3 ms·
I think if one really wanted to put effort into a Care Bear style NPO, one possible solution is to buy up a fleet of used toyota corollas and finance them to po
by 0xfaded 9y ago
I think if one really wanted to put effort into a Care Bear style NPO, one possible solution is to buy up a fleet of used toyota corollas and finance them to poorer buyers using similar style methods (e.g. keep the immobilizer and repossessions) but using non-predatory pricing schemes. As part of the deal, you provide all maintenance at your shops to keep the cars in good condition, but because you only deal with a single car type you can keep costs down, similar to how Ryanair maintains a homogeneous fleet of A330's. You might even be able to provide a group insurance plan.
Of course this would require a true Care Bear to execute, since you could probably make a lot of money if you just left in the predatory pricing. And the problem would have never existed if decent public transport existed in the first place, which self driving cars may eventually provide some semblance of.
- SilasX 9y agoI've suggested exactly this model every time someone claims the terms are unfair. It would give you a self-funding charity with an ever-upward beneficial spiral. So why doesn't it happen? Because it's not unfair, in the sense of charging too much relative to the risk.
- 0xfaded 9y agoI think there's two factors here 1. The relative risk is reduced only when your risk pool size becomes huge, and it would be difficult for a start-up charity to weather the initial storm. 2. The execution of such a charity would be non-trivial. As a dumb example, if someone wanted to make "uber for the poor", a charity that provides free ride hailing using donated time and resources donated entirely by the drivers, you would still need to build the app and run the infrastructure. Actually owning the vehicles and maintaining them only adds to the burden.