No. It's not a car company at all. It's a brand. you're the one trying to tell me that a brand is a company a brand is a marketing gimmick. You're reaching pretty far to try and claim that you are correct. Examples you listed were a foreign car company lucid, the company that doesn't make cars Oshkosh, GEM. You listed a company that makes bespoke race cars. In companies that modify cars made by Ford or GM. I didn't dismiss all slew of other car companies they aren't car companies.
are you saying that feelings because you don't want to address the points I made? I'm pointing out all the giant holes in your religion and it's causing you some angst yeah Elon musk is a flim flam artist. If that's all the battery weighs it will be absolutely useless as a semi. Because you'll drive about 30 miles and you'll have to recharge it or you can haul about the 50th of the weight. I understand Elon musk is a bit of a visionary but he can't change the laws of physics. There's just no way you can make an electric semi with the battery is that tiny and expected to perform at anywhere close to even a 50 year old semi tractor The info is about power density and the amount of energy you will need to match the absolute bottom standard for semis and you would need 15 tons of batteries to do that if Elon musk is only putting five tons of batteries it is semi it's going to be like the cybertruck.
He does not even understand the difference. The actual term is "Company" and "Badge". General Motors is the company, and the badges are Cadillac, GMC, Chevy, etc. However, each of the "badges" is still an independent company. That is because the major ones are conglomerates. And most have a dozen or more independent sub-companies under them. Like GM, which also owns AC-Delco, banks, hotels, large real estate holdings, satellite radio and TV companies (XMRadio as well as DirecTV were founded when they still owned Hughes), and a great many other companies. Like the company Ross Perot founded for offering computer services, EDS. GM bought it in 1984, and held it for over 12 years until spinning it into an independent company in 1996. And it really was an independent company even then. When I first worked for Hughes, our top tier IT support was actually CSC. And when I moved to DirecTV, EDS was doing the service there. And when I moved back to Hughes, EDS had won that contract also. Even though Hughes and EDS were both owned by GM, EDS still had to bid and compete for their contract just as any other company. And GM used to own a hell of a lot more. But in the 1990s largely spun off all of their non-automotive acquisitions or sold them. But a lot of people just do not seem to comprehend how a conglomerate actually works.
I have agreed with some of the issues you've brought up. But, the rest is pretty much you hating Musk. I'm not interested in that. I don't like Musk, either, but that's totally irrelevant.
No, Starlantis is a Multinational Conglomerate. In reality, a holding company that is owner of multiple brands. But each of those brands is still independent. Fiat, Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Jeep, Maserati, each is still a company, and does things as they had done before. That is the very reason for a conglomerate. It does not "produce" anything, you really do not understand how it all works, do you?
All agreed. I think this came about due to statements I made concerning what MIGHT be one justification for EV subsidies. One might be that if automakers are right, and EVs are going to dominate, it MIGHT be worth something to maintain US owned auto manufacturing (as opposed to foreign corporations or what is owned by Stellantis, a company of the Netherlands). One possible help could be some level of subsidies limited to helping the incredible cost of retooling.
And to really show what it means to be a "Conglomerate", think on this. Was Jaguar an American Company? Land Rover? Daewoo? Volvo? Ashton-Martin? Saab? Mazda? Lotus? Opel? Because until fairly recently, those were all owned by either Ford or GM. But I can't think of anybody going "I want to buy one of those new American cars by Mazda". Ford owned the company for 31 years, but it was still a Japanese company during that entire time.
jaguar and Land Rover are the same company and a no they weren't. None of them were. Chrysler Dodge are not part of a partnership they are a brand. Because until fairly recently, those were all owned by either Ford or GM. But I can't think of anybody going "I want to buy one of those new American cars by Mazda". Ford owned the company for 31 years, but it was still a Japanese company during that entire time.[/QUOTE]
See it's so common that people have to project emotions onto others when they disagree. Why do you need me to hate Elon musk? You made it up. If you're not interested in that then shut up about it. So quit using it as a crutch and focus on the point I made. The only thing I said about Elon musk is he's lying to you. An electric semi with a 5.5 ton battery is not functional as a semi.
