Run your "equation" for the last 10 years, and that means most of the economy has been in negative territory - not the same it's been for the last decade. However, you're equation isn't really correct; GDP includes Government spending. Borrowed money is NOT income, but it is cash flow, and if that is leveraged to increase income, then it's typically a decent investment. The problem is that Congress up until now has consistently borrowed at a faster rate than actual income increased.
Not if it stimulates or maintains economic growth above inflation. Hauser's law says the Federal Government typically sucks about 18% of the GDP via taxes. If spending increases are held to inflation (which, post WWII has averaged about 3%), then GDP growth (which, post WWII has averaged 4.5%) then the Federal Government will literally grow itself out of a deficit. The Trump tax cuts seem to have spurred growth well above the sub-3% (the historical inflation rate) levels that President Obama said was the new normal.
Now, if Congress can keep its budget growth to just the rate of inflation, it shouldn't take more than 10-11 years to hit a real cash-flow surplus just from growth and Hauser's Law. And another 45 years after that, and the debt would be just about retired. This allows for annual budgetary spending increases around 3% per year, and relies upon fiscal and tax policy focusing on stimulating GDP growth to the historical levels. Sometimes that may mean increased taxes are OK; sometimes it means you might have to cut taxes to kick-start the economy. But the focus should be on GDP growth and controlling the increase of (not cutting) spending.
1. Do you realize that 70% of Federal spending is on welfare and retirement benefits (in which Social Security and Medicare reside)?
2. Do you realize that Social Security and Medicare are in a deficit spending situation, are projected to both go completely bankrupt within 12 years without major reworking?
So, let's make this really simple. You have $1.4 billion in the bank. You make $330 million in profit. How much do you now have? HINT: If the answer is $2.1 billion, something wasn't fully accounted for...
Yes, Camrys, Accords, and Civics outsell the Model 3 in sales. But that's just cars - what the US buys now is trucks and SUVs, and for that, it's led by Ford who sells one F series pickup every 35 seconds. Consumers in the US have been moving away from cars for a long time, and the fact is that even Toyota and Honda sell more SUVs and trucks in the US than cars. Of the top 12 vehicles sold (of which Tesla does not break the ranks of), three are for cars - the other 9 (including the top 6) are trucks and SUVs. But if you want to crow about the "4th best selling car in the US", by all means - go for it!
As far as success story, Q3 Tesla claims to have made ~$330MM in profit (even though their cash flow position increased by $700MM - were bills not paid?). Ford did about $1B in profit for Q3, and GM is expected to do around $1.8B in profit, for the quarter - without any curious increase in cash position that doesn't correlate with earned profit (how do you make $330MM in profit but your cash position increased by over double that amount, unless you're not paying out everything you're supposed to?)
Somehow they "made" ~$300MM in profit, but their cash position improved by $730MM? Either they didn't pay ~$430MM in bills (keeping the money in the bank to increase their cash position) or they lied about one of the numbers. If your salary for the month is bumped up $10,000 you don't magically get an extra $25,000 in your bank account.
My guess is they withheld significant payments to vendors near the end of Q3, so their cash position not only looks really good, but they could claim a profit (not having those expenses officially booked); they probably lost ~$430MM last quarter, when all is said and done - and they are trying to generate enough interest and stock price to make the coming $157MM in bond payments hurt as little as possible.
President Trump uses two phones, just like President Obama did. Just like I said - this is no different, but for some reason we have to attack because Trump. And we can't bring up these facts because they don't play to the agenda of attacking the President (yes, this IS, in fact, fake news in that it is nothing different than the previous Administration).
This is an unsubstantiated hit piece NYT article from Maggie Haberman, who teed up story after story for Hillary Clinton. How objective is she, given she worked hand-in-hand with the Clinton campaign?
This is a pure political hit-piece trying to drum up anything they can to affect the November elections. You want to talk about collusion and meddling? Look no further than "articles" like this...
So selling weapons to the Ukraine, firing on Syrian/Russian troops, cutting off funds, that's all "nothing" - mainly because it doesn't go far enough? And just what the heck did President Obama do in 2014 when it was told Russia was going to interfere? The fact is that President Trump is taking action; some may decide it's not enough, but it's a massive increase from the previous Administration who sat around and let Russia do what they wanted, with tacit approval.
Not to mention President Trump has been a lot tougher on Russia than his predecessor, including military support for the Ukraine, military opposition in Syria, sanctions on individuals and the country, and more. But somehow I guess that's Putin being a 5D chess master to make Trump punish Putin just to put on a show?
I dunno - maybe they do? When I was consulting 30+ hours a week at Microsoft in the mid 2000s I was billing $175/hour. So I'd assume that well over $250/hour would now be fine, given inflation and the tighter labor market. Or maybe they are mainly contracting out "menial" jobs like CSR, janitorial, etc.
I do technical engineering (not SW or IT) and have no problem asking for - and getting $250+ per hour. If it's an interesting project I want to work on, I'll lower my rate to $200 to "buy" the deal. A few clients I really don't like, I quoted $375/hour - and one took it. I may not enjoy the 10-15 hours per week - but at least I earn decent pay.
Funny, I make quite a bit more than $20/hour (between 10 and 15X that rate). I guess maybe I'm a high-priced escort, not a whore? I also get a pick of contracts, decide when I want to work, get to do quite a bit of work from home, get paid to travel to my client (including hotel, Lyft, air, food), and have zero issues with corporate politics. And when I tire of a place, I just leave - and take a different contract, to learn new skills and further increase my bill rate.
More pay, varied work environment/experiences (no golden handcuffs), no repercussion from deciding to take a few months off between contracts (try to arrange a 2-3 month sabbatical at most companies), typically you're opinion is respected more (you're the hired gun/expert for the issue, so they will listen to you more - at least, that's been my experience). And easier to work remotely.
And until it's well over 80% (assuming we keep that 20% in hydro), it will still need that nuclear, natgas, and coal backup to operate. Meaning you have to include the costs of nuclear/natgas/coal into the cost of solar right now, to be accurate in what it costs.
So, we can shut off coal (30% of our electric supply) and natural gas (32% of our electric supply) and have no issues? Solar is about 1% of the US electric supply - it simply cannot support the US without massive support from all the other supplies. It is simply not viable without 100% support from all the other sources, and thus the cost of those alternate supplies should be considered (and in the US, it would be at least 63% as fossil fuels).
That's false, though. Solar does not have the capability for 100% availability without backup or massive storage - and those costs are never factored in to the "cost" analyses. In the US, that backup IS natural gas, coal, and nuclear - meaning solar is in addition to the base power generation we use.
Slashdot Mirror
Run your "equation" for the last 10 years, and that means most of the economy has been in negative territory - not the same it's been for the last decade. However, you're equation isn't really correct; GDP includes Government spending. Borrowed money is NOT income, but it is cash flow, and if that is leveraged to increase income, then it's typically a decent investment. The problem is that Congress up until now has consistently borrowed at a faster rate than actual income increased.
Not if it stimulates or maintains economic growth above inflation. Hauser's law says the Federal Government typically sucks about 18% of the GDP via taxes. If spending increases are held to inflation (which, post WWII has averaged about 3%), then GDP growth (which, post WWII has averaged 4.5%) then the Federal Government will literally grow itself out of a deficit. The Trump tax cuts seem to have spurred growth well above the sub-3% (the historical inflation rate) levels that President Obama said was the new normal.
Now, if Congress can keep its budget growth to just the rate of inflation, it shouldn't take more than 10-11 years to hit a real cash-flow surplus just from growth and Hauser's Law. And another 45 years after that, and the debt would be just about retired. This allows for annual budgetary spending increases around 3% per year, and relies upon fiscal and tax policy focusing on stimulating GDP growth to the historical levels. Sometimes that may mean increased taxes are OK; sometimes it means you might have to cut taxes to kick-start the economy. But the focus should be on GDP growth and controlling the increase of (not cutting) spending.
Question: when was the last time we had an actual surplus? There was money left after all taxes came in and all spending was done?
HINT: a famous general was in the White House.
Federal spending. Social spending is about 68% of the entire budget - yeah, not 70% but quite close.
Medicare is bankrupt in 2026 and Social Security in 2032, the average being about 12 years from now.
Yep. And it may very well be some financial incongruities which are causing the FBI to probe...
Two questions:
1. Do you realize that 70% of Federal spending is on welfare and retirement benefits (in which Social Security and Medicare reside)?
2. Do you realize that Social Security and Medicare are in a deficit spending situation, are projected to both go completely bankrupt within 12 years without major reworking?
So, let's make this really simple. You have $1.4 billion in the bank. You make $330 million in profit. How much do you now have? HINT: If the answer is $2.1 billion, something wasn't fully accounted for...
Yes, Camrys, Accords, and Civics outsell the Model 3 in sales. But that's just cars - what the US buys now is trucks and SUVs, and for that, it's led by Ford who sells one F series pickup every 35 seconds. Consumers in the US have been moving away from cars for a long time, and the fact is that even Toyota and Honda sell more SUVs and trucks in the US than cars. Of the top 12 vehicles sold (of which Tesla does not break the ranks of), three are for cars - the other 9 (including the top 6) are trucks and SUVs. But if you want to crow about the "4th best selling car in the US", by all means - go for it!
