Tesla secures $1.29 billion loan from Chinese banks for Shanghai factory

[Cryingdick]

20 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

Yes, the Dow Jones Index has risen, but even Trump's self serving policies wouldn't have had such a dramatic effect if not built on the previous period of optimism and growth.  Looking back to 1980, it's quite apparent which presidents oversaw the biggest periods of sustained growth.  And, if you believe that the strength of the DJI equates to the strength of the US - as Trump supporters keep telling us is the case, it certainly reveals the lie that Democrat presidents are bad for the US.  So, which is it guys?  Either eat the cake or lock it up in the cupboard, you can't have it both ways.

 

 

 

I am now up around 80% of my liquid net worth since I invested 2 years ago. I don't count my house. I have gained maybe 20% since the impeachment inquiries. Nobody in their right mind uses the Dow. It shows amateur instincts. I was at or around 18% last time I posted  but since the impeachment efforts it doubled.

 

The blue line is the NASDAQ which outperformed the SPY and the two main stocks in this portfolio are Apple and Microsoft which are both dow stocks.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

I am now up around 80% of my liquid net worth since I invested 2 years ago. I don't count my house. I have gained maybe 20% since the impeachment inquiries. Nobody in their right mind uses the Dow. It shows amateur instincts. I was at or around 18% last time I posted  but since the impeachment efforts it doubled.

 

The blue line is the NASDAQ which outperformed the SPY and the two main stocks in this portfolio are Apple and Microsoft which are both dow stocks.

 

"Nobody in their right mind uses the Dow."

Strange then that people on here are using the Dow as proof Trump is doing well.

[mogandave]

18 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"Nobody in their right mind uses the Dow."

Strange then that people on here are using the Dow as proof Trump is doing well.

In all fairness, I think most people refer to “the market” doing will, not just the Dow. 
 

 

 

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

What

Whatever the historical precedents, the fact is that huge tax cuts on corporations increased dividends. Also, corporations spent huge amounts on stock buybacks which increased the value of remaining shares. Also the Fed has recently cut interest rates again, which makes stocks a more appealinig investment.

None of these factors has anything to do with the general health of the economy.

What was the average effective tax rate before the the cuts and after? 
 

Corporations buying stock back with the tax cuts? You mean it didn’t all go the the greedy rich CEOs? 
 

So they use the tax break to reinvest in the company making the company financially stronger and rewarding their shareholders. Isn’t that what they’re supposed to do?
 

You understand that when the greedy rich sell equities that have appreciated they are taxed on the gains, yes? 
 

Of course small, middle class investors are effectively exempt from the taxes. 
 

Cutting interest rates also makes housing more affordable as well. 
 

Do you advocate raising the interest rate? 
 

You understand the rate was zero between 2008 & 2015 yes? 

[Eric Loh]

37 minutes ago, mogandave said:

In all fairness, I think most people refer to “the market” doing will, not just the Dow. 
 

 

 

In all fairness, the DOW is not the economic indicator but the yield curve is. Political uncertainty, trade tensions and volatile oil prices are all reflected in the bond market. The 2 years bond price is inching dangerously close to the 10 year and signal disturbing time ahead. The stock and housing are in hyper bubbles waiting to burst. May happen next year in time to bring down Trump. 
 

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

In all fairness, the DOW is not the economic indicator but the yield curve is. Political uncertainty, trade tensions and volatile oil prices are all reflected in the bond market. The 2 years bond price is inching dangerously close to the 10 year and signal disturbing time ahead. The stock and housing are in hyper bubbles waiting to burst. May happen next year in time to bring down Trump. 
 

I don't see his posts because he is on my ignorelist, only saw it since you quoted him. I clearly mentioned ' Strange then that people on here are using the Dow as proof Trump is doing well. ", he replied with 'the market'. I did not use that term, but specifically 'DOW" since that is what is mentioned, see e.g. an earlier post in this thread.

It is because of this disingenuous postings I have him on ignore.

[zydeco]

26 minutes ago, mogandave said:

What was the average effective tax rate before the the cuts and after? 
 

Corporations buying stock back with the tax cuts? You mean it didn’t all go the the greedy rich CEOs? 
 

So they use the tax break to reinvest in the company making the company financially stronger and rewarding their shareholders. Isn’t that what they’re supposed to do?
 

You understand that when the greedy rich sell equities that have appreciated they are taxed on the gains, yes? 
 

Of course small, middle class investors are effectively exempt from the taxes. 
 

Cutting interest rates also makes housing more affordable as well. 
 

Do you advocate raising the interest rate? 
 

