Tesla Truck less than $50k

[Ole Cowboy]

In no world is there not a premium to buy a high-profile public company whose largest shareholder does not want to sell. Period.

Evev if you take an acquisistion premium out of the picture, what automaker has $40B in cash & equivalents to do this deal?

You are spinning, you are writing the rules in order to justify your argument, READ what I wrote, NOT what you wanted me to have written. I made a general statement which you countered with a specific.

A buyout of Telsa would be by a major company, NOT a requirement to be an auto mfg. Apple, could step up to the plate and do it with walking around money in a stock + cash which is about $245 BILLION just in CASH, total stock capitalization is almost a $TRILLION.

Most buyouts of large companies come from a combination of cash and stock. You don't have to show up at the front door with a bag of cash only. When I was bought out I sold for all cash, I had a small company and wanted nothing other than cash, nor was I looking to merge, I was leaving the business sector completely.

My buddy, on the other hand, sold his company for stock and cash. He stayed on as President of US Operations, he got mostly stock in the buy out at $10 per share but the stock was currently trading at $9.xx per share and they expected to see a major bump in the stock when it was announced. BUT as the ball sometimes bounces the stock never got to $10 per share and my buddy who had taken the reins of his dads oil company after college did not fare well in running the US Opns and both companies went down the tubes. To make it worse the family oil company did not get enough $Millions, in fact, they did not even get a $Million they all bet on the rise in stock price and his ability to turn the US opns in big profits. None of which happened.

My buddy is today a bitter old lawyer.

Sponsored

 

[bgenlvtex]

I majored in Economics, Finance and Real Estate, I too disagree, and i'm not even a robot.

LOL, you disagree that replacing an inexpensive and prolific naturally occurring fuel with a fuel source that relies entirely on the sourcing of rare earth minerals which are not found in anything even remotely approaching abundant supply in North America, will create shortages in supply and as a result by necessity drive up prices?

I think both of you flunked your econ courses.

 

[beelzebot]

LOL, you disagree that replacing an inexpensive and prolific naturally occurring fuel with a fuel source that relies entirely on the sourcing of rare earth minerals which are not found in anything even remotely approaching abundant supply in North America, will create shortages in supply and as a result by necessity drive up prices?

I think both of you flunked your econ courses.

We don't have to insult each other, friend. Oil is cheaper. You're right. No one said it isn't. I will point out that one reason it is cheaper is the $5.2 trillion in worldwide subsidies (2017 figure from the IMF). Like I said, the tech isn't there yet to just replace gasoline vehicles entirely. If I thought it was, I wouldn't be on this forum. The point is that it could be much better if we invest the time and effort to develop it. Maybe we'll find a way to eliminate the need for rare earth minerals. Who can say? You and I both know there's no guarantee that it'll advance to the point that I hope it will. There's also no guarantee that an asteroid doesn't murder us all in a decade. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do better. If OEMs weren't trying to do better, we'd all still be driving 45 mph CJs.

 

[SleepyJeep]

Here is my take on it. I agree to an extent with both @bgenlvtex and @beelzebot, maybe a bit more with @bgenlvtex and I feel like @beelzebot's heart is in the right place .

The fact brought up by the rare earth minerals mining in Africa and China where there is no EPA restrictions is actually spot on and if you watch some documentaries on how Lithium, Cobalt, etc are mined in Congo and how the Chinese and the rest of the Corps are taking advantage of the local people even with child labor - I guarantee you that it will affect your thought process. I also don't think carbon footprint is horseshit - it is just a barometer or a metric that lets you gauge your consumption and your position in the universe. Remember, back in the day the indigenous people used to live harmoniously with the planet by only hunting/consuming what is necessary and maintained the balance even with agriculture and crops by ensuring that they don't ruin the balance in nature. It is along the lines of how they limit how much caribou and elk that you can hunt now...