As far as success story, Q3 Tesla claims to have made ~$330MM in profit (even though their cash flow position increased by $700MM - were bills not paid?). Ford did about $1B in profit for Q3, and GM is expected to do around $1.8B in profit, for the quarter - without any curious increase in cash position that doesn't correlate with earned profit (how do you make $330MM in profit but your cash position increased by over double that amount, unless you're not paying out everything you're supposed to?)
Somehow they "made" ~$300MM in profit, but their cash position improved by $730MM? Either they didn't pay ~$430MM in bills (keeping the money in the bank to increase their cash position) or they lied about one of the numbers. If your salary for the month is bumped up $10,000 you don't magically get an extra $25,000 in your bank account.
My guess is they withheld significant payments to vendors near the end of Q3, so their cash position not only looks really good, but they could claim a profit (not having those expenses officially booked); they probably lost ~$430MM last quarter, when all is said and done - and they are trying to generate enough interest and stock price to make the coming $157MM in bond payments hurt as little as possible.
President Trump uses two phones, just like President Obama did. Just like I said - this is no different, but for some reason we have to attack because Trump. And we can't bring up these facts because they don't play to the agenda of attacking the President (yes, this IS, in fact, fake news in that it is nothing different than the previous Administration).
This is an unsubstantiated hit piece NYT article from Maggie Haberman, who teed up story after story for Hillary Clinton. How objective is she, given she worked hand-in-hand with the Clinton campaign?
This is a pure political hit-piece trying to drum up anything they can to affect the November elections. You want to talk about collusion and meddling? Look no further than "articles" like this...
So selling weapons to the Ukraine, firing on Syrian/Russian troops, cutting off funds, that's all "nothing" - mainly because it doesn't go far enough? And just what the heck did President Obama do in 2014 when it was told Russia was going to interfere? The fact is that President Trump is taking action; some may decide it's not enough, but it's a massive increase from the previous Administration who sat around and let Russia do what they wanted, with tacit approval.
Not to mention President Trump has been a lot tougher on Russia than his predecessor, including military support for the Ukraine, military opposition in Syria, sanctions on individuals and the country, and more. But somehow I guess that's Putin being a 5D chess master to make Trump punish Putin just to put on a show?
I don't remember all the sturm und drang from the NY Times when President Obama kept his Blackberry.
I dunno - maybe they do? When I was consulting 30+ hours a week at Microsoft in the mid 2000s I was billing $175/hour. So I'd assume that well over $250/hour would now be fine, given inflation and the tighter labor market. Or maybe they are mainly contracting out "menial" jobs like CSR, janitorial, etc.
I do technical engineering (not SW or IT) and have no problem asking for - and getting $250+ per hour. If it's an interesting project I want to work on, I'll lower my rate to $200 to "buy" the deal. A few clients I really don't like, I quoted $375/hour - and one took it. I may not enjoy the 10-15 hours per week - but at least I earn decent pay.
It takes courage to run hot...
Somebody's jealous of the well-paid consultant working around the US and the world!
Precisely! And the more you charge, the more they want you as well...
Funny, I make quite a bit more than $20/hour (between 10 and 15X that rate). I guess maybe I'm a high-priced escort, not a whore? I also get a pick of contracts, decide when I want to work, get to do quite a bit of work from home, get paid to travel to my client (including hotel, Lyft, air, food), and have zero issues with corporate politics. And when I tire of a place, I just leave - and take a different contract, to learn new skills and further increase my bill rate.
Lower wages? I guess pulling down $200+/hour lowers the wages of the rest of the team?
More pay, varied work environment/experiences (no golden handcuffs), no repercussion from deciding to take a few months off between contracts (try to arrange a 2-3 month sabbatical at most companies), typically you're opinion is respected more (you're the hired gun/expert for the issue, so they will listen to you more - at least, that's been my experience). And easier to work remotely.
And until it's well over 80% (assuming we keep that 20% in hydro), it will still need that nuclear, natgas, and coal backup to operate. Meaning you have to include the costs of nuclear/natgas/coal into the cost of solar right now, to be accurate in what it costs.
Fusion-powered Space Microbes! We're DOOMED!
So, we can shut off coal (30% of our electric supply) and natural gas (32% of our electric supply) and have no issues? Solar is about 1% of the US electric supply - it simply cannot support the US without massive support from all the other supplies. It is simply not viable without 100% support from all the other sources, and thus the cost of those alternate supplies should be considered (and in the US, it would be at least 63% as fossil fuels).
That's false, though. Solar does not have the capability for 100% availability without backup or massive storage - and those costs are never factored in to the "cost" analyses. In the US, that backup IS natural gas, coal, and nuclear - meaning solar is in addition to the base power generation we use.