conservation of Euros

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@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.

Why do you think Toyota moved out of Kalifornica? Why haven't you? ...

Ever tried to sell a house here lately?

... Toyota
still manufactures a *lot* of their NA cars in the US. Hundai has a plant
fifty miles down the road from me and Kia has a new plant 30 miles the other
way.

Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko.

...and Canuckistan. Wouldn't have one. Why are you changing the subject?

To make the point. Sure, about 55% of foreign cars sold here are built here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465005,00.html

However, one has to subtract from that several positions:

a. Many times the engines, transmissions and submodules are coming in
via container ship, from overseas. So the labor in those is foreign labor.

b. A lot of US brand cars are no longer made in the US, engines come
from Canada, and so on. All that needs to be subtracted.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Joerg]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:50:50 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

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.


Order a sample from TI, and Digikey will ship it to you, overnight,
free.

Yes, I know. But most of the time it's not worth the hassle. I (and my
clients) tend to just order the whole chebang of parts in one fell
swoop, from one place, and be done with it. Saving five bucks on a
prototype somehow does not justify spending engineering time on it.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:10:57 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@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.

Why do you think Toyota moved out of Kalifornica? Why haven't you? ...


Ever tried to sell a house here lately?

You didn't see this coming? What has changed since Grayout Davis?

... Toyota
still manufactures a *lot* of their NA cars in the US. Hundai has a plant
fifty miles down the road from me and Kia has a new plant 30 miles the other
way.

Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko.

...and Canuckistan. Wouldn't have one. Why are you changing the subject?


To make the point. Sure, about 55% of foreign cars sold here are built here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465005,00.html

However, one has to subtract from that several positions:

a. Many times the engines, transmissions and submodules are coming in
via container ship, from overseas. So the labor in those is foreign labor.

b. A lot of US brand cars are no longer made in the US, engines come
from Canada, and so on. All that needs to be subtracted.

The value added tax will be the same on the imported car and the domestic car.
It'll even the playing field more and making domestic production more
profitable. THis argument is one *for* the "fair tax" (NOT the VAT).

 

[Joerg]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:00:20 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Joerg wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other
_______________(D); (A/B/C/D)
Jeorg, please answer the immediately above question.

My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or
most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not.

Some politicains were engineers.

What's disappointing is that former engineers are usually bad
politicians, like Jimmy Carter. And the principal education of many
modern terrorists seems to have been engineering. Bad engineering,
judging by the quality of the explosives.

I'm glad the Times Square moron thought that "fertilizer" would
explode, and the other idiots set their shorts and shoes on fire, but
I'd feel better if they had been sociology majors.

There have been some that seem to have kept it together:

http://www.todaysengineer.org/2005/Dec/interview.asp

But it's very few, and some of them initially make promises like "only
running for x terms" and once they got into business as usual chucked
those promises. Because promises don't seem to mean much there.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 11:28:57 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@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.

That was the last UAW plant Toyota had. Their NUMMI investment is, I
suspect, all PR, and cheap PR at $50 million.

The Tesla is of course absurd.


Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko.

Most VWs sold in the US are assembled in Mexico. I think most Hondas
are assembled here.

They are. My nephew has worked for Honda in Columbus OH for 20+ years.

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:10:57 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@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.
Why do you think Toyota moved out of Kalifornica? Why haven't you? ...

Ever tried to sell a house here lately?

You didn't see this coming? What has changed since Grayout Davis?

It's kind of tough to live out of state while running a business

Besides, we are quite firmly entrenched in community, church and
volunteering out here. Especially my wife, if she left with me that
would cause a lot of sadness in some assisted living places around here.

... Toyota
still manufactures a *lot* of their NA cars in the US. Hundai has a plant
fifty miles down the road from me and Kia has a new plant 30 miles the other
way.

Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko.
...and Canuckistan. Wouldn't have one. Why are you changing the subject?

To make the point. Sure, about 55% of foreign cars sold here are built here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465005,00.html

However, one has to subtract from that several positions:

a. Many times the engines, transmissions and submodules are coming in
via container ship, from overseas. So the labor in those is foreign labor.

b. A lot of US brand cars are no longer made in the US, engines come
from Canada, and so on. All that needs to be subtracted.

The value added tax will be the same on the imported car and the domestic car.
It'll even the playing field more and making domestic production more
profitable. THis argument is one *for* the "fair tax" (NOT the VAT).

Now you changed the subject. This was about that there'd be a clean
shift, exchanging income taxes of workers for a consumption tax, and
that such would cause dropping prices accordingly. My point is that it
is not revenue-neutral, not by a longshot, and in most cases would not
drop prices accordingly. To John Q.Public a so-called "fair tax" and a
VAT are the same thing, he simply has to pay 23% more for stuff and will
be mighty miffed if he's a retiree.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:38:36 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 11:54:31 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 23:51:11 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Some people think all salt is bad, but it's called 'The salt of life'
for good reason. I can post pictures of the scars all over my lower
legs, if you don't beleive me.

Vitimins D and E are also essential. They'll kill you too.


I take a multi vitamin, and a potassium tablet each day. If it's a
choice between taking a few years off my life from too much sodium, or
dying within a couple years after surgeons slice off body parts from too
little sodium I'd rather die of a heart attack.

Are you trying for a DimBulb award? Of course there are reasons to take even
dangerous drugs. In the last several years of my mother's life, she was
walking a tightrope of heart and kidney drugs. Too much of one caused heart
failure, too much of the other caused the kidneys to fail. Both were required
to keep her alive. Neither are given to healthy people, for obvious reasons.


I am on a lot of different medications. Most remove sodium from my
body. Being diabetic doesn't help.

Of course you need to replace the sodium but you have to admit that this isn't
normal.


According to the doctors I had, I was told I wasn't to replace the
lost sodium. That was my point. Like I said, I can post some photos of
the almost square foot of scar tissue on my legs.

If the medications you're taking are removing too much sodium (and likely
potassium, too) then you *do* have to replenish it. Most diuretics remove
these electrolytes. Some can handle it normally, some not. Your case has
nothing to do with whether or not sodium is harmful in large quantities.

There are short phrases mentioning
sodium in the documentation, if you wade through the 20+ pages per drug.
I am replacing what is being lost. Even with the amount I'm using, I
usually can't taste it. If I cut it back, I start getting sores that
won't heal. Go ahead and tell me you wouldn't use the required salt to
maintain your electrolytes.

Go ahead and read the thread.


I have read it. I know my body, and that it needs more salt than
most people.

No one is arguing that. You're generalizing *your* case. To help you read;
in *general* high sodium diets are harmful. In *general* we ingest far more
sodium than we need. This, in *general* is harmful.

Like I said, some need to take even more dangerous chemicals to live. They
would be better off if they didn't need them, however. That is, others
shouldn't take them because the chemicals are needed for one to live.

There was a news story a few days ago that stated a recent medical
study revealed that people tend to live longer on a high sodium diet,
compared to low sodium diets.


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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Joerg wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other
_______________(D); (A/B/C/D)
Jeorg, please answer the immediately above question.

My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or
most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not.

Some politicains were engineers.

True, but with engineer I mean active, not "got a degree twentysome
years ago and framed it".


Pull your head out of your ass.


Bring some good examples instead of ad hominem attacks ...

No one in their right mind would call someone an engineer if they had
never worked in that field. BTW, you are a very poor troll.


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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:22:50 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other
_______________(D); (A/B/C/D)
Jeorg, please answer the immediately above question.

My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or
most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not.


Some politicains were engineers.


True, but with engineer I mean active, not "got a degree twentysome
years ago and framed it".

Carter was an "engineer" :-(

From what I'd heard, Jimmy Carter never finished the Nuclear engineer
course because he had to resign his Naval Commission after six years, to
return to his family farm to run the business. The only degree he had
was in mathematics.


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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[snip]

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.

Unions at their finest.


Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko.

Does anyone buy an American brand vehicle anymore?

I haven't owned a foreign branded vehicle since 1984.


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

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 11:08:17 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
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.

Unions at their finest.


That might as well have been the underlying cause. I know several
businesses that closed to get out from underneath that.

That was _exactly_ the cause. It was a joint GM/Toyota venture.
Toyota refused to unionize.

Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko.

Does anyone buy an American brand vehicle anymore?


I'd have no problems buying an American truck or large sedan such as a
Crown Victoria. Smaller cars, not likely.

I admit to a failing... I once owned an LTD ('77)

...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 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:09:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:22:50 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other
_______________(D); (A/B/C/D)
Jeorg, please answer the immediately above question.

My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or
most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not.


Some politicains were engineers.


True, but with engineer I mean active, not "got a degree twentysome
years ago and framed it".

Carter was an "engineer" :-(


From what I'd heard, Jimmy Carter never finished the Nuclear engineer
course because he had to resign his Naval Commission after six years, to
return to his family farm to run the business. The only degree he had
was in mathematics.

His bios say that he received a Bachellor of Science at the Naval Academy.
They don't say what sort of science. As far as a nuke engineer (from
http://www.search.com/reference/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career/):

"Carter completed an introductory course in nuclear reactor power at
Union College starting in March 1953."

