M
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
The same as they took. Another useless lump of clay.
The same as they took. Another useless lump of clay.
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On May 17, 5:43 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
repetitive parts of the job, but moving to China does require less
investment. Effectively, investment in manufacturing automation has
been on hold since since the US started exporting its low-paid jobs to
China, and the rest of the world joined the rush.
Back when I was working in England, English manufacturers complained
that British workers were less productive than their German
counterparts, until an academic economist did a comparison that
controlled for the capital investment per worker. It turned out that -
on average - the Germns invested more capital per worker, which was
reasonable since German wage rates were higher, but in areas where
Brisih employers had invested as much as their German counterparts,
British workers were more productive, presumably because the British
employers were picking off only the low-hanging fruit.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Intelligent manufacturing seeks to automate the duller and more
repetitive parts of the job, but moving to China does require less
investment. Effectively, investment in manufacturing automation has
been on hold since since the US started exporting its low-paid jobs to
China, and the rest of the world joined the rush.
Back when I was working in England, English manufacturers complained
that British workers were less productive than their German
counterparts, until an academic economist did a comparison that
controlled for the capital investment per worker. It turned out that -
on average - the Germns invested more capital per worker, which was
reasonable since German wage rates were higher, but in areas where
Brisih employers had invested as much as their German counterparts,
British workers were more productive, presumably because the British
employers were picking off only the low-hanging fruit.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On May 17, 7:05 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
volume of coal being burned was too low to have much effect on the
climate.
Willian Ruddiman makes a case that other human activities had laready
lead to appreciable global warming - just enough to put off the next
ice age, which some authors beleive to be over-due.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ruddiman
You do really go out of your way to prove that you don't know what you
are talking about. James Arthur is just as bad. Today he had Germany's
1923 hyper-inflation taking place in the late 1930's.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
<snip>
It isn't, actually. Pre-steam life wasn't carbon-neutral, but the
volume of coal being burned was too low to have much effect on the
climate.
Willian Ruddiman makes a case that other human activities had laready
lead to appreciable global warming - just enough to put off the next
ice age, which some authors beleive to be over-due.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ruddiman
You do really go out of your way to prove that you don't know what you
are talking about. James Arthur is just as bad. Today he had Germany's
1923 hyper-inflation taking place in the late 1930's.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
J
Joerg
Guest
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
He must have gone to one of the tea parties and woken up
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
[...]
He must have gone to one of the tea parties and woken up
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
J
Joerg
Guest
JosephKK wrote:
Ok, model year 1995 for the Toyota, the Mits is two years younger. You
win that one
is 67k or so.
seems to be the MO for most people.
would squarely oppose such a shift. And I sure would know a lot of
retirees who'd march to Washington if that ever were to happen.
problems caused by wanton spending, by socking it to the retired.
What I am saying is that it'll multiply. Big time. You would see jobs
over here shrivel up at a pace never heard before.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
That's good, not many people do that.
Ok, model year 1995 for the Toyota, the Mits is two years younger. You
win that one
Yeah. How many miles on it? The Toyota is somewhere around 45k, the Mits
is 67k or so.
You mean the hand-to-mouth guy? I could show you dozens. In fact, that
seems to be the MO for most people.
It doesn't have to be and one can do something about it. That's why I
would squarely oppose such a shift. And I sure would know a lot of
retirees who'd march to Washington if that ever were to happen.
Right. And we can't let that happen. I remember when Sweden "fixed" the
problems caused by wanton spending, by socking it to the retired.
What I am saying is that it'll multiply. Big time. You would see jobs
over here shrivel up at a pace never heard before.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
J
Joerg
Guest
Bill Sloman wrote:
a whole - is underwriting the Greek borrowing". Which is wrong. For
example if Greece fails to service the debt it now has in Germany the EU
won't pay the Germans back. Their own taxpayers will. And those are
rather pissed right now and for good reason.
declining because countries like Turkey are cheaper, and they can't
print Euros. Did I forget anything? Guess not.
whatever else electronic and see how many components in there are from
Greek companies. Open the hood of your car and do same. In fact, open
just about anything.
got them into this mess in the first place.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Ah, now you are beginning to get it. You wrote above, quote "The EU - as
a whole - is underwriting the Greek borrowing". Which is wrong. For
example if Greece fails to service the debt it now has in Germany the EU
won't pay the Germans back. Their own taxpayers will. And those are
rather pissed right now and for good reason.
Check the facts. Greece has no industry to write home about, tourism is
declining because countries like Turkey are cheaper, and they can't
print Euros. Did I forget anything? Guess not.
We have an industry. Greece doesn't. HUGE difference. Open your PC or
whatever else electronic and see how many components in there are from
Greek companies. Open the hood of your car and do same. In fact, open
just about anything.
