conservation of Euros

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 04:45:06 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On May 22, 1:41 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 21, 5:06 pm, John Larkin



jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:34:17 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

The facts of the case are that you don't like developing complete
systems, bcause it takes too long and ties up too much capital and
engineering effort, and you've found yourself a niche where you can
develop useful sub-systems, some of which you can sell to several
customers.

Yes. Engineering is too valuable to sell once. Production can sell
copies of engineering for decades.

Your customers would probably be happier if you took on turn-key
development contracts, but that kind of big chunk of development takes
skills that you don't seem to have - perhaps wisely.
Big projects that go wrong regularly destroy the businesses that took
them on.

I have been in the systems business, and now that I have my own
company I never want to do it again.

Me too.  But we're wrong John.  Bill says we should do systems,

Actually I said that John might be wise to keep out of a risky area.
Since he doesn't like developing large complex systems, perhaps
because he isn't good at it, this is merely endorsing his preference.

I've done systems work. Lots of it. The economics stink, and the time
pressures interfere with sleeping and skiing.

You are equally skilled at not doing simple electronics and not doing
complex systems.

and
Bill *knows* business.  Massive investment that pays off zero-to-one
times is better and less risky

It can be a lot more profitable - the margins on turn-key projects can
be very high - and I never claimed that it wasn't risky.

 than modest investment that pays 100x.

John Larkin made it perfectly clear that his less ambitious projects
don't always lead to successful products. A one hundred-fold return on
development investment would be remarkably high. A successful and long-
lived product might make it, but probably not if you discounted your
cash-flows correctly. And how many products do you have to develop
before you find one that is popular enough to sell persistently and in
volume, without attracting the attention of the larger-small
manufacturers in the area, who can afford to develop an ASIC to handle
most of the electronic function to let them sell something that does
the same job a lot cheaper.

But James Arthur "knows" business - with the same sort of confidence
with which he "knows" economics - and this sort of consideration
passes him by.

He does stuff. You don't.

John

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 09:06:34 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 10:16:55 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:58:43 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 22 May 2010 00:21:57 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

<snip>

Because they aren't very smart. The regulation is on the other end. If the
kidney doesn't work the salt builds up.

Maybe your body isn't very smart. Mine is. It regulates tens of
thousands of chemicals, temperatures, pressures, and emotions a lot
better than any computer (or any doctor) could.

Don't be ridiculous (I know it's in your blood). Anecdote isn't data.

Your body doesn't automatically regulate temperature, pH, insulin
levels, electrolytes, hormones, antibodies, white cell production,
blood gasses? You have to do all that stuff manually? If you forget to
breathe, will you die? All that must be annoying.

Of course, but it isn't perfect. Not very well on the input side, no. You
can easily overload the output regulation. You can stop being stupid now.

Bodies have all sorts of excellent regulatory mechanisms. Maybe a lot
of salt is bad for people whose systems are damaged, but normal people
regulate their appetites and chemistry just fine. We evolved to do
that.

Like all systems, it works to a point. We regulate sugar, too. Don't try
abusing that regulation for thirty years, though.

I've eaten all the sugar I wanted for twice 30 years now. And
everything is working fine.

Again, anecdote isn't data. I'm not allergic to poison ivy/oak/whatever but I
don't tempt fate, either.

It wasn't that long ago that doctors told us to eat margarine instead
of butter.

Yes, it didn't take long for them to figure out that margarine wasn't such a
good idea.

Just 90 years or so.

Just because the government (and ag lobby) didn't get it doesn't mean it
wasn't known.

So far, most nutritional advice gets overturned every couple of
decades. Turns out that there's a lot of very bad statistics floating
around.

Not most, just the ones you want to remember.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 08:32:31 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 15:55:22 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

[..]

... Carter claimed to be a Nuke-E, yet passed *one* class on the way. He
implied that he was a Navy Nuke-E on a sub, when that's clearly impossible.
Yes, giving up what you want for family is laudable. Doctored resumes, not so
much.

That I don't know. But I agree, if a person would interview with me and
I'd find out that the resume is doctored the interview would be over.

You would do the same for any political candidate, no? How anyone can support
Blumenthal after last week is beyond me, but CT isn't a stronghold of sanity.


I would, but obviously other wouldn't. At least I don't think so after,
for example, tax "lapses" were discovered with major office holders.

They were appointed.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 08:47:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 23, 3:22 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:00:00 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

If the Asian prices don't come down they'll get competition from the now
cheaper US companies. Looks like a win to me.
No win there. First, there are no US television or sneaker or clothes
manufacturers left. Even if there were or new ones would be sprouting up
they could not possibly compete with the made-in-China pair of $29.99
jogging shoes that consumers have come to expect at places like Costco.
It would be, "Oh, look, we can make the same sneakers for $60 instead of
$75 because of the "fair tax". Big deal.

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.
I did, many times over in this thread, but hardly anyone understands :-(
We did, but I don't see any of the talking heads recognize it, on either side.
Then the whole thing should remain a non-starter. At least I hope so.

Sorry, I spent yesterday talking in person to the actual Fair Tax
guys, along with some U.S. congressmen. I'll chime in later, but for
now I'm swamped and pooped, with a left-handed shovel and a whole lot
of ____.


Oh, oh, major spill somewhere? I hate whan that happens, but been there :-(

Maybe James works for BP Microsystems. ;-)

Short version: no it's not in there, but yes, they're open to amending
their bill so as to exempt savings that have already been taxed.


This is extremely important. First, because they will get a ton of flak
from seniors and their organizations without taking care of this.

As has been shown recently, AARP can easily be bought off.

Secondly, people who have diligently saved want some _ironclad_
guarantees there, in a way that thise guarantees cannot be changed
later. Recent retroactive law changes have eroded a whole lot of trust,
so this will now be much more difficult to achieve than years ago. In
essence, folks that have saved should not pay any tax until all that
savings is used up. Except for what's gained in future interest, of
course, because one must also be fair in the other direction. But here
we will have the first major bureaucratic job coming at it.

Anyone with an IRA, particularly a Roth should be very worried, regardless of
the Fair Tax.

Of all the alternatives, I still find it very appealing, especially
compared to the current system. That doesn't mean I'm fully buying it
yet--I still haven't considered all the possible gotchas.


I am not even considering it unless the savings issue is taken care of.
Not so much for the sake of myself but for that of our country because
the repercussions for the financial market could be (or I should say
would be) devastating.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean I'm not extremely concerned about it.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 23 May 2010 23:03:27 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 23, 10:41 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 04:47:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:50:50 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid
wrote:

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

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

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

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

dagmargoodb...@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-squ...

JKK >That is gross profit, not markup.

krw > Huh?  Gross profit is markup.  Price - cost.

W 100
R 120
GP 20
MU 20 % ( GP/W )
Gross Profit Margin 16 % ( GP/R )

That's all just pushing the same two numbers around.

Business insiders tend to focus on margin.
Consumers often focus on the markup.

Distinction without a difference; same numbers.

Net margin would correct for overhead costs,
but is not as reliably calculable.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 16:31:29 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

JKK >That is gross profit, not markup.

krw > Huh?  Gross profit is markup.  Price - cost.

Are you mixing real numbers with percentages?

W 100
R  120
GP 20
MU 20 %  ( GP/W )
Gross Profit Margin 16 % ( GP/R )

krw > That's all just pushing the same two numbers around.

G > Business insiders tend to focus on margin.
G > Consumers often focus on the markup.

krw > Distinction without a difference; same numbers.

You think 16% == 20% ?

Don't be stupid. ...or do you share DimBulb's neuron?

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2010 08:32:31 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 15:55:22 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
[..]

... Carter claimed to be a Nuke-E, yet passed *one* class on the way. He
implied that he was a Navy Nuke-E on a sub, when that's clearly impossible.
Yes, giving up what you want for family is laudable. Doctored resumes, not so
much.
That I don't know. But I agree, if a person would interview with me and
I'd find out that the resume is doctored the interview would be over.
You would do the same for any political candidate, no? How anyone can support
Blumenthal after last week is beyond me, but CT isn't a stronghold of sanity.

I would, but obviously other wouldn't. At least I don't think so after,
for example, tax "lapses" were discovered with major office holders.

They were appointed.

That doesn't count as an excuse

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[Joerg]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2010 08:47:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 23, 3:22 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:00:00 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
If the Asian prices don't come down they'll get competition from the now
cheaper US companies. Looks like a win to me.
No win there. First, there are no US television or sneaker or clothes
manufacturers left. Even if there were or new ones would be sprouting up
they could not possibly compete with the made-in-China pair of $29.99
jogging shoes that consumers have come to expect at places like Costco.
It would be, "Oh, look, we can make the same sneakers for $60 instead of
$75 because of the "fair tax". Big deal.

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.
I did, many times over in this thread, but hardly anyone understands :-(
We did, but I don't see any of the talking heads recognize it, on either side.
Then the whole thing should remain a non-starter. At least I hope so.
Sorry, I spent yesterday talking in person to the actual Fair Tax
guys, along with some U.S. congressmen. I'll chime in later, but for
now I'm swamped and pooped, with a left-handed shovel and a whole lot
of ____.

Oh, oh, major spill somewhere? I hate whan that happens, but been there :-(

Maybe James works for BP Microsystems. ;-)

Maybe be all send him a donation, one bag of Quikrete per poster

Short version: no it's not in there, but yes, they're open to amending
their bill so as to exempt savings that have already been taxed.

This is extremely important. First, because they will get a ton of flak
from seniors and their organizations without taking care of this.

As has been shown recently, AARP can easily be bought off.

And people getting very miffed. There's a reason for all the tea
parties. Anyhow, with this "fair tax" stuff option #2 for body public
would obviously be participating in the stampede. You just have to be
very quick, else real estate will have shot up sky-high. I would sure
make some realtors rich.

Secondly, people who have diligently saved want some _ironclad_
guarantees there, in a way that thise guarantees cannot be changed
later. Recent retroactive law changes have eroded a whole lot of trust,
so this will now be much more difficult to achieve than years ago. In
essence, folks that have saved should not pay any tax until all that
savings is used up. Except for what's gained in future interest, of
course, because one must also be fair in the other direction. But here
we will have the first major bureaucratic job coming at it.

Anyone with an IRA, particularly a Roth should be very worried, regardless of
the Fair Tax.

What do you think is going to happen there?

Of all the alternatives, I still find it very appealing, especially
compared to the current system. That doesn't mean I'm fully buying it
yet--I still haven't considered all the possible gotchas.

I am not even considering it unless the savings issue is taken care of.
Not so much for the sake of myself but for that of our country because
the repercussions for the financial market could be (or I should say
would be) devastating.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean I'm not extremely concerned about it.

So am I, meaning that if this would ever make it into more serious
discussions on the hill people need to be educated about the real
ramifications.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:53:03 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2010 08:32:31 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 15:55:22 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
[..]

... Carter claimed to be a Nuke-E, yet passed *one* class on the way. He
implied that he was a Navy Nuke-E on a sub, when that's clearly impossible.
Yes, giving up what you want for family is laudable. Doctored resumes, not so
much.
That I don't know. But I agree, if a person would interview with me and
I'd find out that the resume is doctored the interview would be over.
You would do the same for any political candidate, no? How anyone can support
Blumenthal after last week is beyond me, but CT isn't a stronghold of sanity.

I would, but obviously other wouldn't. At least I don't think so after,
for example, tax "lapses" were discovered with major office holders.

They were appointed.


That doesn't count as an excuse

Not an excuse for Obummer, no. It wasn't the voters who didn't care.

 

[Greegor]

JKK >That is gross profit, not markup.

krw > Huh?  Gross profit is markup.  Price - cost.

G > Are you mixing real numbers with percentages?

W 100
R  120
GP 20
MU 20 %  ( GP/W )
Gross Profit Margin 16 % ( GP/R )

krw > That's all just pushing the same two numbers around.

G > Business insiders tend to focus on margin.
G > Consumers often focus on the markup.

krw > Distinction without a difference; same numbers.

G > You think 16% == 20% ?

krw > Don't be stupid.  ...or do you share DimBulb's neuron?

Nope.

Why did you try to pretend that
margin and markup are the same thing?

Markup is the percentage OF WHOLESALE that is GP.

Margin is the percentage OF RETAIL that is GP.

They are two different ratios.

This would be as if you looked at P= I x E and

E
-------
I x R

And then announced that Watts == Amps.

You could say they are just reworks
of the same numbers, right? LOL

Are you impaired?

 

[Greegor]

BS > But James Arthur "knows" business - with
BS > the same sort of confidence with which he
BS > "knows"  economics - and this sort of
BS > consideration passes him by.

JL > He does stuff. You don't.

LOL Zing!

 

[Greegor]

JKK >That is gross profit, not markup.

krw > Huh?  Gross profit is markup.  Price - cost.

Are you mixing real numbers with percentages?

W 100
R  120
GP 20
MU 20 %  ( GP/W )
Gross Profit Margin 16 % ( GP/R )

krw > That's all just pushing the same two numbers around.

G > Business insiders tend to focus on margin.
G > Consumers often focus on the markup.

krw > Distinction without a difference; same numbers.

You think 16% == 20% ?

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 18:29:15 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

JKK >That is gross profit, not markup.

krw > Huh?  Gross profit is markup.  Price - cost.

G > Are you mixing real numbers with percentages?

W 100
R  120
GP 20
MU 20 %  ( GP/W )
Gross Profit Margin 16 % ( GP/R )

krw > That's all just pushing the same two numbers around.

G > Business insiders tend to focus on margin.
G > Consumers often focus on the markup.

krw > Distinction without a difference; same numbers.

G > You think 16% == 20% ?

krw > Don't be stupid.  ...or do you share DimBulb's neuron?

Nope.

Evidently.

Why did you try to pretend that
margin and markup are the same thing?

You still don't get it. They *ARE* the same numbers, just stirred up. They
mean *exactly* the same thing.

Markup is the percentage OF WHOLESALE that is GP.

Margin is the percentage OF RETAIL that is GP.

They are two different ratios.

Of the *SAME* NUMBERS. Sheesh.

This would be as if you looked at P= I x E and

E
-------
I x R

And then announced that Watts == Amps.

You could say they are just reworks
of the same numbers, right? LOL

The independent variables are the *SAME*. Your representation of them is all
that is different.

Are you impaired?

No, you're just beyond stupid. I think we have a new DimBulb, DimBulb.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 21:15:45 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

JKK > That is gross profit, not markup.

krw > Huh?  Gross profit is markup.  Price - cost.

G > Are you mixing real numbers with percentages?

G > W 100
G > R  120
G > GP 20
G > MU 20 %  ( GP/W )
G > Gross Profit Margin 16 % ( GP/R )

krw > That's all just pushing the same two numbers around.

G > Business insiders tend to focus on margin.
G > Consumers often focus on the markup.

krw > Distinction without a difference; same numbers.

G > You think 16% == 20% ?

krw > Don't be stupid.  ...or do you share DimBulb's neuron?

G > Nope.

krw > Evidently.

G > Why did you try to pretend that
G > margin and markup are the same thing?

krw > You still don't get it.  They *ARE* the
krw > same numbers, just stirred up.  They
krw > mean *exactly* the same thing.

G > Markup is the percentage OF WHOLESALE that is GP.
G > Margin is the percentage OF RETAIL that is GP.
G > They are two different ratios.

krw > Of the *SAME* NUMBERS.  Sheesh.

G > This would be as if you looked at P= I x E  and
G
G >  E
G > -------
G > I x R
G
G > And then announced that Watts == Amps.
G
G > You could say they are just reworks
G > of the same numbers, right?         LOL

krw > The independent variables are the *SAME*.
krw > Your representation of them is all
krw > that is different.

Please confirm that you think Amps and Watts
are the same thing, for the same reasons.

Know two, you get eggroll. ...except in this case there are only two possible
variables.

G > Are you impaired?

krw > No, you're just beyond stupid.

krw > I think we have a new DimBulb, DimBulb.

By your reasoning, Amps and Watts are the
same thing. After all:

krw > The independent variables are the *SAME*.
krw > Your representation of them is all
krw > that is different.

LOL

Good thing that you're laughing. Everyone else is laughing at you too,
Junior.

 

[Greegor]

JKK > That is gross profit, not markup.

krw > Huh?  Gross profit is markup.  Price - cost.

G > Are you mixing real numbers with percentages?

G > W 100
G > R  120
G > GP 20
G > MU 20 %  ( GP/W )
G > Gross Profit Margin 16 % ( GP/R )

krw > That's all just pushing the same two numbers around.

G > Business insiders tend to focus on margin.
G > Consumers often focus on the markup.

krw > Distinction without a difference; same numbers.

G > You think 16% == 20% ?

krw > Don't be stupid.  ...or do you share DimBulb's neuron?

G > Nope.

krw > Evidently.

G > Why did you try to pretend that
G > margin and markup are the same thing?

krw > You still don't get it.  They *ARE* the
krw > same numbers, just stirred up.  They
krw > mean *exactly* the same thing.

G > Markup is the percentage OF WHOLESALE that is GP.
G > Margin is the percentage OF RETAIL that is GP.
G > They are two different ratios.

krw > Of the *SAME* NUMBERS.  Sheesh.

G > This would be as if you looked at P= I x E  and
G >
G >  E
G > -------
G > I x R
G >
G > And then announced that Watts == Amps.
G >
G > You could say they are just reworks
G > of the same numbers, right?         LOL

krw > The independent variables are the *SAME*.
krw > Your representation of them is all
krw > that is different.

Please confirm that you think Amps and Watts
are the same thing, for the same reasons.

G > Are you impaired?

krw > No, you're just beyond stupid.

krw > I think we have a new DimBulb, DimBulb.

By your reasoning, Amps and Watts are the
same thing. After all:

krw > The independent variables are the *SAME*.
krw > Your representation of them is all
krw > that is different.

LOL

 

[Martin Brown]

On 24/05/2010 22:21, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:31:34 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 24/05/2010 17:06, John Larkin wrote:

So far, most nutritional advice gets overturned every couple of
decades. Turns out that there's a lot of very bad statistics floating
around.

The connection between raised salt (sodium) levels in the blood and
excessive salt intake is well established. You ignore it at your peril.

So far so good. I can outthink and outski most people 1/2 or 1/3 my
age. I eat and drink what my body wants, but I'm careful to not let it
be fooled by things that evolution hasn't adjusted for yet, like trans
fats and fake flavors and cilantro. Exceptions are made for Crunchy
Cheetos, beer nuts, and dark chocolate, all worth dying for.

I have a feeling you do not eat the high levels of salt and sugar that
are so common in the average US junk food diet. You have previously
mentioned visiting decent restaurants that do not over salt or sweeten.

High cocoa solids >70% chocolate is probably moderately good for you in
moderation (as is just about any food). It is bulk qunatities of the
cheap Hershey rubbish with rancid milk fat solids in that does you no good.

Cilantro has been around for a few millennia in Europe and much longer
in Asia so it isn't that new. Better know as coriander leaves in the UK.
Will just about grow here in a good summer and set seed. Shiso (perilla
- mint family)is another pretty amazing herb from the Far East which
tastes like a smell.

If you want to worry about vegetables then lettuce breaks the usual rule
about milky sap implies unsafe to eat. And you have to admire whoever
first cooked with a chilli fruit and lived to tell the tale!

People are like bears and pigs; we can eat most anything.

Omnivorous. Provided that you eat on average roughly the right amount.

High fructose corn syrup seems to be a dodgy concoction used in US soft
drinks that is delivering extremely high levels of diabetes for example.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Greegor]

JKK > That is gross profit, not markup.

krw > Huh? Gross profit is markup. Price - cost.

G > Are you mixing real numbers with percentages?

G > W 100
G > R 120
G > GP 20
G > MU 20 % ( GP/W )
G > Gross Profit Margin 16 % ( GP/R )

krw > That's all just pushing the same two numbers around.

G > Business insiders tend to focus on margin.
G > Consumers often focus on the markup.

krw > Distinction without a difference; same numbers.

G > You think 16% == 20% ?

krw > Don't be stupid. ...or do you share DimBulb's neuron?

G > Nope.

krw > Evidently.

G > Why did you try to pretend that
G > margin and markup are the same thing?

krw > You still don't get it. They *ARE* the
krw > same numbers, just stirred up. They
krw > mean *exactly* the same thing.

G > Markup is the percentage OF WHOLESALE that is GP.
G > Margin is the percentage OF RETAIL that is GP.
G > They are two different ratios.

krw > Of the *SAME* NUMBERS. Sheesh.

G > This would be as if you looked at P= I x E and
G >
G > E
G > -------
G > I x R
G >
G > And then announced that Watts == Amps.
G >
G > You could say they are just reworks
G > of the same numbers, right? LOL

krw > The independent variables are the *SAME*.
krw > Your representation of them is all
krw > that is different.

G > Please confirm that you think Amps and Watts
G > are the same thing, for the same reasons.

krw > Know two, you get eggroll.  ...except in
krw > this case there are only two possible
krw > variables.

G > Are you impaired?

krw > No, you're just beyond stupid.

krw > I think we have a new DimBulb, DimBulb.

G > By your reasoning, Amps and Watts are
G > the same thing. After all:

krw > The independent variables are the *SAME*.
krw > Your representation of them is all
krw > that is different.

G > LOL

krw > Good thing that you're laughing.  Everyone
krw > else is laughing at you too, Junior.

Oh! That stings!

Please stop hurting my feelings mister
usenet poster!

I offended your sensibilities by pointing out
that profit margin and markup are not the
same thing?

And as a BONUS you have asserted that
Amps and Watts are the same thing...

I'm not saying it isn't easy to convert, but
getting terminology right IS important
in some areas. For markup v margin or
Amps v Watts, getting terminology right
is too important to be dismissed.

The fact that conversions are easy is
beside the point.

In both Engineering and business math,
incorrrectly affixed terminology is a big deal.

In those areas especially, the Confucious
saying fits better than elsewhere.



http://bluejacket.com/sea-service_quotes.html

The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their right names.
Confucius



http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=markup+v+gross+profit


http://www.mrhvac.com/download/free/MarginMarkup.htm

Markup Versus Gross Profit Margin

We're glad you took an interest in this topic. This topic explains the
difference in gross profit margin (or profit margin) and price
markup.

There is a big difference between markup and gross profit. In fact,
this is one of the most common errors contractors make and it can cost
you big.

Markup and margin, what's the difference?
Short Answer

Markup is a percentage of the cost.
Margin is the same dollar amount expressed as a percentage of the
selling price.

Example
Item costs $1.00 Items sells for $1.50.
Markup is .50 or 50 percent of the cost.
Margin is .50 or 33 a percent of the selling price.

Long Answer
Markup Defined
Markup is the difference between invoice cost and selling price. It
may be expressed either as a percentage of the selling price or the
cost price and is supposed to cover all the costs of doing business
plus a profit. Whether markup is based on the selling price or the
cost price, the base is always equal to 100 percent. Markup is the
additional amount added to a sales proposal (bid) or price and which
contain overhead, profit, excess costs, etc.

Margin Defined
The difference between net sales and the cost of goods sold. It is
also referred to as gross profit. Gross Profit/Total Sales. The
percentage of every dollar earned that can be used to pay general and
administrative expenses.

Margin Versus Markup Formula

Applying a simple formula will determine how much the margin will be
based on a percentage that the contractor expects to make. The
contractor will set a margin that ensures that they will be
competitive in the local market. It may or may not reflect the actual
value of an item. In your example, we are looking to make an 60%
margin assuming that our item costs $10. To figure out our sales price
we use the following formula, expressing the margin as a decimal
(i.e., 60% = .60):

Retail Price = (Cost of item)/(1 – desired margin)

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 25 May 2010 08:27:32 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 24/05/2010 22:21, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:31:34 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 24/05/2010 17:06, John Larkin wrote:

So far, most nutritional advice gets overturned every couple of
decades. Turns out that there's a lot of very bad statistics floating
around.

The connection between raised salt (sodium) levels in the blood and
excessive salt intake is well established. You ignore it at your peril.

So far so good. I can outthink and outski most people 1/2 or 1/3 my
age. I eat and drink what my body wants, but I'm careful to not let it
be fooled by things that evolution hasn't adjusted for yet, like trans
fats and fake flavors and cilantro. Exceptions are made for Crunchy
Cheetos, beer nuts, and dark chocolate, all worth dying for.

I have a feeling you do not eat the high levels of salt and sugar that
are so common in the average US junk food diet. You have previously
mentioned visiting decent restaurants that do not over salt or sweeten.

The occasional restaurant salt binge is probably OK. People are
resiliant.

High cocoa solids >70% chocolate is probably moderately good for you in
moderation (as is just about any food).

Chocolate and caffeine are both anti-dimentia. As are aspirin, ACE
inhibitors, statins, omeprazole.


It is bulk qunatities of the

cheap Hershey rubbish with rancid milk fat solids in that does you no good.

Yes, Hershey is crap. I will never forgive them for buying Joseph
Schmidt and shutting them down.

