Tim Cook says Apple won't repatriate money to US 'until there's a fair rate'

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

-Affordable care act.

You can blame Obamacare on the Pharma and Insurance Industry Lobbyists
They were running out of other people's money and needed a bail out

Obama care never started with people protesting for "Free Healthcare"
It never started with the Middle or Lower Class

It started with Lobbyists and their Puppet Politicians and they needed a Media Campaign to sell it to the masses.
It is not unlike the wars we get involved with where "want anyone think of the children"

www.opensecrets.org...

Top Lobbying Industries

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $3,146,090,212
Insurance $2,190,651,832

Same with the fight against drugs - note how most of the effort is on the treatment, through more drugs.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

-Affordable care act.

You can blame Obamacare on the Pharma and Insurance Industry Lobbyists
They were running out of other people's money and needed a bail out

Obama care never started with people protesting for "Free Healthcare"
It never started with the Middle or Lower Class

It started with Lobbyists and their Puppet Politicians and they needed a Media Campaign to sell it to the masses.
It is not unlike the wars we get involved with where "want anyone think of the children"

www.opensecrets.org...

Top Lobbying Industries

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $3,146,090,212
Insurance $2,190,651,832

Same with the fight against drugs - note how most of the effort is on the treatment, through more drugs.

Yep
As they say, follow the money
First comes the lobbyists, and then the Media Campaign to "Sell it"
And if majority of Americans are not for it, well, we'll just pass it anyways to see whats in it.

Want to see how authoritarian a democrat is?

Suggest voluntarily funded non-government social programs.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: UKTruth

If taxes are low for business then everyone wins.

Only in fantasy land. Here in America it means bigger dividends for the share holders and the employees and consumers get the shaft.

Dividends have zero to do with it.
If everyone gets richer then who cares if the rich get even richer too?
What would you rather have:

1) an extra $3000 a year for you and an extra $100k a year for a business owner OR
2) nothing for you (or maybe even less than you have now) and business owners paying more

It seems the people who hate the idea of more talented and harder working people achieving more than themselves gravitate to option 2.

Nothing you have said makes any damn sense at all.

You ascribe taxes to jealousy.

originally posted by: musicismagic
This guy needs to get his next meal in a soup line. Taxes are fair for the common man, and the corporation tax rate is also fair too.

Source article? I don't SEE one.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: intrptr

Corporations don't pay taxes.

They just pass on the costs to the consumer.

And all that bailout money they got for free was supposed to be put to creating new jobs. So much for the trickle down effect.

Thanks, Reagan.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
Want to see how authoritarian a democrat is?

Suggest voluntarily funded non-government social programs.

Mega corp would have fits. Thats bi partisan.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
Want to see how authoritarian a democrat is?

Suggest voluntarily funded non-government social programs.

Voluntarily funded anything doesn't work.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Your post suggests that Western countries can not compete with countries like China on manufacturing... you really believe that? Have you actually thought through what would happen if quality higher priced products (unlike the utter crap available form China) were the standard fare in Western countries?

Of course I have. I've written a few threads here on the subject. The question is have you thought it through? Lets take a company like Craftsman tools. They've been edged out by cheaper tool companies who make something that breaks after 1-2 years. Craftsman used to have a lifetime warranty on everything.

If we went back to that quality level of lifetime goods that means each person is worth one sale. Say an item is sold for $300. That's $300 over 80 years, and one tools worth of labor created. On the other hand, if I make cheap crap it's $30 every 2 years for 80 years. $1200 generated and 40 tools worth of labor created.

This is the downfall of capitalism. It encourages a low quality of product, because it generates more labor which keeps us employed in order to buy more stuff. If we produced quality products the demand for work would decline, which in turn means people work less and earn less. Then you're hit with the double whammy of goods also costing more.

On the other hand, a nation like China can meddle with their markets and support different sectors according to market demand. They have state level resources to fill peoples demands while a free market waits for the private sector to do so instead.

So no, we can't compete. China has a social safety net if people can't work. They can respond to market needs faster, they can price private companies out of business, and they can produce cheap disposable crap because the best goods aren't what succeed in the market, it's the most competitive goods that do.

With few to no subsidies for workers, and a higher wage needed to purchase even a low quality of life, the west and especially American companies cannot compete with China unless we pull back from our international trade deals and become isolationist.

We can have two of these three:
High quality of life
Jobs
High quality of goods

SPAM removed by admin

SPAM removed by admin

a reply to: musicismagic

apple pie

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: UKTruth
Your post suggests that Western countries can not compete with countries like China on manufacturing... you really believe that? Have you actually thought through what would happen if quality higher priced products (unlike the utter crap available form China) were the standard fare in Western countries?

Of course I have. I've written a few threads here on the subject. The question is have you thought it through? Lets take a company like Craftsman tools. They've been edged out by cheaper tool companies who make something that breaks after 1-2 years. Craftsman used to have a lifetime warranty on everything.

If we went back to that quality level of lifetime goods that means each person is worth one sale. Say an item is sold for $300. That's $300 over 80 years, and one tools worth of labor created. On the other hand, if I make cheap crap it's $30 every 2 years for 80 years. $1200 generated and 40 tools worth of labor created.

This is the downfall of capitalism. It encourages a low quality of product, because it generates more labor which keeps us employed in order to buy more stuff. If we produced quality products the demand for work would decline, which in turn means people work less and earn less. Then you're hit with the double whammy of goods also costing more.

On the other hand, a nation like China can meddle with their markets and support different sectors according to market demand. They have state level resources to fill peoples demands while a free market waits for the private sector to do so instead.

So no, we can't compete. China has a social safety net if people can't work. They can respond to market needs faster, they can price private companies out of business, and they can produce cheap disposable crap because the best goods aren't what succeed in the market, it's the most competitive goods that do.

With few to no subsidies for workers, and a higher wage needed to purchase even a low quality of life, the west and especially American companies cannot compete with China unless we pull back from our international trade deals and become isolationist.

We can have two of these three:
High quality of life
Jobs
High quality of goods

In your example, what is worth more do you think; $300 now or $1200 spread out over 80 years? I haven't calculated the net present value, so I am not saying, either way, just pointing out that the comparison is not $300 vs $1200. Quite apart from the NPV, there is the reinvestment of a larger sum at the start of the 80 years to consider, in jobs for instance.

EDIT: I actually did work it out - if a company was able make to make 6% annually from investing profit margin (assuming 50% margin, but not assuming other costs), the $300 is worth more at the end of the 80 years. If all costs are assumed (like marketing), it's an even lower investment return required for the $300 at the start to be worth more.