Well, let me ask you a slightly different question. How much more expensive would a trunk panel be if it were a battery?
Cars are moving towards carbon fiber and other exotic materials today because of the reduction in weight and thus improvement in MPG. So let’s assume your car already had a fiber carbon trunk which is going to be expensive to repair. If the marginal cost to add the battery function is low then you would still be better off.
I have a partial answer. No – you are comparing apples to oranges.
The Tesla – and all other electric vehicles – uses chemical batteries. When chemical are bashed about they can burn.
This technology uses ultra-capacitors. So jostling them about won’t cause a chemical reaction. Not sure what will happen – just that it’s not going to be a chemical reaction.
Plus it helps with communications. Customers and end users are not used to framing their requirements in a technical fashion.
On the other hand I am not sure you should study “business” – that covers a pretty wide range of activities. Figure out what you want to do. Running a team is one thing, marketing is another.
Lastly, if you go for a MBA find a good night school that requires their students to work full time. The “full time” might seem to be an odd requirement but it means your fellow students will be your peers - mid career professionals. Less theory in a vacuum and more practical applications of theory in the real world.
For example my local library will gladly hand over all of their records to the policy when asked. They also destroy all of their records the instant they don’t need them anymore. So beyond what you currently have checked out there is not much for them to turn over.
I will point out that “how much business” and “how much profit” is a subjective and complex subject. You have to assume that both countries have the same accounting standards, same type of taxes, etc. Even if they do they can skew the results to the low tax country.
Which is not to say that I am against this. It would eliminate a major class of loopholes but it would take major coordination between states. If anybody can do this it would be the EU. But that would only solve the issue between EU states, not between the EU and other states.
That does not address the contradictory tax rules. What if Somewhereakstan thinks you earned $35k but the US thinks you earned 25k? Different tax jurisdictions have different rules on when and how profits are recognized. Different rules on short term, ordinary, passive income, etc. Those are the exploits I was talking about.
On to your point. Some tax schemes work that way. Most don't. There are 3 common methods of computing foreign tax and you example did not cover any of them. I would be hard pressed to think of a single case where your example would work and your scheme has one of the the highest tax drags out there. Most use tax credits instead.
I can't cite anything right now. The example I am thinking about was about Ford in the 1970s.I am doing this from memory.
Briton's corporate tax was base on residency (were the profit was earned) and was north of 60%.
America's corporate tax was based on domicile (where the company was headquarter) and was north of 40%.
So Ford's plants in England was being tax twice on the same profit. At one pint I think it hit 105%. Part of the answer was tax credits which are rational. However America's fix for that was not to switch to a residency system – which is what the rest of the world is on – but to introduce some kludges. A example is that foreign profits are not taxed until they are repatriated to the US which encourages corporations to warehouse vast amounts of cash overseas.
I don't think so. The tax loophole being closed was for “stateless” profit being generated by intangibles. Its purpose was to lower Apple’s taxes worldwide. So it going to affect some accountants and lawyers but it will not affect “real workers” doing “real work”
The reason is that higher taxes - all things being equal - results in lower investment and thus fewer jobs. Of course not all things are equal. Corporations want high quality government services, such as infrastructure, a education workforce, etc. So it is more of a value thing and a absolute ting. (Still, a consumption tax would be more efficient and kill less jobs then income and corporate taxes.)
When a company does business in two different countries you often have overlapping and contradictory tax rules. Think of it as a compatibility problem. I have seen cases where tax rates go over 100%. In order to fix this broken system a set of kludges are put in place. Which leads to exploitable situations.
Most industrial processes burn at a higher temperature and have filters – both which reduce the type soot which is big and black. And soot from a simple campfire can circle the earth. Not much mind you but it is the big black stuff.
Sorry that I can't cite anything but I don't have time to look up all of the articles. There was one brilliant one. These will have to do.
Well, maybe. The impacts of various items on climate change are not well understood. Each year something new is figured out and models have to be updated.
According to your chart aerosols are a major factor in cooling – not warming. It's 8 years on and scientific opinion is now it is believed to be a minor factor.
As for the increase in warm in oceans, don't worry about the crust. The crust can take it. It is the other possible effects that you should worry about. And we don't know enough about the ocean to know what will happen.
Considering that there is now more forest in North America today than when Europeans first arrived, I am not sure what your point is.
Suburbs are great for trees. Every house has 2 or 3. Owners actively planting them. Most cities have a urban forestry division, If you want a obvious example just look at any great plain city with satellite imagery. There should be no trees there yet that is all that you see. We can debate about old growth, the biodiversity, and habitat but the number of trees has grown.
And the main post also assumes that CO2 is the only driver in global warming. I have seen studies that suggest that soot from poor people's cooking stoves are just as much to blame. (Soot is very dark so is absorbs a lot of the sun's rays. Glaciers are shinny so they tend to reflect heat back into space. When soot lands on glaciers it darkens the glacier, causing them to shrink. A good example of a positive feedback loop. )
Well, no. The Dot Bomb was caused by wild irrational exuberance. I have yet to meet a government bureaucracy that was characterized as having âoewild irrational exuberanceâ.
And I think there is an important difference. If a company has poor customer relations people will go elsewhere or start up their company. The old companies will go bankrupt. The amount of damage is limited.
Government bureaucracies are different. If they fail they don't go out of business. Often another layer of regulation and bureaucracy are laid on top of the old so the whole thing grows. (I also think it ties to incentives and who chooses to work for government. In business risk generally have huge upsides with limited downsides. In government that is reversed. Risk taking is meet with limited upsides and serious downsides.)
What hostile minority? It is the executive branch that was âoeexecutingâ the plan. Considering that this is seen as Obama's greatest achievement and Obama gets the pick the staff I can't think of a minority opposed.
If you are talking about the backseat drivers - the Republicans - well congress has oversight but no powers in this case. Sigh. No. This falls squarely on the shoulders of Obama.
On a more serious note, since gold is dense (and soft) it is harder to debase. Any base metals mixed in will result in a lighter coin. If you are good you can tell without even just by weighing it in your hand.
Yes it does. IIRC about 2% of gold goes into these useful things. The rest goes into stockpiles or jewelry (which for many people is a stockpile.)
In fact we could shut down all gold mines today and use our stockpile of gold for the next thousand years. So in that sense gold is actually more plentiful then copper or iron.
So I don't think the value of gold is being driven on how useful it is in manufacturing. It is valuable because people deem it is valuable - much like fiat money. (but I will grant that fiat money is easier to debase then gold.)
I don't think either one of use believes ignorance is bliss. I would recommend reading Barbarians at the Gate by Bryan Burrough and John Helyar. It is an easy, nonacademic work. If you want something heavier pick up the Cadbury Report.
You mention golden parachutes and Mit Romney in the same paragraph as if they are related. Please inform me how. I can't think of a single case where Romney received a golden parachute â" in fact I can find examples to the contrary where he personally left money on the table.
So let's talk about golden parachutes. In corporate governance there is something called a "Agency issue." The board hires a CEO to maximize value for the shareholders but that might not be what motivates a CEO. They might like the power of their position or feather their own nest. How do you convince a CEO that the right decision is to fire themselves? A properly constructed golden parachute can resolve that issue. If you have a better idea let me know.
Now on to Romney time a Bane Capital. Read up on Schumpeter's theory of "Creative Destruction". Then read up on Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway. When he became the CEO they produced cloth. Buffet fired everybody and closed down the mills. Now where are they? Now find me a case where Romney raided a health growing company for a quick buck? You might notice that Bane specialized in investing in high risk situations, many of them turnarounds of sick companies. It's kind of par for the course.
And at this point I will get off my high horse. There are provisions in the tax code that encourage short term profit over long term greed â" eh I mean growth - that I dislike and Bane did use some of those loopholes.
Take a look at the trends. European CEO pay is catching up to âoeAnglo Saxonâ standards.
And while they are paid less then also underperform. Specifically they deliver lower risk adjusted returns on their stocks. And considering that the stockholders via the board are the ones to hire them that looks like a fair measure. Bond holders tend to do better. For workers it is a mixed bag. For older workers it good that they have higher pay now. For younger ones it is bad to be in a company that is steadily falling behind its global competitors.
And I would not be that concerned about shareholder pay on CEOs. I have yet to see a decent scheme that works where the shareholders are wildly diverse. Either their non-binding which means that have no teeth. Or they are binding but only gets used when the shareholders are mad about share performance. In that case it is more of a vote of confidence thing. But unlike a vote of confidence new elections for the board members are not called.
