via Imgflip Meme Generator

What subsidies do buyers of Tesla cars get that buyers of Porsche Taycans wouldn't get? Federal and state subsidies.

Tesla has received billions in subsidies beyond the tax credit for buyers.

Nice to see ChipRick has devolved from two word replies to 0 word replies.

Anyone who owns tesla stock is subsidizing the cars.

Tesla is making cars at a huge loss, where is that money coming from?

Compare that to Porsche who pays their shareholders.

Obviously just from the buyers perspective this doesn't really matter. However, it's misleading to draw the conclusion that Tesla is much more advanced using price as a primary indicator given the above.

Also, this.

I thought this was interesting, Marques (MKBHD) is a Tesla owner & has also interviewed Musk and taken a tour of the factory but (and?) he's also one of the most respected tech bloggers in the game. For those who don't want to watch at the end his first impression was the Taycan is the biggest competition to Tesla to date (I'm inferring he meant at the high end because obviously Porsche won't be in the mass market game).

The crux is, you are complaining about a person's predictions and calling him a liar when you are doing the exact same thing. You have been wrong numerous times and the $230 margin call BS was just one of the more ridiculous ones.

Do you not see the irony in this?

translation: no subsidies from a consumer perspective, federal or state, that Tesla qualifies for and that Porsche doesn't. And since Porsche is just introducing its BEV, it might be the other way around, Tesla's federal tax credit for consumers is being phased out (used up its allotment) while Porsche consumers qualify for the credit.

Tesla is funding its operations through equity offerings/capital raises and debt. Amazon and Facebook and thousands of companies don't pay dividends to their shareholders, this isn't new.

If you want to see some of Tesla's cheaper costs, see Tesla's electric motor in the autoline deep dive video on youtube with Sandy Munro (automobile costing expert consultant). The electric motor has magnets arranged in a Halbach array, and the motor is cheaper, lighter, and more powerful than every BEV competitor:
In this teardown with Sandy Munro, he explains how Tesla reuses parts with simpler engineering for the rearview mirror to beat out the price of the Model 3 competitors:

Strangely, it isn't really the cars Tesla is losing the most money on, its the other bets (Solar City, autonomous vehicles with neural networks and custom silicon chips, etc.)

No translation necessary, because that was never my point. The point is someone is subsidizing Tesla cars that isn't subsidizing Porsche cars. Stockholders and you could argue taxpayers as well.

Amazon and Facebook fund their operations through their earnings, tesla does not.

Don't try to change the discussion. Just to be clear the point is: tesla cars are being subsidized in ways that porsche cars are not.

Anytime your argument results in “the data is questionable on both sides “ you have 100% lost the argument

their q1&q2 capex and r&d are down 60% and 12% respectively from q1&q2 last year... really making the big bets... lol

Tesla's "regulatory credits of every type" for 2nd quarter 2019 (CNBC link which also links to Tesla's IR): $111.2 million

Tesla's automotive revenue in the same quarter: $5.38 billion

Betting that the future price of $TSLA stock will exceed current price sufficiently to justify risk is not a subsidy. If you take that (fallacious) line of argument you might as well argue Porsche is subsidized by its 72 year head start on Tesla and all the revenue it generated during that time.

I was being generous.

Meaningless comparison.

Both Amazon and FB were software companies with almost no manufacturing capacity.

Unsurprisingly, creating a vertically integrated car/battery/solar manufacturer with global distribution (and manufacturing capacity in 2-3 countries) from the ground up is more capitally intensive than writing a few lines of C++ in your dorm room.

I'm not sure if you don't understand what I'm saying or are being deliberately obtuse because you know I'm right.

you dont question any of your data?

That is a larger indictment on the health of the German economy (probably in recession) than Tesla demand.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...recession-risk

Disagree. But it's offset nicely by England's results out today - Model 3 the 3rd best selling car in the UK at 2080 in August.

As for subsidies, I thought it was common knowledge that Tesla has gained several billion in ZEV and non-ZEV credits over their lifetime. It's right there in their filings. It's why they did the battery swap fraud show - they could bilk the taxpayers of hundreds of millions more if their charging was fast enough (it wasn't, hence the battery swap fraud so they could get the credits reserved for publicly available 5 minute charging.).

