conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
From: Greegor on 24 May 2010 02:03 On May 23, 10:41 am, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Sun, 23 May 2010 04:47:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:50:50 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > >wrote: > > >>JosephKK wrote: > >>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > >>> wrote: > > >>>> JosephKK wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> JosephKK wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> dagmargoodb...(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-squ.... JKK >That is gross profit, not markup. krw > Huh? Gross profit is markup. Price - cost. W 100 R 120 GP 20 MU 20 % ( GP/W ) Gross Profit Margin 16 % ( GP/R ) Business insiders tend to focus on margin. Consumers often focus on the markup. Net margin would correct for overhead costs, but is not as reliably calculable.
From: Joerg on 24 May 2010 11:32 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Sun, 23 May 2010 15:55:22 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: [..] >>> ... 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. I would, but obviously other wouldn't. At least I don't think so after, for example, tax "lapses" were discovered with major office holders. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 24 May 2010 11:47 dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On May 23, 3:22 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:00:00 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>> 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. > > Sorry, I spent yesterday talking in person to the actual Fair Tax > guys, along with some U.S. congressmen. I'll chime in later, but for > now I'm swamped and pooped, with a left-handed shovel and a whole lot > of ____. > Oh, oh, major spill somewhere? I hate whan that happens, but been there :-( > Short version: no it's not in there, but yes, they're open to amending > their bill so as to exempt savings that have already been taxed. > This is extremely important. First, because they will get a ton of flak from seniors and their organizations without taking care of this. Secondly, people who have diligently saved want some _ironclad_ guarantees there, in a way that thise guarantees cannot be changed later. Recent retroactive law changes have eroded a whole lot of trust, so this will now be much more difficult to achieve than years ago. In essence, folks that have saved should not pay any tax until all that savings is used up. Except for what's gained in future interest, of course, because one must also be fair in the other direction. But here we will have the first major bureaucratic job coming at it. > Of all the alternatives, I still find it very appealing, especially > compared to the current system. That doesn't mean I'm fully buying it > yet--I still haven't considered all the possible gotchas. > I am not even considering it unless the savings issue is taken care of. Not so much for the sake of myself but for that of our country because the repercussions for the financial market could be (or I should say would be) devastating. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: John Larkin on 24 May 2010 12:06 On Sat, 22 May 2010 10:16:55 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:58:43 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:21:57 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:12:51 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 23:36:35 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 21:01:34 -0700, John Larkin >>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:15:21 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:17:31 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:49 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>>>>>><krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:35:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>>>>>>><mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>"keithw86(a)gmail.com" wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with salt. I have to use five to seven times the >>>>>>>>>>recommended amount to prevent pressure sores. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>There is a lot wrong with salt. Some need more than others, but almost >>>>>>>>>everyone gets far more than they need. Many get dangerous levels. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>From the wikipedia page on salt... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Meta-analysis in 2009 found that the sodium consumption of 19,151 >>>>>>>>individuals from 33 countries fit into the narrow range of 2,700 to >>>>>>>>4,900 mg/day. The small range across many cultures, together with >>>>>>>>animal studies, suggest that sodium intake is tightly controlled by >>>>>>>>feedback loops in the body, making recommendations to reduce sodium >>>>>>>>consumption below 2,700 mg/day potentially futile.