I respectively disagree.

This is the buy of the year. 40% off from its high. Not from anything Tesla has done ( or not done) but from the economic state America is going through.

I don't think this will turn around till our leadership changes in 2024


Since last qtr 2021 Tesla opened 2 Giga Factories Texas and in Germany. They are ramping up and will get full speed in 2 years. This year expect 200 thousand from these as they ramp.

Giga Shanghai was shut down and lost 50, 000 vehicles of production. They reopened fully 2 weeks ago . China economy is taking a big hit. But what isn't sold will be ship and sold elsewhere.


2022 yearly estimate production is still about 1.5 M vehicles for the year.

Wait time from order to delivery is average 7 months. Tesla increase their prices 8 times last year to keep this 7 months from getting worse.

Demand out strips supply.


Gas at 5$/gal isn't helping the ICE vehicles at all and will push EV demand even higher.


Like I said

This is the buy of the year. 40% off from its high.
Also looks like a stock split of 3 to 1 is coming. This does nothing but make it cheaper for those who would like to enter this. One can do so at a lower, affordable price point.



Buy and hold



Buy 10 shares and hold for 5 o 10 years.





FYI.
My dad passed away last month on the 28th. I've been out of work tending to him and now settling the estate.

The video is right that pretty much the number one most important question is the weight of the truck (basically tare weight, which is actually the tractor plus empty trailer). When I watched the announcement, I thought Musk was slightly cagey about that, but I thought that he said that it would be in the ballpark of a normal ICE semi. Guess I should watch again.

I think Musk made some semi-optimistic predictions about battery tech improvement and economy of scale. Frankly, I think he's earned the right to be semi-bold with his predictions, given his and Tesla's track record (paying off govt. loan very early, single handedly pushing forward battery tech and production, etc. etc.). His optimistic predictions have a tendency of panning out.

The average American is never going to switch to an electric car purely or even largely for "green conscious" reasons. The switch will happen when the electric car is better than the ICE alternatives in concrete metrics like performance, reliability, and operating cost. Musk is pushing that date forward at an incredible pace. Arguably it is already true for many use-cases at the high price-point range of the Model S, but that price point limits the scope of the impact quite a bit. He knows that to really shake things up, he's got to get that price point down, and he knows that to do that he's got to improve the economy of scale on battery tech. Which he's doing by expanding it into adjacent markets like home batteries, etc.

I think he deserves a lot of credit for "walking the walk" when it comes to working hard to protect/improve the environment, as opposed to Al Gore et al. "talking the talk".

Years ago when I worked in Retail, we had one of the best kitchen centers around - with huge selection.
BUT
When people realized they were faced with so much choice (30 blenders to choose from , 20 toasters etc) the sales plummeted - we decided that selection was a poor marketing strategy. Most people went away more confused than when they got there.
What we did was provide two alternatives at specific price points. So for example if buying a toaster...
2 at $10, 2 at $50 and 2 at $120.
People will pre-select what they feel is a fair price for a toaster and then we provide them a simple one over the other choice.

Of course I'm simplifying it here. But you can't give people too much choice.

Another case in point!
When I go to Subway - I want a bun with my stuff on it - I absolutely HATE when they ask what king of bread - it's practically all the same - then the cheese - it's all the same stuff in a different colour lol

Sure - I want to choose what is on my sub, but the bread? What's the taste difference between them? None! When they ask me what type of bread, I always answer "I don't care"

I worked in a bread factory briefly and we put the same white bread into about 15 different bags and with a swing in price points of about 50 cents. This was about 25 years ago so the swing is probably more like a dollar or more in todays terms.

All you mac people are so snowed or blind or just desperately trying to justify your money being wasted on a inferior product.

any thing can be done faster on a proper pc (proper meaning it uses the latest processor memory ssd and graphics card)

but the trouble comes from people when they get on pc they get cheap and expect to do their video editing in virtual dub (not knocking vdub by the way)

or try and find some other video tool they can use for free . they wont buy a proper video editing software package nor will they buy proper software tools for their jobs . they try and use free alternatives or try and pirate the software.

but when they use mac they by the video editing software and the tools they need .

it is such bs, macs are weaker hardware weaker operating system and a weaker overall tool . but since people have invested so much money into them they unjustly justify there purchases by derailing the pc as a lesser platform.

when it is not true.

pcs, can have dedicated storage that outperforms and also stores more than any mac can dream of .

pcs can be all self contained no need for plethora of external drives hanging form 4 may be 3 or is it 2? soon to become one port hanging off your mac in a needless chain of wires.

pcs can have higher resolution and better monitors better user input, better configuration options, and backwards and forward compatibility with previous and next gen software.

but no, mac users over shadow this with the base argument that their $1500 mac is some how better than the $300 desktop they love comparing to .

but when it becomes price point vs hardware mac users have no ground to stand on as they are using , even in their newest machines 3+ year old hard ware and even on a refresh they are already 1 year behind in technology.

mac is nothing more than a placebo for those who failed at using windows computers .

they constantly compare a custom 1500 dollar computer with a locked in user experience to a 300 dollar walmart special with a completely open user experience and lament the windows based product as inferior.

when in actuality it is the mac that is the inferior product.

did you know that your $2000++ mac has a 5400 rpm hardrive in it configured to work with 128gb ssd in such a way that if either of the two fail your entire data set is trashed?

yeah ... thats a well built product .