I'm thinking that profits from Toyota, Subaru, Honda, Stellantis, etc., find their way out of America. Maybe Stellantis is OK with just having the growth in valuation of the companies it owns, but I don't know why they would limit themselves to that. Plus, Stellantis can still do what it wants to with Jeep - shutting down the Chicago manufacturing site it originally purchased with the plan to turn it into an EV factory. I don't know for a fact that Jeep didn't make that decision - it just doesn't sound totally likely to me. If that's how it happened, it shows foreign control of the jobs of Americans. I thought Ford Motor Company of Japan ltd was a subsidiary of the American Ford company that has a Ford family member as the CEO and major share holder.
I'm not that excited about your logic on any of this. Regardless, Tesla placed its bet. We'll see what it means.
That's just because I'm skeptical and you want to believe. That's standard religious ideology. outside of offering it in another universe is a fools bet.
Uh, yes they were. They were owned by Ford until 2008 when they were sold to Tata Motors of India. So I guess now they are Indian car companies. Uh, yes they are. Formed as the Dodge Brothers Company, in 1900. Originally a chassis company, they made chassis for both Ford and Olds. Until 1914 when they formed the Dodge Brothers Motor Company and started to actually make cars. However, the brothers died and their widows sold it to a holding company, that then sold it to Chrysler in 1927. But even today, it is run as an independent company. You really do not understand how conglomerates work, do you? Try thinking of it as the Government. The government "owns" the EPA, OSHA, and the military. But do you think the military can just do what it wants and violate regulations put out by the other organizations, just because they are all in "The Government"?
Yes. Were not are, they are no longer a company. It's over. they were a company time is linear. They aren't anymore. you don't know how time works do you? Something that was a company and is no longer a company is not a company it was but it isn't anymore. that's asinine.
Actually, they do not. It is largely because of taxes. That is why you have companies like Toyota Motor North America, now in Plano, Texas where it used to be in Torrance, California. Or Honda of America, which is still in Torrance, California. Nations tend to put large penalties when profits are moved out of or into another country. Often anywhere from 40-80% can be taken in profits that way by governments. So they set up companies in the other nation to help work around that. The assets accumulated are still "company assets", but remain inside that country. That is why for decades Japanese companies have been investing heavily in manufacturing inside the US. Taking those profits and reinvesting them in the US, because they can't send them back to Japan without losing over half of it in taxes. The only "profits" that move offshore are really just the dividends on the stocks themselves. But the cash assets, they are stuck. Because if say Stellantis wanted to sell off a chunk of Chrysler for a profit and take the money back home, they would likely lose over half of it. First, the US is going to take a huge chunk as taxes for assets leaving the country. Then the Netherlands is going to take a big chunk as overseas money brought into the country. There is a reason most companies spend the money to create another company overseas when manufacturing is done there. That way they can reinvest it locally, instead of paying it to taxes. Then in a future date they can then trade part or all of that new company for something else. In many ways, conglomerates work like kids trading baseball cards. Buying another conglomerate that may have 10 companies, keeping 2 and spinning off or selling the other 8. But very little of the money makes its way out of the country. The only "profit" that Toyota makes form cars they sell here is the commission from cars made in Japan that are sold here. Any domestic made cars, the profit remains entirely in the US.
?? I posted about this truck simply because it is an interesting engineering attempt. In doing so, I warned that the claims could be exaggerated.
Interesting! Maybe it makes no sense to aid American owned auto manufacturing (such as Ford, for one example) with EV subsidies. I do see a lot of reviews that question whether US owned auto companies (such as Ford) can become successful in the EV manufacturing industry. But, if it doesn't matter what country the CEO of the holding companies lives in, maybe we should just step back and let it shake out. Also, this is not the only justification for helping the switch to EVs that all manufacturers believe is coming.
indeed it is I would say it's also a pretty important step. I posted my criticism of it because that's important too. This is the coolest part about this. I learned so much about electric vehicles and battery capacity and efficiency that I understand why the claims are exaggerated and why they can't be realistic. I'm just trying to spread the knowledge so that people don't get suckered into buying things that they wouldn't otherwise buy.
I just represent realism as opposed to the pie in the sky futurism. People in the 1960s thought we would be driving flying cars now they didn't realize they had those back then they're called aircraft because if you could fly somewhere why in the hell would you drive.
That's a bad analogy in that EVs are not just someone's dream - they are growing in both capability and popularity.
