Citing Brexit, automaker Tesla chooses Germany over UK for new facilities

First topic message reminder :

The Tesla chief executive, Elon Musk, has said Brexit uncertainty played a role in the firm’s decision to build its first European factory in Germany rather than the UK.

The billionaire entrepreneur revealed that the firm’s European battery plant would be built on the outskirts of Berlin.

Speaking to Auto Express after making the announcement, Musk said: “Brexit [uncertainty] made it too risky to put a Gigafactory in the UK.”

The US electric carmaker also plans to locate a research and development base in the German capital. Musk announced the Berlin decision at a car industry awards ceremony on Tuesday night hosted by the German tabloid Bild.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/13/tesla-cites-brexit-as-germany-chosen-over-uk-for-european-plant-elon-musk

There will be plenty of ways that have nothing to do with the EU in which Brexit will hurt the UK.

But at least this guy's got something to smile about!

Original Quill wrote:Nonsense.  You have no economics to discuss.  You just espouse things you heard at family dinners, from your knuckle-dragging great uncle decades ago.  The world has moved on.

If you can't talk economics, get out of the way so that others can.

And what actual economics did you discusss that were your own?

Or did you as per usual take the poor vierws of others

And rthen invent lies around claiming it makes people selfish taking away from others?

All bullshit of course, as it would then apply to everyone, when it clearly does not

That was not economics but based in the grounds of idiocy

So not moving anywhere and sadly the world has not moved on from continued socialist economic failures. Which continue to maintain people in poverty and hardship

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Nonsense.  You have no economics to discuss.  You just espouse things you heard at family dinners, from your knuckle-dragging great uncle decades ago.  The world has moved on.

If you can't talk economics, get out of the way so that others can.

And what actual economics did you discusss that were your own?

Or did you as per usual take the poor vierws of others

And rthen invent lies around claiming it makes people selfish taking away from others?

All bullshit of course, as it would then apply to everyone, when it clearly does not

That was not economics but based in the grounds of idiocy

So not moving anywhere and sadly the world has not moved on from continued socialist economic failures. Which continue to maintain people in poverty and hardship

The NHS, state education, the welfare state and many other areas are 'socialist' in that they are government funded and public sector.

Without them we'd have a healthcare system as cruel and costly as the USA, schools teaching whatever agenda their backers desired and more poor and homeless people.

Socialist policies, working in conjunction with a well-regulated capitalist free market, is what we have and seems to be the system that works best (even if it has flaws). Leaning too far in either direction is a mistake, the disagreement is what 'too far' is.

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:

And what actual economics did you discusss that were your own?

Or did you as per usual take the poor vierws of others

And rthen invent lies around claiming it makes people selfish taking away from others?

All bullshit of course, as it would then apply to everyone, when it clearly does not

That was not economics but based in the grounds of idiocy

So not moving anywhere and sadly the world has not moved on from continued socialist economic failures. Which continue to maintain people in poverty and hardship

The NHS, state education, the welfare state and many other areas are 'socialist' in that they are government funded and public sector.

Without them we'd have a healthcare system as cruel and costly as the USA, schools teaching whatever agenda their backers desired and more poor and homeless people.

Socialist policies, working in conjunction with a well-regulated capitalist free market, is what we have and seems to be the system that works best (even if it has flaws). Leaning too far in either direction is a mistake, the disagreement is what 'too far' is.

False claim and thr NHS a massive drain on the economy and unworkable
No other country has the NHS system, so to say we would be like the USA is again the biggest load of babble you have made to date

It also depends how the welfare state is run, which as seen the socialists cannot even get that right and it takes Liberal/right wing policies to make for a fairer system. Whilst under Labour it was part of the many poor polices that helped bring this country into massive debt

The US system of teaching is geared and run by socialists, which may give you a clue as to its failings

So all you have is welfare lol

You socialists do not live in a world of reality. lol

phildidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:

And what actual economics did you discusss that were your own?

Or did you as per usual take the poor vierws of others

And rthen invent lies around claiming it makes people selfish taking away from others?