The way it was set up, the mod developer did have the choice whether to charge or not. The final price point was also at the mod developer's discretion.

The 25% figure sounds low, but it's the same cut that developers of hats and skins for TF2 and Dota 2 get for their sold items--and there are people making a living at it.

Also, after Valve's 30% cut, the Bethesda looked at what a fair breakdown of what was left would be. Valve--30 Bethesda--45, and modder--25. If you just look at the portion after Valve takes its cut, Bethesda took 65% of what was left, and the modder took 35%. Which is typically what a development studio gets back from sales from a game publisher.

The 25% sounds really low if you're not familiar with how this kind of thing usually works, but it's actually about what content creators typically get when they're given a percentage from a publisher. It's a lot higher than some industries--authors usually only get 10-15% royalties on book sales, and even then only after the first 10,000 books sold.

@ChaosEngine

Everything @newtboy said. I think you're exaggerating just a tad. You're not going to build a PC that runs newly released games at 1080p at 60fps and also includes a blu-ray drive , 500 GB HD, and wireless motion sensitive controller for under $400 US (current price of PS4 on US Amazon). Plus, you're almost certainly going to have to buy a 1080p monitor (since most people don't do their computing on their TV or keep their tower case in the living room), which will set you back $200 minimum even for a cheap one that's likely to ghost.

As far as games go, nearly EVERY major release will be on all platforms and in fact will likely come out on console first (GTA V). Sure, some kickstarter stuff like Pillars of Eternity won't be available but it works both ways--you won't get some awesome console exclusives on the PC (Mario Kart, Little Big Planet, etc.) either.

Plus as newtboy mentioned, you can rent and sell console games. Yeah, PC games drop to much lower price points as they get older (I usually pick up all the good stuff I missed at $3-5 during Steam sales) but reselling isn't an option for most stuff (yet). You can mod most PC games, though, so that's a plus for them.

Look, I play 90% of my games on my gaming PC. That's because I have the time and money to do so. I don't understand the attitude of looking down on people who don't have those luxuries or who don't want to spend the prerequisite time required pouring over tech forums, price comparing at hardware vendors websites like Newegg, and downloading proper drivers just to build a gaming PC on the cheap when they can just go to a store down the road and pick up something comparable with virtually no effort.

It isn't only a profit issue. It's a price point issue.
In retail, there is a set price that people are willing to pay, so the retailers want product to hit those price point plateaus. (Say, $15, $20 and 29.99) The manufacturers then cut corners to meet those price points.

Next time you're shopping, for anything, have a look, they will have virtually the same product at several different price points. The lower price points lack quality but it also works in their favor because when you cheap out, you end up coming back sooner for the better product once the cheap on craps out.

Example. I went to Wal-mart for a garden rake. They had one at $14 and one at $35. so naturally, I picked the cheap one. as I was using it, the tines gut caught on roots and stuff, and got all bent out of shape. I ended up having to go back and get the $35 rake - My rake then ended up costing me $49 total.

Um, so ya, a profit issue in the end, yes, it's just move convoluted than the obvious.

A $500 Lavazza super-auto, elitist? Tsk tsk, a true elitist would have gone for a Rancilio or a Gaggia at that price point.

hard to tell but there were 2 non contract android 4.0 phones at walmart going for $40. Target also had 2 other phones as well at the $40 price point... they were still there 8 hours after we opened. These retards are shooting themselves in the foot by shopping at walmart.

>> ^criticalthud:

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.
But, let's look at some geopolitics.
In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.
Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).
So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.
Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.


Your armchair analysis is pretty thin.

One of your main premises is about how Israel occupies a bunch of 'worthless desert'? And you then believe that is a strong driver in Israel's interest in Iranian oil reserves?

Middle East politics goes a lot deeper than that. The 'worthless desert' Israel occupies is BAR NONE the most sought after and fought over piece of land in the entire middle east over the last century. You can not ignore the importance of the cultural and religious pressures in the region that make up the complex relationship between Israel-Iran-Saudi-Syria-Egypt-... and on and on.

Survival is still Israel's driving focus. Iran openly and proudly supports Hezbollah and Hamas and their attacks on Israel. If Israel even suspects that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, that is a very short path to a very legitimate concern for Israel to be taking very seriously. Sure, it's 90% likely that Iran isn't foolish enough to give a nuclear weapon to Hamas or Hezbollah, but that remaining 10% is still understandable enough cause for Israel to be nervous and considering their options.

>> ^criticalthud:

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.
But, let's look at some geopolitics.
(1) In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.
(2) Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).
(3) So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.
Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.


(1) True, but nevertheless it is only ~11% of the world's proven oil reserves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves

(2) Going from point 1, Iran hardly holds a control on the monopoly of oil. Furthermore all developed countries have an interest in ensuring steady supply to oil. If for example Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz, they would attract opprobrium from far more than just Israel and the US.

