Do you really mean mode? Are you sure sure you do not mean the median? Mode should be irrelevant here, it should be the median and the mean. And when the two are closely aligned, it means your population probably had a traditional Gaussian distribution. - which is what we have. It is not skewed by a few rich OR poor people, but that most of the people (67% in a traditional distribution) make around the median AND mean income levels - meaning, middle class.
Is it a common belief in Euro-wherever that US middle-class equates to McMansions?
Typically only amongst those who do poorly, economically. What they fail to realize is that about 42% of Europe lives in apartments, and in the US almost 80% live in free-standing homes. To a large segment (nearly half) of Europeans, owning your own freestanding home just isn't realistic, it's what "the rich" have, and thus ANY freestanding home must be a "McMansion". Of course, when we have over twice the land area, and only 60% of the population, so it should be no surprise that we have much lower density living...
I know it's popular to push a "hate the rich" meme on many places, but the data does not support the huge income disparity so often claimed. Median and mean incomes are close together, income disparity from the top 1% down to the bottom 50% is about 80 (which is significantly less than your estimate of 300 from the top 1% to the next tier, which would be top 5%), and in general wages are up an average of 4% annually for the last 18 months or so.
Your attitude is so 20th century, CIS/white biased. Today, extraordinary claims require that you provide it didn't happen. We have to believe the claim, and it's your job to prove the claim could never be...
Come on over to AOL, it's like the Internet and everything more and you can even make your own profile page! Send me your address, I have an extra CD around here somewhere...
So how much capex quarterly, and how much other expenses do they have? Don't just claim it - show the numbers. Or you can take just the word of Musk... Oh wait, he's charged with fraud - lying - isn't he?
Not nonsense - look at the financial report. You tell me where they make a profit. Gross profit minus SG&A (Sales General and Administration - you know, activities REQUIRED to deliver those cars) already puts them at a loss. Go ahead, show me what numbers - specific entries, no "handwaving" - on their financial report shows them actually making a profit. You won't, because you can't.
Wait, you mean Musk didn't attack the shorts for personal gain? Really? The guy who rails against shorts (who wouldn't be an issue if he could actually make a profit) didn't attack them for personal gain, or personal satisfaction?
And you must have missed the 35 who went to jail for the 2008 meltdown, and the dozens of CEOs forced out from their positions...
Shorts only hurt your company's operation is you need to continually sell shares to generate the revenue to continue operations. If you were making profit (which, at 15 years of age and 10 years on the market, Tesla should be able to do) then there's no issue. If the stock price goes up or down, it doesn't impact your operations. Consider Ford, who's seen their stock price nearly halve in the last 4 years. Yet they are profitable, continue to pay a dividend, and have no financial issues with operations.
Shorts only hurt companies that are heavily over-valued and lose money (so they need to sell more stock continually, or sell bonds to raise capital). If you cannot sell stock at a high price, you need to sell more, and run the risk of losing control of the company. Or if your stock price is falling, then the bond market may not feel secure enough in your long-term future and up the rates. But if you were able to make a profit - or at least show that if you cut capital expenditures you'd make a profit, like Amazon did - then it's a non-issue. However, with Tesla, because they lose money even before you account for capex, they are a magnet for shorts. Overvalued, no path to profitability, only a few months of cash left - real attractive for shorting!
Meaning, they care about consumers' rights, not the corporations, and they make sure that consumers are aware of their rights.
We facilitate capital formation
Meaning they are involved in the sales of securities - you have to tell them what is happening. That makes sure they can follow up on item number one.
We enforce federal securities laws
Like those that Musk broke. No clause about "unless we think it could hurt other people, in which case we ignore the law"
We regulate securities markets
Yep, you cannot sell or offer to buy securities without following the rules. You can't just go an announce made-up data like Musk did, especially when it would damage the market - as Musk's tweet did (fraudulently driving the stock price up).
We provide data
Yep, you have to report your data in GAAP standard format and calculations, which show Tesla losing billions of dollars. Not in the fantasy-land accounting that Tesla used to use (and many of its most vocal supporters here use) that show it is "making a profit".
Break the law, go to jail. Or in this case, lose tens of millions of dollars and be banned from controlling interest in companies - because that is what is best for the market. Stability, reliability, fairness. Not fraud.
I pity those who live their life in fear. I guess when your parents stopped coddling you and preventing every splinter or stubbed toe and making sure you always won at least a participation award, you realized the world could be dangerous and retreated to a place with no corners, lots of padding, and soothing soft sounds.
Me? I'll enjoy cruising up the PCH in the 'stang to dine waterfront at Avila Beach, or slicing down Mulholland Highway on my motorcycle. Or scuba diving in Indonesia. Or climbing waterfalls in Costa Rica. You know, all those dangerous things that people like you worry about...
Check out Albert Dunlap and John Schiller, both permanently banned from holding an executive position in publicly traded companies due to fraud and fiscal issues (like stock manipulation). They can, and have, gotten CEOs and senior executives banned from holding director positions - and Musk is running a big risk of that happening to him.
But now probably forced out from ANY executive position in the company. No CEO, COB, director, nada. Just a shareholder with no control of the company... I guess this is outsmarting the shorts?
Because that solution - hydro - isn't allowed by POLITICS in many places in the US. And it's for a country with a tiny population (about equal to Los Angeles proper- not the larger LA area) and a small territory that is highly mountainous (half the size of the State of Oregon). I've been to Costa Rica many times, it's beautiful - Jaco is a perfect beach town! And it rains a lot, and is very mountainous.
But in the US - hydro isn't a solution, and we've supposedly capped out all big hydro installs - so that's a no-go. So you HAVE to rely upon fossil fuels - no choice otherwise. So if you're going to have an honest accounting of of renewables, you HAVE to include the backup energy source - and in the US, that's gas and coal. Those costs HAVE to be included in the calculus of "renewables are cheaper" - otherwise it's simply a lie.
Damn I hope no-dashboard dies a horrible death. Touch-screens just don't work except for rarely-used functions. Physical switches and knobs and GAUGES AND INDICATORS IN EYESIGHT! Car interior designers should read MIL-STD-1472g and realize that things are defined as they are because THEY WORK and work WELL in life-and-death situations.
The environment doesn't care about countries. It cares about total pollution. Countries is a completely arbitrary delineation that has no bearing on anything. People is a concrete delineation -- to support people, some pollution must be produced. To support countries, in theory, nothing has to be produced because you can draw a line on a map and have a country of 0.
CORRECT! Which means those who ignore China's massive CO2 output are simply being disingenuous and are using CO2 as a political hammer to attack certain countries, not deal with a perceived environmental issue.
IF you want to deal with CO2 emissions, you should start with the biggest source of CO2 (by a long shot): China.
So then scale pollution by GDP, or GDP per capita. We'll do this:
Country A has 100,000 people in it, and they emit 200,000 units of pollution, and generate 800,000 units of money. Country B has 400,000 people in it, and they emit 400,000 units of pollution and generate 700,000 units of money.
Which country harms the environment more, and which country benefits society more?
So what would be the alternative base load source be? Hydro's not considered renewable, at least in California... Nuclear? Would love that...
And for all that stuff about fossil fuels and environmental damage? Lay that on renewables too - because without that fossil fuel base, renewables couldn't survive and provide the power needed. That's the point - you want to remove any damages from fossil fuels from renewables, but you HAVE to rely upon fossil fuels to even make renewables partially viable.
Lots of small SUVs get over 30 MPG. The Ford CMax does over 40 MPG. Ford is looking to where its buyers put their money - and it's not cars. Maybe Tesla will be successful in the car market - but first, they have to figure out how to actually turn a profit on selling cars.
Love my wife's Mustang GT! It's quite fast, comfortable, convertible (hey, we live in Southern California), and has an honest 350 mile range. And can be gassed up in about 4 minutes - from completely empty to completely full. Best of all, it was cheaper than any shipping model of Tesla Model 3 today ($45,000 OTD)!
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really mean mode? Are you sure sure you do not mean the median? Mode should be irrelevant here, it should be the median and the mean. And when the two are closely aligned, it means your population probably had a traditional Gaussian distribution. - which is what we have. It is not skewed by a few rich OR poor people, but that most of the people (67% in a traditional distribution) make around the median AND mean income levels - meaning, middle class.
