Wait, what?
Look. I understand that every time EVs come up, it always comes down to an argument of virtues of Tesla. I have nothing against Tesla or EVs. For people that benefit from them, they are great. I realized just recently that I cannot be that person in my current situation. However, there are simple facts in play. Tesla is making less money now. Others are losing money. EV sales are — at best — slowing down. Maybe not the whole world, but definitely in US. And I’m sure that this is because there a lot more people like me than like you. And these people did the math.
You are right. I forgot voltage difference
Sales are not slowing, they continue to increase. It is the growth in the rate of sales that is slowing which shouldn't surprise anyone. As the industry grows, the rate of growth will moderate.
That was likely from existing inventory, which is limited compared to traditional dealers. Tesla Stores, unlike other brand's dealerships, don't stock large quantities of unsold cars. The existing inventory generally comes from cancelled orders or when the buyer was unable to complete the transaction. You can search that inventory on the website and have a car shipped to your closest delivery location.
Very true. I've yet to meet a Tesla owner who bought it for economic or environmental reasons. Everyone buys it because of how much fun it is to drive.
Exactly the case with our 2022 Model 3. Fastest car we‘ve ever owned, with exemplary handling. Basic Autopilot which is a boon on long road trips. We often go for drives and even trips just for the joy of it.
You're right. We all don't get it. We all definitely doing it wrong and should be like you. I apologize.
www.macrotrends.net
My favorite woman has a 2017 Pacifica. Normal IC version. Has more electrical issues than Apollo 1. The hood is rusting through. Transmission is glitchy.I've come close to the pacifica PHEV once or twice. I'm still in a Chrysler "never again" holding pattern. Hoping yours lasts long.
Revenue (Sales) <> Gross Profit.You're right. We all don't get it. We all definitely doing it wrong and should be like you. I apologize.
Tesla Gross Profit 2010-2024 | TSLA
Tesla annual/quarterly gross profit history and growth rate from 2010 to 2024. Gross profit can be defined as the profit a company makes after deducting the variable costs directly associated with making and selling its products or providing its services. <ul...
- Tesla gross profit for the quarter ending December 31, 2023 was $4.438B, a 23.18% decline year-over-year.
- Tesla gross profit for the twelve months ending December 31, 2023 was $17.660B, a 15.31% decline year-over-year.
- Tesla annual gross profit for 2023 was $17.66B, a 15.31% decline from 2022.
- Tesla annual gross profit for 2022 was $20.853B, a 53.26% increase from 2021.
- Tesla annual gross profit for 2021 was $13.606B, a 105.22% increase from 2020.
www.macrotrends.net
You are correct. But also not giving complete data. Tesla 2023 revenue is up 19% over 2022. But its Q4 2023 is up only 3.5% over Q4 2022. This says to me that Q4 was a lot worse than rest of the year. These numbers were below expectations btwRevenue (Sales) <> Gross Profit.
GP is down because Tesla stopped taking price to put the hurt on competitors, and to keep sales $$ up as other maufacturers come online.
2023 revenue was still up nearly 19% year over year.
Revenue Growth Rate is slowing, which is not unexpected.
Tesla Revenue 2010-2024 | TSLA
Tesla annual/quarterly revenue history and growth rate from 2010 to 2024. Revenue can be defined as the amount of money a company receives from its customers in exchange for the sales of goods or services. Revenue is the top line item on an income statement from which all costs and expenses are...
- Tesla revenue for the quarter ending December 31, 2023 was $25.167B, a 3.49% increase year-over-year.
- Tesla revenue for the twelve months ending December 31, 2023 was $96.773B, a 18.8% increase year-over-year.
- Tesla annual revenue for 2023 was $96.773B, a 18.8% increase from 2022.
- Tesla annual revenue for 2022 was $81.462B, a 51.35% increase from 2021.
- Tesla annual revenue for 2021 was $53.823B, a 70.67% increase from 2020.
I have repeatedly and specifically said just the opposite and have said so to you in particular.
As a once and never will again Chrysler owner, I wish you well, and I hope you have a better experience.
I agree. But, fact is the govt thinks we have a CO2 problem so the most eco friendly path forward is to subsidize EVs. I don’t agree with that because an all EV fleet will barely make a dent in helping the planet.
An EV would work well in our 2-car household. The commute that my wife and I do each day is roughly 40 miles/day each. I may run home or do odd errands, take kids to sports practices, but rarely do I drive over 100 miles in a day during the week. Pretty much every EV out there would suit that purpose. I'd hate it for long trips, but in a 2-car household where one vehicle remains ICE, it'd be an easy swap. In our case, I'd keep the diesel Excursion as a tow vehicle/heavy hauler/long trip option and trade out the wife's V-series Caddy CTS for the EV. We have an attached garage I had built a few years back, and I had a 220 welder outlet put in at that time, so it's already set up for L2 charging. However, the numbers just don't make sense financially for it at the moment and driving an EV isn't high on our lifetime priority lists, lol.
Oh I don’t disagree with any of this. I’m just saying the govt is pushing EVs as a panacea. Hence the subsidies.I disagree that subsidizing EVs is the most eco friendly path.
Taking greenhouse gasses as an a priori problem statement, the real issue is not that we burn hydrocarbons for transportation fuel. The issue is that the hydrocarbons we are burning come from fossil fuels, which releases carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years.
