Nice Post Fred. Kind of ending 2008 on a sad note. No irrational exuberance. The gas tax is a great idea. That one idea - establishing a floor on energy to artificially support alternative energy - is worthy of noting.
I love newspapers and all that they do - and blogs can't - and hope that they learn how to make money on the web in 2009.
I hope your dreams come true.
matt schulte
· 12 months ago
Great list. #1 is a tough sell, of course....Obama will certainly have everyone's attention though. Maybe we'll some real leadership on this point. #3 I can tell you also anecdotally that this is true. My kids have been in a Japanese immersion program since elementary school, and every winter we have students stay with us for a few weeks. The 16 year old girl that was just here actually mentioned that owning a car was on no one's radar her age. I of course already owned a car at 16, and drove constantly. My 10 year old asked if she could just borrow my car if she needed to when she grew up. Cute. I am heading to Japan on the 15th of January, for 2 weeks, business and pleasure, and am really interested in following up on this point. #4 Crucial. I predict (oops!) a lot of activity in this space in 2009. #8 Obama, to my eyes, has a streak of realism in there with his much-discussed idealism. He seems results oriented to me. I think this is not as much of a fantasy as you think. Joe Namath won the Super Bowl in '69 without throwing a single pass in the 4th quarter, right? Great leaders surprise you with their path to success.
ceonyc
· 12 months ago
We can afford a gas tax in NYC because there's great public transportation.... but what about people who absolutely have to commute?
It seems backwards to me that there are no requirements for automakers to make cars that use less gas but there's a tax on driving around the cars that we get to choose from and many of us (not me) drive as a necessity.
If you have three kids and all the gear that comes with it, you're not driving around in a Prius to grandma's house for the holidays. Let Detroit come up with viable alternatives... THEN tax people for not choosing the right way to go.
I don't think the major problem with our consumption in this country is recreational joy riding and wasteful gas consumption.
fredwilson
· 12 months ago
Just to be clear charlie in case it wasn't in the post, the gas tax in tom's proposal funds an equal reduction in payroll tax so if you need to drive to work, you aren't out money. But if you can find another way, you pocket the difference
ceonyc
· 12 months ago
And driving for groceries, kids to soccer practice, dentist appts, etc.? What about the added cost of food and deliveries and such for commercial vehicles?
I'm all for personal responsibility, but I still it's backwards where Detroit we can make all the 300HP Mustangs it wants, have zero incentive to get my MPG up above 18, and my alternative is to buy some junky little hybrid with 120 HP.
If anything, the government should be bailing out Tesla, not GM.
It's the same with cigarette taxes, soda taxes... How about limiting the amount of nicotine, sugar, etc that can go in this stuff before you start depending on the intelligence of the average American to make rational economic choices. I'm short American intelligence.
Tom Evslin
· 12 months ago
Carmakers'll make the cars we want to buy. Right now hybrid technology costs more than a straight gas engine; plug in hybrid electrics even more. If we "order" the US car makers to make these, families will still buy the cars with the lowest total cost of ownership which, at today's gasoline prices, are traditional gas powered cars.
If we use a tax to increase the price of oil before OPEC gets a chance to do that and keep th profits, we create a market for fuel efficient cars without government having to decide which fuel efficiency technologies are best. IMHO neither GM nor Tesla should be bailed out.
As Fred points out, those who manage to reduce their gas bill either by carpooling, taking public transit, or buying more fuel efficient cars get to keep the savings which should be rebated through payroll tax deductions. From an economic point of view, this tax is slightly redistributionist but it moves money to the low end of the economy where it is sure to stay in circulation.
ceonyc
· 12 months ago
"Carmakers'll make the cars we want to buy."
Been to an American auto dealership lately?
Tom Evslin
· 12 months ago
Yup, I did go to an American car dealer.
It had the cars that most Americans wanted to buy (until very recently). It had the best trucks in the world; it had pretty good SUVs.
That's not what I wanted so I went to a Toyota dealership and bought a Highlander Hybrid (also an SUV) - but that was a lifestyle choice and driven by my own desire to reduce use of imported oil and play with the latest technology. Even at the $4.00/gallon that gas cost when we bought the car, it wasn't a good economic decision and it certainly isn't at the current cost of gas. Many families can't afford to indulge themselves with paying such a high initial price and getting no return on it.
I'm not an apologist for the American car industry; I don't think there should've been a bailout at all. But I think we will kill both the carmakers and our investment in them if we force them to make cars which don't make economic sense rather than creating a market for fuel efficient cars with a steep gas tax (and rebate thru payroll taxes).
ceonyc
· 12 months ago
I just struggle with the idea that at $4/gallon there's a market for a hybrid, but not at $2.50.
Even if you drove the same amount regardless of what the price is, the avg american drives 15k/year and prob gets around 20mpg... $1313. At $4, you're talking $3000... so, about $1125 a year difference.... or rather, $93/month.
It's not chump change, but it's also not enough to suddenly create a market for hybrids. If anything... it just makes people get a slightly cheaper car next time.
For me, I drive about 8k a year... which means expensive gas costs me about $666 more a year, w/o cutting down at all.... since I do cut down a bit when gas is expensive, it's even less of a difference than that. Added $666 of cost a year would not have effected my buying decision.
