conservation of Euros

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:53:22 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/05/2010 16:06, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:31:49 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Engels saw first hand what greedy industrialists were doing to their
workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. Boiler explosions were
commonplace up until the Vulcan insurers made a stand and insisted on
proper boiler safety inspections. And in cases of tampering with safety
relief valves they would not pay out.

[snip]

It makes reasonable sense to pay your workers a living wage for the work
that they do rather than pay them less than they can sensibly live on.
Ford was about the first in the USA to actually do this.

It only makes sense if the money comes from somewhere. If all the
employers arbitrarily doubled wages, inflation would take it all away

We are talking here of industrialised manufacture that was possibly two
or more orders of magnitude more productive. All the profits went to the
mill owners and their workers were left to starve on a subsistance level
of pay because it was marginally better than being out of work.

The mill owners lived like Gods as did the iron masters. One of our
local iron masters who was pretty benevolent for the time was an
inflation adjusted multibillionaire in the early 1900's. He and his mate
Andrew Carnegie paid to endow Middlesbrough public library.

Not all of them were miserly penny pinching scrouge type characters, but
enough of them were to influence Engels and later Marx.

within weeks, maybe days. If a single employer did it, he's go out of
business. Shuffling paper money around is meaningless; productivity is
real. Ford increased wages because he had a revolutionary
super-efficient way of making cheap cars, and most workers found the
pace and discipline tiring and tended to quit after a few months. He
needed the best workers to stick around, so he golden-handcuffed them;
this was *before* they were unionized. The "invisible hand" was at
work. Productivity was the key.

This is good:

http://www.amazon.com/Ford-Men-Machine-Robert-Lacey/dp/0517635046/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273849223&sr=1-1

The same was true of industrialised machine based cotton mills powered
by steam engine. The difference was they could prey on large numbers of
starving unemployed penniless former handloom weavers. The profits were
entirely for the mill owners and were immense whilst life expectancy for
the workers housed in slums was poor at about 40.

It was even worse in the iron & steel industry just with a few notable
exceptions they were quite happy to evaporate a few more employees if it
made them extra profit. Fettlers were relatively well paid but died even
younger than the already low average.

In the UK there were some decent industrialists mostly of quaker
families who did treat their workforce fairly - examples include some
household names like Pilkingtons, Cadbury, Bournville, Marks&Spencer.

A decent industrialist realizes that a partnership with workers is
mutually beneficial, but must still compete with company owners who
don't agree with this philosophy. A company can't arbitrarily give
away high wages without achieving corresponding competitive benefits.

This wasn't about competition though it was about screwing the poor sods
at the bottom of the pile into the ground knowing full well that they
were individually powerless and a consumable item.

Regards,
Martin Brown

You are rather completely bought in to the liberal version of history
based on the content of your post. Look again through the records, your
previous instructors have both understated the worst excesses of the
"owners" and underreported the decency of the average to best cases.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sat, 15 May 2010 02:05:24 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
wrote:

Your first language IS English isn't it??

No, it is baffle-gab. An Academic language completely disconnected from
reality.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:32:24 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]

Please notice, Slowman produces _NO_ economic activity and cannot be
expected to know anything about it.

And he'd go nuts and die if he didn't have you to "converse" with.

I'm always pleased to note that I'm the highest standard for Slowman's
disdain, but please don't feed the jerk. Let him die that most
unpleasant of deaths... alone ;-)

--
...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 | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On May 16, 11:49 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:04:22 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:



JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <inva...@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.
Gosh, are your savings all that significant? Don't you pay (an ever
increasing in CA) sales tax already? Please to explain the difference.
The difference is this: Yes, I do save for retirement. And yes, one has
to make sacrifices to do that. Such as not buying a new car every five
years. As said several times this money _has_ already been taxed. So if
the income of the paycheck-to-paycheck guy gets taxed only at
consumption he has only paid tax once. I have then paid twice. That is
simply unfair.
Sometimes "fair" is the enemy of "works." If everyone were equally
dirt-poor, it would be fair.

Huh? If the competent people who worked hard end up as dirt poor as
the idiots who didn't, it wouldn't be fair. I'm not saying that the
productive minority is entitled to hang onto everthing that they
managed to accumulate - there's not a lot of tax to be collected from
idle incompetents, and the administration does have to collect enough
in taxes to keep the machinery of society turning over - but since
society consists of non-identical individuals, there's nothing fair
about reducing the best to the same condition as the worst.

Shazam! I would have never imagined that this sort of statement would
come from you. While we disagree on just about anything else, there you
were right on.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On May 16, 10:32 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:53:21 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Bill Slomanwrote:
On May 14, 6:03 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 13, 10:21 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:08:20 -0700, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
VATs tend to be sales taxes, in reality.
VAT is applied all up and down the production chain. So the only stage
that can be selectively taxes is the last one, at point of sale. I
prefer a true 100% visible point of sale sales tax. VAT is designed to
hide the actual taxation level, at considerable cost of complexity.
That's the theory but in practice, AIUI, VATs are only collected at the end of
the pipe.
No.  They're charged and credited throughout the chain.  Your thing
gets taxed, then rebated and the next guy pays, then gets his rebate,
etc.

Maximum work for everyone.  Maximum intrusion.  Horrible.

But easily automated, unless you want to cheat. No place where I
worked complained about the complexity or got worried about
intrusions. European small business software packages claim to include
it as a matter of course.

And then you get a letter from the tax agency, asking for some
explanation why your VAT intake was so low and you claimed so much in
refunds. "Because I run a business, are VAT-exempt for that, and have
clients in places like Asia" ... "Can you come by with the books and
show us?" ... "Sure". It was a nice bicycle ride through a forest so I
didn't mind. The guy there was very friendly but became quite frustrated
because nearly all the stuff was in foreign languages, some in Korean

People who are sloppy about their paper-work can get in a mess with
VAT, as with every other item of accounting, but at least it isn't
hard to understand.

IIRC we had 6 or 7 VAT rates and you really had to watch your data
entry. At the "Pre-computer" point.

Please notice, Slowman produces _NO_ economic activity and cannot be
expected to know anything about it.

I'm not selling anything at the moment, but I am buying stuff and
paying the usual attention to what's going on in the market.

JoshepKK is doing the usual right-wing nitwit trick of drawing a false
conclusion from an irrelevant observation. Not for the first time.
When are you guys going to master joined-up logic?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On May 16, 11:12 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 08:41:52 -0700, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:56:31 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Bill Slomanwrote:
On May 14, 12:39 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

[...]

That's the way sales tax works in California. If I buy uncooked
chicken at Safeway, there's no sales tax. If I buy cooked, hot,
ready-to-eat chicken, it's taxed. It's simple, because it's a visible,
automated-cash-register, point-of-sale tax. Restaurant food is taxed
whether you eat it there or not. I can't imagine how you could work a
thing like this all the way back up the VAT chain.

It would be easy to structure a national sales tax to exempt the
things poorer people actually need. There would be some cheating
around the edges, but there always will be some cheating. But things
like VAT carousel fraud couldn't happen.

(One shop near here sells  " *WARM* " corned-beef sandwiches because
hot ones have a higher tax rate.)

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.

Dream on. Why do you think that VAT was invented?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax

The usual. To squeeze ever more taxes out of people. Whether you call
them VAT, fees, surcharges, carbon credits or whatever, a tax is a tax
is a tax.

But some taxes require you to hire an army of bookkeepers and CPAs and
attorneys just to figure out how much taxes you should pay. Luckily,
all their fees are tax-deductable. This year, we will spend more on
the droids than we will pay in taxes.

The truest indication that the "system" has gone malignant (malevolent).

Actually, it could indicate two other conditions, both rather more
likely.

John could simply be being ripped off by his book-keepers, CPAs and
attorney's, or the tax system in California could be so riddled with
exemptions and get-outs that his army of droids could be avoiding
pretty much all the taxation that he ought to be paying to keep his
society running.

Granting the enthusiasm with which American legislators squeeze tax
exemptions into irrelevant legislation, the second option sounds
plausible.

Our Dutch CPA always prided himself in finding enough deductions to
more than cover his fee. Our Australian equivalent was more expensive,
but he was recommended to us by my younger brother, who has a
substantially higher income and probably lumbered us with more
expensive expertise than we needed.

JosephKK doesn't seem to be up to doing joined-up logic.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On May 16, 11:49 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:04:22 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:



JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <inva...@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.

Gosh, are your savings all that significant?  Don't you pay (an ever
increasing in CA) sales tax already?  Please to explain the difference.

