Discussion:
Tesla profitable in Q3 cuz $713 million in subsidies
Add Reply
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 22:19:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Last month Tesla fanbois were dotting their pants over the company
finally turning a profit.

For a gosh-darn whole entire quarter, the company reportedly took in
$312 million more than it forked out.

Amazing stuff, Musk is such a hero.

What they didn't tell you is that Tesla was also the beneficiary of $713
million in subsidies in Q3.

Everything Musk does requires sucking off the taxpayer teat, he's the
biggest corporate welfare queen in all of Merka.

***

On Oct. 24, Tesla (TSLA) famously reported a $312 million surprise
profit for the third quarter. In the 10-Q filing a little over a week
later (Nov. 1), much of that was called into question, based on a
combination of revealing more subsidies than what was disclosed on Oct.
24 and suggesting other unexplained items such as the mystery 10% (or
more) accounts receivable "entity."

https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/tesla-s-main-product-isn-t-cars-it-s-subsidies-14769263
Unum
2018-11-09 00:46:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Last month Tesla fanbois were dotting their pants over the company finally
turning a profit.
For a gosh-darn whole entire quarter, the company reportedly took in $312
million more than it forked out.
Amazing stuff, Musk is such a hero.
What they didn't tell you is that Tesla was also the beneficiary of $713
million in subsidies in Q3.
Everything Musk does requires sucking off the taxpayer teat, he's the biggest
corporate welfare queen in all of Merka.
***
On Oct. 24, Tesla (TSLA) famously reported a $312 million surprise profit for
the third quarter. In the 10-Q filing a little over a week later (Nov. 1),
much of that was called into question, based on a combination of revealing
more subsidies than what was disclosed on Oct. 24 and suggesting other
unexplained items such as the mystery 10% (or more) accounts receivable "entity."
https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/tesla-s-main-product-isn-t-cars-it-s-subsidies-14769263
Lol! Liar lists the FIT credit as a subsidy to Tesla. And really, we should
be subsidizing EV's as much as necessary in order to eliminate polluting
ICE vehicles, don't you think?
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-09 01:48:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Last month Tesla fanbois were dotting their pants over the company
finally turning a profit.
For a gosh-darn whole entire quarter, the company reportedly took in
$312 million more than it forked out.
Amazing stuff, Musk is such a hero.
What they didn't tell you is that Tesla was also the beneficiary of
$713 million in subsidies in Q3.
Everything Musk does requires sucking off the taxpayer teat, he's the
biggest corporate welfare queen in all of Merka.
***
On Oct. 24, Tesla (TSLA) famously reported a $312 million surprise
profit for the third quarter. In the 10-Q filing a little over a week
later (Nov. 1), much of that was called into question, based on a
combination of revealing more subsidies than what was disclosed on
Oct. 24 and suggesting other unexplained items such as the mystery 10%
(or more) accounts receivable "entity."
https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/tesla-s-main-product-isn-t-cars-it-s-subsidies-14769263
Lol! Liar lists the FIT credit as a subsidy to Tesla.
Already covered in the item:

"Obviously, Tesla itself doesn't see this $7,500 per car directly. The
money is paid to the buyer of the car -- not the seller, Tesla. But
that's just semantics as far as Tesla's actual economics are concerned.
The car becomes $7,500 less expensive to buy, benefiting Tesla just as
much as if Tesla itself had received the $7,500 benefit from the U.S.
government."

Yeah, like Ford, Chev, Dodge, etc., wouldn't sell a hell of a lot more
ICE vehicles if they could get the taxpayer to kick in $7500/unit. If
that ever happened, green kooks would squeal "ohmerghad, why that's a
subsidy!"
Post by Unum
And really, we should
be subsidizing EV's as much as necessary in order to eliminate polluting
ICE vehicles, don't you think?
Pssst... EVs don't eliminate pollution, they just extend the tailpipe.
Last year 63% of power in the U.S. was generated with fossil fuels. If
you include all the types of generation that make greenies hiss and spit
(fossil, nuke, hydro) make than 90%. Less than 8% of power in the U.S.
actually came from wind and solar last year.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

I won't mention the fact that EVs have a larger manufacturing footprint
in terms of GHG emissions, so overall there is no real reduction in
plant fertilizer. Oops, I just did.

And by what logic do you figure poor people should be forced to
subsidize luxury green status cars for rich people? Why can't people
wealthy enough to buy a Tesla pay for it all by themselves?
JTEM is right
2018-11-09 04:47:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Yeah, like Ford, Chev, Dodge, etc., wouldn't sell a hell of a lot more
ICE vehicles if they could get the taxpayer to kick in $7500/unit. If
that ever happened, green kooks would squeal "ohmerghad, why that's a
subsidy!"
Seriously? "Get $7,500 cash back on your new Camry!"

...like that wouldn't sell a lot of cars.

All the car companies have regularly offered rebates -- "Get up
to a thousand dollars cash back on your new Buick" -- for my
entire life. So, yes, clearly there is decades of market search
that says such "Subsidies" really do increase sales.

There's no argument here: Rebates/subsidies increase sales. This
is why all the auto makers have used them when sales were off.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179900170758
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-09 06:32:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is right
Post by Chom Noamsky
Yeah, like Ford, Chev, Dodge, etc., wouldn't sell a hell of a lot more
ICE vehicles if they could get the taxpayer to kick in $7500/unit. If
that ever happened, green kooks would squeal "ohmerghad, why that's a
subsidy!"
Seriously? "Get $7,500 cash back on your new Camry!"
...like that wouldn't sell a lot of cars.
All the car companies have regularly offered rebates -- "Get up
to a thousand dollars cash back on your new Buick" -- for my
entire life. So, yes, clearly there is decades of market search
that says such "Subsidies" really do increase sales.
There's no argument here: Rebates/subsidies increase sales. This
is why all the auto makers have used them when sales were off.
The difference is buyer incentives for conventional autos don't come out
of the public purse.
Unum
2018-11-09 05:52:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Last month Tesla fanbois were dotting their pants over the company finally
turning a profit.
For a gosh-darn whole entire quarter, the company reportedly took in $312
million more than it forked out.
Amazing stuff, Musk is such a hero.
What they didn't tell you is that Tesla was also the beneficiary of $713
million in subsidies in Q3.
Everything Musk does requires sucking off the taxpayer teat, he's the
biggest corporate welfare queen in all of Merka.
***
On Oct. 24, Tesla (TSLA) famously reported a $312 million surprise profit
for the third quarter. In the 10-Q filing a little over a week later (Nov.
1), much of that was called into question, based on a combination of
revealing more subsidies than what was disclosed on Oct. 24 and suggesting
other unexplained items such as the mystery 10% (or more) accounts
receivable "entity."
https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/tesla-s-main-product-isn-t-cars-it-s-subsidies-14769263
Lol! Liar lists the FIT credit as a subsidy to Tesla.
"Obviously, Tesla itself doesn't see this $7,500 per car directly. The money
is paid to the buyer of the car -- not the seller, Tesla. But that's just
semantics as far as Tesla's actual economics are concerned. The car becomes
$7,500 less expensive to buy, benefiting Tesla just as much as if Tesla itself
had received the $7,500 benefit from the U.S. government."
Lol, "benefiting Tesla just as much" as in Tesla didn't get the money. Hilarious!
Yeah, like Ford, Chev, Dodge, etc., wouldn't sell a hell of a lot more ICE
vehicles if they could get the taxpayer to kick in $7500/unit. If that ever
happened, green kooks would squeal "ohmerghad, why that's a subsidy!"
Already covered. They do get a huge subsidy.
Post by Unum
And really, we should
be subsidizing EV's as much as necessary in order to eliminate polluting
ICE vehicles, don't you think?
Pssst... EVs don't eliminate pollution, they just extend the tailpipe. Last
year 63% of power in the U.S. was generated with fossil fuels.  If you include
all the types of generation that make greenies hiss and spit (fossil, nuke,
hydro) make than 90%.  Less than 8% of power in the U.S. actually came from
wind and solar last year.
ICE vehicles are 100% powered by fossil fuels. EV's don't generate any
polluting tailpipe emissions at all, so by chumpsky's own admission EV's
result in at least 37% less pollution. Why does chumpsky always lie?
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-09 06:30:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Last month Tesla fanbois were dotting their pants over the company
finally turning a profit.
For a gosh-darn whole entire quarter, the company reportedly took in
$312 million more than it forked out.
Amazing stuff, Musk is such a hero.
What they didn't tell you is that Tesla was also the beneficiary of
$713 million in subsidies in Q3.
Everything Musk does requires sucking off the taxpayer teat, he's
the biggest corporate welfare queen in all of Merka.
***
On Oct. 24, Tesla (TSLA) famously reported a $312 million surprise
profit for the third quarter. In the 10-Q filing a little over a
week later (Nov. 1), much of that was called into question, based on
a combination of revealing more subsidies than what was disclosed on
Oct. 24 and suggesting other unexplained items such as the mystery
10% (or more) accounts receivable "entity."
https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/tesla-s-main-product-isn-t-cars-it-s-subsidies-14769263
Lol! Liar lists the FIT credit as a subsidy to Tesla.
"Obviously, Tesla itself doesn't see this $7,500 per car directly. The
money is paid to the buyer of the car -- not the seller, Tesla. But
that's just semantics as far as Tesla's actual economics are
concerned. The car becomes $7,500 less expensive to buy, benefiting
Tesla just as much as if Tesla itself had received the $7,500 benefit
from the U.S. government."
Lol, "benefiting Tesla just as much" as in Tesla didn't get the money. Hilarious!
"The car becomes $7,500 less expensive to buy, benefiting Tesla just as
much as if Tesla itself had received the $7,500 benefit from the U.S.
government."
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Yeah, like Ford, Chev, Dodge, etc., wouldn't sell a hell of a lot more
ICE vehicles if they could get the taxpayer to kick in $7500/unit. If
that ever happened, green kooks would squeal "ohmerghad, why that's a
subsidy!"
Already covered. They do get a huge subsidy.
Imagining something to be true doesn't make it true.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
And really, we should
be subsidizing EV's as much as necessary in order to eliminate polluting
ICE vehicles, don't you think?
Pssst... EVs don't eliminate pollution, they just extend the tailpipe.
Last year 63% of power in the U.S. was generated with fossil fuels.
If you include all the types of generation that make greenies hiss and
spit (fossil, nuke, hydro) make than 90%.  Less than 8% of power in
the U.S. actually came from wind and solar last year.
ICE vehicles are 100% powered by fossil fuels. EV's don't generate any
polluting tailpipe emissions at all, so by chumpsky's own admission EV's
result in at least 37% less pollution. Why does chumpsky always lie?
You missed where I said this:

"Less than 8% of power in the U.S. actually came from wind and solar
last year."

At best, 8% of the juice that goes into an EV comes from
greenie-approved wind and solar.

That's offset by the higher manufacturing footprint of EVs, mainly
because of batteries that require big polluting mines for stuff like
cobalt and lithium, which in turn requires a lotta fossil fuels to
extract and process.

In reality, EVs don't offset any emissions.

In China, switching to EVs actually increases emissions.

Electric Vehicle Emissions 27-50% Greater Than Internal Combustion
Engine Vehicles

http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/11/driving-electric-vehicles-in-china-increases-co2-emissions-driving-gasoline-vehicles-in-china-reduces-co2-emissions/

