{Politics so we don't have to change the subject.

On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 13:56:16 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 11:54:29 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

You run a business. When bikes are selling like hotcakes, you don't
drop the price. You sell your stock and bank the money for hard times
-- maybe pay down your credit line or long term debt. You don't run a
sale.

Jay, please don't argue purely for the sake of arguing. Reducing taxes
has ALWAYS caused an increase in economic growth that more than offsets
the tax reduction.
So why is the USA so massively in debt?

On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 2:15:37 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
Tom, please don't argue before taking your medication, and then go argue with the Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020...ay-for-itself/ The Laffer curve is laughing at you. Rich get richer, and your kids (if you had any) go deeper in debt.

Have you ever run a business?

Is that supposed to be some sort of argument that you were being harshly treated by having to pay the employer part of Medicare and social security taxes?

I was one half of a two man business. So I paid the entire Medicare and Social Security myself. Too bad I wanted to add something to society since the office telephone installation business was extremely profitable.

If you're going to offer some Brookings Institute "study" as proof of anything perhaps you should actually read it. "The 2017 tax cut reduced the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent—a 40 percent reduction. It also reduced income taxes for most Americans.' All right - where is this tax cut for the rich? "Nominal revenues rise because of inflation and economic growth." Do you intend to argue that the rise was purely from inflation? The economic growth was BECAUSE of the tax cuts. It must be hard being you and having to make smart ass comments like "take your meds" because you have no other arguments and have to do that. Try that in Court why don't you?

On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 2:37:56 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 2:15:37 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
Tom, please don't argue before taking your medication, and then go argue with the Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020...ay-for-itself/ The Laffer curve is laughing at you. Rich get richer, and your kids (if you had any) go deeper in debt.

Have you ever run a business?

Is that supposed to be some sort of argument that you were being harshly treated by having to pay the employer part of Medicare and social security taxes?

I was one half of a two man business. So I paid the entire Medicare and Social Security myself. Too bad I wanted to add something to society since the office telephone installation business was extremely profitable.

If you're going to offer some Brookings Institute "study" as proof of anything perhaps you should actually read it. "The 2017 tax cut reduced the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent—a 40 percent reduction. It also reduced income taxes for most Americans.' All right - where is this tax cut for the rich? "Nominal revenues rise because of inflation and economic growth." Do you intend to argue that the rise was purely from inflation? The economic growth was BECAUSE of the tax cuts. It must be hard being you and having to make smart ass comments like "take your meds" because you have no other arguments and have to do that. Try that in Court why don't you?

You totally missed the point, didn't you? FOCUS! The tax cut did not pay for itself. Quoting you: "Reducing taxes has ALWAYS caused an increase in economic growth that more than offsets the tax reduction."

That is patently, certifiably and demonstrably WRONG, as shown by the article from Brookings Institute (which you didn't read as usual) and the same types of articles written when Reagan claimed the same thing . . . and it failed almost 40 years ago. This is not news, except in Trumpworld.

The Trump tax plan did favor the wealthy -- indirectly with the hacking of the corporate rate and directly with the QBID, of which you probably know nothing because you've never earned qualified business income. And the reduction of the top marginal rate. Read this: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federa...d-corporations

I'm all for tax cuts, but they better go along with spending cuts because trickle-down doesn't work, not in a modern, global economy. I'm sure that much of the QBID tax give-away went to hotels in Paris -- or if you got it, cheap Chinese wheels from Alibaba.



-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/18/2020 12:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/18/2020 10:08 AM, jbeattie wrote:

If you're such a debt hawk, why aren't you complaining about the
staggering federal deficit created by Trump's tax breaks. In a hot
economy, before COVID, Trump ran-up the federal deficit instead of
reducing it. The federal debt is larger than the economy. MAGA! Unlike
his businesses, Trump cannot run up debt and then exit with a
bankruptcy. The next administration will get a steaming pile of sh**,
just like when GWB left office.

-- Jay Beattie.


Because just as Jefferson, Coolidge, Kennedy and Reagan found, lower
flatter tax policy results in higher treasury receipts.

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...nues-deficits/


https://www.heritage.org/taxes/repor...ower-tax-rates


This is not news to anyone who's perused an Econ 101 (or 99!) textbook.

Well, since there are absolutely no economists who disagree with the
right-leaning Heritage Foundation, I guess that's settled.

Correct?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 7:54:29 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote to Andrew Muzi:

You run a business. When bikes are selling like hotcakes, you don't drop the price. You sell your stock and bank the money for hard times -- maybe pay down your credit line or long term debt. You don't run a sale.