Oh, you paid for it. Guaranteed. What's your tax rate?
Is it a common belief in Euro-wherever that US middle-class equates to McMansions?
Typically only amongst those who do poorly, economically. What they fail to realize is that about 42% of Europe lives in apartments, and in the US almost 80% live in free-standing homes. To a large segment (nearly half) of Europeans, owning your own freestanding home just isn't realistic, it's what "the rich" have, and thus ANY freestanding home must be a "McMansion". Of course, when we have over twice the land area, and only 60% of the population, so it should be no surprise that we have much lower density living...
The top 1% earn about $1.5 million on average; the top 25% average about $139,000. And that is several tiers down...
The median and mean household income is also quite close, being around $75,000 and $72,000 respectively.
I know it's popular to push a "hate the rich" meme on many places, but the data does not support the huge income disparity so often claimed. Median and mean incomes are close together, income disparity from the top 1% down to the bottom 50% is about 80 (which is significantly less than your estimate of 300 from the top 1% to the next tier, which would be top 5%), and in general wages are up an average of 4% annually for the last 18 months or so.
Your attitude is so 20th century, CIS/white biased. Today, extraordinary claims require that you provide it didn't happen. We have to believe the claim, and it's your job to prove the claim could never be...
100% of them. Sometime after the next model is released. Until then, it's just unsubstantiated FUD.
Come on over to AOL, it's like the Internet and everything more and you can even make your own profile page! Send me your address, I have an extra CD around here somewhere...
Or they didn't do anything illegal? Just because you fail spectacularly does NOT mean you acted illegally.
So how much capex quarterly, and how much other expenses do they have? Don't just claim it - show the numbers. Or you can take just the word of Musk... Oh wait, he's charged with fraud - lying - isn't he?
Not nonsense - look at the financial report. You tell me where they make a profit. Gross profit minus SG&A (Sales General and Administration - you know, activities REQUIRED to deliver those cars) already puts them at a loss. Go ahead, show me what numbers - specific entries, no "handwaving" - on their financial report shows them actually making a profit. You won't, because you can't.
Wait, you mean Musk didn't attack the shorts for personal gain? Really? The guy who rails against shorts (who wouldn't be an issue if he could actually make a profit) didn't attack them for personal gain, or personal satisfaction?
And you must have missed the 35 who went to jail for the 2008 meltdown, and the dozens of CEOs forced out from their positions...
Shorts only hurt your company's operation is you need to continually sell shares to generate the revenue to continue operations. If you were making profit (which, at 15 years of age and 10 years on the market, Tesla should be able to do) then there's no issue. If the stock price goes up or down, it doesn't impact your operations. Consider Ford, who's seen their stock price nearly halve in the last 4 years. Yet they are profitable, continue to pay a dividend, and have no financial issues with operations.
Shorts only hurt companies that are heavily over-valued and lose money (so they need to sell more stock continually, or sell bonds to raise capital). If you cannot sell stock at a high price, you need to sell more, and run the risk of losing control of the company. Or if your stock price is falling, then the bond market may not feel secure enough in your long-term future and up the rates. But if you were able to make a profit - or at least show that if you cut capital expenditures you'd make a profit, like Amazon did - then it's a non-issue. However, with Tesla, because they lose money even before you account for capex, they are a magnet for shorts. Overvalued, no path to profitability, only a few months of cash left - real attractive for shorting!
From the SEC website, right in the middle of the home page:
We inform and protect consumers
Meaning, they care about consumers' rights, not the corporations, and they make sure that consumers are aware of their rights.
We facilitate capital formation
Meaning they are involved in the sales of securities - you have to tell them what is happening. That makes sure they can follow up on item number one.
We enforce federal securities laws
Like those that Musk broke. No clause about "unless we think it could hurt other people, in which case we ignore the law"
We regulate securities markets
Yep, you cannot sell or offer to buy securities without following the rules. You can't just go an announce made-up data like Musk did, especially when it would damage the market - as Musk's tweet did (fraudulently driving the stock price up).
We provide data
Yep, you have to report your data in GAAP standard format and calculations, which show Tesla losing billions of dollars. Not in the fantasy-land accounting that Tesla used to use (and many of its most vocal supporters here use) that show it is "making a profit".