Cilantro has been around for a few millennia in Europe and much longer
in Asia so it isn't that new. Better know as coriander leaves in the UK.
Will just about grow here in a good summer and set seed. Shiso (perilla
- mint family)is another pretty amazing herb from the Far East which
tastes like a smell.

If you want to worry about vegetables then lettuce breaks the usual rule
about milky sap implies unsafe to eat. And you have to admire whoever
first cooked with a chilli fruit and lived to tell the tale!

People are like bears and pigs; we can eat most anything.

Omnivorous. Provided that you eat on average roughly the right amount.

High fructose corn syrup seems to be a dodgy concoction used in US soft
drinks that is delivering extremely high levels of diabetes for example.

Well, buying a 64-oz cola is something evolution never prepared us
for.

John

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 25 May 2010 08:27:32 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:


<snip>

Omnivorous. Provided that you eat on average roughly the right amount.

...of everything.

High fructose corn syrup seems to be a dodgy concoction used in US soft
drinks that is delivering extremely high levels of diabetes for example.

You can blame Congress for that.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 18:00:10 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2010 08:47:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 23, 3:22 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 08:00:00 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
If the Asian prices don't come down they'll get competition from the now
cheaper US companies. Looks like a win to me.
No win there. First, there are no US television or sneaker or clothes
manufacturers left. Even if there were or new ones would be sprouting up
they could not possibly compete with the made-in-China pair of $29.99
jogging shoes that consumers have come to expect at places like Costco.
It would be, "Oh, look, we can make the same sneakers for $60 instead of
$75 because of the "fair tax". Big deal.

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.
I did, many times over in this thread, but hardly anyone understands :-(
We did, but I don't see any of the talking heads recognize it, on either side.
Then the whole thing should remain a non-starter. At least I hope so.
Sorry, I spent yesterday talking in person to the actual Fair Tax
guys, along with some U.S. congressmen. I'll chime in later, but for
now I'm swamped and pooped, with a left-handed shovel and a whole lot
of ____.

Oh, oh, major spill somewhere? I hate whan that happens, but been there :-(

Maybe James works for BP Microsystems. ;-)


Maybe be all send him a donation, one bag of Quikrete per poster

Sounds line an offer he cannot refuse.

Short version: no it's not in there, but yes, they're open to amending
their bill so as to exempt savings that have already been taxed.

This is extremely important. First, because they will get a ton of flak
from seniors and their organizations without taking care of this.

As has been shown recently, AARP can easily be bought off.


And people getting very miffed. There's a reason for all the tea
parties.

The press is doing everything it can to write off the tea partiers as kooks.
We'll see in November how well they've done. It will also be interesting to
see how far down into the state and local governments it goes, if at all.

Anyhow, with this "fair tax" stuff option #2 for body public
would obviously be participating in the stampede. You just have to be
very quick, else real estate will have shot up sky-high. I would sure
make some realtors rich.

You'd have to be very quick to get around the retroactive implementation. If
you can do that, you'll have beaten the rush. I'm seriously thinking of
pulling my IRAs out when I have the chance. Pay the tax, on top of my income.
It's not going to get better.

Secondly, people who have diligently saved want some _ironclad_
guarantees there, in a way that thise guarantees cannot be changed
later. Recent retroactive law changes have eroded a whole lot of trust,
so this will now be much more difficult to achieve than years ago. In
essence, folks that have saved should not pay any tax until all that
savings is used up. Except for what's gained in future interest, of
course, because one must also be fair in the other direction. But here
we will have the first major bureaucratic job coming at it.

Anyone with an IRA, particularly a Roth should be very worried, regardless of
the Fair Tax.


What do you think is going to happen there?

It's too big of a target. Congress will "borrow" it, on their terms. They'll
replace it with the Social Security that you would have gotten anyway. It's
only "fair" that all get the same.

Of all the alternatives, I still find it very appealing, especially
compared to the current system. That doesn't mean I'm fully buying it
yet--I still haven't considered all the possible gotchas.

I am not even considering it unless the savings issue is taken care of.
Not so much for the sake of myself but for that of our country because
the repercussions for the financial market could be (or I should say
would be) devastating.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean I'm not extremely concerned about it.


So am I, meaning that if this would ever make it into more serious
discussions on the hill people need to be educated about the real
ramifications.

The "hill people" have demonstrated, beyond a doubt, that they're uneducable
and don't care about reality.