That's why you're a lawyer, and outsider looking in, Jay, why no one has ever hunted your handsome head to set up a business or even to run an established business. An entrepreneur in circumstances such as you describe, if he has a bit of capital or can borrow it, will run the biggest sale he ever ran, and buy all the stock he can, even if he has to pay premium prices and sell it below cost, and when the crisis is over, he may be in debt but his competitors will be out of business and his new market will be much, much larger, and he'll be able to attract investment because he'll be the only guy in his business standing up. You must have been skiving off the day they taught Schumpeter and entrepreneurialism in Economics 1899. Or were all the lecturers at your college already Marxists in your time? The problem with Marxism in a capitalist world is that dear old Karl thought of economics as a science, with one sure answer, like engineering. It isn't. It's a game for high rollers, risk takers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Yeah, you're the one I'm talking to.

Andre Jute
The art is discovering the unit above and the unit below the unit at which the marginal cost meets the marginal income. That takes a lot of skill, but some can substitute luck; luck too is a talent.

On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 11:48:43 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 7:54:29 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote to Andrew Muzi:

You run a business. When bikes are selling like hotcakes, you don't drop the price. You sell your stock and bank the money for hard times -- maybe pay down your credit line or long term debt. You don't run a sale.

That's why you're a lawyer, and outsider looking in, Jay, why no one has ever hunted your handsome head to set up a business or even to run an established business. An entrepreneur in circumstances such as you describe, if he has a bit of capital or can borrow it, will run the biggest sale he ever ran, and buy all the stock he can, even if he has to pay premium prices and sell it below cost, and when the crisis is over, he may be in debt but his competitors will be out of business and his new market will be much, much larger, and he'll be able to attract investment because he'll be the only guy in his business standing up. You must have been skiving off the day they taught Schumpeter and entrepreneurialism in Economics 1899. Or were all the lecturers at your college already Marxists in your time? The problem with Marxism in a capitalist world is that dear old Karl thought of economics as a science, with one sure answer, like engineering. It isn't. It's a game for high rollers, risk takers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Yeah, you're the one I'm talking to.

Andre Jute
The art is discovering the unit above and the unit below the unit at which the marginal cost meets the marginal income. That takes a lot of skill, but some can substitute luck; luck too is a talent.


Right. Let's take your scenario: Andrew drops prices, sells below cost, runs up huge debt to cover rent, payroll, cost of goods. He ends up with a massive debt-load. This assumes he can even find a lender (other than a CARES Act lender) willing to finance him as he inches towards bankruptcy. He's probably using credit cards or hard-money lenders because no bank is willing to take the risk after he's blown through his credit line or other existing facility, so its a nasty, high interest debt. And as a single shop, he's still not moving enough product to get the best pricing and good or any financing from his distributors.

And lets assume the the Red Jersey down the street can't beat Andrew's prices and shuts the doors. Andrew gets thirty-block market dominance for six months until the Green Jersey opens (selling ebikes and not classic Campagnolo), mostly debt-free. It's a low bar to market entrance. Meanwhile, after the market cools, Andrew has to raise prices to cover debt -- fire employees, move to smaller space, etc., etc. He goes out of business.

The more likely scenario is that the Yellow Jersey and the Red Jersey both make a bundle in the COVID market selling somewhat different products, pay down debt, build reserves, and when demand drops -- then they start price cutting at a time when stock is plentiful -- maybe run an annual sale, put on a bike fair, run an ad. They go back to the usual competition against cost-cutting internet sellers.

In the real world of small business and not the Andre imaginary world, nobody has access to super low-priced inputs (which, IMO, is the key) or enough cash to crush anyone. Even in the world of larger business, everyone from Schwinn to Performance/Nashbar proves that price cutting is more likely to result in bankruptcy than cornering the market.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 7:59:46 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 11:48:43 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 7:54:29 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote to Andrew Muzi:

You run a business. When bikes are selling like hotcakes, you don't drop the price. You sell your stock and bank the money for hard times -- maybe pay down your credit line or long term debt. You don't run a sale.

That's why you're a lawyer, and outsider looking in, Jay, why no one has ever hunted your handsome head to set up a business or even to run an established business. An entrepreneur in circumstances such as you describe, if he has a bit of capital or can borrow it, will run the biggest sale he ever ran, and buy all the stock he can, even if he has to pay premium prices and sell it below cost, and when the crisis is over, he may be in debt but his competitors will be out of business and his new market will be much, much larger, and he'll be able to attract investment because he'll be the only guy in his business standing up. You must have been skiving off the day they taught Schumpeter and entrepreneurialism in Economics 1899. Or were all the lecturers at your college already Marxists in your time? The problem with Marxism in a capitalist world is that dear old Karl thought of economics as a science, with one sure answer, like engineering. It isn't. It's a game for high rollers, risk takers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Yeah, you're the one I'm talking to.