All bullshit of course, as it would then apply to everyone, when it clearly does not

That was not economics but based in the grounds of idiocy

So not moving anywhere and sadly the world has not moved on from continued socialist economic failures. Which continue to maintain people in poverty and hardship

The NHS, state education, the welfare state and many other areas are 'socialist' in that they are government funded and public sector.

Without them we'd have a healthcare system as cruel and costly as the USA, schools teaching whatever agenda their backers desired and more poor and homeless people.

Socialist policies, working in conjunction with a well-regulated capitalist free market, is what we have and seems to be the system that works best (even if it has flaws). Leaning too far in either direction is a mistake, the disagreement is what 'too far' is.

False claim and thr NHS a massive drain on the economy and unworkable
No other country has the NHS system, so to say we would be like the USA is again the biggest load of babble you have made to date

It also depends how the welfare state is run, which as seen the socialists cannot even get that right and it takes Liberal/right wing policies to make for a fairer system. Whilst under Labour it was part of the many poor polices that helped bring this country into massive debt

The US system of teaching is geared and run by socialists, which may give you a clue as to its failings

So all you have is welfare lol

You socialists do not live in a world of reality. lol

Only a true blue Tory would claim the NHS is unworkable as a reason to let in more market forces.

So no, we'll keep the NHS in there thanks. And why are you talking about the US system of teaching? We are talking about the UK, what they do in the US is irrelevant (see what I did there? ).

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:


False claim and thr NHS a massive drain on the economy and unworkable
No other country has the NHS system, so to say we would be like the USA is again the biggest load of babble you have made to date

It also depends how the welfare state is run, which as seen the socialists cannot even get that right and it takes Liberal/right wing policies to make for a fairer system. Whilst under Labour it was part of the many poor polices that helped bring this country into massive debt

The US system of teaching is geared and run by socialists, which may give you a clue as to its failings

So all you have is welfare lol

You socialists do not live in a world of reality. lol

Only a true blue Tory would claim the NHS is unworkable as a reason to let in more market forces.

So no, we'll keep the NHS in there thanks. And why are you talking about the US system of teaching? We are talking about the UK, what they do in the US is irrelevant (see what I did there? ).

Where did I claim to allow more market forces in the NHS? Your words not mine.

I said its unworkable and have stated this so many times, that as seen you invent things not said
I have also stated about adopting far better systems that are workable and free at the point of entry. You are just clueless on this, where I have worked for the NHS far greater understanding of its shortcomingings than you .

I am neither Tory or Labour, or socialist or capitalist

I just see what works better

phildidge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:


False claim and thr NHS a massive drain on the economy and unworkable
No other country has the NHS system, so to say we would be like the USA is again the biggest load of babble you have made to date

It also depends how the welfare state is run, which as seen the socialists cannot even get that right and it takes Liberal/right wing policies to make for a fairer system. Whilst under Labour it was part of the many poor polices that helped bring this country into massive debt

The US system of teaching is geared and run by socialists, which may give you a clue as to its failings

So all you have is welfare lol

You socialists do not live in a world of reality. lol

Only a true blue Tory would claim the NHS is unworkable as a reason to let in more market forces.

So no, we'll keep the NHS in there thanks. And why are you talking about the US system of teaching? We are talking about the UK, what they do in the US is irrelevant (see what I did there? ).

Where did I claim to allow more market forces in the NHS? Your words not mine.

I said its unworkable and have stated this so many times, that as seen you invent things not said
I have also stated about adopting far better systems that are workable and free at the point of entry. You are just clueless on this, where I have worked for the NHS far greater understanding of its shortcomingings than you .

I am neither Tory or Labour, or socialist or capitalist

I just see what works better

You just spend all your time attacking socialism and not capitalism.
You just happen to be a Tory who posts endlessly about Labour anti-Semitism and nothing bad at all about the Tories.

Don't play at being impartial, you are evidently far far from it.

