conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: Joerg on 23 May 2010 16:22 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:00:00 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:36:06 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:10:57 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: [...] >>>>>>> Why do you think Toyota moved out of Kalifornica? Why haven't you? ... >>>>>> Ever tried to sell a house here lately? >>>>> You didn't see this coming? What has changed since Grayout Davis? >>>>> >>>> It's kind of tough to live out of state while running a business :-) >>> Businesses can be run from just about anywhere. >>> >> Not this one. It was high-tech and the market expected major new >> features at every key trade show, and those happen yearly. Losing half >> your engineers (and we would have likely lost even more) can then be >> catastrophic. > > I thought your business was you. > Now it is, but too late. And yeah, I can work from just about anywhere, particularly since now the majority of my clients is no longer in CA. >>>> Besides, we are quite firmly entrenched in community, church and >>>> volunteering out here. Especially my wife, if she left with me that >>>> would cause a lot of sadness in some assisted living places around here. >>> So it's not about selling your house. ;-) >>> >> True, financial things matter much less in our lives compared to higher >> callings. > > Those higher callings aren't going to matter much when you're broke and your > neighbors are now Jim's neighbors. ;-) It's pretty multi-cultural here already. I actually like that. >>>>>>> ... Toyota >>>>>>> still manufactures a *lot* of their NA cars in the US. Hundai has a plant >>>>>>> fifty miles down the road from me and Kia has a new plant 30 miles the other >>>>>>> way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko. >>>>>>> ...and Canuckistan. Wouldn't have one. Why are you changing the subject? >>>>>> To make the point. Sure, about 55% of foreign cars sold here are built here: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465005,00.html >>>>>> >>>>>> However, one has to subtract from that several positions: >>>>>> >>>>>> a. Many times the engines, transmissions and submodules are coming in >>>>>> via container ship, from overseas. So the labor in those is foreign labor. >>>>>> >>>>>> b. A lot of US brand cars are no longer made in the US, engines come >>>>> >from Canada, and so on. All that needs to be subtracted. >>>>> >>>>> The value added tax will be the same on the imported car and the domestic car. >>>>> It'll even the playing field more and making domestic production more >>>>> profitable. THis argument is one *for* the "fair tax" (NOT the VAT). >>>> Now you changed the subject. >>> No, in reality I was trying to bring it back to what it was, the fair tax. I'm >>> not convinced about it and discussions help. >>> >> I am not at all convinced about the fairness of it. I am especially >> against anything that conveys the message "Squander everything, we'll >> just sock it to the guys who didn't and you'd be whole again". It's not >> the American way. Or at least it wasn't ... > > I agree, however most of the tax I think I like. The double tax part isn't > the part that I like and I don't see *any* of the talking heads give it the > TOD. Maybe I should call Boortz' radio show and ask him. ;-) > This question needs to be asked. And will be, if this scheme would ever be discussed more seriously in public. But I am afraid most folks will simply react the instant they have their "oh, oh!" moment. And that will not be pretty for our financial market, not pretty at all. >>>> This was about that there'd be a clean >>>> shift, exchanging income taxes of workers for a consumption tax, and >>>> that such would cause dropping prices accordingly. My point is that it >>>> is not revenue-neutral, not by a longshot, and in most cases would not >>>> drop prices accordingly. To John Q.Public a so-called "fair tax" and a >>>> VAT are the same thing, he simply has to pay 23% more for stuff >>> He won't pay income tax or employment (SS) tax and neither will the >>> corporations paying him and selling him his stuff. >>> >> As said before, the Asian corporations that make the bulk of our goods >> will keep paying all that, so prices won't come down nearly as much as >> hope. You can't turn time back, let's face it, we've lost manufacturing >> of most non-industry good. Whether it's shoes or TV sets. This is why >> there is a trade deficit. > > If the Asian prices don't come down they'll get competition from the now > cheaper US companies. Looks like a win to me. No win there. First, there are no US television or sneaker or clothes manufacturers left. Even if there were or new ones would be sprouting up they could not possibly compete with the made-in-China pair of $29.99 jogging shoes that consumers have come to expect at places like Costco. It would be, "Oh, look, we can make the same sneakers for $60 instead of $75 because of the "fair tax". Big deal. >>>> and will be mighty miffed if he's a retiree. >>> *That* is the component I'm not happy about. I don't see anyone addressing >>> it, either. >> >> I did, many times over in this thread, but hardly anyone understands :-( > > We did, but I don't see any of the talking heads recognize it, on either side. > Then the whole thing should remain a non-starter. At least I hope so. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 23 May 2010 17:05 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2010 22:39:39 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: >>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:09:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:22:50 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>>>>>> Joerg wrote: >>>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some politicains were engineers. >>>>>>> >>>>>> True, but with engineer I mean active, not "got a degree twentysome >>>>>> years ago and framed it". >>>>> Carter was an "engineer" :-( >>>> >>>> From what I'd heard, Jimmy Carter never finished the Nuclear engineer >>>> course because he had to resign his Naval Commission after six years, to >>>> return to his family farm to run the business. The only degree he had >>>> was in mathematics. >>> His bios say that he received a Bachellor of Science at the Naval Academy. >>> They don't say what sort of science. As far as a nuke engineer (from >>> http://www.search.com/reference/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career/): >>> >>> "Carter completed an introductory course in nuclear reactor power at >>> Union College starting in March 1953." >> >> 1953 was the year his dad died, and he left the US Navy, wasn't it? > > I think so. That's why he only completed the first course of the graduate > Nuke-E program. > That's usually quite laudable. We had a stellar process engineer who one day came into my office and said he'd need to resign. WHAT? Turns out his father-in-law had terminal cancer and he said he'd have to step up to the plate and take over the farm. He was most certainly not looking forward to checking out of the high-tech job he loved so much. When I held a meeting to announce this and commended him for being there for his folks back home some people got moist eyes. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: krw on 23 May 2010 18:03 On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:05:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Sat, 22 May 2010 22:39:39 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: >>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:09:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:22:50 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>>>>>>> Joerg wrote: >>>>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some politicains were engineers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> True, but with engineer I mean active, not "got a degree twentysome >>>>>>> years ago and framed it". >>>>>> Carter was an "engineer" :-( >>>>> >>>>> From what I'd heard, Jimmy Carter never finished the Nuclear engineer >>>>> course because he had to resign his Naval Commission after six years, to >>>>> return to his family farm to run the business. The only degree he had >>>>> was in mathematics. >>>> His bios say that he received a Bachellor of Science at the Naval Academy. >>>> They don't say what sort of science. As far as a nuke engineer (from >>>> http://www.search.com/reference/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career/): >>>> >>>> "Carter completed an introductory course in nuclear reactor power at >>>> Union College starting in March 1953." >>> >>> 1953 was the year his dad died, and he left the US Navy, wasn't it? >> >> I think so. That's why he only completed the first course of the graduate >> Nuke-E program. >> > >That's usually quite laudable. We had a stellar process engineer who one >day came into my office and said he'd need to resign. WHAT? Turns out >his father-in-law had terminal cancer and he said he'd have to step up >to the plate and take over the farm. He was most certainly not looking >forward to checking out of the high-tech job he loved so much. When I >held a meeting to announce this and commended him for being there for >his folks back home some people got moist eyes. Did he have the degree he claimed to have? Did his experience match his resume? Carter claimed to be a Nuke-E, yet passed *one* class on the way. He implied that he was a Navy Nuke-E on a sub, when that's clearly impossible. Yes, giving up what you want for family is laudable. Doctored resumes, not so much.
From: Joerg on 23 May 2010 18:55 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:05:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 22:39:39 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>> "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:09:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>>> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:22:50 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>>>>>>>> Joerg wrote: >>>>>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> Some politicains were engineers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> True, but with engineer I mean active, not "got a degree twentysome >>>>>>>> years ago and framed it". >>>>>>> Carter was an "engineer" :-( >>>>>> From what I'd heard, Jimmy Carter never finished the Nuclear engineer >>>>>> course because he had to resign his Naval Commission after six years, to >>>>>> return to his family farm to run the business. The only degree he had >>>>>> was in mathematics. >>>>> His bios say that he received a Bachellor of Science at the Naval Academy. >>>>> They don't say what sort of science. As far as a nuke engineer (from >>>>> http://www.search.com/reference/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career/): >>>>> >>>>> "Carter completed an introductory course in nuclear reactor power at >>>>> Union College starting in March 1953." >>>> 1953 was the year his dad died, and he left the US Navy, wasn't it? >>> I think so. That's why he only completed the first course of the graduate >>> Nuke-E program. >>> >> That's usually quite laudable. We had a stellar process engineer who one >> day came into my office and said he'd need to resign. WHAT? Turns out >> his father-in-law had terminal cancer and he said he'd have to step up >> to the plate and take over the farm. He was most certainly not looking >> forward to checking out of the high-tech job he loved so much. When I >> held a meeting to announce this and commended him for being there for >> his folks back home some people got moist eyes. > > Did he have the degree he claimed to have? Did his experience match his > resume? ... Our guy? I don't know what degree he had, "credentials" do not matter much to me. He did keep our processes going no matter how difficult the task was and whenever there was a hard question regarding materials science or chemistry people would first go to him. And then usually have their answer along with a few solutions. > ... Carter claimed to be a Nuke-E, yet passed *one* class on the way. He > implied that he was a Navy Nuke-E on a sub, when that's clearly impossible. > Yes, giving up what you want for family is laudable. Doctored resumes, not so > much. That I don't know. But I agree, if a person would interview with me and I'd find out that the resume is doctored the interview would be over. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: krw on 23 May 2010 23:36
On Sun, 23 May 2010 15:55:22 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:05:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 22:39:39 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:09:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>>>> <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:22:50 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Joerg wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> Some politicains were engineers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> True, but with engineer I mean active, not "got a degree twentysome >>>>>>>>> years ago and framed it". >>>>>>>> Carter was an "engineer" :-( >>>>>>> From what I'd heard, Jimmy Carter never finished the Nuclear engineer >>>>>>> course because he had to resign his Naval Commission after six years, to >>>>>>> return to his family farm to run the business. The only degree he had >>>>>>> was in mathematics. >>>>>> His bios say that he received a Bachellor of Science at the Naval Academy. >>>>>> They don't say what sort of science. As far as a nuke engineer (from >>>>>> http://www.search.com/reference/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career/): >>>>>> >>>>>> "Carter completed an introductory course in nuclear reactor power at >>>>>> Union College starting in March 1953." >>>>> 1953 was the year his dad died, and he left the US Navy, wasn't it? >>>> I think so. That's why he only completed the first course of the graduate >>>> Nuke-E program. >>>> >>> That's usually quite laudable. We had a stellar process engineer who one >>> day came into my office and said he'd need to resign. WHAT? Turns out >>> his father-in-law had terminal cancer and he said he'd have to step up >>> to the plate and take over the farm. He was most certainly not looking >>> forward to checking out of the high-tech job he loved so much. When I >>> held a meeting to announce this and commended him for being there for >>> his folks back home some people got moist eyes. >> >> Did he have the degree he claimed to have? Did his experience match his >> resume? ... > > >Our guy? I don't know what degree he had, "credentials" do not matter >much to me. He did keep our processes going no matter how difficult the >task was and whenever there was a hard question regarding materials >science or chemistry people would first go to him. And then usually have >their answer along with a few solutions. No, I was really making the point that Carter's resignation from the Navy was irrelevant. *His* resume was stuffed. >> ... Carter claimed to be a Nuke-E, yet passed *one* class on the way. He >> implied that he was a Navy Nuke-E on a sub, when that's clearly impossible. >> Yes, giving up what you want for family is laudable. Doctored resumes, not so >> much. > > >That I don't know. But I agree, if a person would interview with me and >I'd find out that the resume is doctored the interview would be over. You would do the same for any political candidate, no? How anyone can support Blumenthal after last week is beyond me, but CT isn't a stronghold of sanity. |