What would have affected my buying decision is if, at the dealer, when I bought the car, they said, "Do you want the Mustang with 300HP that gets 18MPG or the one with 250HP that gets 30MPG". I would have taken the Hybrid.
You could say, "If we demand that, they'll build it" but do you really think people wouldn't buy it if it existed. Is there really a lack of demand for cars of equal quality and fun to drive that cost less to own?
How many years of crappy quality did Detroit go through before they realized, "Hey, there's a demand for higher quality autos?" The demand was clear... people were buying exports left and right. In the meantime, we had to wait 15-20 years for Detroit to even get in the ballpark on quality.
Tom Evslin
· 12 months ago
I think at $4.00/gallon there will begin to be economic sense and a mass market for plugin hybrid electric vehicles so long as we have smart metering and an incentive to charge up with baseload rather than peak electricity. There will be more of a market for "traditional" hybrids" - especially as the price comes down as the batteries become cheaper in quantity.
But I also suggested that the tax continue to increase predictably over time.
How does your scheming work in Montana? You want a subway from Boise to Billings?
fredwilson
· 12 months ago
His scheme doesn't take money out of people's pockets because the gas tax is refunded by a drop in the payroll tax. Clearly there's no train in montana but one could get an electric or hybrid car and pocket money on that trade
Mike
· 11 months ago
What if someone has to drive a long way back and forth to work every day, but only makes $25,000 a year? I would think that the payroll tax deduction for that person would not be enough to compensate for the increase in their driving costs.
For me personally, it would be great. I drive very little (most work from home, and when I do have to go to the office, it is not far) and make enough to where I pay the max every year in Social Security.
But I think it would be tough for people in the lower incomes that have to drive long distances.
Brian
· 12 months ago
It takes a while to design and build a new car. Detroit would get there but they have to expect that gas prices will remain elevated for at least 5-10 years. However, they are already building small cars in Europe. The fuel efficiency laws make it impossible for them to import these small cars back to the US because of the way they are written.
Prices are behavioral management tools. It would be a lot easier for the government to impose a tax that incentivizes people to buy energy efficient vehicles than to mandate to innumerable industries what their product specs should be.
I am long on the American consumers ability to choose in this scenario. Note that when gas went above $4, you could not find any hybrids because everyone was buying them. At the same time, you could have your choice of Hummers. That has changed since the drop in oil prices (which are only temporarily down).
Go to Ireland and see what kind of cars on the on the road - all small. They imposed a high tariff on fuel years ago and the effect has been dramatic in favor of fuel-efficient small cars.
Also note the effect on smoking that Bloomberg has had by raising taxes on cigs and not allowing smoking in bars in NY. Way down. In Massachusetts heart attacks went down 600 people fewer after the smoking ban there. That would not have happened I don't believe if the Government had regulated nicotine levels. It's all prices and usage rules for consumers.
Steven Kane
· 12 months ago
one of your best ever pieces
happy new year
fredwilson
· 12 months ago
Hmm. Thanks steve. Happy new year to you too
kidmercury
· 12 months ago
lol, boss i know you gotta go along with the whole "run for your lives the world is melting and the only way to solve it is impose carbon restrictions" because of your investments, but carbon energy is not a problem, in spite of what al bore may say. tons of scientists and reams of evidence can refute mr bore. but let's see the feds try a global carbon tax, perhaps the real agenda will be clearer then.
and lbj is punk ass chump who helped cover up the hit on kennedy and issued NSAM 273 to reverse NSAM 263 which was kennedy's order to withdraw from vietnam. financing vietnam forced the US to fully go off the gold standard to facilitate expansion of the money supply which resulted in stagflation of the '70s and helped give the fed the almost limitless power it now has, which enabled the reckless policies under greenspan and now bernanke, which are the principal causes of our current crisis. so i suppose he brought us civil rights in the sense that he economically enslaved us all, regardless of race or creed.
anyway i'm going to a party tonight but i'll be on call so if things get out of hand here at AVC.com just hit me up on twitter boss and i'll take care of it asap.
Even if you're a skeptic regarding anthropogenic global warming (as I am but that's different than a denier) there are plenty of good security and economic reasons for reducing our use of imported oil. That's why I proposed a gas tax increase - and eventually increases in taxes on other petroleum products - rather than a carbon tax.
Steven Kane
· 12 months ago
completely agree - reducing oil consumption is a national security issue, even if not an environmental one (i'm also a skeptic)
in addition to a simple gas tax, we should also have some "energy luxury" consumption taxes - massive levies on private jets and their fuel, privately owned limosines, all limo fuel, large recreational boats and their fuel, second and third homes, excessively large homes (say bigger than 3000 sq feet) etc
Tom Evslin
· 12 months ago
Steve:
Rather than have government get into the tricky business of deciding what is or isn't a luxury and both creating a bonanza for lobbyists and encouraging the design of products just to technically avoid luxury classification, I'd rather rely on the rebate of the gas tax through payroll taxes to accomplish much of the same goal.
There should be enough rebate so that families at the low end of the economic ladder are better off even if they can't immediately cut their gas consumption. The rebates at the low end of payroll tax won't even begin to match the tax that owners of heated second homes (like me unless I can get my geothermal working) will pay once fuel oil is included and that owners of corporate jets will pay so it does become somewhat of a luxury tax.
