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: John Larkin on 17 May 2010 11:18 On Mon, 17 May 2010 07:01:48 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Bill Sloman wrote: >> On May 16, 1:11 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> Bill Slomanwrote: >>>> On May 13, 5:59 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> Bill Slomanwrote: >>>>>> On May 13, 3:46 pm, John Larkin >>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 02:34:35 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >>>>>>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> On May 12, 7:57 pm, John Larkin >>>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 10:13:56 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >>>>>>>>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I don't harvest; I think. >>>>>>>>>> An unconvincing claim. Your "thinking" reflects your indolent habit of >>>>>>>>>> picking up predigested nonsense that fits your fat-headed >>>>>>>>>> preconceptions. >>>>>>>>> I've been calling you a fathead for years. You can't even design >>>>>>>>> original insults. >>>>>>>>>> In this thread you've claimed that the euro can't be stable currency >>>>>>>>>> because it shared across several countries with different economic >>>>>>>>>> strengths and weaknessess, while failing to note that the US dollar is >>>>>>>>>> shared across the united states of America - running from Alaska to >>>>>>>>>> Wyoming (neither of whose economies look much like California's). >>>>>>>>> But we only have one government. >>>>>>>> Your states don't have legislatures and governors? >>>>>>> They aren't allowed to print money or regulate big financial >>>>>>> institutions. Most must balance their budgets. The trouble that >>>>>>> California is in now will be fixed by California. The trouble that >>>>>>> Greece is in now will be fixed by Germany. >>>>>> Do pay attention. The trouble that Greece is now in will be fixed by >>>>>> Greece. The EU - as a whole - will under-write Greek borrowing until >>>>>> that happens. The Germans have had quite a lot of influence on the >>>>>> requirements imposed on the Greeks in return for the guarantees, but >>>>>> the Greeks have to do the work. >>>>> Do pay attention: >>>>> http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2010/05/german-parliament-clears... >>>>> Quote: "Members of the Bundestag, Germany's lower house, approved a >>>>> state-backed guarantee for the loan ..." >>>> It's you who needs to pay attention. The EU - as a whole - is under- >>>> writing the Greek borrowing. The individual memebers of the EU have to >>>> pass legislation to approve their particular country's part of the >>>> package. The Dutch lower house approved the Dutch component recently. >>>> It's still a collective decision. >>> So, what exactly does "state-backed" mean in your opinion? >> >> That the individual states guarantee that their particular portion of >> the loan will be paid by that particular loan if Greece goes bankrupt? >> What else would it mean? >> > >Ah, now you are beginning to get it. You wrote above, quote "The EU - as >a whole - is underwriting the Greek borrowing". Which is wrong. For >example if Greece fails to service the debt it now has in Germany the EU >won't pay the Germans back. Their own taxpayers will. And those are >rather pissed right now and for good reason. > > >>> Your notion that "The trouble that Greece is now in will be fixed by >>> Greece" will IMHO not come to pass. >> >> You are making a prediction, based on the little you know about the >> situation, heavily influenced by what you've read in the US mass >> media. As opinions go, it doesn't carry a lot of weight. >> > >Check the facts. Greece has no industry to write home about, tourism is >declining because countries like Turkey are cheaper, and they can't >print Euros. Did I forget anything? Guess not. > > >>> They are unlikely to be able to fix the >>> damage that living beyond their means for years has done. >> >> Why? The US - which has been running a hugge balance of payemnts >> deficit since Regan was president - would suggest that you might be >> right, but the money market hasn't yet got around to labelling US >> treasury bonds as risky investments. >> > >We have an industry. Greece doesn't. HUGE difference. Open your PC or >whatever else electronic and see how many components in there are from >Greek companies. Open the hood of your car and do same. In fact, open >just about anything. > > >> The Greek credit rating has now gone through the floor, and they've >> got no option but reform. >> > >But torching the bank buildings isn't going to achieve that. Their option is to carry on as before, and let the Germans pay for this round. Reform after this shot of money runs out, and party for a few more years. > > >>> It's other European countries who will fix it, also countries >>> overseas such as the US (via IMF). >> >> The IMF has a one-size-fits all solution for every country that gets >> into serious debt. It does seem to be based on the prescriptions of a >> group of particularly unrealistic US economic theorists, and tends to >> do serious damage to the real economy in the process of restoring the >> credit rating, but international credit rating never did have much to >> do with reality, as we got to see when the sub-prime mortgage crisi >> hit the fan. >> > >And your alternative would be? > > >> Be that as it may, the Greeks have run out of options, and they will >> do what every other government has done when they fall into the hands >> of the IMF, which is to follow the - stupid - prescriptions. >> > >Obviously that will be much better than what they did so far, and what >got them into this mess in the first place. Sloman doesn't approve of stupid prescriptions, like producing as much as you consume. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100517/D9FOHKGO0.html John
From: John Larkin on 17 May 2010 13:10 On Mon, 17 May 2010 03:40:11 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On May 17, 4:22�am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> On May 14, 5:07�pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> > On May 14, 10:42�pm, John Larkin >> > > Productivity is the ultimate benevolence. Technology pushes >> > > productivity. >> >> > Perfectly true. But it doesn't do a thing to ensure that the benefits >> > of increased productivity are equally shared between capital and >> > labour. >> >> Obviously it's extremely critical how and when those benefits are >> shared. �Labor does not deserve all the proceeds of my innovation, >> risk, and investment simply because I hire them, guarantee them a >> regular check when I get none, and insulate them from the predations >> and petty ministration of their rulers. �Showing up for a paycheck at >> a factory does not entitle you to the factory. >> >> Freedom means you can start something yourself, if you want those >> rewards and are prepared to take those risks; government means you >> can't, to a larger and larger extent. > >Society as whole provides the environment where you can hire >technically educated employees, communicate with them, and have them >travel around and get looked after when they get sick. > >Your taxes support that society. Try setting up an innovative business >in a third world country where the tax rates are lower (or easily >evaded by bribing the right people). > >Showing up for a paycheck at a factory doesn't entitle you to the >whole factory, but the last hundred years has demonstrated that the >optimum split for rewarding capital versus labour comes out at around >fifty-fifty. My business spends a tad over 50% of revenues on salaries, retirement funds, benefits, and insurance/other worker-related fees. 22 to 24% is parts. Most of the rest is rent, professional services, utilities, subcontracting, things like that. Then there's the heap of fees and taxes. We're small enough that we can expense capital equipment purchases, so we do. In a good year, that leaves a few per cent for profit, the return on capital. Where's my 50:50 split? John
From: John Larkin on 17 May 2010 13:23 On Mon, 17 May 2010 04:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On May 17, 5:43�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 19:05:54 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >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. >> >> The pattern repeats: >> >> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/15/BUPJ1DEGG... >> >> Manufacturing seeks cheap labor and makes lots of stuff. Pretty soon, >> that labor isn't cheap any more. Eventually the world may run out of >> places with cheap labor. > >Intelligent manufacturing seeks to automate the duller and more >repetitive parts of the job, but moving to China does require less >investment. Effectively, investment in manufacturing automation has >been on hold since since the US started exporting its low-paid jobs to >China, and the rest of the world joined the rush. China's costs are increasing, as Japan's and Korea's did. Capital moves in to poor countries for the cheap labor. After a generation or two, the locals have learned the technology and bootstrapped their education and skills; they are no longer cheap labor but competitors. So the capital (including the new capital from the formerly cheap countries!) moves on, looking for more cheap labor. It's sort of foreign aid that actually works. It's a natural propagation mode of technology. It's wonderful. But your "investment in manufacturing automation has been on hold " statement is entirely bogus. > >Back when I was working in England, English manufacturers complained >that British workers were less productive than their German >counterparts, until an academic economist did a comparison that >controlled for the capital investment per worker. It turned out that - >on average - the Germns invested more capital per worker, which was >reasonable since German wage rates were higher, but in areas where >Brisih employers had invested as much as their German counterparts, >British workers were more productive, presumably because the British >employers were picking off only the low-hanging fruit. I'm working now with British, Irish, and German companies. All seem terribly slow to me, as compared to working with American ones. It takes them forever to make decisions, and they sort of disappear for weeks and months at a time, then return in a panic to get stuff out. John
From: dagmargoodboat on 17 May 2010 15:57 On May 17, 12:29 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:09:07 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > >On May 15, 9:27 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> On May 14, 10:52 pm, John Larkin > > >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> > On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> > >On May 14, 5:18 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> > >> On May 14, 9:51 am, John Larkin > > >> > >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> > >> > On Thu, 13 May 2010 22:16:49 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > >> > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> > >On May 13, 5:02 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On May 13, 8:20 pm, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> > >> > >> The argument for progressive taxation is usually put in terms of those > >> > >> > >> with the broadest shoulders carrying more of the load. > > >> > >> > >Right. That's how the Little Red Hen got a hold of all the other > >> > >> > >animals' bread, greedy thing that she was. She had broad shoulders. > > >> > >> > >> This falls a > >> > >> > >> long way short of Marx - > > >> > >> > >Marx was kind of an idiot. > > >> > >> > >"The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., > >> > >> > > that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely > >> > >> > > requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer." > >> > >> > > --The Communist Manifesto > > >> > >> > > See what I mean? > > >> > >> > Yeah, he wouldn't understand a female plumber making $150K. > > >> > >> > What created our modern wealth was engineers applying science. > > >> > >> Yep. They made machines to relieve human toil, to improve the human > >> > >> condition. > > >> > >> Evil capitalists. Marx the Moocher should've stopped 'em. > > >> > >Some of the capitalists were quite evil, as Martin Brown has pointed > >> > >out elsewhere in this thread. Trade unions were one of the mechanisms > >> > >that reigned in the greedy, evil, short-sighted minority. > > >> > No. Competition did. > > >> Comptetion was one of the other mechanisms, once anti-trust > >> legislation had forced the greedy, evil and shorted sighted > >> capitalists to compete rather than conspire. > > >Conspiring is harmful. Why, though, is it bad for capitalists, yet > >infinitely good for labor? > > >Conspiracies among competing capitalists are inherently unstable. Like > >OPEC, the players have competing interests; squabble, the alliances > >fall apart, and they resume competing for advantage. It's a beautiful > >thing. > > >James Arthur > > So we don't so much need anti-trust laws, as long as murder is > illegal? To the contrary--anti-trust should apply to labor, too. E.g. government unions. (Normally unions destroy their own jobs; government prevents that (since government jobs never die, only multiply as their productivity plummets).) -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 17 May 2010 16:07
On May 16, 11:48 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:29:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >On May 15, 12:18 am, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >> On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin > > >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > >> ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > >> >>On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin > >> >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> 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. > > >> >>>As I suggested, exempt basics, like food, reasonable rent, generic > >> >>>medicines. If people can afford a yacht, they can afford to pay sales > >> >>>tax on it. > > >> >>The point is that that money has already been taxed. It shouldn't matter if > >> >>it is used to buy a yacht. Taxing it again is wrong (one reason I don't trust > >> >>Roth IRAs). > > >> >As I suggested, eliminate income taxes and go to sales tax. Then > >> >things are only taxed once. > > >> You're missing the point. Those millions of people who have saved all their > >> lives will be taxed a second time. They've *already* been taxed on that > >> money. > > >The defense the Fair Tax people offer is that it really isn't an > >increase at all--you're already paying that 2nd tax today. It's > >hidden in the price of everything you buy. > > How so? Inflation? That increases investment values, as well. > > >The price of anything always includes all the taxes--ihe income, SS, > >Medicare, and other taxes--paid by the people who made it. Take those > >out and the price of goods will fall. > > Sure, but the *INCOME* tax has been paid and the new sales tax will also have > to be paid. Without the change, there isn't a second tax on the income. Yes, > the "fair" tax will include the income tax of the people paying now, but it > will also increase the real cost of the product the same as another income tax > would on the buyer. Now you're not getting it...maybe equations would be clearer... I'll set out the reasoning, then you can have a go at rebutting it. a) If you buy an item today--any item--the price of that item is roughly price = raw materials + labor cost(wages + benefits + employer matching taxes) + overhead(rent, power, office help, advertising, phones) + business taxes + profit. b) The Fair Tax economists calculate that when you buy a $1 item, 23 cents of the price of that item goes to covering the various taxes that the people who made the item had to pay. That is, if your laborer has to pay income tax, you have to pay him more to compensate, and you have to raise your sales prices to recover that loss from your customers. c) So, when you buy an item, you *are* paying all the taxes of all the people and entities that made the item. Make sense so far? d) Under the Fair Tax, with all those embedded taxes eliminated, the manufacturer would now be able to make the same profit selling his $1 item for $0.77, which would be the new price. e) At checkout, your (formerly) $1 item would now appear on the sales ticket as 1) price = $0.77, plus 2) $0.23 in Fair Tax, collected at point-of-sale to pay all the taxes of all the people who made the thing. Total = $1.00, just like before. No difference. There, I think that's basically their pitch. I'm not a Fair Tax expert, so I could've biffed something. > >The Fair Tax--now separated and out in the open for all to see--is > >simply the tax which you would've paid before anyhow, but without > >knowing it. > > No, it's not. Yo can't tell me that money that has already been taxed has the > same value as money that hasn't. Which would you rather have, $1M in an > conventional IRA (no tax yet paid), or $600K ($1M after tax) in a Roth, when > they change the tax to a consumption tax? Depends on the tax rates. Under the Fair Tax's 23% I'd rather have the $1M, because that way I avoid the current system's higher rates. But, the difference here is not made by getting taxed twice--per item c) you are *already* paying the 23% tax built into the price of of an purchase, and under today's system you *are* going to pay it when you buy something. I don't have an IRA because I don't have confidence in the premise that tax rates will be lower in the future. Without that the numbers don't make sense. Bob Pease actually had a pretty good column on this a decade or so ago; he concluded the same. Besides, I don't like having my money at the whim of Congress. They burned me ex post facto with my 401k charging me a penalty for doing something that was allowed when I did it, then changing the law retroactively months later. -- Cheers, James Arthur |