• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

EVs - New Hampshire gets it right

Domeskier

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,268
Points
63
Location
New York
What... this kind of thing hasn't happened in politics over the entire history of our county? it doesn't matter what your political affiliation is, Power is Power and influence is the endgame for most of these people. At this point if you think any political person has goals to make your life better you are jadded. They want to make thier life better. That how I feel now.
Nah. The Federal government controls businesses through legislation and regulatory oversight. It doesn't buy up stock and sit on their boards of directors. I'm sure they could draft some legislation that would deal with this particular issue. But what happens to the 2.8 trillion in public debt the Social Security fund currently holds?
 

MadPadraic

Active member
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
782
Points
28
Location
the cozy brown snows of the east
What... this kind of thing hasn't happened in politics over the entire history of our county? it doesn't matter what your political affiliation is, Power is Power and influence is the endgame for most of these people. At this point if you think any political person has goals to make your life better you are jadded. They want to make thier life better. That how I feel now.
I think this is slightly too strong of a statement, but only slightly. I think that most politicians are mainly interested in being re-elected or moving up. Many are mostly interested in getting a big pay day as a lobbyist or similar after they leave office (e.g. Krysten Sinema admitted this to Mitt Romney). However, a few are truly interested in either making their constituents lives better, and some are mainly interested in advancing their world view. Occasionally some of these objectives overlap. In a better world "re-election" and "making lives better" would overlap more.
 

Smellytele

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
9,817
Points
113
Location
Right where I want to be
I would assume that since they are LED they don't use much power at all. I also doubt that the engineers created the light bars for a look at me kind of philosophy. I bet they did some research that showed that the light bar throws a better light pattern across the road for better night vision. I guess I'm not that cynical.
Why are they not on all vehicles then? At least from companies that make both ICE and EV's?
 

kbroderick

Active member
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Messages
698
Points
43
Location
Maine
Why are they not on all vehicles then? At least from companies that make both ICE and EV's?
One of the reasons is that EVs offer designers more freedom with the front end, as they don't need the radiator airflow ICE vehicles do.

As to the merit of what they did with the freedom, I feel like that will come out over time. Right now, it seems like a lot of those designs look different for the sake of looking different, but maybe we'll eventually feel like they look good. Or not.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
12,029
Points
113
Location
Wasatch Back
I mean sure, but there would still be a major advantage to these companies that those on the outside looking in would not receive. The market cap of the 500 would all skyrocket with THAT much (free) money invested in their shares every year.

If that was deemed a legitimate concern, you could spread it around more, like putting it in the Russell 2000 or the Wilshire 5000. Keep in mind, doing Social Security as an investment vehicle wouldn't be 100% in equity, some would go to US treasuries and some to corporate bonds as well, it would need to be diversified.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
12,029
Points
113
Location
Wasatch Back
Right? The Federal government owning huge stakes in publicly traded companies sounds like a great idea.

The Federal government would own precisely $0.00.

Realistically you'd have a bipartisan board run it in an administration function, something akin to the CBO, but regardless there'd be no government ownership.
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,841
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
Reasonable ideas BG. I still think such a scenario is ripe for corruption and potentially damaging to small businesses, but thanks for expanding on the concept.
 

1dog

Active member
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
585
Points
43
Reasonable ideas BG. I still think such a scenario is ripe for corruption and potentially damaging to small businesses, but thanks for expanding on the concept.
Here is a take from one of my favorite economists.
The theme is ' there are no guarantees in life'

Cliff: articular individuals or groups can be given many things, to which politicians say they are "entitled," only if other people are forced by the government to provide those things to people who don't need to lift a finger to earn them. All the fancy talk about "entitlement" means simply forcing some people to work to produce things for other people, who have no obligation to work.


 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
27,841
Points
113
Location
Southeast NH
1dog

I have zero interest in discussing libertarian philosophy with you. For one, it's a quick way to turn an economic discussion on a skiing message board, to a political one. That is something we don't want on this forum. For two, I don't agree with hardly any of it and never will. So, it's a waste of your breath trying to converse / convince me to feel differently. I've read most all of it before.

Maybe somebody else might be interested in a back and forth on that view point, but not me. Please keep the focus economic and not political though.
 

skiur

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
1,545
Points
113
1dog

I have zero interest in discussing libertarian philosophy with you. For one, it's a quick way to turn an economic discussion on a skiing message board, to a political one. That is something we don't want on this forum. For two, I don't agree with hardly any of it and never will. So, it's a waste of your breath trying to converse / convince me to feel differently. I've read most all of it before.

Maybe somebody else might be interested in a back and forth on that view point, but not me. Please keep the focus economic and not political though.

Wait, political talk isn't wanted here? Could have fooled me!
 

Smellytele

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
9,817
Points
113
Location
Right where I want to be
No way you can talk about SS without speaking political. It isn’t political when it’s your viewpoint but if it contradicts your viewpoint then it’s political…
 

Domeskier

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,268
Points
63
Location
New York
The Federal government would own precisely $0.00.

Realistically you'd have a bipartisan board run it in an administration function, something akin to the CBO, but regardless there'd be no government ownership.
Yes, ideally the fund's trustees would have a fiduciary duty to exercise their shareholder rights solely in the interest of SS beneficiaries. As a practical matter, the incentive to pursue/hamper ESG, DEI, anti-trust or other priorities through exercise of those voting rights would be hard to resist for the party then in charge. I am not totally convinced a legislative solution could be found.
 
Top