FYI my issue is not with high CEO pay. Picking and incentivizing the right people the right way is hard. What bugs me is weak boards that write golden tickets to CEOs and accept mediocre performance.
That would work better for the solids then for the gases. At this point the gases would be dissolved into the beer. Think about how long it takes for soda to go flat in an open cup. In this particular case I would think that air pressure would be higher and the exposed surface area would be lower. Both of these would work against the extracting the CO2 from the liquid. I suspect there are better options out there.
If it is only to test if yeast will do their magic in space I would guess that the entire experiment would be self-contained and that the glass walls would be strong enough to contain the expected pressure.
I think we want to differentiate between "competent" and "mastery". Most jobs take longer than a year to master. If it does take a year to master it's probably a low skilled job and thus low productivity and wages. Most mid to high skill jobs take 7 years to master and I am counting both formal education and the necessary work experience.
Which brings us to the point the OP was trying to make. If you are in your 50s in a declining industry you have 2 broad options. The first is to retain your current high pay and ride the industry down until it goes bust. The second choice is to retrain yourself which means throwing away 20 years of human capital and starting at the bottom rung of your new profession. By the time you get true mastery of your new profession and start earning top wages again you will be in your 60s.
Generally speaking revolutions in production have been very rough for middle age middle class insiders. Distributive technology tends to destroy their human capital. Have some empathy for them. Now the best choice of society, in my opinion, is to move to the new state as fast as we can. It is the price we pay for rapid progress. We should soften the blow of transformation but not slow it down.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, let me ask you a slightly different question. How much more expensive would a trunk panel be if it were a battery?
Cars are moving towards carbon fiber and other exotic materials today because of the reduction in weight and thus improvement in MPG. So let’s assume your car already had a fiber carbon trunk which is going to be expensive to repair. If the marginal cost to add the battery function is low then you would still be better off.
I have a partial answer. No – you are comparing apples to oranges.
The Tesla – and all other electric vehicles – uses chemical batteries. When chemical are bashed about they can burn.
This technology uses ultra-capacitors. So jostling them about won’t cause a chemical reaction. Not sure what will happen – just that it’s not going to be a chemical reaction.
Plus it helps with communications. Customers and end users are not used to framing their requirements in a technical fashion.
On the other hand I am not sure you should study “business” – that covers a pretty wide range of activities. Figure out what you want to do. Running a team is one thing, marketing is another.
Lastly, if you go for a MBA find a good night school that requires their students to work full time. The “full time” might seem to be an odd requirement but it means your fellow students will be your peers - mid career professionals. Less theory in a vacuum and more practical applications of theory in the real world.
Depends on the library.
For example my local library will gladly hand over all of their records to the policy when asked. They also destroy all of their records the instant they don’t need them anymore. So beyond what you currently have checked out there is not much for them to turn over.
Soulskill, what biographies did you read and which ones would you recomend?
No, the first computers were RNA strands. DNA is the ROM.
I will point out that “how much business” and “how much profit” is a subjective and complex subject. You have to assume that both countries have the same accounting standards, same type of taxes, etc. Even if they do they can skew the results to the low tax country.
Which is not to say that I am against this. It would eliminate a major class of loopholes but it would take major coordination between states. If anybody can do this it would be the EU. But that would only solve the issue between EU states, not between the EU and other states.
That does not address the contradictory tax rules. What if Somewhereakstan thinks you earned $35k but the US thinks you earned 25k? Different tax jurisdictions have different rules on when and how profits are recognized. Different rules on short term, ordinary, passive income, etc. Those are the exploits I was talking about.
On to your point. Some tax schemes work that way. Most don't. There are 3 common methods of computing foreign tax and you example did not cover any of them. I would be hard pressed to think of a single case where your example would work and your scheme has one of the the highest tax drags out there. Most use tax credits instead.
I can't cite anything right now. The example I am thinking about was about Ford in the 1970s.I am doing this from memory.
Briton's corporate tax was base on residency (were the profit was earned) and was north of 60%.
America's corporate tax was based on domicile (where the company was headquarter) and was north of 40%.
