15% taxes on one income stream cannot be added to 15% on a separate income stream to get 30% on the total.
But apart from that, 12% income tax (apart from FICA) is low, even in the US where the average effective tax rate on 2010 income was about 24%. Compared to our legitimate foreign competitors (Europe/Japan/Oceania) 12% is very low. Our illegitimate foreign competitors like China extract their money (and blood) from all but the richest in ways outside of their tax systems.
Voting in a party primary is more effective than voting for a third party in the US. Sometimes in Democratic primaries there are people running who aren't simply auditioning to represent corporations and the richest once elected. But the proper representation of those of us not the richest isn't to collect lower taxes. It's to stop wasting the money spent on military/intel and other corporate welfare waste, and instead invest it pragmatically in the education, health and consequent productivity of our people, which makes us more governable. Which would mean smaller total expenses, but primarily to avoid the large debts used to hide the expenses from the tax allergic. Rebalancing the costs of government to those who create them would see richer people pay a greater share of their income, especially if exempting everyone's survival expenses. I'd prefer a sales tax (excluding necessities) to collect proportionally to each person's benefit from the system, and significant use fees for state creations like incorporation, patents / trademarks / registered copyrights (to cover their legal system costs and other administration), and operating and professional licenses. But until we transform income and property taxes to something less arbitrary, the income tax rate overall is going to look something like the 30% of our GDP that's government activity, with perhaps 10% of it "discounted" into debt - that just costs us more in every way sooner than later.
I know all that - though the world's richest woman has a lot more influence over Parliament than does a bellhop.
So? All of those "ancient documents" signed by various warlords were signed at the point of a sword. Whenever a sword wasn't pointed at the warlord to sign the document, the sword was pointed by the warlord as they signed the document.
If you're going to question the validity of the Magna Carta because its agreement by the king was coerced, you have to question every other royal agreement on the same basis.
All royal definitions of power were signed at the point of a sword, directed one way or the other. The only reason there ever has been for their validity is violent consequences.
Or "that's the way we do it", and "we haven't changed it since we became a democratic republic". Some of the swords from history weren't even anything but imaginary, as "divine right" was enforced by pure superstition for many centuries.
They're all invalid, except while they're accepted by the consent of the governed.
None of that ruin you describe should be a surprise to anyone. In fact the coalition members ran on the dire nature of the ruin. Note that Labour itself used ruin and liberal views to gain and keep power for a while.
British voters evidently recognize the ruins wrought by successive governments, are routinely alarmed, and typically elect people who are too. Usually people who offer a relatively (to their later actions) liberal response. People who then heap more ruin on the British. But of course not on all the British - some don't get ruin, but rather riches. They're even less surprised by al lthis.
The "coalition" government in a parliamentary government is a group of parties, none of which gained a majority of seats, which agree to vote their seats together when the prime minister is elected from the candidates (each a parliament member). Together they pool into a majority that elects the prime minister, who is practically always a member of only one of the coalition's parties.
But there's no reason those parties should always vote together on every question in the parliament. In fact they should often, even usually, vote differently. If they always agreed, why remain separate parties? Likewise, they should often introduce legislation against the position of other coalition members, if they want to get what they want. Without their own votes, the rest of the coalition doesn't have a majority, therefore with their own votes the minority who voted against the PM they supported is the majority. In other words every party in a coalition is a swing vote, so it should have more power.
The fact that this kind of legislation introduction is remarkably rare shows how corrupting political parties are, in this case in the parliamentary model. In a parliament the parties are institutionally the power center, as parties pick the chief executive - the people do not. The parties conflict with both the democracy, interfering with the people choosing their representative in the prime minister, and with the republic, coercing parliament members into voting according to a party agenda instead of their constituents' interests.
Parties are private political clubs that take money and other things of value from interests who aren't constituents, or who are privileged constituents, to determine who is elected and what laws are passed. The institution is clearly a leading cause of bribery, secret betrayals, and other corruption. They should be exposed and outlawed, not institutionalized.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, isi tself a frightful despotism. -- But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. -- The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of a Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councies, and enfeeble the Public administration -- It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection -- It opens the doors to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the Government itself through the channels of party passions. [...] Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.
No, it is not like what you say. Because in between the Federal government collects taxes on a grown tax base, like I said. The huge Federal government in its many parts, and the huge US economy in its many parts, the vast numbers of Americans spread across multiple generations between starting FICA payments and retiring, is not like you writing yourself a check. It is like one person writing another person a check, but in very large numbers, across long periods, in amounts that repay extremely safe loans, that were invested to produce the interest paid back.
The problem, like I said, is that in between the Federal government is wasting the money on military/intel waste and corporate welfare that reduce growth of the tax base that pays it back later.
The fact is that SS pays more out than was paid in, in interest that is totally safe like nothing else is. The fact is that before SS old Americans starved and froze to death, and now mostly don't.
On the average - across large populations of events. Most people don't have large populations of risk events. Insurance is useful for policyholders who have a risk below 50% of losses equal to or greater than their insurance costs, when the policyholders don't know whether they're the ones among the average who will take the damage when the risk materializes on them.
There is a difference between, say, health insurance that covers catastrophic risks vs some that merely covers routine, expectable risks. Catastrophic risks must be spread across larger populations, amortized across many people who won't take damage for reimbursement, so those who are damaged can be protected from catastrophe - when any one of those people might be the ones. That's what people think of when they think of insurance. Like car liability insurance, where one mistake (even by someone else, combined with a mistake by a court) can cost more than someone can ever pay. But routine health insurance, like collision insurance on cheaply replaceable cars, is simply expensive financing. It's better done by direct credit when the damage comes: simpler, cheaper, and creating some kind of equity (eg. better credit rating) when repaid properly.
Natural disasters are properly protected from by insurance, at least on humans. Corporations that have large exposures to them, over large geographies and/or long times, should pay for the damages out of credit or operating profits. Instead they're better equipped to pass those costs to humans outside the corporation, either through raised prices when the consumer can't switch, or through an insurance (private or government) system they're better equipped than individual humans to negotiate with or just make crooked.
Government bailouts in general should be made only when the state must protect a vital strategic interest. The bailout should always bear interest proportionate to the risk of non repayment. And any bailout should be followed by a regulation cycle that removes that proven catastrophic risk from threatening the vital strategic interest. Like increasing competition and lowering risktaking within the industry that forced the bailout.
Of course, none of that is how we do it. Even after the most blatant lessons during the past few years, we're not changing anything. Yet another version of the reasons people are camping out at Wall Street and their local version of it.
Corporations are taxed, but only on their profits. At least, on the profits they're willing to admit.
But corporations subtract from their profits property they buy, even if they don't sell it or use it to contribute to profits ("nonperforming assets"). Like a nice building, or a jet, or a "conference retreat", or other property that could be much cheaper or not owned at all. Because its owners use that property. Without paying taxes on that income.
Humans sell their labor to corporations. If a human owned a corporation that contracted with an employer for their work, a corp that owned their car, their business clothes, bought their lunch and gas, that would be prosecuted by the IRS as income tax evasion. If the corp owned their house and fed, clothed and educated their family, even at the percentages deductible by "real" corporations, the IRS would be even more swift and punitive.
Corporate taxation is a scam. Corporations cost the public a lot of money, more than the average human, even in just the token oversight and legal system operations. In fact since corporations are creations of the state, and are natural places to do accounting and payments, and should be much easier than humans to prevent from transacting finance, corporations should be the only entites taxed. Or at least switch to sales tax, exempting human necessities, and tax all the business transactions that would hold corporations paying for human life, rather than the unjust opposite.
The FICA income spent on the regular budget is borrowed from SS, and repaid with interest twice a year on the maturing bonds. That's how come people have reliably received their SS checks every month for the past half century.
Spending the borrowed money on military/intel waste instead of investing it in the earning power of FICA payers is indeed a travesty. It's why the system is in so much debt. But the FICA/T-bond/SS cycle isn't at all the problem - it's sound. It's the diversion into destructive expenses that is killing us.
Are you self employed? Is your income under $105K? That's the only way you're paying 15% FICA.
Are you ineligible to vote? That's the only way you're not getting representation. Unless you're simply voting with the minority of voters - or not voting.
No, those are not an example of the scientific community doing anything. As I pointed out, they're examples of some people doing something that's not science, regardless of what they called it. Which is different from climatology.
The uncertainties in the climate models are enough for the climatology community to warn that we must make substantial changes to prevent or at least slow climate changes that will cause intolerable damage to our civilization. Some of the changes are further analyzed by people who manage countries and support populations to mean even more intolerable changes from the social consequences, outside of climatology but nevertheless real and predictable.
