conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: Martin Brown on 21 May 2010 11:36 On 21/05/2010 16:24, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:47:21 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.hdgFGtPjbY >> >> You can't fool Mother Nature. When a few hundred million people choose >> to not work much, not breed much, and consume a lot, you just can't >> spend your way out of the problem. >> >> This is the leading edge of the European demographic crisis that's >> been building for generations now. There's no quick fix. >> >> John > > > Good one: > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/7746806/Whatever-Germany-does-the-euro-as-we-know-it-is-dead.html > It might amuse you to know that a suggested name for the replacement currency after this one fails was suggested by a Reuters financial commentator as the New Euro or Neuro for short. Interview/sketch monologue online at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8693000/8693649.stm Doomsday Scenario for the Euro - I think you will like it. Regards, Martin Brown
From: Jim Thompson on 21 May 2010 11:37 On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany ><speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: > > >>>[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato >>>chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the >>>contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as >>>3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they >>>manage to come so close when the quantization is so large? >>> >> >>I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution... >> > >You are partially right. > >John Small chips ?:-) ...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 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: Joerg on 21 May 2010 11:49 John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:20:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:51:33 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 08:45:14 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:11:54 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:13:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 May 2010 00:18:43 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>>>>>>> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>>>>>>>>> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>>>>>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid(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. >>>>>>>>>> Not to bust your bubble, but i am already paying both taxes. >>>>>>>>> When income tax gets turned into a point-of-sale tax you'll have paid >>>>>>>>> even more (if you have saved after-tax money). >>>>>>>> I only have a little of such, most is in other (post income tax) forms. >>>>>>> erp. ^^^^/pre >>>>>> Don't know how old you are but if there ain't a big stash in those IRAs >>>>>> and you don't have some plum pension coming your way I'd start saving >>>>>> now :-) >>>>> I figure i can only semi-retire. Maybe in 10 years. OK pension, medical >>>>> included. Not as much saving as paying off house. Well over $1000/mo >>>>> there. I have spreadsheets and can use them. The outlook is not grim >>>>> but not flush, so i go to about half time as a consultant. The >>>>> consulting pays for the cake, bread and butter will be taken care of >>>>> unless the Damnicrats deficit spend everything away. >>>> If you can imagine comfortably making ends meet with a 50% consulting >>>> workload then you are better off than most people. I know grown men who >>>> are doing min-wage jobs right now just so they don't lose the family >>>> home. And they might still lose it. >>> Hell, I can imagine retiring *well* on 25% consulting workload. In fact if I >>> thought it would last I'd still be "retired", contracting as I was doing two >>> years back. That would be my ideal retirement, AAMOF. >> >> However, I assume you have a nice big pension coming towards you from >> big blue. The vast majority of younger people have zilch in that domain >> because companies have stopped that practice a long, long time ago. >> Instead, the people now get to pay for super-fat plum pensions of state >> workers, which is a powder keg that is going to go kablouie pretty soon >> here in CA. > > Not to mention about 30 other states. And europe. > But they don't have regular folks pulling in well north of $200k just in pension payments per year (!) on the taxpayer nickel, or pension spiking. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: John Larkin on 21 May 2010 12:01 On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:30:08 -0400, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:24:16 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:47:21 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.hdgFGtPjbY >>> >>>You can't fool Mother Nature. When a few hundred million people choose >>>to not work much, not breed much, and consume a lot, you just can't >>>spend your way out of the problem. >>> >>>This is the leading edge of the European demographic crisis that's >>>been building for generations now. There's no quick fix. >>> >>>John >> >> >>Good one: >> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/7746806/Whatever-Germany-does-the-euro-as-we-know-it-is-dead.html >> >> >>John >> >> > >Paging Dr. Schadenfreude.. Oh, the US is facing similar problems. But at least we have kids and immigrants that we can exploit. I'm not so much happy that europe is falling apart as I am satisfied that I have some understanding of how economic systems actually work. I did predict stuff like this, based on the simple concept that you can't longterm consume more than you produce, unless you steal it. This sort of thinking is apparently beyond what learned macroeconomists and finance ministers can handle. The US and Canada have, I think, better longterm prospects than europe. John
From: keithw86 on 21 May 2010 12:02
On May 21, 10:37 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On- My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:06:13 -0700, John Larkin > > > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:01:04 -0400, Spehro Pefhany > ><speffS...(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: > > >>>[1] Try this: get a good gram scale and buy 50 small bags of potato > >>>chips. Note the specified net weight; say 3.5 grams. Weigh the > >>>contents. You'll find weights like 3.52, 3.56, 3.54, rarely as much as > >>>3.6. Weigh one chip; it might average, say, 0.2 grams. So how do they > >>>manage to come so close when the quantization is so large? > > >>I'm sure they have some kind of crumby solution... > > >You are partially right. > > >John > > Small chips ?:-) Salt |