EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 237
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
zatic
Zurich15362 Posts
On August 07 2015 11:05 cLutZ wrote: Anyone have reliable pre WWI GDP/capita numbers for Europe (preferably even more)? Reliable enough? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#Europe_1830.E2.80.931938_.28Bairoch.29 | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On August 07 2015 15:43 zatic wrote: Reliable enough? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#Europe_1830.E2.80.931938_.28Bairoch.29 Not granular enough. I am trying to figure out the effect of WWI on various economies. But thank you its opened up things to look at. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
The guy basically built his compagny Tesla on public founding : if you add everything that he got from the state, Tesla got 2.4 billion dollars directly coming from the US taxpayers ? Just for the factory it is building in the state of Nevada (the Gigafactory), Tesla got 1.3 billion dollars of public founding (for a factory that cost 5 billions dollars). And despite that Tesla is still in deficit (154 millions dollars for a revenue of 964 millions in the first trimester of 2015). At this point, Tesla should be a public firm : It's almost communism ! lol | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On August 10 2015 02:45 WhiteDog wrote: Concidently the econ specialized journal I read made a paper on Elon Musk this very month. How can he be an exemple of what a lower taxation can give to society ? I wonder... The guy basically built his compagny Tesla on public founding : if you add everything that he got from the state, Tesla got 2.4 billion dollars directly coming from the US taxpayers ? Just for the factory it is building in the state of Nevada (the Gigafactory), Tesla got 1.3 billion dollars of public founding (for a factory that cost 5 billions dollars). And despite that Tesla is still in deficit (154 millions dollars for a revenue of 964 millions in the first trimester of 2015). At this point, Tesla should be a public firm : It's almost communism ! lol Isn't that what I've been saying? Also, its unclear whether its even a successful firm, or just a government moneysink long term. | ||
|
Yurie
12037 Posts
| ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
Tesla is making huge investments too because we don't have the actually capacity to product enough batteries. His Gigafactory will double the annual production of Li-Ion Batteries (making the Model 3 sellable at 27k), while potencially reducing other Li-Ion products related, like smartphones, or even other electrics cars. While I get that Tesla isn't the most fruitful company in term of income, it's still a huge R&D pole, and they lend their patents to other companies for free. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On August 10 2015 03:34 Yurie wrote: Isn't it hard to judge when to cut a company and when to keep it afloat as the government? If there is no available work for the people in the company then short term they save money by giving it to the company instead of unemployment benefits for a large portion. Unfortunately public funding can be a matter that is far more political than logical. Though I don't really like their focus on it in the last campaign, the Republicans are correct in saying that the Obama administration has had a pretty terrible track record when it comes to picking out promising companies to subsidize. Musk plays the political game very well, using the "creating good jobs for my constituency" card better than most. On August 10 2015 04:39 Faust852 wrote: Plus Tesla still has to put the model 3 on the market. This car would start at $27k on the US market, making it a really really competitive car and I bet it will do really well once its launched. Tesla is making huge investments too because we don't have the actually capacity to product enough batteries. His Gigafactory will double the annual production of Li-Ion Batteries (making the Model 3 sellable at 27k), while potencially reducing other Li-Ion products related, like smartphones, or even other electrics cars. While I get that Tesla isn't the most fruitful company in term of income, it's still a huge R&D pole, and they lend their patents to other companies for free. Making sales and making profits are two very different things. For the kind of overhead that comes with making cars, you need quite an economy of scale to make things work. And I'm sure most people wouldn't pay even $25k for a car like Tesla. Giving away patents seems like a gamble(that those companies will adapt that technology and buy support services from Tesla) at best, a waste of money at worst. Tesla is massive, but definitely an unproven business model. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
