conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: John Larkin on 22 May 2010 11:30 On Sat, 22 May 2010 04:51:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On May 22, 2:04�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:41:05 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On May 21, 5:06�pm, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:34:17 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >The facts of the case are that you don't like developing complete >> >> >systems, bcause it takes too long and ties up too much capital and >> >> >engineering effort, and you've found yourself a niche where you can >> >> >develop useful sub-systems, some of which you can sell to several >> >> >customers. >> >> >> Yes. Engineering is too valuable to sell once. Production can sell >> >> copies of engineering for decades. >> >> >> >Your customers would probably be happier if you took on turn-key >> >> >development contracts, but that kind of big chunk of development takes >> >> >skills that you don't seem to have - perhaps wisely. >> >> >Big projects that go wrong regularly destroy the businesses that took >> >> >them on. >> >> >> I have been in the systems business, and now that I have my own >> >> company I never want to do it again. >> >> >Me too. �But we're wrong John. �Bill says we should do systems, and >> >Bill *knows* business. �Massive investment that pays off zero-to-one >> >times is better and less risky �than modest investment that pays 100x. >> >> >James >> >> Another problem with the systems business is that you have a big staff >> of expensive people that need to be kept fed. So you bid on jobs. You >> have to overbid just like airlines overbook seats, only a lot more, >> because the no-show rate is 2:1 or worse. If all the propos-ees say >> no, you're dead. And if all of them say yes, you're almost as dead. >> Poisson is a cruel distribution. >> >> If you don't manage to come up with a smooth stream of projects, you >> wind up with a lot of people with nothing to do. Bill is the real >> expert at nothing-to-do. > >But the people I worked for who did occasional big projects were >rather better at keeping me busy. > >> We're always developing products. We just work our way down an >> infinite list of ideas. Meanwhile, downstairs, manufacturing is >> churning out copies of all > >Some of the stuff. Even John Larkin isn't going to be able to avoid >designing the occasional dud for the wrong market. Of course not. Maybe 50% of our designs are profitable. So we design lots of stuff. That wey, we make money on the winners and learn stuff from the apparent losers. What's surprising is that practically everything I've designed, or even partially designed, turned out to produce useful knowledge or offshoots, often many years later, often in most unexpected ways. > >> the stuff we've designed over the last 15 >> years or so, and bringing in the real revenue. If we get too many >> orders, we don't have to interview and hire a bunch of yokels off >> Craigslist, we just send a few big kits out to contract assemblers. > >And hire extra people for final test to make sure that the contract >assmebler have put the stuff together right. Testing grows almost linearly with volume, except that it's mostly automated these days, and building another test rack isn't hard. John
From: Joerg on 22 May 2010 11:39 JosephKK wrote: > On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:40:16 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> JosephKK wrote: >>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:44:13 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> On May 19, 9:45 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>> On May 18, 12:53 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>> <snip> >>>>> Buildings have a high labor content, and thus a high hidden tax >>>>> content. Remove those costs, and the price of building will fall to >>>>> compensate. How much will they fall? You could reasonably expect >>>>> them to fall by nearly however much the builder's cost is reduced. >>>>> >>>> And the buyer who buys from already taxed savings gets socked. No, I am >>>> against that. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Further, you'd be paying with money you got straight from your job, >>>>> invested for however many years, all without ever paying any tax. >>>>> >>>>>> c. They exempt imputed rent on old buildings yet do not at all consider >>>>>> removing the de-facto double tax on savings in Roth IRAs or regular >>>>>> accounts. What that does is simple: The millisecond such a flawed law >>>>>> would be announced there'd be a stampede. Everybody who is smart pulls >>>>>> their money out of the banks and buys real estate, any real estate. -> >>>>>> Financial market collapse -> major new recession. >>>>> Well, stop naysaying and fix it. That's what engineers do. >>>>> >>>> I generally do not fix things that aren't worth fixing. We can instead >>>> simplify the income tax code. That's what would be a useful project. In >>>> engineering it's often best not to nuke an exisiting design just to >>>> replace it by an equally risky or more risky new one. And this one can >>>> seriously blow up. I'd venture to say, it will. >>>> >>> Please help me to understand. >>> The tax code is badly broken (Y/N). >> >> Yes [X] No [ ] >> >> >>> We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other >>> _______________(D); (A/B/C/D) > > Jeorg, please answer the immediately above question. > My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not. > >>> Please point out ways that the "Fair Tax" can blow up worse than current >>> tax code _____________________________________________________________. >> >> Ok, I do it for the umpteenth time but this is the last time cause I've >> got to get some work done here: >> >> People who have diligently saved wish not to have their nest egg taxed a >> second time. So, they will try to dodge that bullet. Some will retire >> outside the country and take their nest egg along. Others and I am >> afraid that would be the majority will rush their money out of the banks >> and into real estate so they convert it to "pre-fictitious-rent" >> property. A plain old financial stampede, except that this one will be >> more devastating to the financial markets than anything we have ever >> seen, including the housing bubble. >> >> Next, look at countries that have VAT which is fairly similar to what >> some people call "fair tax" except that they also have an income tax. >> What has that triggered? Right, a rampant underground economy. I lived >> there, so I know. The governments don't even have the foggiest idea how >> bad that really is. People have no qualms hollering clear across a pub >> "Hey, anyone know a tile setter who'll make me a good offer if I don't >> need an invoice?". That is because those countries generally also slap >> VAT on services. So ... >> >> I have never played that game but, example: Bathroom needed remodeling. >> Quotes $20k and up. Yikes! So I pushed out one project that wasn't too >> urgent and where the client was ok with that, bought the materials for a >> few thousand bucks, rolled up the sleeves and had at it. Three weeks >> later we had a beautiful new bathroom with stuff in there that was >> higher class that the contractor grade stuff from the quotes. "Oh, you >> want those Turkish tiles with the artwork in there? Yes, dear, no >> problem". Everything perfectly legit and we saved way more than $15k. An >> engineer could not possibly have made that much in three weeks. I don't >> think I need to explain what that does to unemployment. > > And just how much of that 15K difference was labor taxes (including > meta-taxes like union dues)? Over there most likely 30% or a bit more, don't remember. Fact is the Laffer curve rung true, big time. Meantime the VAT there has gone up even more, by another four percentage points or so. Guess what that did? >> >>>>> We could simply exempt all existing taxed savings and investments, and >>>>> create accounts for those, with tax-free debit cards, or whatever. >>>>> Anything you buy with that debit card from that account either a) >>>>> isn't taxed at sale or b) you keep your statements and file for a >>>>> refund. Blah, blah, blah. >>>>> >>>>> It ain't rocket science. >>>>> >>>> Yup, put them into escrow. We're the government, register them here by >>>> Dec-31, trust us, oh yeah ... >>>> >>>> >>>>> All these considerations only apply for a transition period anyhow, >>>>> then they go away. Since you're still working you'll get years of >>>>> income-tax-free benefits from the thing, if enacted. Wouldn't that be >>>>> great? >>>>> >>>> And suddenly all the people who were diligent savers will use those >>>> accounts to buy stuff and front-load the country with a debt that makes >>>> our current and already bad one look like peanuts. Then we'd become >>>> another Greece. >>>> >>>> >>>>> The alternative is this: last year Obama spent $1.60 for every $1.00 >>>>> he took in. Of that $1.00, he got roughly $0.50 from income tax, and >>>>> $0.50 from SS tax. To fix that, assuming interest rates stay low >>>>> (which they won't), he'd have to raise income taxes by double just to >>>>> break even, or every other tax in the book by 50% or so, plus make up >>>>> some more. >>>>> >>>> That's one reason everyone in this here neighborhood is looking at the >>>> November elections, at least that's what people told me :-) >>> They better get in gear and campaign for the best available candidates in >>> the _primaries_ _coming in June in CA_. If your choice is between the >>> economic damage of Medfly Brown versus Meg Whitman you have foolishly >>> allowed your choices to be too limited. Besides there is a lot of >>> interesting propositions that need voted on. >> >> Believe me, everybody in this neighborhood _is_ already in gear. There's >> a reason why the tea parties grow at an amazing clip. >> >> >>>>>> And then they talk about removing compliance costs which is also flawed. >>>>>> Who is going to determine how much fictitious rent tax you must >>>>>> surrender? Right, an assessor. He's going to have to be paid a salary, >>>>>> and he'll probably get a nice fat pension later. >>>>> There is no"fictitious" rent tax, and no assessor. You never need >>>>> assessors, since taxes are based on actual sales price--that's the >>>>> assessment. >>>>> >>>> So, how exactly do you suggest that's done when Joe Q.Public fires up >>>> his circular saw and builds himself a nice big extra wing on his house? >>>> Or the friend of his brother-in-law's friend builds him a granny flat? >>>> The underground economy will become rampant because an extra 23% savings >>>> is to be had. >>>> >>> Not all of that cost disappears, there is still materials costs paid at >>> the lumber yard etc.,. Also the labor content of buildings has been >>> reduced significantly by removing labor taxes. >> >> Well, this was in response to James' notion that, quote "You never need >> assessors, since taxes are based on actual sales price--that's the >> assessment." >> >> So let's see, since we can't have an assessor then John Q.Public must >> self-file into some computer system. "Hmm, so what do we enter here for >> the materials? One box of nails, a pack of drywall screws, the hot dog I >> had outside Home Depot. Don't remember the rest ..." > > That is all recorded in the tax receipts. What receipts? Case in point, and I was right behind the guy: Dude had a huge cart in tow at the cash register. A toilet, two sinks, tile, pipe, mortar, the works. He could barely pull it. Ka-ching ... "That'll be eighthundred Dollars and .." He whipped out a huge wallet and paid the whole chebang in cash. Dollar bills. No check, no credit card, no name given. Now how exactly is this going to be recorded? >> Anyhow, tax systems get reworked or changed for one reason: To milk body >> public for even more money. People don't want that. > > Productive people don't want that, the parasites do. Thus, conflict. Exactly. So ... -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 22 May 2010 11:50 JosephKK wrote: > On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> JosephKK wrote: >>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> <major snippage and attributions...> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> $1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people >>>>>>>>>>>>> (AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tax-deferred the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it). >>>>>>>>>>>>> Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left >>>>>>>>>>>>> still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded >>>>>>>>>>>>> tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax) >>>>>>>>>>>>> both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power. >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the contention, AIUI. >>>>>>>>>>>> The other false assumption is that the price would drop >>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed. >>>>>>>>>>> I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order >>>>>>>>>>> effects. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In reality, >>>>>>>>>>>> the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay >>>>>>>>>>>> off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I >>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise. >>>>>>>>>>> I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay >>>>>>>>>>> for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price >>>>>>>>>> quickly? >>>>>>>>> Because there is more than one manufacturer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is >>>>>>>> often zero. >>>>>>> I don't see the relevance. >>>>>> The relevance is this: >>>>>> >>>>>> When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because >>>>>> the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent >>>>>> that assumption is flawed for two reasons: >>>>>> >>>>>> a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota >>>>>> will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor >>>>>> associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule. >>>>> I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and >>>>> labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for >>>>> example. >>>> I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll >>>> crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or >>>> you don't have pickles for lunch :-) >>>> >>> You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage, >>> and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta >>> price per unit versus volume. >> >> What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever, >> competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same >> is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make >> $1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea. > > Dealers usually get mote than that, like 3k to 5k per car, more for > luxury lines like Lexus. Go ask if you don't believe me. Nope, not so. I was being generous here, they usually do not even get anything close to 10%: http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/09/sales-drop-pushes-prices-down-squeezes-dealer-margins.html > Please respond to the volume pricing at Digikey (and most electronic > retailer/wholesalers). Digikey is different, and not at all a factor in this game. Their higher prices for small volumes have simple reasons. For example, someone has to pay for the antistatic bag for the lone AD603 you order to test an AGC. The people (or increasingly robots) who pick must be amortized by the minute. Same for shipping department space and so on. All this cost is nearly identical whether you buy one AD603 or a whole reel. Consequently you must pay $10.50 for one, $7.10/ea for 100, and $6.50/ea if you buy bulk. Sound pretty normal to me. Hint: For lower quantities you can often get by with a lesser penalty at Mouser but they search engine is the pits, IMHO. [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 22 May 2010 11:52 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> JosephKK wrote: >>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> <major snippage and attributions...> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tax-deferred the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left >>>>>>>>>>>>>> still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the contention, AIUI. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The other false assumption is that the price would drop >>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed. >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order >>>>>>>>>>>> effects. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In reality, >>>>>>>>>>>>> the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay >>>>>>>>>>>>> off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I >>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise. >>>>>>>>>>>> I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay >>>>>>>>>>>> for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price >>>>>>>>>>> quickly? >>>>>>>>>> Because there is more than one manufacturer. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is >>>>>>>>> often zero. >>>>>>>> I don't see the relevance. >>>>>>> The relevance is this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because >>>>>>> the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent >>>>>>> that assumption is flawed for two reasons: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota >>>>>>> will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor >>>>>>> associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule. >>>>>> I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and >>>>>> labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for >>>>>> example. >>>>> I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll >>>>> crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or >>>>> you don't have pickles for lunch :-) >>>>> >>>> You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage, >>>> and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta >>>> price per unit versus volume. >>> >>> What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever, >>> competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same >>> is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make >>> $1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea. > > Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea. > Mine was made in Nagoya. [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 22 May 2010 11:54
"krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: > > On Fri, 21 May 2010 23:51:11 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > >"krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: > >> > >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >> > > >> > Some people think all salt is bad, but it's called 'The salt of life' > >> >for good reason. I can post pictures of the scars all over my lower > >> >legs, if you don't beleive me. > >> > >> Vitimins D and E are also essential. They'll kill you too. > > > > > > I take a multi vitamin, and a potassium tablet each day. If it's a > >choice between taking a few years off my life from too much sodium, or > >dying within a couple years after surgeons slice off body parts from too > >little sodium I'd rather die of a heart attack. > > Are you trying for a DimBulb award? Of course there are reasons to take even > dangerous drugs. In the last several years of my mother's life, she was > walking a tightrope of heart and kidney drugs. Too much of one caused heart > failure, too much of the other caused the kidneys to fail. Both were required > to keep her alive. Neither are given to healthy people, for obvious reasons. I am on a lot of different medications. Most remove sodium from my body. Being diabetic doesn't help. There are short phrases mentioning sodium in the documentation, if you wade through the 20+ pages per drug. I am replacing what is being lost. Even with the amount I'm using, I usually can't taste it. If I cut it back, I start getting sores that won't heal. Go ahead and tell me you wouldn't use the required salt to maintain your electrolytes. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge. |