Join The Community

Obama Wins

So now that Obama has won the election, what do you guys think this means for Tesla over the next four years?

Dborn, Romney's private business model has not been conclusivly pro-american worker. Sensata and Delphi are examples of companies that he's had some connection with, and would be examples of this type of management philosophy.

"largest" isn't the point.

As for the manufacturing, you're basically correct, though. Un-economic manufacture is not viable, and not a good use of resources. There is a counter-current developing, though, to some extent. US' nat-gas 3:1 price advantage over the ROTW is inducing many heavy and light manufacturers to return, as is the economics of stable legal environment and short transport lines, etc.

John Tamny, chief economist at Wainwright, has much to say about this: paradoxically, attempting to artificially national-ize jobs and industries imposes indirect costs which ultimately net out as loss of same.

It is curious how an Australian and a Canadian are doling out opinion and advice on the US electorate.

"It seems that many Americans went to the polls without much enthusiasm for either candidate, but, nevertheless, with a clear idea of whom they preferred. The majority seemed to be saying to Obama: “You didn’t get it all right the first time, but we’re going to give you a second chance.” In a way, they voted for “hope and change” again. I don’t think it was so much a ratification of health care or “Race to the Top” or any other Obama initiative. It was more a vote on his character: “We think you’re trying. Now try even harder. Learn from your mistakes. Reach out to the other side, even if they slap away your hand, and focus like a laser on the economy, so those of us who voted for you today without much enthusiasm can feel good about this vote.”

And that is why Obama’s victory is so devastating for the G.O.P. A country with nearly 8 percent unemployment preferred to give the president a second chance rather than Mitt Romney a first one."

-Thomas L. Friedman, in the New York Times, 11/7/12

Brian H : un- economic manufacturing is not viable. Agreed. So, it must be made viable. A level playing field makes it viable. When you have USA or Australian or Canadian workers being paid double or treble the wage that a Chinese or Mexican worker gets, there is no chance of competing..... so, it seems that import duties or tariffs or some such that does level the playing field may need to be imposed. Won't be popular since prices will rise in consequence, but the health of the economy should improve and so should the jobless rate. In the USA, what is it now 8 odd %? A terrible shame in what should be the richest country on earth. The same apples across Europe too by the way. The European problems are also related to far too much socialism as are some problems in Australia.
The "fix" therefore will never be popular, as prices will rise and welfare will fall. However, the need for welfare should drop away as jobs become available, but the Unions need to be taken out of the equation somehow. My comments apply to Australia, as well and we have an unemployment rate of around 5%.

By the way, i was not impressed with either candidate in this election, and I have to say we were swamped here in Australia by USA campaign and election coverage. It was almost like being another state in the union, regrettably.


@TheAustin, it's like I said, if the selection has to be done between known "not so bad" and unknown "sounds like an idiot", I would vote for the first. Sounds like majority of the US did that too.

IMHO Obama has not been bad president, he just inherited a country that was going to very very bad situation from GW dumber. From outsiders POV he has done a very good job to fix things that GW managed to screw up even that it was a almost impossible job to do.

My prediction, now that EU worst crisis is over Obama second period will be very good for US.

the health of the economy would not improve, because the extra cost of the higher priced goods comes out of money that would have been spent elsewhere. The only (temporary) benefit is government duty receipts, which would be more than offset by reduced receipts elsewhere.

There is no such thing as a tax or duty that increases the standard of living or economic activity.


Interesting, but as exceptions to that blanket statement, do you think tarifs can have a positive effect at protecting domestic industry? Or a tarif inbalance like we have with China where they pay a higher tarif to import American cars than we pay to import Chinese cars hurts American manufacturing? If I collect a tax and spend the money on education, infrastructure, and research, you're saying that does not increase economic activity and standard of living?

I would suggest that it's not the tax itself that is good or bad. It's how the tax revenue is spent that's important.

Sorry, what I mean is we pay a tarif to import into China. Damn edit. You get what I mean, I think.


Then why not collect 100% of all income and have the government disburse it wisely and justly? What the heck, let's go all in.

There are no chinese cars imported to the US, and the US is not making many vital components to produce cars, smartphones, TVs or computers anymore. The number of cars exported from US to china is negligible, the only ones exporting cars to china are the germans, italians and the british. GM hs huge presence in china, bit this is due to their local production in alliance with local companies. A trade war with china will result in a decisive win for china. Romney was babbling on about china being a currency manipulator and how this makes for an uneven playing field, he forgot to mention that the US is an even greater currency manipulator.


5 billion dollars of American cars sold to China in the 2011.,0,4863...

China is not currently selling in the US, but has been hoping to crack that market for some time.

Mr Spaghetti,

Why not collect 0%? Makes the same amount of sense. This is what the Laffer curve depicts. You're making a reducto ad absurdum argument. If having no wife is bad, and having a wife is good, then having two is better?

What I'm saying is it's not the tax itself that is good or bad, it's what you do with the tax revenue. That's all I'm saying.


I better retract that. I'm not attempting to wander onto trade policy, I just threw that out as an example. Appologies as the example was more distracting than illustrative.

yes, exactly 5 billion a year, a little more than i thought but still an insignificant amount. And this counts the X5 and X6 BMWs made in the US as well as the Mercedes SUVs. Still US manufacturing though. US trade deficit is more like 600 bn a year, a large chunk of that is petrol, another large chunk is goods from china. China trying to sell cars in the US is not the same as actually selling the cars.


I love it when you talk Latin to me.

I'd say having two wives is good, provided they are both hot and agree to talk dirty to me. In Latin.

That being said, I have decided that discussions about politics and/or economics are neither productive nor fun, so I'm going to go back to threads where I can read and write excitedly about my car.


I have tried to install girlfriend 2.2 without first uninstalling wife 1.0. There were incompatibility issues. The most recent version of girlfriend was set to auto-update, and updated to wife 2.0. My hardware is at end of life and will not support further upgrades of eiether operating system. Or so the V2.0 system messages state. I have found dual boot systems more difficult to manage.

I completly agree with you though, including the last part. (I loved your comment over on the "Tesla not Fisker" thread). I suppose I'm just hanging out, waiting for my car. It's been a while. About two years. I was Nov/Dec, but I know from production rates it's more like end of January. The closer it gets, the slower time seems to go.

(My latin teacher in high school was probably born during the height of the Roman empire. I never considered what hot latin chicks sounded like... 80 year old ladies, I assumed... I must reflect on this.)

Timo, well said...I concur.

Tariffs (note sp.) force consumers to pay more than otherwise for goods. Plus impose "friction" (bureaucratic/collection overheads). Then substitute gov't judgment about how to spend duty proceeds for market judgment. (Note that in effect the extra cost ends up in gov't hands. Kind of the same as a sales tax.)

Every step of that depresses standard of living.

EU agricultural duties, e.g., raise food prices, distort production decisions, close markets to developing nations and generally make life harder for everyone except inefficient farmers (and duty collection superstructure employees). In many cases, exported subsidized food destroys local production elsewhere. Often happens with e.g. food aid; what farmer can compete with free? When/if the aid ends, there is no local capacity left. Shortage/starvation becomes permanent.

Note above: duties collected end up in gov't hands, but of course domestic producers get to sell at the higher price. Only domestically, only as long as the duty lasts. They cannot compete for export markets (unless additional subsidies are provided).


Duties collected do end up in government hands. The government needs a certain amount of revenue to function. With tariffs as a revenue source, it allows for the lowering of other taxes and fees. Here in the US, at one time we did not have a federal income tax, and the government was funded primarliy through tariffs.

A second positve effect of tarrifs is that domestic producers are able to compete, which means they hire, and those employees spend, which increaces monitary velocity, and decreaces a trade imbalance.

When the US entered an agreement with Mexico for NAFTA the effect was a weakening of US manufacturing as they headed south of the border to take advantage of cheap labor. In a "frictionless" ecomony all labor costs try to equalize. That's great if you want to compete with people that make 10 bucks a day. Hell, it's really great if you want to hire people at 10 bucks a day. But when I'm making 10 bucks a day, I'm not going to be buying anyone's products.

Back to the original topic, it is quite possible that the BEV tax credit could be sacrificed as part of the budget negotiations aimed at avoiding the "fiscal cliff." Both sides are talking about eliminating loopholes and tax preferences. Ironically, the Republicans may be less willing to do this than the Democrats, since under Grover Norquist's lunatic pledge, eliminating the credit would be a tax increase.

I expect the EV Tax credit to be raised to $10,000 and the Maryland's tax credit to $3,000.00. I want others to pay for this through higher taxes so I can get "my" Tesla at a lower price. This is only fair.

Obama win = higher taxation, US falls back into recession, no one can afford Teslas? Sorry, couldn't resist. I actually think it makes no difference whatsoever. Both candidates had positive and negative policy positions, but now that the election is over, the realities of the day will drive policy (remember "read my lips"?)

Absolutely nothing if they can’t improve production and become cash flow positive. Profits by Q1 2013 or Romney was right. LOSER!

All of us, including TMC, need to keep educating our representatives, especially GOP members, of the fact TMC is 100% U.S. owned, operated, and succeeding. The misperception by Romney during the Presidential debate probably reflects the viewpoint of many in Congress.

In the "Big Pic" all gov't credit comes at the expense of private investment. That's OK, because the gov't is smarter than the market about where to deploy resources.

Oh, wait ...

If you forget that 80% of basic scientific research that produces new pharmaceuticals is done by the public sector, and ignore small things like highway systems, aviation management, GPS, development of the internet, and the space program (I probably left out a few things), then sure. I agree with you.

X Deutschland Site Besuchen