The difference is this: Yes, I do save for retirement. And yes, one has
to make sacrifices to do that. Such as not buying a new car every five
years. As said several times this money _has_ already been taxed. So if
the income of the paycheck-to-paycheck guy gets taxed only at
consumption he has only paid tax once. I have then paid twice. That is
simply unfair.

Sometimes "fair" is the enemy of "works." If everyone were equally
dirt-poor, it would be fair.

Huh? If the competent people who worked hard end up as dirt poor as
the idiots who didn't, it wouldn't be fair. I'm not saying that the
productive minority is entitled to hang onto everthing that they
managed to accumulate - there's not a lot of tax to be collected from
idle incompetents, and the administration does have to collect enough
in taxes to keep the machinery of society turning over - but since
society consists of non-identical individuals, there's nothing fair
about reducing the best to the same condition as the worst.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Joerg wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On May 16, 11:49 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:04:22 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:



JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <inva...@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.
Gosh, are your savings all that significant? Don't you pay (an ever
increasing in CA) sales tax already? Please to explain the difference.
The difference is this: Yes, I do save for retirement. And yes, one has
to make sacrifices to do that. Such as not buying a new car every five
years. As said several times this money _has_ already been taxed. So if
the income of the paycheck-to-paycheck guy gets taxed only at
consumption he has only paid tax once. I have then paid twice. That is
simply unfair.
Sometimes "fair" is the enemy of "works." If everyone were equally
dirt-poor, it would be fair.

Huh? If the competent people who worked hard end up as dirt poor as
the idiots who didn't, it wouldn't be fair. I'm not saying that the
productive minority is entitled to hang onto everthing that they
managed to accumulate - there's not a lot of tax to be collected from
idle incompetents, and the administration does have to collect enough
in taxes to keep the machinery of society turning over - but since
society consists of non-identical individuals, there's nothing fair
about reducing the best to the same condition as the worst.


Shazam! I would have never imagined that this sort of statement would
come from you. While we disagree on just about anything else, there you
were right on.

Even a blind pig...

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:05:18 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2010 00:18:43 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid@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.

How so? Did you die?

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:03:01 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid@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).

So, i am not the only one to notice the recent attacks on them for tax
money. I know people who have actually had attempts to tax their Roth
IRA savings.

Do you have more information on this? I know it's been rumored that the
Demonicrats want to seize all IRAs, but I've seen nothing about it already
occurring.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 16 May 2010 19:22:18 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On May 14, 5:07 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On May 14, 10:42 pm, John Larkin

Productivity is the ultimate benevolence. Technology pushes
productivity.

Perfectly true. But it doesn't do a thing to ensure that the benefits
of increased productivity are equally shared between capital and
labour.

Obviously it's extremely critical how and when those benefits are
shared. Labor does not deserve all the proceeds of my innovation,
risk, and investment simply because I hire them, guarantee them a
regular check when I get none, and insulate them from the predations
and petty ministration of their rulers. Showing up for a paycheck at
a factory does not entitle you to the factory.

Freedom means you can start something yourself, if you want those
rewards and are prepared to take those risks; government means you
can't, to a larger and larger extent.

People consume and business invests. Any society must balance
short-term consumption against long-term investment. That is what the
"sharing" is about.

John

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:43:32 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On May 16, 11:49 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:04:22 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:



JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <inva...@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.
Gosh, are your savings all that significant? Don't you pay (an ever
increasing in CA) sales tax already? Please to explain the difference.
The difference is this: Yes, I do save for retirement. And yes, one has
to make sacrifices to do that. Such as not buying a new car every five
years. As said several times this money _has_ already been taxed. So if
the income of the paycheck-to-paycheck guy gets taxed only at
consumption he has only paid tax once. I have then paid twice. That is
simply unfair.
Sometimes "fair" is the enemy of "works." If everyone were equally
dirt-poor, it would be fair.

Huh? If the competent people who worked hard end up as dirt poor as
the idiots who didn't, it wouldn't be fair. I'm not saying that the
productive minority is entitled to hang onto everthing that they
managed to accumulate - there's not a lot of tax to be collected from
idle incompetents, and the administration does have to collect enough
in taxes to keep the machinery of society turning over - but since
society consists of non-identical individuals, there's nothing fair
about reducing the best to the same condition as the worst.


Shazam! I would have never imagined that this sort of statement would
come from you. While we disagree on just about anything else, there you
were right on.

Where have the aliens taken Slowman?

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 16 May 2010 19:05:54 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On May 14, 2:31 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
On 14/05/2010 06:16, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

   Of course Marx himself was a n'er-do-well who never earned his keep,
a pseudo-academic parasite sponging off patron Engels.  Engels in turn
coasted off the family business.  Marx made his living guilt-tripping
Engels with econobabble, a fine tradition carried on by Marxists
today.

Engels saw first hand what greedy industrialists were doing to their
workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. Boiler explosions were
commonplace up until the Vulcan insurers made a stand and insisted on
proper boiler safety inspections. And in cases of tampering with safety
relief valves they would not pay out.

It was common practice to overstoke the fire before the first shift and
add weight to the pressure relief valve - this resulted in several large
scale boiler explosions destroying big mills in the early morning and
killing many workers in the Lancashire cotton industry.

Destroying your factory is a bad business model. That quickly self-
limits. Besides, nowadays we sue or jail those people. Too much, in
fact.

http://www.camdenmin.co.uk/technical-steam/historic-steam-boiler-expl...

Articles on the history of boiler insurance show that the US had a worse
record despite having the advantage of seeing the innovations in UK
boilers. Some element of NIH played a part but mostly it was that
industrialists greed was paramount and the workers powerless. eg.

http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed15/15407.pdf
first page and page 7 under Normal Loss Hazard

Interestingly and ironically enough, that emphasizes the need to
identify defects and eliminate high risk insureds to minimize
underwriting loss rates.

"Experience has also shown that the scientific examination and
inspection of insured boilers produces a
declining loss ratio."

   "To each according to need" really means "From you to me."  "Dear
Fred, I need that grocery money, and I deserve it, luv Karl, xoxoxoxo
P.S. Stop exploiting me! KM"

It makes reasonable sense to pay your workers a living wage for the work
that they do rather than pay them less than they can sensibly live on.
Ford was about the first in the USA to actually do this.

In the UK there were some decent industrialists mostly of quaker
families who did treat their workforce fairly - examples include some
household names like Pilkingtons, Cadbury, Bournville, Marks&Spencer.

But most of the rest were complete bastards who built large factories
and employed the equivalent of bonded labour stuck very high density
slum housing. It was not surprising that unions were formed in some
cases the manager really did hold the whip hand - literally.

As John pointed out, that was a transient effect, an unusual, historic
dislocation. Machines meant that few could farm what had previously
required the toil of many. So there were lots of workers looking for
work.

Short term, that's painful. Long term, that's creative destruction,
society re-allocating resources from something no longer needed, to
something people do want and need.

The pattern repeats:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/15/BUPJ1DEGG1.DTL


Manufacturing seeks cheap labor and makes lots of stuff. Pretty soon,
that labor isn't cheap any more. Eventually the world may run out of
places with cheap labor.

John

 

On May 14, 2:31 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

On 14/05/2010 06:16, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

   Of course Marx himself was a n'er-do-well who never earned his keep,
a pseudo-academic parasite sponging off patron Engels.  Engels in turn
coasted off the family business.  Marx made his living guilt-tripping
Engels with econobabble, a fine tradition carried on by Marxists
today.

Engels saw first hand what greedy industrialists were doing to their
workers in the Lancashire cotton industry. Boiler explosions were
commonplace up until the Vulcan insurers made a stand and insisted on
proper boiler safety inspections. And in cases of tampering with safety
relief valves they would not pay out.

It was common practice to overstoke the fire before the first shift and
add weight to the pressure relief valve - this resulted in several large
scale boiler explosions destroying big mills in the early morning and
killing many workers in the Lancashire cotton industry.

Destroying your factory is a bad business model. That quickly self-
limits. Besides, nowadays we sue or jail those people. Too much, in
fact.

http://www.camdenmin.co.uk/technical-steam/historic-steam-boiler-expl...

Articles on the history of boiler insurance show that the US had a worse
record despite having the advantage of seeing the innovations in UK
boilers. Some element of NIH played a part but mostly it was that
industrialists greed was paramount and the workers powerless. eg.

http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed15/15407.pdf
first page and page 7 under Normal Loss Hazard

Interestingly and ironically enough, that emphasizes the need to
identify defects and eliminate high risk insureds to minimize
underwriting loss rates.