The only thing EVs accomplish is allowing virtue-signalling greenies to
pretend they are "saving the planet" while their emissions are simply
produced somewhere else.
Unum
2018-11-09 15:56:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Last month Tesla fanbois were dotting their pants over the company
finally turning a profit.
For a gosh-darn whole entire quarter, the company reportedly took in $312
million more than it forked out.
Amazing stuff, Musk is such a hero.
What they didn't tell you is that Tesla was also the beneficiary of $713
million in subsidies in Q3.
Everything Musk does requires sucking off the taxpayer teat, he's the
biggest corporate welfare queen in all of Merka.
***
On Oct. 24, Tesla (TSLA) famously reported a $312 million surprise profit
for the third quarter. In the 10-Q filing a little over a week later
(Nov. 1), much of that was called into question, based on a combination
of revealing more subsidies than what was disclosed on Oct. 24 and
suggesting other unexplained items such as the mystery 10% (or more)
accounts receivable "entity."
https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/tesla-s-main-product-isn-t-cars-it-s-subsidies-14769263
Lol! Liar lists the FIT credit as a subsidy to Tesla.
"Obviously, Tesla itself doesn't see this $7,500 per car directly. The
money is paid to the buyer of the car -- not the seller, Tesla. But that's
just semantics as far as Tesla's actual economics are concerned. The car
becomes $7,500 less expensive to buy, benefiting Tesla just as much as if
Tesla itself had received the $7,500 benefit from the U.S. government."
Lol, "benefiting Tesla just as much" as in Tesla didn't get the money. Hilarious!
"The car becomes $7,500 less expensive to buy, benefiting Tesla just as much
as if Tesla itself had received the $7,500 benefit from the U.S. government."
Tesla doesn't get the money. Hilarious!
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Yeah, like Ford, Chev, Dodge, etc., wouldn't sell a hell of a lot more ICE
vehicles if they could get the taxpayer to kick in $7500/unit. If that ever
happened, green kooks would squeal "ohmerghad, why that's a subsidy!"
Already covered. They do get a huge subsidy.
Imagining something to be true doesn't make it true.
Who pays for tailpipe emissions, nutjob?
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
And really, we should
be subsidizing EV's as much as necessary in order to eliminate polluting
ICE vehicles, don't you think?
Pssst... EVs don't eliminate pollution, they just extend the tailpipe. Last
year 63% of power in the U.S. was generated with fossil fuels. If you
include all the types of generation that make greenies hiss and spit
(fossil, nuke, hydro) make than 90%.  Less than 8% of power in the U.S.
actually came from wind and solar last year.
ICE vehicles are 100% powered by fossil fuels. EV's don't generate any
polluting tailpipe emissions at all, so by chumpsky's own admission EV's
result in at least 37% less pollution. Why does chumpsky always lie?
"Less than 8% of power in the U.S. actually came from wind and solar last year."
chumpsky so desperate to shift the goalposts, lol. EV's obviously result in
at least 37% less pollution. And that doesn't even take into account the
significant difference in energy efficiency compared to ICE.
At best, 8% of the juice that goes into an EV comes from greenie-approved wind
and solar.
According to chumpsky 37% of US electricity is non-fossil. And then of course
100% renewable is available pretty much everywhere. "EVs don't eliminate
pollution" was an outright lie.
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-09 16:00:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Last month Tesla fanbois were dotting their pants over the company
finally turning a profit.
For a gosh-darn whole entire quarter, the company reportedly took
in $312 million more than it forked out.
Amazing stuff, Musk is such a hero.
What they didn't tell you is that Tesla was also the beneficiary
of $713 million in subsidies in Q3.
Everything Musk does requires sucking off the taxpayer teat, he's
the biggest corporate welfare queen in all of Merka.
***
On Oct. 24, Tesla (TSLA) famously reported a $312 million surprise
profit for the third quarter. In the 10-Q filing a little over a
week later (Nov. 1), much of that was called into question, based
on a combination of revealing more subsidies than what was
disclosed on Oct. 24 and suggesting other unexplained items such
as the mystery 10% (or more) accounts receivable "entity."
https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/tesla-s-main-product-isn-t-cars-it-s-subsidies-14769263
Lol! Liar lists the FIT credit as a subsidy to Tesla.
