U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-23-2019, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,972 posts, read 13,826,049 times
Reputation: 15153

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
These are relative terms, if the economy was made of small local businesses and cooperatives, they would still be able to affirm these points without needing to compete with structures that control the market.
They're not relative terms. They can be objectively measured.

If no corporations existed, businesses would still fail if they violated the Three Laws of Business.

The fact that 97% of business are not publicly-traded corporations is proof your claim is false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Now the bold here is remarkable, and incredibly misleading. A small company can't offer a competing good at a lower price unless the bring production costs down.
Because they lack the education, training, knowledge and experience to do that.

It has nothing to do with the 3% of businesses that are publicly-traded corporations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Being as they don't have the resources or capital to do that, they cannot compete with these large businesses without going bankrupt.
Another false statement.

A Japanese Nissei plastic-injection molding machine costs the same for everyone.

All Nissei plastic-injection molding machines have the same maximum production capacity: they will all produce a maximum of say 15 widgets per hour and no more.

A trained and skilled operator can run the machine at 15 widgets per hour, but an operator that is not well-trained, or inexperienced or lazy will produce less.

That has nothing to do with the 3% of businesses that are publicly traded corporations.

The cost to produce the widgets is dependent in large part on the wages paid to the operator. A small business can pay more wages than a corporation pays, or the same or even less than a corporation pays.

A corporation might have more production facilities, and thus more Nissei plastic-injection molding machines, and perhaps they can buy feed-stock in bulk at a reduced price, but a small business has 168 oil refinery operators to choose from whom to buy feed-stock, and 155 of those oil refinery operators are independent operators.

The price different in feed-stock will literally be pennies on the dollar, not dollars.

A corporation might be able to negotiate a price of $2.43/gallon for xylene feed-stock, but there's absolutely no legitimate reason why a savvy businessperson operating a small business cannot obtain the same price from any one of the 168 refinery operators.

They could easily negotiate a price of $2.41/gallon, and even if they paid $2.47/gallon, it's not going to put them out of business.

Capital is not an issue, because a small business can obtain the necessary Capital through a bank or through private investors, and someone educated, trained, experienced or knowledgeable will be able to do that.

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Only in your fantasy world did that happen Mircea, what she said did not matter whatsoever.
Yes, it does matter.

Consumers will only buy what they want, what they need or what they like.

Consumers will not buy what they don't want, don't need or don't like.

Your FUBAR fantasy-world where you attempt to force consumers to buy what they don't want, don't need or don't like will fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Yes, and economic theory is not considered when running a business.
Yes, it is considered. I would discuss Price Elasticity, but half of it would go over your head, and the other half would go way, way over your head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Would any business manager run a clearance sale to lower prices on all products with a lower demand than a comparative priced equally? No, because that would be a disaster for profits.
Actually, they would, and they really do.

You don't understand that, because you don't know what you're talking about.

I ran a receiving spur for GAP on 3rd shift working my way through college. Jeans made in Mexico cost $0.127 per pair, and they come in a carton of 12 jeans.

GAP's cost spur-to-shelf (in a GAP store) was $0.114 per carton. That cost includes the administrative and overhead for the GAP receiving facility, including all wages and salaries of all employees, plus employee benefits, plus all city, county, State and federal taxes as part of wages (FICA, HI, SUTA, FUTA and taxes to Boone County, Kentucky) to be paid, plus electricity, water and maintenance for the facility.

So, $0.114 divided by 12 equals $0.0095 per jean, so the total cost from factory floor in Mexico to the shelves of a GAP store was $0.137 per jean.

GAP sells the jeans for $20.

GAP could sell the jeans for $10 and still make a profit. They could sell them for $5 and still make a profit.

They could even sell them for $0.50 and still make a profit.

We received for Banana Republic, too.

The cost of shoes from factory floor in Italy to Banana Republic shelves was $2.32 per pair.

Banana Republic sold them for $150 to $190 per pair.

Banana Republic could discount them to $70 and still make a hefty profit, or discount them to $10 and still make a profit.

It's amazing how little you actually know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
I know, and the Romans were a state power as well he formed this artificial laws. Or did you not know that?
Um, that happened after the Roman Empire collapsed.

Long before the Romans, and even long before the Greek Empire, people, mostly Etruscans, Greeks and other tribal groups, owned land and passed that land onto their children generation after generation.