So Ford's plants in England was being tax twice on the same profit. At one pint I think it hit 105%. Part of the answer was tax credits which are rational. However America's fix for that was not to switch to a residency system – which is what the rest of the world is on – but to introduce some kludges. A example is that foreign profits are not taxed until they are repatriated to the US which encourages corporations to warehouse vast amounts of cash overseas.
I don't think so. The tax loophole being closed was for “stateless” profit being generated by intangibles. Its purpose was to lower Apple’s taxes worldwide. So it going to affect some accountants and lawyers but it will not affect “real workers” doing “real work”
The reason is that higher taxes - all things being equal - results in lower investment and thus fewer jobs. Of course not all things are equal. Corporations want high quality government services, such as infrastructure, a education workforce, etc. So it is more of a value thing and a absolute ting. (Still, a consumption tax would be more efficient and kill less jobs then income and corporate taxes.)
Which they kind of have to.
When a company does business in two different countries you often have overlapping and contradictory tax rules. Think of it as a compatibility problem. I have seen cases where tax rates go over 100%. In order to fix this broken system a set of kludges are put in place. Which leads to exploitable situations.
It has a larger impact then you might think.
Most industrial processes burn at a higher temperature and have filters – both which reduce the type soot which is big and black. And soot from a simple campfire can circle the earth. Not much mind you but it is the big black stuff.
Sorry that I can't cite anything but I don't have time to look up all of the articles. There was one brilliant one. These will have to do.
http://www.economist.com/node/17519770
http://www.economist.com/node/18175423
Well, maybe. The impacts of various items on climate change are not well understood. Each year something new is figured out and models have to be updated.
According to your chart aerosols are a major factor in cooling – not warming. It's 8 years on and scientific opinion is now it is believed to be a minor factor.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21587194-researchers-are-beginning-understand-aerosols-and-clouds-better-result
As for the increase in warm in oceans, don't worry about the crust. The crust can take it. It is the other possible effects that you should worry about. And we don't know enough about the ocean to know what will happen.
Considering that there is now more forest in North America today than when Europeans first arrived, I am not sure what your point is.
Suburbs are great for trees. Every house has 2 or 3. Owners actively planting them. Most cities have a urban forestry division, If you want a obvious example just look at any great plain city with satellite imagery. There should be no trees there yet that is all that you see. We can debate about old growth, the biodiversity, and habitat but the number of trees has grown.
And the main post also assumes that CO2 is the only driver in global warming. I have seen studies that suggest that soot from poor people's cooking stoves are just as much to blame. (Soot is very dark so is absorbs a lot of the sun's rays. Glaciers are shinny so they tend to reflect heat back into space. When soot lands on glaciers it darkens the glacier, causing them to shrink. A good example of a positive feedback loop. )
Well, no. The Dot Bomb was caused by wild irrational exuberance. I have yet to meet a government bureaucracy that was characterized as having âoewild irrational exuberanceâ.
And I think there is an important difference. If a company has poor customer relations people will go elsewhere or start up their company. The old companies will go bankrupt. The amount of damage is limited.
Government bureaucracies are different. If they fail they don't go out of business. Often another layer of regulation and bureaucracy are laid on top of the old so the whole thing grows. (I also think it ties to incentives and who chooses to work for government. In business risk generally have huge upsides with limited downsides. In government that is reversed. Risk taking is meet with limited upsides and serious downsides.)
What hostile minority? It is the executive branch that was âoeexecutingâ the plan. Considering that this is seen as Obama's greatest achievement and Obama gets the pick the staff I can't think of a minority opposed.
If you are talking about the backseat drivers - the Republicans - well congress has oversight but no powers in this case. Sigh. No. This falls squarely on the shoulders of Obama.
Well, it makes a little sense. Less dense could mean a 43 pound coin.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/11/29/131665627/here-s-what-a-43-pound-coin-looks-like .http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/11/29/131665627/here-s-what-a-43-pound-coin-looks-like
On a more serious note, since gold is dense (and soft) it is harder to debase. Any base metals mixed in will result in a lighter coin. If you are good you can tell without even just by weighing it in your hand.
I assume this means the people working on important but not urgent projects are being furloughed.
Approval of remolding current and build future plants and such - or does somebody have a better idea?
