jacob29

More epic than storming Capitol Hill?

Is Russia withdrawing back to its border a Russian loss? That's what Ukraine wants - and what they want carries the most weight, not third party countries. Russia threatens nuclear armageddon if they face risk of losing territorial sovereignty, so why should Ukraine have to suffer it? If Ukraine wants to negotiate, that's fine. Most countries are not ok with ceding sovereign territory, this should be unsurprising.

I clarified the context explicitly, stating I was talking about the mainland. Don't blame your reading comprehension issues on me. It's not some manufacturers not reaching profitability, it's nearly all of them, and even the profitable ones are on razor slim margins. So don't ask me for evidence they're running at a loss - since you knew they all would be already. What are you even arguing at this point? You come to a different conclusion from the same data, but why this song and dance to arrive at that conclusion?

Some losses sure (until scale achieved), but these are pretty mature companies in some cases, and I'm not sure how else we can evaluate a fair market price for vehicles. BYD at a scale that matches the giants - is turning a profit of around $1000-$2000 per vehicle which is peanuts. So even the well established company with sales out the wazoo is on razor thin margins. Combine that with BEV steeply undercutting ICE cars on price, and the picture that emerges is not one of sustainable market prices.

Which part of my comment related to Thailand? What I stated, and what you responded to asking for evidence, was The vast majority of manufacturers are selling at a loss on the mainland That wasn't your point, your point was that prices in China were fair/reasonable. When close to the entire industry is selling at a loss, thats clearly not sustainable. They could give them away for free and you wouldn't call it dumping, so let's ignore that term entirely since it's a red herring. Even if it was 'perfectly normal', that doesn't imply that it's a fair market price. It can (and often does) mean below market (not normal) rate in order to capture market share. The company may well not be able to sustain those losses in multiple markets, especially as tariff risks increase if they're too aggressive slashing prices. Even China friendly nations like Brazil are introducing EV tariffs.

It's not a huge difference compared to 100%, which is the reason I converted to percent (incorrectly) in the first place. 700% vs 100%, compared to 900% vs 100%. The point remains, that there is nothing unusual about a dramatic increase in the number of claims, considering the explosive growth in sales. Baseline number is practically irrelevant, since it applies in equal measure to the number of insurance claims made (e.g. also makes your 100% increase in claim 'look impressive')

https://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/3275699/chinese-ev-makers-losses-mount-rising-sales-fail-offset-steep-discounts

The vast majority of manufacturers are selling at a loss on the mainland, if it's not dumping it's still unsustainable.

What practical difference does it make whether it's 700% or 900%? It's a number massively higher than 100%, which is the point being made. It's my poor math converting 8x to 900% when it should have been 700%. If there are lots of links showing 100% increases in premiums, maybe you should post those instead of an article that talks about the volume of claims.

https://www.environmentenergyleader.com/stories/thailand-advances-in-the-race-for-electric-vehicle-dominance,48299 In 2023, EV sales in Thailand surged nearly eight-fold to 76,000 units, representing 12% of all vehicles sold Sample size one.. are you being serious?

Your article says 100% increase in claims, not costs. EV sales increased by 900%, so they likely had more than 100% increase in policies as well.

Malaysia has explicitly listed credit card payments as coming under the umbrella for FSI (foreign source income). That doesn't mean Thailand will adopt the same ruling, but odds are they will. With fringe benefits there may not even be a transfer at all - if you're staying rent free at company owned premises, there are going to be tax implications. Which highlights that the precise method of payment is not the main consideration.

Wonderful. I guess Belarus is fair game for an invasion by Europe if they decide it's necessary for territorial integrity? Seems to me buffer states should still have the ultimate say in what they decide to do, not be dictated to by their larger neighbours, on threat of invasion.

Is your problem with sexpats or the behaviour stereotypes associated with them? Justin Bieber is a 'sex tourist'. He also doesn't want for affection from the opposite sex. Presumably you have no problem with Justin, since he can get a woman any time he likes? Or is it rather the case that you struggle to articulate exactly what your problem is, so resort to generic (often incorrect) stereotypes?

Absolutely blame the previous owner. It may be perfectly legal, there may be no recourse, but it's still poor behaviour. Pretty well guaranteed they knew they were stiffing the new owner. I can't see why the previous owner would (should) receive the compensation under the circumstances, seems like that aspect may be challenged in court - but doubt the sum involved would make it worthwhile.