Apple is an exporter and an importer. They are importing goods to the US (and exporting them from China) - on those units, they see an increase in profit. On units sold in China, the units are domestically produced and the profit margin remains the same. On units sold in Europe, Apple is an exporter (from China) and an importer to Europe and the profit margins will be at the mercy of the Euro-Renmimbi exchange rate. On that, they lost some profit margin recently. It appears to be a wash, since Apple has kept their margins at around 40% for many consecutive quarters.
I don't know why you say that manufacturing costs are not a factor. It seems like you are assuming that their contracts are all in dollars. That seems very unlikely. More likely with a business their size, they have contracts in many different currencies and so currency fluctuations balance out.
Their revenue in dollars is almost certainly down. But that's not a number that investors should really be looking at unless it does something remarkable.
In South Jersey we also had snow, so school was let out early. We were supposed to watch the launch at school, but between the launch delays and the snow day we were at a friend's house with the TV on when it launched. I was in the kitchen making hot cocoa when my friend yelled, "Hey, guys! The space shuttle blew up!" We said, "Shut up, Charles," and ignored his protestations to come in and watch. When we finished making the hot cocoa, we finally saw that, sadly, he wasn't making shit up this time.
The dollar's rise has been gradual, and in fact it hasn't really moved much in the last year. And yet Apple's gross margin has been stable at around 40%. I just don't see the effect you describe.
Apple's margins have been going strong at 40% for many, many quarters. Sure, US employees are now paid more, but Apple is also making more from the US market. The margin overseas remains constant as both the production cost and the selling price move down together. Again, I see no margin pressure and this is a non-issue unless you care more about absolute dollar revenue than gross margins. Which would be stupid.
He's proposing more than simply nationalizing certain industries. He plans to remove most of their revenue stream and use taxes on everything else instead. It's not a matter of, "Well, the government can do education better." It's more like, "Education should be free and the government will run it.".
Personally, I think education needs more competition rather than less, and I think that part of the reason health care is so screwed up is government subsidizing employers' plans for so long. Still, Sanders' point of view is not totally asinine - the data can be interpreted many ways.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter because his plans have no chance at all in the congress.
Are you really blaming Verizon for shitty contractors? I sure hope I don't get blamed for all the crappy contractors I've hired over the years. Wouldn't have hired them if I knew they were shitty.
All capitalism does is allocate resources. It happens to be the most efficient means we have discovered to do so, but it still has drawbacks. One of them is, of course, wild swings in prices as the market seeks the most efficient balance of supply and demand. Sometimes this behavior is acceptable, and sometimes we actively choose to short-circuit it because it is not. An example would be food. We have policies which deliberately result in an excess of food. Even a perfect market would result in famine when supply is interrupted, and the wild swings that typify a real-life market would make (and in the past have made) this even worse.
In short, there is no concept of "better" or "equal and fair" in capitalism. If people start to demand slaves, capitalism will happily deliver the most efficient slave market possible.
I'm not sure what you are arguing. I've already said that I don't agree with his economic policy, so you won't get much argument from me on that score.
As for him visiting communist countries when he was mayor of Burlington, so what? He's never advocated communism here in the US. He's not yammering on about Marx and the dialectic - he's talking about the Nordic countries.
But at the end of the day, it doesn't much matter. His economic policies are a complete non-starter. I don't even think they'd get through a Democratic-controlled congress. His plan to stick everyone on Medicare is similarly going nowhere. On some other issues, he is pretty compelling: limiting the lobbying rights of corporations and unions, curtailing government surveillance, and his moderate stance on guns.
To what are you referring? You mean year after year of economic growth? I think you should consider that growth can be driven in part by productivity and efficiency improvements - not just consumption of natural resources.
Again, it's a matter of degrees. His definition of "well-regulated" is a lot stronger than mine. My point was exactly what you are getting at: he's a socialist, not a communist.
It's a matter of degree, which is my point. European socialists advocate a strong safety net, with strong government pensions and government-provided healthcare. The primary purpose of corporations - in a European socialist's view - are to provide jobs.
This is different - but not so different - from the traditional American model. Which model is more conducive to economic growth is - IMHO - self-evident. But not all people feel that economic growth is worth the drawbacks. I can respect that, even if I think they are mistaken.
I'll bite. I'm far from a Sanders supporter, but he's better than Hillary on the Democrat's side. He's not a communist, he's an avowed European-style socialist. Now, I'm not in agreement with him that European socialism is the way to go - I think that well-regulated capitalism means more economic growth. With that said, the difference is small - we're talking a percentage point of growth per year or something on that order. That's significant in a mature economy, but not worth demonizing the guy. He's not exactly "dangerous" economically - not one of his socialist policies is going to be taken up in congress.
He has his positives, too. For a Democrat, he has a very reasonable attitude towards guns. He also has a strong sense of civil liberties, which lack in all of the other candidates on both sides except for Paul.
We are throwing billions down the well right this very minute, with almost consensus that our current system is lacking. We spend more than almost any other country on education, measured in both absolute terms and per capita, yet we are almost universally unhappy with our education system.
What are you going to measure to see if this matters?
How do you measure educational success now? You don't. Common Core was a step in this direction, but people turn out not to actually want the goal of "pass a grueling set of standardized tests". Unless you can hammer down a concrete set of goals that schools are supposed to meet, you will never have anything approaching a scientific (or even "evidence-based") educational system.
Education as an academic discipline is a jump from one fad to another, all based on philosophical arguments with only occasional, unconvincing case studies as "evidence".
I have nothing against the "choose your own path" process that you see as beneficial. But I see nothing to support it, either. Not when you (or anyone, it seems) can't even tell me what the goal of primary education is.
We have a huge f'n country with thousands of school districts. Proclaiming "it wouldn't" without any evidence is absurd. To both the proponents and skeptics - just put it to the test. Do some randomized trials and see what kind of outcomes you get. I know, in education we like to philosophize instead of embracing any kind of scientific process, but really it is getting old.
Humans, at the top of the food chain, do tend to concentrate heavy metals though. I think that is one argument against composting and using human waste for farming, along with the obvious pathogen concerns.
Yeah, they sell retrofit "add-a-wire" kits. But normally it's four for heating(1) and cooling(2), fan (3) and ground(4). The 5th would give you 24V for the thermostat. If you don't care about running the fan separately, you can give that one up and run 24V over it instead. I have to weigh the hardship of a new set of batteries every 3 years vs. installing the add-a-wire kit:)
I know you can still purchase an old-fashioned thermostat, it's just that you don't see nearly as many of them anymore. It's not like they are illegal - just uncommon in new installations.
The "warmer-cooler" knob sucks because all it does is slide open an orifice between the freezer compartment and the refrigerator. It is completely open-loop (that's why they say "wait 24 hours after adjustment"). Your refrigerator sounds like a PITA, but that doesn't damn the whole digital temperature control concept. My overpriced monstrosity has separate cooling systems for the fridge and freezer and keeps a very accurate temperature. I would not recommend an overpriced monstrosity to anyone, but for 1/3 the price you can still get digital temperature control - which is absolutely fantastic.
Slashdot Mirror
We can only hope that 3-D printers are someday as safe as chemistry sets.
Apple is an exporter and an importer. They are importing goods to the US (and exporting them from China) - on those units, they see an increase in profit. On units sold in China, the units are domestically produced and the profit margin remains the same. On units sold in Europe, Apple is an exporter (from China) and an importer to Europe and the profit margins will be at the mercy of the Euro-Renmimbi exchange rate. On that, they lost some profit margin recently. It appears to be a wash, since Apple has kept their margins at around 40% for many consecutive quarters.
I don't know why you say that manufacturing costs are not a factor. It seems like you are assuming that their contracts are all in dollars. That seems very unlikely. More likely with a business their size, they have contracts in many different currencies and so currency fluctuations balance out.
Their revenue in dollars is almost certainly down. But that's not a number that investors should really be looking at unless it does something remarkable.
In South Jersey we also had snow, so school was let out early. We were supposed to watch the launch at school, but between the launch delays and the snow day we were at a friend's house with the TV on when it launched. I was in the kitchen making hot cocoa when my friend yelled, "Hey, guys! The space shuttle blew up!" We said, "Shut up, Charles," and ignored his protestations to come in and watch. When we finished making the hot cocoa, we finally saw that, sadly, he wasn't making shit up this time.
The dollar's rise has been gradual, and in fact it hasn't really moved much in the last year. And yet Apple's gross margin has been stable at around 40%. I just don't see the effect you describe.
Apple's margins have been going strong at 40% for many, many quarters. Sure, US employees are now paid more, but Apple is also making more from the US market. The margin overseas remains constant as both the production cost and the selling price move down together. Again, I see no margin pressure and this is a non-issue unless you care more about absolute dollar revenue than gross margins. Which would be stupid.
A strong dollar also reduces manufacturing costs, since manufacturing is overseas. This improves margins. I'm not seeing the issue.
But they can't print their way out of debt like the US - they are in the Euro.
He's proposing more than simply nationalizing certain industries. He plans to remove most of their revenue stream and use taxes on everything else instead. It's not a matter of, "Well, the government can do education better." It's more like, "Education should be free and the government will run it.".
Personally, I think education needs more competition rather than less, and I think that part of the reason health care is so screwed up is government subsidizing employers' plans for so long. Still, Sanders' point of view is not totally asinine - the data can be interpreted many ways.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter because his plans have no chance at all in the congress.
Are you really blaming Verizon for shitty contractors? I sure hope I don't get blamed for all the crappy contractors I've hired over the years. Wouldn't have hired them if I knew they were shitty.
I'm sorry but I can't agree with that.
All capitalism does is allocate resources. It happens to be the most efficient means we have discovered to do so, but it still has drawbacks. One of them is, of course, wild swings in prices as the market seeks the most efficient balance of supply and demand. Sometimes this behavior is acceptable, and sometimes we actively choose to short-circuit it because it is not. An example would be food. We have policies which deliberately result in an excess of food. Even a perfect market would result in famine when supply is interrupted, and the wild swings that typify a real-life market would make (and in the past have made) this even worse.
