William Nordhaus won the 2018 Nobel in Economics for his model that includes the effects of externalities for CO2. His paper says that doing much more than a small increase in taxes is actually a net loss and we'd be better of putting the money elsewhere (which is also something Bjorn Lomborg also espouses. Pushing for the 1.5 deg C, or Gore's 90% cut goals nearly double the cost of doing nothing - and that's factoring in all those supposed externalities from fossil fuels.
YOU sell nothing. The BPA (Federal Government) sells the power. And most of our power (about 50%) comes from burning natural gas; hydro is around 14% of our electric production, about on-par with what we get from just the Diablo dam. That includes the power from the BPA.
LOL, the South Tolt hydro is 6.5 MW of installed capacity. That's about 0.6% of Seattle City Light's energy delivery. It's literally a feel-good plant - nothing more. Seattle gets most of its power from the BPA, not Tolt.
What socialist economy is working well? Just point to one, please. For an economic model, I can point to the EU, the US, etc. as successful capitalist economies. What socialist economy is working well?
Well, when you can edit the past to erase warming trends - yeah, claim what you want... In the mean time, I know the reservoirs in California are all pretty much at or above historical averages, we have MORE rain coming, record cold for a few months now (including a rare snow in Los Angeles - its been 57 years since the previous snow), and I'm sure Governor Newsom will NOT lift the drought - even though we also have a Sierra Nevada snowpack that is at 141% of normal. Time to brace for Spring and early-summer floods!
Here in California, hydro is not considered renewable. And with snow on your panels, I'm sure they produced a LOT of solar power for you (and, having been born and raised in Seattle, I also know that 9 times out of 10, when it snows the wind is essentially still - it's the cold intrusion that brings calm winds and lets the snow happen).
What socialist economy is working well? Certainly not the Nordic countries, given they are a free market, capitalist economic system. The Government just happens to invest in a big social safety net as well. Perhaps Cuba? Venezuela? North Korea? Mao's China? Stalin's Russia?
When it comes to economic models, socialism is, in fact, always a bad thing. You can argue about how big a social net you wish to add around the market, but from an economic standpoint - capitalism, free market enterprise - always wins.
Maybe... Glass has ~9 um of expansion per m * deg K. Steel is around 11-12 um per m * deg K. Assuming a 100 deg K swing throughout the year, and a 0.1m length of material, you would have ~ ((12-9) * 100 / 1000000m) 0.3mm of differential in your expansion. Pretty small, overall, it could very well survive.
This year at CES, down in the Eureka area, was a guy sitting in a booth. The curtain behind him had just 3 words, in relatively (1" high) small print..
blockchain
ai
crypto
His booth was actually quite busy. I take this as proof that, if you reach a critical mass of buzzwords, it does not matter WHAT you do, you WILL get funded as Homer Simpson found out...
Welding typically creates a LOT of heat in the materials, and that creates the issue - at assembly time. Many welded products rarely are used at temperatures high enough to create thermal expansion issues - but the thermal expansion during welding is problematic.
Elon Musk paid a $20 million fine for financial impact on the market with his ludicrous tweet. Yes, he did. And tax evasion always ends bad; tax avoidance is legal, and pisses the IRS and Government off, but it's legal. Tax evasion? That is what is used to get most rich people, including Al Capone.
Ken Lay did. Martha Stewart did. Elon Musk did. Yeah, I think you can get away with nearly anything when you're rich and powerful - except for cheating on taxes. The IRS and the US Federal Government see that as the red line, and they tend to come down like a ton of bricks on those who break tax laws. Regardless of place in society.
Oh, if you want to use a foreign agent, then you're subject to FBAR reporting for any and all assets over $10,000 that would normally be taxable or traceable in the US. I assumed people recommending overseas transactions are aware of FBAR? Failing to report it (like getting a loan from an overseas company - that's an FBAR-reportable asset) results in $500,000 in fines and 10 years in prison, for each violation. And each tax year is considered a separate violation, so if you run this scam for 3-4 years in a row, you're liable for a few million in fines and 40 years in prison.
Hurray! You just suggested a solution (loan against foreign assets) that is illegal. The IRS will consider that as taxable income. That loophole leads to a nice cozy jail cell...
Here you go. Seriously, do you think it's a good idea to tax a company when they don't even make a profit? You're a new startup, you have $250,000 in expenses, you made $200,000 in revenue, meaning a gross loss of $50,000 (and an even greater net loss, most assuredly). AND you get to pay a nice tax on that $200,000 in revenue.
Your income tax is NOT based that way. You have deductions, don't you? If you have negative income throughout the year - you don't pay income taxes. If you earned $5,000 - well below the standardized deduction - should you pay income tax? No? Then why should a company pay when it has zero net income as well?
Taxing revenue is about the stupidest thing you can do. It's the surest way to kill companies. Don't care if you make profit or not, Government wants a cut of the action. Will Government chip in to cover costs when there is a loss on the books? No? Then why does it get to claim a piece of revenue when that loss happens?
Now what happens when you bring that money into the US to pay the shareholders, or to use to pay employees? Taxation. Your overseas income is tax deferred - not tax exempt. The second it hits US shores, it's taxed.
Slashdot Mirror
William Nordhaus won the 2018 Nobel in Economics for his model that includes the effects of externalities for CO2. His paper says that doing much more than a small increase in taxes is actually a net loss and we'd be better of putting the money elsewhere (which is also something Bjorn Lomborg also espouses. Pushing for the 1.5 deg C, or Gore's 90% cut goals nearly double the cost of doing nothing - and that's factoring in all those supposed externalities from fossil fuels.