So are you categorically stating you think there should be no privatisation or market forces allowed in the NHS?
In which case, what would you do to make it, in your opinion, workable?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the US only interested in bidding for the Ancillery Services, ie ,Cleaning ,Food, Maintanance etc ?

Eilzel wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Where did I claim to allow more market forces in the NHS? Your words not mine.

I said its unworkable and have stated this so many times, that as seen you invent things not said
I have also stated about adopting far better systems that are workable and free at the point of entry. You are just clueless on this, where I have worked for the NHS far greater understanding of its shortcomingings than you .

I am neither Tory or Labour, or socialist or capitalist

I just see what works better

You just spend all your time attacking socialism and not capitalism.
You just happen to be a Tory who posts endlessly about Labour anti-Semitism and nothing bad at all about the Tories.

Don't play at being impartial, you are evidently far far from it.

So are you categorically stating you think there should be no privatisation or market forces allowed in the NHS?
In which case, what would you do to make it, in your opinion, workable?

Because socialist economic systems, without capitalism see countless people suffer.
How many countries in the past and today do you need examples of for this to sink in for you?
You know the phrase. "Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results?"

Of course I post about how Labour has been over run by the Far left and this is what is the problem with people like yourself. Anything Far right and we both condemn no problem. With Labour, you are happy to jump into bed with the Far left, when you should be condemning them. The reality is it shows you support the far left. The fact that Labour is under investigation for antisemitism and you think me posting about this is a problem, then again like Labour you are willing to throw Jews under a bus and complicit in this antisemitism. The fact you think posting about this somehow wrong is like someone complaining about two many threads about the BNP or the republicans and about black victims of racism.

Do you see how you would never even moan or complain about such threads?

I mean there is daily threads about Trump, who to me is a danger to the US. See how I can condemn Trump?

You frankly are full of shit and a hypocrit, as I have posted countless threads about the Far right over the years.

If the Tories were intrducing polices that discriminated against homosexuals. I would be the first to condemn them. This is the difference between me and you. I condemn the Far right and Far left. You condemn the Far right and make excuse for the Far left because at heart you are a marxist yourself

Again where did I make any views on the NHS, other than its unworkable and we should adopt a far better system. That is free on the point of entry. As we see with other nations?
That is how I would make it workable. By adopting a country where it does work and is finnacially viable.

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Nonsense.  You have no economics to discuss.  You just espouse things you heard at family dinners, from your knuckle-dragging great uncle decades ago.  The world has moved on.

If you can't talk economics, get out of the way so that others can.

And what actual economics did you discusss that were your own?

The dichotomy of competition, and implications for efficiency.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

And what actual economics did you discusss that were your own?

The dichotomy of competition, and implications for efficiency.

You do realise that competition enhances and helps many companies grow
Healthy competition is vital towards companies doing well

I mean I really pissed myself laughing at you posting that as many companies constantly change up the rankings, based more on the satisfaction of the customers

I mean how many companies out there are out to destroy other companies?

Seriously?

phil wrote:I mean I really pissed myself laughing at you posting that as many companies constantly change up the rankings, based more on the satisfaction of the customers

Customers are essential to a market.  Exclusive control over the customers is even better.

The great value of possessing a monopoly is that the producer owns the recipient of the product (ie, customer).  The producer, in a monopoly, can dictate not only the price of the product, but the terms-and-conditions of the product as well.

As soon as you control the price/terms-and-conditions of a product, all growth and development (efficiency) ceases.  Monopoly erases the incentive to change anything.

phil wrote:I mean how many companies out there are out to destroy other companies?

How many companies out there engage in competition?  As Tonya Harding found out, the best kind of competition for the contestant is elimination of the other competitor(s).  What did Disney do to Pixar?  What did Boeing do to McDonnell Douglas?  Indeed, what did McDonnell do to Douglas Aircraft?  And what did Southern Bell (now AT&T) do to the baby bells, and the former AT&T?  The list of companies consuming other companies is endless.

If mergers and hostile takeovers are not your thing, what is Amazon presently doing to Sears and its subsidiaries? Complete extinction.

Capitalism tends toward monopoly.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:I mean I really pissed myself laughing at you posting that as many companies constantly change up the rankings, based more on the satisfaction of the customers

Customers are essential to a market.  Exclusive control over the customers is even better.

The great value of possessing a monopoly is that the producer owns the recipient of the product (ie, customer).  The producer, in a monopoly, can dictate not only the price of the product, but the terms-and-conditions of the product as well.

As soon as you control the price/terms-and-conditions of a product, all growth and development (efficiency) ceases.  Monopoly erases the incentive to change anything.

phil wrote:Customers and rival companies are essential to buisness or have you never worked in a major coorporation like I have? The reality is even where some holds a large extent of the customber based, its never quite the monopoly. As again to do so would mean all otherrivals would be out of buisness. So that is sheer absurdity on all levels. The reality is customers often use the healthy competition to help bring down prices. Its a case of one company able to say they can get a better deal eslewhere. Often smaller companies will be able to provide a better and more efficient service over larger coorporations. As they will have few clients and thus easier to maintain their customer based. That means they are able to capture new contracts off bigger clients. Where as larger companies are unable to keep a multitude of customers happy. They generally have to prioritise their customers, which then leads to disatisfaction by some. Hence the cycle continious of a healthy comeptition. Hence why smaller companies will continue to grow at the expense of larger companies.

So the reality you have not the first clue what you are talking about in this regard

How many companies out there engage in competition?  As Tonya Harding found out, the best kind of competition for the contestant is elimination of the other competitor(s).  What did Disney do to Pixar?  What did Boeing do to McDonnell Douglas?  Indeed, what did McDonnell do to Douglas Aircraft?  And what did Southern Bell (now AT&T) do to the baby bells, and the former AT&T?  The list of companies consuming other companies is endless.

Capitalism tends toward monopoly.

No its not the best competition to eliminate all rivals. That is companies absorbing other companies to expand, but this never elimiates the competition. As other smaller companies as seen grow off other companies growing larger and unable to then completely satisfy their customers. So its important for their to be a mix of large, medium and small, which continually changes. Its why family run buisnesses do very well when they center no such priority on customers but to equally view them as important

So your that Capitalism tends towards monopoly is false. As there is litteraly countless companies in competition out there and companies only fail, when they lose demand. Mainly off their poor quality of service and goods.

phil wrote:No its not the best competition to eliminate all rivals. That is companies absorbing other companies to expand, but this never elimiates the competition.

If the crocodile eats the zebra, then is that mere "expanding"??

I'll admit the crocodile gets fatter, but that's merely profit-taking.  The caloric count inures to the crocodile's benefit, don't you think?

Elimination of competition is per force elimination of incentive to efficiency.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:No its not the best competition to eliminate all rivals. That is companies absorbing other companies to expand, but this never elimiates the competition.

If the crocodile eats the zebra, then is that mere "expanding"??

I'll admit the crocodile gets fatter, but that's merely profit-taking.  The caloric count inures to the crocodile's benefit, don't you think?

Absurd anaology, when no company when they buy another are eating them.
Many profit from such mergers, which further enhances now a larger company
Also the owners walk away finnacially better off from selling
Yes there could be some redundencies, but for the majority within both companies that merge, they vastly benefit from such a merger
Merger is never eating and hence you would better define this through the marriage of two individuals to better their lifestyles, as they now have two workable incomes and benefits

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If the crocodile eats the zebra, then is that mere "expanding"??

I'll admit the crocodile gets fatter, but that's merely profit-taking. The caloric count inures to the crocodile's benefit, don't you think?

Absurd anaology, when no company when they buy another are eating them.

Many profit from such mergers, which further enhances now a larger company.

Oh really? Here's the Merrium-Webster definition of consumption:

Merrium-Webster wrote:consumption noun

con·sump·tion | \ kən-ˈsəm(p)-shən \

Definition of consumption
1a: the act or process of consuming
consumption of food
consumption of resources

1b: use by or exposure to a particular group or audience
The document was not intended for public consumption.