Break the law, go to jail. Or in this case, lose tens of millions of dollars and be banned from controlling interest in companies - because that is what is best for the market. Stability, reliability, fairness. Not fraud.
I pity those who live their life in fear. I guess when your parents stopped coddling you and preventing every splinter or stubbed toe and making sure you always won at least a participation award, you realized the world could be dangerous and retreated to a place with no corners, lots of padding, and soothing soft sounds.
Me? I'll enjoy cruising up the PCH in the 'stang to dine waterfront at Avila Beach, or slicing down Mulholland Highway on my motorcycle. Or scuba diving in Indonesia. Or climbing waterfalls in Costa Rica. You know, all those dangerous things that people like you worry about...
Check out Albert Dunlap and John Schiller, both permanently banned from holding an executive position in publicly traded companies due to fraud and fiscal issues (like stock manipulation). They can, and have, gotten CEOs and senior executives banned from holding director positions - and Musk is running a big risk of that happening to him.
But now probably forced out from ANY executive position in the company. No CEO, COB, director, nada. Just a shareholder with no control of the company... I guess this is outsmarting the shorts?
Not when you spend $1.4 billion to make and sell them... In Q2 2018 they lost $17.600 per car. What's the bet for Q3 2018?
Because that solution - hydro - isn't allowed by POLITICS in many places in the US. And it's for a country with a tiny population (about equal to Los Angeles proper- not the larger LA area) and a small territory that is highly mountainous (half the size of the State of Oregon). I've been to Costa Rica many times, it's beautiful - Jaco is a perfect beach town! And it rains a lot, and is very mountainous.
But in the US - hydro isn't a solution, and we've supposedly capped out all big hydro installs - so that's a no-go. So you HAVE to rely upon fossil fuels - no choice otherwise. So if you're going to have an honest accounting of of renewables, you HAVE to include the backup energy source - and in the US, that's gas and coal. Those costs HAVE to be included in the calculus of "renewables are cheaper" - otherwise it's simply a lie.
Damn I hope no-dashboard dies a horrible death. Touch-screens just don't work except for rarely-used functions. Physical switches and knobs and GAUGES AND INDICATORS IN EYESIGHT! Car interior designers should read MIL-STD-1472g and realize that things are defined as they are because THEY WORK and work WELL in life-and-death situations.
The environment doesn't care about countries. It cares about total pollution. Countries is a completely arbitrary delineation that has no bearing on anything. People is a concrete delineation -- to support people, some pollution must be produced. To support countries, in theory, nothing has to be produced because you can draw a line on a map and have a country of 0.
CORRECT! Which means those who ignore China's massive CO2 output are simply being disingenuous and are using CO2 as a political hammer to attack certain countries, not deal with a perceived environmental issue.
IF you want to deal with CO2 emissions, you should start with the biggest source of CO2 (by a long shot): China.
So then scale pollution by GDP, or GDP per capita. We'll do this:
Country A has 100,000 people in it, and they emit 200,000 units of pollution, and generate 800,000 units of money. Country B has 400,000 people in it, and they emit 400,000 units of pollution and generate 700,000 units of money.
Which country harms the environment more, and which country benefits society more?
So what would be the alternative base load source be? Hydro's not considered renewable, at least in California... Nuclear? Would love that...
And for all that stuff about fossil fuels and environmental damage? Lay that on renewables too - because without that fossil fuel base, renewables couldn't survive and provide the power needed. That's the point - you want to remove any damages from fossil fuels from renewables, but you HAVE to rely upon fossil fuels to even make renewables partially viable.
Lots of small SUVs get over 30 MPG. The Ford CMax does over 40 MPG. Ford is looking to where its buyers put their money - and it's not cars. Maybe Tesla will be successful in the car market - but first, they have to figure out how to actually turn a profit on selling cars.
Love my wife's Mustang GT! It's quite fast, comfortable, convertible (hey, we live in Southern California), and has an honest 350 mile range. And can be gassed up in about 4 minutes - from completely empty to completely full. Best of all, it was cheaper than any shipping model of Tesla Model 3 today ($45,000 OTD)!
To put that in even better perspective - what took Tesla from July 1 to September 30 to make, Ford had completed before the 4th of July.