If the fuel we use comes from existing atmospheric CO2 or other non-fossil-fuel carbon sources, it does not have the effect of increasing atmospheric carbon.
Option 1) Bio-diesel. This fuel comes from plants, which collect their carbon from atmospheric CO2. Thus, all of the CO and CO2 that bio-diesel releases came from the atmosphere when the plants grew - it's a net zero impact process.
Option 2) Synthetic gasoline. As with bio-diesel, synthetic gasoline uses plant sources (green ethanol) combined with atmospheric gasses to create a net-zero fuel. It's a proven process that will work with the entire existing automotive fleet, and requires no modifications to cars that currently use street gas as fuel. Production is just now starting up for commercial quantities, and Formula One has mandated the use of this fuel starting in 2026. Work is underway to prove it our for airplanes, too.
ExxonMobil and Porsche test lower-carbon fuel in race conditions
IRVING, Texas/ STUTTGART, Germany – ExxonMobil and Porsche are testing advanced biofuels and renewable, lower-carbon eFuels, as part of a new agreement to find pathways toward potential future consumer adoption.corporate.exxonmobil.com
Want to know how to live #LikeABosch?
Moving stories and inspiring interviews. Experience the meaning of "invented for life" by Bosch completely new. Visit our international website.www.bosch.com
Is synthetic petroleum the missing link in the route to net zero?
Weaning our economy off liquid fuels could be impossible, so can we make them without the carbon emissions? Rachel Brazil surveys the scenewww.chemistryworld.com
Formula 1 on course to deliver 100% sustainable fuels for 2026 | Formula 1®
By 2030, it is anticipated there will be close to two billion cars on the road, with only 8% of those pure Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVS). That means other solutions are needed to slash carbon emissions.www.formula1.com
Both of these are better options for long-distance transportation than EVs. EVs are still a good fit for urban commuting, but they're only part of the solution set.
You too?I'm just here for the lady doth protest too much copium. Oh and everybody knows if you're a vegan Tesla driving pilot, you can't work at Southwest, or you are in the closet about it. In fairness, neither could I, seeing as I drive a base trim Hyundai ICE, which apparently is the marquee of a liberal-#ss soiboi
Markets are terrible at correcting things that are external costs. The pollution pumped into the air, ground and streams is free to the companies producing products, so they can make products more cheaply than companies making less pollution. But that pollution does still exist and does still matter, so the EPA was created to make rules that markets didn't make. And tax codes are created to level the playing field between polluting and less polluting options. Markets are fine for many things, but putting a dent in pollution isn't one of them. Another example is patent law. Markets don't protect the investment made to create a new technology. As soon as the hard work is done, someone else can copy it and sell it less expensively because they didn't have to spend millions or billions developing the patented technology. So patents were create to protect and encourage those investments since markets don't. Same with copyright.
I was really sad that this note didn't end with a suggestion that we start building wood burning cars.
Exactly. The government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. That's what the market is for. The government almost always gets it wrong.
Again, I didn't say that there should be no gov't regulation. I said that I don't like gov't subsidizing things, especially when they typically often put in policies that have unintended consequences. They'll be all-in on EVs until we have some new environmental discovery that mining for battery materials, or battery disposal efforts are poisoning ground water, or they can't recycle them as effectively as they were led to believe. Then we have power distribution/capacity issues that weren't dealt with timely, then they start objecting to the pollution from all the power plants being concentrated in those areas (typically poorer/disadvantaged areas), which raises more societal issues. Nothing is without consequences. The gov't bureaucracy is often not the best mechanism for dabbling in free market technologies. No one mentioned patents and copywrite law, so I'm not sure why that's germane to the discussion.
Apartment dwellers might ask you how that home mortgage interest deduction worked out for you.
No it’s not. Elon has stated that he’s not going to stop until all vehicles on the road are EVs.
That's another thing that shouldn't exist, despite me personally having benefited from it (at least until the standard deduction was increased a few years back).
I thought it was obvious. Without copyright, people would be free to copy works thus eliminating (or at least greatly reducing) the possibility of getting new works produced because who in their right mind would invest a million bucks in a movie (or half a billion, as some of the newest blockbusters cost) if they can't recoup that investment. Indeed, this is exactly what happened when the printing press was invented in the 1400's with authors being paid essentially a delivery fee and no residuals, because everything was immediately copied using the new technology.
You said you prefer market approaches over government ones. Just pointing out that the government involvement in solving problems where markets fail isn't limited to just subsidies and I find it weird that people get offended by that notion of putting a thumb on the scale but are fine with others. The FDA, as yet another example, only exists because markets don't work so the government had to step in because markets were insufficient to assure drug safety. Modern society doesn't function without governments doing things that markets are incapable of doing themselves.
Mortage interest on apartment building loan aren’t tax deductible?
"Generally, home mortgage interest is any interest you pay on a loan secured by your home (main home or a second home). The loan may be a mortgage to buy your home, or a second mortgage." IRS
That doesn’t remote imply he sees it as a panacea. If one understands what panacea means.
Well if it doesn’t solve climate change then why push for an all EV transportation? Just because it might help? Give me break. Just let the public decide what they want to drive.
You keep talking about copying works and patent law. That's an entirely different discussion that has nothing to do with gov't picking winners and losers with policy decisions and subsidies. I'm not arguing against patent law/etc. It's a non sequitur.