"Obviously, Tesla itself doesn't see this $7,500 per car directly.
The money is paid to the buyer of the car -- not the seller, Tesla.
But that's just semantics as far as Tesla's actual economics are
concerned. The car becomes $7,500 less expensive to buy, benefiting
Tesla just as much as if Tesla itself had received the $7,500
benefit from the U.S. government."
Lol, "benefiting Tesla just as much" as in Tesla didn't get the money. Hilarious!
"The car becomes $7,500 less expensive to buy, benefiting Tesla just
as much as if Tesla itself had received the $7,500 benefit from the
U.S. government."
Tesla doesn't get the money. Hilarious!
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Yeah, like Ford, Chev, Dodge, etc., wouldn't sell a hell of a lot
more ICE vehicles if they could get the taxpayer to kick in
$7500/unit. If that ever happened, green kooks would squeal
"ohmerghad, why that's a subsidy!"
Already covered. They do get a huge subsidy.
Imagining something to be true doesn't make it true.
Who pays for tailpipe emissions, nutjob?
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
And really, we should
be subsidizing EV's as much as necessary in order to eliminate polluting
ICE vehicles, don't you think?
Pssst... EVs don't eliminate pollution, they just extend the
tailpipe. Last year 63% of power in the U.S. was generated with
fossil fuels. If you include all the types of generation that make
greenies hiss and spit (fossil, nuke, hydro) make than 90%.  Less
than 8% of power in the U.S. actually came from wind and solar last
year.
ICE vehicles are 100% powered by fossil fuels. EV's don't generate any
polluting tailpipe emissions at all, so by chumpsky's own admission EV's
result in at least 37% less pollution. Why does chumpsky always lie?
"Less than 8% of power in the U.S. actually came from wind and solar last year."
chumpsky so desperate to shift the goalposts, lol. EV's obviously result in
at least 37% less pollution. And that doesn't even take into account the
significant difference in energy efficiency compared to ICE.
Post by Chom Noamsky
At best, 8% of the juice that goes into an EV comes from
greenie-approved wind and solar.
According to chumpsky 37% of US electricity is non-fossil. And then of course
100% renewable is available pretty much everywhere. "EVs don't eliminate
pollution" was an outright lie.
I accept your defeat.
Unum
2018-11-09 18:57:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Last month Tesla fanbois were dotting their pants over the company
finally turning a profit.
For a gosh-darn whole entire quarter, the company reportedly took in
$312 million more than it forked out.
Amazing stuff, Musk is such a hero.
What they didn't tell you is that Tesla was also the beneficiary of
$713 million in subsidies in Q3.
Everything Musk does requires sucking off the taxpayer teat, he's the
biggest corporate welfare queen in all of Merka.
***
On Oct. 24, Tesla (TSLA) famously reported a $312 million surprise
profit for the third quarter. In the 10-Q filing a little over a week
later (Nov. 1), much of that was called into question, based on a
combination of revealing more subsidies than what was disclosed on Oct.
24 and suggesting other unexplained items such as the mystery 10% (or
more) accounts receivable "entity."
https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/tesla-s-main-product-isn-t-cars-it-s-subsidies-14769263
Lol! Liar lists the FIT credit as a subsidy to Tesla.
"Obviously, Tesla itself doesn't see this $7,500 per car directly. The
money is paid to the buyer of the car -- not the seller, Tesla. But
that's just semantics as far as Tesla's actual economics are concerned.
The car becomes $7,500 less expensive to buy, benefiting Tesla just as
much as if Tesla itself had received the $7,500 benefit from the U.S.
government."
Lol, "benefiting Tesla just as much" as in Tesla didn't get the money. Hilarious!
"The car becomes $7,500 less expensive to buy, benefiting Tesla just as
much as if Tesla itself had received the $7,500 benefit from the U.S.
government."
Tesla doesn't get the money. Hilarious!
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Yeah, like Ford, Chev, Dodge, etc., wouldn't sell a hell of a lot more
ICE vehicles if they could get the taxpayer to kick in $7500/unit. If
that ever happened, green kooks would squeal "ohmerghad, why that's a
subsidy!"
Already covered. They do get a huge subsidy.
Imagining something to be true doesn't make it true.
Who pays for tailpipe emissions, nutjob?
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
And really, we should
be subsidizing EV's as much as necessary in order to eliminate polluting
ICE vehicles, don't you think?
Pssst... EVs don't eliminate pollution, they just extend the tailpipe.
