Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "Economics Explained" channel.

@l.s.26 Those credit won't be going out soon as it will take some time for other OEM to ramp up the own EV production, in the meantime they will pay Tesla those carbon credit and Tesla will steadily increases its own sales until the revenue from those alone finally be enough for profitability. Correct me if I'm wrong But I was told that Tesla would still be profitable last quarter even without those carbon credits had not fore Elon's own huge payment.
3
Tesla is a profitable company, though.
2
The idea that people can invade or pillage in a world with just one government is absurd , though. Hoarding, we have that right now is very county so that won't go away.
2
That have been profitable for the last 5 quarters.
2
Tesla have been profitable for the last 5 quarters and before that been profitable for half the years. They currently aren't a money losing zombie company .
1
@sourishsaha8067 Yes, in that sense Tesla might be overvalued based on it current growth and projected profit. However future events such should Tesla succeeding in their attempt to create a fully automated taxi services, or introducing a 25K BEV then It may not be overvalued at this price point.
1
@vengefulspirit99 Keeping 29/30 of single goat alive is doable. Keeping juts 1/30 of single goat alive on the other hand...
1
That not a Space X rocket. That thing is a modified Space Shuttle SRB designed to be a standalone launcher. It launched in the time of Obama and was soon cancelled after it's first and only launch (which was a test using a dummy payload).
1
Except that Trump policies favour huge American corporation and "local" billionaires/millionaires over small business and anyone who is in the middle class . In a sense he is right that the policies is indeed designed to channels more and more money to the wealthiest members of society rather than stimulate small to medium enterprises.
1
@TheGankednoob Really? You're counting business asset and liabilities instead of personal assets , actual revenues and capital ? Again, his polices favours huge corporations , billionaires, multi millionaire (in terms of *liquid asset * and annual revenue) instead of small business like you claims. If you only make 60K/years , then most of his policies don't really benefit you . "Also the median income in USA is 59,000 so millionares ARE middle class. Most people make several million over their lifetime." Can't be sure if you're serious of trolling.By that logic most middle class people in the world are millionaire because they will make million within their lifetime(if twy work for 20 years) regardless of cost of living and lifetime expenditure . Instead, only around 6% of total American are actual millionaire .
1
@TheGankednoob Ah, the classic "most millionaires believes they are in the middle class trap (HINT: they aren't) .The only one with an agenda here is the person who tried to argue that anyone who make 59K/annum would be a millionaire
1
@TheGankednoob Again, this far from the truth . Millionaires are not classified as middle class except in very ,very fringe cases (ownership of a single apartment room wit property value around 1 million in NY eg) . You are spouting a false misconception. There is a few reason why some wealthy people feel they're in the middle class (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/090915/why-millionaires-think-theyre-middle-class.asp ) but this doesn't ' change the fact that they aren't. As I said. Trump policies mostly help the super rich. Take for example his inheritance tax reform, the only people who benefit from that are those who would pass asset in excess of over 10 million dollar to their next of kin. Not even most millionaire are eligible for this.
1
@TheGankednoob I see you very confused and understand things wrongly: "A plumber is working class. They make 50k per year. An attorney is middle class at 100k. A mayor is upper class at 300k." The first two are still considered as middle class . "Working class" or "blue collar worker" is just subset of what is considered to be lower middle class .As you can see here :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class , your definition of "middle class" clashed with what most experts in the filed categorised as middle class. Anyone who make more than 300K a year pretty much can be considered as upper class (though lower upper class). "Even a working class plumber can be a millionaire if he saves 40% of his income. A middle class Attorney only needs to save 20%." The moment s/he save enough money or accumulated enough asset to be called a millionaire then , they stopped being in the middle class . The fact is it is easier said that n done . This is why only around 6% of American are categorised as millionaires. "How can any sane person argue that a millionaire isnt middle class? " The only insane person here is the idiot who tries to argue that anyone who have a net worth multiple million (or even tens of millions) as "middle class" . Again look at my link above as what constituted middle class and to why many millionaire succumbs to fallacy that they are in middle class ( https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/090915/why-millionaires-think-theyre-middle-class.asp).
1
@TheGankednoob "Funny. All the articles you cited had INCOME as a determinant and not ASSET. You are literally arguing against your own cited sources. This is why I said there is no point in speaking with you. " Again, only a moron or someone completely detached of reality who argue that anyone who have an income of 60K (it would be a challenge even to people with 100-200K income) can easily accumulate asset amounting to 1 million or more . Except in a very fringe cases (property asset barely amounting to 1 million in worth with limited or no liquidity) , people who have a net worth of a million or more are no longer in the middle class as they can leverage their worth to gain capital rather easily (hence why that are no longer middle class). To argue that people with a net worth more than several million are still "middle class" is just golden idiocy. "Edit: and your investopedia article is entirely anecdotal. All opinion without any scholarly backing. That you would even cite it is laughable. " Funny , did you conveniently ignore the linked sources in both my link(even the investopedia article) that explain where their data in which their conclusion was derives came from? Either you sucks really bad at examining data / research (which would explain your lack of understanding on such matters) or you just being disingenuous.
1