If corporations could raise prices because of higher taxes, they already would have raised prices without the higher taxes. If they raise them and sales go down, then there's no profit to pay taxes on.
As you know, one of the axioms of consumer economies is that prices rise to whatever the market will bear, and no more. As long as there are two or more companies competing, higher taxes cannot mean higher prices. Remember, by definition, a tax on profits does not affect the cost of production.
Oh wow, yeah! It's the feeling of the federal government actually doing a good thing.
Not so fast. It depends upon which federal judge the case gets referred to. If it's one of Trump's recent federal bench nominations, it could very well go before an extremist judge who has never tried a case before. I mean, there are some real winners.
This could also be a way for Ajit "Cream" Pai and the FCC to pretend they had nothing to do with a merger by kicking the can down to a court. Absolutely nothing that this federal government does should be trusted. Just ask Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats who had to find out from a reporter today that his boss invited Vlad Putin, a guy who attacked the United States, to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom.
I'm surprised that the California health bored hasn't demanded that there be a warning on the labels that Cesium-137 may be present in the wines and is known to cause cancer.
I know, right? Those crazy libs. Everybody knows that Cesium-137 is perfectly safe.
For example, if they discovered that a politician had a drug/alcohol problem they would not report on it...especially if they were in a treatment program.
Are you suggesting Donald Trump should be in treatment for his pee problem?
I'm not really sure what "media protocol" has to do with a foreign government having compromising dirt on a US president for the purpose of blackmail.
No, thatâ(TM)s the conversation rate of gold relative to other currencies. The purchasing power of gold is remarkably stable. An ounce of gold will buy you the same value of goods and services as it did 100 years ago, regardless of how those prices are represented in other currencies.
I just tested your hypothesis and tried to buy a MacBook Pro with gold bars. They laughed me out of the Apple Store.
Gold is not immune to inflation. The price of gold has been going down under inflationary pressure lately. Gold, silver and platinum have been dipping since the GOP tax cut bill went into effect. And judging by the volatility, nobody's looking to start buying any time soon.
Android is certainly free. Play services and Google apps are not. While the vast majority of non-Chinese Android users use these apps, Android is still useful without them.
OK, I accept that. But now in the context of this story. What is Google talking about making "not free" if the EU unbundles Chrome?
And how does it work, taking something that is free and making it not free? Do they just say, "Android is ours and we're changing the license"? I'm genuinely curious.
I'll wait for you to logically trace your statement back through where profits come from, which is revenue; and where revenue comes from, which is consumers.
The money is from consumers, but it's not taxed until it is transformed alchemically, into profits.
My point is, that the notion that "rising taxes means rising prices" is provably not true. That's where you're going with this, right? "Consumers pay all taxes as higher prices." The problem is that you will learn in any economics course that just is not true except in the case of monopolies. And if we have nothing but monopolies, we're so far gone that all talk of "consumers" and "taxes" is of no value because we're all fucked.
See, the thing about pricing consumer goods is this: If a corporation could charge more, they'd already be charging more. Taxes on their profits have no effect on their production costs.
OK, I think I get iit. If I understand correctly, in making the AOSP open, they only gave away the parts of Android that nobody really cares about. But now,, according to this article, if the EU forces Google to unbundle the parts of Android that people actually care about, it might decide it doesn't really want AOSP to be open after all. Or is that wrong and AOSP would still be free and Google would start charging somehow for Chrome and Google search?
OK. I'm confused again. Can you give something away as "completely free" and then take it back? What's the part that Google is threatening to make "not free"?
Depends on how they're structured. It can be done so only profits are taxed. This is the right way, since profit itself is nothing but a tax on productivity. This is why capital gains taxes are so important.
If the companies (AKA corporate cancers) were failing to extract our money, then they would not be paying the google for the advertising.
Naturally. In a consumer economy, all the money comes from consumers. Every penny. Investors wouldn't stick around if they didn't believe consumers would eventually pay for everything and then some.
That's the whole idea of a consumer-based economy. We pay all the bills.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the great song lyrics of all time:
https://youtu.be/CQE8LVamYFk
Do you rent it out for parties?
I just tried to get ahead of the curve and register "peetape.ru" but apparently someone already beat me to it.
Yeah, about that.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19...
Easy.
If corporations could raise prices because of higher taxes, they already would have raised prices without the higher taxes. If they raise them and sales go down, then there's no profit to pay taxes on.
As you know, one of the axioms of consumer economies is that prices rise to whatever the market will bear, and no more. As long as there are two or more companies competing, higher taxes cannot mean higher prices. Remember, by definition, a tax on profits does not affect the cost of production.
Not so fast. It depends upon which federal judge the case gets referred to. If it's one of Trump's recent federal bench nominations, it could very well go before an extremist judge who has never tried a case before. I mean, there are some real winners.
This could also be a way for Ajit "Cream" Pai and the FCC to pretend they had nothing to do with a merger by kicking the can down to a court. Absolutely nothing that this federal government does should be trusted. Just ask Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats who had to find out from a reporter today that his boss invited Vlad Putin, a guy who attacked the United States, to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom.
I'm pretty sure your wooosh got woooshed and you don't even realize it.
5-year olds who are afraid of a big wet baby president with late-stage dementia.
I'm not worried about governments. Wait until the NRA, on Moscow's orders, starts advocating for selling killer robots with nukes at Wal-Mart.
I know, right? Those crazy libs. Everybody knows that Cesium-137 is perfectly safe.
And a killer robot with a nuke? Just saying.
They won't have to.
Are you suggesting Donald Trump should be in treatment for his pee problem?
I'm not really sure what "media protocol" has to do with a foreign government having compromising dirt on a US president for the purpose of blackmail.
I just tested your hypothesis and tried to buy a MacBook Pro with gold bars. They laughed me out of the Apple Store.
Gold is not immune to inflation. The price of gold has been going down under inflationary pressure lately. Gold, silver and platinum have been dipping since the GOP tax cut bill went into effect. And judging by the volatility, nobody's looking to start buying any time soon.
Gold is basically 19th century Bitcoin.
Yeah, but Russia has the pee tape, so who do you think is gonna stop them from collecting their gold?
Thanks, drinky. I can always count on you to give me good information.
OK, I accept that. But now in the context of this story. What is Google talking about making "not free" if the EU unbundles Chrome?
And how does it work, taking something that is free and making it not free? Do they just say, "Android is ours and we're changing the license"? I'm genuinely curious.
The money is from consumers, but it's not taxed until it is transformed alchemically, into profits.
My point is, that the notion that "rising taxes means rising prices" is provably not true. That's where you're going with this, right? "Consumers pay all taxes as higher prices." The problem is that you will learn in any economics course that just is not true except in the case of monopolies. And if we have nothing but monopolies, we're so far gone that all talk of "consumers" and "taxes" is of no value because we're all fucked.
See, the thing about pricing consumer goods is this: If a corporation could charge more, they'd already be charging more. Taxes on their profits have no effect on their production costs.
OK, I think I get iit. If I understand correctly, in making the AOSP open, they only gave away the parts of Android that nobody really cares about. But now,, according to this article, if the EU forces Google to unbundle the parts of Android that people actually care about, it might decide it doesn't really want AOSP to be open after all. Or is that wrong and AOSP would still be free and Google would start charging somehow for Chrome and Google search?
OK. I'm confused again. Can you give something away as "completely free" and then take it back? What's the part that Google is threatening to make "not free"?
Hey everybody! Send me nudes!
[*opens email...closes email*]
Wait. Upon further reflection, it would be best if you didn't send me nudes.
Android (the OS) sends your location data to Google. That's worth something. You're paying for Android.
Depends on how they're structured. It can be done so only profits are taxed. This is the right way, since profit itself is nothing but a tax on productivity. This is why capital gains taxes are so important.
Naturally. In a consumer economy, all the money comes from consumers. Every penny. Investors wouldn't stick around if they didn't believe consumers would eventually pay for everything and then some.
That's the whole idea of a consumer-based economy. We pay all the bills.