conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: John Larkin on 21 May 2010 18:06 On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:34:17 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(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. John
From: John Larkin on 21 May 2010 18:17 On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:04:11 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On May 21, 6:01�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:30:08 -0400, Spehro Pefhany >> >> >> >> <speffS...(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >> >On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:24:16 -0700, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >>On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:47:21 -0700, John Larkin >> >><jjlar...(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/Whatev... >> >> >>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. > >If you ignore the minor fact that the US has been running a large >balance of payments deficit since Regan was president. That's not a big deal. The Chinese make stuff and ship it to us. We pay them, and they buy US T-bills with the money. The arabs do similar stuff with oil. Everybody's happy. We'll never pay all that money back. > >John's "understanding of how economic systems actually work" doesn't >seem able to integrate the consequences of this interesting fact. So >he believes right-wing pundits who tell him that Europe is falling >apart. Umm, europe *is* falling apart. Even left-wing pundits agree. and doesn't notice that if what they said were true, the US >would be falling apart faster, with California replacing Greece as the >horrible example of fiscal irresponsibility. No. We have industries and we have kids. The kids seem to be, on the whole, a pretty smart and ambitious and hard-working batch. Part of the problem in southern europe is the astonishing extinction-level birth rates. A smaller and smaller fraction of the population is actually doing productive work at any given instant. How's your productivity? John
From: krw on 21 May 2010 18:44 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 big and certainly not "super-fat plum" (works out to about 35% of my salary for the last ten years), but yes. It's also a "fully funded" retirement plan[*], so not a Ponzi scheme. I didn't have nearly as many 401K years or company match years, either. Basically, the "pension" is still there but there is more responsibility on the employee to save for his retirement. This has the advantage of making the retirement far more secure and portable. I know a *lot* of people who were laid off before they could get enough time in. I was sweating it for the last couple of years (and counting days until I was untouchable ;). [*] Medical is not, so comes out of income. It's not a great plan so I don't use it.
From: krw on 21 May 2010 18:46 On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:04:00 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Martin Brown wrote: >> 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. >> > >Neuro for "Northern Euro" and Souro for "Soured Euro"? Neuro fiddles while Soured Europe burns?
From: Joerg on 21 May 2010 19:01
krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz 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 big and certainly not "super-fat plum" (works out to about 35% of my > salary for the last ten years), but yes. ... 35% is pretty darn good. It's also a "fully funded" > retirement plan[*], so not a Ponzi scheme. I didn't have nearly as many 401K > years or company match years, either. Basically, the "pension" is still there > but there is more responsibility on the employee to save for his retirement. > This has the advantage of making the retirement far more secure and portable. > I know a *lot* of people who were laid off before they could get enough time > in. I was sweating it for the last couple of years (and counting days until I > was untouchable ;). > I've never really understood this vesting rule for pensions. It entices companies to fire employees "just in time". IMHO they should still get something, at least if it was a layoff. > [*] Medical is not, so comes out of income. It's not a great plan so I don't > use it. I met one engineer from IBM who kept his medical plan because he was allowed to, and declined the one at the new company (which was actually pretty good). -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |