Elon Musk is a fraud...
Comments
-
In defense of ElonAlexis said:I always thought Elon Musk was a cologne.
huffingtonpost.com/entry/amber-heard-elon-musk-hanging-out-dating_us_5792532de4b00c9876cf43cb/Amber%20Heard/amber-heard-23a.jpg)
-
Yup...lost billions. I'm sure you had a point?2001400ex said:
I'm curious to hear your analysis of this.HoustonHusky said:
Like I said...mad props.2001400ex said:
The business can't sustain itself so much that it paid the debt off NINE years early.HoustonHusky said:Man...the three amigo stupid is strong in this thread...
a) Its stupid to prop up industries that cannot sustain themselves. We've spend hundreds of billions with basically no measurable impact on "renewable" energy sources. Think about that for a second. I'd hope anyone with a Laureate degree or a Trump U degree would even realize that a pretty fucking large failure, even by Federal Govt standards.
b) but IF you do want to prop up an industry pretty much anyone with an IQ over the speed limit would know you do it on the demand side and not the supply side (i.e. you say we'll give money back to anyone that buys an electric car and let the market work on the supply side, not we'll pick one guy and prop him up with billions in hopes that he makes it work, and if he bankrupts his company 'cause he wants to bail his cousin out on his own failed company than who am I to judge.)
And HondoFS...mad props to you. You still don't get it yet you keep posting and posting. Takes courage.
And if you recall, we did the supply side as well, it was called cash for clunkers. Not to mention you got tax credits for buying an electric vehicle.
Any more rants?
Simple question...how much total profit has Tesla made?
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/financials?query=income-statement -
Do you know what research and development is and how it works?HoustonHusky said:
Yup...lost billions. I'm sure you had a point?2001400ex said:
I'm curious to hear your analysis of this.HoustonHusky said:
Like I said...mad props.2001400ex said:
The business can't sustain itself so much that it paid the debt off NINE years early.HoustonHusky said:Man...the three amigo stupid is strong in this thread...
a) Its stupid to prop up industries that cannot sustain themselves. We've spend hundreds of billions with basically no measurable impact on "renewable" energy sources. Think about that for a second. I'd hope anyone with a Laureate degree or a Trump U degree would even realize that a pretty fucking large failure, even by Federal Govt standards.
b) but IF you do want to prop up an industry pretty much anyone with an IQ over the speed limit would know you do it on the demand side and not the supply side (i.e. you say we'll give money back to anyone that buys an electric car and let the market work on the supply side, not we'll pick one guy and prop him up with billions in hopes that he makes it work, and if he bankrupts his company 'cause he wants to bail his cousin out on his own failed company than who am I to judge.)
And HondoFS...mad props to you. You still don't get it yet you keep posting and posting. Takes courage.
And if you recall, we did the supply side as well, it was called cash for clunkers. Not to mention you got tax credits for buying an electric vehicle.
Any more rants?
Simple question...how much total profit has Tesla made?
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/financials?query=income-statement
Honestly it's embarrassing you even commented like that. But not surprising. -
Let me guess...you figured out the difference between gross and net profit and figured out you needed to change your tune (again).2001400ex said:
Do you know what research and development is and how it works?HoustonHusky said:
Yup...lost billions. I'm sure you had a point?2001400ex said:
I'm curious to hear your analysis of this.HoustonHusky said:
Like I said...mad props.2001400ex said:
The business can't sustain itself so much that it paid the debt off NINE years early.HoustonHusky said:Man...the three amigo stupid is strong in this thread...
a) Its stupid to prop up industries that cannot sustain themselves. We've spend hundreds of billions with basically no measurable impact on "renewable" energy sources. Think about that for a second. I'd hope anyone with a Laureate degree or a Trump U degree would even realize that a pretty fucking large failure, even by Federal Govt standards.
b) but IF you do want to prop up an industry pretty much anyone with an IQ over the speed limit would know you do it on the demand side and not the supply side (i.e. you say we'll give money back to anyone that buys an electric car and let the market work on the supply side, not we'll pick one guy and prop him up with billions in hopes that he makes it work, and if he bankrupts his company 'cause he wants to bail his cousin out on his own failed company than who am I to judge.)
And HondoFS...mad props to you. You still don't get it yet you keep posting and posting. Takes courage.
And if you recall, we did the supply side as well, it was called cash for clunkers. Not to mention you got tax credits for buying an electric vehicle.
Any more rants?
Simple question...how much total profit has Tesla made?
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/financials?query=income-statement
Honestly it's embarrassing you even commented like that. But not surprising.
Only problem is, now you seem to be arguing pouring money you aren't making into R&D fighting the laws of thermodynamics is somehow a low-risk proposition deserving of a 3% interest rate (with no equity stake). How did spending billions in R&D like that work out for the likes of Fisker Automotive, Solyndra (and dozens more solar companies), or heck even companies like Theranos, etc.? Is your new argument that all R&D spending is a guaranteed return and has no risk?
Like I said...mad props to you. You're an effin moron, but you've at least got the balls to put it out to display for the world to see... -
If the core raw material needed for manufacture of technology is in such short supply as to not be scalable, how does this effect future projected revenue streams and profitability?
-
Logical fallacy much?OZONE said:
The subject is stealing from taxpayers.PurpleJ said:
That is what the military contractors and their shills in congress are doing.
Where is your outrage?
I guess I shouldn't expect any from a hypocrite.
-
Every tug tavern thread:
Hondo/Ozone spreading 80% garbage while making a decent point every once in a while.
Race Bannon chiming in calling people dumb while offering no substance of his own -
yes. and no one loves crony capitalism more than the beloved "small government" conservative republicansdoogie said:Shouldn't efficiency drive investment decisions instead of political contributions to gain interest rates/terms favorable to the political donor?
-
not saying they don't. But you can't make threads bitching about how Hillary is going to bail someone out when republicans were first in line to support the banker bailouts in 2007 and are as ozone pointed out, always doing their best to line the pockets of the defense contractors spending money for military shit that we don't fucking needWeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
