partial_accumen

Its two things: I don’t want to show any support Tesla, and don’t have the luxury of selling my car and buying a different one. Second, I think you might be surprised how many people really don’t know what cars look like. Sure, “car people” will know, but most people aren’t “car people”.

My alternate non-Tesla badges are arriving next week.

99% of my charging is done at home (and for 3 out of 4 seasons, from my solar panels). I can also use non-Tesla public fast chargers with CCS or Chademo. I’ll admit that the pricing is more expensive than Tesla Superchargers most often and the customer experience at non-Tesla fast chargers is pretty horrible. I’ll still pay more at a non-Tesla charger if there is the option so musk doesn’t get any more of my money since the initial car purchase years ago.

They are literally the only ones that do that. Owners do nothing, they only extract profits.

I had a long post typed out responding point by point (with sources cited!) to your post. I nearly got to the end and realized my detailed and topical points were wasted here when I considered what you posted with the line above.

I don’t believe we will be able to have meaningful exchange of ideas if you’re holding the above belief. I don’t have the energy or faith I would be able to change your mind on your belief which would be an absolute requirement for your consideration of any proposals I have made. Thank you for your time discussing this up to now. Have a great day!

In that vein, I’m curious why Canada is still adhering to any aspects of the USMCA that benefit the USA and not Canada. Intellectual Property restrictions was one of the main sacrifices that Canada made. If the benefits of tariff free trade isn’t being respected, why is Canada still enforcing the IP restrictions? It seems like a good place for Canada to make up lost revenue from US imposed tariff.

This has nothing to do with who is liable for what.

Thats my point. The proposal here is not taking any responsibility for liability. It is proposing to give away the benefits of ownership to workers (of companies that many not have the capacity for it to be given away), without those workers also having any kind of responsibility to keep the company going.

It seems like the most practical way to approach this as an airline passenger is to place your battery into superposition where the battery can be both within arm’s reach, but also stowed away. Warning, do not observer or interact with the battery while the flight is in the air lest you collapse the waveform and lose superposition.

Say this: “Alexa, disable by the way”

I think you may be assuming for this discussion that all businesses are in a mature stage and profitable. That isn’t the case for probably most businesses. Many are still in startup mode where there isn’t a profit to be seen for years. Others are are either past profitability or never achieved it and are on the decline. So with further liquidity pulled out as compensation to employees, it can kill the business before it grows up or give it an early death from lack of liquidity to make it through lean times.

The devil is in the details. I thought you were providing a system of those details for discussion. No worries.

Not even now the capitalist owners are individually and directly liable for losses.

…and…

The corporation just declares bankruptcy.

That is incorrect.

You may not be aware, but lots and LOTS of losses usually occur to a company before bankruptcy occurs. Any capital put into the business is lost even with an LLC. The LLC simply means that the losses are contained to only the assets of the company.

Stock owning employees don’t have any say on stock sales of the owner to other buyers of stock. I think you’re torturing the model of publicly traded stocks beyond the real definition of usefulness for comparison.

Its fine if you have a model of employee ownership, but it looks like you’re going to have to define it end-to-end instead of reusing the publicly traded stock model.

If that’s the case the buyer and sellers would be fine, but the employees would be screwed. The workers shares would have been issued at a higher value. Lets say $10 per share. The owner could issue new stock at 1 penny per share and sell billions of shares to new non-worker buyers.

Netscape went bankrupt when Microsoft started giving out Internet Explorer for free. So, today, would you prefer to use a free Microsoft Edge or would you prefer to pay for Firefox that is telemetry and ad free?

Paying for privacy should not be necessary though, its a right

This is an incredibly myopic statement in this context. In the case of Firefox here, you have total power over your privacy. Don’t use the software.

The money to actually create and maintain the product has to come from somewhere. Expecting the software developers at Mozilla to work totally for free is greedy on your part. One way they can pay for the development of Firefox is through selling advertising to users. As long as these advertisements are able to be turned off, I don’t have a problem with that (historically they were). Its not my preference, but another way is to sell your activity in some capacity which is what the Telemetry since 2017 has been doing apparently. I don’t like that at all. Finally the last way is for the users to pay for it.

Pick one. I pick the one that maintains my privacy and my eyeballs, paying for the product myself. That is why I want that as an option.

Back when they were “Netscape” you could buy a box off a shelf with the current version for a flat fee. I’d be okay with a paid version with zero ad inserts, and zero leaky telemetry. I’d even be okay if it was $X for the base product and $Y for $Z years of security updates.

As long as they’ve got the Point of Sale going for the purchase, if they also want to include addons that I could select to donate to in the same transaction where they pass through those funds to the addon developer, I’d be good with that too.

As long as the price is fair, I don’t see why this should be a problem.

Fair to whom? The owner, the workers, or the new non-worker stock buyer?

If you’re using the model publicly traded stock, when a company needs more money they issue more stock for sale the public. What this also does is devalue the existing stock in circulation. Assuming these suggestions go into law, that sounds like a massive loophole that owners could exploit.

Also I’m interested in solving wealth inequality. I’d prefer the 1940’s style income tax with the insanely high brackets at the extreme high end (90% tax was it?)

I have some followup questions your ideas.

1. Workers are getting an ownership stake. Are workers also liable when the company loses money? Today this only falls on the owner. If there is a negative cashflow situation, the owner has to inject more of their own money into the operation or the business will close. Many times this money comes from cash earned during fat times to be able to keep the company afloat during the lean times. If workers are taking a portion (above and beyond payroll of course) of the profits during fat years, will they also be liable for fronting cash to keep the business going in a lean year?

2. I support the end of lobbying. No notes.

3. Are you talking about loans from governmental organizations like the city/state/fed intending to spur development or are you talking loans issued by banks? I assume bank loans, correct me if I’m wrong. If that’s the case we’d be setting laws on how one private organization can lend to another. My understanding of regulations on loans to date have only enabled loans to classes wrongfully historically excluded (such a loans denied to minorities under Redlining rules). I’m not finance expert, but can’t think if any laws that disable a banks ability to lend. Sure there are rules around maintaining bank liquidity and nonusurious interest rates, but those are just qualifications instead of ourtight bans of loans. This would be a new precedent wouldn’t it?

4. "There is nothing stopping him from withdrawing 100,000 in contributions a year, and distributions are tax free with literally no oversight. " Wouldn’t that $100k be counted as income and the owner to pay income tax on that? Are you making an example of a way that corporate taxes are not being paid?

One mention I didn’t see was any reference to Sodium Ion batteries. While these aren’t great for EV cars (even though you can buy at least one Chinese EV with one right now), as they are physically larger and less energy dense than any Lithium chemistries. However, they have the potential to be REALLY CHEAP because they use zero of the limited supply of Lithium and instead use the very abundant Sodium…as in table salt Sodium (NaCl).

If they are developed and end up being as cheap as though possible, the positive implications for grid storage are huge! You’ve heard of all that extra wasted solar power in places like California, Texas, and even western China? A very small amount of that energy is already being captured and used on the grid with today’s expensive Lithium batteries and its a game changer. Sodium batteries (if they deliver as hoped) could be an order of magnitude higher in value because of how cheap they could be were we don’t really care they are larger and heavier.