I also think that just because someone lives in oil rich states they blindly support oil consumption and are totally opposed to AE and EV is just plain absurd generalizations and wrong. Before we start flashing our degrees out to claim support for an argument, all you need is an internet connection (used to be a library card ) and desire to learn and you can do it. I feel like the moment you flash degrees, it is like yelling in an argument - you have already lost the debate. LOL

Having said that, we do have to research and invest in alternate energy and we are doing it. Even the auto industry has been doing it but I think Elon helped expedite that process a bit kinda like when Nokia already had a touch screen phone in their labs for 3 years but their business review committee didn't want to disrupt their multi-billion cash flow and said no one would like it and Steve Jobs ran away with it for Apple and Nokia has been struggling ever since. I also agree with @bgenlvtex that every AE solution so far like solar, electric etc even with a lot of Govt. subsidies have not achieved the desirable net result in the carbon footprint as well as financial net profits to be viable yet. I just see a parallel of how we export our waste including nuclear to a lot of third world countries and how we ruin the environment in another part of the world while we might have clean neighborhoods here, but is not a viable solution because we are still affecting the planet.

 

[beelzebot]

Here is my take on it. I agree to an extent with both @bgenlvtex and @beelzebot, maybe a bit more with @bgenlvtex and I feel like @beelzebot's heart is in the right place .

The fact brought up by the rare earth minerals mining in Africa and China where there is no EPA restrictions is actually spot on and if you watch some documentaries on how Lithium, Cobalt, etc are mined in Congo and how the Chinese and the rest of the Corps are taking advantage of the local people even with child labor - I guarantee you that it will affect your thought process. I also don't think carbon footprint is horseshit - it is just a barometer or a metric that lets you gauge your consumption and your position in the universe. Remember, back in the day the indigenous people used to live harmoniously with the planet by only hunting/consuming what is necessary and maintained the balance even with agriculture and crops by ensuring that they don't ruin the balance in nature. It is along the lines of how they limit how much caribou and elk that you can hunt now...

I also think that just because someone lives in oil rich states they blindly support oil consumption and are totally opposed to AE and EV is just plain absurd generalizations and wrong. Before we start flashing our degrees out to claim support for an argument, all you need is an internet connection (used to be a library card ) and desire to learn and you can do it. I feel like the moment you flash degrees, it is like yelling in an argument - you have already lost the debate. LOL

Having said that, we do have to research and invest in alternate energy and we are doing it. Even the auto industry has been doing it but I think Elon helped expedite that process a bit kinda like when Nokia already had a touch screen phone in their labs for 3 years but their business review committee didn't want to disrupt their multi-billion cash flow and said no one would like it and Steve Jobs ran away with it for Apple and Nokia has been struggling ever since. I also agree with @bgenlvtex that every AE solution so far like solar, electric etc even with a lot of Govt. subsidies have not achieved the desirable net result in the carbon footprint as well as financial net profits to be viable yet. I just see a parallel of how we export our waste including nuclear to a lot of third world countries and how we ruin the environment in another part of the world while we might have clean neighborhoods here, but is not a viable solution because we are still affecting the planet.

I only shared my credentials because he started talking down to people. I agree with you and it felt gross.

 

[bgenlvtex]

We don't have to insult each other, friend. Oil is cheaper. You're right. No one said it isn't. I will point out that one reason it is cheaper is the $5.2 trillion in worldwide subsidies (2017 figure from the IMF). Like I said, the tech isn't there yet to just replace gasoline vehicles entirely. If I thought it was, I wouldn't be on this forum. The point is that it could be much better if we invest the time and effort to develop it. Maybe we'll find a way to eliminate the need for rare earth minerals. Who can say? You and I both know there's no guarantee that it'll advance to the point that I hope it will. There's also no guarantee that an asteroid doesn't murder us all in a decade. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do better. If OEMs weren't trying to do better, we'd all still be driving 45 mph CJs.

Sorry, I don't mean to insult.
I get it, I'm not opposed to alternative energy sources, not one whit regardless where I live and despite outward appearance.

The US taxpayer has subsidized AE in the billions as well, what $4.9billion or so just to Tesla?

None of the AE is viable without taxpayer subsidy, and those subsidies are highly politicized, which is where my rub comes in.

I am a free market capitalist to the very core, I oppose government waste and corruption vehemently. As a matter of consequence I expect and require that the free market determine what AE's are viable, not forcing the issue with taxpayer subsidy.

Go to west Texas where there are many non functional wind generators abandoned in place to rot when the taxpayer subsidy dried up.

We flare off trillions of cubic feet of natural gas every year, and have for decades. The advent of LNG process means that can be turned into practical, clean energy far more economically than any form of AE.