[72] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>...which is interesting. Salt intake is not particularly associated >>>>>>>>with Western diets. I trust my body to self-regulate basic stuff like >>>>>>>>this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What do you mean mot associated with Western diets. We eat a *ton* of salt. >>>>>>>It's added, in massive quantities, to just about everything. You may be able >>>>>>>to trust your body to self-regulate, but add a little kidney or heart damage >>>>>>>and that won't work out so well. >>>>>> >>>>>>Well, just now, I'm cooking up a pot of home-made chicken broth, which >>>>>>includes no salt. It just tastes so much better than the commercial >>>>>>junk. >>>>>> >>>>>>But I think bodies know what they want and don't want. And excrete >>>>>>whatever they have too much of. Why would my body absorb more salt >>>>>>than it needs, when it could just let it pass through? >>>>> >>>>>If the kidneys or heart are damaged it can't "just pass through". >>>> >>>>Why not? Why would my intestines import more salt than my body needs? >>> >>>Because they aren't very smart. The regulation is on the other end. If the >>>kidney doesn't work the salt builds up. >> >>Maybe your body isn't very smart. Mine is. It regulates tens of >>thousands of chemicals, temperatures, pressures, and emotions a lot >>better than any computer (or any doctor) could. > >Don't be ridiculous (I know it's in your blood). Anecdote isn't data. Your body doesn't automatically regulate temperature, pH, insulin levels, electrolytes, hormones, antibodies, white cell production, blood gasses? You have to do all that stuff manually? If you forget to breathe, will you die? All that must be annoying. > >>>>Bodies have all sorts of excellent regulatory mechanisms. Maybe a lot >>>>of salt is bad for people whose systems are damaged, but normal people >>>>regulate their appetites and chemistry just fine. We evolved to do >>>>that. >>> >>>Like all systems, it works to a point. We regulate sugar, too. Don't try >>>abusing that regulation for thirty years, though. >> >>I've eaten all the sugar I wanted for twice 30 years now. And >>everything is working fine. > >Again, anecdote isn't data. I'm not allergic to poison ivy/oak/whatever but I >don't tempt fate, either. > >>>>It wasn't that long ago that doctors told us to eat margarine instead >>>>of butter. >>> >>>Yes, it didn't take long for them to figure out that margarine wasn't such a >>>good idea. >> >>Just 90 years or so. > >Just because the government (and ag lobby) didn't get it doesn't mean it >wasn't known. So far, most nutritional advice gets overturned every couple of decades. Turns out that there's a lot of very bad statistics floating around. John
From: Martin Brown on 24 May 2010 12:31
On 24/05/2010 17:06, John Larkin wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2010 10:16:55 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:58:43 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:21:57 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>> <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:12:51 -0700, John Larkin >>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Why not? Why would my intestines import more salt than my body needs? Because in the dim and distant past for hunter gatherers salt intake was important to maintain electrolyte balance and not always available. Salt was used as a currency in the ancient world - hence salary. If you stuff your face like crazy your body will quite happily absorb and store all the calories it can get for future lean times. But it does you no good at all to be morbidly obese - why on earth do you think it is a good idea to overdose on salt? >>>> >>>> Because they aren't very smart. The regulation is on the other end. If the >>>> kidney doesn't work the salt builds up. >>> >>> Maybe your body isn't very smart. Mine is. It regulates tens of >>> thousands of chemicals, temperatures, pressures, and emotions a lot >>> better than any computer (or any doctor) could. No he is right. It is easily possible with a western diet of processed food to completely overwhelm the kidneys ability to get rid of excess salt. The result is higher salt levels in the blood leading to hypertension or raised blood pressure with associated risk of stroke or heart attack. >> >> Don't be ridiculous (I know it's in your blood). Anecdote isn't data. > > Your body doesn't automatically regulate temperature, pH, insulin > levels, electrolytes, hormones, antibodies, white cell production, > blood gasses? You have to do all that stuff manually? If you forget to > breathe, will you die? All that must be annoying. It is pretty good in most healthy people, but there are a lot of unhealthy people about thanks to heavily processed popular junk food diets with massive amounts of fat, salt and sugar added to everything. >>>>> Bodies have all sorts of excellent regulatory mechanisms. Maybe a lot >>>>> of salt is bad for people whose systems are damaged, but normal people >>>>> regulate their appetites and chemistry just fine. We evolved to do >>>>> that. >>>> >>>> Like all systems, it works to a point. We regulate sugar, too. Don't try >>>> abusing that regulation for thirty years, though. >>> >>> I've eaten all the sugar I wanted for twice 30 years now. And >>> everything is working fine. >> >> Again, anecdote isn't data. I'm not allergic to poison ivy/oak/whatever but I >> don't tempt fate, either. Urushiol can be very unforgiving. It also forms the basis of Japanese lacquer - safe enough once it has cured but hell to work with. You can never be sure if you have become sensitised. >> >>>>> It wasn't that long ago that doctors told us to eat margarine instead >>>>> of butter. >>>> >>>> Yes, it didn't take long for them to figure out that margarine wasn't such a >>>> good idea. >>> >>> Just 90 years or so. >> >> Just because the government (and ag lobby) didn't get it doesn't mean it >> wasn't known. > > So far, most nutritional advice gets overturned every couple of > decades. Turns out that there's a lot of very bad statistics floating > around. The connection between raised salt (sodium) levels in the blood and excessive salt intake is well established. You ignore it at your peril. Regards, Martin Brown |