please god tell me you’re a 20yo philosophy major in uni
The quote you refer to in your post has no name attached, which means I have already Ignored.
And that is recognised as ethically abhorrent.
So you’re here just to impress people … got it.
so you don’t know, but reassert that your statement is both true and accurate. Got it.
not the point. For simplicity I over-broadly used the terms “good will” and “loss leader” to make what I thought would be an obvious point: Ford “losing money” wrt MSRP vs production cost per unit is probably not counting all the buckets of value Ford attributes to bringing the lightning to market.
you then go on to list a few (not all!) of the other values Ford attributes to the Lightning.
so we agree.
no, chief - it’s because the “claim that the Cybertruck will be far superior to the Lightning” seemed like such a bizarre non-sequitur, as if you have Tesla-Tourette’s
@greggertruck : “resale premiums on Lightning’s have come way down”
@cvalue13 : “agreed, I mean I like my truck for $69K after incentives and at 3%, but raising to $89K with no incentives and >5% interest has really freed up inventory”
butting in, @‘ing me @HaulingAss : “the Cybertruck will be far superior to the Lightning”
so does that mean that on any given thread regardless of the content of the then-current discussion, you plan to just @ people with non-sequiter Tesla-Tourette’s?….
… I’ll take that as a ‘yes’
but since you insist on measuring truck lengths:
you’ve got me all wrong. I can love my lightning, and the idea of my forthcoming CT, simultaneously. I do currently like my lightning more than my CT, though, because the Lightning exists.
I just have no instinct for this brand of idolization you ooze; you talk about trucks with the valence that idealistic French teens talk about competing political ideologies.
Sometimes I wonder if what I’m missing - why it is I don’t care to schoolyard truck-measure with such fervor - is a fat, over-extended stake in TSLA?
Watching you non-sequitur style sh*t on Ford and force accolades on Tesla gives off the same sort of vibes as when you’re at a sports bar having a good time then one guy in the bar gets wildly emotional over the game… takes a moment before you realize that poor guy’s just got (too much) money on the game.
Making their vehicles cheaper for customers whilst maintaining the same profit margins because all of the money available to the transaction is being given to Tesla, not parasites.
Or you just unfortunately fell for a trolls inflammatory, insincere, digressive and most definitely extraneous off-topic shitpost.
What is the benefit of preventing bidding?
I’m sorry I upset you?so you don’t know, but reassert that your statement is both true and accurate. Got it.
not the point. For simplicity I over-broadly used the terms “good will” and “loss leader” to make what I thought would be an obvious point: Ford “losing money” wrt MSRP vs production cost per unit is probably not counting all the buckets of value Ford attributes to bringing the lightning to market.
you then go on to list a few (not all!) of the other values Ford attributes to the Lightning.
so we agree.
no, chief - it’s because the “claim that the Cybertruck will be far superior to the Lightning” seemed like such a bizarre non-sequitur, as if you have Tesla-Tourette’s
@greggertruck : “resale premiums on Lightning’s have come way down”
@cvalue13 : “agreed, I mean I like my truck for $69K after incentives and at 3%, but raising to $89K with no incentives and >5% interest has really freed up inventory”
butting in, @‘ing me @HaulingAss : “the Cybertruck will be far superior to the Lightning”
so does that mean that on any given thread regardless of the content of the then-current discussion, you plan to just @ people with non-sequiter Tesla-Tourette’s?….
… I’ll take that as a ‘yes’
but since you insist on measuring truck lengths:
you’ve got me all wrong. I can love my lightning, and the idea of my forthcoming CT, simultaneously. I do currently like my lightning more than my CT, though, because the Lightning exists.
I just have no instinct for this brand of idolization you ooze; you talk about trucks with the valence that idealistic French teens talk about competing political ideologies.
Sometimes I wonder if what I’m missing - why it is I don’t care to schoolyard truck-measure with such fervor - is a fat, over-extended stake in TSLA?
Watching you non-sequitur style sh*t on Ford and force accolades on Tesla gives off the same sort of vibes as when you’re at a sports bar having a good time then one guy in the bar gets wildly emotional over the game… takes a moment before you realize that poor guy’s just got (too much) money on the game.
Just to clarify, my banter not directed at anyone I know of, I was postulating.The quote you refer to in your post has no name attached, which means I have already Ignored.
Life is beautiful when you have an ignore button.
No need to defend anything. Just fark them off. They can be innocent victims somewhere else.
It is a Cybertruck forum.
No he’s just a shitposter trying to derail civil discourse.
Do you have any information on how Tesla prices compensate for scalpers?
It super hard to interact with essays JBee, can you boil it down to one or maybe two salient points?Do you have any information on how Tesla prices compensate for scalpers?
My position is that I don't think they do, simply because they don't have to, because the effect is temporary and intermittent. Most buyers want to keep their CT.
There are a couple of points I can agree to on your OP and arguments, and even your proposed solution to reduce the impact. But I still can't see there being a significant enough impact for Tesla to warrant having a strategy to counter them. So although you could successfully argue to implement your solutions, I question if it is worth the effort to do so at all, for you or Tesla. If the aim was to fight for the moral high ground, then I can imagine a few hundred other life changing things that I would fight for first.
One aspect I like to consider is EM's perspective that money is a "resource allocator". The price therefore is a method to allocate resources to customers that can afford them, be that food, art or a CT, or a Gigafactory for the $25k Tesla. But given that all fiat currency is a product of fractional lending and government spending, it is incapable of it's own devices to represent a fair trade of anything, and likewise will always result in unfair resource allocation, simply because you don't have to be morally correct to have currency or control over it. In fact often the rich are so, because they aren't forced to be morally correct.
The way I see Teslas cash reserves is a enabler to allocate resources to promote sustainable change. If that statement is true then one could argue about how to best use those allocation tokens to promote change, in a resource constrained market. The problem with siting on cash is that if you fund the next wave of giga factories, beyond a sustainable growth rate, you actually force suppliers to increase their prices to meet the demand that you yourself are creating. Now factor in how other competitors in the market affect demand, and hey presto you are reducing the effectiveness of your cash reserves by simply stimulating demand. Which btw would be far in excess of what scalpers could skim off the top of a few CT sales. Why do you think EM is bent on vertical integration, to the point that they want to mine resources from virgin ground? That is because the variability of global markets dictate costs, and costs margins, and all together across all resources, the financial affordability of end users.
There are few people, even with enough money, that buy their vehicles in cash. If most are financed though the fractional lending system, then you just end up with further dilution of the physical value pool, and more pressure on low incomes that are not credit worthy because they are already struggling and living is subsistent. On top of that, in the end a CT that is owned but is not used has essentially zero ROI, whereas one that is used consistently is highly "profitable", to the point that the cost per use for transportation, which is actually the only real demand, is fractional in comparison to other vehicles.
The reasoning is simple in that there is limited value for things that you don't often use, and therefore owning anything you barely use adds little to no value to your life. If it sits on your shelf, or the shelf in the shop, is not different until the point you need to use it exclusively. The whole aspect of individual ownership, both morally and rationally, is simply poor global resource stewardship. This is the why the nature of robotaxi is so fundamentally different, in that it democratizes transportation by not only freeing it of the global markets of fake resource allocation tokens, but also that it increases ROI to the point that nearly everyone can afford to use it. This will be the beginning of the era of abundance, and excess, which will demolish the antiquity of supply and demand progress limitations, and the false morality of fake currency controlled systems.