We can both hope technology advances to cleaner more economical forms of energy, but what I don't want to see is federal meddling in the free market which guarantees that "economical" vanishes with adoption. But "hope" is not a fiscal or developmental strategy, it's an emotion.

ETA: in case I did not make it clear, I am opposed to all taxpayer subsidies, off all kinds, at all levels, whether that is oil, solar, section 8 housing or Obongocare.

 

[beelzebot]

Sorry, I don't mean to insult.
I get it, I'm not opposed to alternative energy sources, not one whit regardless where I live and despite outward appearance.

The US taxpayer has subsidized AE in the billions as well, what $4.9billion or so just to Tesla?

None of the AE is viable without taxpayer subsidy, and those subsidies are highly politicized, which is where my rub comes in.

I am a free market capitalist to the very core, I oppose government waste and corruption vehemently. As a matter of consequence I expect and require that the free market determine what AE's are viable, not forcing the issue with taxpayer subsidy.

Go to west Texas where there are many non functional wind generators abandoned in place to rot when the taxpayer subsidy dried up.

We flare off trillions of cubic feet of natural gas every year, and have for decades. The advent of LNG process means that can be turned into practical, clean energy far more economically than any form of AE.

We can both hope technology advances to cleaner more economical forms of energy, but what I don't want to see is federal meddling in the free market which guarantees that "economical" vanishes with adoption. But "hope" is not a fiscal or developmental strategy, it's an emotion.

I think we agree a lot more than we thought at first. Sounds like you've got a good understanding of it and I'm glad we could discuss!

 

[bgenlvtex]

I think we agree a lot more than we thought at first. Sounds like you've got a good understanding of it and I'm glad we could discuss!

It is very easy to take things wrong in this type of format. Without vocal intonation, facial expression and some degree of knowledge of the person you are dealing with it is very easy to misread things.

I appreciate your thoughts and candor, and apologize for being short.

Send me the steel winch capable bumper off of your Gladiator and I'll pretend this never happened.

 

[rubi14]

I feel like I'm on a geek Volvo forum

 

[bgenlvtex]

I feel like I'm on a geek Volvo forum

There are no skinny jeans, man bun or low T subs here, no way you're on a Vulva forum

 

[beelzebot]

It is very easy to take things wrong in this type of format. Without vocal intonation, facial expression and some degree of knowledge of the person you are dealing with it is very easy to misread things.

I appreciate your thoughts and candor, and apologize for being short.

Send me the steel winch capable bumper off of your Gladiator and I'll pretend this never happened.

Ha ha if only I had one! Not on my order. I kept the aluminum one I took off my JK to see if I could fit it but if not I'll be looking to replace the plastic one with something else.

And I'm sorry for my nonsense too. You're right. It's too easy to get carried away.

 

[steffen707]

Pros and cons to everything, no free ride.

 

[Aljeeper]

All electric seems like a bad way to go for the next decade or two. Your freedom is severely restricted by charging accessibility and time to charge. Hybrids at least offer some versatility. For a "pickup truck" versatility is the name of the game. Guarantee you don't make it very far hauling or pulling heavy loads in an all electric. Maybe people will just offset by putting a gas generator in the bed just in case.

 

[steffen707]

All electric seems like a bad way to go for the next decade or two. Your freedom is severely restricted by charging accessibility and time to charge. Hybrids at least offer some versatility. For a "pickup truck" versatility is the name of the game. Guarantee you don't make it very far hauling or pulling heavy loads in an all electric. Maybe people will just offset by putting a gas generator in the bed just in case.

hybrid, ease into it, then go full electric when they have supercharing stations all over and longer range.

 

[LittleRocker]

Before I bought a Tesla, I leased an electric BMW i3 with 100 miles of range to see how I would cope. In fact, what I discovered was that 95% of the time, the range of the BMW was more than I needed on any day of the week - all for about $1 per day in electricity. It was that occasional out of town trip that would stretch its limit. Once I realized that, the switch to electric as a daily driver was a no brainer. The Tesla's range is 300+ miles between charges. It cost about $10-$12 to fully charge a depleted battery at a Supercharger. Roundtrip 600 mile trip costs me less than dinner out with my significant other.

Sponsored