The best way to justify that high p/e would be for them to use it to buy out the competition.
It costs Tesla ~<6% of market cap (780b) to acquire Ford (40b) or GM (44b) (with a friendly ftc); so for 15% of their shares, that could become the only "American" manufacturer - then they'd probably strip those 2 for parts, end the dealer model, bust the unions, maybe keep a few of the popular models.
Some of this might be inevitable anyway, as autos become more expensive (tariffs, inflation, chips, unions), and more reliable (dealer maintenance model, fewer sales)
You spin off a company with all those obligations and pay it a pittance to take them on as supposed assets, soon after it declares bankruptcy. Now your new megacorp is free of all those pesky contracts.
I don't know much about A&Ms or frankly business, but it seems kinda strange that this hasn't happened yet. We got the Stellantis Car borg before the Tesla car borg.
The "calculations" of trade deficits not including services (which America became a services economy) is a bold choice. Ie, the iPhone might be buying from China, but if you purchase an iTunes or iCloud subscription.
It's completely possible that America produces luxury goods (ie John Deere tractors, Ford sprinter vans, airplanes) that can only have so much demand to smaller nations.
I live in the UK and I can't think of anything I buy from the US apart from Netflix for a month each year. Possibly stuff I buy indirectly but can't think of anything offhand.
Fine grained policy, coordinated efforts could go a long way in making tariffs effective.
If high level broad tariffs (or sales tax) are implemented as a replacement for the progressive income tax (or regressive payroll taxes), and with a universal basic income program, then the shift would be more tolerable.
What you would really not want to do is, prior to raising tariffs, significantly reduce GDP efficient government spending, reduce welfare programs, and decrease public sector jobs.
For success, you would also want to avoid headline tariffs - people, business, and countries can make changes if you announce you are permanently changing your taxation system 1% at a time over the course of a year - and you definitely would want to avoid chastising trading partners that could reduce the control you have.
If (as in this study) the athletes stuck to their same level of resistance training (ie weight + reps) I would expect the study to hold with the exception of finely measured muscle teardown.
As other commenters have posted, the popular suggested use of creatine use it to either increase resistance (extra reps at a greater weight) or decrease downtime (lack of atp / lactic acid buildup that breaks down muscles)
.3% is drastically above the gdpnow estimate from the Atlanta fed, which, after compensating a -2.6% figure for increased gold imports, comes in at -1.8%
But it is more difficult to prove criminal intent and value paint, metal, and tire damage.
If Sentry mode records the perpetrator, the cops have to find it criminal, and then the DA decides to prosecute....
Good luck civilly pursuing every door ding or the mustard that fell off a sandwich -- even if somebody holds their ID up to a sentry mode camera, or drives off with their license plate clearly visible.
The insurance in question is more about individual cars rather than stores;
And while Teslas have Sentry mode that could detect things like paint, door dings, tire vandalism to record a criminal act, law enforcement has rarely been able to enforce much except the extreme or flagrant.
It costs Tesla ~<6% of market cap (780b) to acquire Ford (40b) or GM (44b) (with a friendly ftc); so for 15% of their shares, that could become the only "American" manufacturer - then they'd probably strip those 2 for parts, end the dealer model, bust the unions, maybe keep a few of the popular models.
Some of this might be inevitable anyway, as autos become more expensive (tariffs, inflation, chips, unions), and more reliable (dealer maintenance model, fewer sales)
reply