Steven Kane
· 12 months ago
I agree but don¹t think these ideas are mutually incompatible
The govt is already well into the business of deciding what is a luxury all sort of taxes and levies already in place. Yes, lobbyists try to create workarounds and loopholes, but I for one do not hold lobbyists in disdain. We are all members of various special interests groups. Lobbying the government is an essential part of a democratic system (albeit one ripe for scandal)
I am a lucky member of the affluent class, and I think it is appalling how little the wealthier members of our society are expected to give back. I hate tinkering with the income tax code most wealthy people couldn¹t care less and I am loathe to raise taxes on capital (e.g. Cap gains, dividends etc). So I have come to believe that consumptuion taxes aimed at spending that is well above the middle class is the best way to share the community wealth
Tom Evslin
· 12 months ago
My problem with targeted consumption taxes is both complexity and fairness.
A few months ago I read a column scornful of the driver of an SUV pulling a powerboat somewhere. As a sailor, I was tempted to buy into the criticism of the stinkpot owner. But the columunist didn't say what he was driving or where he was going when he saw the boater. Was his trip necessary or wasteful? Should he have taken the train or a bus? Does he take vacations by air.
My sailboat is made out of plastic - a petroleum byproduct. Although I only used a gallon of diesel last year directly, my boat gets towed to and from my garage at the end and begiing of each season. How does that get compared to the guy with the powerboat?
But I do understand your point and appeciate your thoughtfulness
Brian
· 12 months ago
Steve,
Why don't you just hold up the affluent at gunpoint if you think they should give more? Same thing the government would be doing.
What does giving have to do with higher taxes? Does the government spending our money on terrible public works projects really make anyone but a developer's life better. After all the money we spend on welfare, why do we still have poor people? Ditto for all the money we spend on government health care.
I am fine with a national sales tax, but we should not be petty and design taxes specifically targeted at crap rich people buy.
If we need to raise money, we should start taxing blogs and comments. People are wasting tons of time on blogs when they could be volunteering to make the world a better place. Blogs are causing more reading which increases obesity. Obesity increases flatulence which leads to increased methane which creates global warming. Let's do it for the children.
Happy New Year!!
kidmercury
· 12 months ago
i view this matter, like i view everything, in simple terms:
1. govt is filled with criminals; while there are plenty of honest people in govt, the institution as a whole is run by criminals, and hence it has a criminal agenda, not a public service agenda. in light of that, let us recall the simple equation of taxation = giving money to govt. ergo, taxation = giving money to criminals. because of this, giving money to govt (i.e. taxation) should be the last possible option, and done only when truly necessary. 2. the reason the govt = criminals equation is not apparent is because people don't know the Truth. too bad the Internet is making it hard for this excuse to continue being viable, as it allows obnoxious brats like me to storm around the web ranting about 9/11 being an inside job and coupling it with jokes about arlington bliss mccrum jr's name. boy, i sure do love the web! 3. from points #1 and #2, we can deduce that any real solution begins with people learning the Truth.
after knowing the Truth, the solution becomes obvious: reduce govt. cut govt spending. end the wars based on the 9/11 lie. fix the federal reserve problem. and let the free market do its job. that might sound hard, but fortunately we have a brilliant document called the Constitution that tells us exactly what to do, as it was created by folks who suffered from the same problem of a criminal govt that we currently suffer from. too bad we abandoned the Constitution. maybe we can go back to it.
the economic problem is caused primarily by govt mistakes, just as it was during the Great Depression. more govt only magnifies the problem.
It's interesting that cars are no longer considered communication tools because surely that was their primary purpose back in the day. Really we're just shifting to the more efficient (faster and cheaper) method for interacting and connecting with the outside world.
dafish
· 12 months ago
I love the idea of a secondary market for start-ups. Although I dont know how it changes things for most start-up founders. I do see the value for investors, but the founder is probably not going to see much of a difference from what they experience today. Maybe my wish would be a way to help both the founders, employee's etc....and the VC's through a secondary market.
Brian
· 12 months ago
Re #4: Your desire for a secondary market is limited by regulation. Even investment in your funds is limited to 499 people (right?). The Sarbanes-Oxley regulations are burdensome and are definitely keeping companies from going public. But, as a not high net worth individual, I have no opportunity to invest in any small companies or in any fund that invests in small companies. Few public companies are pure-plays in areas where I wish to invest and most growth gets lost to the cash cow portions of the businesses.
So, you can talk about a secondary market for founders where only savvy people can invest, but frankly, I know some widows who are quite astute investors (after all, they have the time to read SEC filings and do research). If people want to buy into a company, why shouldn't they be allowed to? If you want to create a bigger market, more people need access to it.
I don't think rich people are any better at investing than poor people, maybe they can afford to lose more. Look at the way the margin calls have hit some of the richest people recently (Sumner Redstone, etc). I never had to sell a major portion of my stock holdings to meet margin, does that make me a better investor these billionaires? By one measure, I would be a more stable investor to have in your company than Mr. Redstone.
fredwilson
· 12 months ago
I am not hung up on limiting this to qualified investors but I am also realistic about sticking with the rules that are in place to get this whole thing started
Brian
· 12 months ago
Fair enough. But if you get it going, I'd love the chance to invest.
Krassen Dimitrov
· 12 months ago
Hmmm... How do you disclose confidential company information to that market? If you can't disclose the P&L and balance sheet, who would buy the stock? And if you are on the Board and you had that information, but you didn't disclose it to the buyer because of confidentiality, is that even legal? (even if we are talking qual. investors only)
fredwilson
· 12 months ago
Second market is encouraging companies that list to post basic financials and some other data. Any company that lists can limit the people who can see the data and trade on it. Although its clearly going to slip out over time if they do that
Krassen Dimitrov
· 12 months ago
Thanks, Fred, it does seem like an interesting idea, but I am afraid the need to disclose company info will limit participation. Happy New Year!
fredwilson
· 11 months ago
Me too. I am eager to see some of our companies list so I will face this hurdle and will need to overcome it. If enough leading companies do it, others might follow
Matthew Stotts
· 11 months ago
Sure, critical mass is always the challenge but Second Market, by choosing to be an SEC regulated alternative market, is putting up too many hurdles for investors and venture-backed pre-IPO companies alike. Rather than encouraging liquidation, organizations like InsideVenture are providing a direct private market for an additional private round of funding in the absence, but with the expectant return of, a healthy IPO market. I can't believe you are giving up on the IPO market forever.
fredwilson
· 11 months ago
I don't know how I feel about the ipo market long term but I do know that being on the board or even managing a public company in this day and age is not an ideal way to operate. I like the private markets better. If only we had more paths to liquidity in them
DonRyan
· 12 months ago
Great post (as usual), Fred. I think 1 is dead on arrival and 3 has already begun even here in the Midwest. Much more interest among my 18 year old and her friends in communications, computers, etc than cars and such. 6-9 are also spot on. Obama is going to lead from the center I think- if his cabinet choices are any indication. While there was significant suck in 2008, I remain bullish on 2009.
Have a great new year.
Andy Freeman
· 12 months ago
> FDR betrayed his "upbringing" and became the champion of the common man
Only in Hollywood.
The "New Deal" biz regulations basically screwed the common man in favor of corporate interests. The seminal cases involving wage and hour controls were brought against small, individually owned, bakeries and the like that were competing successfully with "big bread". The agriculture regulations hobbled the family farm. (The seminal "interstate commerce" case involves someone who was growing cattle feed for his own cattle that he was eating himself.)
FDR believed that the Great Depression was caused by too much supply and worked vigorously to destroy production. This is what made the "Great Depression" great - it didn't end until external events made it necessary for the US to become productive.
How the Obama administration comes down on this point will make a huge difference over the next four years. For now, it looks like they'll be siding with Krugman at al.
Andy Freeman
· 11 months ago
Krugman is only arguing about whether FDR wage policy lengthened the Great Depression.
The regulatory stuff is undisputed. Grain that you grow on your own land to feed cattle that you're going to slaugter and eat on said land is "interstate commerce" thanks to FDR. Do you really think that Walmart is going to be more affected by job regulations than Mom and Pop?
kidmercury
· 12 months ago
well said, you dropped it like it's hot. analysis is spot on.
Brian
· 12 months ago
I still do not understand why we need to limit our gas consumption. I do not understand how exactly this improves our national security. If I want to buy it, I should be able to buy it without the interference of the feds. It is not up to the feds to determine how much or how little energy I want to consume.
We need less government involvement in our lives not more.
Jeffrey McManus
· 12 months ago
I think that "closet conservative" is the wrong term to describe a Democrat who manages the economy sensibly. Conservatives pay a lot of lip service to that, but if you look at Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 (compared to the budget surplus we had under Clinton), American conservatives just don't walk the walk when it comes to the economy.
fredwilson
· 12 months ago
I don¹t mean conservative in the political sense, more in the attitude sense
Andy Freeman
· 11 months ago
The budget surplus under Clinton happened: (1) With a Repub congress. (2) After the savings and loan debacle had ended. (3) After the cold war ended.
(2) and (3) freed up a lot of money and the fighting between Clinton and Gingrich kept it from being spent.
Are Obama and Pelosi going to fight?
vruz
· 12 months ago
i agree on everything except perhaps about Facebook. I'm more skeptical about them than I was a year ago. And that valuation of $9B you set for them back then, I'd say it has mightly deflated.
I'd really love a Private Equity Market of sorts. Thousands of little big companies working together. Now that would be something 3.0 and i don't see it happening in the US.
That could happen elsewhere, where we're already used to downsizing costs and downsizing the downsizings :-) It will take a major cultural shift for that to happen in the US where the biggest and the mightiest are the most respected. And cultural shifts take a long time to happen, i hope it's not too late for the US to get on this train. That's my sincerest wish.
And now, back to work, and cranking code and riding bikes :-)
Have a great 2009 !
Chris Dodge
· 12 months ago
Re: #4 (Secondary Market). While not providing liquidity on the equity, I wonder whether startups - if they focus on operational results as opposed to pure value-creation in terms of equity valuations (e.g. building up loss-leading user bases) - they can/should issue dividends to equity holders? If liquidity events on equity will be limited in the near future, then at least there could be some alignment/incentive in terms of getting startups into a cash-flow focused operation. That also might broaden appeal to a wider set of investors that may be comfortable with lower returns and even in "lifestyle companies".
Is there any precedence regarding a tech startup really issuing dividends? I just googled and noticed a discussion of "Accured and Unpaid Dividends" (http://www.technologystartuplaw.com/?p=36) that get paid out at a liquidity event, but seems like the dividend is never paid otherwise.
Of course, dividends are moot unless startups are profitable, but it would be a shift of looking at ROI of putting money into a startup in sight of the restricted IPO/M&A market.
Just a thought.
fredwilson
· 12 months ago
I like it when our profitable and cash generating companies pay incentive compensation bonuses to the management tied to increasing cash flow and operating margins
That aligns interests well with shareholders but it doesn¹t produce the same big paydays that equity sales can
scottshapiro
· 12 months ago
this post will definitely get techmeme'd
love the piece about the gas tax, but i'd bet that it will take a few years before housing completely bottoms. there are too many attempts to fix the problem that aren't getting to the core (i.e. interest only loan mods, principal forbearance, etc.). too much trial and error is going on before everyone agrees to take a big hit and modify loans so that homeowners can sustainably pay and the market can start to strengthen.
example
· 12 months ago
We need a carbon tax, not a gas tax. Coal plants and whatnot shouldn't get a free ride on the backs of motorists. Cars are our most visceral CO2 sources, but they are not the largest.
fredwilson
· 12 months ago
I agree completely
Malcolm Lloyd
· 12 months ago
8) Define Conservative. It seems to me that the last several Republican Presidents(who are typically held to be conservatives) have had more of an impact on socializing our country and expanding the deficit than any Democrat. The only difference being where the money is spent, not if and how much.
What I want from Obama is truth and realism. It's OK to want to help everyone, just realize that you can't and be truthful about it. Realize that some people/entities will fail because, even though their names are iconic, the balance sheet and the output no longer is.
Realize that after 'giving' over $1 Trillion in bailout funds to companies to prevent the 'collapse' of our economy, a few hundred billion to prevent the hunger or ensure the health of our fellow citizens shouldn't be too much of a strain. Regardless of how much those who have just been bailed out protest.
While it's true the country is in dire straits economically, I don't want our next President to feel like he can't help The People because The irrationally exuberant bankrupt corporations have taken all the money from the till.
-Malcolm Lloyd
fredwilson
· 12 months ago
Well said. Its a balance and I hope he can find the right one
PCube
· 12 months ago
Fred, no revenue generation wishes for Twitter?
fredwilson
· 12 months ago
Certainly I have wishes for all of our portfolio companies but its hard for me to talk about all of them and I wouldn't want to single out just one of them. Twitter gets a lot of buzz but we have many exciting companies in our portfolio and 2009 is going to be an interesting year for all of them. Revenues will be front and center for most, that's for sure
Dan Weinreb
· 12 months ago
I don't think Obama will be a "closet conservative", but I think he will be more centrist than some people might expect. The whole left-right characterization is so bankrupt, anyway: there are many, many issues and you can't just assume that someone is "x% to the left/right" and that will predict his behavior on all the issues. Anyway, if you advocate a gas tax (me, too), you must not be an ideologically-pure "conservative" anyway, so maybe what you're wishing for is OK with me. The rest of your hopes are my own hopes too. Happy New Year!
Brian_Lord
· 11 months ago
This is a great post. I like your positive attitude it is constructive and reasonable. Happy New Year.
Megan
· 11 months ago
#1 has been said for years, but it needs to keep being said because it's right on the mark and hopefully somebody will implement it one of these days. #2, #6 and #7 are right on and very original. Thanks for your smart observations, Fred.
Timothy Post
· 11 months ago
I wish someone would develop a browser plugin which would compare a website RSS/Atom feed with my Google Reader OPML file and let me know if I already am subscribed.
A corollary wish is a blogroll feature which would offer all the RSS/Atom feeds as a single OPML file which could be easily imported into your reader of choice. This feature would be especially useful at this time of year when everyone seems to be publishing "Best of..." lists. It's a bit of a pain to manually copy/paste 30 RSS feeds into your reader without also knowing which feeds you already subscribe to (see above).
Lastly, I wish that Apple's Safari development team would offer a feature in Preferences which would deactivate the auto insertion of the prefix feed://, instead of http://, whenever one clicks the RSS icon in the address field.
fredwilson
· 11 months ago
There's a big need for a mobile/social feed/blog reader. That's one thing I wish for
Timothy Post
· 11 months ago
Fred, I agree 100%.
Currently, I use the Google Reader on my iPhone. While it works well it doesn't synch with my desktop client and so posts which I have already read remain on the desktop as duplicates. Plus, I can't share with a note items on the mobile version.
Andrew Deal
· 11 months ago
I share most of the same hopes apart from the draconian demonization of gasoline on the consumer level. Instead, do the same thing but on a tariff level, so that only imported oil is taxed. This keeps the revenue approach more constitutionally aligned, and makes us, the main nation int he world really concerned with doing things cleanly, incentivized to produce cleanly and set an example the rest of the world will follow.
pauljacobson
· 11 months ago
I am with you on the iPod Touch although I'd like to see Apple release an iPod Touch that has at least 80GB of space on the drive so I can replace my aging 60GB iPod 5th Gen. An iPod Touch with those sorts of specs would make an awesome media device and pseudo PDA (I wouldn't consider an iPhone until it received a number of massive upgrades - sticking with my Nokia E71 and whichever super smartphone Nokia comes up with next).
As it is I carry my E71 and my iPod with me pretty much wherever I go and having a more capable and powerful iPod Touch would hit a sweet spot for me.
All Comments
I love newspapers and all that they do - and blogs can't - and hope that they learn how to make money on the web in 2009.
I hope your dreams come true.
#1 is a tough sell, of course....Obama will certainly have everyone's attention though. Maybe we'll some real leadership on this point.
#3 I can tell you also anecdotally that this is true. My kids have been in a Japanese immersion program since elementary school, and every winter we have students stay with us for a few weeks. The 16 year old girl that was just here actually mentioned that owning a car was on no one's radar her age. I of course already owned a car at 16, and drove constantly. My 10 year old asked if she could just borrow my car if she needed to when she grew up. Cute. I am heading to Japan on the 15th of January, for 2 weeks, business and pleasure, and am really interested in following up on this point.
#4 Crucial. I predict (oops!) a lot of activity in this space in 2009.
#8 Obama, to my eyes, has a streak of realism in there with his much-discussed idealism. He seems results oriented to me. I think this is not as much of a fantasy as you think. Joe Namath won the Super Bowl in '69 without throwing a single pass in the 4th quarter, right? Great leaders surprise you with their path to success.
It seems backwards to me that there are no requirements for automakers to make cars that use less gas but there's a tax on driving around the cars that we get to choose from and many of us (not me) drive as a necessity.
If you have three kids and all the gear that comes with it, you're not driving around in a Prius to grandma's house for the holidays. Let Detroit come up with viable alternatives... THEN tax people for not choosing the right way to go.
I don't think the major problem with our consumption in this country is recreational joy riding and wasteful gas consumption.
etc.? What about the added cost of food and deliveries and such for
commercial vehicles?
I'm all for personal responsibility, but I still it's backwards where
Detroit we can make all the 300HP Mustangs it wants, have zero incentive
to get my MPG up above 18, and my alternative is to buy some junky
little hybrid with 120 HP.
If anything, the government should be bailing out Tesla, not GM.
It's the same with cigarette taxes, soda taxes... How about
limiting the amount of nicotine, sugar, etc that can go in this stuff
before you start depending on the intelligence of the average American
to make rational economic choices. I'm short American intelligence.
If we use a tax to increase the price of oil before OPEC gets a chance to do that and keep th profits, we create a market for fuel efficient cars without government having to decide which fuel efficiency technologies are best. IMHO neither GM nor Tesla should be bailed out.
As Fred points out, those who manage to reduce their gas bill either by carpooling, taking public transit, or buying more fuel efficient cars get to keep the savings which should be rebated through payroll tax deductions. From an economic point of view, this tax is slightly redistributionist but it moves money to the low end of the economy where it is sure to stay in circulation.
Been to an American auto dealership lately?
It had the cars that most Americans wanted to buy (until very recently). It had the best trucks in the world; it had pretty good SUVs.
That's not what I wanted so I went to a Toyota dealership and bought a Highlander Hybrid (also an SUV) - but that was a lifestyle choice and driven by my own desire to reduce use of imported oil and play with the latest technology. Even at the $4.00/gallon that gas cost when we bought the car, it wasn't a good economic decision and it certainly isn't at the current cost of gas. Many families can't afford to indulge themselves with paying such a high initial price and getting no return on it.
I'm not an apologist for the American car industry; I don't think there should've been a bailout at all. But I think we will kill both the carmakers and our investment in them if we force them to make cars which don't make economic sense rather than creating a market for fuel efficient cars with a steep gas tax (and rebate thru payroll taxes).
hybrid, but not at $2.50.
Even if you drove the same amount regardless of what the price is, the
avg american drives 15k/year and prob gets around 20mpg... $1313. At
$4, you're talking $3000... so, about $1125 a year difference.... or
rather, $93/month.
It's not chump change, but it's also not enough to suddenly create a
market for hybrids. If anything... it just makes people get a slightly
cheaper car next time.
For me, I drive about 8k a year... which means expensive gas costs me
about $666 more a year, w/o cutting down at all.... since I do cut
down a bit when gas is expensive, it's even less of a difference than
that. Added $666 of cost a year would not have effected my buying
decision.
What would have affected my buying decision is if, at the dealer, when I
bought the car, they said, "Do you want the Mustang with 300HP that gets
18MPG or the one with 250HP that gets 30MPG". I would have taken the
Hybrid.
You could say, "If we demand that, they'll build it" but do you really
think people wouldn't buy it if it existed. Is there really a lack of
demand for cars of equal quality and fun to drive that cost less to own?
How many years of crappy quality did Detroit go through before they
realized, "Hey, there's a demand for higher quality autos?" The demand
was clear... people were buying exports left and right. In the
meantime, we had to wait 15-20 years for Detroit to even get in the
ballpark on quality.
But I also suggested that the tax continue to increase predictably over time.
Tom Evslin
blog: blog.tomevslin.com
novel: hackoff.com
latest: The Interpreter's Tale
For me personally, it would be great. I drive very little (most work from home, and when I do have to go to the office, it is not far) and make enough to where I pay the max every year in Social Security.
But I think it would be tough for people in the lower incomes that have to drive long distances.
Demand driven change via a tax would probably have a greater impact than requiring higher fuel efficiency. Greg Mankiw has written about this stuff often (here are a few):
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/05/obama-bu...
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/06/reading-...
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/01/krautham...
I am long on the American consumers ability to choose in this scenario. Note that when gas went above $4, you could not find any hybrids because everyone was buying them. At the same time, you could have your choice of Hummers. That has changed since the drop in oil prices (which are only temporarily down).
Go to Ireland and see what kind of cars on the on the road - all small. They imposed a high tariff on fuel years ago and the effect has been dramatic in favor of fuel-efficient small cars.
Also note the effect on smoking that Bloomberg has had by raising taxes on cigs and not allowing smoking in bars in NY. Way down. In Massachusetts heart attacks went down 600 people fewer after the smoking ban there. That would not have happened I don't believe if the Government had regulated nicotine levels. It's all prices and usage rules for consumers.
happy new year
and lbj is punk ass chump who helped cover up the hit on kennedy and issued NSAM 273 to reverse NSAM 263 which was kennedy's order to withdraw from vietnam. financing vietnam forced the US to fully go off the gold standard to facilitate expansion of the money supply which resulted in stagflation of the '70s and helped give the fed the almost limitless power it now has, which enabled the reckless policies under greenspan and now bernanke, which are the principal causes of our current crisis. so i suppose he brought us civil rights in the sense that he economically enslaved us all, regardless of race or creed.
anyway i'm going to a party tonight but i'll be on call so if things get out of hand here at AVC.com just hit me up on twitter boss and i'll take care of it asap.
happy new year,
kid mercury, official AVC bouncer
in addition to a simple gas tax, we should also have some "energy luxury" consumption taxes - massive levies on private jets and their fuel, privately owned limosines, all limo fuel, large recreational boats and their fuel, second and third homes, excessively large homes (say bigger than 3000 sq feet) etc
Rather than have government get into the tricky business of deciding what is or isn't a luxury and both creating a bonanza for lobbyists and encouraging the design of products just to technically avoid luxury classification, I'd rather rely on the rebate of the gas tax through payroll taxes to accomplish much of the same goal.
There should be enough rebate so that families at the low end of the economic ladder are better off even if they can't immediately cut their gas consumption. The rebates at the low end of payroll tax won't even begin to match the tax that owners of heated second homes (like me unless I can get my geothermal working) will pay once fuel oil is included and that owners of corporate jets will pay so it does become somewhat of a luxury tax.
The govt is already well into the business of deciding what is a luxury
all sort of taxes and levies already in place. Yes, lobbyists try to create
workarounds and loopholes, but I for one do not hold lobbyists in disdain.
We are all members of various special interests groups. Lobbying the
government is an essential part of a democratic system (albeit one ripe for
scandal)
I am a lucky member of the affluent class, and I think it is appalling how
little the wealthier members of our society are expected to give back. I
hate tinkering with the income tax code most wealthy people couldn¹t care
less and I am loathe to raise taxes on capital (e.g. Cap gains, dividends
etc). So I have come to believe that consumptuion taxes aimed at spending
that is well above the middle class is the best way to share the community
wealth
A few months ago I read a column scornful of the driver of an SUV pulling a powerboat somewhere. As a sailor, I was tempted to buy into the criticism of the stinkpot owner. But the columunist didn't say what he was driving or where he was going when he saw the boater. Was his trip necessary or wasteful? Should he have taken the train or a bus? Does he take vacations by air.
My sailboat is made out of plastic - a petroleum byproduct. Although I only used a gallon of diesel last year directly, my boat gets towed to and from my garage at the end and begiing of each season. How does that get compared to the guy with the powerboat?
But I do understand your point and appeciate your thoughtfulness
Why don't you just hold up the affluent at gunpoint if you think they should give more? Same thing the government would be doing.
What does giving have to do with higher taxes? Does the government spending our money on terrible public works projects really make anyone but a developer's life better. After all the money we spend on welfare, why do we still have poor people? Ditto for all the money we spend on government health care.
I am fine with a national sales tax, but we should not be petty and design taxes specifically targeted at crap rich people buy.
If we need to raise money, we should start taxing blogs and comments. People are wasting tons of time on blogs when they could be volunteering to make the world a better place. Blogs are causing more reading which increases obesity. Obesity increases flatulence which leads to increased methane which creates global warming. Let's do it for the children.
Happy New Year!!
1. govt is filled with criminals; while there are plenty of honest people in govt, the institution as a whole is run by criminals, and hence it has a criminal agenda, not a public service agenda. in light of that, let us recall the simple equation of taxation = giving money to govt. ergo, taxation = giving money to criminals. because of this, giving money to govt (i.e. taxation) should be the last possible option, and done only when truly necessary.
2. the reason the govt = criminals equation is not apparent is because people don't know the Truth. too bad the Internet is making it hard for this excuse to continue being viable, as it allows obnoxious brats like me to storm around the web ranting about 9/11 being an inside job and coupling it with jokes about arlington bliss mccrum jr's name. boy, i sure do love the web!
3. from points #1 and #2, we can deduce that any real solution begins with people learning the Truth.
after knowing the Truth, the solution becomes obvious: reduce govt. cut govt spending. end the wars based on the 9/11 lie. fix the federal reserve problem. and let the free market do its job. that might sound hard, but fortunately we have a brilliant document called the Constitution that tells us exactly what to do, as it was created by folks who suffered from the same problem of a criminal govt that we currently suffer from. too bad we abandoned the Constitution. maybe we can go back to it.
the economic problem is caused primarily by govt mistakes, just as it was during the Great Depression. more govt only magnifies the problem.
