|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
In praise of Brooks saddles
On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 22:51:55 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote: On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 10:34:49 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: Party positions have changed a lot. Indeed, but that is not new. It has happened before and will happen again. Indeed, the Trump realignment of the Republican Party may end up being a huge shift in the political landscape that leaves actual conservatives and moderates without a political home other than the Libertarians. The reactionary lurch to the left of the Democrats may do the same for centrists/moderate liberals. I suspect that the party powers that be among the GOP are hoping to weather the Trumpian ****storm and reassert themselves after he is out of office. It will take decades to repair the damage to both party and country. I could see the two party system fracturing into three or four. You had better hope that the two parties doesn't splinter into a multi party system. We have that here and no single party has been able to elect a majority so "deals" have to be made. We just went through a two week turmoil to select the various ministries. "You vote with us and we'll give you a ministry". "NO! We want two ministries!" -- cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
In praise of Brooks saddles
On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 22:08:51 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:
You and the babblers in your link are mistaken. The end result is exactly the same. It was that in Australia when theychanged from whoesale sales Tax to GST (VAT) Tax. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
In praise of Brooks saddles
On Monday, December 16, 2019 at 2:27:59 PM UTC, sms wrote:
The next Democratic president will have a hell of a job cleaning up Trump's mess. The next president will be Trump too. Since you hate him so much, Scharfie, you should work for his reelection so that he can be appropriately punished by having to clean up his own mess. Andre Jute Old Testament Social Justice Warrior |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
In praise of Brooks saddles
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 3:30:14 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/15/2019 4:27 PM, John B. wrote: On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 10:01:26 -0600, AMuzi wrote: On 12/14/2019 4:42 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 9:30:11 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote: On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 4:00:24 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote: The US does not have the luxury of Chapter 11. Stick to the law, Jay. You don't know **** about economics either, or realpolitik. If Donald Trump were to wake up in the morning with a sore head (everyone should consider themselves lucky that he's a teetotaller -- heh-heh) and announce that the US were repudiating all her foreign debts, everyone else except the US would hurt. (Here's a hint: he wouldn't put it like that, he'd announce the US was changing over to the Coyote Standard or some such.) And they'd immediately start buying US Treasury Bonds again, because they have too much stake in the US economy to let it slow or go under.. And if they were slow, Trump would only have to hint that he was nationalising their US assets at nightfall for them to see the sense and logic of his position. Andre, stick to whatever it is you do, which is what? If the US defaulted on all its debt, the economic system in the US as we know it would fail for a variety of reasons. The government lights would go off, and TK's Social Security welfare would be done. I'm not even talking about the foreign held debt or the world-wide effect of the collapse of our currency, although the failure of our currency would lead to massive inflation. This is all imaginary since the US cannot constitutionally default on its debt (and redemption is by maturity date anyway, so the US would not default all at once). Taxes would have to be raised to meet obligations; the US would sell naming rights to the Washington Monument to Huawei. It would be the biggest fire sale in history. Massive, massive inflation. Moving past the imaginary default Armageddon, the reality is that cutting tax revenues and rampant deficit spending just means inflation, higher borrowing costs, higher taxes -- basically another recession for the administration that gets stuck with the tab, regardless of party, although usually Democrat. Ande Jute If you owe the bank a thousand dollars you can't pay, you're in trouble. If you owe the bank a hundred million dollars you *won't* pay, the bank is n trouble. Not with collateralized debt or when the borrower is constitutionally obligated to repay the debt. In the real world, a bank would manage the risk with credit default swaps, credit insurance, etc., etc. Banks are not stupid, usually. -- Jay Beattie. My intuitions are along the same lines as you but macroeconomics can seem to defy rational analysis (the 'experts' are wrong as often as right). 14 months ago I bought T-bills, but right now US debt is so dirt cheap it's pointless. Meanwhile US Dollar continues very strong and, whether because of DJT or not, Chinese Yuan is tanking. Chinese corporate bonds have gone to default over the past few months and this week the first Chinese GSE bonds missed payments. From first principles, we _should_ be crying Argentina's song. But no. Is the Chinese Yuan "tanking" My records show that the Yuan is stronger (yesterday) than it has been since August? However, my exchange rate site lists two currencies for China am Offshore rate, which I have been using, and a second rate that is very slightly lower against the dollar. -- cheers, John B. Here's a five-year of that: https://tinyurl.com/vgo4n4g -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Stop disagreeing with John. He lives in Thailand and he knows much better than Wall St. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
In praise of Brooks saddles
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 3:46:48 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 8:01:40 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/14/2019 4:42 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 9:30:11 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote: On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 4:00:24 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote: The US does not have the luxury of Chapter 11. Stick to the law, Jay. You don't know **** about economics either, or realpolitik. If Donald Trump were to wake up in the morning with a sore head (everyone should consider themselves lucky that he's a teetotaller -- heh-heh) and announce that the US were repudiating all her foreign debts, everyone else except the US would hurt. (Here's a hint: he wouldn't put it like that, he'd announce the US was changing over to the Coyote Standard or some such.) And they'd immediately start buying US Treasury Bonds again, because they have too much stake in the US economy to let it slow or go under.. And if they were slow, Trump would only have to hint that he was nationalising their US assets at nightfall for them to see the sense and logic of his position. Andre, stick to whatever it is you do, which is what? If the US defaulted on all its debt, the economic system in the US as we know it would fail for a variety of reasons. The government lights would go off, and TK's Social Security welfare would be done. I'm not even talking about the foreign held debt or the world-wide effect of the collapse of our currency, although the failure of our currency would lead to massive inflation. This is all imaginary since the US cannot constitutionally default on its debt (and redemption is by maturity date anyway, so the US would not default all at once). Taxes would have to be raised to meet obligations; the US would sell naming rights to the Washington Monument to Huawei. It would be the biggest fire sale in history. Massive, massive inflation. Moving past the imaginary default Armageddon, the reality is that cutting tax revenues and rampant deficit spending just means inflation, higher borrowing costs, higher taxes -- basically another recession for the administration that gets stuck with the tab, regardless of party, although usually Democrat. Ande Jute If you owe the bank a thousand dollars you can't pay, you're in trouble. If you owe the bank a hundred million dollars you *won't* pay, the bank is n trouble. Not with collateralized debt or when the borrower is constitutionally obligated to repay the debt. In the real world, a bank would manage the risk with credit default swaps, credit insurance, etc., etc. Banks are not stupid, usually. -- Jay Beattie. My intuitions are along the same lines as you but macroeconomics can seem to defy rational analysis (the 'experts' are wrong as often as right). 14 months ago I bought T-bills, but right now US debt is so dirt cheap it's pointless. Meanwhile US Dollar continues very strong and, whether because of DJT or not, Chinese Yuan is tanking. Chinese corporate bonds have gone to default over the past few months and this week the first Chinese GSE bonds missed payments. From first principles, we _should_ be crying Argentina's song. But no. I could see some delayed redemptions or delayed interest payments, but I'm not seriously proposing that US will default on a significant portion of its national debt. But even minor defaults will have microeconomic effects on bond holders and markets. Unchecked debt is a bad thing, or at least it used to be. Somebody is going to be paying the bill. Don't you think the Yuan is being manipulated -- double duty driving down the cost of Chinese goods and driving up the cost of US goods? Nice tariff hedge. Probably a good time for a Chinese vacation! Get some benefit out of the trade war. -- Jay Beattie. Jay, you show a complete ignorance of economics. Look, the international unit of currency is the US Dollar. So there IS no national debt if we decide there is no national debt. We just crank up the printing presses and pay all of our bills. What this would do to the world's economy certainly isn't a pretty thing to think of but I am telling you that you are trying to use your own debt settlement methods for an entirely different case. This is why I have said that I argued with the Chairman of the Fed about how to deal with financial crisis and you think that I'm either kidding or lying. I am not. I have an intrinsic understanding of the process and while I do not remember now how I came about that I must have taken courses in economics when I was supposed to get a degree to be moved into upper management. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
In praise of Brooks saddles
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 4:06:48 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/15/2019 5:46 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 8:01:40 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/14/2019 4:42 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 9:30:11 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote: On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 4:00:24 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote: The US does not have the luxury of Chapter 11. Stick to the law, Jay. You don't know **** about economics either, or realpolitik. If Donald Trump were to wake up in the morning with a sore head (everyone should consider themselves lucky that he's a teetotaller -- heh-heh) and announce that the US were repudiating all her foreign debts, everyone else except the US would hurt. (Here's a hint: he wouldn't put it like that, he'd announce the US was changing over to the Coyote Standard or some such.) And they'd immediately start buying US Treasury Bonds again, because they have too much stake in the US economy to let it slow or go under.. And if they were slow, Trump would only have to hint that he was nationalising their US assets at nightfall for them to see the sense and logic of his position. Andre, stick to whatever it is you do, which is what? If the US defaulted on all its debt, the economic system in the US as we know it would fail for a variety of reasons. The government lights would go off, and TK's Social Security welfare would be done. I'm not even talking about the foreign held debt or the world-wide effect of the collapse of our currency, although the failure of our currency would lead to massive inflation. This is all imaginary since the US cannot constitutionally default on its debt (and redemption is by maturity date anyway, so the US would not default all at once). Taxes would have to be raised to meet obligations; the US would sell naming rights to the Washington Monument to Huawei. It would be the biggest fire sale in history. Massive, massive inflation. Moving past the imaginary default Armageddon, the reality is that cutting tax revenues and rampant deficit spending just means inflation, higher borrowing costs, higher taxes -- basically another recession for the administration that gets stuck with the tab, regardless of party, although usually Democrat. Ande Jute If you owe the bank a thousand dollars you can't pay, you're in trouble. If you owe the bank a hundred million dollars you *won't* pay, the bank is n trouble. Not with collateralized debt or when the borrower is constitutionally obligated to repay the debt. In the real world, a bank would manage the risk with credit default swaps, credit insurance, etc., etc. Banks are not stupid, usually. -- Jay Beattie. My intuitions are along the same lines as you but macroeconomics can seem to defy rational analysis (the 'experts' are wrong as often as right). 14 months ago I bought T-bills, but right now US debt is so dirt cheap it's pointless. Meanwhile US Dollar continues very strong and, whether because of DJT or not, Chinese Yuan is tanking. Chinese corporate bonds have gone to default over the past few months and this week the first Chinese GSE bonds missed payments. From first principles, we _should_ be crying Argentina's song. But no. I could see some delayed redemptions or delayed interest payments, but I'm not seriously proposing that US will default on a significant portion of its national debt. But even minor defaults will have microeconomic effects on bond holders and markets. Unchecked debt is a bad thing, or at least it used to be. Somebody is going to be paying the bill. Don't you think the Yuan is being manipulated -- double duty driving down the cost of Chinese goods and driving up the cost of US goods? Nice tariff hedge. Probably a good time for a Chinese vacation! Get some benefit out of the trade war. -- Jay Beattie. Good question, one that smarter heads than I have posed for years with no evidence either way. If it is on purpose, it makes dollar payments more painful. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 China has some absolutely brilliant economists. This is why they stockpiled huge amounts of the US currency (mostly in US debt) which allows them to closely regulate the exchabge rate. Trump has absolutely countered them though. He is also brilliant with money which is how he became so rich. At the moment Trump has control since China needs US products and we don't need China's products. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
In praise of Brooks saddles
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 8:52:02 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 10:34:49 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: Party positions have changed a lot. Indeed, but that is not new. It has happened before and will happen again. Indeed, the Trump realignment of the Republican Party may end up being a huge shift in the political landscape that leaves actual conservatives and moderates without a political home other than the Libertarians. The reactionary lurch to the left of the Democrats may do the same for centrists/moderate liberals. I suspect that the party powers that be among the GOP are hoping to weather the Trumpian ****storm and reassert themselves after he is out of office. It will take decades to repair the damage to both party and country. I could see the two party system fracturing into three or four. Tim, Trump's positions are mostly moderate Democrat from the 1980's and 90's. These coincided with moderate Republicans since then. "Real" conservatives are pretty much radicals who now believe in the near total elimination of government - the Tea Party for instance. Because of Trump's actual agenda and not the one the Slime Stream Media announces most of the country is on Trump's side. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
In praise of Brooks saddles
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 10:08:53 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, December 16, 2019 at 4:43:41 AM UTC, Tim McNamara wrote: On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 15:08:04 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 9:35:46 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote: On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 4:17:36 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote: The US has no VAT, Crap. What do you think VAT is? It's a sales tax, same as State sales taxes in the US. Crap, we have no federal sales tax. We have federal excise taxes on certain goods, e.g. gas, alcohol. State sales tax vary. There is no sales tax in Oregon. And VAT is different in structure from sales tax: https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/blog/...s-tax-and-vat/ You and the babblers in your link are mistaken. The end result is exactly the same. The only person who in this system can (but does not necessarily) be out of the total VAT/sales tax in both cases is the end-consumer. What that screed you linked to overlooked telling you is that everyone in the VAT chain except the end-consumer, can get their VAT back, and in fact never pays it (an outright error in that "explanation") but merely accounts for VAT in and VAT out. Full disclosu if there is a difference between the VAT they paid to suppliers of raw material etc and the VAT they received from the next party in the chain, that is their sales tax on their product. It is because of this incremental process that it is called a Value Added Tax, but it is merely a sales tax with bigger wings than in the States to cover all producers and sellers in the chain. My old teacher invented the modern form of the traditional French input-output table on which all this is based. Andre Jute It ain't rocket science Nearly - VAT is usually much higher in the end than sales taxes. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Brooks Saddles on TV | nobody | UK | 0 | February 8th 08 02:36 PM |
What does the S mean (Brooks saddles) | Jim D | UK | 15 | November 18th 06 05:48 PM |
FS: Brooks Pro saddles | [email protected] | Marketplace | 0 | February 23rd 05 06:12 PM |
Brooks saddles | Bryan | UK | 5 | August 5th 04 09:16 PM |
FS: Brooks saddles | Michael Szpir | Marketplace | 3 | October 11th 03 10:03 PM |