Yes it does. IIRC about 2% of gold goes into these useful things. The rest goes into stockpiles or jewelry (which for many people is a stockpile.)
In fact we could shut down all gold mines today and use our stockpile of gold for the next thousand years. So in that sense gold is actually more plentiful then copper or iron.
So I don't think the value of gold is being driven on how useful it is in manufacturing. It is valuable because people deem it is valuable - much like fiat money. (but I will grant that fiat money is easier to debase then gold.)
I don't think either one of use believes ignorance is bliss. I would recommend reading Barbarians at the Gate by Bryan Burrough and John Helyar. It is an easy, nonacademic work. If you want something heavier pick up the Cadbury Report.
You mention golden parachutes and Mit Romney in the same paragraph as if they are related. Please inform me how. I can't think of a single case where Romney received a golden parachute â" in fact I can find examples to the contrary where he personally left money on the table.
So let's talk about golden parachutes. In corporate governance there is something called a "Agency issue." The board hires a CEO to maximize value for the shareholders but that might not be what motivates a CEO. They might like the power of their position or feather their own nest. How do you convince a CEO that the right decision is to fire themselves? A properly constructed golden parachute can resolve that issue. If you have a better idea let me know.
Now on to Romney time a Bane Capital. Read up on Schumpeter's theory of "Creative Destruction". Then read up on Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway. When he became the CEO they produced cloth. Buffet fired everybody and closed down the mills. Now where are they? Now find me a case where Romney raided a health growing company for a quick buck? You might notice that Bane specialized in investing in high risk situations, many of them turnarounds of sick companies. It's kind of par for the course.
And at this point I will get off my high horse. There are provisions in the tax code that encourage short term profit over long term greed â" eh I mean growth - that I dislike and Bane did use some of those loopholes.
Take a look at the trends. European CEO pay is catching up to âoeAnglo Saxonâ standards.
And while they are paid less then also underperform. Specifically they deliver lower risk adjusted returns on their stocks. And considering that the stockholders via the board are the ones to hire them that looks like a fair measure. Bond holders tend to do better. For workers it is a mixed bag. For older workers it good that they have higher pay now. For younger ones it is bad to be in a company that is steadily falling behind its global competitors.
And I would not be that concerned about shareholder pay on CEOs. I have yet to see a decent scheme that works where the shareholders are wildly diverse. Either their non-binding which means that have no teeth. Or they are binding but only gets used when the shareholders are mad about share performance. In that case it is more of a vote of confidence thing. But unlike a vote of confidence new elections for the board members are not called.
FYI my issue is not with high CEO pay. Picking and incentivizing the right people the right way is hard. What bugs me is weak boards that write golden tickets to CEOs and accept mediocre performance.
That would work better for the solids then for the gases. At this point the gases would be dissolved into the beer. Think about how long it takes for soda to go flat in an open cup. In this particular case I would think that air pressure would be higher and the exposed surface area would be lower. Both of these would work against the extracting the CO2 from the liquid. I suspect there are better options out there.
If it is only to test if yeast will do their magic in space I would guess that the entire experiment would be self-contained and that the glass walls would be strong enough to contain the expected pressure.
I think we want to differentiate between "competent" and "mastery". Most jobs take longer than a year to master. If it does take a year to master it's probably a low skilled job and thus low productivity and wages. Most mid to high skill jobs take 7 years to master and I am counting both formal education and the necessary work experience.
Which brings us to the point the OP was trying to make. If you are in your 50s in a declining industry you have 2 broad options. The first is to retain your current high pay and ride the industry down until it goes bust. The second choice is to retrain yourself which means throwing away 20 years of human capital and starting at the bottom rung of your new profession. By the time you get true mastery of your new profession and start earning top wages again you will be in your 60s.
Generally speaking revolutions in production have been very rough for middle age middle class insiders. Distributive technology tends to destroy their human capital. Have some empathy for them. Now the best choice of society, in my opinion, is to move to the new state as fast as we can. It is the price we pay for rapid progress. We should soften the blow of transformation but not slow it down.
Thatâ(TM)s antidotal evidence and hindsight is 20/20.
IIRC about a 1/3 of the CEO of the S&P 500 are worth what they paid. That is they brought more value than their paycheck.
For the other 2/3rds you can't tell.