Never understoood why they would not use the fuel as stability element- basically- the elments carrying the fuelweight, are made from a carbonsponge that holds frozzen fuel..
How about making just a small tweak to the limited liability corporation legislation/rules? Currently the main purpose of a corporation is to maximize the (long term) shareholder value. What if the purpose was to maximize the long term goods sold, taxes paid or salaries paid instead? Note that you would still need to pay a decent return to shareholders in order to maximize these other things, just like currently you need (usually) to sell goods, pay a salary and pay your taxes to maximize the shareholder value.
(This may sound like a joke, but I am actually serious. Nobody has been able to justify so that I would have understood why it is the common stock holders whose value a corporation maximizes instead of other stakeholders. After all, the original reason limited liability was invented was to enable projects that bring good for the society, but are so damn risky that nobody is willing to take the full liability.)
Note that you would still need to pay a decent return to shareholders in order to maximize these other things, just like currently you need (usually) to sell goods, pay a salary and pay your taxes to maximize the shareholder value.
No, you would still need to grow to a large company with lots of revenue, but if the metric to optimize is salaries paid, then paying shareholders anything at all is in direct conflict with paying salaries to workers. The problem here is designing set of incentives that would encourage appropriate results, and the difficulty is that not all incentives work equally well, or even at all.
No, the difference is that you need to pay salaries in order for company to continue operating. If you don't, the employees will just quit.
On the other hand, there's absolutely no need to pay anything to shareholders for a company to operate, other than legal obligation. Shareholders going on strike makes absolutely no difference for the company.
No, you only pay the returns after you got funded. Except of contract enforcement in court, the investors have absolutely no way to force the company to pay up. That's what I meant by "legal obligations".
Of course, if you get yourself a reputation of not returning money to investors, you'll unlikely to get funded the next time, and if the investors have no way to force the company to pay dividends, they will fund few companies in the first place. The point is, maximizing salaries paid is a terrible metric, precisely because of bad incentives it creates.
> This applies only to companies that do not require capital to operate/grow.
But when they require capital to grow, you aren't returning the money to investors anyway -- what would be the point of that? The investors only expect the dividends once the capital needs of the company are satisfied, and once that happens, the company no longer needs the investors.
Not necessarily -- the board decides that. Shareholders don't have anything directly to say as to how exactly company is operated, and for good reason -- if they did, they could be held liable for the company actions.
Both are basically optimization processes that yield considerable risk and that are tricky to regulate, but in case of cooperations you still have the human element: vulnerability/fallibility, social reputation/integration, slowness/interpretability, empathy. The best policies to mitigating the respective risks probably are quite different.
I find it fascinating that in North-Korea, even though they where starving, the system itself did not deteriorate. To be honest, the moment my life is slowly ending, due to missing calories- the politics of survival should kick in and vote for freedom (aka food) with theire feet.
North Korea would have collapsed long ago were it not for external influence. The country is like that alcoholic uncle that we keep enabling. Every time he throws a tantrum we give in to his demands because we don't want him to hurt his kids or burn the house down or attack the neighbours.
Fine, we are talking about the trhee main urban centers of the US here - not the whole country. Now that this strawman is out of the way- are we allowed to continue?
I don't think that's a strawman. Roads and internet have to reach everyone in the country, not just major urban areas. The money for these projects comes from people in major urban areas too.
You make a good point about policing. Density wouldn't explain why policing in Tokyo is better and cheaper than in New York.
NYC pays far more in both state and federal taxes than it receives in services. NY State pays far more in federal taxes than it receives in services. Rural parts of the US receive far more in services than they pay in taxes.
The rest of the country isn't paying for a thing in NYC - it's the other way around. Just leave us more of our own tax money and we could do all sorts of things that aren't currently considered possible.
The problem is, that companys are freed from the renewable energy tax- a aluminium hut for example is tax exempted and thus can use the generated green energy at the price point of nuclear/coal energy- which amounts to privat households subsidizing industry.
Is there no way, to just take a normal residential building, tear everything down inside except for the exterior walls and fill it with japanese sleep coffins?
Even if zoning laws would forbid this- life should find a way as they say.
2950 21st Street is 4900 square feet and costs $3M. Right now it's 4 x 1200 square foot apartments, which go for about $45/square foot. Yowzers, that's $4500/month.
Let's say you take each of the two floors and remodel them: two full bathrooms designed for shared tenancy, each coffin takes up 8 feet by 5 feet by 4 feet and you stack them two high, with 8 sqft of hallway and such added in. That's 48 sqft per coffin stack, so with perfect layout you get 100 coffin stacks. But you need room for bathrooms for 80+ people, and that means 8 stalls, 8 sinks, and 8 shower cubicles, taking up about 20% of the space. OK, your max occupancy is 80 where it used to be 16.
The good news: you can charge as little as $250/month. If you spend enough on insulation you won't need to spend much on heat in the winter, but ventilation is going to be a problem.
Nobody gets a parking space.
Lice will be a problem.
Cockroaches will be a problem.
However, the issue that will get you the status of first slumlord to be sentenced to life in prison is fire safety.
If you design it in such a way, that people can evacuate similar to airplanes? Basically every floor becomes a slide to safety outside?
Also it doesent have to become slumy if its well organized. See the various capsule hotels in japan. If you up it to 300 $ you could have comon "living rooms".
More interesting is, how would hide this from the neighbours?
My suggestion: Have somebody drive a big truck into a garage regularly and basically be the shuttle service. Provide a set of two rooms near the front door - and a concierge actor using racism to provide a cover.
Finally, a faked daily lightshow, behind the windows to provide the ilusion of ongoing normal life.
This stealth hotel really would be a "hacking" -challenge:
Next problems would be water and sewer system.
Power supply and noiseless ventilation.
My suggestion- create many false positives, to desensitize residents eveywhere to loud air conditioning.
So for the hacked hostel to exist, one would need neighbours nearby who for money would allow a loudly humming installation (wifi-antenna) on there roof to exist.
Why would somebody remember Nelson Mandela? South africa is a legacy of ashes. Martin Luther King, yes. Gandi, yes.
But the ANC saw to this ones monument deteriorating.
Because powerthirsty psychopaths have social needs too. What is it worth to rule a small kingdom, if nobody lives, suffers and does your bidding in this kingdom. Being the CEO in a lightsout factory, is beeing the janitor.
So why do all these shitty jobs and hamster wheels exist? To give all those "great-men" the ilusion of importance.