When the Roman Empire collapsed, the owners of the villas were threatened by Germanic tribes, other tribes and bandits, so they hired their own private security forces, but protecting the villas wasn't enough, it was also necessary to protect the people in the villages around the villa.

The villa owner became known as the Don, and the separate security forces for the villa and the villages as capo regimes.

Today, the Riviera is known as the French Riviera, the Riviera (the Principality of Monaco) and the Italian Riviera, but long ago that region was contested by the French and certain Italian groups. The Italians had a slogan: Muerte Alle Francia Italia Alia.

The best English translation is: Death to the French is the cry of the Italians.

The Italians would kill a bunch of French, then write that slogan on the wall of a building, or a fortification wall, or a bridge, and then later they started abbreviating it M.A.F.I.A.

One day, French people were living on Sicily, and the next day they weren't, because they were all dead. That day is known in history as the Night of Sicilian Vespers. No one knows who killed the French, but whoever did it had it well-planned, well thought out, well organized and executed with the greatest of efficiency in the utmost of secrecy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Equality is necessary for freedom, as Aristotle understood.
Equality is subjective, and not defined clearly in no uncertain terms, and totally unachievable.

And, Aristotle? The man who thought the Earth was the center of the Universe, the Sun orbited Earth, disease was caused by colored gases and human reproduction was the result of spontaneous regeneration?

He was brilliant among idiots, but nothing more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Yes, and many state figures influence the market as well ask corporations. None of that has to do with consumer demand.
More Winterfall Shuffle.

Just admit you have no understanding of Supply & Demand and we'll move on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
What lies and underhanded tactics, I know exactly the difference, and your much praised start-ups are made to become big, not stay small. That is the difference between local producers and start-ups.
I never once praised start-ups and you cannot prove I did.

Any business that begins operations is, by definition, a start-up.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that.

The overwhelming vast majority of start-ups exist to provide goods or services to local consumers, but there are those who dare to dream big, and if they are successful, more power to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Amazon does nothing but make small producers go out of business and make the rest dependent on them.
Name one.

We'll wait.

For any one that you might possibly be able to identify, assuming one actually exists, I can name 10 that owe their success to Amazon.

Amazon doesn't sell anything. They merely provide a platform for anyone to advertise and sell their products.

The cost for a small business to operate a web-site to sell their products that gets very little traffic is quite high compared to the cost of using Amazon's platform --which gets an extraordinary amount of traffic -- to advertise and sell their products.

I'm normally attired in jeans and buffaloes. When my buffaloes blew out after 15 years of use, I was quite distressed, because no one in Cincinnati, or anywhere with 400 miles of Cincinnati, or northern Kentucky or southeastern Indiana sells buffaloes.

Thanks to Amazon, I found a small business in New Jersey that does sell buffaloes, and more than that, they sell tie-dyed t-shirts and other 60s regalia.

Thanks to Amazon, I got exactly what I wanted, and the small business in New Jersey enjoyed revenues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Anything the state system failed to give that isn't excess market choice happened because of a lack of trade and capital, private capital had nothing to do with it.
Private Capital had everything to do with it, and the existence of Black Markets in East Bloc States utilized private Capital, but the States never benefited from it, but individual Soviets did.

Those States had plenty of Capital, they just didn't have the education, training, knowledge or experience to use it efficiently, and both their economic system and property theory barred efficient use of the Capital they had.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Did you know the US had slavery until ww2?
I'm sure you have a differently twisted definition of slavery.

[quote=Winterfall8324;54511350]Oh BS, the vast portion of their agriculture and economy was destroyed in WW2, and that is ignoring civilian deaths.[quote]

No, it wasn't. Pray tell, how exactly did the Soviets produce the tanks, armored personnel carriers, planes, trucks, weapons, ammunition, equipment and supplies to defeat the Germans?

It's because very little was destroyed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
They had less because they started with less,...
Less what?

Arable land?

Wrong answer. Yes, today, the US has 53 Million hectares more than Russia, but when you add in Belarus, Ukraine, the Five Central Asian States, and the other States no longer part of Russia, they had 12 Million hectares more than the US.

But, that belies the fact that in hectares per 1,000 people, Russia alone has 44% more than the US.

In other words, Russia has far more land to feed people than the US has.

Metal ores?

Wrong answer.

Russia alone has far more than the US.

Russia has more Zinc, Copper and Lead than the US. Russia has more Cobalt, Molybdenum and Tungsten than the US. Russia has more Uranium and rare earth metals than the US. Russia has more Titanium and Manganese than the US. Russia has more Nickel than the US, and is the World's leading producer of Nickel.

