I believe they'd be able to sell their vehicles in the US if they were willing to build it here (or Mexico/Canada due to USMA).
If that were the case they wouldn't have the cheap Chinese labor and I doubt the Chinese government would continue to subsidize US build vehicles for the US market.
It'd still be a compelling vehicle but it wouldn't be starting at $33k.
There's a non-zero possibility of that actually happening. It's already happening in Europe. Trump has mentioned the idea of a JV with Chinese companies. It is possible for this to happen in the upcoming Trump-Xi meeting. Chinese companies have started pursuing more foreign investments as a way to avoid "involution" -- fierce and unprofitable domestic competition. Their profit margins when going aboard is considerably better than at home. Maybe it won't be $33k but it might be $45k, which for a car with those kinds of specs, it would be a steal. China's EV advantage doesn't come just from labor costs but also from vertical integration of the entire supply chain. The mining stage is pretty low margin but China does it because it enables the next stage, which is batteries where profits are better, and then you get to even more profitable stage with cars, etc.
Just a dumb estimate. I'm just making an uneducated guess on what the car would cost if it was assembled using American labor with Chinese parts. I honestly don't know what the actual price would be. It's very possible for it to be 33K.
Important to note as part of the issues with Nike is their focus on direct to consumer [1] that left space open at physical retailers for other brands to get distribution and exposure.
How do you know he tanked twitter? It wasn't profitable when he took over and now that it's a private company you don't have insight into the financials.
Whether you like or don't like the politics/policies of the company since he's taken over, it's not clear whether he's made Twitter more or less viable as a company going forward.
Fidelity, who remains a stakeholder in the private company and gets insight to internal financials, has cut the valuation of their holding by 75% so far [1]. While twitter might not have been profitable when purchased, it was structured as a growth stock (that is, expected to invest most profit back into the product, in order to continue to multiply revenue) and had yearly revenues of $5B.
This is a really elementary misunderstanding of free market principles. That theory only holds if the market is actually free.
As an extreme example, if they regulated minimum $1000 per ride. No logical person, free market oriented or not, would expect "alternatives" to take their place.
In Amazon-speak, "disagree and commit" means even if you disagree with the decision, you still commit to following the decision whole heartedly. You can't just debate endlessly or put in less effort because your preferred option was not chosen.
Except for the fact that I'm not going to commit to working in an office. COVID showed what kind of life is actually possible. Eliminating the commute alone means 10 more hours I get to spend with my family each week. I don't care how nice their campus is or what kinds of espresso machine they have. I'm not going back into an office, ever. Period.
2015 for me as well. The episode they did on Hilary Clinton where they tried so hard to make her sound like she's just another friendly normal everyday Jane running for president turned me off NPR. I didn't even mind Hilary as a presidential candidate, just the way NPR did it was so obvious.
They investigated nothing. They just 1000x-ed his tweets. All problems go away if the one twit that matters is happy. Not to mention that the guy who suggested that Elon's popularity went down (with charts) because his content is at the level of a 12-year-old, that guy got fired on the spot.
Like most everything around vitamin D, the causality typically is backward. Vitamin D isn't improving these people's mental health, but it turns out that if you have a healthy life that involves ample outdoor activity, you are mentally healthier.
Consider migrant workers, who spend so much time under the hot sun picking veggies, what do their Vitamin D levels and other health metrics look like?
According to the National Academy of Medicine, formerly known as the Institute of Medicine, 4,000 IU is the safe upper level of daily vitamin D intake. However, doses up to 10,000 IU have not been shown to cause toxicity in healthy individuals (11Trusted Source, 16Trusted Source).
Vitamin D toxicity is generally caused by excessive doses of vitamin D supplements, not by diet or sun exposure (17Trusted Source, 18Trusted Source).
Although vitamin D toxicity is a very rare condition, recent increases in supplement use may lead to an increase in reported cases.
A daily intake ranging from 40,000–100,000 IU (1,000–2,500 mcg), for 1 to several months, has been shown to cause toxicity in humans (15Trusted Source, 19Trusted Source, 20Trusted Source, 21Trusted Source, 22Trusted Source).
If that were the case they wouldn't have the cheap Chinese labor and I doubt the Chinese government would continue to subsidize US build vehicles for the US market.
It'd still be a compelling vehicle but it wouldn't be starting at $33k.
reply