But torching the bank buildings isn't going to achieve that.
And your alternative would be?
Obviously that will be much better than what they did so far, and what
got them into this mess in the first place.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On May 17, 5:57 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
when Labour ruled the country and nationalised the controlling heights
of the economy, and it hasn't degerated into tyranny in Scandinavia.
What you've got in the US at the moment certainly isn't socialism -
nor anything like it - and the economic "rights" you seem to be losing
would seem to be the right to be ripped off by a geedy and inefficient
health insurance industry, which has been spending your money on an
expensive campaign to depict Bismark's less-than socialist national
health insurance scheme (which doesn't seem to compromise civil
liberties in Frande or Germany) as some kind of communist plot.
try thinking about the content of the rubbish you regurgitate, though
you might find the conclusions that you'd have to draw too embarassing
to be acceptable.
was the Year of Revolutions distinguished by many revolutionary up-
risings.
Marx was an innovative thinker who had many ground-breaking ideas,
some of them good, useful and productive. His ideas about the politcal
supremacy of the proletariat were not useful or helpfull and have
subsequently been adopted by a number of groups who used them to
justify stupid and evil actions. Marx was a fallible human being, and
the communist manifesto isn't his best work.
in Irak. It played well at the time, and served its short-term
purpose. Treating it as gospel is rather stupid, but quasi-religious
fanatics do do stupid thinks, as you regularly illustrate.
from their families, husbands from wives, of destroying nations and
their cultures, eliminating all old morality, law, and religion, and
seizing and socializing (spreading) the wealth of nations."
He's more into reducing CO2 emissions before the consequences of
global warming have much the same kind of effect. Since you don't have
a clue about the science underpinning his chain of logic, you probably
don't appreciate the distinction.
blowhard. He huffed and he puffed and Russia fell down.
His political ideas were lunatic, but his economic insights were
supremely important and gave his daft political ideas a credibility
that they didn't deserve, while frightening off the capitalists who
really should have taken them seriously and acted on them at the time.
It's taken a hundred years for his economic ideas to become common
knowledge, and even now stupid Americans will reject perfectly
sensible propostions because they think that they are associated with
Marx.
Your own aversion to Obama's health care bill - which has nothing to
do with Marx, except that Bismark thought it up to take the wind out
of the sails of some of Marx's political associates - is a case in
point.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Socialism didn't degenerate into tyranny in the UK in 1945-51 period
when Labour ruled the country and nationalised the controlling heights
of the economy, and it hasn't degerated into tyranny in Scandinavia.
What you've got in the US at the moment certainly isn't socialism -
nor anything like it - and the economic "rights" you seem to be losing
would seem to be the right to be ripped off by a geedy and inefficient
health insurance industry, which has been spending your money on an
expensive campaign to depict Bismark's less-than socialist national
health insurance scheme (which doesn't seem to compromise civil
liberties in Frande or Germany) as some kind of communist plot.
You do have a strange idea of what constitutes socialism. You should
try thinking about the content of the rubbish you regurgitate, though
you might find the conclusions that you'd have to draw too embarassing
to be acceptable.
The Communist Manifesto was written in 1848 - when Marx was thirty. It
was the Year of Revolutions distinguished by many revolutionary up-
risings.
Marx was an innovative thinker who had many ground-breaking ideas,
some of them good, useful and productive. His ideas about the politcal
supremacy of the proletariat were not useful or helpfull and have
subsequently been adopted by a number of groups who used them to
justify stupid and evil actions. Marx was a fallible human being, and
the communist manifesto isn't his best work.
Political propaganda, like Dubbya's claim to be introducing democracy
in Irak. It played well at the time, and served its short-term
purpose. Treating it as gospel is rather stupid, but quasi-religious
fanatics do do stupid thinks, as you regularly illustrate.
Like most politcally motivated rhetoric.
Al Gore doesn't speak of "speaks of the need of separating children
from their families, husbands from wives, of destroying nations and
their cultures, eliminating all old morality, law, and religion, and
seizing and socializing (spreading) the wealth of nations."
He's more into reducing CO2 emissions before the consequences of
global warming have much the same kind of effect. Since you don't have
a clue about the science underpinning his chain of logic, you probably
don't appreciate the distinction.
Marx was a genius - a dangerous genius - and an all too effective
blowhard. He huffed and he puffed and Russia fell down.
His political ideas were lunatic, but his economic insights were
supremely important and gave his daft political ideas a credibility
that they didn't deserve, while frightening off the capitalists who
really should have taken them seriously and acted on them at the time.
It's taken a hundred years for his economic ideas to become common
knowledge, and even now stupid Americans will reject perfectly
sensible propostions because they think that they are associated with
Marx.
