On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
[snip]
Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea.
Mine was made in Nagoya.
[...]
My "Japanese" Infiniti was made in Canada
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
JosephKK 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
You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage,
and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta
price per unit versus volume.
What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever,
competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same
is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make
$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea.
Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea.
Mine was made in Nagoya.
Why do you insist that anecdote = data?
Bring some good examples instead of ad hominem attacks ...
Carter was an "engineer" :-(
480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |Unions at their finest.
Does anyone buy an American brand vehicle anymore?
480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |It's not just hot areas that are the problem! When visiting a center
If the medications you're taking are removing too much sodium (and likely
No one is arguing that. You're generalizing *your* case. To help you read;
In San Francisco, it cool and humid most of the time, so I find I
Perhaps Michael took the above personally?
AFAIK he ran the family's peanut farm after his service in the Navy. I
That might as well have been the underlying cause. I know several
I'd have no problems buying an American truck or large sedan such as a
Why do you think Toyota moved out of Kalifornica? Why haven't you? Toyotakrw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
JosephKK 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
You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage,
and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta
price per unit versus volume.
What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever,
competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same
is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make
$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea.
Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea.
Mine was made in Nagoya.
Why do you insist that anecdote = data?
Why do you think the NUMMI plant was shut down? It might get a little
glimmer of hope now that Tesla wants to build electric cars there in a
little corner of that huge plant. But Toyota doesn't build there
anymore, that's now history.
....and Canuckistan. Wouldn't have one. Why are you changing the subject?
Not to mention Kalifornica at it's best.
Yes.
What's disappointing is that former engineers are usually bad
That was the last UAW plant Toyota had. Their NUMMI investment is, Ikrw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
JosephKK 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
You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage,
and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta
price per unit versus volume.
What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever,
competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same
is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make
$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea.
Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea.
Mine was made in Nagoya.
Why do you insist that anecdote = data?
Why do you think the NUMMI plant was shut down? It might get a little
glimmer of hope now that Tesla wants to build electric cars there in a
little corner of that huge plant. But Toyota doesn't build there
anymore, that's now history.
Most VWs sold in the US are assembled in Mexico. I think most Hondas
Order a sample from TI, and Digikey will ship it to you, overnight,JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
JosephKK 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
You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage,
and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta
price per unit versus volume.
What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever,
competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same
is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make
$1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea.
Dealers usually get mote than that, like 3k to 5k per car, more for
luxury lines like Lexus. Go ask if you don't believe me.
Nope, not so. I was being generous here, they usually do not even get
anything close to 10%:
http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/09/sales-drop-pushes-prices-down-squeezes-dealer-margins.html
Please respond to the volume pricing at Digikey (and most electronic
retailer/wholesalers).
Digikey is different, and not at all a factor in this game. Their higher
prices for small volumes have simple reasons. For example, someone has
to pay for the antistatic bag for the lone AD603 you order to test an
AGC. The people (or increasingly robots) who pick must be amortized by
the minute. Same for shipping department space and so on. All this cost
is nearly identical whether you buy one AD603 or a whole reel.
Consequently you must pay $10.50 for one, $7.10/ea for 100, and $6.50/ea
if you buy bulk. Sound pretty normal to me. Hint: For lower quantities
you can often get by with a lesser penalty at Mouser but they search
engine is the pits, IMHO.
Oh, those are just provocations intended to stir up publics and divert