Help
FORUMS › General Discussions › Open Forum › Just Wondering
TOPIC: Just_Wondering
« Prev  1 ...  6.8  7.8  8.8  9.8  10.8  11.8  12.8  13.8  14.8  15.8  ... 346  Next »
109 to 118 of 3458
User Details are only visible to members.
Btw best I can figure Musk was worth around $300 million in 2004 when he bought into Tesla for $6.35 million.

Tesla's total DIRECT government assistance is difficult to calculate but is estimated to be $4+ billion. This does not account for tax credits to purchasers of the cars.

Ok so to be fair he's made most of his money from other business ventures. He's nevertheless made gobs of it from Tesla, which has a net worth of only around $1.2 billion to show for all of the money dumped into it.

But hey if you think this is ok, fine. This is venturing into politics now, as this is crony capitalism at its finest.

Windermere FL
Username hidden
(24781 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
i'm not knocking the cars--they're serious eye candy and good tech; i just don't think the target market (über rich and slightly less über rich who can afford the extra $) should have paud less than the car actually cost to build, on my tax dollars.

thatisall.

Bridgewater NJ
Username hidden
(10233 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
No, they reported $179 million in "positive cash flow from core operations", which I'm sure could be interpreted as a profit by some. But it's not.

Their actual company-wide net was a $320 million loss.

Windermere FL
Username hidden
(24781 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Musk was a billionaire before Tesla.

And if you went down to the bottom of the story, Tesla made 179 million in the 4th quarter.

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(19500 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
...exactly my point, VA.

Bridgewater NJ
Username hidden
(10233 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"on this green earth the cars *weren't* priced $50K higher. i mean...really! if people are gonna buy a luxury "electric" car then they damned well ought to *pay* for it. (and not you and me subsidizing their friggin toy.)"

Well that's a question best posed to those who lament subsidies to wealthy people. Teslas are priced in the same range as brands like Maserati and Lotus. These are not exactly your "Everyman" cars.

So our tax dollars are being used to buy expensive cars for already well-off people and to build charging stations so they can move them around. Billions of dollars into just one company. And the whole shebang has made a billionaire out of Elon Musk. He will have come out ahead no matter what happens to the company.

Windermere FL
Username hidden
(24781 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
I'm not sure who you are quoting there, 888. Was that reply to me? It seemed like it is, but your [sic] is within a quotation that didn't originate from me.

Windermere FL
Username hidden
(24781 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
There is also something to be said for subsidizing transitional technologies...

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(19500 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"So given that a Model S sells for around $90k on average (depending on version), the buyer is paying, in the end, roughly $80,000. But the car cost about $120,000 to build. In order to sell at a profit - without government incentives - the car would cost at least $130,000. How many do you think they'd be selling if the price jumped by $50k?"

.....i'm JW why on this green earth the cars *weren't* priced $50K higher. i mean...really! if people are gonna buy a luxury "electric" car then they damned well ought to *pay* for it. (and not you and me subsidizing their friggin toy.)

~sniff~

as you were, folks.

Bridgewater NJ
Username hidden
(10233 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Um, yes. My apologies, apparently my example was not made well enough. I will explain in another factual approach for you. The sourced electricity is a transformation of it's primary source, whether it be a raw conversion, storage or other. While your statement about ultimately 'they are powered by coal, nuclear [sic]...etc' can be "loosely" affirmed, as with almost anything, but only to an extent. All power applied comes from a primary source, however, the primary source loses it's claim as the source of power once the conversion to a secondary energy source takes place, which also goes against your erroneous remark that electricity is not an energy source, which I believe (opined) would be a current 1) primary (unclassified) source, because it is yet to be harnessed successfully with current technologies and a 2) secondary (classified) source (non-opined) also known to some as a "energy carrier" or "commodity" since primary sources must be converted to [sic] ie, electricity or hydrogen (two of the most known). I did find your write up to be entertaining and even a bit humorous how yearly losses were stacking against the auto maker, yet how they continue to thrive at a loss.

We can agree to disagree on this subject matter, and while misinformed and/or outdated collegiate papers circulate on the interweb and people can argue old energy classification information, I am not willing to pursue converse nor debate further what updated classifications of energy sources are already established by the USEIA, USAID, as well as the UNSD on the SIEC and CPC listings.

Charles Town WV
Username hidden
(1620 posts)
« Prev  1 ...  6.8  7.8  8.8  9.8  10.8  11.8  12.8  13.8  14.8  15.8  ... 346  Next »
109 to 118 of 3458
TOPIC: Just Wondering
This site does not contain sexually explicit images as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2256.
Accordingly, neither this site nor the contents contained herein are covered by the record-keeping provisions of 18 USC 2257(a)-(c).
Disclaimer: This website contains adult material. You must be over 18 to enter or 21 where applicable by law.
All Members are over 18 years of age.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
 
Copyright © 1998-2016 DashBoardHosting, LLC. All Rights Reserved.