Last year 63% of power in the U.S. was generated with fossil fuels. If
you include all the types of generation that make greenies hiss and spit
(fossil, nuke, hydro) make than 90%.  Less than 8% of power in the U.S.
actually came from wind and solar last year.
ICE vehicles are 100% powered by fossil fuels. EV's don't generate any
polluting tailpipe emissions at all, so by chumpsky's own admission EV's
result in at least 37% less pollution. Why does chumpsky always lie?
"Less than 8% of power in the U.S. actually came from wind and solar last year."
chumpsky so desperate to shift the goalposts, lol. EV's obviously result in
at least 37% less pollution. And that doesn't even take into account the
significant difference in energy efficiency compared to ICE.
Post by Chom Noamsky
At best, 8% of the juice that goes into an EV comes from greenie-approved
wind and solar.
According to chumpsky 37% of US electricity is non-fossil. And then of course
100% renewable is available pretty much everywhere. "EVs don't eliminate
pollution" was an outright lie.
I accept your defeat.
Settling for last post already?
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-09 19:30:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Last month Tesla fanbois were dotting their pants over the
company finally turning a profit.
For a gosh-darn whole entire quarter, the company reportedly
took in $312 million more than it forked out.
Amazing stuff, Musk is such a hero.
What they didn't tell you is that Tesla was also the beneficiary
of $713 million in subsidies in Q3.
Everything Musk does requires sucking off the taxpayer teat,
he's the biggest corporate welfare queen in all of Merka.
***
On Oct. 24, Tesla (TSLA) famously reported a $312 million
surprise profit for the third quarter. In the 10-Q filing a
little over a week later (Nov. 1), much of that was called into
question, based on a combination of revealing more subsidies
than what was disclosed on Oct. 24 and suggesting other
unexplained items such as the mystery 10% (or more) accounts
receivable "entity."
https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/tesla-s-main-product-isn-t-cars-it-s-subsidies-14769263
Lol! Liar lists the FIT credit as a subsidy to Tesla.
"Obviously, Tesla itself doesn't see this $7,500 per car directly.
The money is paid to the buyer of the car -- not the seller,
Tesla. But that's just semantics as far as Tesla's actual
economics are concerned. The car becomes $7,500 less expensive to
buy, benefiting Tesla just as much as if Tesla itself had received
the $7,500 benefit from the U.S. government."
Lol, "benefiting Tesla just as much" as in Tesla didn't get the money. Hilarious!
"The car becomes $7,500 less expensive to buy, benefiting Tesla just
as much as if Tesla itself had received the $7,500 benefit from the
U.S. government."
Tesla doesn't get the money. Hilarious!
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Yeah, like Ford, Chev, Dodge, etc., wouldn't sell a hell of a lot
more ICE vehicles if they could get the taxpayer to kick in
$7500/unit. If that ever happened, green kooks would squeal
"ohmerghad, why that's a subsidy!"
Already covered. They do get a huge subsidy.
Imagining something to be true doesn't make it true.
Who pays for tailpipe emissions, nutjob?
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
And really, we should
be subsidizing EV's as much as necessary in order to eliminate polluting
ICE vehicles, don't you think?
Pssst... EVs don't eliminate pollution, they just extend the
tailpipe. Last year 63% of power in the U.S. was generated with
fossil fuels. If you include all the types of generation that make
greenies hiss and spit (fossil, nuke, hydro) make than 90%.  Less
than 8% of power in the U.S. actually came from wind and solar
last year.
ICE vehicles are 100% powered by fossil fuels. EV's don't generate any
polluting tailpipe emissions at all, so by chumpsky's own admission EV's
result in at least 37% less pollution. Why does chumpsky always lie?
"Less than 8% of power in the U.S. actually came from wind and solar last year."
chumpsky so desperate to shift the goalposts, lol. EV's obviously result in
at least 37% less pollution. And that doesn't even take into account the
significant difference in energy efficiency compared to ICE.
Post by Chom Noamsky
At best, 8% of the juice that goes into an EV comes from
greenie-approved wind and solar.
According to chumpsky 37% of US electricity is non-fossil. And then of course
100% renewable is available pretty much everywhere. "EVs don't eliminate
pollution" was an outright lie.
I accept your defeat.
Settling for last post already?
I settled for your defeat. Now stop squirming, cryin' for yer momma
ain't gonna help.

R Kym Horsell
2018-11-09 03:27:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Last month Tesla fanbois were dotting their pants over the company finally
turning a profit.
For a gosh-darn whole entire quarter, the company reportedly took in $312
million more than it forked out.
Amazing stuff, Musk is such a hero.
What they didn't tell you is that Tesla was also the beneficiary of $713
million in subsidies in Q3.
Everything Musk does requires sucking off the taxpayer teat, he's the biggest
corporate welfare queen in all of Merka.
***
On Oct. 24, Tesla (TSLA) famously reported a $312 million surprise profit for
the third quarter. In the 10-Q filing a little over a week later (Nov. 1),
much of that was called into question, based on a combination of revealing
more subsidies than what was disclosed on Oct. 24 and suggesting other
unexplained items such as the mystery 10% (or more) accounts receivable "entity."
https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/tesla-s-main-product-isn-t-cars-it-s-subsidies-14769263
Lol! Liar lists the FIT credit as a subsidy to Tesla. And really, we should
be subsidizing EV's as much as necessary in order to eliminate polluting
ICE vehicles, don't you think?
I like the way it says "surprise".

It was perdicted from the wiki data months back.

And it seems quite a lot of analysts got it right.

Vijay Govidan at CleanTechnia outlined his Q3 production and profit
predictions in an article some time back. He indicated his numbers
were fed into the mix at one of those quant sites and it came back
many other analysts were saying the same thing as him.

Apparently all the shorters and naysayers missed it again.
(Think it's the 3rd or 4th Q over the past 10 years at TSLA that
has showed a profit).

Seems to be a pattern wid some chunk of the blogtariat.

The only thin mo perdictable are the sour grapes followups that
has now to splain why the dummies missed it.

Turns out -- surprise -- it involves a CONSIRICEE!
--
[Chom Noamsky aka Kim Dobranski code cracker:]

According to chumski periodic self-diagnosis(1,2,3,4,5):

If a post contains It signifies
[x] venom someone hit the mark
[x] scapegoating monumental failure
[x] insults and invective suffered stinging defeat/forced take own medicine
[x] continual negativity mental illness/everyone hates you
[x] repeating yourself a sign of pure desperation
(check all that apply)

(1)
Oh my, the venom words mean I scored a direct hit.
-- Chom Noamsky, 27 Jul 2104 1:45pm

(2)
Scapegoating is just a natural human defence mechanism for monumental failure.
-- Chom Noamsky, 28 Feb 2015

(3)
Every single one of your posts it filled with hateful insults and
invective. Now you squeal like a stuck pig when you a taste of your own
medicine. The only reason god gave you one more brain cell than a cow
was so that you wouldn't shit on the floor while fliping burgers.
And now that you got your ass handed to you, fuck off you violently
idiotic piece of braindead shit.
-- Chom Noamsky, 31 Jan 2016

(4)
You posting career is obsessed with fearmongering, pessimism and
negativity, who are you trying to kid. The people around you must
suffer from depression (or maybe offed themselves already).
Just not a healthy attitude.
-- Chom Noamsky <***@er.yummy>, 25 Mar 2015

(5)
Repeating yourself is a sign of pure desperation.
-- Chom Noamsky, 28 Feb 2018 11:08 PM
Loading...