Your own aversion to Obama's health care bill - which has nothing to
do with Marx, except that Bismark thought it up to take the wind out
of the sails of some of Marx's political associates - is a case in
point.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On May 17, 2:01 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
do.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Scarcely. I support my arguments with references to reality. You never
do.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On May 17, 6:09 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
mechanism protect us from evil trade unions?
You can't do joined-up logic.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
So why did the US need anti-trsut legislation, and why doesn't this
mechanism protect us from evil trade unions?
You can't do joined-up logic.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On May 17, 3:41 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
wrote:
<snip>
So there's still hope for Michael A. Terrell - not a lot, but some.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Mon, 17 May 2010 07:01:48 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
this round. Reform after this shot of money runs out, and party for a
few more years.
as you consume.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100517/D9FOHKGO0.html
John
wrote:
Their option is to carry on as before, and let the Germans pay for
this round. Reform after this shot of money runs out, and party for a
few more years.
Sloman doesn't approve of stupid prescriptions, like producing as much
as you consume.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100517/D9FOHKGO0.html
John
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Mon, 17 May 2010 03:40:11 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
funds, benefits, and insurance/other worker-related fees. 22 to 24% is
parts. Most of the rest is rent, professional services, utilities,
subcontracting, things like that. Then there's the heap of fees and
taxes. We're small enough that we can expense capital equipment
purchases, so we do.
In a good year, that leaves a few per cent for profit, the return on
capital.
Where's my 50:50 split?
John
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
My business spends a tad over 50% of revenues on salaries, retirement
funds, benefits, and insurance/other worker-related fees. 22 to 24% is
parts. Most of the rest is rent, professional services, utilities,
subcontracting, things like that. Then there's the heap of fees and
taxes. We're small enough that we can expense capital equipment
purchases, so we do.
In a good year, that leaves a few per cent for profit, the return on
capital.
Where's my 50:50 split?
John
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Mon, 17 May 2010 04:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
moves in to poor countries for the cheap labor. After a generation or
two, the locals have learned the technology and bootstrapped their
education and skills; they are no longer cheap labor but competitors.
So the capital (including the new capital from the formerly cheap
countries!) moves on, looking for more cheap labor.
It's sort of foreign aid that actually works. It's a natural
propagation mode of technology. It's wonderful.
But your "investment in manufacturing automation has
been on hold " statement is entirely bogus.
terribly slow to me, as compared to working with American ones. It
takes them forever to make decisions, and they sort of disappear for
weeks and months at a time, then return in a panic to get stuff out.
John
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
China's costs are increasing, as Japan's and Korea's did. Capital
moves in to poor countries for the cheap labor. After a generation or
two, the locals have learned the technology and bootstrapped their
education and skills; they are no longer cheap labor but competitors.
So the capital (including the new capital from the formerly cheap
countries!) moves on, looking for more cheap labor.
It's sort of foreign aid that actually works. It's a natural
propagation mode of technology. It's wonderful.
But your "investment in manufacturing automation has
been on hold " statement is entirely bogus.
I'm working now with British, Irish, and German companies. All seem
terribly slow to me, as compared to working with American ones. It
takes them forever to make decisions, and they sort of disappear for
weeks and months at a time, then return in a panic to get stuff out.
John
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Mon, 17 May 2010 12:57:38 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
John
wrote:
Agreed; all unions. But what ever happened to Jimmy Hoffa?
John
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:07:05 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
it didn't generate those taxes, certainly not into the US treasury.
A sales tax would apply to all sales, US or Chinese made. That would
be a boon for domestic industries and jobs.
John
wrote:
Only if the product was made in the USA. If it's imported from China,
it didn't generate those taxes, certainly not into the US treasury.
A sales tax would apply to all sales, US or Chinese made. That would
be a boon for domestic industries and jobs.
John
J
Joerg
Guest
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
The price of a piece of merchandise does _not_ consist of lots of labor.
If MLO (materials+labor+overhead) is anywhere north of 30% on a mass
product then it is already doomed.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Wrong.
Ahm, major bug in the calcs:
The price of a piece of merchandise does _not_ consist of lots of labor.
If MLO (materials+labor+overhead) is anywhere north of 30% on a mass
product then it is already doomed.
You couldn't sue?
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
S
Spehro Pefhany
Guest
On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:09:02 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
part of the infrastructure there.
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
There's a Jimmy Hoffa memorial building nearby, maybe he's an integral
part of the infrastructure there.
Guest
On May 17, 12:29 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
government unions.
(Normally unions destroy their own jobs; government prevents that
(since government jobs never die, only multiply as their productivity
plummets).)
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
To the contrary--anti-trust should apply to labor, too. E.g.
government unions.
(Normally unions destroy their own jobs; government prevents that
(since government jobs never die, only multiply as their productivity
plummets).)
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Guest
On May 16, 11:48 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
set out the reasoning, then you can have a go at rebutting it.
a) If you buy an item today--any item--the price of that item is
roughly
price = raw materials
+ labor cost(wages + benefits + employer matching taxes)
+ overhead(rent, power, office help, advertising, phones)
+ business taxes
+ profit.
b) The Fair Tax economists calculate that when you buy a $1 item, 23
cents of the price of that item goes to covering the various taxes
that the people who made the item had to pay.
That is, if your laborer has to pay income tax, you have to pay him
more to compensate, and you have to raise your sales prices to recover
that loss from your customers.
c) So, when you buy an item, you *are* paying all the taxes of all the
people and entities that made the item.
Make sense so far?
d) Under the Fair Tax, with all those embedded taxes eliminated, the
manufacturer would now be able to make the same profit selling his $1
item for $0.77, which would be the new price.
e) At checkout, your (formerly) $1 item would now appear on the sales
ticket as
1) price = $0.77, plus
2) $0.23 in Fair Tax, collected at point-of-sale to pay all the
taxes of all the people who made the thing.
Total = $1.00, just like before. No difference.
There, I think that's basically their pitch. I'm not a Fair Tax
expert, so I could've biffed something.
the $1M, because that way I avoid the current system's higher rates.
But, the difference here is not made by getting taxed twice--per item
c) you are *already* paying the 23% tax built into the price of of an
purchase, and under today's system you *are* going to pay it when you
buy something.
I don't have an IRA because I don't have confidence in the premise
that tax rates will be lower in the future. Without that the numbers
don't make sense. Bob Pease actually had a pretty good column on this
a decade or so ago; he concluded the same.
Besides, I don't like having my money at the whim of Congress. They
burned me ex post facto with my 401k charging me a penalty for doing
something that was allowed when I did it, then changing the law
retroactively months later.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
Now you're not getting it...maybe equations would be clearer... I'll
set out the reasoning, then you can have a go at rebutting it.
a) If you buy an item today--any item--the price of that item is
roughly
price = raw materials
+ labor cost(wages + benefits + employer matching taxes)
+ overhead(rent, power, office help, advertising, phones)
+ business taxes
+ profit.
b) The Fair Tax economists calculate that when you buy a $1 item, 23
cents of the price of that item goes to covering the various taxes
that the people who made the item had to pay.
That is, if your laborer has to pay income tax, you have to pay him
more to compensate, and you have to raise your sales prices to recover
that loss from your customers.
c) So, when you buy an item, you *are* paying all the taxes of all the
people and entities that made the item.
Make sense so far?
d) Under the Fair Tax, with all those embedded taxes eliminated, the
manufacturer would now be able to make the same profit selling his $1
item for $0.77, which would be the new price.
e) At checkout, your (formerly) $1 item would now appear on the sales
ticket as
1) price = $0.77, plus
2) $0.23 in Fair Tax, collected at point-of-sale to pay all the
taxes of all the people who made the thing.
Total = $1.00, just like before. No difference.
There, I think that's basically their pitch. I'm not a Fair Tax
expert, so I could've biffed something.
Depends on the tax rates. Under the Fair Tax's 23% I'd rather have
the $1M, because that way I avoid the current system's higher rates.
But, the difference here is not made by getting taxed twice--per item
c) you are *already* paying the 23% tax built into the price of of an
purchase, and under today's system you *are* going to pay it when you
buy something.
I don't have an IRA because I don't have confidence in the premise
that tax rates will be lower in the future. Without that the numbers
don't make sense. Bob Pease actually had a pretty good column on this
a decade or so ago; he concluded the same.
Besides, I don't like having my money at the whim of Congress. They
burned me ex post facto with my 401k charging me a penalty for doing
something that was allowed when I did it, then changing the law
retroactively months later.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
K
keithw86@gmail.com
Guest
On May 17, 3:07 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
the second time.
*already* paying that tax. If the "Fair Tax" is implemented you get
to pay the "consumption tax" on the *AFTER-TAX* money.
changes to the "Fair Tax" (not bloody likely) you'll get screwed. All
of a sudden before-tax savings will look pretty good.
money though.
That's the whole point. Anyone with after-tax savings gets screwed
the second time.
Again, you're missing the point. With after-tax savings you're
*already* paying that tax. If the "Fair Tax" is implemented you get
to pay the "consumption tax" on the *AFTER-TAX* money.
Not that Bob Pease is one to follow in lock-step. If the government
changes to the "Fair Tax" (not bloody likely) you'll get screwed. All
of a sudden before-tax savings will look pretty good.
Then the only solution is to burn it, like they do. I can't print
money though.