Russia has more Platinum, Silver and Gold than the US, and is the World's second leading producer of Gold, behind South Africa.

Your ignorance on the subject matter doesn't allow you know that because the US has so little Titanium, the CIA was forced to establish a front company in secret in order to buy Titanium from Russia.

The eastern Russian republics by themselves have 2x more oil and natural gas than the Five Central Asian States, and the Five Central Asian States have 5x-7x more oil and natural gas than all of the Middle East and North Africa.

In other words, 10x to 14x more oil and natural gas than all of the Middle East and North Africa.

What was it you were saying?

What was it the Soviets didn't have, because they had far more of everything than the US could ever dream of having?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
...and because they didn't have global trading partners to compete with the richer west.
Because the Soviets offered nothing the rest of the World wanted.

Trade is voluntary, not compulsory.

Consumers want what they want, and the Soviets produced nothing consumers wanted.

It's all about Demand.

You must produce consumers want, not what you want.

Consumers created Demand, not the Soviet State.

The Soviets failed or refused to provide consumers what they wanted, which is why they had no trade, and they failed or refused to provide consumers what they want, because they were incompetent...

....like you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
And as The US kept pressure on them to keep military, that stopped their economy from developing too far.
Again, you admit their system was a total failure.

Because the US was Capitalist, the US only spent 3% to 10% of its GDP on the military, and much of that was spent in Vietnam.

Because the Soviets were Socialists and used the Command Economic System, and because they were incompetent and didn't know what they were doing, plus absolutely corrupt, they spent 33% of their GDP on defense (according to you).

If the Soviets had been Capitalists, they would have spent the same or less than the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-23-2019, 09:03 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
8,990 posts, read 2,380,348 times
Reputation: 2422
[quote=Mircea;54517863]They're not relative terms. They can be objectively measured.

If no corporations existed, businesses would still fail if they violated the Three Laws of Business.

The fact that 97% of business are not publicly-traded corporations is proof your claim is false.



Because they lack the education, training, knowledge and experience to do that.

It has nothing to do with the 3% of businesses that are publicly-traded corporations.



Another false statement.

A Japanese Nissei plastic-injection molding machine costs the same for everyone.

All Nissei plastic-injection molding machines have the same maximum production capacity: they will all produce a maximum of say 15 widgets per hour and no more.

A trained and skilled operator can run the machine at 15 widgets per hour, but an operator that is not well-trained, or inexperienced or lazy will produce less.

That has nothing to do with the 3% of businesses that are publicly traded corporations.

The cost to produce the widgets is dependent in large part on the wages paid to the operator. A small business can pay more wages than a corporation pays, or the same or even less than a corporation pays.

A corporation might have more production facilities, and thus more Nissei plastic-injection molding machines, and perhaps they can buy feed-stock in bulk at a reduced price, but a small business has 168 oil refinery operators to choose from whom to buy feed-stock, and 155 of those oil refinery operators are independent operators.

The price different in feed-stock will literally be pennies on the dollar, not dollars.

A corporation might be able to negotiate a price of $2.43/gallon for xylene feed-stock, but there's absolutely no legitimate reason why a savvy businessperson operating a small business cannot obtain the same price from any one of the 168 refinery operators.

They could easily negotiate a price of $2.41/gallon, and even if they paid $2.47/gallon, it's not going to put them out of business.

Capital is not an issue, because a small business can obtain the necessary Capital through a bank or through private investors, and someone educated, trained, experienced or knowledgeable will be able to do that.

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.



Yes, it does matter.

Consumers will only buy what they want, what they need or what they like.

Consumers will not buy what they don't want, don't need or don't like.

Your FUBAR fantasy-world where you attempt to force consumers to buy what they don't want, don't need or don't like will fail.



Yes, it is considered. I would discuss Price Elasticity, but half of it would go over your head, and the other half would go way, way over your head.



Actually, they would, and they really do.

You don't understand that, because you don't know what you're talking about.

I ran a receiving spur for GAP on 3rd shift working my way through college. Jeans made in Mexico cost $0.127 per pair, and they come in a carton of 12 jeans.

GAP's cost spur-to-shelf (in a GAP store) was $0.114 per carton. That cost includes the administrative and overhead for the GAP receiving facility, including all wages and salaries of all employees, plus employee benefits, plus all city, county, State and federal taxes as part of wages (FICA, HI, SUTA, FUTA and taxes to Boone County, Kentucky) to be paid, plus electricity, water and maintenance for the facility.

So, $0.114 divided by 12 equals $0.0095 per jean, so the total cost from factory floor in Mexico to the shelves of a GAP store was $0.137 per jean.

GAP sells the jeans for $20.

GAP could sell the jeans for $10 and still make a profit. They could sell them for $5 and still make a profit.

They could even sell them for $0.50 and still make a profit.

We received for Banana Republic, too.

The cost of shoes from factory floor in Italy to Banana Republic shelves was $2.32 per pair.

Banana Republic sold them for $150 to $190 per pair.

Banana Republic could discount them to $70 and still make a hefty profit, or discount them to $10 and still make a profit.

It's amazing how little you actually know.



Um, that happened after the Roman Empire collapsed.

Long before the Romans, and even long before the Greek Empire, people, mostly Etruscans, Greeks and other tribal groups, owned land and passed that land onto their children generation after generation.

When the Roman Empire collapsed, the owners of the villas were threatened by Germanic tribes, other tribes and bandits, so they hired their own private security forces, but protecting the villas wasn't enough, it was also necessary to protect the people in the villages around the villa.

The villa owner became known as the Don, and the separate security forces for the villa and the villages as capo regimes.

Today, the Riviera is known as the French Riviera, the Riviera (the Principality of Monaco) and the Italian Riviera, but long ago that region was contested by the French and certain Italian groups. The Italians had a slogan: Muerte Alle Francia Italia Alia.

The best English translation is: Death to the French is the cry of the Italians.

The Italians would kill a bunch of French, then write that slogan on the wall of a building, or a fortification wall, or a bridge, and then later they started abbreviating it M.A.F.I.A.

One day, French people were living on Sicily, and the next day they weren't, because they were all dead. That day is known in history as the Night of Sicilian Vespers. No one knows who killed the French, but whoever did it had it well-planned, well thought out, well organized and executed with the greatest of efficiency in the utmost of secrecy.



Equality is subjective, and not defined clearly in no uncertain terms, and totally unachievable.

And, Aristotle? The man who thought the Earth was the center of the Universe, the Sun orbited Earth, disease was caused by colored gases and human reproduction was the result of spontaneous regeneration?

He was brilliant among idiots, but nothing more.



More Winterfall Shuffle.

Just admit you have no understanding of Supply & Demand and we'll move on.



I never once praised start-ups and you cannot prove I did.

Any business that begins operations is, by definition, a start-up.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that.

The overwhelming vast majority of start-ups exist to provide goods or services to local consumers, but there are those who dare to dream big, and if they are successful, more power to them.



Name one.

We'll wait.

For any one that you might possibly be able to identify, assuming one actually exists, I can name 10 that owe their success to Amazon.

Amazon doesn't sell anything. They merely provide a platform for anyone to advertise and sell their products.

The cost for a small business to operate a web-site to sell their products that gets very little traffic is quite high compared to the cost of using Amazon's platform --which gets an extraordinary amount of traffic -- to advertise and sell their products.

I'm normally attired in jeans and buffaloes. When my buffaloes blew out after 15 years of use, I was quite distressed, because no one in Cincinnati, or anywhere with 400 miles of Cincinnati, or northern Kentucky or southeastern Indiana sells buffaloes.

Thanks to Amazon, I found a small business in New Jersey that does sell buffaloes, and more than that, they sell tie-dyed t-shirts and other 60s regalia.

Thanks to Amazon, I got exactly what I wanted, and the small business in New Jersey enjoyed revenues.



Private Capital had everything to do with it, and the existence of Black Markets in East Bloc States utilized private Capital, but the States never benefited from it, but individual Soviets did.

Those States had plenty of Capital, they just didn't have the education, training, knowledge or experience to use it efficiently, and both their economic system and property theory barred efficient use of the Capital they had.



I'm sure you have a differently twisted definition of slavery.

[quote=Winterfall8324;54511350]Oh BS, the vast portion of their agriculture and economy was destroyed in WW2, and that is ignoring civilian deaths.
Quote:

No, it wasn't. Pray tell, how exactly did the Soviets produce the tanks, armored personnel carriers, planes, trucks, weapons, ammunition, equipment and supplies to defeat the Germans?

It's because very little was destroyed.



Less what?

Arable land?