You understand the rate was zero between 2008 & 2015 yes? 

I've never seen so much Fed Bubble Think in just one post.

[xylophone]

14 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I don't see his posts because he is on my ignorelist, only saw it since you quoted him. I clearly mentioned ' Strange then that people on here are using the Dow as proof Trump is doing well. ", he replied with 'the market'. I did not use that term, but specifically 'DOW" since that is what is mentioned, see e.g. an earlier post in this thread.

It is because of this disingenuous postings I have him on ignore.

On Friday, Trump boasted, "Trump stock market rally is far outpacing past US presidents," and he vowed that the "BEST IS YET TO COME!" Trump is making the economy and stock market a key focus on his re-election campaign. He often likes to claim this is the "best" or an "unprecedented" scenario, even when that is not the case.

 

While the stock market has performed well under Trump, it is not an unprecedented performance. Trump's stock market returns still lag behind Obama and Clinton at this point in their first terms.

 

trump just cannot help himself as regards persistent lying........but that is well known and off topic. But Tesla securing a 129 billion dollar loan for a shanghai factory; well I refer you to "Thai Felix's" post which says it all.

 

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, mogandave said:

What was the average effective tax rate before the the cuts and after? 
 

Corporations buying stock back with the tax cuts? You mean it didn’t all go the the greedy rich CEOs? 
 

So they use the tax break to reinvest in the company making the company financially stronger and rewarding their shareholders. Isn’t that what they’re supposed to do?
 

You understand that when the greedy rich sell equities that have appreciated they are taxed on the gains, yes? 
 

Of course small, middle class investors are effectively exempt from the taxes. 
 

Cutting interest rates also makes housing more affordable as well. 
 

Do you advocate raising the interest rate? 
 

You understand the rate was zero between 2008 & 2015 yes? 

"What was the average effective tax rate before the the cuts and after?" 

In the first year of the law, the amount corporations paid in federal taxes on their incomes — their “effective rate” — was 11.3 percent on average, possibly its lowest level in more than three decades, according to a report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning think tank.

From 2008 to 2015, under the previous tax code, the corporations’ effective rate was about 21 percent, according to the ITEP’s prior research.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/16/corporations-paid-percent-tax-rate-last-year-steep-drop-under-president-trumps-law/

"Corporations buying stock back with the tax cuts? You mean it didn’t all go the the greedy rich CEOs? "

As anyone familiar with executive compensation could tell you, their compensation is generally tied to the price of shares.

 

"So they use the tax break to reinvest in the company making the company financially stronger and rewarding their shareholders. Isn’t that what they’re supposed to do?"

"Buying shares of stock is not reinvesting in the company. It something a business does instead of reinvesting"

 

"You understand that when the greedy rich sell equities that have appreciated they are taxed on the gains, yes?"

And at a much lower rate than they used to be taxed. For example, during his campaign Trump inveighed against hedge fund people who paid such low taxes. Thanks to cuts in capital gains taxes they are now paying an even lower tax rate.

 

"Cutting interest rates also makes housing more affordable as well."

And what does this have to do with tax breaks for corporations? But it is noteworthy to point out that Trump was among those who criticized low interest rates under Obama.

TRUMP: Janet Yellen should be ‘ashamed’ of what she’s doing to the country

 

GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump told CNBC on Monday the Federal Reserve is doing what President Barack Obama wants by keeping interest rates low.

Fed Chair Janet Yellen and central bank policymakers are very political, and Yellen should be “ashamed” of what she’s doing to the country, Trump said, adding the Fed is not even close to being independent.

By keeping interest rates low, the Fed has created a “false stock market,” Trump argued in a wide-ranging interview in which he also talked about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s health problems.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/12/trump-says-fed-chief-yellen-should-be-ashamed.html

 

Do you advocate raising the interest rate? 

I have no problem with the current interest rate. But whether it's good or bad is irrelevant to the question of how it affects stock prices.

 

"You understand the rate was zero between 2008 & 2015 yes?"

Do you understand that the USA was coming out of the worst financial crisis since the Depression? Do you understand that inflation was even lower than it is now? Do you also understand that it was the Republicans who were most adamantly against those low interest rates? Are you aware that Democrats overwhelmingly don't have a problem with the reduction in interest rates by the Fed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[xylophone]

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

I don't see his posts because he is on my ignorelist

On mine too......have no need of the rubbish spouted.

[samran]

22 hours ago, AussieBob18 said:

I'll see your academic left wing 'paper' and raise you the Dow Jones since 2015

 

And remind you that after Chine was allowed to join the WTO (for unknown very dubious reasons), successive US Governments allowed them to take the jobs of 75,000 US Factories and over 5 million manufacturing jobs.  https://www.wsj.com/articles/president-trumps-trade-policy-is-working-11568138994

The Trump plan is not to seek short term gains in trade/imports/exports - it is to force US companies to return to USA and open factories to make products for the US market in the USA - and it is working. 

Trump is OK for factories in China/Thailand etc to make product for the SEAsian market, but he and the majority of US People hate that US companies went there for profits and that China steals IP and the WTO does nothing about it.

It is the big picture - some see it - some dont.

 

The Fed is left wing? If you are Attila the Hun maybe. Get your hand off it...
 

Hows the Fed analysis got anything to do with the stock market, other that the fact you linked them randomly in your post?

[mogandave]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

"What was the average effective tax rate before the the cuts and after?" 

In the first year of the law, the amount corporations paid in federal taxes on their incomes — their “effective rate” — was 11.3 percent on average, possibly its lowest level in more than three decades, according to a report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning think tank.

From 2008 to 2015, under the previous tax code, the corporations’ effective rate was about 21 percent, according to the ITEP’s prior research.

With the key word being “possibly”, which allows the Washington comPost to say whatever they like. 
 

in any even, I think the first year saw a lot of companies repatriating funds they were holding offshore. I believe last year it was back up around 21%. 
 

I think it should be zero.

[mogandave]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

"Corporations buying stock back with the tax cuts? You mean it didn’t all go the the greedy rich CEOs? "

As anyone familiar with executive compensation could tell you, their compensation is generally tied to the price of shares.

 

Companies exist primarily to enrich the owners. I could go on and on about why the laser focus on share price is fundamentally bad for the heath of the business, but it is what it is. 
 

I think you would be surprised hat how low the average CEO compensation is in the US.

 

Quote

 

"So they use the tax break to reinvest in the company making the company financially stronger and rewarding their shareholders. Isn’t that what they’re supposed to do?"

"Buying shares of stock is not reinvesting in the company. It something a business does instead of reinvesting"

 

"You understand that when the greedy rich sell equities that have appreciated they are taxed on the gains, yes?"

And at a much lower rate than they used to be taxed. For example, during his campaign Trump inveighed against hedge fund people who paid such low taxes. Thanks to cuts in capital gains taxes they are now paying an even lower tax rate.

 

"Cutting interest rates also makes housing more affordable as well."

And what does this have to do with tax breaks for corporations? But it is noteworthy to point out that Trump was among those who criticized low interest rates under Obama.

TRUMP: Janet Yellen should be ‘ashamed’ of what she’s doing to the country

 

GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump told CNBC on Monday the Federal Reserve is doing what President Barack Obama wants by keeping interest rates low.

Fed Chair Janet Yellen and central bank policymakers are very political, and Yellen should be “ashamed” of what she’s doing to the country, Trump said, adding the Fed is not even close to being independent.

By keeping interest rates low, the Fed has created a “false stock market,” Trump argued in a wide-ranging interview in which he also talked about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s health problems.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/12/trump-says-fed-chief-yellen-should-be-ashamed.html

I never argued Trump wasn’t a blow-hard

 

Quote

 

Do you advocate raising the interest rate? 

I have no problem with the current interest rate. But whether it's good or bad is irrelevant to the question of how it affects stock prices.

 

"You understand the rate was zero between 2008 & 2015 yes?"

Do you understand that the USA was coming out of the worst financial crisis since the Depression? Do you understand that inflation was even lower than it is now? Do you also understand that it was the Republicans who were most adamantly against those low interest rates? Are you aware that Democrats overwhelmingly don't have a problem with the reduction in interest rates by the Fed?

 

I’m sorry, I thought you were saying the rate was driving the market. 
 

The market did fine when it was zero.

[Traubert]

On 12/27/2019 at 8:32 AM, ezzra said:

China would be still a nation a rice farmers in oxen carts if it wasn't for the prolific and systematic government sanctions and encouraged copying, espionage and thefts practices of patented products and intellectual rights know throughout the world...

While American farmers are being subsidized by their Government , who completely cocked up their trading arrangements with China, for billions of dollars .

 

Funny how the world turns eh? ????  ???????? 

[Traubert]

On 12/27/2019 at 2:20 PM, AussieBob18 said:

I wonder how Musck will react when he tries to import the manufactured cars into USA and is facing a 150% import tax.  Or maybe he is betting on impeachment removing Trump.

 

In response to other posts - the part of the USA economy that is 'crashing' is the part that operated through importing cheap Chinese made products.  The rest is doing fine.  And many companies are now manufacturing their products in USA that they used to make in China for the USA market.