He did complete training as a diesel sub commander, but never served on a
nuke. A hint of that is that he was discharged from the Navy in 1953 and
bottle wasn't broken on the Nautilus' snout until 1954. So much for the
yellow booties.

 

[Joerg]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 11:08:17 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
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.
Unions at their finest.

That might as well have been the underlying cause. I know several
businesses that closed to get out from underneath that.

That was _exactly_ the cause. It was a joint GM/Toyota venture.
Toyota refused to unionize.

Now they are at it again:

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/21/reuters-uaw-pressuring-tesla-toyota-to-hire-union-worker/

I've heard rumors that they got a sweet special deal on equipment sales
tax. Maybe they don't have to pay any. A deal which, of course, us
little guys do not get :-(

Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko.
Does anyone buy an American brand vehicle anymore?

I'd have no problems buying an American truck or large sedan such as a
Crown Victoria. Smaller cars, not likely.

I admit to a failing... I once owned an LTD ('77)

That's the dad of the Crown Victoria, pretty good cars. AFAIK a lot of
those were already built in Canada.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 13:15:48 -0500, the renowned
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 10:19:53 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[snip]

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.

Unions at their finest.

Not to mention Kalifornica at it's best.

Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko.

Does anyone buy an American brand vehicle anymore?

Yes.

The Chinese bought more than 1,000,000 GM cars last year, so some
folks are attracted by their design, value proposition, and quality
control.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:02:05 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On May 21, 5:24 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:47:21 -0700, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.hdgFGtPjbY

You can't fool Mother Nature. When a few hundred million people choose
to not work much, not breed much, and consume a lot, you just can't
spend your way out of the problem.

This is the leading edge of the European demographic crisis that's
been building for generations now. There's no quick fix.

John

Good one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/7746806/Whatev...

The Daily Torygraph is predictable, and predictably wrong. It
publishes stuff that appeals to right-wing nitwits, which means that
their stories don't have a lot to do with reality.

In this case the story recycles a number of right-wing fantasies that
they published years ago. They were rubbish then, and they are rubbish
now, but the Daily Torygraph knows the kind of fantasies that appeal
to their readers.

The New York Times is hardly a right-wing rag:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/europe/23europe.html?hp

The world+dog is finally coming to the realization that you can't work
less, make less, consume more, retire sooner, and not have kids,
without something eventually breaking.

John

working on Saturday, as usual.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 20:48:14 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 13:15:48 -0500, the renowned
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 10:19:53 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[snip]

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.

Unions at their finest.

Not to mention Kalifornica at it's best.

Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko.

Does anyone buy an American brand vehicle anymore?

Yes.

The Chinese bought more than 1,000,000 GM cars last year, so some
folks are attracted by their design, value proposition, and quality
control.

They were trying to prop up USG Motors.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:36:06 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:10:57 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@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.
Why do you think Toyota moved out of Kalifornica? Why haven't you? ...

Ever tried to sell a house here lately?

You didn't see this coming? What has changed since Grayout Davis?


It's kind of tough to live out of state while running a business

Businesses can be run from just about anywhere.

Besides, we are quite firmly entrenched in community, church and
volunteering out here. Especially my wife, if she left with me that
would cause a lot of sadness in some assisted living places around here.

So it's not about selling your house. ;-)

... Toyota
still manufactures a *lot* of their NA cars in the US. Hundai has a plant
fifty miles down the road from me and Kia has a new plant 30 miles the other
way.

Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko.
...and Canuckistan. Wouldn't have one. Why are you changing the subject?

To make the point. Sure, about 55% of foreign cars sold here are built here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465005,00.html

However, one has to subtract from that several positions:

a. Many times the engines, transmissions and submodules are coming in
via container ship, from overseas. So the labor in those is foreign labor.

b. A lot of US brand cars are no longer made in the US, engines come
from Canada, and so on. All that needs to be subtracted.

The value added tax will be the same on the imported car and the domestic car.
It'll even the playing field more and making domestic production more
profitable. THis argument is one *for* the "fair tax" (NOT the VAT).


Now you changed the subject.

No, in reality I was trying to bring it back to what it was, the fair tax. I'm
not convinced about it and discussions help.

This was about that there'd be a clean
shift, exchanging income taxes of workers for a consumption tax, and
that such would cause dropping prices accordingly. My point is that it
is not revenue-neutral, not by a longshot, and in most cases would not
drop prices accordingly. To John Q.Public a so-called "fair tax" and a
VAT are the same thing, he simply has to pay 23% more for stuff

He won't pay income tax or employment (SS) tax and neither will the
corporations paying him and selling him his stuff.

and will be mighty miffed if he's a retiree.

*That* is the component I'm not happy about. I don't see anyone addressing
it, either.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 20:43:16 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:36:06 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:10:57 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@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.
Why do you think Toyota moved out of Kalifornica? Why haven't you? ...

Ever tried to sell a house here lately?

You didn't see this coming? What has changed since Grayout Davis?


It's kind of tough to live out of state while running a business

Businesses can be run from just about anywhere.

Besides, we are quite firmly entrenched in community, church and
volunteering out here. Especially my wife, if she left with me that
would cause a lot of sadness in some assisted living places around here.

So it's not about selling your house. ;-)

... Toyota
still manufactures a *lot* of their NA cars in the US. Hundai has a plant
fifty miles down the road from me and Kia has a new plant 30 miles the other
way.

Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko.
...and Canuckistan. Wouldn't have one. Why are you changing the subject?

To make the point. Sure, about 55% of foreign cars sold here are built here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465005,00.html

However, one has to subtract from that several positions:

a. Many times the engines, transmissions and submodules are coming in
via container ship, from overseas. So the labor in those is foreign labor.

b. A lot of US brand cars are no longer made in the US, engines come
from Canada, and so on. All that needs to be subtracted.

The value added tax will be the same on the imported car and the domestic car.
It'll even the playing field more and making domestic production more
profitable. THis argument is one *for* the "fair tax" (NOT the VAT).


Now you changed the subject.

No, in reality I was trying to bring it back to what it was, the fair tax. I'm
not convinced about it and discussions help.

This was about that there'd be a clean
shift, exchanging income taxes of workers for a consumption tax, and
that such would cause dropping prices accordingly. My point is that it
is not revenue-neutral, not by a longshot, and in most cases would not
drop prices accordingly. To John Q.Public a so-called "fair tax" and a
VAT are the same thing, he simply has to pay 23% more for stuff

He won't pay income tax or employment (SS) tax and neither will the
corporations paying him and selling him his stuff.

and will be mighty miffed if he's a retiree.

*That* is the component I'm not happy about. I don't see anyone addressing
it, either.

Most retirees already have houses, furniture, pots and pans, so won't
pay a huge amount of sales tax. Basic survival stuff could be
exempted. And a lot of retirees have taxable income, which taxes will
go away.

No change is going to please everybody.

The nice thing about a sales tax is that you can elect to not buy
stuff and not pay the tax.

John

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:09:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:22:50 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other
_______________(D); (A/B/C/D)
Jeorg, please answer the immediately above question.

My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or
most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not.


Some politicains were engineers.


True, but with engineer I mean active, not "got a degree twentysome
years ago and framed it".

Carter was an "engineer" :-(


From what I'd heard, Jimmy Carter never finished the Nuclear engineer
course because he had to resign his Naval Commission after six years, to
return to his family farm to run the business. The only degree he had
was in mathematics.

His bios say that he received a Bachellor of Science at the Naval Academy.
They don't say what sort of science. As far as a nuke engineer (from
http://www.search.com/reference/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career/):

"Carter completed an introductory course in nuclear reactor power at
Union College starting in March 1953."

1953 was the year his dad died, and he left the US Navy, wasn't it?

He did complete training as a diesel sub commander, but never served on a
nuke. A hint of that is that he was discharged from the Navy in 1953 and
bottle wasn't broken on the Nautilus' snout until 1954. So much for the
yellow booties.

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

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 22:39:39 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:09:26 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:22:50 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
We have to use it as is (A), fix it (B), replace it (C), other
_______________(D); (A/B/C/D)
Jeorg, please answer the immediately above question.

My answer is "B". And they should let engineers do it because they (or
most of them) know how to fix a broken system. Politicians generally do not.


Some politicains were engineers.


True, but with engineer I mean active, not "got a degree twentysome
years ago and framed it".

Carter was an "engineer" :-(


From what I'd heard, Jimmy Carter never finished the Nuclear engineer
course because he had to resign his Naval Commission after six years, to
return to his family farm to run the business. The only degree he had
was in mathematics.

His bios say that he received a Bachellor of Science at the Naval Academy.
They don't say what sort of science. As far as a nuke engineer (from
http://www.search.com/reference/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career/):

"Carter completed an introductory course in nuclear reactor power at
Union College starting in March 1953."


1953 was the year his dad died, and he left the US Navy, wasn't it?

I think so. That's why he only completed the first course of the graduate
Nuke-E program.

He did complete training as a diesel sub commander, but never served on a
nuke. A hint of that is that he was discharged from the Navy in 1953 and
bottle wasn't broken on the Nautilus' snout until 1954. So much for the
yellow booties.