Wrong answer. Yes, today, the US has 53 Million hectares more than Russia, but when you add in Belarus, Ukraine, the Five Central Asian States, and the other States no longer part of Russia, they had 12 Million hectares more than the US.

But, that belies the fact that in hectares per 1,000 people, Russia alone has 44% more than the US.

In other words, Russia has far more land to feed people than the US has.

Metal ores?

Wrong answer.

Russia alone has far more than the US.

Russia has more Zinc, Copper and Lead than the US. Russia has more Cobalt, Molybdenum and Tungsten than the US. Russia has more Uranium and rare earth metals than the US. Russia has more Titanium and Manganese than the US. Russia has more Nickel than the US, and is the World's leading producer of Nickel.

Russia has more Platinum, Silver and Gold than the US, and is the World's second leading producer of Gold, behind South Africa.

Your ignorance on the subject matter doesn't allow you know that because the US has so little Titanium, the CIA was forced to establish a front company in secret in order to buy Titanium from Russia.

The eastern Russian republics by themselves have 2x more oil and natural gas than the Five Central Asian States, and the Five Central Asian States have 5x-7x more oil and natural gas than all of the Middle East and North Africa.

In other words, 10x to 14x more oil and natural gas than all of the Middle East and North Africa.

What was it you were saying?

What was it the Soviets didn't have, because they had far more of everything than the US could ever dream of having?



Because the Soviets offered nothing the rest of the World wanted.

Trade is voluntary, not compulsory.

Consumers want what they want, and the Soviets produced nothing consumers wanted.

It's all about Demand.

You must produce consumers want, not what you want.

Consumers created Demand, not the Soviet State.

The Soviets failed or refused to provide consumers what they wanted, which is why they had no trade, and they failed or refused to provide consumers what they want, because they were incompetent...

....like you.



Again, you admit their system was a total failure.

Because the US was Capitalist, the US only spent 3% to 10% of its GDP on the military, and much of that was spent in Vietnam.

Because the Soviets were Socialists and used the Command Economic System, and because they were incompetent and didn't know what they were doing, plus absolutely corrupt, they spent 33% of their GDP on defense (according to you).

If the Soviets had been Capitalists, they would have spent the same or less than the US.
Your simple minded understanding of history and facts infects everything you think you know living you with a broken moral system, false information, and distortions.

This will be difficult to go through.

1. You don't even no what I mean by relative, and yet you can't understand that small businesses can fulfill these three requirements without large scale competition that controls the global markets. Small businesses live in the world states and multinationals create for them, and they play by their rules.

2. No, its because of a lack of capital and trading rights. Take free trade agreements, they are just corporate law books that allow large producers to monopolize their supply chain internal across state borders. They have far more power in determining production size and cost. Smaller producers can not afford to produce on that scale and sell items without selling at a lost. And without operating profits, they cannot invest in lowering production costs and growing to the stage where they can compete.

And that all ignores access to market, rent pay, and needed marketing. And as even you can understand, clearing inventory does not make profit; if they lower prices to meet demand, they will go broke, making the price elasticity you love useless.
If anything, third party producers in third world countries often have deals with larger producers that reflect their relationship with smaller ones (and which makes them no longer local, something you have no appreciation for).


3. You have no comprehension about what you're talking about here. Consumer demand is not some natural thing that precedes time, it is highly influenced by marketing, pricing, and state policy.

Corporations aren't interested in giving people what they need, they are interested in giving people what helps their profit margin. That is why consumers with less wealth are undervalued or targeted separately.

4. You posted the exact same phrase before, you seem tired. Your lies are getting tired as well.

5. Lol, now you really don't get how self-defeating you're being, proving my point. Even in the case of your GAP example, prices were reflective of production costs, and they were aiming for a certain profit margin. The idea that the $100+ jeans required equal pricing based on demand is delusional as GAP would lose money in the process. Furthermore the jeans aren't competing directly against each other as they are produced and marketed separately.

But neither would they lower the price of cheap jeans sold together just for the sake of increasing demand. Market clearance is not the goal, profit is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RRa0lkhy4E&t=39s


6. Everything you said proved that private property required feudalism and violence to maintain. Without a state it is no longer naturally controlled creating violence.

7. You are radically wrong but your understanding of the world and supply and demand is so crippled you thing businesses adjust prices on supply/demand even if it were contrary to their interests (profit which requires planning).

8. Start ups no longer exist like mom and pop shops, they work through credit lines and investors and gain wealth through platforms and mediums started by other large companies.

9. Amazon is a plague. And you just showed your hand here. Small companies that are offered and 'opportunity' by Amazon to sell their goods become reliant on Amazon. Amazon therefore controls how they become wealthy, their access to markets, and the company relies on them to grow. There is no independent pathway, as Amazon does not allow that anymore.

Take German Media companies, they have profited off of Googles advertisement, but have become dangerously reliant on it, so that if they were cut off they would suffer. Same thing happened with my Dad's old company.

It is a reality that has nothing to do with freedom, just your bloodthirsty drive to see greater wealth and less freedom/equality.

10. This is just one extreme example: https://timeline.com/convict-leasing...y-1fd126f4ad0c

But of course you know nothing about the south post-reconstruction, or how black workers were forced back into contracts that made them slave labor for the non-industrial south. It was only when the South industrialized around ww2 that this system more or less came to an end.

11. What a sad and pathetic argument. Industry was moved east, but a vast portion of their agricultural economy was destroyed. You know nothing

12. WHAT? I never mentioned natural resources, this just shows how blind you are. Africa has a tone of natural resources, do you think saying Europe is richer changes that fact as they were not colonized? Those countries had less developed economies meant to be exploited.

And as for trade, that is ridiculous, it has nothing to do with offering better products, as trade as we know it right now is internal production for a large company, not folks trading goods. And you ignore how hard The US fought to Stop Soviet Oil exports into western Europe or elsewhere, that was what the cold war.

Socialist countries had socialist countries to trade with as they did not operate as private capitalist (and private capitalist did not trade like you imagine). Cuban cash crops made the Soviets richer while Soviet gas made Cuba Richer.

Had there been more socialist countries, trade would bring more wealth to these countries.

And then you go further and ignore the basic fact that because they spent a higher GDP on their military, that left money out of keeping a socially stable society. That was the goal of US military escalation, and that is why they did it. Had Reagan or some-other US leaders listened to you, they would have failed.

And they spent more of their GDP because they were poorer to start, and you still don't get it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otMtz4w94Qs&t=5s

Just learn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2019, 09:11 PM
 
Location: Thailand
5,551 posts, read 2,667,373 times
Reputation: 10366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Just learn.
Oh what an existence you enjoy to believe lack of education and experience is made up for with youtube videos.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2019, 09:20 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
8,990 posts, read 2,380,348 times
Reputation: 2422
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
Oh what an existence you enjoy to believe lack of education and experience is made up for with youtube videos.
I never claimed that of course.

But lies are needed when one distorts historical facts to defend power and wealth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2019, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
8,990 posts, read 2,380,348 times
Reputation: 2422
For Mircea, who claims that corporations are a small part of US businesses, you forget this:
https://taxfoundation.org/corporatio...cent-revenues/

And that’s in 2011, the total revenue is probably much higher, including the fact small businesses exist in the market environment set by large corporations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2019, 09:14 AM
 
970 posts, read 196,308 times
Reputation: 1654
It is amazing so many little minds spend their time worried and fearful that someone, somewhere, is more successful than they are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2019, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Manchester NH
8,990 posts, read 2,380,348 times
Reputation: 2422
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
It is amazing so many little minds spend their time worried and fearful that someone, somewhere, is more successful than they are.
Hitler was more successful than you; does that mean he should be left alone destroying other people's lives and robbing from everyone?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2019, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
11,709 posts, read 12,072,093 times
Reputation: 18412
I would object less to an increased capital gains tax if the basis was inflation adjusted. The one thing I really resent is having to pay capital gains on inflated dollars. If I bought something in 1986 for $100,000 and sold it today for $230,000, I would actually have lost a fraction of a percent, but would pay capital gains on $130,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2019, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
8,990 posts, read 2,380,348 times
Reputation: 2422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
I would object less to an increased capital gains tax if the basis was inflation adjusted. The one thing I really resent is having to pay capital gains on inflated dollars. If I bought something in 1986 for $100,000 and sold it today for $230,000, I would actually have lost a fraction of a percent, but would pay capital gains on $130,000.
Of course, I added an addendum after my OP.

I donít want people making money off of property speculation, but I donít want them losing it either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2019, 02:02 PM
 
2,486 posts, read 1,590,759 times
Reputation: 5392
A bar of iron costs $5. Make it into a horseshoe, it’s $12. Make it into needles and it’s worth $3,500. Make it into balance springs for a watch and it’s 350,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:34 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top