 

Name five. Only five.

[Traubert]

13 hours ago, stevenl said:

I don't see his posts because he is on my ignorelist, only saw it since you quoted him. I clearly mentioned ' Strange then that people on here are using the Dow as proof Trump is doing well. ", he replied with 'the market'. I did not use that term, but specifically 'DOW" since that is what is mentioned, see e.g. an earlier post in this thread.

It is because of this disingenuous postings I have him on ignore.

Ah, thanks for the explanation. That clears things up.

 

I was thinking it's because he's a know-all that knows nothing if it hasn't got stars and stripes all over it. Lots of people had lots of money on paper one day in 2008 in the States. The next day they had nothing.

[Kinnock]

Musk seems to be very good at spending other people's money.  Does Tesla actually make a profit?  I thought sales were dropping due to reduced tax advantages for coal powered, sorry, electric powered cars?

[AussieBob18]

On 12/29/2019 at 3:12 PM, xylophone said:

On mine too......have no need of the rubbish spouted.

ditto

[bristolboy]

On 12/29/2019 at 3:56 PM, mogandave said:

With the key word being “possibly”, which allows the Washington comPost to say whatever they like. 
 

in any even, I think the first year saw a lot of companies repatriating funds they were holding offshore. I believe last year it was back up around 21%. 
 

I think it should be zero.

"With the key word being “possibly”, which allows the Washington comPost to say whatever they like. "

As for the "possibly", had you bothered to read the article in full you would not that it said for the years 2008-2015 the average tax paid was 21%. And whether or not it is the lowest rate in 3 decades, do you understand that corporate taxes were massively cut? ANd that this doesn't just happen on paper but has consequences in the real world?

 

"in any even, I think the first year saw a lot of companies repatriating funds they were holding offshore. I believe last year it was back up around 21%." 

Do you have any use for facts at all? All you do is make assertions with no backup or no context. I would ask you to provide evidence but what does "a lot of companies" even mean? ANd "21%" of what?

"While the amount repatriated was higher than previously thought, it was still less than some proponents of the tax law, including President Trump, had predicted.

“We expect to have in excess of $4 trillion brought back very shortly,” Mr. Trump told executives assembled at his golf course in Bedminster, N.J., last August.

Through five quarters since the tax changes went into effect, a total of $876.76 billion has been repatriated. "

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-companies-transferred-more-profits-from-overseas-in-2018-than-estimated-11561044921

And what does it matter how much those companies bring to the US if they aren't going to use it to invest in their businesses but instead use it buy back stocks instead of investing it? 

[bristolboy]

On 12/29/2019 at 4:53 PM, mogandave said:

 

Companies exist primarily to enrich the owners. I could go on and on about why the laser focus on share price is fundamentally bad for the heath of the business, but it is what it is. 
 

I think you would be surprised hat how low the average CEO compensation is in the US.

 

I never argued Trump wasn’t a blow-hard

 

I’m sorry, I thought you were saying the rate was driving the market. 
 

The market did fine when it was zero.

"Companies exist primarily to enrich the owners. I could go on and on about why the laser focus on share price is fundamentally bad for the heath of the business, but it is what it is."

Do you have any historical awareness at all? There was a time when capitalism was more savage than now? But laws were passed to curb their bad behavior. The Republicans have slowly been unwinding those protections and letting the rich hold onto more and more money which they translate into more and more political power. . And by appointing Supreme Court justices who consistently favor corporate interests over those of workers. 

 

"I think you would be surprised hat how low the average CEO compensation is in the US."

One thing I am not surprised by is your lack of acquaintance with the facts

CEO Pay Skyrockets To 361 Times That Of The Average Worker

If you have any doubt about our country’s disappearing middle class, check out the current CEO-to-employee pay gap.

In the 1950s, a typical CEO made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker. Last year, CEO pay at an S&P 500 Index firm soared to an average of 361 times more than the average rank-and-file worker, or pay of $13,940,000 a year, according to an AFL-CIO’s Executive Paywatch news release today.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianahembree/2018/05/22/ceo-pay-skyrockets-to-361-times-that-of-the-average-worker/#3dba0995776d

 

"I never argued Trump wasn’t a blow-hard"

It's not a question of his being a blow hard. It's a question of his being a liar and hypocrite. He campaigned on reigning in Wall Street and instead he's giving away the store.

 

"I’m sorry, I thought you were saying the rate was driving the market."

It's a factor but as you seem to have forgotten I also pointed to stock buybacks and increased dividends thanks to the Trump tax cut.

