The Glass-Steagal Act / The Dodd-Frank Act

Political debate. Welcome Yahoo Message Board exiles and everybody else !!
User avatar
I am Z
Global Moderator
Posts: 12786
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:13 am

Re: The Glass-Steagal Act / The Dodd-Frank Act

Post by I am Z » Wed May 23, 2018 12:23 pm

nolaxride wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 12:16 pm
I am Z wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 12:10 pm
evilconempire wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 11:40 am
I am Z wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 11:33 am
evilconempire wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 11:27 am
chucky wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 11:25 am
evilconempire wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 11:19 am
chucky wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 11:17 am
evilconempire wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 11:10 am
chucky wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 11:08 am


Him too ? I remember another poster claimed made money on every car they built even though they lost billions as a company.
The financial reports showed a profit on each car. The company reinvested that money at a rate that left the company a net loss. It's not that complicated, but yet here we are after all this time still trying to get you to understand it.
Ofcourse if you don’t count long term capital costs you would make money on every car you built , but in business you do have to amortize such expenses. And when you do , they are losing lots of money. The company is not profitable even with government subsidies. Net income -709.55million, diluted EPS - 4.19, net profit margin - 20.82 %.
Not necessarily. However, the issue was the cars could be made a profit if Musk weren't spending so much on reinvestment and expansion.
He could make a profit if he sells enough cars to cover his monthly loans he took to start up the company. He has to get sales to a certain level before the cost per car of the creation of the manufacturing infrastructure makes it profitable. He isn’t there yet . And don’t forget the government subsidies he has received.
He could make a profit.

How could I forget the subsidies when you and Z can't post about Tesla without mention them? lol

he 'could"


no sht?

anyone "could" make a profit.

liberals love this company because it sprouted up during obama'a tenure and it represents electric vs gasoline / diesel fuel to power them.

the problem is, they aren't making a sustainable profit on the sale of their automobiles. they have been selling energy credits, they have hyper inflated stock, etc. but they are not making money as a company because of the "tremendous" profits from their cars.

not to mention, taxpayers are covering huge rebates on electric cars. even with all that, they're possibly not going to make it.
Anyone could make a profit? Well, no sh!t.

Actually, I like the company because of its forward looking perspective and goals. It may ultimately fail, but it may end up succeeding also. Either way, it's a good start that someone else may be able to build on. Cons like you hate this company for the reason you're lying about why liberals love it. It's was very instructive that you revealed that so easily though.

You can't be taken seriously for complaining about tax payer money when you sit silently about the exponentially more we spend subsidizing fossil fuels.
how much of that electricity that Teslas use, comes from fossil fuels?

:eusa_dance:
some. maybe lots. your point?

well, without a requisite link to back up that bold claim of...."some...maybe lots" ......let's just go with almost-all.

my point is, what good is it if we're basically replacing a fossil fuel that burns with electricity that is generated by BURNING fossil fuels. is one cleaner than the other? maybe so.

but with me saying that the Tesla business model is built on a sham of rebates, energy credits, taxpayer funded subsidies and evillib saying that it's the same with fossil fuel (aka oil companies) which is a lie, it's not the same........but subsidized nonetheless, the taxpayer is getting fn' HOSED in case you didn't notice.
0 x
O.J. Simpson hired for new Isotoner Glove commercial:

"These are the SECOND best fitting gloves I've ever worn!"

:flycarpet:

User avatar
nolaxride
Global Moderator
Posts: 16057
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:09 pm

Re: The Glass-Steagal Act / The Dodd-Frank Act

Post by nolaxride » Wed May 23, 2018 2:37 pm

I am Z wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 12:23 pm
nolaxride wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 12:16 pm
I am Z wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 12:10 pm
evilconempire wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 11:40 am
I am Z wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 11:33 am
evilconempire wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 11:27 am
chucky wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 11:25 am
evilconempire wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 11:19 am
chucky wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 11:17 am
evilconempire wrote:
Tue May 22, 2018 11:10 am


The financial reports showed a profit on each car. The company reinvested that money at a rate that left the company a net loss. It's not that complicated, but yet here we are after all this time still trying to get you to understand it.
Ofcourse if you don’t count long term capital costs you would make money on every car you built , but in business you do have to amortize such expenses. And when you do , they are losing lots of money. The company is not profitable even with government subsidies. Net income -709.55million, diluted EPS - 4.19, net profit margin - 20.82 %.
Not necessarily. However, the issue was the cars could be made a profit if Musk weren't spending so much on reinvestment and expansion.
He could make a profit if he sells enough cars to cover his monthly loans he took to start up the company. He has to get sales to a certain level before the cost per car of the creation of the manufacturing infrastructure makes it profitable. He isn’t there yet . And don’t forget the government subsidies he has received.
He could make a profit.

How could I forget the subsidies when you and Z can't post about Tesla without mention them? lol

he 'could"


no sht?

anyone "could" make a profit.

liberals love this company because it sprouted up during obama'a tenure and it represents electric vs gasoline / diesel fuel to power them.

the problem is, they aren't making a sustainable profit on the sale of their automobiles. they have been selling energy credits, they have hyper inflated stock, etc. but they are not making money as a company because of the "tremendous" profits from their cars.

not to mention, taxpayers are covering huge rebates on electric cars. even with all that, they're possibly not going to make it.
Anyone could make a profit? Well, no sh!t.

Actually, I like the company because of its forward looking perspective and goals. It may ultimately fail, but it may end up succeeding also. Either way, it's a good start that someone else may be able to build on. Cons like you hate this company for the reason you're lying about why liberals love it. It's was very instructive that you revealed that so easily though.

You can't be taken seriously for complaining about tax payer money when you sit silently about the exponentially more we spend subsidizing fossil fuels.
how much of that electricity that Teslas use, comes from fossil fuels?

:eusa_dance:
some. maybe lots. your point?

well, without a requisite link to back up that bold claim of...."some...maybe lots" ......let's just go with almost-all.

my point is, what good is it if we're basically replacing a fossil fuel that burns with electricity that is generated by BURNING fossil fuels. is one cleaner than the other? maybe so.

but with me saying that the Tesla business model is built on a sham of rebates, energy credits, taxpayer funded subsidies and evillib saying that it's the same with fossil fuel (aka oil companies) which is a lie, it's not the same........but subsidized nonetheless, the taxpayer is getting fn' HOSED in case you didn't notice.
Let's take the state of TX. The majority of their power is generated by environmentally friendly natural gas. Wind produces more than nukes, and nuke and wind combined produce 30 percent of the state's power. Clean energy is growing, coal will continue to shrink as plants are retired or retrofitted for NG. Recharging an electric car, IMHO creates less pollution than driving a gas powered car.

With the exception of energy credits, Tesla received nothing that isn't available to any manufacturer. And the rebates are gone. Doesn't look like it's slowed sales... so, compared to what we're shelling out for oil and gas, how is the taxpayer getting hosed?
0 x
— "It will be revealed in the coming months that he was in fact born in Kenya" - 17 Nov 2016zxx

Post Reply