Oil trade in US dollars is surely a big part of the contributor to the strong US dollar, but the currency is used as a global trade and reserve currencies for its pre-eminence as a global economy not as a result of oil.

Also, even if the US dollar value were to collapse (which is hardly something likely in the next decade), I would bet that aid to Israel would be one of the last things to go because of the religious ties, the power of AIPAC in the US as a lobbying group and the history between the two countries.

(3) I think there's little denying that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and I agree that geopolitics and influence in the region is surely a reason they are seeking it. But considered simply from the standpoint of Iran's autocratic leaders that it's simply a deterrence to outside intervention from the US.

Right now it seems implausible especially under Obama that the US itself would launch an attack on Iran, but when GWB invaded Iraq and the US economy was in much better shape that was hardly a fantasy. Iran's leaders have a genuine reason to fear this and while in the short term they risk a pre-emptive attack from Israel, in the long term they benefit immeasurably from the kind of deterrence that NK now has. Keep in mind that Iran's nuclear program is hardly the machinations of right wing ideologues like Ahmadinejad. Mousavi, the de facto leader of the green movement supports nuclear development and was instrumental in the inception of the program as previous prime minister.

So I really think it's that and not a long term play for energy independence. Oil is going to be with us for many decades to come and if this wiki is correct, Iran has a 100 years of supply available. With the economy the way it is and our current dependence on dirty fuels, we're hardly going to jump on the green train any time soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.

But, let's look at some geopolitics.

In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.

Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).

So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.

Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.

ChasoEngine said:those that have disagree with you. Appeal to authority? Yes, but I wouldn't ask a climate scientist to write software.

I'd ask you to be very specific about what I've said which relevant experts disagree with me on. Go back and look at the very first article I linked to. It is the relevant experts on statistics disagreeing with and correcting the climate scientists that went off and tried to work too far outside their area of expertise and wound making a mistake that seriously altered their results. The short version is the method they applied was well known to be biased for zero if the constraints were not met, which in the situation used was exactly the case. It is EXACTLY why Mann's original hockey stick graph showed very flat temperature anomalies in his reconstruction from 1000-1800AD. You can verify this by using google scholar to look at Mann's own new work following some of the advice of the article I linked and applying a more appropriate method. It's flagged as the EIV line on the graphs, and it shows several times in the last 1k years where the temperature anomaly from the reference date exceeds what we've experienced recently.

Chaos Engine said:Emphasis mine. Do you have a source for that figure? I don't know if you read the link I posted but it would seem to contradict that figure. Besides, even if CO2 is a small contribution, sometimes a small sway can dramatically affect a system.

I'm glad to hear that you believe in reducing our dependence on coal and oil. Frankly, I think it will run out before we stop using it (and it will run out in my lifetime).

I can't find the article I went off originally but here's a different one. It does vary from the range I gave a little but I think it still is consistent with the spirit of everything I've said. It pegs H2O at 71% and CO2 at 29%, the consistent thing I've seen in the multiple journal based estimates I've seen though is that H2O at a minimum carries double the influence of CO2.

We aren't going to run out of coal anytime soon. Even oil we won't run out of soon. What we may run out of soon is cheap oil, but once a certain price point is hit up here in Canada we've got more oil than Saudi Arabia stored up in the tar sands. It's messy, dirty, expensive and a much greater concern to the environment IMHO than CO2 emissions, but it's a big supply. I am hopeful though, as I said before, that in 20 years nobody is going to want gas powered cars anymore because electric will be cheaper, more reliable, more powerful and basically better in every meaningful way.

On topic, there needs to be a better ability to measure and monitor OTC derivative contracts, but I think generally people who sorely blame speculators don't understand how markets work.

Everything ultimately has a fundamental value, if speculators are taking excessive amounts of positions expecting the price to go up, ultimately it will rise far beyond levels determined by supply and demand for the physical good and these speculators will stand to lose in their derivative position.

What is their incentive to inflate prices if they know that this will happen? Why not simply attempt to predict the market price accurately, whether it is trending up or down? Now obviously bubbles happen and what the video says about property investors heading into food commodities may well be true, but that is precisely why shorters have a role in the market to push the price down if it gets over-inflated.

You know when the video talks about hedge funds betting in price falls? What they conveniently omit to mention is taking these contracts puts downward pressure on prices.

Furthermore, whether high or low food prices hurt people in developing economies depends on who you're talking about. People living in country areas who rely on farming for their livelihood tend to gain from higher prices, urban dwellers tend to lose from it.

Demand and supply is also quite obviously driving increases in prices regardless of what you believe about speculation.

1) As developing countries have become wealthier they've shifted from a grain/rice diet to a more meat reliant diet, which is far more agriculturally intensive.

2) It's pretty self evident that weather instability has increased worldwide which destabilises prices.

3) Increased use in bio-fuels both in the US and Europe has taken up supply and pushed up prices.

4) All of these factors have in several cases resulted in countries establishing temporary trade barriers which in itself push up prices.

Point is, it's easy (and not entirely rational) to blame speculators but analysing all the factors at play (which this video brushes off) paints a far more complex picture.