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?
-
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
- Thread starter Granite1
- Start date
MadPadraic
Active member
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
Why are they not on all vehicles then? At least from companies that make both ICE and EV's?
Just what we need on more cars.... more obnoxious led lights....
kbroderick
Active member
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.
x10003q
Active member
Almost all new cars/suvs/pickup sold in the US come with these lights - they are called daytime running lights. They are usually LEDs.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
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
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.
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.
Toxic Words, by Dr. Thomas Sowell
During this election year, we are destined to hear many words that are toxic in the way they misrepresent reality and substitute fantasies that can win votes. One of these words is
www.creators.com
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.
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
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…
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.
Hawk
Well-known member
I can't belive you guys are still kicking this around,
skef
Active member
trouble maker - cool vid tho.
Taxpayers Are Subsidizing Rich Electric-Vehicle Owners—To the Tune of Billions
A new report has exposed electric vehicles as wasteful money pits, living up to the adage: If it seems too good to be true, it is.
Supply ( and lack of) demand.
Tesla Powered Electric Ski · J skis • Limited Edition skis designed by Jason Levinthal
After years of development in collaboration with Tesla Motors we finally created the world's first battery powered electric ski
jskis.com
drjeff
Well-known member
I wonder in the aftermath of the eclipse on Monday, how many reports we may hear about EV owners NOT being able to find chargers available, given the likely volume of people heading into areas where the density of chargers is generally low?
It is an issue- my friends w them- 3 or 4 who either live in valley part time or visit family here often park at mt. Walk or get rides back to where they are staying.
I keep hearing about the # of them that are inoperative but not locally.
Do they now pay for the charge?
Similar threads
- Locked
