> Under a deal reached in November 2020, Canoo reimburses Aquila Family Ventures, an entity owned by the CEO (Tony Aquila), for use of an aircraft. In 2023, Canoo spent $1.7 million on this reimbursement — that’s double the amount of revenue it generated. Canoo paid Aquila Family Ventures $1.3 million in 2022 and $1.8 million in 2021 for use of the aircraft.
I'm surprised there are any employees left at the company. If I saw that the CEO is actively funneling funds out of the company where we work, to their family's company, I'll be long gone.
New Zealand is the most amazing country I've ever visited. Scenery wise, but also super nice people and politically sane (Andern in particular was great, too bad she left)
I'd live there too if it wasn't literally on the other side of the planet for me and I don't want to cause hundreds of tons of CO2 every time I want to see my family :'(
Earthquakes - so far so good, but I grew up in LA and lived through multiple large-ish quakes (Northridge). One big difference is that many small rural towns only have one road in or out, so a quake could block the road, leaving you stranded, possibly without power. This is the case along the west coast of the South Island.
Food - groceries are pricey! It was surprisingly expensive given the lower wages here. CA seems to be catching up though!
Mosquitoes - comparable to LA, less than Sonoma County. Smaller too. But here on the South Island we also have sandflies. They vary by region. West Coast has them bad in some remote spots.
All of those countries have societal norms that are vastly different with respect to illness.
Japanese people voluntarily, proactively wear masks when sick in public, for example.
Notwithstanding some of the later research about the efficacy of masks, there was a lot less those governments HAD to CHANGE to minimize disruption, because their populations were already not generally selfish about their needs versus those around them.
No, they're not, but when you have a population that already is (let's be real) significantly more selfless and conscious of the wider impact of infectious disease (or even the perception thereof), you're going to be able to enact other public policies that are consistent with that goal with a lot less disruption or opposition.
I felt Thailand, where I live, handled it fine. I didn't feel like we got pressured here into getting the COVID vaccination and life could go on quite as normal for me as an unvaccinated person in our village (in the city it might have been different).
Though my girlfriend did get the COVID vaccination eventually, due to her being afraid of not being able to visit venues, restaurants and such. She regrets now that she got the COVID vaccination. We know of many people in our neighborhood who've gotten health issues related to the COVID vaccination (e.g. blood clotting, strokes, Guillain-Barré syndrome, etcetera).
I felt that NZ handled it great! I lived through a year of American lock down and then a year of Kiwi lockdown (we emigrated from the US while on lockdown - it was nuts). IMO Ardern handled it beautifully, at least compared to the misinformation train wreck happening in the states, but that is of course only my opinion.
I'm not fan of the guy by any measure, but how is this any different than the government paying to make any president's existing properties places where a president and his massive entourage can stay? It's been done by every president I can remember aside from maybe Clinton because I don't remember him having any significant places.
What other President profited from government employees being forced to rent rooms at his hotels? You really have to be deep in the cult to not see a problem with this.
I'm not following. Do you think Obama and Bush were charging rent to the government for their personal residences or something? What other Presidents owned business entities that billed the government for services? It is mind boggling that the ethics of this need to be explained.
It's different because other presidents didn't then bill the government for the entourage to stay on a per-night basis for each stay.
An added bonus for Trump was that his properties were also accessible to the public, so he got to make extra $$$ from people who wanted to stay close to where the President was. No previous president had that kind of an arrangement.
I have no interest in defending the man, but this argument triggers me. Do you also make sure to regularly remind people that those football players with Superbowl rings never won the world series?
Edit: the point is that the win condition is electoral votes. A rational actor will optimize for that, potentially at the expense of the popular vote even, and they will be more likely to win for it. In other words, don't have your quarterback spend his practice time in the batting cages if you want to win the super bowl.
If he actually uses the jet for Canoo-related business, this is not unreasonable.
Assuming those trips may eventually lead to business deals, and that the amounts reimbursed are in line with free market prices, it is advantageous to Canoo.
Their CEO could be x% "more effective" (I know how abstract that sounds), ultimately benefiting the company, and maybe they even got a good deal ("hey, I own a jet, and it has to fly at least 200 times per year to cover its maintenance costs. If you allow me to use it for Canoo-related trips, which are anyway needed, and reimburse me, I'll charge you less than what netjets wold cost us. Deal? Y/N")
The real world tends to be more nuanced, but in principle it stands, at least until proven guilty/shady.
Ethics in the 21st century I guess. No, conflicts work the opposite way - assumed shady until cleared. Virtually every business works this way, especially ones with investors. Conflicts can of course be legitimately cleared, but not with just some hand-waving. It is no different than my company not allowing me to direct business to entities owned by myself or my family.
This is no unheard of. I worked at a company where the CEO got an interest-free loan from the company to buy his own jet, then charged the company to use it.
Of course that individual later pled guilty to a variety of federal crimes, so :shrug:
It may also be part and parcel of the market they're trying to play in.
If every other "car company" has a private jet ready to whisk the CEO anywhere in the world, you might look really silly to other companies who expect you to be able to make a near last minute meeting.
And if you're an employee, as long as you get paid you're likely not to care much about it.
In what way is he funneling money into the company?
> The company generated $886,000 in revenue in 2023 compared to zero dollars in 2022 [...] In 2023, Canoo spent $1.7 million on this reimbursement — that’s double the amount of revenue it generated. Canoo paid Aquila Family Ventures $1.3 million in 2022 and $1.8 million in 2021 for use of the aircraft.
I'm surprised there are any employees left at the company. If I saw that the CEO is actively funneling funds out of the company where we work, to their family's company, I'll be long gone.