steele who is not a US citizen. And she signed up illegal aliens to work for her campaign as well.
Hillary Clinton hired a foreign worker herself, and I don't remember you ranting about that... Not that you should have, because it is NOT illegal to hire overseas contractors, but it IS illegal to accept overseas contributions as Obama did, not to mention the Obama campaign was fined for illegal donations.
We use those same machines to make more farmland. Was that really that difficult?
Last Thanksgiving, coming back from Las Vegas, the I-15 was jam packed, so Google maps rightly routed us through Pahrump and then down the 127. Getting into Baker, the 127 was backed up 45 minutes, so Google maps suggested Well Road and Mill Road. These turned out to be no more than offroad trails around Baker, and one car which had attempted it was stuck in a 3 foot deep ditch that crossed the road (but could be circumnavigated by going further off-road about 100 feet). Using tiny dirt trails as roads is a pretty sure sign that Google does more than just major roads. And this is for a highly-traveled path from Las Vegas to Los Angeles.
Thankfully we have petroleum based fertilizers now, and evil IC-based farming machinery so we can feed vastly more people than we did in the past...
According to this article from the NY Times in 1981 the neutron bomb has been known by the public since the 1950s.
Climate change is actually quite natural - we cannot stop it without significant geo-engineering. We've had countless ice ages in the past, with a mile of ice covering most of the Northern US up until around 10K years ago. Climate will always change, the question is can we mitigate the results. And the answer is quite obviously yes. Look no further than the Netherlands on how to deal with sea level changes, and how even the 18th century UK survived the little ice age when the Themes regularly froze over and crop yields were low.
Bjorn Lomborg has done an interesting analysis and his conclusion is that fighting climate change is, economically, a terrible idea. Essentially the costs of treating the results is much lower than trying to stop the effects in the first place, if you factor in the benefits from readily available, low cost energy.
ahhh so you don't know the difference between profit margin for a company and margins on a product.
I do. The latter doesn't matter; the former is what keeps a company afloat.
Delivery rates, lynnwood logic. They haven't so therefore they never will !! Much better to just make up a number like you did and go with that. yes?
For manufacturing, past performance is usually a good indicator of future performance. Companies can turn it around, but with manufacturing it usually takes several years to achieve that. The Model 3 was supposed to be in full swing production last October. Now it's slid to Q2, a solid 9 months. Same thing with each model released so far - late deliveries. My guess, based on past and current performance, is you won't see 5K per week until sometime in Q3, if at that. Meaning it will be a solid year before they deliver their first 100K units. It will probably take another 2 years to complete the "preorder" builds, and at that point the car will be pretty long in the tooth, meaning it will need at least some smallish redesigns to freshen up before regular sales take off.
There's a reason so few Kickstarter companies actually succeed - it's one thing to sell a one-off concept in boutique quantities; it's another to actually build a reliable consumer brand. Tesla's Model 3 sales model is much more akin to a Kickstarter than an actual automotive company. And given the lack of profits for the company, it may end up like most Kickstarter companies - shipped a few interesting things to a few early adopter, but fade away after that.
RE: delivery rates. Tesla has NEVER hit a projected delivery rate. Ever. Your faith is quite deep, however!
RE: margins. Tesla has NEVER had a positive margin for a year, and has only had one quarter in the last 5 years where it had a positive margin. I posted the graph, it's for profit margin. Margin is always negative. Your faith notwithstanding.
TSLA's bonds are junk-rated; their finance arm - a different legal company called Tesla Finance LLC, has good ratings. But that's because of the credit-worthiness of those leasing from Tesla Leasing, not because of TSLA.
You have zero facts to back up your statements, and you keep stating things that are blatant lies. TSLA has never turned a profitable year, has had one quarter of a positive margin in the last 5 years. Indisputable. Factual. If you cannot accept that - you're simply deluding yourself and have proven to be completely divorced from reality.
No, it doesn't. You are allowed to protect yourself from imminent danger and threats. It's not a murder, it's self-defense. It is actually defined to what you claim it isn't, and has a legal standard which fits. If you believe you are imminent mortal danger, and can reasonably prove that your belief was valid, then it's self-defense and not murder. And being half the size of an attacker can easily grant that. You do not need to be armed to be deadly...
Like the ultra-lightweight, rounded trailer they used, for 100 miles at a shot. Yeah, totally worst case!
But I suggest you look at Bjorn's own data. It supports the exact same finding as Edmunds - about a 100 mile (160 km) range, at 55 MPH (Bjorn does 80 kph, about 50 MPH), for about the same size trailer (medium, 1100 pound trailer) gets about 600 Wh/mi. I think the issue isn't the data - it is consistent. The issue is that you don't like what is found by either Edmunds or Nyland, and thus have somehow romanticized it in your mind to something that simply is a fantasy.
Bottom line: Edmunds' data is 100% corroborated with Nyland's data, and if you're towing a smallish, lightweight, aerodynamic trailer at low freeway speeds, you're going to get about 100-130 miles between charges. Meaning you drive for 2 hours, then sit and charge for an hour.