Andre Jute
The art is discovering the unit above and the unit below the unit at which the marginal cost meets the marginal income. That takes a lot of skill, but some can substitute luck; luck too is a talent.
Right. Let's take your scenario: Andrew drops prices, sells below cost, runs up huge debt to cover rent, payroll, cost of goods. He ends up with a massive debt-load. This assumes he can even find a lender (other than a CARES Act lender) willing to finance him as he inches towards bankruptcy. He's probably using credit cards or hard-money lenders because no bank is willing to take the risk after he's blown through his credit line or other existing facility, so its a nasty, high interest debt. And as a single shop, he's still not moving enough product to get the best pricing and good or any financing from his distributors.

And lets assume the the Red Jersey down the street can't beat Andrew's prices and shuts the doors. Andrew gets thirty-block market dominance for six months until the Green Jersey opens (selling ebikes and not classic Campagnolo), mostly debt-free. It's a low bar to market entrance. Meanwhile, after the market cools, Andrew has to raise prices to cover debt -- fire employees, move to smaller space, etc., etc. He goes out of business.

The more likely scenario is that the Yellow Jersey and the Red Jersey both make a bundle in the COVID market selling somewhat different products, pay down debt, build reserves, and when demand drops -- then they start price cutting at a time when stock is plentiful -- maybe run an annual sale, put on a bike fair, run an ad. They go back to the usual competition against cost-cutting internet sellers.

In the real world of small business and not the Andre imaginary world, nobody has access to super low-priced inputs (which, IMO, is the key) or enough cash to crush anyone. Even in the world of larger business, everyone from Schwinn to Performance/Nashbar proves that price cutting is more likely to result in bankruptcy than cornering the market.

So what is this business you say that you ran for which you had to pay the employers share of social security and Medicare which therefore makes all of your retired employees welfare scum?

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 08:43:09 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


In the real world of small business and not the Andre imaginary world,
nobody has access to super low-priced inputs (which, IMO, is the key)
or enough cash to crush anyone. Even in the world of larger business,
everyone from Schwinn to Performance/Nashbar proves that price cutting
is more likely to result in bankruptcy than cornering the market.

So what is this business you say that you ran for which you had to pay
the employers share of social security and Medicare which therefore
makes all of your retired employees welfare scum?

Legal firms/partnerships are a business. A hard business as it can be a
long time between drinks(work) from customers. Very much word of mouth.

On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 3:21:43 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 08:43:09 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


In the real world of small business and not the Andre imaginary world,
nobody has access to super low-priced inputs (which, IMO, is the key)
or enough cash to crush anyone. Even in the world of larger business,
everyone from Schwinn to Performance/Nashbar proves that price cutting
is more likely to result in bankruptcy than cornering the market.

So what is this business you say that you ran for which you had to pay
the employers share of social security and Medicare which therefore
makes all of your retired employees welfare scum?
Legal firms/partnerships are a business. A hard business as it can be a
long time between drinks(work) from customers. Very much word of mouth.
Tell us what you know about American law and how you learned it. I am beginning to believe Andre about your false identity.

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 08:10:39 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 3:21:43 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 08:43:09 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


In the real world of small business and not the Andre imaginary
world,
nobody has access to super low-priced inputs (which, IMO, is the
key) or enough cash to crush anyone. Even in the world of larger
business, everyone from Schwinn to Performance/Nashbar proves that
price cutting is more likely to result in bankruptcy than cornering
the market.

So what is this business you say that you ran for which you had to
pay the employers share of social security and Medicare which
therefore makes all of your retired employees welfare scum?
Legal firms/partnerships are a business. A hard business as it can be a
long time between drinks(work) from customers. Very much word of mouth.

Tell us what you know about American law and how you learned it.

What does "American Law" have to do with it?
This is an international newsgroup and both our law systems have a common
root. For the finer details, I can read and COMPREHEND what is posted.

I am
beginning to believe Andre about your false identity.

No sweat sherlock or do you really think my parents called me Newsy.
OTOH, he is one of your kind; uneducated and spewing a torrent of abuse
in a desperate attempt to cover up for failure to learn during his
lifetime.

Yawn. Tom, take your dried frog pills.