- What are the numbers for the years previously?
- What are the numbers for travel to other countries/locations?
- What's the breakdown between flights originating in Canada or US?
Hard to draw real conclusions without all data, but easy to make something clickable.
This feels as hopeless as trying to keep your email/contacts from social media sites. Even if you are vigilant about never allowing an app/service to download your contacts, your friends will share theirs and it is trivial to recreate your contact list. If I keep my DNA from these companies, my relatives will share theirs and they basically have my DNA.
I didn't bother to mess around with mounting, I just used command strips to attach the driver board to the back of the monitor and mounted the monitor on one of these clamp-type stands:
Anytime someone is trying to keep their hand in my pocket with continuous payments for something used to be a one time payment rather than offer the same but as a service is rent seeking to me. Am I confused on the definition?
What would be an example of that? Most that I can think of involve a company (cough BMW cough) offering a feature they used to sell outright, for a monthly fee. The fee being much lower than the outright price of that feature. They're still offering something of value, in this case convenience and lower cost (if you don't want it all the time, buying it incrementally may well be cheaper than buying it outright; Tesla FSD comes to mind as a contemporary example).
I think the problem most people have with the BMW trick is that they include the feature physically, but disable it. That does almost smell like rent seeking, but I think it does not quite get there. Manufacturers routinely hold back a bit and don't deliver maximum capability. For reasons like emissions, or longevity, whatever. This isn't much different IMO, if you're not paying anything for it then the fact that they included it anyway is immaterial.
Probably the most common kind of rent everyone thinks of, property rental, is also not rent-seeking. There is value in what is being provided.
To go back to a car analogy, it would be like BMW engaging the brakes on your car and then charging you a fee release them so you could drive (even better, making it legally required to pay the fee in order to drive on public roads). They're not providing any value at all, and then demanding money for it.
The pejorative term, in the economic sense, tends to be reserved for rents obtained by gaming the system, rather than the usual kind that charges for use of property or capital.
Example: a utility company lobbies for a law requiring utilities to charge a junk fee.
Non-example: I charge someone to live in my spare bedroom.
Tesla is offering use of something they built (Superchargers, self-driving software, etc.) in exchange for a fee. They aren't gaming the system to force anyone to pay. You might not like the pricing model, but there's nothing economically wrong with it.
Yes, that's not rent-seeking. Rent-seeking is basically collecting money without offering any service or product in return. It does not benefit the economy, in contrary to profit-seeking, which is what Tesla is doing.
This is wrong and if it's the same idea floating around Twitter based on page 17 of the 13D, it's definitely wrong. People are misinterpreting a reference to no longer being subject to seller's due diligence because financing has been secured, i.e. the buyer is qualified.
Hard to draw real conclusions without all data, but easy to make something clickable.