Why I hate the stock market. Unprofitable Tesla is now worth more than profitable Ford which sells 28 x as many cars

you're amazingly dumb wrote:

No wrote:

Oh you would love that would you? An electric SUV with "good range"? I'd love a flying car too but dang, they just don't exist.

EVs are great, so "21st century". That is until you want to drive from one city to the next. D'oh! Guess I'll have to take a train - so 18th century!!!! **sad trumpet sound**

Tesla has set up a network of charging stations. If you want to drive from one city to another you just have to stop once in a while and have a coffee while your car is getting charged.

How long does it take you to drink a cup of coffee?

Tesla Supercharger: 20 minutes to charge to 50%, 40 minutes to charge to 80%, and 75 minutes to 100%

That's a dealbreaker for driving any kind of distance over one charge.

zack348938 wrote:

cgoon wrote:

I wonder how many people who buy green stocks actually fell for the global warming hoax. A lot of them probably know all about Al Gore's scheme to get rich and figured they might as well go along for the ride. I doubt anybody investing in the stock market really gives a shit about the environment. I mean this many people can't still believe in global warming. Can they?

I wonder how many people who say the phrase "global warming hoax" have taken at least one college-level science course.

I took a whole mess of them for my engineering degree but I'm sure you meant by "science course" you meant those taught by the arts-and-sciences profs who also teach women's studies courses.

Digit-Al wrote:

you're amazingly dumb wrote:

Tesla has set up a network of charging stations. If you want to drive from one city to another you just have to stop once in a while and have a coffee while your car is getting charged.

How long does it take you to drink a cup of coffee?

Tesla Supercharger: 20 minutes to charge to 50%, 40 minutes to charge to 80%, and 75 minutes to 100%

That's a dealbreaker for driving any kind of distance over one charge.

Why I remember when those infernal automobiles first came out. You couldn't even drive to the next town cause you'd run out of gas, and there weren't no gas stations between towns. I stuck with my good old horse and buggy dagnabit!

Digit-Al's great grandpappy wrote:

Digit-Al wrote:

How long does it take you to drink a cup of coffee?

Tesla Supercharger: 20 minutes to charge to 50%, 40 minutes to charge to 80%, and 75 minutes to 100%

That's a dealbreaker for driving any kind of distance over one charge.

Why I remember when those infernal automobiles first came out. You couldn't even drive to the next town cause you'd run out of gas, and there weren't no gas stations between towns. I stuck with my good old horse and buggy dagnabit!

Yep, and remember how it took 75 minutes to fill your tank??

Deans wrote:

zack348938 wrote:

I wonder how many people who say the phrase "global warming hoax" have taken at least one college-level science course.

I took a whole mess of them for my engineering degree but I'm sure you meant by "science course" you meant those taught by the arts-and-sciences profs who also teach women's studies courses.

No, I mean natural science courses. I really hate how climate change science is depicted as some sort of social agenda when it has nearly absolute support from the entire scientific community.

In a few years, this thread is going to look like the 2011 AirBnb thread that was recently revived looks today. People in that thread were talking about how absurd the idea of strangers sleeping in strangers' houses was, and how AirBnb probably wasn't worth more than $100-150 million. Today, it's worth $30 billion. Anyone who can't see the writing on the wall for traditional fossil fuels in automobiles is probably intentionally being obtuse due to their political leanings.

zack8994093 wrote:

No, I mean natural science courses. I really hate how climate change science is depicted as some sort of social agenda when it has nearly absolute support from the entire scientific community.

You keep repeating this false information. Where did you get it from?

All Gores wrote:

zack8994093 wrote:

No, I mean natural science courses. I really hate how climate change science is depicted as some sort of social agenda when it has nearly absolute support from the entire scientific community.

You keep repeating this false information. Where did you get it from?

Here are 2 sources that say 97% and somewhere between 90% and 97% respectively - with the second source also saying "The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming."

The third source exams the claim of 97% and concludes with "Beyer said "over 97 percent of the scientific community" believe humans are contributing to climate change.

The studies Beyer and others cite do not reflect the scientific community at large. They are surveys that focus on the conclusions of climatologists, earth scientists and meteorologists. The studies found that overwhelming majorities of these experts - sometimes, but not always as high as 97 percent - say humans are contributing to global warming.

Beyer’s statement is credible but needs elaboration. We rate it Mostly True."

Though I'm sure you still won't change, or even open, your mind.

The 97% consensus has been debunked dozens of times. If you keep referring to fake science, I think we know who has the closed mind.

Please refer to these peer reviewed papers that eviscerate the made up 97% claims:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514003759

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9647-9

A 20-minute break on an 7-hour, 375-mile trip is not a deal-breaker for most people. Autopilot makes it better.

you don't believe in carbon and climate change?! you don't see TEsla's driving around all the time? where do you live?Tesla is a company, led by a genius, that is always pushing things. Musk is willing to innovate while Ford just wants to keep doing things the way they have been doing things and rely on fossil fuels. Tesla is pushing the technology but also shrewd and savvy enough to invest in the the things that will someday make them so much money. investing and building factories to produce batteries and pursuing all of these other technologies that, when the rest of the market realizes they are the way the world will move, will be so far behind Musk that he'll have a buffer and will be able to innovate other shit and get further ahead. remember Apple, no one was even close to them for a few years in terms of products, hardware and software, and they were like a professional runner racing high schoolers... it was sillyif you think it's a just a scam, i feel sorry for you.do you think Uber and Lyft and the push for self-driving cars is a scam too? those companies are worth so much because everyone realizes that taxi cabs and even humans driving us places is archaic and inefficientonce you get over the fact that the coal industry is dead, you might be able to come to the table and discuss things like this

Howard Dean wrote:

Tesla play nicely into the carbon scam. People don't think rationally or logically when it comes to issues of climate. Tesla and others have done a phenomenal job of playing on the fears of the gullible.

It takes you 7 hours to drive 375 miles? LOL

webby wrote:

A 20-minute break on an 7-hour, 375-mile trip is not a deal-breaker for most people. Autopilot makes it better.

well wrote:

Digit-Al's great grandpappy wrote:

Why I remember when those infernal automobiles first came out. You couldn't even drive to the next town cause you'd run out of gas, and there weren't no gas stations between towns. I stuck with my good old horse and buggy dagnabit!

Yep, and remember how it took 75 minutes to fill your tank??

Ummm . . . ever heard of battery switch-outs?

Howard the Duck wrote:

you don't believe in carbon and climate change?!

Where did I say I don't believe in climate change or carbon? Of course climate change is real. The climate has been changing for billions of years. Some pretend scientists have done their best to make it look like it's been more rapid and mostly because of human activity.

I'm curious why you are so scared of a trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (400 PPM). CO2 is plant food. The earth and it's inhabitants will be just fine even if it dramatically increased. CO2 does not have a magic control knob for Earth's climate. LOL

ARandomRunDownWallstreet wrote:

Wow. Are you drunk? Uber essentially replaced the taxi cab market. In the prior market taxi cab medallions sold for the price of homes. Now Uber through technology essentially owns a large share of the taxi cab medallions.

Uber doesn't own the medallions. They have made them irrevelant. The question is have they created a market that they can monetize. So far the answer is no. Something like 50% of the cost of a ride is being subsidized by investors. The road they have to profitability isn't very clear.

And the real problem is it isn't clear how deep their moat is. Imagine when google (Waymo) has a self driving car. How hard would it be to buy 50k of them an add a button to the google maps app that summons one? It might turn out that Uber wins a market (ride shares with drivers) that is short lived. Or of course they might win a market that will be around for a long time.

The difference of opinion makes things interesting.

joedirt wrote:

Tesla is a luxury car maker. It's Model 3 (which really isn't going to be available for another year) which is designed to meet more mainstream buyers is still $5000 more than comparable models that are already on the market.

Please link to one comparable model that isn't at least $2000 more expensive.

Also, it is due to ship in the next few months, and all signs point to an on-time delivery this time. They designed it to be easy to build.

Flat Lining wrote:

Ford and the US automakers are stock flat-liners. They are Grandma stocks. Safe investments with minimal returns and relatively small risks.

Tesla is up and coming. It may or may not survive. But non-gasoline cars are the wave of the future. Tesla is taking an all-in approach to electric and is far ahead of the US automakers which are taking the wait-and-see approach.

Ford and US automakers are flatliners when the economy is growing and are on the verge of bankruptcy when the country is in a bad recession. Grandmas shouldn't even invest in auto makers - look at how poorly Ford has performed since the mid-1990s. And the returns of GM would be even worse since that company went bankrupt during the Financial Crisis. The problem is the enormous capital investment required for the auto industry as well as the huge fixed cost structure as a result of overpaid auto union workers.

If anything, Ford is probably overvalued at its current price. I don't disagree that Tesla is insanely overvalued by standard metrics, but Ford is a fundamentally different type of company.

grandma in left lane wrote:

It takes you 7 hours to drive 375 miles? LOL

webby wrote:

A 20-minute break on an 7-hour, 375-mile trip is not a deal-breaker for most people. Autopilot makes it better.

It does for most of us who live in big cities, with a 20-minute break. If you live on a highway and your destination is right off the highway, then five and a half. Still happy to take a 20-minute break.

Slow Bro wrote:

If you think Amazon is barely making money, you haven't been paying attention. They have reinvested almost all of their profits into expansion and r&d. If at any point they decide to stop expanding, they could turn into a money printing machine overnight.

There aren't any barriers to entry in online retail. This is entirely unlike Microsoft or Adobe where there are intellectual property laws that protect their companies from competition.

If you want to gamble on Amazon, go for it.