White House secretly passes currency controls
in [Design]
|
Prev: Single-Bit Sound Derivative Digitizer
Next: I will renew all of my works books. I am Isaac Newton, have you already drawn a comet on your eggs on Easter?
From: krw on 7 Apr 2010 19:25 On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 02:01:12 -0700 (PDT), brent <bulegoge(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote: >On Apr 7, 12:16�am, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 18:55:19 -0700 (PDT), brent <buleg...(a)columbus.rr.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Apr 6, 9:19�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> >> >wrote: >> >> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 16:49:13 -0700 (PDT), brent <buleg...(a)columbus.rr.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >On Apr 6, 12:07�pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> brent wrote: >> >> >> > On Apr 5, 9:17 pm, Jim Yanik <jya...(a)abuse.gov> wrote: >> >> >> >> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote innews:210lr5tsijq3libimsflq44s2cdauhtdla(a)4ax.com: >> >> >> >> >>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:52:49 -0500, >> >> >> >>> hal-use...(a)ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote: >> >> >> >>>> In article <hhnkr556m5pik6jrnhtg8io8950mk99...(a)4ax.com>, >> >> >> >>>> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> writes: >> >> >> >>>> ... >> >> >> >>>>> It _will_ be painful to walk away from a country that my ancestors >> >> >> >>>>> settled, beginning 400+ years ago (Jamestown)... but I can if >> >> >> >>>>> pushed... leave the suckers with only themselves to suck upon :-) >> >> >> >>>> Where would you go? >> >> >> >>> I'd be welcome almost anywhere that needs _real_ engineering... >> >> >> >>> Israel, NZ, Hong Kong... I could even be a big hero in Russia or >> >> >> >>> mainland China :-) >> >> >> >>> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ...Jim Thompson >> >> >> >> I don't think you'd fit in in China,nor like being under the thumb of the >> >> >> >> kleptocrats of Russia,along with the Russian Mob influence. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Jim Yanik >> >> >> >> jyanik >> >> >> >> at >> >> >> >> localnet >> >> >> >> dot com >> >> >> >> > I agree with you. >> >> >> >> > I will go down with the ship, trying to do my small part to bail out >> >> >> > the mess. >> >> >> >> > The USA is still comprised of a hefty number of god fearing people. >> >> >> >> I think that's the right attitude. For me it's based on my religion, got >> >> >> to live with the government whether we like it or not, and got to pay >> >> >> the taxes whether we like it or not. There's nothing wrong with moving >> >> >> away if things become too much of a load but on the other hand we need >> >> >> to support what our country was built on. I just saw a long movie about >> >> >> the fighting for independence, based on what really happened back then. >> >> >> Pretty sobering, what those guys had to endure makes all this stuff >> >> >> today pale in comparison. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Regards, Joerg >> >> >> >>http://www.analogconsultants.com/ >> >> >> >> "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. >> >> >> Use another domain or send PM. >> >> >> >I just realized you are originally from Holland. I assumed Germany. >> >> >Have you ever been to Western MI ? >> >> >> Western MI? �The UP? �Most from that area are Norwegan, Finnish, or Svedish >> >> decent. >> >> >Western MI ( Grand Rapids, Holland ) �is very �Dutch. UP is more >> >Scandinavian, especially Finnish. >> >> Ah, mid-western Michigan. �;-) �My parents were from the UP English/Norwegan >> and Finnish. �...and a lot of Svedes over der in Ironwood, ay. > > >Ironwood is practically Wisconsin. The WI, UP border is pretty long (200 miles from Menomonee to Ironwood). My grand parents lived in Iron Mountain, right across the Menominee River from WI. >Have you heard the old joke song >"Rust and Smoke heater broke"? > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi8TACw1RR0 Cute. No, I hadn't heard that one. >I'll bet not may people know that about 1 min into song they refer > >to negaunee which refers to Negaunne , MI which of course, is in the >UP.
