or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by foregoneconclusion

  You're underestimating inflation rates. The 2012 dollar equivalent of a .49 cent single from 1965 would be $3.52. Likewise, a $3.99 album from 1965 would be $28.66 in 2012 dollars. Prices for entertainment are not actually that high when you adjust for inflation. 
  Seems more likely that it will be the opposite, i.e., the phablet is a temporary bridge device for people who don't own a tablet yet, or who thought the last wave of tablets were too heavy.
I find the Samsung adverts to be the equivalent of deodorant or beer commercials. Quirky and entertaining, but intentionally superficial in regards to the actual product. The carpet bombing approach of the marketing is also similar.
IMO, you could question the idea that phablets have that big of a growth curve. They seem more like a bridge product that exists primarily for people who don't already own a tablet or think that tablets are currently too heavy. iPad mini has already made quite a bit of progress on that second part.
  Read the downloading information for movies that you can purchase through Amazon Instant Video. There are definitely some restrictions and limitations built into that service currently. For example, you're required to repeat the download process for each device that you want to play your purchased video on if you don't want to stream it. It doesn't allow you to just download on your home computer and then copy the file to other devices. And OS X isn't supported at all....
  Greater wealth production for whom? Certainly not for the general public, as wealth inequality has grown by leaps and bounds during the last 30 years. Wages and job growth have slowed significantly during the last 30 years vs. 1950 - 1980, and yet profit as a percentage of GDP is currently at an all-time high. The deficit has also exploded during the last 30 years, while it consistently dropped during 1950 - 1980. It should be obvious to anyone after three decades of...
  Truman was president from 1945 - 1953. Yes, the Debt/GDP ratio dropped from 116% down to 70% during that time...BUT it continued dropping during the following Democratic administrations as well. It went all the way down to 32% by 1980, and that was with government spending increasing each year. By 1990, after a solid decade of GOP administrations, it was back up to 55%.
  Federal, state, and local governments have to operate on PROJECTIONS for both revenue and spending. They don't really know for sure what spending costs will actually turn out to be, nor do they really know for sure what the tax revenue will end up being at the end of a given year. Why is that? Because expensive government projects can run over budget vs. the original projection (i.e., claiming the Iraq war is going to very short and the cost is going to be shouldered...
  Generally, the focus in terms of "fair" has been the reality that very low capital gains taxes can mean that some of the wealthiest people in the country pay a lower effective tax rate on the vast majority of their income than people in the middle class. That's why there was so much coverage regarding Mitt Romney's tax returns. Most of Romney's income is in the form of capital gains.   That's the reason why the top income tax bracket used to be 70% or higher pre-Reagan....
  It's not foolish. Clinton increased taxes during his first term, and the revenue from those increases helped create tax surpluses that allowed several consecutive balanced budgets during his second term and real reduction of the national debt. Of course, that was in combination with a fairly low level of average annual growth in the federal budget, but it wasn't a slash-and-burn austerity approach either.   So...modest increases in taxes, reasonable restrictions in...
New Posts  All Forums: