conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Which type of volatile RAM has the least duration of data remanencewhen power-offed?
Next: Analog Circuits (world class designs) B. Pease
From: Jim Thompson on 16 May 2010 20:25 On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:32:24 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: [snip] > >Please notice, Slowman produces _NO_ economic activity and cannot be >expected to know anything about it. And he'd go nuts and die if he didn't have you to "converse" with. I'm always pleased to note that I'm the highest standard for Slowman's disdain, but please don't feed the jerk. Let him die that most unpleasant of deaths... alone ;-) -- ...Jim Thompson | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
From: Joerg on 16 May 2010 20:43 Bill Sloman wrote: > On May 16, 11:49 pm, John Larkin > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:04:22 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> JosephKK wrote: >>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts >>>>>>>> business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because >>>>>>>> it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No >>>>>>>> accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no >>>>>>>> quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost. >>>>>>>> Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a >>>>>>>> person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be >>>>>>>> jealous of his wealth. >>>>>>> A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved >>>>>>> for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The >>>>>>> money they saved _has_ already been taxed. >>>>>> Simple fix: don't tax income. >>>>> Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but >>>>> not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat >>>>> VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair >>>>> at all. >>>> Gosh, are your savings all that significant? Don't you pay (an ever >>>> increasing in CA) sales tax already? Please to explain the difference. >>> The difference is this: Yes, I do save for retirement. And yes, one has >>> to make sacrifices to do that. Such as not buying a new car every five >>> years. As said several times this money _has_ already been taxed. So if >>> the income of the paycheck-to-paycheck guy gets taxed only at >>> consumption he has only paid tax once. I have then paid twice. That is >>> simply unfair. >> Sometimes "fair" is the enemy of "works." If everyone were equally >> dirt-poor, it would be fair. > > Huh? If the competent people who worked hard end up as dirt poor as > the idiots who didn't, it wouldn't be fair. I'm not saying that the > productive minority is entitled to hang onto everthing that they > managed to accumulate - there's not a lot of tax to be collected from > idle incompetents, and the administration does have to collect enough > in taxes to keep the machinery of society turning over - but since > society consists of non-identical individuals, there's nothing fair > about reducing the best to the same condition as the worst. > Shazam! I would have never imagined that this sort of statement would come from you. While we disagree on just about anything else, there you were right on. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 16 May 2010 21:41 Joerg wrote: > > Bill Sloman wrote: > > On May 16, 11:49 pm, John Larkin > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:04:22 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> JosephKK wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> John Larkin wrote: > >>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> John Larkin wrote: > >>>>> [...] > >>>>>>>> I like the sales tax, as opposed to income tax, because it puts > >>>>>>>> business on a better basis against imports, so saves jobs. And because > >>>>>>>> it would be enormously simpler and cheaper to comply with. No > >>>>>>>> accountants, no tax returns, no exemptions, no deductions, no > >>>>>>>> quarterly estimates, no loopholes... almost. > >>>>>>>> Tax consumption. Don't tax savings or investment or job creation. If a > >>>>>>>> person is rich but doesn't spend any money, nobody can reasonably be > >>>>>>>> jealous of his wealth. > >>>>>>> A serious problem with that: It punishes frugal people who have saved > >>>>>>> for their retirement and rewards those who squandered everything. The > >>>>>>> money they saved _has_ already been taxed. > >>>>>> Simple fix: don't tax income. > >>>>> Yeah, but how do you deal with income that _has_ already been taxed but > >>>>> not spent yet because people saved it for their retirement? A flat > >>>>> VAT-type tax is the same as confiscating xx% percent of that. Not fair > >>>>> at all. > >>>> Gosh, are your savings all that significant? Don't you pay (an ever > >>>> increasing in CA) sales tax already? Please to explain the difference. > >>> The difference is this: Yes, I do save for retirement. And yes, one has > >>> to make sacrifices to do that. Such as not buying a new car every five > >>> years. As said several times this money _has_ already been taxed. So if > >>> the income of the paycheck-to-paycheck guy gets taxed only at > >>> consumption he has only paid tax once. I have then paid twice. That is > >>> simply unfair. > >> Sometimes "fair" is the enemy of "works." If everyone were equally > >> dirt-poor, it would be fair. > > > > Huh? If the competent people who worked hard end up as dirt poor as > > the idiots who didn't, it wouldn't be fair. I'm not saying that the > > productive minority is entitled to hang onto everthing that they > > managed to accumulate - there's not a lot of tax to be collected from > > idle incompetents, and the administration does have to collect enough > > in taxes to keep the machinery of society turning over - but since > > society consists of non-identical individuals, there's nothing fair > > about reducing the best to the same condition as the worst. > > > > Shazam! I would have never imagined that this sort of statement would > come from you. While we disagree on just about anything else, there you > were right on. Even a blind pig...
From: dagmargoodboat on 16 May 2010 22:05 On May 14, 2:31 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On 14/05/2010 06:16, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > Of course Marx himself was a n'er-do-well who never earned his keep, > > a pseudo-academic parasite sponging off patron Engels. Engels in turn > > coasted off the family business. Marx made his living guilt-tripping > > Engels with econobabble, a fine tradition carried on by Marxists > > today. > > Engels saw first hand what greedy industrialists were doing to their > workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. Boiler explosions were > commonplace up until the Vulcan insurers made a stand and insisted on > proper boiler safety inspections. And in cases of tampering with safety > relief valves they would not pay out. > > It was common practice to overstoke the fire before the first shift and > add weight to the pressure relief valve - this resulted in several large > scale boiler explosions destroying big mills in the early morning and > killing many workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. Destroying your factory is a bad business model. That quickly self- limits. Besides, nowadays we sue or jail those people. Too much, in fact. > http://www.camdenmin.co.uk/technical-steam/historic-steam-boiler-expl... > > Articles on the history of boiler insurance show that the US had a worse > record despite having the advantage of seeing the innovations in UK > boilers. Some element of NIH played a part but mostly it was that > industrialists greed was paramount and the workers powerless. eg. > > http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed15/15407.pdf > first page and page 7 under Normal Loss Hazard Interestingly and ironically enough, that emphasizes the need to identify defects and eliminate high risk insureds to minimize underwriting loss rates. "Experience has also shown that the scientific examination and inspection of insured boilers produces a declining loss ratio." > > "To each according to need" really means "From you to me." "Dear > > Fred, I need that grocery money, and I deserve it, luv Karl, xoxoxoxo > > P.S. Stop exploiting me! KM" > > It makes reasonable sense to pay your workers a living wage for the work > that they do rather than pay them less than they can sensibly live on. > Ford was about the first in the USA to actually do this. > > In the UK there were some decent industrialists mostly of quaker > families who did treat their workforce fairly - examples include some > household names like Pilkingtons, Cadbury, Bournville, Marks&Spencer. > > But most of the rest were complete bastards who built large factories > and employed the equivalent of bonded labour stuck very high density > slum housing. It was not surprising that unions were formed in some > cases the manager really did hold the whip hand - literally. As John pointed out, that was a transient effect, an unusual, historic dislocation. Machines meant that few could farm what had previously required the toil of many. So there were lots of workers looking for work. Short term, that's painful. Long term, that's creative destruction, society re-allocating resources from something no longer needed, to something people do want and need. Would it have been better to destroy the farm equipment that made growing food so easy, or the mills that made clothing cheap for everyone? Or go the Obama way--carve up the factory and give it to the workers? Divvy up the greedy farmer's land? That makes factories disappear and farms go fallow (witness Zimbabwe). The dislocation at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was especially traumatic since motive power meant so many human-muscle- powered occupations were displaced at the same time. Would it have been better to keep them all in subsidized green jobs making wagon wheels with sustainable, carbon-neutral technology, as they were, after all, before steam? Longer term, profitable business attracts competition. Outrageous profits are almost never sustainable for that reason. Competitors have to compete for workers, with both wages and conditions. Sharing the wealth? That comes immediately through cheaper goods, making it easier and cheaper to live, and through better wages and working conditions with time, as described above. Everyone wins. And yes, the industrialist does very well for a time-- there's a phase delay. That's his reward. Take it away, and he won't do it at all. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 16 May 2010 22:12
On May 14, 10:06 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > Shuffling paper money around is meaningless; productivity is > real. Ford increased wages because he had a revolutionary > super-efficient way of making cheap cars, Yep. Ford *could* pay double. Because of his innovations, his workers could produce more product, more value. That is, Ford _increased the value of their labor_. Productivity==standard of living. James |