From: JosephKK on 7 Apr 2010 23:18 On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 06:30:29 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Apr 7, 4:34 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> On Apr 7, 6:19 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Apr 6, 9:35 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Apr 5, 5:31 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My- >> >> > > Web-Site.com> wrote: >> > > > On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:52:49 -0500, >> >> > > > hal-use...(a)ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote: >> > > > >In article <hhnkr556m5pik6jrnhtg8io8950mk99...(a)4ax.com>, >> > > > > Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> writes: >> > > > >... >> >> > > > >>It _will_ be painful to walk away from a country that my ancestors >> > > > >>settled, beginning 400+ years ago (Jamestown)... but I can if >> > > > >>pushed... leave the suckers with only themselves to suck upon :-) >> >> > > > >Where would you go? >> >> > > > I'd be welcome almost anywhere that needs _real_ engineering... >> > > > Israel, NZ, Hong Kong... I could even be a big hero in Russia or >> > > > mainland China :-) >> >> > > So deep down, your patriotism is overwhelmed by your greed. >> >> > Fleeing from people who want to take his stuff--without right--is >> > greed? >> >> > That's an odd definition of greed. >> >> You may recall that War of Indpendence was fought on the basis of no >> taxation without representation. > >T'was fought over provocations far less than those today. > >FWIW, Obamacare, the recent insurance-regulation / price-fixing bill >is certainly taxation without representation. > >That's a $2.5T tax, rammed through a Congress that could not possibly >have even read it in the time allowed, much less represent their >constituents. Drafted in secret, by a few. That's tyrannical. "We >have to pass it so we can tell you what's in it," said Pelosi >(paraphrased). The cabal dictates, the puppet Parliament plays along. > >And so neither the views of the People, nor the wisdom of the Congress >were reflected in that result, since neither had time to digest, >consult, or discuss it. > > >> The current US political system over- >> represents the rich, who do pay more of the taxes (though not as much >> as they should), so the claim that the government doesn't have a right >> to tax Jim is entirely empty. > >Of course they have a right to tax Jim, but not to take, in the name >of tax, his money for giving to someone else. And, Jim has a right to >his property, and to take it with him. Otherwise it's not really his, >is it? > >Lastly, Americans believe that governments derive their just powers >from the consent of the governed, so Jim's also free to quit, if he >wants. That's not greed, and letting yourself be attacked is not >patriotism--that was Richard's mistake. Not merely attacked, robbed and raped. I knew Obamanable was going to be bad, but the level of evil staggers me already.
From: Bill Sloman on 8 Apr 2010 03:11 On Apr 7, 6:28 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Bill Slomanwrote: > > On Apr 7, 12:37 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>> On Apr 6, 2:08 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>>> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>>>> On Apr 5, 8:40 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> Joel Koltner wrote: > >>>>>>> This one's good too: > >>>>>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870397680457511424178200... > >>>>>> A _classic_ example of how the Laffer curve works. Bill, are ya lis'nin? > >>>>> A rather less than classic example. The tax hike was definitely on the > >>>>> low side of the Laffer Curve, so it - of itself - wouldn't have > >>>>> justified the victimns of the tax pulling up stakes. > >>>>> In fact it was a state tax, being applied to million dollar incomes.. > >>>>> If you'd read the article, you'd have noted that most of the loss of > >>>>> revenue was due to the economic downturn, ... > >>>> It is rather easy to figure out the number of people who no longer file > >>>> in that state. Very easy, one just has to count. > >>>>> ... and the rest the usual deal > >>>>> in which people who earn a million dollars find it worth their while > >>>>> to keep a tax expert on tap to reorganise their affairs, so some of > >>>>> them went to the trouble of moving their official place of residence > >>>>> to avoid the (local) tax. Since most people with this kind of money > >>>>> have several residences, this would have been just paper shuffling. > >>>> Nope. Doesn't work in the US. If you have one residence there they can > >>>> sock it to you. > >>> I'm sure that - if you are paying enough taxes - it's worth selling > >>> that residence to a dummy corporation regstered in Antigua, and > >>> renting it back from them as an occasional vacation house. There's > >>> bound to be some legal work-around. > >> Nope, not legal. > > > In your opinion. > > Read the tax code, man. _Then_ write. Massachussetts is particular > "interesting" in that regard. I'm not a lawyer. Neither are you. Our understanding of what can be done with the tax code is roughly equivalent to a lawyer's understanding of what can be done with an FPGA. > >> Not even if you rent. As for the substantial presence > >> test states have become quite the big brother. Because they are all > >> scrambling for money, money they often recklessly squandered. Now if you > >> changed your name fromBill Slomanto Boris Slomanskov you might get > >> away with it and can rent a car there, but only if you do that change in > >> some foreign country and erase all traces :-) > > > Not all that difficult, considering the number of thoroughly corrupt > > foreign countries you have to choose from. > > >>>> The only safe bet is to sell it. You have to be honest > >>>> with tax stuff, otherwise it can really backfire if for example some > >>>> court differs with you on the opinion where a primary residence was the > >>>> last few years. > >>> Don't be naive. > >> You don't know much about how that works, do ya? > > > No more than you do. My younger brother - who is roughly an order of > > magnitude richer than I am - almost certainly knows people who do know > > exactly how that works. > > It's a matter of ethics whether one wants to be honest or not. In my > case also a religious matter and that doesn't leave much choice, other > than to be honest. True. Most people are honest, and - like us - ill-equipped to exploit loop-holes in the law. Not every rich person is dishonest, but there does seem to be some evidence that a defective ethical faculty is helpful when it comes to making lots of money. > >>>>> This isn't the Laffer Curve in action, its just incompetence on the > >>>>> part of the tax legislators, who wasted their time trying to get money > >>>>> from people who pay enough tax to justify keeping a tax avoidance > >>>>> expert on tap. > >>>> You just repeated the definition of the Laffer curve :-) > >>> That's not the version of the Laffer Curve that fits onto a table > >>> napkin. Taxing very rich people is a whole different ball-game from > >>> collecting the bulk of the state's tax take, and trying to pretend > >>> that the Laffer Curve provides a useful insight into that particular > >>> ball-game demonstartes a singular weakness for over-generalisation. > >> The underlying scheme and reaction is, with some modifications, always > >> similar. > > > The similarity is of absolutely no practical use. > > To those who understand, it is. To right wing politicians seeking to justify give-aways to their rich supporters, and nobody else. > >>>>>> Oh, and don't expect body politicus to understand the Laffer curve :-) > >>>>> They do - it's just one more bit of right-wing economic nonsense > >>>>> devised to justify giving tax breaks to the rich. There's a whole > >>>>> branch of pseudo-economics devoted to generating this kind of > >>>>> justification, subsidised by the rich beneficiaries of those tax > >>>>> breaks, and you really should learn to recognise the genre; anything > >>>>> that is endorsed by the Heartland Institute is automatically suspect. > >>>> Except that people act very differently than you think. > >>> You don't seem to know what I think. The surveys of the general > >>> population's attititudes to tax in more or less civilised countries > >>> show that most people think that the tax system is more or less fair, > >>> and they feel a moral obligation to pay. Greece and Italy aren't > >>> civilised countries in this context. > >> So then, why do you think people like Keith move to Alabama? > > > If Keith is krw, he's not an example of normal human behaviour. Who, > > in their right mind, would more to Alabama. George Wallace may be > > dead, but his spirit lingers on. > > It is now pretty clear that are not aware of the migration patterns in > the US. He is by far not the only one I know of. In fact, I know > business people who are looking at their options right now. The > Huntsville area is pretty attractive for them. Others have moved to > Arkansas, Florida, Texas, you name it. > > >> Believe me, > >> he is by far not the only one. And why are lots of academics from the > >> northern parts of Europe living in Switzerland? > > > I wouldn't know. My wife does have academic colleagues who work there, > > and like the environment, but she hasn't been invited to apply for any > > jobs there and I don't think that she has been on any Swiss search > > committees. > > > I doubt if the Laffer curve has much to do with it. > > It sure does. I had a long chat with a Swede about that (who moved there).. Switzerland does attract right-wing fruit-cakes - as Australia has been known to do. The Swiss anti-minaret law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland does appeal to the those who are nervous of Islam, and the gun laws are also attractive. no doubt right wing finacial delusion are also popular http://www.gocurrency.com/international-investing/2008/01/24/the-laffer-curve-in-action-in-switzerland/ Business investment isn't driven only by tax climate. In real life development hot-spots are driven more by ready access to potential employees and skilled sub-contractor. Route 128 around MIT is the classic example, and the Silicon Fen around Cambridge U.K. grew in deliberate emulation. I was there at the time, and made my own contribution to hooking up firms with skilled sub-contractors. > >>>> I know people who have moved to other places for tax reasons. > >>> Just for tax reasons? > >> Yes. > > >>>> In fact, at least one is > >>>> a regular in this newsgroup. They simply donned the snowboard and > >>>> scooted down the right side and off the Laffer curve. Maybe I am one as > >>>> well because I left NL for that reason. > >>> There are lots of reasons for leaving the Netherlands. I'd certainly > >>> prefer to be someplace where more money was spent on original > >>> electronic design. I doubt if the tax regime was the only motivation > >>> in your case. > >> It was. Otherwise I really liked it there, mostly because of the > >> multi-cultural environment. Heck, I even learned the language to full > >> fluency. Ok, "southern" Dutch, that is. > > >>>> You can lambast Heartland et > >>>> cetera all you want, people still listen and educate themselves. > >>> They certainly listen, because Heartland tells them what they want to > >>> hear. This isn't education but flattery. Try and learn to tell the > >>> difference. > >> If you pay attention you will realize that they are very often proven > >> right in the long run. > > > If you believe their propaganda. > > >> I vividly remember Rush Limbaugh, a guy you would > >> most likely despise, saying that the 50% pension increases for many > >> public employees in CA would ruin Californias budget completely. He was > >> lambasted from all corners for saying that. How could he? How could > >> anyone dare? This was to be revenue neutral because the stock market > >> would definitely sustain ... and blah, blah, blah. Well, his predictions > >> were _exactly_ on the money. Unfortunately, but predictably. > > > The mortgage bubble burst and California's economy tanked. That makes > > Rush Limbaugh's prediction that it was going to tank because of a > > state employee pension increase "exactly on the money"? Do learn to > > think. > > Do learn to research facts before blurting out such comments or you'll > lose credibility. A li'l history lesson is in order: The pension crisis > blew up into the previous governor's face after his 2nd term started, > and was a core reason why the voters kicked him out of office in 2003. > Now when exactly did the mortgage bubble burst? You were referring to the Davis recall election in 2003? Wikipedia doesn't mention the pension problem, but does refer to the - Enron- generated? - electricity rip-off and the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Rush Limbaugh's status as a prophet remains derisory, and your capacity to understand history is equally unimpressive. California has now elected two second-grade actors as governor. The local right-wing power-brokers do seem to have mastered the art of finding and directing malleable glove puppets. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 8 Apr 2010 03:32 On Apr 7, 3:30 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 7, 4:34 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > On Apr 7, 6:19 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > On Apr 6, 9:35 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 5:31 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My- > > > > > Web-Site.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:52:49 -0500, > > > > > > hal-use...(a)ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote: > > > > > >In article <hhnkr556m5pik6jrnhtg8io8950mk99...(a)4ax.com>, > > > > > > Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> writes: > > > > > >... > > > > > > >>It _will_ be painful to walk away from a country that my ancestors > > > > > >>settled, beginning 400+ years ago (Jamestown)... but I can if > > > > > >>pushed... leave the suckers with only themselves to suck upon :-) > > > > > > >Where would you go? > > > > > > I'd be welcome almost anywhere that needs _real_ engineering... > > > > > Israel, NZ, Hong Kong... I could even be a big hero in Russia or > > > > > mainland China :-) > > > > > So deep down, your patriotism is overwhelmed by your greed. > > > > Fleeing from people who want to take his stuff--without right--is > > > greed? > > > > That's an odd definition of greed. > > > You may recall that War of Indpendence was fought on the basis of no > > taxation without representation. > > T'was fought over provocations far less than those today. > > FWIW, Obamacare, the recent insurance-regulation / price-fixing bill > is certainly taxation without representation. It was passed by your House of Representatives. You don't like their decision, and you want to disown it, but you are disowning your own - admittedly inadequate - version of representative democracy. Have a look at more modern constitutions - Germany for instance - and their electoral systems. > That's a $2.5T tax, rammed through a Congress that could not possibly > have even read it in the time allowed, much less represent their > constituents. Drafted in secret, by a few. That's tyrannical. "We > have to pass it so we can tell you what's in it," said Pelosi > (paraphrased). The cabal dictates, the puppet Parliament plays along. That's modern legislation for you. It's complicated, and gets drafted by experts. Get your Congressman to design your next electronic circuit if you want to get an idea of how well trasparent legistlation would work. > And so neither the views of the People, nor the wisdom of the Congress > were reflected in that result, since neither had time to digest, > consult, or discuss it. Granting your less-than-constructive contributions to the discussion, which seem to have been showing up hear for about a year now,this strikes me as total rubbish. You didn't get the result you wanted, and now want to pull down the whole house of cards. > > The current US political system over- > > represents the rich, who do pay more of the taxes (though not as much > > as they should), so the claim that the government doesn't have a right > > to tax Jim is entirely empty. > > Of course they have a right to tax Jim, but not to take, in the name > of tax, his money for giving to someone else. Millions for defence? What they take from Jim now to feed the bloated US miliary-industrial complex which chews up as much money as the defence budgets of the next ten countries down the pecking order is definitely beng given to "someone else" for no good reason. > And, Jim has a right to > his property, and to take it with him. Otherwise it's not really his, > is it? Jim is a part of his community. His skills are based - in large part - on an education at MIT, which is another part of his community, and his property derives from the advantage that he had of growing up in that community. No man is an island. > Lastly, Americans believe that governments derive their just powers > from the consent of the governed, so Jim's also free to quit, if he > wants. That's not greed, and letting yourself be attacked is not > patriotism--that was Richard's mistake. The tax system is supposed to be more or less equitable. Right-wing nit-wits like you think it takes too much from the rich, and left-wing extremists think it takes too much from the poor. Since you both form part of the popuation being taxed, there's no obvious reason to suppose that it is particularly inequitable. Your current tantrum is essentially claiming that because you don't like a particular piece of legislation the current US constitution should be ripped down and repalced with something even more primitive. Don't be childish. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 8 Apr 2010 03:38
On Apr 8, 5:18 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 06:30:29 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >On Apr 7, 4:34 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> On Apr 7, 6:19 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> > On Apr 6, 9:35 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > On Apr 5, 5:31 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My- > > >> > > Web-Site.com> wrote: > >> > > > On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:52:49 -0500, > > >> > > > hal-use...(a)ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote: > >> > > > >In article <hhnkr556m5pik6jrnhtg8io8950mk99...(a)4ax.com>, > >> > > > > Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> writes: > >> > > > >... > > >> > > > >>It _will_ be painful to walk away from a country that my ancestors > >> > > > >>settled, beginning 400+ years ago (Jamestown)... but I can if > >> > > > >>pushed... leave the suckers with only themselves to suck upon :-) > > >> > > > >Where would you go? > > >> > > > I'd be welcome almost anywhere that needs _real_ engineering... > >> > > > Israel, NZ, Hong Kong... I could even be a big hero in Russia or > >> > > > mainland China :-) > > >> > > So deep down, your patriotism is overwhelmed by your greed. > > >> > Fleeing from people who want to take his stuff--without right--is > >> > greed? > > >> > That's an odd definition of greed. > > >> You may recall that War of Indpendence was fought on the basis of no > >> taxation without representation. > > >T'was fought over provocations far less than those today. > > >FWIW, Obamacare, the recent insurance-regulation / price-fixing bill > >is certainly taxation without representation. > > >That's a $2.5T tax, rammed through a Congress that could not possibly > >have even read it in the time allowed, much less represent their > >constituents. Drafted in secret, by a few. That's tyrannical. "We > >have to pass it so we can tell you what's in it," said Pelosi > >(paraphrased). The cabal dictates, the puppet Parliament plays along. > > >And so neither the views of the People, nor the wisdom of the Congress > >were reflected in that result, since neither had time to digest, > >consult, or discuss it. > > >> The current US political system over- > >> represents the rich, who do pay more of the taxes (though not as much > >> as they should), so the claim that the government doesn't have a right > >> to tax Jim is entirely empty. > > >Of course they have a right to tax Jim, but not to take, in the name > >of tax, his money for giving to someone else. And, Jim has a right to > >his property, and to take it with him. Otherwise it's not really his, > >is it? > > >Lastly, Americans believe that governments derive their just powers > >from the consent of the governed, so Jim's also free to quit, if he > >wants. That's not greed, and letting yourself be attacked is not > >patriotism--that was Richard's mistake. > > Not merely attacked, robbed and raped. I knew Obamanable was going to > be bad, but the level of evil staggers me already. An interesting reaction to legislation that gets the US closer to the kind of universal health care that every other advanced industrial country has enjoyed for a generation or two. Right-wing US nitwits don't seem to appreciate exactly how bad their health care system is (or realise that it is half again more expensive per head than the - superior - French and German systems). Obamacare isn't going to make the system cheaper over-night, but it is at least a small step in the right direction. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |