conservation of Euros

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 02:37:16 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

Few countries are unlucky enough to have their economy depend on a
single product. Australia would have to tighten its belt a lot if the
market for iron ore declined signficantly. Carrying on as if the
absence of such a single product is a sign of economic malaise is
evidence that you don't know enough about economics to make a useful
contribution to this kind of discussion.

I wonder to what extent the collapse in shipping prices contributed to
the problems there. The cost of shipping a TEU (container) from Asia
to North America was approximately zero at the beginning of the year,
rather than the usual few thousand dollars. Compare with, say, oil,
which has been relatively stable despite the near collapse in the US
financial markets.

 

[Joerg]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On May 19, 9:45 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 12:53 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 17, 8:43 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

I can't speak to their methods or calculations, but I'd sure love it
if you'd read their material and report back on it! ...
This one?
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
This document gives figures, but not methods:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/DocServer/What_the_federal_tax_system_is_...
This is the main info page:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
I had looked at both. No meat in there other than assumptions.
You sure give up awfully easily Joerg! There's a load of academic
papers, cited in the footnotes, with 10 full .PDFs for free download.
Like this one:
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Tax%20Notes%20article%20on%20FT%20rate.pdf
(footnote #1 onhttp://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_basics_main
)
Yes, sometimes when you find blatant flaws you need to scrap and
abandon, then if suitable redesign. Like this one in the article from
your above link, quote: "1. Housing. Explicit rental payments are
subject to taxation under the FairTax.

Right. If you pay rent, it's taxed. But, you paid no income tax, so
you're still ahead.

When I buy a house from saved and already taxed money I wish not to pay
ficticious rent. Anyhow, that alone will kill such proposals because
AARP and others will likely blast them.

Implicit rents on existing
owneroccupied housing and farms are not. However, the Fair-Tax
implicitly taxes imputed rent on newly constructed housing via a
prepayment approach that levies the FairTax on their initial sale.4
Thus, we remove the value of imputed rent for housing and farm dwellings
from the base. Because purchases of new homes are counted as investment
in new structures in the NIPA accounts, we add those figures to the base"

a. Here they are beginning to make this sort of tax as complicated as
the income tax. Engineers call that feature creep. Expempt this, but not
that, but only on days with a full moon ...

It's dirt simple. Above they're just tallying the taxable flows,
which they have to do to estimate revenues.

b. They punish elderly who have saved and want to move into assisted
living but with some independence. If the buildings are new their cost
jumps 23%. So the building of new retirement communities will come to a
crawl. Some people will move out of the country and buy a retirement
bungalow there to avoid this double-tax whammy. -> More layoffs.

Buildings have a high labor content, and thus a high hidden tax
content. Remove those costs, and the price of building will fall to
compensate. How much will they fall? You could reasonably expect
them to fall by nearly however much the builder's cost is reduced.

And the buyer who buys from already taxed savings gets socked. No, I am
against that.

Further, you'd be paying with money you got straight from your job,
invested for however many years, all without ever paying any tax.

c. They exempt imputed rent on old buildings yet do not at all consider
removing the de-facto double tax on savings in Roth IRAs or regular
accounts. What that does is simple: The millisecond such a flawed law
would be announced there'd be a stampede. Everybody who is smart pulls
their money out of the banks and buys real estate, any real estate. -
Financial market collapse -> major new recession.

Well, stop naysaying and fix it. That's what engineers do.

I generally do not fix things that aren't worth fixing. We can instead
simplify the income tax code. That's what would be a useful project. In
engineering it's often best not to nuke an exisiting design just to
replace it by an equally risky or more risky new one. And this one can
seriously blow up. I'd venture to say, it will.

We could simply exempt all existing taxed savings and investments, and
create accounts for those, with tax-free debit cards, or whatever.
Anything you buy with that debit card from that account either a)
isn't taxed at sale or b) you keep your statements and file for a
refund. Blah, blah, blah.

It ain't rocket science.

Yup, put them into escrow. We're the government, register them here by
Dec-31, trust us, oh yeah ...

All these considerations only apply for a transition period anyhow,
then they go away. Since you're still working you'll get years of
income-tax-free benefits from the thing, if enacted. Wouldn't that be
great?

And suddenly all the people who were diligent savers will use those
accounts to buy stuff and front-load the country with a debt that makes
our current and already bad one look like peanuts. Then we'd become
another Greece.

The alternative is this: last year Obama spent $1.60 for every $1.00
he took in. Of that $1.00, he got roughly $0.50 from income tax, and
$0.50 from SS tax. To fix that, assuming interest rates stay low
(which they won't), he'd have to raise income taxes by double just to
break even, or every other tax in the book by 50% or so, plus make up
some more.

That's one reason everyone in this here neighborhood is looking at the
November elections, at least that's what people told me

And then they talk about removing compliance costs which is also flawed.
Who is going to determine how much fictitious rent tax you must
surrender? Right, an assessor. He's going to have to be paid a salary,
and he'll probably get a nice fat pension later.

There is no"fictitious" rent tax, and no assessor. You never need
assessors, since taxes are based on actual sales price--that's the
assessment.

So, how exactly do you suggest that's done when Joe Q.Public fires up
his circular saw and builds himself a nice big extra wing on his house?
Or the friend of his brother-in-law's friend builds him a granny flat?
The underground economy will become rampant because an extra 23% savings
is to be had.

AIUI "imputed rent" is the implied _value_ you're getting from living
in or using a property you own. Economists tally that for their own
calculations. It isn't taxed if you already own the property and are
simply living there on the one hand because there's no sale; however,
if you buy a new property, the "imputed rent" of you living there in
the future is effectively taxed because the sale pays the Fair Tax.
Nothing wrong with that.

Majorly wrong: As I said, if people buy a condo in a retirement
community and do so from already taxed savings this is grossly unfair.
They will all struggle to find a "pre-flat-tax" built condo but
eventually (meaning within very few months, or shall I say days?) those
are all gone, snapped up by people with adequate funds, "for later".

big snip..get to it tomorrow...I'm sleepy!

Hey, our drill sergeant used to say "The day has 24 hours and if that
ain't enough there's always the night"

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Joerg]

JosephKK wrote:

On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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

b. The percentage of labor in the COGS even for products made in the US
is much smaller than they anticipate.

If the
government stops taking out SS and IRS taxes from my paycheck, I have
more to spend. I can then afford these now 'higher' prices of that
$1, plus $.23 fair tax, plus the sales tax of $.09, so it is now
$1.33.

As for savings, I don't sweat it as much. Yes, it makes my post-taxes
savings less valuable, but it also removes a lot of taxes on my
earnings and interest!
I'm interested in saving the time and energy I waste avoiding tax land-
mines. That's worth a lot--at least a couple weeks a year. More like
three, methinks.

There'll be new tax land-mines, like who gets to pay ficticious rent
tax, how much, and who doesn't. Et cetera.
That part still seems iffy, yes.
IMHO the whole idea is iffy. Fair means it has to be fair to just about
everyone and not just part of the population. And that's not the case.
The only hole I see in it is savings, that we both object to. I may not agree
(or understand completely) the economics of taxing large items (homes and
cars) heavily.

Much of that will depend on how property tax on homes and use tax on
vehicles gets changed. 40 years of property tax adds up.

You can bet on it that a certain kind of politician will only agree to
all that if it result in a serious net increase in taxes squeezed out of
the public.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Joerg]

JosephKK wrote:

On Tue, 18 May 2010 08:45:14 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2010 21:11:54 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com
wrote:

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.
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.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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

Well, the China content of a moderately high-tech electronics item

that is "made in China" is probably less than 20% of the retail price.
The rest goes in the large retail markup (which is domestic) and the
imported components and raw materials (and imported IP).

Similarly name-brand sneakers- they get part of a few dollars for
making them, and they end up on the store shelves for $150.

 

[Joerg]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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

Well, the China content of a moderately high-tech electronics item
that is "made in China" is probably less than 20% of the retail price.
The rest goes in the large retail markup (which is domestic) and the
imported components and raw materials (and imported IP).

Similarly name-brand sneakers- they get part of a few dollars for
making them, and they end up on the store shelves for $150.

It'll be changing soon. In Europe it is already changing as can be seen
right here in Usenet on a German NG. Folks have absolutely no problems
anymore ordering directly through outfits in Hong-Kong. Mostly via EBay.
I don't yet see it happen to that extent here in the US but venture to
predict that it will.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:05:21 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

Well, the China content of a moderately high-tech electronics item
that is "made in China" is probably less than 20% of the retail price.
The rest goes in the large retail markup (which is domestic) and the
imported components and raw materials (and imported IP).

Similarly name-brand sneakers- they get part of a few dollars for
making them, and they end up on the store shelves for $150.


It'll be changing soon. In Europe it is already changing as can be seen
right here in Usenet on a German NG. Folks have absolutely no problems
anymore ordering directly through outfits in Hong-Kong. Mostly via EBay.
I don't yet see it happen to that extent here in the US but venture to
predict that it will.

What will change? If they want genuine Nike sneakers, they'll have to
pay Nike to have the name on there, or US customs can seize the
shipment at the border (and it will likely be crap to boot). Might be
a bit cheaper if it ships from HK, but it could be just about as cheap
or cheaper shipped from NYC from an online order.

OTOH, if people are becoming happy enough with 'generic' sneakers,
then it could change, but without a genuine brand name, buying from an
offshore merchant, there are many opportunities to cut corners and end
up with a garbage product.

The main way I see it (slowly) changing is with Costco/Sam's house
brands (and similar things with foodstuffs) where you get a guarantee
even without a brand name. But they won't be in any great hurry to
destroy the superior margins they get through importing. Leather
furniture is one place prices are clearly getting a whipping.

 

[Joerg]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2010 02:37:16 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:


Few countries are unlucky enough to have their economy depend on a
single product. Australia would have to tighten its belt a lot if the
market for iron ore declined signficantly. Carrying on as if the
absence of such a single product is a sign of economic malaise is
evidence that you don't know enough about economics to make a useful
contribution to this kind of discussion.

I wonder to what extent the collapse in shipping prices contributed to
the problems there. The cost of shipping a TEU (container) from Asia
to North America was approximately zero at the beginning of the year,
rather than the usual few thousand dollars. Compare with, say, oil,
which has been relatively stable despite the near collapse in the US
financial markets.

While Bill may think that the Greek shipping companies are a major GDP
contributor I am afraid I'll have to burst that bubble. It accounts for
a mere 5% of their already paltry GDP:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE60R2P020100401

Quote: "Shipping is one of the top contributors to Greece's 240 billion
euro ($323.7 billion) economy along with tourism and construction. It
accounted for about 5 percent of GDP in 2009."

Tourism is a major source of income there. Or to some extent, was. Folks
from Europe tell me that Greece has become quite expensive and they
prefer other areas such as Turkey. Same type of climate, more bang for
the buck or Euro. So now shipping may account for a few more percentage
points but not because of growth ...

Then an interesting tidbit from the above link, quote: "Greek shipping
companies have to pay a tonnage tax but are exempt from income taxes on
profits from operating Greek registered vessels." Ahm, well ...

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Joerg]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:05:21 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
Well, the China content of a moderately high-tech electronics item
that is "made in China" is probably less than 20% of the retail price.
The rest goes in the large retail markup (which is domestic) and the
imported components and raw materials (and imported IP).

Similarly name-brand sneakers- they get part of a few dollars for
making them, and they end up on the store shelves for $150.

It'll be changing soon. In Europe it is already changing as can be seen
right here in Usenet on a German NG. Folks have absolutely no problems
anymore ordering directly through outfits in Hong-Kong. Mostly via EBay.
I don't yet see it happen to that extent here in the US but venture to
predict that it will.

What will change? If they want genuine Nike sneakers, they'll have to
pay Nike to have the name on there, or US customs can seize the
shipment at the border (and it will likely be crap to boot). Might be
a bit cheaper if it ships from HK, but it could be just about as cheap
or cheaper shipped from NYC from an online order.

Europeans tend to buy sneakers over here because they cost only a
fraction of what they must pay over there. Along with jeans, watches,
electronics, computer stuff and so on. Heck, some even buy their own car
brands in the US and have them shipped back. Of course, with an extra
VAT that sales segment will shrivel to some (possibly large) extent.

OTOH, if people are becoming happy enough with 'generic' sneakers,
then it could change, but without a genuine brand name, buying from an
offshore merchant, there are many opportunities to cut corners and end
up with a garbage product.

Clothes aren't a major chunk of the economy anymore. Except with some
women

Going generic is definitely "in" in Europe but that depends on age
group. Kids think they can't possibly show up in a no-name pair of jeans
at school while older people I know have absolutely no problem with that.

The main way I see it (slowly) changing is with Costco/Sam's house
brands (and similar things with foodstuffs) where you get a guarantee
even without a brand name. But they won't be in any great hurry to
destroy the superior margins they get through importing. Leather
furniture is one place prices are clearly getting a whipping.

At Costco you can regularly buy fairly good shoes at $19.99 plus tax.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:25:46 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 02:37:16 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:


Few countries are unlucky enough to have their economy depend on a
single product. Australia would have to tighten its belt a lot if the
market for iron ore declined signficantly. Carrying on as if the
absence of such a single product is a sign of economic malaise is
evidence that you don't know enough about economics to make a useful
contribution to this kind of discussion.

I wonder to what extent the collapse in shipping prices contributed to
the problems there. The cost of shipping a TEU (container) from Asia
to North America was approximately zero at the beginning of the year,
rather than the usual few thousand dollars. Compare with, say, oil,
which has been relatively stable despite the near collapse in the US
financial markets.


While Bill may think that the Greek shipping companies are a major GDP
contributor I am afraid I'll have to burst that bubble. It accounts for
a mere 5% of their already paltry GDP:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE60R2P020100401

Quote: "Shipping is one of the top contributors to Greece's 240 billion
euro ($323.7 billion) economy along with tourism and construction. It
accounted for about 5 percent of GDP in 2009."

Tourism is a major source of income there. Or to some extent, was. Folks
from Europe tell me that Greece has become quite expensive and they
prefer other areas such as Turkey. Same type of climate, more bang for
the buck or Euro. So now shipping may account for a few more percentage
points but not because of growth ...

Then an interesting tidbit from the above link, quote: "Greek shipping
companies have to pay a tonnage tax but are exempt from income taxes on
profits from operating Greek registered vessels." Ahm, well ...

Most of Greece's shipping "industry" is actually only registration,
not Greek companies. But what would BS know. "BS", what a
descriptive set of initials.

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 |

 

[Joel Koltner]

"Joerg" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:85l1dnF974U2@mid.individual.net...

Folks have absolutely no problems anymore ordering directly through outfits
in Hong-Kong. Mostly via EBay. I don't yet see it happen to that extent here
in the US but venture to predict that it will.

dealextreme.com is popular with the techno-gadget crowd. Amazing how
inexpensive things are there -- if they sold army jeeps, they might actually
be $44 like the ads in magazines decades back used to advertise.

That being said, if I were buying something like a GPS navigation system, I'd
stick to Garmin, Magellan, etc. if I were just going to buy one or were buying
it for someone else -- but "enthusiasts" though, getting one of their ~$100
ones would likely be attractive.

Ooh, this is nice: Knock-off Wii controllers:
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.28576 -- $20 shipped vs. $50 retail
for the real Nintendo ones.

---Joel

 

[Joerg]

Joel Koltner wrote:

"Joerg" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:85l1dnF974U2@mid.individual.net...
Folks have absolutely no problems anymore ordering directly through
outfits in Hong-Kong. Mostly via EBay. I don't yet see it happen to
that extent here in the US but venture to predict that it will.

dealextreme.com is popular with the techno-gadget crowd. Amazing how
inexpensive things are there -- if they sold army jeeps, they might
actually be $44 like the ads in magazines decades back used to
advertise.

That being said, if I were buying something like a GPS navigation
system, I'd stick to Garmin, Magellan, etc. if I were just going to buy
one or were buying it for someone else -- but "enthusiasts" though,
getting one of their ~$100 ones would likely be attractive.

Still old-fashioned here, we drive around with maps in the seat pockets

Ooh, this is nice: Knock-off Wii controllers:
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.28576 -- $20 shipped vs. $50
retail for the real Nintendo ones.

I was never into video games. As a kid I built a pong game, mostly out
of TTL chips scavenged from old mainframe computer cards. The minute I
was done and it worked I lost interest. Gave it away.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 09:53:49 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Joel Koltner wrote:
"Joerg" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:85l1dnF974U2@mid.individual.net...
Folks have absolutely no problems anymore ordering directly through
outfits in Hong-Kong. Mostly via EBay. I don't yet see it happen to
that extent here in the US but venture to predict that it will.

dealextreme.com is popular with the techno-gadget crowd. Amazing how
inexpensive things are there -- if they sold army jeeps, they might
actually be $44 like the ads in magazines decades back used to
advertise.

That being said, if I were buying something like a GPS navigation
system, I'd stick to Garmin, Magellan, etc. if I were just going to buy
one or were buying it for someone else -- but "enthusiasts" though,
getting one of their ~$100 ones would likely be attractive.


Still old-fashioned here, we drive around with maps in the seat pockets

I have a bicycle mount for my Garmin. ;-) When the weather is nice,
15 or 20km (say 10 or 12 miles) isn't too bad a trip.

 

[Joel Koltner]

"Joerg" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:85l7p5Fhh4U1@mid.individual.net...

Still old-fashioned here, we drive around with maps in the seat pockets

That works, although when you don't have a passenger or even if you do but
you're trying to navigate to a specific street address in a big city, having
"turn by turn" navigation from an electronic box is nice.

Most phones can do this as well these days -- so long as they can get a cell
signal! (Which -- as I've probably mentioned before -- seems a little ironic
to me in that the time you're most likely to *really* need a map is when
you're out in the boonies and not likely to have a cell signal...)

---Joel

 

[Joerg]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2010 09:53:49 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Joel Koltner wrote:
"Joerg" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:85l1dnF974U2@mid.individual.net...
Folks have absolutely no problems anymore ordering directly through
outfits in Hong-Kong. Mostly via EBay. I don't yet see it happen to
that extent here in the US but venture to predict that it will.
dealextreme.com is popular with the techno-gadget crowd. Amazing how
inexpensive things are there -- if they sold army jeeps, they might
actually be $44 like the ads in magazines decades back used to
advertise.

That being said, if I were buying something like a GPS navigation
system, I'd stick to Garmin, Magellan, etc. if I were just going to buy
one or were buying it for someone else -- but "enthusiasts" though,
getting one of their ~$100 ones would likely be attractive.

Still old-fashioned here, we drive around with maps in the seat pockets

I have a bicycle mount for my Garmin. ;-) When the weather is nice,
15 or 20km (say 10 or 12 miles) isn't too bad a trip.

How can you possibly get lost on a 12 mile trip? In my whole life I've
never managed to do that.

Ok, once a Garmin could have prevented a nearly disastrous mishap on a
bicycle. Map said road goes from village A to village B, and it was a 60
mile bicycle trip. So me and a friend were happily zipping down that
road at high speed on our 10-speed bicycles fully loaded with baggage,
then ... *SCREEEEEECH*. A mining company had relocated the whole B
village, bought everyone out and opened a gigantic coal mining pit, a
mile or so in diameter, we were looking down several hundred feet of
cliff and wiping the sweat off our foreheads. In FAA speak, a
contribution factor was a longer stop at a beer garden prior to this
stretch of road where they had excellent Hefeweizen on tap.

My bicycle lost several spokes during this event and the last 25 miles
were "limp mode" at very low speed. Still shaking in my boots.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:51:17 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

JA > You don't have the first idea what's in Obama's mandatory
insurance
JA > purchase and regulation bill--you're simply regurgitating--and
neither
JA > do you know anything about American health care, so there's
really no
JA > point in debating you on this.

Slowman's such an inexperienced idealogue that
it's like arguing religion with a Moonie.

Come on! An over 50 NON-PRODUCER who
argues for socialism?

It's a LOT like the old wimpy burger gag.
"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

Sloman is just so plain ignorant he doesn't know what ignorant means.

Don't mind me interjecting, I'm just tweaking my filter system to make
sure I get _anyone_ who "plays" with BS.

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 |

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:34:34 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Thu, 20 May 2010 09:53:49 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Joel Koltner wrote:
"Joerg" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:85l1dnF974U2@mid.individual.net...
Folks have absolutely no problems anymore ordering directly through
outfits in Hong-Kong. Mostly via EBay. I don't yet see it happen to
that extent here in the US but venture to predict that it will.
dealextreme.com is popular with the techno-gadget crowd. Amazing how
inexpensive things are there -- if they sold army jeeps, they might
actually be $44 like the ads in magazines decades back used to
advertise.

That being said, if I were buying something like a GPS navigation
system, I'd stick to Garmin, Magellan, etc. if I were just going to buy
one or were buying it for someone else -- but "enthusiasts" though,
getting one of their ~$100 ones would likely be attractive.

Still old-fashioned here, we drive around with maps in the seat pockets

I have a bicycle mount for my Garmin. ;-) When the weather is nice,
15 or 20km (say 10 or 12 miles) isn't too bad a trip.


How can you possibly get lost on a 12 mile trip? In my whole life I've
never managed to do that.

Some of the subdivisions around here are relatively modern (post
1950-60s) and they often don't have a straightforward grid arrangement
to discourage motorists cutting through them (often official fenced
and paved bike lanes cut between houses so you can take shortcuts) . I
prefer not to ride on the busy roads, so the first (and often the
second or third time) to a new place can be challenging.

Ok, once a Garmin could have prevented a nearly disastrous mishap on a
bicycle. Map said road goes from village A to village B, and it was a 60
mile bicycle trip. So me and a friend were happily zipping down that
road at high speed on our 10-speed bicycles fully loaded with baggage,
then ... *SCREEEEEECH*. A mining company had relocated the whole B
village, bought everyone out and opened a gigantic coal mining pit, a
mile or so in diameter, we were looking down several hundred feet of
cliff and wiping the sweat off our foreheads. In FAA speak, a
contribution factor was a longer stop at a beer garden prior to this
stretch of road where they had excellent Hefeweizen on tap.

My bicycle lost several spokes during this event and the last 25 miles
were "limp mode" at very low speed. Still shaking in my boots.

Ewww. Of course the map on the Garmin might not have been updated, so
it might not be any different an outcome. I see people get lost all
the time nearby where they recently changed from a cramped half
cloverleaf interchange to a more spacious half cloverleaf. Their GPSs
are telling them to make a right, and it's a left now.

 

On May 20, 9:57 am, John Larkin wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

You might be better off turning the company into a cooperative. At
least that way the poeple who inherit the company will have some
understanding of how it works and why it works that way.

Ah yes, free love and drugs for everyone.

There was a fad in the '70s around here, centered in Berkeley of
course, for co-op buisnesses; I still have a couple of the books, like
"We Own It!" It was an interesting experiment. There seemed to be two
available outcomes, sad failures and hilarious failures.

A very few are still around. There's a co-op bakery on 9th avenue, not
bad stuff actually. They close down one day a week just to meet and
talk. And talk. And talk. I hear that it's painful for the majority.

I saw a cool thing on PBS just a few days ago about that era.

A fellow was explaining how he and a bunch of fellow college students
with liberal educations surged out, full of energy and socialist
utopianism. They fled to the hills (e.g. Foxfire), to live together
in peace, equality, and free love. A commune, where all is fair and
free.

They quickly learned just throwing seeds in the ground did not a farm
make, and that equality sucked. The chicks split, and then the guys
soon after.

The guy winced, sheepishly, explaining/defending: they'd had their
eyes opened, only wasted two years doing it, and didn't hurt anyone in
the process...

James

 

[Greegor]

G > Sloman, Do you see yourself as egotistical,
G > smarter, or superior to other people?
G >
G > In the US, your arguments and reasoning
G > are more typical of the occasional misfit,
G > usually 17 or 18 years old and struggling
G > for IDENTITY, and going for shock value.
G >
G > Generally, these people lack real world
G > experience, and so obsess about the
G > ACADEMIC. As they get more real
G > world experience, they soon realize the
G > difference between academia and real world.
G >
G > Did you think that the KOOK LEFT was
G > populated mostly by PRODUCERS?
G >
G > You claim you are over 50, yet you still
G > place great stock in academic sources,
G > and you claim to be an Aussie ex pat
G > living off your wife in Netherlands, yet
G > you obsess about economics in the USA.
G >
G > Your situation as you've described it
G > is a bit like a cartoon!
G > A 50+ year old misfit NON-PRODUCER
G > who lives off his wife and advocates socialism?
G >
G > How amazing is that?
G >
G > There are some American retirees who
G > were cold hard capitalists but lost almost
G > everything in 2008-2009 and now that
G > they see themselves as recipients of
G > socialistic handouts, they are more
G > receptive to ideas of socialism.
G >
G > How amazing is that?

Cat got your tongue, Bill? LOL

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Greegor wrote:

G > Sloman, Do you see yourself as egotistical,
G > smarter, or superior to other people?
G
G > In the US, your arguments and reasoning
G > are more typical of the occasional misfit,
G > usually 17 or 18 years old and struggling
G > for IDENTITY, and going for shock value.
G
G > Generally, these people lack real world
G > experience, and so obsess about the
G > ACADEMIC. As they get more real
G > world experience, they soon realize the
G > difference between academia and real world.
G
G > Did you think that the KOOK LEFT was
G > populated mostly by PRODUCERS?
G
G > You claim you are over 50, yet you still
G > place great stock in academic sources,
G > and you claim to be an Aussie ex pat
G > living off your wife in Netherlands, yet
G > you obsess about economics in the USA.
G
G > Your situation as you've described it
G > is a bit like a cartoon!
G > A 50+ year old misfit NON-PRODUCER
G > who lives off his wife and advocates socialism?
G
G > How amazing is that?
G
G > There are some American retirees who
G > were cold hard capitalists but lost almost
G > everything in 2008-2009 and now that
G > they see themselves as recipients of
G > socialistic handouts, they are more
G > receptive to ideas of socialism.
G
G > How amazing is that?

Cat got your tongue, Bill? LOL

If it did it would die a slow, painful death for whatever it caught
from Bill.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.