 

"The market did fine when it was zero."

Your understanding of how interest rates affect stock prices is exactly backwards. The lower the interest rates charged by the Fed, the stronger the stimulus for stocks. So when interest rates are at zero that strengthens stock prices compared to when they are above zero. When the Fed lowers its index rate that gives a boost to stock prices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:"I think you would be surprised hat how low the average CEO compensation is in the US."

One thing I am not surprised by is your lack of acquaintance with the facts

CEO Pay Skyrockets To 361 Times That Of The Average Worker

If you have any doubt about our country’s disappearing middle class, check out the current CEO-to-employee pay gap.

In the 1950s, a typical CEO made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker. Last year, CEO pay at an S&P 500 Index firm soared to an average of 361 times more than the average rank-and-file worker, or pay of $13,940,000 a year, according to an AFL-CIO’s Executive Paywatch news release today.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianahembree/2018/05/22/ceo-pay-skyrockets-to-361-times-that-of-the-average-worker/#3dba0995776d

 

I commented on average pay for CEOs in the US and you post a link referencing the the S & P 500. 
 

Average CEO pay in the US is about $160k a year.

 

 

 

 

 

[mogandave]

On 12/30/2019 at 12:19 AM, Traubert said:

Lots of people had lots of money on paper one day in 2008 in the States. The next day they had nothing.

Name five. Only five.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

I commented on average pay for CEOs in the US and you post a link referencing the the S & P 500. 
 

Average CEO pay in the US is about $160k a year.

 

 

 

 

 

And how would you define a CEO? Anybody who owns their own business, no matter how small it is?

And I see you don't any answer for the other points I raised.

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

And how would you define a CEO? Anybody who owns their own business, no matter how small it is?

And I see you don't any answer for the other points I raised.

Yeah, I don’t see any point in putting any real effort into a discussion with anyone as intellectually dishonest as you seem to be. 
 

How do you you want to define it? 
 

I worked for a $400M a year company about give years ago, and the CEO made about half again as much as I did. 
 

 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

Yeah, I don’t see any point in putting any real effort into a discussion with anyone as intellectually dishonest as you seem to be. 
 

How do you you want to define it? 
 

I worked for a $400M a year company about give years ago, and the CEO made about half again as much as I did. 
 

 

Intellectually dishonest how? 

Because I don't believe anecdotal evidence like your alleged pay compated to the bass at a 400M a year company has any evidentiary value? Unless, of course, you called your boss "Dad". Or that the alleged and unconfirmable experience of an anonymous poster is something to be taken at face value? You don't have much use for citing confirmable evidence, do you? Strange idea you have of what constitutes intellectual honesty and what doesn't.

 

[mogandave]

35 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Intellectually dishonest how? 

Because I don't believe anecdotal evidence like your alleged pay compated to the bass at a 400M a year company has any evidentiary value? Unless, of course, you called your boss "Dad". Or that the alleged and unconfirmable experience of an anonymous poster is something to be taken at face value? You don't have much use for citing confirmable evidence, do you? Strange idea you have of what constitutes intellectual honesty and what doesn't.

 

Pretending that the salary of S&P 500 CEOs are representative of the average CEO salary in the US is intellectually dishonest, at best. 

 

Clear?

 

 

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Pretending that the salary of S&P 500 CEOs are representative of the average CEO salary in the US is intellectually dishonest, at best. 

 

Clear?

So you're claiming that I knew better but just quoted that out of a desire to deceive? You a mind reader?

 

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Pretending that the salary of S&P 500 CEOs are representative of the average CEO salary in the US is intellectually dishonest, at best. 

 

Clear?

 

I could accuse you of the same with that $160,000 figure. Without context or a definition of what a CEO is, it's extremely misleading. But I believe you actually fell for it hook, line and sinker. Is the owner of a tiny store a CEO if he or she has 1 employee." 

[mogandave]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I could accuse you of the same with that $160,000 figure. Without context or a definition of what a CEO is, it's extremely misleading. But I believe you actually fell for it hook, line and sinker. Is the owner of a tiny store a CEO if he or she has 1 employee." 

Sure, you can accuse me of anything you like. 
 

I asked how you wanted to define them, you said nothing. 
 

 

[mogandave]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

So you're claiming that I knew better but just quoted that out of a desire to deceive?

 

No, I don’t think you’re that bright. I think you actually believe the average CEO in the US makes $10M a year.

 

To be fair, dishonest was a bad choice of words. Intellectually lazy would have been more appropriate. 

 

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

You a mind reader?

Yes