Tesla are soaking up European credits as well. Musk claims he cares about the environment and the transition to electric cars, but right now he's receiving another billion from Fiat Chrysler to allow them to keep their emissions higher than they otherwise would. There's a lot of money in this....and between legitimate credits and credits obtained through fraud, it's how he keeps afloat nonviable, massively money losing companies run with extreme incompetence. SCTY is another example. Apart from actual frauds where they lied about installation to get extra credits, Musk also used fraud to convince the governor of NY to spend $750 million of local money for their now near-idle gigafactory 2.

It's what he does and he's very good at it. There's a reason that every company Musk owns relies on taxpayer money. Musk is a machine for turning fraud into taxpayer money from politicians. That are PR are his only skills.

No one can deny the excellence of Porsche's legacy. Ferdinand Porsche created the first gasoline-electric hybrid (the Lohner-Porsche) in 1900. But Ferdinand, Wolfgang, et al., failed to capitalize on their innovation, and so it sat dormant, as they pursued excellence in ICE vehicles, a classic example of misdirected optimization. So here we are, 119 years later, and Porsche is being outdone, outclassed, and outpriced, by an American upstart, and desperately trying to rediscover its mojo.

What are you talking about, clown? Batteries weren't ready for cars until around 2005 (and only then at great expense). In another few years they will be economically viable. What exactly was "misdirected" optimization in using the only technology that was viable for cars for the next 105 years?

Your argument is that stockholders and taxpayers are subsidizing Tesla. You're aware that in many companies that rings true, right?

Your post incorrectly assumes that technology has to be ready before a pioneer can start building the future. The exact opposite is true. The best way to predict the future is to create it. Ferdinand Porsche understood that very well, but the Porsche of today is at best an "also ran" imitator.

Now for a little history lesson...

The Lohne-Porsche Mixte Hybrid (1900-1906)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohner-Porsche

Hilarious that you profess to know the future of autonomous transport with such confidence, whilst at the same time you're oblivious to a technology that is 120 years old. Please tell us more about what is not possible.

*POPCORN*

Like I said, you are the dumbest poster on 2p2. You couldn't advance battery substrate technology in 1900 or even 1950 - multiple fields had to catch up before a battery could be even remotely viable for use as a viable motive power source in a car. There's a reason the lithium ion battery wasn't invented until the 70s despite the tremendous demand for battery storage. Quantum chemistry didn't even exist! The first scanning electron microscope was built in 1965.

ICEs were simply superior in every way; the primitive battery technology of that age wasn't up to the task and all electric car startups who continued with it (it was a huge rage back then as electricity had just mainstreamed) died out if they didn't switch fully to ICE.

What exactly am I oblivious to? Be specific. Your comment is as idiotic as saying "why didn't they invent smartphones back in 1900! The dumbasses used paper! If only there had been a visionary like Steve Jobs back then!"

Do you have a tree diagram that neatly outlines all permutations of all battery technologies (including those that are possible, but not realized by man) and maps them to the technical decisions made by engineers and companies since 1900?

No you don't.

You're extremely outcome oriented and painfully dumb and clearly don't understand even the most basic probability theory.

Young Ferdinand didn't waste his time waiting for Li-ion, he got his hands dirty with whatever he could, like lead-acid batteries.

Try reading my post.

Ferdi P. broke Austrian speed records in the hybrid.

Perhaps you meant superior in every way, except for all of the ways in which they were inferior.

Porsche had a good shot of winning the EV race in 1905, but it's 2019 and its Bratwurst is cooked.

So unless I have that, I can't make the point that battery chemistry wasn't even remotely ready for use in a car, which is why ICE overtook despite the best efforts of earlier engineers?

Even in 1995 battery chemisty was still not up to the task, with modern manufacturing and all we know about quantum chemistry now. But the dumbest poster on 2p2 claims that unless I have a tree diagram of all possible outcomes had they tried, I can't make the claim that batteries were 100+ years from being viable and that ICE was clearly the correct choice.

You're like a 10 year old who just discovered philosophy and thinks he can use it to get out of homework.

"Why didn't they invent iPhone in 1900!"
"Some smart person should have invented google search in 1900!"
Yes, and it didn't work, so he switched to fully ICE. How are you so stupid? Batteries were the holy grail and much desired and the obvious choice given their vastly lower complexity than building and fine tuning an engine and all its internal and supporting components, but no one could get them to work well in a car until over 100 years later despite trying very hard. The underlying technology wasn't ready and needed breakthroughs in basic physics and chemistry that didn't even exist yet, and then dozens of manufacturing breakthroughs across many different fields.
There is no laughing gif capable of fully capturing the risible stupidity of this claim. You are the dumbest person on 2p2.
You seem threatened by the Taycan.