Ping Larkin
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 2 Nov 2009 21:42 On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:01:53 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:34:00 -0800, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:39:02 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>>John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:08:32 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:48:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>>> Jobs? The current health care bill penalizes employers who don't >>>>>>> provide government-approved health care. So, when you make it a >>>>>>> greater and greater pain to employ people, the easy, obvious, and only >>>>>>> solution is to outsource, to export jobs, to hire fewer workers. So >>>>>>> of course there'll be fewer jobs. I, personally, will create fewer >>>>>>> jobs. I guarantee it. >>>>>> I'll probably hold the line at about 20 employees and do more >>>>>> outsourcing and contracting. ... >>>>> >>>>> When they go through with the net receipts tax thing in CA where >>>>> salaries are supposedly non-deductible the others will do exactly the >>>>> same. >>>> >>>> There are idiots claiming that a 5% net receipts tax is no more >>>> burdensome than a 10% tax on profits. 5 is smaller than 10, don't you >>>> see? >>>> >>> >>>Sad :-( >>> >>>Just imagine what that would do to the restaurant business alone. As it >>>is right now I am not sure that our Japanese and Thai places around here >>>will make it. That source tax would potentially push a lot of those over >>>the cliff. >> >>For a restaurant, it's just sales tax; they charge about 8% around >>here already. All restaurants pay it, and people don't order meals >>from Oregon, so it's not a competitive issue as much as it just makes >>people dine out a little less. > >I'm sure they pay an income tax on top of the sales tax. Technically >the purchaser pays the sales tax so any gross receipts or such would >be on top of that. > >>I suppose some people on the Nevada border cross the line to eat, or >>order pizza from over the line. > >You don't pay your sales ("use") tax on items purchased outside CA and >used inside CA? Tsk, tsk... Our company sure does. I'm not sure that I account for 100% of my personal purchases from out of state. I'll have to be more careful in the future. John
From: John Larkin on 2 Nov 2009 21:46 On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:23:57 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >krw wrote: >> James Arthur wrote: > >> >On Oct 31, 4:12 pm, John Larkin wrote: > >> >> Are these people stupid or evil? Probably both. >> > >> >I haven't really thought about the administration in those terms--I >> >s'pose I can point to a few of each. >> >> >For example, Pelosi is dim, believes in lollipops, that her opponents >> >are evil, and is willing to crush them, by hook, or crook. Did she >> >believe the things she told us about the new health care bill she >> >introduced on Thursday? By her facial expressions and tone, no, she >> >doesn't. >> >> Pelosi has facial expressions? She likely does think the lollipops >> are good, _for_her_. She comes from a nutty enough constituency that >> she's untouchable. Her platinum plated health care won't be affected, >> or taxed. She's the ruling class so death boards won't matter. That's >> little people stuff. >> >> >My own version of Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that >> >which can be explained by incompetence." >> >But there's a second part, a caveat: "Don't be a fool--malice exists." >> >> Certainly it does. Now convince Obama of that (and that we aren't >> it). > >John's stupid-or-evil question's been nagging me. > >Well, I took extensive inventory of the happenings and figured >"incompetence" explains most of it--foolish wrong beliefs, accepted >uncritically, and never checked. Like Pelosi's allegedly immoral >insurance company profits, Obama's $50k unnecessary amputations, green >jobs, broken window fallacy ($-for-clunkers), etc. > >But, the House 10/29/09 health care bill? Sec. 2531(a)(4), under >"Incentive Payments For Medical Liability Reform," says states get >unspecified incentive payments toward health care for passing tort >reform laws, provided that: > "(B) the law does not limit attorneys� fees or impose caps on >damages." > >That's malice. > >Oh, and ACORN's re-funded. That's malice too. It's malice when politicoes want to bash wealthy people when said bashing will make working people worse off. Intelligent and wholesome public policy will gently steer the most productive people into doing the most public good, so that everybody wins. Pelosi is stupid and evil. She practices the politics of hate. I think that Obama is mostly stupid and remarkably passive. John
From: dagmargoodboat on 2 Nov 2009 23:41 On Nov 2, 9:46 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > Pelosi is stupid and evil. She practices the politics of hate. I think > that Obama is mostly stupid and remarkably passive. A succinct illustration of the President's stimulus fallacy: http://www.economistblog.com/2009/11/02/jobs-saved-what-about-the-jobs-destroyed/ Mr. Obama here, in today's meeting with his Board of Job Destruction Ministers, looks nervous, blinking furiously: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EtUq_ejr5g If you can make it through three minutes, you'll hear him say rather plaintively "It's also gonna require that we look at new models for where future job growth is gonna come from." IOW, he knows his stimulus flopped. He sounds frightened & lost. He's way over his head, and knows it. And he has a horrible feeling that things aren't going well. -- James Arthur
From: Martin Brown on 3 Nov 2009 05:23 John Larkin wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <meru(a)devnull.com> wrote: > >> Jim Thompson wrote: >> >>> Shooting politicians and bureaucrats would be more effective ;-) >>> >> My sentiment as well, but someone has to run run the country and try to >> balance the budgets. It would help the west if we all stopped exporting >> jobs to China, but you can blame global multinationals for that, who >> have no interest other than shareholder value. > > No business is run as a charity. All businesses do what they have to > do to compete and survive. And shareholders hire boards and executives > exactly to maximize the value of their stocks; wouldn't you? So, given It depends on whether they maximise the long term value of their stocks by genuine management skill and organic growth or talk the price up with a well constructed pack of lies and then dump the stock at peak market leaving real long term investors to carry the can. The dot.com boom was a pretty good example of that scam. > all that, tax policy should be structured to do the most good, which > includes creating jobs so that people have earnings so that they can > pay taxes. No disagreement there. And simpler tax systems are better - but you do have to do something smart to make sure that working harder always creates a monotonically improving situation for most people. > We all want free market >> economics, but business is now too powerfull for the good of nations. > > Business is 100% of all economies. Business has to be powerful because > it creates wealth and stuff. As long as businesses compete, the more > powerful the business side of the economy, the better off everybody > is. The miserable nations suffer from too little business, not too > much. Remind me how it was that we ended up having to bail out banks with vast amounts of taxpayers money? Heads we win - tails you lose casino banking. The increasing volume of high frequency trades looks like it will be the next variant on the theme of too big to fail high loss city trading MFUs. Around 70% of US stock transactions are now high speed programmed trades parasitic on the businesses they purport to be dealing in. UK experts are worried that the trend will totally destabilise the markets. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8338045.stm They have found a new high stakes pass the parcel gambling game. Regards, Martin Brown
From: dagmargoodboat on 3 Nov 2009 09:17
On Nov 3, 5:23 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > John Larkin wrote: > > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000, ChrisQ <m...(a)devnull.com> wrote: > > >> Jim Thompson wrote: > > >>> Shooting politicians and bureaucrats would be more effective ;-) > > >> My sentiment as well, but someone has to run run the country and try to > >> balance the budgets. It would help the west if we all stopped exporting > >> jobs to China, but you can blame global multinationals for that, who > >> have no interest other than shareholder value. > > > No business is run as a charity. All businesses do what they have to > > do to compete and survive. And shareholders hire boards and executives > > exactly to maximize the value of their stocks; wouldn't you? So, given > > It depends on whether they maximise the long term value of their stocks > by genuine management skill and organic growth or talk the price up with > a well constructed pack of lies and then dump the stock at peak market > leaving real long term investors to carry the can. The dot.com boom was > a pretty good example of that scam. > > > all that, tax policy should be structured to do the most good, which > > includes creating jobs so that people have earnings so that they can > > pay taxes. > > No disagreement there. And simpler tax systems are better - but you do > have to do something smart to make sure that working harder always > creates a monotonically improving situation for most people. > > > We all want free market > >> economics, but business is now too powerfull for the good of nations. > > > Business is 100% of all economies. Business has to be powerful because > > it creates wealth and stuff. As long as businesses compete, the more > > powerful the business side of the economy, the better off everybody > > is. The miserable nations suffer from too little business, not too > > much. > > Remind me how it was that we ended up having to bail out banks with vast > amounts of taxpayers money? Heads we win - tails you lose casino banking. Made possible by the US Congress' dabbles in business: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. They were that casino's bank & dealer. Before them, it made no sense to loan money you thought mightn't come back. But, once Freddie and Fannie made it a specific goal & mission to make those loans half their 'book', the market & return for those loans was, literally, guaranteed. By Congress. I don't share this writer's outlook on home prices, but the last graph depicting the US government's share in the home mortgage market looks about right: http://seekingalpha.com/article/170526-property-values-set-to-fall-43-from-current-depressed-levels?source=article_sb_popular > The increasing volume of high frequency trades looks like it will be the > next variant on the theme of too big to fail high HFT is destabilizing. But, is it the next thing? There are so many to choose from. AFAICT the 1st crisis isn't over, it's getting worse. Then there's California, possibly, or some other state that's been living beyond its means: "It's impossible for this legislature to reform the pension system, and if we don't, we bankrupt the state." --Bill Lockyer, California State Treasurer, 10/22/2009 [1] And he's not kidding. -- Cheers, James Arthur [1] Here's California's state treasurer, a staunch, loyal, partisan Democrat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWOoqmrOCH8 |