In short, there is no concept of "better" or "equal and fair" in capitalism. If people start to demand slaves, capitalism will happily deliver the most efficient slave market possible.
I'm not sure what you are arguing. I've already said that I don't agree with his economic policy, so you won't get much argument from me on that score.
As for him visiting communist countries when he was mayor of Burlington, so what? He's never advocated communism here in the US. He's not yammering on about Marx and the dialectic - he's talking about the Nordic countries.
But at the end of the day, it doesn't much matter. His economic policies are a complete non-starter. I don't even think they'd get through a Democratic-controlled congress. His plan to stick everyone on Medicare is similarly going nowhere. On some other issues, he is pretty compelling: limiting the lobbying rights of corporations and unions, curtailing government surveillance, and his moderate stance on guns.
To what are you referring? You mean year after year of economic growth? I think you should consider that growth can be driven in part by productivity and efficiency improvements - not just consumption of natural resources.
Again, it's a matter of degrees. His definition of "well-regulated" is a lot stronger than mine. My point was exactly what you are getting at: he's a socialist, not a communist.
It's a matter of degree, which is my point. European socialists advocate a strong safety net, with strong government pensions and government-provided healthcare. The primary purpose of corporations - in a European socialist's view - are to provide jobs.
This is different - but not so different - from the traditional American model. Which model is more conducive to economic growth is - IMHO - self-evident. But not all people feel that economic growth is worth the drawbacks. I can respect that, even if I think they are mistaken.
I'll bite. I'm far from a Sanders supporter, but he's better than Hillary on the Democrat's side. He's not a communist, he's an avowed European-style socialist. Now, I'm not in agreement with him that European socialism is the way to go - I think that well-regulated capitalism means more economic growth. With that said, the difference is small - we're talking a percentage point of growth per year or something on that order. That's significant in a mature economy, but not worth demonizing the guy. He's not exactly "dangerous" economically - not one of his socialist policies is going to be taken up in congress.
He has his positives, too. For a Democrat, he has a very reasonable attitude towards guns. He also has a strong sense of civil liberties, which lack in all of the other candidates on both sides except for Paul.
We are throwing billions down the well right this very minute, with almost consensus that our current system is lacking. We spend more than almost any other country on education, measured in both absolute terms and per capita, yet we are almost universally unhappy with our education system.
But go on, defend the status quo.
What are you going to measure to see if this matters?
How do you measure educational success now? You don't. Common Core was a step in this direction, but people turn out not to actually want the goal of "pass a grueling set of standardized tests". Unless you can hammer down a concrete set of goals that schools are supposed to meet, you will never have anything approaching a scientific (or even "evidence-based") educational system.
Education as an academic discipline is a jump from one fad to another, all based on philosophical arguments with only occasional, unconvincing case studies as "evidence".
I have nothing against the "choose your own path" process that you see as beneficial. But I see nothing to support it, either. Not when you (or anyone, it seems) can't even tell me what the goal of primary education is.
We have a huge f'n country with thousands of school districts. Proclaiming "it wouldn't" without any evidence is absurd. To both the proponents and skeptics - just put it to the test. Do some randomized trials and see what kind of outcomes you get. I know, in education we like to philosophize instead of embracing any kind of scientific process, but really it is getting old.
Evident by being a corpse, you mean? :p
I don't mean a lethal dose. It's just like eating tuna.
Would vegans refuse to eat veggies grown from human content compost?
They already eat food fertilized with animal waste and keep carnivores as pets. Don't necessarily look for consistency.
Humans, at the top of the food chain, do tend to concentrate heavy metals though. I think that is one argument against composting and using human waste for farming, along with the obvious pathogen concerns.
Yeah, they sell retrofit "add-a-wire" kits. But normally it's four for heating(1) and cooling(2), fan (3) and ground(4). The 5th would give you 24V for the thermostat. If you don't care about running the fan separately, you can give that one up and run 24V over it instead. I have to weigh the hardship of a new set of batteries every 3 years vs. installing the add-a-wire kit :)
Yeah, some of us aren't so lucky to have 5 wires to the thermostat :)
I know you can still purchase an old-fashioned thermostat, it's just that you don't see nearly as many of them anymore. It's not like they are illegal - just uncommon in new installations.
The "warmer-cooler" knob sucks because all it does is slide open an orifice between the freezer compartment and the refrigerator. It is completely open-loop (that's why they say "wait 24 hours after adjustment"). Your refrigerator sounds like a PITA, but that doesn't damn the whole digital temperature control concept. My overpriced monstrosity has separate cooling systems for the fridge and freezer and keeps a very accurate temperature. I would not recommend an overpriced monstrosity to anyone, but for 1/3 the price you can still get digital temperature control - which is absolutely fantastic.
How is it bullshit and hogwash if they've been there for 45 years? And by your own admission, they only exist because you "resisted the moronic fury".