-- kid mercury, official AVC bouncer
So, you can talk about a secondary market for founders where only savvy people can invest, but frankly, I know some widows who are quite astute investors (after all, they have the time to read SEC filings and do research). If people want to buy into a company, why shouldn't they be allowed to? If you want to create a bigger market, more people need access to it.
I don't think rich people are any better at investing than poor people, maybe they can afford to lose more. Look at the way the margin calls have hit some of the richest people recently (Sumner Redstone, etc). I never had to sell a major portion of my stock holdings to meet margin, does that make me a better investor these billionaires? By one measure, I would be a more stable investor to have in your company than Mr. Redstone.
realistic about sticking with the rules that are in place to get this whole
thing started
it does seem like an interesting idea, but I am afraid the need to disclose company info will limit participation.
Happy New Year!
Have a great new year.
Only in Hollywood.
The "New Deal" biz regulations basically screwed the common man in favor of corporate interests. The seminal cases involving wage and hour controls were brought against small, individually owned, bakeries and the like that were competing successfully with "big bread". The agriculture regulations hobbled the family farm. (The seminal "interstate commerce" case involves someone who was growing cattle feed for his own cattle that he was eating himself.)
FDR believed that the Great Depression was caused by too much supply and worked vigorously to destroy production. This is what made the "Great Depression" great - it didn't end until external events made it necessary for the US to become productive.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Poli...
How the Obama administration comes down on this point will make a huge difference over the next four years. For now, it looks like they'll be siding with Krugman at al.
The regulatory stuff is undisputed. Grain that you grow on your own land to feed cattle that you're going to slaugter and eat on said land is "interstate commerce" thanks to FDR. Do you really think that Walmart is going to be more affected by job regulations than Mom and Pop?
We need less government involvement in our lives not more.
(1) With a Repub congress.
(2) After the savings and loan debacle had ended.
(3) After the cold war ended.
(2) and (3) freed up a lot of money and the fighting between Clinton and Gingrich kept it from being spent.
Are Obama and Pelosi going to fight?
And that valuation of $9B you set for them back then, I'd say it has mightly deflated.
I'd really love a Private Equity Market of sorts. Thousands of little big companies working together.
Now that would be something 3.0 and i don't see it happening in the US.
That could happen elsewhere, where we're already used to downsizing costs and downsizing the downsizings :-)
It will take a major cultural shift for that to happen in the US where the biggest and the mightiest are the most respected. And cultural shifts take a long time to happen, i hope it's not too late for the US to get on this train. That's my sincerest wish.
And now, back to work, and cranking code and riding bikes :-)
Have a great 2009 !
Is there any precedence regarding a tech startup really issuing dividends? I just googled and noticed a discussion of "Accured and Unpaid Dividends" (http://www.technologystartuplaw.com/?p=36) that get paid out at a liquidity event, but seems like the dividend is never paid otherwise.
Of course, dividends are moot unless startups are profitable, but it would be a shift of looking at ROI of putting money into a startup in sight of the restricted IPO/M&A market.
Just a thought.
compensation bonuses to the management tied to increasing cash flow and
operating margins
That aligns interests well with shareholders but it doesn¹t produce the same
big paydays that equity sales can
love the piece about the gas tax, but i'd bet that it will take a few years before housing completely bottoms. there are too many attempts to fix the problem that aren't getting to the core (i.e. interest only loan mods, principal forbearance, etc.). too much trial and error is going on before everyone agrees to take a big hit and modify loans so that homeowners can sustainably pay and the market can start to strengthen.
What I want from Obama is truth and realism. It's OK to want to help everyone, just realize that you can't and be truthful about it. Realize that some people/entities will fail because, even though their names are iconic, the balance sheet and the output no longer is.
Realize that after 'giving' over $1 Trillion in bailout funds to companies to prevent the 'collapse' of our economy, a few hundred billion to prevent the hunger or ensure the health of our fellow citizens shouldn't be too much of a strain. Regardless of how much those who have just been bailed out protest.
While it's true the country is in dire straits economically, I don't want our next President to feel like he can't help The People because The irrationally exuberant bankrupt corporations have taken all the money from the till.
-Malcolm Lloyd
A corollary wish is a blogroll feature which would offer all the RSS/Atom feeds as a single OPML file which could be easily imported into your reader of choice. This feature would be especially useful at this time of year when everyone seems to be publishing "Best of..." lists. It's a bit of a pain to manually copy/paste 30 RSS feeds into your reader without also knowing which feeds you already subscribe to (see above).
Lastly, I wish that Apple's Safari development team would offer a feature in Preferences which would deactivate the auto insertion of the prefix feed://, instead of http://, whenever one clicks the RSS icon in the address field.
Currently, I use the Google Reader on my iPhone. While it works well it doesn't synch with my desktop client and so posts which I have already read remain on the desktop as duplicates. Plus, I can't share with a note items on the mobile version.
As it is I carry my E71 and my iPod with me pretty much wherever I go and having a more capable and powerful iPod Touch would hit a sweet spot for me.