YOU sell nothing. The BPA (Federal Government) sells the power. And most of our power (about 50%) comes from burning natural gas; hydro is around 14% of our electric production, about on-par with what we get from just the Diablo dam. That includes the power from the BPA.
I am sure you were out on top of the Aquarium, dusting the snow off your panels, right? Right?
Which one has a non-capitalist economy? Name one.
LOL, the South Tolt hydro is 6.5 MW of installed capacity. That's about 0.6% of Seattle City Light's energy delivery. It's literally a feel-good plant - nothing more. Seattle gets most of its power from the BPA, not Tolt.
What socialist economy is working well? Just point to one, please. For an economic model, I can point to the EU, the US, etc. as successful capitalist economies. What socialist economy is working well?
Well, when you can edit the past to erase warming trends - yeah, claim what you want... In the mean time, I know the reservoirs in California are all pretty much at or above historical averages, we have MORE rain coming, record cold for a few months now (including a rare snow in Los Angeles - its been 57 years since the previous snow), and I'm sure Governor Newsom will NOT lift the drought - even though we also have a Sierra Nevada snowpack that is at 141% of normal. Time to brace for Spring and early-summer floods!
Here in California, hydro is not considered renewable. And with snow on your panels, I'm sure they produced a LOT of solar power for you (and, having been born and raised in Seattle, I also know that 9 times out of 10, when it snows the wind is essentially still - it's the cold intrusion that brings calm winds and lets the snow happen).
What socialist economy is working well? Certainly not the Nordic countries, given they are a free market, capitalist economic system. The Government just happens to invest in a big social safety net as well. Perhaps Cuba? Venezuela? North Korea? Mao's China? Stalin's Russia?
When it comes to economic models, socialism is, in fact, always a bad thing. You can argue about how big a social net you wish to add around the market, but from an economic standpoint - capitalism, free market enterprise - always wins.
We should send all the solar power we've been generating here in Southern California during the last few weeks of rain and clouds... Oh wait...
Paul Simon thanks you!
Maybe... Glass has ~9 um of expansion per m * deg K. Steel is around 11-12 um per m * deg K. Assuming a 100 deg K swing throughout the year, and a 0.1m length of material, you would have ~ ((12-9) * 100 / 1000000m) 0.3mm of differential in your expansion. Pretty small, overall, it could very well survive.
This year at CES, down in the Eureka area, was a guy sitting in a booth. The curtain behind him had just 3 words, in relatively (1" high) small print..
blockchain
ai
crypto
His booth was actually quite busy. I take this as proof that, if you reach a critical mass of buzzwords, it does not matter WHAT you do, you WILL get funded as Homer Simpson found out...
Interesting video about making vacuum tubes.
Welding typically creates a LOT of heat in the materials, and that creates the issue - at assembly time. Many welded products rarely are used at temperatures high enough to create thermal expansion issues - but the thermal expansion during welding is problematic.
Get me some transparent aluminum, now!
Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.
Elon Musk paid a $20 million fine for financial impact on the market with his ludicrous tweet. Yes, he did. And tax evasion always ends bad; tax avoidance is legal, and pisses the IRS and Government off, but it's legal. Tax evasion? That is what is used to get most rich people, including Al Capone.
Ken Lay did. Martha Stewart did. Elon Musk did. Yeah, I think you can get away with nearly anything when you're rich and powerful - except for cheating on taxes. The IRS and the US Federal Government see that as the red line, and they tend to come down like a ton of bricks on those who break tax laws. Regardless of place in society.
Oh, if you want to use a foreign agent, then you're subject to FBAR reporting for any and all assets over $10,000 that would normally be taxable or traceable in the US. I assumed people recommending overseas transactions are aware of FBAR? Failing to report it (like getting a loan from an overseas company - that's an FBAR-reportable asset) results in $500,000 in fines and 10 years in prison, for each violation. And each tax year is considered a separate violation, so if you run this scam for 3-4 years in a row, you're liable for a few million in fines and 40 years in prison.
Sure. But that does not eliminate the fact that blacks and hispanics commit overwhelmingly more crime than their share of the population, and is driven by gang activity (at least for violent crimes).
Hurray! You just suggested a solution (loan against foreign assets) that is illegal. The IRS will consider that as taxable income. That loophole leads to a nice cozy jail cell...
Here you go. Seriously, do you think it's a good idea to tax a company when they don't even make a profit? You're a new startup, you have $250,000 in expenses, you made $200,000 in revenue, meaning a gross loss of $50,000 (and an even greater net loss, most assuredly). AND you get to pay a nice tax on that $200,000 in revenue.
Your income tax is NOT based that way. You have deductions, don't you? If you have negative income throughout the year - you don't pay income taxes. If you earned $5,000 - well below the standardized deduction - should you pay income tax? No? Then why should a company pay when it has zero net income as well?
Taxing revenue is about the stupidest thing you can do. It's the surest way to kill companies. Don't care if you make profit or not, Government wants a cut of the action. Will Government chip in to cover costs when there is a loss on the books? No? Then why does it get to claim a piece of revenue when that loss happens?
Now what happens when you bring that money into the US to pay the shareholders, or to use to pay employees? Taxation. Your overseas income is tax deferred - not tax exempt. The second it hits US shores, it's taxed.