2: use of something

Elimination is elimination, however you want to phrase it. Elimination of competition is taking away from pure competition among many producers. Fewer producers = less incentive for efficiency.

Think about it...you are making one hell of an argument for socialism: put everything in one pocket. Or oligarchy, for that matter. All that remains is to build a government around it.

Fewer competitors increases the monopolization, doesn't it? I mean, isn’t that the definition of monopoly? I appreciate that you want to see all things as rainbows, but it's down to more money, in fewer pockets. That's monopolization.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Absurd anaology, when no company when they buy another are eating them.

Many profit from such mergers, which further enhances now a larger company.

Oh really?  Here's the Merrium-Webster definition of consumption:

Merrium-Webster wrote:consumption noun

con·sump·tion | \ kən-ˈsəm(p)-shən  \

Definition of consumption
1a: the act or process of consuming
consumption of food
consumption of resources

1b: use by or exposure to a particular group or audience
The document was not intended for public consumption.

2: use of something

Elimination is elimination, however you want to phrase it.  Elimination of competition is taking away from pure competition among many producers.  Fewer producers = less incentive for efficiency.

Think about it...you are making one hell of an argument for socialism: put everything in one pocket.  Or oligarchy, for that matter.  All that remains is to build a government around it.

Fewer competitors increases the monopolization, doesn't it?  I mean, isn’t that the definition of monopoly?  I appreciate that you want to see all things as rainbows, but it's down to more money, in fewer pockets.  That's monopolization.

You see this is where you continually and poorly lie

How is a merger the sonsumption of a company when it mutally benefits both?

So its neither elimination or consumption

Like I said you know very little about the big real world when it comes to coorporations

So again I have to laugh at your desperation here

So there is no consumption and hence why I rightly stated your view point on a zebra and crocdile, was pure comedy gold 

The moment a company merges, new competetors arise from this and the cycle continues. That is why no companies ever gain the full monopoly on something. Its unlikely to happen either, as even when people invent something. Its in their benefit to source out their ideas to other companies to make profit. This is why your view on competetion does not old true in economy, or in education or even sports. As where the later calls for some teams to litteraly defeat the opposition. It simple drives the one who lost to become better. It enhances a view for people to strive to be better. So to claim socialism again, off something that is not socialist and from thousands of years of history shows you have no clue what you are talking about

The fact is there is constant competition by countless companies that continually exists. By your view, they would all be consumed, and that is not the reality. Hence the idiots you have gotten your view of, have no actually bases in reality

So showing the definition of the word consumption, was the best amusment I have heard yet from you today and even thinking of posting this on twitter for a good laugh..

phil wrote:How is a merger the sonsumption of a company when it mutally benefits both?

Because it consumes a competitor and reduces the players in a certain industry or trade. Eliminating players is tending toward a monopoly.

You are not very quick-of-mind, and it's getting tedious. You don't progress in your understanding, but rather return to the same set of questions. There is no elasticity to your thinking, and it appears your mind doesn't expand to fit the need.

I could recommend an economics textbook: Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus, Economics (1949), is one classic university textbook, synthesizing classic economics with Keynesian economics. Pick up a copy and read it. Your understanding of economics (as with other subjects) is way too basal.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:How is a merger the sonsumption of a company when it mutally benefits both?

Because it consumes a competitor and reduces the players in a certain industry or trade.  Eliminating players is tending toward a monopoly.

Its getting tedious reading your school boy replies on this

I have to admit and the fact that you know very little about coorporations, other than what you have read in the Marxist playbook

The very fact you made some really poor anaologies here was hilarious

The fact that you cannot counter my points on competition, trying to ell someone who has worked in the industry is even funnier

Healthier compeition is important for buisness and the economy, when it helps more than anything control powers, provides innovation, knowledge of discovery and peaceful coordination

So happy to read your books for a right good laugh

Waste of time.   It's my observation that there are no moving parts to your brain.