F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/30/14 10:21 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:38:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/29/2014 7:09 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 4:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/29/2014 4:06 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 2:14 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:12:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


I think you and many other liberals have a hair trigger when it
comes to
accusing people of being a racist. Then again, it serves the
liberal
purpose.

Do you know any liberal racists?


Sharpton leaps to mind.


You're way behind the times. Al has mellowed out over the years, has
admitted to his close-mindedness, and certainly far less of a racist
than, say, John Herring.


That's the giggle of the day.

The few times a month I see Al's show, I don't see him making racist
remarks, which is more than can be said for Herring, your arrested
development buddy FlaJim, PsychoSnotty, and a few other right-wing
posters here.




If someone here is a Republican or conservative you are *looking* for
anything that could remotely be tagged as being a racist statement.
Like so many other "progressive liberals" flapping their jaws close to
an election, it's what you do.


That was pretty well said.



How's your brother doing?

Your diversion is lame. Did it work with the IRS?

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:35:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/29/14 8:25 PM, amdx wrote:

Let's start with, I don't want all corporation to go offshore.
And, yes if they could cut 15% off their cost of doing business,
prices would generally drift down.

FOAD (Harry Krause) said:

I think those cuts in cost would simply slip over to the profit column,
and prices would remain the same.

===

That demonstrates a simplistic and inaccurate view of how the business
world really works, about what I'd expect from a naive college
freshman raised in an utra liberal family.

In actuality corporations and small business have the option to use
retained earnings (cash flow) in a number of ways depending on their
competitive environment and overall goals. In a tight labor market
businesses will try harder to recruit and retain the talent they need.
Offering better benefits and better overall compensation is one of the
ways they compete for workers. Corporate tradition and
stockholder/board of director goals also play into that equation. In
your particular example, the resulting short term increase in cash
flow would accrue equally to all businesses and some (many) would
choose lower prices to increase market share. Everyone else would be
forced to follow suit or accept a smaller market share.

Unfortunately for workers, today's labor market is not particularly
tight except for certain skills, and the global economic business
market is more competitive than it has ever been. No one can turn
back the clock just because they don't like how things have turned
out. Unskilled labor will never again see the compensation levels
that they came to take for granted in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Those
days are over, time to accept it and move on. Everyone who has skills
which have become oboslete will need to reinvent themselves or be left
behind. That's the way it has always been.

On 10/1/14 9:06 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:35:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/29/14 8:25 PM, amdx wrote:

Let's start with, I don't want all corporation to go offshore.
And, yes if they could cut 15% off their cost of doing business,
prices would generally drift down.

FOAD (Harry Krause) said:

I think those cuts in cost would simply slip over to the profit column,
and prices would remain the same.

===

That demonstrates a simplistic and inaccurate view of how the business
world really works, about what I'd expect from a naive college
freshman raised in an utra liberal family.

In actuality corporations and small business have the option to use
retained earnings (cash flow) in a number of ways depending on their
competitive environment and overall goals. In a tight labor market
businesses will try harder to recruit and retain the talent they need.
Offering better benefits and better overall compensation is one of the
ways they compete for workers. Corporate tradition and
stockholder/board of director goals also play into that equation. In
your particular example, the resulting short term increase in cash
flow would accrue equally to all businesses and some (many) would
choose lower prices to increase market share. Everyone else would be
forced to follow suit or accept a smaller market share.

Unfortunately for workers, today's labor market is not particularly
tight except for certain skills, and the global economic business
market is more competitive than it has ever been. No one can turn
back the clock just because they don't like how things have turned
out. Unskilled labor will never again see the compensation levels
that they came to take for granted in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Those
days are over, time to accept it and move on. Everyone who has skills
which have become oboslete will need to reinvent themselves or be left
behind. That's the way it has always been.



His pontificateness speaketh... yawn.

Thanks for the high school "theory of how business works" lecture,
W'hine. That, couple with your compassion for displaced workers, is a
wonderful capper for the fairly interesting day I've had today over in
Virginia.

On 9/29/2014 3:46 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:

Hey, I have a great example, I had competition under cutting my
prices by 30%, what I sold for $7.50 they sold for $5.00. Why, one
reason is they didn't pay federal income taxes or FICA taxes. There were
other things, but that's at least 30% of profits.
Mikek



Gosh. A grad of the London School of Economics. Here's a clue...if the
pittance in taxes corporations pay were reduced, prices would not be.
Why? Why, corporate greed, of course.

Next.


That's just your hate clouding your thought.
Do you remember the gas wars of the early 70's,
if one gas station lowered their price the one
across the street did to.
Just like me, the competition undercut my prices,
I had no choice, my customers of 12 years were
driving 75 ft farther down the dock and buying
lower priced shrimp. Guess what I was greedy, I
thought $1.50 profit was better than $0. Someone
mentioned how computers prices have come down, how
about cellphone prices, when they first came out only
business's could afford them. I'll bet if you lifted
your hatred of business veil, you could probably come
up with 5 or 6 examples of products that have come down
in price because the competition forced it.
In 1980 milk in today's dollars, would be $4.62 my
wife says she pays $3.69.
Three items that are more expensive cars and gasoline and stamps.
I contend the reason is for all is government interference.
Cars are more expensive because the government has mandated, many
safety related items, and antipollution devices. Mostly good ideas. They
also come with more features.
Gasoline costs more now than in 1980, today's price would be $2.97 if
only inflation were to blame for increases, but the taxes on gallon of
gas have gone up, If you lowered the taxes to the same as 1980
it would be less than 2.97. However gas is a bad example because of the
middle east monopoly over the years. (no free market)
The price of a stamp would be lower if we got the government out of
it. But again you would not be charged for that guy out in the boonies,
He would need to drive into town once a week and get his mail.



I'll ask others to chip in and list items that cost less
today then when they first came out.
Here's an inflation calculator to compare today's price with
the price for whatever year.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc....981&year2=2014

Mikek

It will be interesting to see a point by point counter to the free
market ratcheting prices down as costs come down. But you won't, and
your thinking won't change either. You will continue to be blinded by
your hatred.

On 9/29/2014 8:06 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 7:35 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 8:25 PM, amdx wrote:

Let's start with, I don't want all corporation to go offshore.
And, yes if they could cut 15% off their cost of doing business,
prices would generally drift down.


I think those cuts in cost would simply slip over to the profit column,
and prices would remain the same.


I know you do.
I suggest you save your money and invest it in the corporations that
have these excessive profit margins, and get some for yourself.
Oh, I'll bet you think it doesn't work that way.

Mikek

I'm wondering if you pay any attention to the world around you.
Have you seen Walmart, they have grown because of one policy, Lower
Prices. Those greedy mom and pop stores have gone away because they
wouldn't lower there prices.
Do you get the newspaper? Business's place ads in there that show
prices lower than their competitors, just to get business.
"Blasphemy, you mean lowering prices can increase profits, well it must,
otherwise those greedy corporations wouldn't do it!"
Take some time, look around at what the free market has done for you.

Mikek

On 9/29/2014 2:45 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 1:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 1:38 PM, amdx wrote:


Look it up in the dictionary.

Now you told Foad how to find it!
When I ask, I new he would not, could not respond with real information.
Just like all the other times I've ask him for real information and came
up with some excuse.
Mikek

---


What's "new" with you?

Speaking of banksterism, Last Friday I had a customer that somehow we
moved from welfare cheats to our fiat currency. He did about a 45
minute spiel with not much room for me to interrupt :-)
He's so radical he thinks we should all stop paying taxes, and turn
over our money system.
He is a radical on the subject, but came to it from a different
direction. His thinking is, if we had real money, we could not afford
the welfare we give and we wouldn't have the system that we have.
Another thing was compound interest, he thinks that is terrible.

I don't, in fact I think I'm losing out on a property every month.
Let's see what you think.
My wife and I have worked 40hrs plus for years, paid our taxes, paid
all our bills and managed to save some money. in fact every year we have
done that. It was hard and took a long time. We bought a property and
resold it, the buyer is paying less than interest only, meaning every
month the bill goes up because of the interest plus principal he didn't
pay. I think I deserve interest on the extra money he owes for the
interest he didn't pay. Example: he owes $100,000 the interest for the
month is $750 but he only pays $600, I think I can add the $150 back
onto the principal and charge interest on $100,150 the next month.
My lawyer says I can't, (Florida law?). But you can be sure if the buyer
had the $150 every month, he would be getting interest on it.
What do you think?

Mikek


I thought I'd get some response from one of these paragraphs.

On 9/29/2014 1:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 1:33 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 10:48 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 11:08 AM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 5:48 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/28/14 10:26 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/28/2014 4:53 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:


You don't even know what racism is. Sheesh.

Thank you, your getting it figured out.
And note I'm a conservative too.
Mikek




Nice try, but the reality, from your posts here, is that you are just
another right-wing racist.

Your ignorance is showing.
Mikek

---

You frequently put up posts that attempt to show minorities in a bad
light. You're a racist.




Could you please, find a couple of those for me?

Could you please, find a couple of those for me?

Mikek

On 10/1/2014 9:21 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/1/14 9:06 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:35:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/29/14 8:25 PM, amdx wrote:

Let's start with, I don't want all corporation to go offshore.
And, yes if they could cut 15% off their cost of doing business,
prices would generally drift down.

FOAD (Harry Krause) said:

I think those cuts in cost would simply slip over to the profit column,
and prices would remain the same.

===

That demonstrates a simplistic and inaccurate view of how the business
world really works, about what I'd expect from a naive college
freshman raised in an utra liberal family.

In actuality corporations and small business have the option to use
retained earnings (cash flow) in a number of ways depending on their
competitive environment and overall goals. In a tight labor market
businesses will try harder to recruit and retain the talent they need.
Offering better benefits and better overall compensation is one of the
ways they compete for workers. Corporate tradition and
stockholder/board of director goals also play into that equation. In
your particular example, the resulting short term increase in cash
flow would accrue equally to all businesses and some (many) would
choose lower prices to increase market share. Everyone else would be
forced to follow suit or accept a smaller market share.

Unfortunately for workers, today's labor market is not particularly
tight except for certain skills, and the global economic business
market is more competitive than it has ever been. No one can turn
back the clock just because they don't like how things have turned
out. Unskilled labor will never again see the compensation levels
that they came to take for granted in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Those
days are over, time to accept it and move on. Everyone who has skills
which have become oboslete will need to reinvent themselves or be left
behind. That's the way it has always been.



His pontificateness speaketh... yawn.

Thanks for the high school "theory of how business works" lecture,
W'hine. That, couple with your compassion for displaced workers, is a
wonderful capper for the fairly interesting day I've had today over in
Virginia.




I thought Wayne's analysis was spot on. Another use of retained
earnings is growth which is an indicator of a healthy company. Growth
means more jobs. More jobs means a healthier economic climate overall.
Federal revenues go up and the number of people/families relying on
assistance programs goes down.

Apparently you would rather see higher corporate taxes and let the
screwballs in Wash DC decide how to dole it out while chasing votes.

On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:57:08 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 9/29/2014 2:45 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/29/2014 1:14 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 9/29/14 1:38 PM, amdx wrote:


Look it up in the dictionary.

Now you told Foad how to find it!
When I ask, I new he would not, could not respond with real information.
Just like all the other times I've ask him for real information and came
up with some excuse.
Mikek

---


What's "new" with you?

Speaking of banksterism, Last Friday I had a customer that somehow we
moved from welfare cheats to our fiat currency. He did about a 45
minute spiel with not much room for me to interrupt :-)
He's so radical he thinks we should all stop paying taxes, and turn
over our money system.
He is a radical on the subject, but came to it from a different
direction. His thinking is, if we had real money, we could not afford
the welfare we give and we wouldn't have the system that we have.
Another thing was compound interest, he thinks that is terrible.

I don't, in fact I think I'm losing out on a property every month.
Let's see what you think.
My wife and I have worked 40hrs plus for years, paid our taxes, paid
all our bills and managed to save some money. in fact every year we have
done that. It was hard and took a long time. We bought a property and
resold it, the buyer is paying less than interest only, meaning every
month the bill goes up because of the interest plus principal he didn't
pay. I think I deserve interest on the extra money he owes for the
interest he didn't pay. Example: he owes $100,000 the interest for the
month is $750 but he only pays $600, I think I can add the $150 back
onto the principal and charge interest on $100,150 the next month.
My lawyer says I can't, (Florida law?). But you can be sure if the buyer
had the $150 every month, he would be getting interest on it.
What do you think?

Mikek


I thought I'd get some response from one of these paragraphs.


===

Did you personally provide financing to the buyer where he pays you
back at less than the accrued interest rate? If so, when do you get
to call in the principle on the loan?

On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 21:21:55 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 10/1/14 9:06 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:35:54 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 9/29/14 8:25 PM, amdx wrote:

Let's start with, I don't want all corporation to go offshore.
And, yes if they could cut 15% off their cost of doing business,
prices would generally drift down.

FOAD (Harry Krause) said:

I think those cuts in cost would simply slip over to the profit column,
and prices would remain the same.

===

That demonstrates a simplistic and inaccurate view of how the business
world really works, about what I'd expect from a naive college
freshman raised in an utra liberal family.

In actuality corporations and small business have the option to use
retained earnings (cash flow) in a number of ways depending on their
competitive environment and overall goals. In a tight labor market
businesses will try harder to recruit and retain the talent they need.
Offering better benefits and better overall compensation is one of the
ways they compete for workers. Corporate tradition and
stockholder/board of director goals also play into that equation. In
your particular example, the resulting short term increase in cash
flow would accrue equally to all businesses and some (many) would
choose lower prices to increase market share. Everyone else would be
forced to follow suit or accept a smaller market share.

Unfortunately for workers, today's labor market is not particularly
tight except for certain skills, and the global economic business
market is more competitive than it has ever been. No one can turn
back the clock just because they don't like how things have turned
out. Unskilled labor will never again see the compensation levels
that they came to take for granted in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Those
days are over, time to accept it and move on. Everyone who has skills
which have become oboslete will need to reinvent themselves or be left
behind. That's the way it has always been.



His pontificateness speaketh... yawn.

Thanks for the high school "theory of how business works" lecture,
W'hine. That, couple with your compassion for displaced workers, is a
wonderful capper for the fairly interesting day I've had today over in
Virginia.


===

You're quite welcome for the encapsulated theory lesson. I'd have
given it at a more advanced level if I thought there was any chance
you'd understand it.

As far as compassion goes, it has always played well in "woe is us"
liberal circles. At the end of the day however you've still got a
bunch of workers on your hands who have been displaced by a changing
world. No amount of grieving will bring back the jobs of buggy whip
manufacturers or telephone operators. People have to accept reality,
move on, retrain, re-invent themselves, or pay the consequences.
Change is inevitable and it's no one's fault.