You are arguing that pseudoscience is science, and that actually dire predictions are good news. Those are fallacious arguments. And I am now repeating my good faith answers, without you accepting them. I can't do any more use in this discussion. Goodbye.
Racial theories didn't use the scientific method. Einstein's relativity only slightly changed the predictions of what happens in phenomena science was actually already studying with the scientific method. Settlement of the Americas was decided by as unscientific a method as were racial theories. What we have in every one of those cases is a time during which science is actually used, instead of bigotry, pseudoscience or just making stuff up.
Climatology is itself a fairly new science. But climate models that predict climate change from documented manmade CO2 pollution are the result of thousands of actual scientists producing decades of actual science.
You're arguing that science can never be right. You're wrong.
Because I look in my inbox with my unassisted eyeballs for incoming messages that deserve my attention.
When someone produces a better GUI for new messages and their discussion than an email inbox, I'll be very interested. Meanwhile, I want to use the simple list I've got.
The best use of folders is to direct some emails into their own lists before reading them. So they don't clutter up the main Inbox. Automated alerts each in their own folder as they come in are easier to deal with. Especially if I want to delete a whole series of them, and especially if there's a lot of them which would overwhelm the rest of my inbox. Or just a few, which would get lost in my inbox.
These folders are better implemented as views, rather than actually separate storage. In fact my entire email data store would be best implemented as a database app. Indexing my messages, relating them by correspondents, subjects and keywords, would make them much more productive as a knowledge base. And easier to compose into finished documentation, and find trends and stats, and manage tasks...
In other news, Google is taking over the world with searching, while Yahoo's original hierarchical directory is so tired it can't find a buyer, 15 years after its IPO launched the Internet Bubble.
What I need is an AI thesaurus map that can organize my emails into categories to show me topics I've discussed within some category selected by timeframe, correspondents, or keywords.
Searching is Google. Folders is Yahoo. Google is the biggest Internet success, now that the Internet is vast and complex. Yahoo can't find a buyer, 15 years after it launched the Internet Bubble with its IPO.
If your email is as full as the 1995 Internet, you might like folders better. If your email is as full as the 2011 Internet, you'll like searching.
The money saved on a Mac instead of a Windows PC is lost early in the 3-7 years the machine is used, in increased downtime and lower productivity (from steeper learning curves, etc). There are few apps that most big corps use that doesn't run on Macs, especially with Web apps so prevalent. But if Apple products were more sought by more businesses, there would be even more apps for that bigger market. Typical chicken/egg problem that's solved on PCs by businesses buying the machine/OS, creating a market for apps.
There are indeed many reasons other than SCM that businesses don't buy Apple products. But SCM is a major one.
Apple production, like most electronics production, shares production capacity with many other products.
The 93% (if that's correct) of Fortune 500 corps don't all use iPhones as much as they could, or Macs nearly as much as they could. I gave a specific example of a company that demonstrated exactly why they do not. Tell me about all the F500 corps that have Macs on every desk. You can't.
Yes, I'm pretty sure of myself. I used to work for Apple. I've been using and programming Apple products since 1981. I have made a lot of money helping companies deal with SCM among other production issues. Next time I run a public company, operations or otherwise, I will be happy to take all your money in short orders for my stock.
You're easily amazed. The components are sorted out and the software is ready to go - that isn't any limit on the amount in a production run. Apple simply targets a smaller production run than it usually gets, as the undeniable reality shows. Their set high prices are supported by that routine scarcity. But they'd make more selling into an even bigger market.
The reason Apple doesn't produce enough is not limited by the supply chain vendors. It's limited by Apple underestimating the demand, or the amount it plans to sell. Perhaps on purpose: the basis of value of physical goods (and some intangibles) is perceived scarcity. Apple's retail prices have a larger profit margin than most competing consumer electronics, by charging high prices rather than by including cheap ingredients.
Apple doesn't fall short by enough percentage to mean it couldn't meet its secrecy, rapid development and SCM resource limits. It's just bad planning. Supported by Apple's announcing "sold out" as a brag, rather than an apology.
Slashdot Mirror
15% taxes on one income stream cannot be added to 15% on a separate income stream to get 30% on the total.
But apart from that, 12% income tax (apart from FICA) is low, even in the US where the average effective tax rate on 2010 income was about 24%. Compared to our legitimate foreign competitors (Europe/Japan/Oceania) 12% is very low. Our illegitimate foreign competitors like China extract their money (and blood) from all but the richest in ways outside of their tax systems.
Voting in a party primary is more effective than voting for a third party in the US. Sometimes in Democratic primaries there are people running who aren't simply auditioning to represent corporations and the richest once elected. But the proper representation of those of us not the richest isn't to collect lower taxes. It's to stop wasting the money spent on military/intel and other corporate welfare waste, and instead invest it pragmatically in the education, health and consequent productivity of our people, which makes us more governable. Which would mean smaller total expenses, but primarily to avoid the large debts used to hide the expenses from the tax allergic. Rebalancing the costs of government to those who create them would see richer people pay a greater share of their income, especially if exempting everyone's survival expenses. I'd prefer a sales tax (excluding necessities) to collect proportionally to each person's benefit from the system, and significant use fees for state creations like incorporation, patents / trademarks / registered copyrights (to cover their legal system costs and other administration), and operating and professional licenses. But until we transform income and property taxes to something less arbitrary, the income tax rate overall is going to look something like the 30% of our GDP that's government activity, with perhaps 10% of it "discounted" into debt - that just costs us more in every way sooner than later.
I know all that - though the world's richest woman has a lot more influence over Parliament than does a bellhop.
So? All of those "ancient documents" signed by various warlords were signed at the point of a sword. Whenever a sword wasn't pointed at the warlord to sign the document, the sword was pointed by the warlord as they signed the document.
If you're going to question the validity of the Magna Carta because its agreement by the king was coerced, you have to question every other royal agreement on the same basis.
All royal definitions of power were signed at the point of a sword, directed one way or the other. The only reason there ever has been for their validity is violent consequences.
Or "that's the way we do it", and "we haven't changed it since we became a democratic republic". Some of the swords from history weren't even anything but imaginary, as "divine right" was enforced by pure superstition for many centuries.
They're all invalid, except while they're accepted by the consent of the governed.
None of that ruin you describe should be a surprise to anyone. In fact the coalition members ran on the dire nature of the ruin. Note that Labour itself used ruin and liberal views to gain and keep power for a while.
British voters evidently recognize the ruins wrought by successive governments, are routinely alarmed, and typically elect people who are too. Usually people who offer a relatively (to their later actions) liberal response. People who then heap more ruin on the British. But of course not on all the British - some don't get ruin, but rather riches. They're even less surprised by al lthis.
The "coalition" government in a parliamentary government is a group of parties, none of which gained a majority of seats, which agree to vote their seats together when the prime minister is elected from the candidates (each a parliament member). Together they pool into a majority that elects the prime minister, who is practically always a member of only one of the coalition's parties.
But there's no reason those parties should always vote together on every question in the parliament. In fact they should often, even usually, vote differently. If they always agreed, why remain separate parties? Likewise, they should often introduce legislation against the position of other coalition members, if they want to get what they want. Without their own votes, the rest of the coalition doesn't have a majority, therefore with their own votes the minority who voted against the PM they supported is the majority. In other words every party in a coalition is a swing vote, so it should have more power.
The fact that this kind of legislation introduction is remarkably rare shows how corrupting political parties are, in this case in the parliamentary model. In a parliament the parties are institutionally the power center, as parties pick the chief executive - the people do not. The parties conflict with both the democracy, interfering with the people choosing their representative in the prime minister, and with the republic, coercing parliament members into voting according to a party agenda instead of their constituents' interests.
Parties are private political clubs that take money and other things of value from interests who aren't constituents, or who are privileged constituents, to determine who is elected and what laws are passed. The institution is clearly a leading cause of bribery, secret betrayals, and other corruption. They should be exposed and outlawed, not institutionalized.
As George Washington warned in his presidential farewell address
No, it is not like what you say. Because in between the Federal government collects taxes on a grown tax base, like I said. The huge Federal government in its many parts, and the huge US economy in its many parts, the vast numbers of Americans spread across multiple generations between starting FICA payments and retiring, is not like you writing yourself a check. It is like one person writing another person a check, but in very large numbers, across long periods, in amounts that repay extremely safe loans, that were invested to produce the interest paid back.
The problem, like I said, is that in between the Federal government is wasting the money on military/intel waste and corporate welfare that reduce growth of the tax base that pays it back later.
The fact is that SS pays more out than was paid in, in interest that is totally safe like nothing else is. The fact is that before SS old Americans starved and froze to death, and now mostly don't.
Electric companies are monopolies that charge whatever the officials they bribe let them. What socialist utopia do you live in?
On the average - across large populations of events. Most people don't have large populations of risk events. Insurance is useful for policyholders who have a risk below 50% of losses equal to or greater than their insurance costs, when the policyholders don't know whether they're the ones among the average who will take the damage when the risk materializes on them.
There is a difference between, say, health insurance that covers catastrophic risks vs some that merely covers routine, expectable risks. Catastrophic risks must be spread across larger populations, amortized across many people who won't take damage for reimbursement, so those who are damaged can be protected from catastrophe - when any one of those people might be the ones. That's what people think of when they think of insurance. Like car liability insurance, where one mistake (even by someone else, combined with a mistake by a court) can cost more than someone can ever pay. But routine health insurance, like collision insurance on cheaply replaceable cars, is simply expensive financing. It's better done by direct credit when the damage comes: simpler, cheaper, and creating some kind of equity (eg. better credit rating) when repaid properly.
Natural disasters are properly protected from by insurance, at least on humans. Corporations that have large exposures to them, over large geographies and/or long times, should pay for the damages out of credit or operating profits. Instead they're better equipped to pass those costs to humans outside the corporation, either through raised prices when the consumer can't switch, or through an insurance (private or government) system they're better equipped than individual humans to negotiate with or just make crooked.
Government bailouts in general should be made only when the state must protect a vital strategic interest. The bailout should always bear interest proportionate to the risk of non repayment. And any bailout should be followed by a regulation cycle that removes that proven catastrophic risk from threatening the vital strategic interest. Like increasing competition and lowering risktaking within the industry that forced the bailout.
Of course, none of that is how we do it. Even after the most blatant lessons during the past few years, we're not changing anything. Yet another version of the reasons people are camping out at Wall Street and their local version of it.
Corporations are taxed, but only on their profits. At least, on the profits they're willing to admit.
But corporations subtract from their profits property they buy, even if they don't sell it or use it to contribute to profits ("nonperforming assets"). Like a nice building, or a jet, or a "conference retreat", or other property that could be much cheaper or not owned at all. Because its owners use that property. Without paying taxes on that income.
Humans sell their labor to corporations. If a human owned a corporation that contracted with an employer for their work, a corp that owned their car, their business clothes, bought their lunch and gas, that would be prosecuted by the IRS as income tax evasion. If the corp owned their house and fed, clothed and educated their family, even at the percentages deductible by "real" corporations, the IRS would be even more swift and punitive.
Corporate taxation is a scam. Corporations cost the public a lot of money, more than the average human, even in just the token oversight and legal system operations. In fact since corporations are creations of the state, and are natural places to do accounting and payments, and should be much easier than humans to prevent from transacting finance, corporations should be the only entites taxed. Or at least switch to sales tax, exempting human necessities, and tax all the business transactions that would hold corporations paying for human life, rather than the unjust opposite.
Why are you still a Republican?
The FICA income spent on the regular budget is borrowed from SS, and repaid with interest twice a year on the maturing bonds. That's how come people have reliably received their SS checks every month for the past half century.
Spending the borrowed money on military/intel waste instead of investing it in the earning power of FICA payers is indeed a travesty. It's why the system is in so much debt. But the FICA/T-bond/SS cycle isn't at all the problem - it's sound. It's the diversion into destructive expenses that is killing us.
Are you self employed? Is your income under $105K? That's the only way you're paying 15% FICA.
Are you ineligible to vote? That's the only way you're not getting representation. Unless you're simply voting with the minority of voters - or not voting.
No, those are not an example of the scientific community doing anything. As I pointed out, they're examples of some people doing something that's not science, regardless of what they called it. Which is different from climatology.
The uncertainties in the climate models are enough for the climatology community to warn that we must make substantial changes to prevent or at least slow climate changes that will cause intolerable damage to our civilization. Some of the changes are further analyzed by people who manage countries and support populations to mean even more intolerable changes from the social consequences, outside of climatology but nevertheless real and predictable.
You are arguing that pseudoscience is science, and that actually dire predictions are good news. Those are fallacious arguments. And I am now repeating my good faith answers, without you accepting them. I can't do any more use in this discussion. Goodbye.
OP crashed.
Racial theories didn't use the scientific method. Einstein's relativity only slightly changed the predictions of what happens in phenomena science was actually already studying with the scientific method. Settlement of the Americas was decided by as unscientific a method as were racial theories. What we have in every one of those cases is a time during which science is actually used, instead of bigotry, pseudoscience or just making stuff up.
Climatology is itself a fairly new science. But climate models that predict climate change from documented manmade CO2 pollution are the result of thousands of actual scientists producing decades of actual science.
You're arguing that science can never be right. You're wrong.
Because I look in my inbox with my unassisted eyeballs for incoming messages that deserve my attention.
When someone produces a better GUI for new messages and their discussion than an email inbox, I'll be very interested. Meanwhile, I want to use the simple list I've got.
The best use of folders is to direct some emails into their own lists before reading them. So they don't clutter up the main Inbox. Automated alerts each in their own folder as they come in are easier to deal with. Especially if I want to delete a whole series of them, and especially if there's a lot of them which would overwhelm the rest of my inbox. Or just a few, which would get lost in my inbox.
These folders are better implemented as views, rather than actually separate storage. In fact my entire email data store would be best implemented as a database app. Indexing my messages, relating them by correspondents, subjects and keywords, would make them much more productive as a knowledge base. And easier to compose into finished documentation, and find trends and stats, and manage tasks...
In other news, Google is taking over the world with searching, while Yahoo's original hierarchical directory is so tired it can't find a buyer, 15 years after its IPO launched the Internet Bubble.
What I need is an AI thesaurus map that can organize my emails into categories to show me topics I've discussed within some category selected by timeframe, correspondents, or keywords.
Searching is Google. Folders is Yahoo. Google is the biggest Internet success, now that the Internet is vast and complex. Yahoo can't find a buyer, 15 years after it launched the Internet Bubble with its IPO.
If your email is as full as the 1995 Internet, you might like folders better. If your email is as full as the 2011 Internet, you'll like searching.
If I had Apple's profit margins, I'd want to sell more units to make more profit. Because that's money, not a statistic.
Yes, an unusual situation for Sony that did it a lot of harm. But PS3 isn't a business platform anyway.
The money saved on a Mac instead of a Windows PC is lost early in the 3-7 years the machine is used, in increased downtime and lower productivity (from steeper learning curves, etc). There are few apps that most big corps use that doesn't run on Macs, especially with Web apps so prevalent. But if Apple products were more sought by more businesses, there would be even more apps for that bigger market. Typical chicken/egg problem that's solved on PCs by businesses buying the machine/OS, creating a market for apps.
There are indeed many reasons other than SCM that businesses don't buy Apple products. But SCM is a major one.
Apple production, like most electronics production, shares production capacity with many other products.
The 93% (if that's correct) of Fortune 500 corps don't all use iPhones as much as they could, or Macs nearly as much as they could. I gave a specific example of a company that demonstrated exactly why they do not. Tell me about all the F500 corps that have Macs on every desk. You can't.
Yes, I'm pretty sure of myself. I used to work for Apple. I've been using and programming Apple products since 1981. I have made a lot of money helping companies deal with SCM among other production issues. Next time I run a public company, operations or otherwise, I will be happy to take all your money in short orders for my stock.
You're easily amazed. The components are sorted out and the software is ready to go - that isn't any limit on the amount in a production run. Apple simply targets a smaller production run than it usually gets, as the undeniable reality shows. Their set high prices are supported by that routine scarcity. But they'd make more selling into an even bigger market.
The reason Apple doesn't produce enough is not limited by the supply chain vendors. It's limited by Apple underestimating the demand, or the amount it plans to sell. Perhaps on purpose: the basis of value of physical goods (and some intangibles) is perceived scarcity. Apple's retail prices have a larger profit margin than most competing consumer electronics, by charging high prices rather than by including cheap ingredients.
Apple doesn't fall short by enough percentage to mean it couldn't meet its secrecy, rapid development and SCM resource limits. It's just bad planning. Supported by Apple's announcing "sold out" as a brag, rather than an apology.