"Experience has also shown that the scientific examination and
inspection of insured boilers produces a
declining loss ratio."

   "To each according to need" really means "From you to me."  "Dear
Fred, I need that grocery money, and I deserve it, luv Karl, xoxoxoxo
P.S. Stop exploiting me! KM"

It makes reasonable sense to pay your workers a living wage for the work
that they do rather than pay them less than they can sensibly live on.
Ford was about the first in the USA to actually do this.

In the UK there were some decent industrialists mostly of quaker
families who did treat their workforce fairly - examples include some
household names like Pilkingtons, Cadbury, Bournville, Marks&Spencer.

But most of the rest were complete bastards who built large factories
and employed the equivalent of bonded labour stuck very high density
slum housing. It was not surprising that unions were formed in some
cases the manager really did hold the whip hand - literally.

As John pointed out, that was a transient effect, an unusual, historic
dislocation. Machines meant that few could farm what had previously
required the toil of many. So there were lots of workers looking for
work.

Short term, that's painful. Long term, that's creative destruction,
society re-allocating resources from something no longer needed, to
something people do want and need.

Would it have been better to destroy the farm equipment that made
growing food so easy, or the mills that made clothing cheap for
everyone? Or go the Obama way--carve up the factory and give it to
the workers? Divvy up the greedy farmer's land? That makes factories
disappear and farms go fallow (witness Zimbabwe).

The dislocation at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was
especially traumatic since motive power meant so many human-muscle-
powered occupations were displaced at the same time. Would it have
been better to keep them all in subsidized green jobs making wagon
wheels with sustainable, carbon-neutral technology, as they were,
after all, before steam?

Longer term, profitable business attracts competition. Outrageous
profits are almost never sustainable for that reason. Competitors
have to compete for workers, with both wages and conditions.

Sharing the wealth? That comes immediately through cheaper goods,
making it easier and cheaper to live, and through better wages and
working conditions with time, as described above.

Everyone wins. And yes, the industrialist does very well for a time--
there's a phase delay. That's his reward. Take it away, and he won't
do it at all.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:25:57 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:32:24 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]

Please notice, Slowman produces _NO_ economic activity and cannot be
expected to know anything about it.

And he'd go nuts and die if he didn't have you to "converse" with.

I'm always pleased to note that I'm the highest standard for Slowman's
disdain, but please don't feed the jerk. Let him die that most
unpleasant of deaths... alone ;-)

I responded to Jeorg. I don't see Slowmans posts.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

Where have the aliens taken Slowman?

Who cares, as long as they don't bring him back.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 16 May 2010 14:13:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 15 May 2010 00:18:43 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 21:26:28 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 22:55:23 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:08:36 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid@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.

 

On May 14, 10:06 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Shuffling paper money around is meaningless; productivity is
real. Ford increased wages because he had a revolutionary
super-efficient way of making cheap cars,

Yep. Ford *could* pay double. Because of his innovations, his
workers could produce more product, more value.

That is, Ford _increased the value of their labor_.

Productivity==standard of living.


James

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 16 May 2010 16:00:15 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:54:00 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:17:15 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid@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.

Gosh, are your savings all that significant?

Many do have significant savings over their lifetimes. Having enough to live
on the rest of their lives, isn't uncommon.

Actually it is quite uncommon according to BLS data.

Don't you pay (an ever
increasing in CA) sales tax already? Please to explain the difference.

Compound interest tends to cancel inflation.

Not all that well. It really fell behind during Carter era.
Interestingly, credit card rates never came back down.

 

On May 14, 5:07 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On May 14, 10:42 pm, John Larkin

Productivity is the ultimate benevolence. Technology pushes
productivity.

Perfectly true. But it doesn't do a thing to ensure that the benefits
of increased productivity are equally shared between capital and
labour.

Obviously it's extremely critical how and when those benefits are
shared. Labor does not deserve all the proceeds of my innovation,
risk, and investment simply because I hire them, guarantee them a
regular check when I get none, and insulate them from the predations
and petty ministration of their rulers. Showing up for a paycheck at
a factory does not entitle you to the factory.

Freedom means you can start something yourself, if you want those
rewards and are prepared to take those risks; government means you
can't, to a larger and larger extent.

James Arthur