Tesla takes advantage of the subsidies and grants out there, as would any other company. Elon Musk is not a staunch ideological libertarian, he's a pragmatist. It's not unheard of - to say the least - for state governments to subsidies the construction of factories in their state. WhiteDog, nationalizing it would be the surest way to make sure the company never becomes profitable. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On August 10 2015 08:06 mahrgell wrote: How does Tesla concern the topic of this thread? The original discussion was France and the merits of taxes on the wealthy. Naturally, the topic of entrepreneurs/racketeers comes up. On August 10 2015 08:03 warding wrote: The company is valued at $30B. Do shareholders expect the government to shell out $30Bn in grants? No, they expect the value to shine through in the next decades - Tesla is a tech company and is uniquely positioned to become a dominant player in the future automated vehicle market which will transform transportation as we know it. Don't think it's worth that much? Short it. Tesla takes advantage of the subsidies and grants out there, as would any other company. Elon Musk is not a staunch ideological libertarian, he's a pragmatist. It's not unheard of - to say the least - for state governments to subsidies the construction of factories in their state. WhiteDog, nationalizing it would be the surest way to make sure the company never becomes profitable. With all due respect, I really don't think you understand how the US stock market works if you want to say that the company has value simply because it has a high market cap. For an unproven company (one with no stable profits - their income statement will tell that story better than any person ever could), the entire perceived value of the company is in "potential for growth," a quantity that few people can accurately predict. What Tesla DOES have going for it, is the "cool" factor that inflates peoples' opinions of the company, sending stock prices rising even if there is no logical reason for that to happen. A stock's price can double or triple in a matter of weeks, should the conditions call for it - do you really think that if that happens, then the actual worth of that company is double or triple what it used to be? Or perhaps it's just a case of good old fashioned market exuberance. Enron, a company that is now well-acknowledged as a large-scale racket, had a market cap of $60B. Take that as you will. No, they expect the value to shine through in the next decades - Tesla is a tech company and is uniquely positioned to become a dominant player in the future automated vehicle market which will transform transportation as we know it. No, they just want to make money. Preferably, the quick and easy kind. If you want long-term, stable growth you generally go for a mutual fund. Most other investments are a larger gamble. Don't think it's worth that much? Short it. Gee, I would love to be able to predict the future and know if and when stocks will change price. Anyone who can reliably outguess markets stands to make a fortune in the stock exchange. That skill is not easily gained. | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
Apparently US citizens aren't doing more than 80km / day on average so yeah autonomy is no problem, and there is SuperChargers everywhere. So if you add everything, considering how climate change and stuff are more and more told about, and that the Tesla is the only car to reach 5/5 in crashtest (they did 5.4/5 lol), I'm pretty sure it will sells like bread. I like to compare Tesla to Google Fiber. Even if Tesla doesn't work as well as I expect it to do, like Google did with Fiber, the goal is to force big monopolies to change their policies. Google Fiber forced good Telco to drop some line everywhere. If it weren't for Google, I bet you'd still be a 10/1 on big cities. And I have confiance in the guy, he wanted to creat the first car company in the US 90y after the last. And he did it. He wanted to make sky rocket, he is now contracted by the Nasa. Looks like he really knows how to do shit. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
I'd argue point for point but lets get to where your argument gets really weird. Can we agree that stock prices are the investors best guess as to the value of the company? When you say that it's very difficult to predict the stock price, what you're saying is that it's very difficult to predict what the investors' guess is in the future. If it's true that Tesla is a house of cards and massively overvalued, then it'd be expected that the market exhuberance will die down and investors will finally realize Elon Musk is not actually Iron Man but a charlatan. Stock prices will come falling down, as they did with Enron when the accounting scams were uncovered (or were the stocks immediately suspended? either way...). To conclude, either you're much smarter than the investors and they're permanently stupid, in which case you'd stand to make a lot of money on the stock market, or you're just smarter in this specific case in this specific point in time, in which case it's to be expected that the investors will come to their senses and Tesla will devalue. EDIT: So, cLutZ, I'm assuming you don't invest in any biotech, medical, education, energy, automotive, telecom, space, weapons, construction or aerospace companies? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On August 10 2015 08:57 Faust852 wrote: Even if Tesla is not profitable right away, or even ever, I still think Tesla is a must needed in the US market. Musk is kicking the anthill. Things have been too stale for too long, and companies like Ford and profiting too much of the status co. Tesla is a ground breaking innovation : 500 km autonomy, at least half cheaper than gas, always less polluting than every car ever. A lot of the merits of electric cars, at least in terms of environmental benefit, are an illusion. How much pollution comes from the production process for a battery? Where does the energy that powers the battery come from, and does that source pollute? Is there energy loss in transmission when using the charger? And are you comparing your data to older cars, or the newer, more efficient and less polluting models, which have substantially higher MPG and substantially lower overall emissions than old cars? In short: I will believe that there is a viable and economical electric car when I see one. Until then, it's either unproven or a gimmick. The concept has been around for half a century, and I'm not willing to bet that it's been solved just yet, or that it can be solved with a little push. On August 10 2015 08:57 Faust852 wrote:Apparently US citizens aren't doing more than 80km / day on average so yeah autonomy is no problem, and there is SuperChargers everywhere. Try living in a large (area-wise) city in the US. I definitely drive more than 80km/day on a somewhat regular basis. On August 10 2015 08:57 Faust852 wrote:So if you add everything, considering how climate change and stuff are more and more told about, and that the Tesla is the only car to reach 5/5 in crashtest (they did 5.4/5 lol), I'm pretty sure it will sells like bread. You could buy a good, reliable, used luxury car for $10k - or you could buy a Tesla for triple that price. Even if it is marginally better overall, it would be a hard sell to most. On August 10 2015 08:57 Faust852 wrote:I like to compare Tesla to Google Fiber. Even if Tesla doesn't work as well as I expect it to do, like Google did with Fiber, the goal is to force big monopolies to change their policies. Google Fiber forced good Telco to drop some line everywhere. If it weren't for Google, I bet you'd still be a 10/1 on big cities. I would personally compare Google's work more to something like AT&T Bell Labs - a playground for a monopoly that has enough money to be able to pursue ideas that may or may not pan out and prove profitable. Google is pretty much a monopoly when it comes to internet advertising, and so it can afford to pursue ideas that are questionable but impressive if they do manage to work out (and Google, just like Bell Labs, has many expensive failures to its names that it can afford to just write off). On August 10 2015 08:57 Faust852 wrote:And I have confiance in the guy, he wanted to creat the first car company in the US 90y after the last. And he did it. He wanted to make sky rocket, he is now contracted by the Nasa. Looks like he really knows how to do shit. I consider success to be a proven business idea. His ideas seem more like unproven fantasies that have made him very wealthy by abusing the government and the stock market. It will, of course, be interesting to see if his ideas do pan out, and more power to him if they do. But personally, I think it's better to err on the side of caution when it comes to extravagant ideas, especially those that look suspiciously like a racket. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On August 10 2015 09:07 warding wrote: EDIT: So, cLutZ, I'm assuming you don't invest in any biotech, medical, education, energy, automotive, telecom, space, weapons, construction or aerospace companies? I don't really invest in companies at all, but I do hold some in those sectors. This is much different than a short, however, in particular a short on a company like Tesla. In essence, shorting Tesla is too risky for me because its a double bet: First I am betting that its not a great company, which I think is true, but I'm not a sage; Second I also am betting that governments will not continue to support 15%+ of the cost of the cars. And note, that second bet is ridiculous because you are basically betting not only on the US Federal Government, but against any amount of individual US States, European countries, Japan, etc any 3 or so of whom would make the short a break-even prospect. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On August 10 2015 09:07 warding wrote: EDIT: Post directed at Legallord: I'd argue point for point but lets get to where your argument gets really weird. Can we agree that stock prices are the investors best guess as to the value of the company? When you say that it's very difficult to predict the stock price, what you're saying is that it's very difficult to predict what the investors' guess is in the future. If it's true that Tesla is a house of cards and massively overvalued, then it'd be expected that the market exhuberance will die down and investors will finally realize Elon Musk is not actually Iron Man but a charlatan. Stock prices will come falling down, as they did with Enron when the accounting scams were uncovered (or were the stocks immediately suspended? either way...). To conclude, either you're much smarter than the investors and they're permanently stupid, in which case you'd stand to make a lot of money on the stock market, or you're just smarter in this specific case in this specific point in time, in which case it's to be expected that the investors will come to their senses and Tesla will devalue. EDIT: So, cLutZ, I'm assuming you don't invest in any biotech, medical, education, energy, automotive, telecom, space, weapons, construction or aerospace companies? I could go on for a long time about this issue, because it's a tricky one, but I will simply try to explain this one point: stock markets are not logical. They are a function of, more than anything else, crowd psychology. How well do you think you can predict the behavior of a mass of people you don't know, in the face of events you cannot foresee, over a time span that you cannot be sure of? Oh, and do you know who most investors are who choose to invest in a company that does not have a stable and established business model? The get-rich-quick individuals, or funds which answer to a bunch of investors who share that mentality. They tend to think, "this company is doing cool things! They must be a sure win." FWIW, there are no sure wins in business. So in short, the majority of investors ARE permanently stupid, and will in the long run lose a lot of money. A very small fraction tend to have a phenomenal ability to make good decisions on the market (or generally, in a very small subsect of the market that they have studied for many years). Other investors try to go for more stable, less impressive investments (in the 4-10% CAGR range), and they will neither become fabulously wealthy nor lose a lot of money on their investments. Almost all of the "smart" investors fall into the latter category, and most of the people who make substantial money not only make good choices but also have a controlling interest of (and provide substantial capital to) the companies that they invest in. It's tough, and becoming increasingly tougher, to just win the guessing game without putting in an investment that will be enough to influence a company's future. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On August 10 2015 09:37 cLutZ wrote: I don't really invest in companies at all, but I do hold some in those sectors. This is much different than a short, however, in particular a short on a company like Tesla. In essence, shorting Tesla is too risky for me because its a double bet: First I am betting that its not a great company, which I think is true, but I'm not a sage; Second I also am betting that governments will not continue to support 15%+ of the cost of the cars. And note, that second bet is ridiculous because you are basically betting not only on the US Federal Government, but against any amount of individual US States, European countries, Japan, etc any 3 or so of whom would make the short a break-even prospect. This post represents my opinion on shorting as well. I would only short if I foresee an imminent rapid drop in the price of the stock. For example, if the California budget were up for renewal, and I had it on good authority that the state legislature will no longer subsidize electric cars (and that fact was not yet known to the general public), I would probably short Tesla. A lack of faith in the future of the company is really not reason enough to justify a short though. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1080 Posts
On August 10 2015 08:03 warding wrote: Don't think it's worth that much? Short it. Like others, I wish it was that simple. You could have predicted the dotcom bubble and shorted the worst tech stocks out there. However, if you did it in the mid to late 90s rather than the early 00s, you'd probably have had to pull out at a major loss. You could have predicted the housing bubble, but still lost a lot of money shorting some of those derivatives. One of the guys who famously made over a billion shorting the housing bubble nearly got run over by the bubble before it all came tumbling down. One of the best things he did was communicate with his investors and was able to keep them from bailing out as their portfolios were showing huge red numbers. If the bubble had expanded just a little bit more, he'd have lost many millions, but just barely held on and then cashed in big time when he was proved right. Same could go for the oil bubble. A whole lot of people knew that the fundamentals of oil were way off their price and that it shouldn't be anywhere over $100. If they shorted at $100, they were probably out of the trade sometime before it hit $150/barrel for a massive loss. The stock market is by no means rational. Bubbles form and pop on large and small scales. People pile into trades that are already well over any reasonable estimate of the company's value. As long as they aren't the ones caught holding the bag at the end, they still make money by buying overheated stocks and selling them to the next sucker. Shorting something is as much about understanding timing as fundamentals. If you get your timing wrong, you can be absolutely right and still lose big. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On August 10 2015 12:56 RenSC2 wrote: Like others, I wish it was that simple. You could have predicted the dotcom bubble and shorted the worst tech stocks out there. However, if you did it in the mid to late 90s rather than the early 00s, you'd probably have had to pull out at a major loss. You could have predicted the housing bubble, but still lost a lot of money shorting some of those derivatives. One of the guys who famously made over a billion shorting the housing bubble nearly got run over by the bubble before it all came tumbling down. One of the best things he did was communicate with his investors and was able to keep them from bailing out as their portfolios were showing huge red numbers. If the bubble had expanded just a little bit more, he'd have lost many millions, but just barely held on and then cashed in big time when he was proved right. Same could go for the oil bubble. A whole lot of people knew that the fundamentals of oil were way off their price and that it shouldn't be anywhere over $100. If they shorted at $100, they were probably out of the trade sometime before it hit $150/barrel for a massive loss. The stock market is by no means rational. Bubbles form and pop on large and small scales. People pile into trades that are already well over any reasonable estimate of the company's value. As long as they aren't the ones caught holding the bag at the end, they still make money by buying overheated stocks and selling them to the next sucker. Shorting something is as much about understanding timing as fundamentals. If you get your timing wrong, you can be absolutely right and still lose big. Best summarized: "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." - Keynes For Tesla, you can replace "Markets" with "Markets OR Governments" | ||
| ||
