[vagabondo]

Raybyrnes,

You’re joking…right?

[vagabondo]

Raybyrnes,

You’re joking…right?

[vagabondo]

Raybyrnes,

You’re joking…right?

[vagabondo]

Raybyrnes,

You’re joking…right?

[vagabondo]

Raybyrnes,

You’re joking…right?

[vagabondo]

I was going to post this same property. This is an area that is of high interest to me.

There are two catches I see here. One, the property is mostly “front yard”. The other is, as you said, the 2 mil price tag. Several properties in this area (and price range) have been on the market for nearly a year.

[vagabondo]

I was going to post this same property. This is an area that is of high interest to me.

There are two catches I see here. One, the property is mostly “front yard”. The other is, as you said, the 2 mil price tag. Several properties in this area (and price range) have been on the market for nearly a year.

[vagabondo]

I was going to post this same property. This is an area that is of high interest to me.

There are two catches I see here. One, the property is mostly “front yard”. The other is, as you said, the 2 mil price tag. Several properties in this area (and price range) have been on the market for nearly a year.

[vagabondo]

I was going to post this same property. This is an area that is of high interest to me.

There are two catches I see here. One, the property is mostly “front yard”. The other is, as you said, the 2 mil price tag. Several properties in this area (and price range) have been on the market for nearly a year.

[vagabondo]

I was going to post this same property. This is an area that is of high interest to me.

There are two catches I see here. One, the property is mostly “front yard”. The other is, as you said, the 2 mil price tag. Several properties in this area (and price range) have been on the market for nearly a year.

[vagabondo]

Cooper,

"I would agree that employment is a false sense of security. Unfortunately, for most people, their job is there only source of significant income. Without the illusion of job security, the economy (and your business) will suffer."

The problem IS the illusion of job security. If you believe your job is not at threat, you become complacent. If you hold the illusion of security, you tend to loose interest in improvement initiatives. The reality is that just about every job is at threat when considering emerging markets and countries. When we are honest about these competitive realities, we stop looking at what is due to us and look instead at how we can become more competitive. If viewed through this context, this is not a handicap to employees or employers. This is the kind of motivation that fosters great ideas, great products, great services. This paradigm was the fundamental difference between the cold war economies of the US and USSR. It is the kind of motivation that is difficult to tarnish.

"In my opinion, in a mixed economy such as the US, corporate welfare and entitlements to ensure systemic functioning are no different then individual entitlements (whether perceived are real) in the functioning of the system."

The tax break argument is difficult to accept as entitlement. Let us not forget that for a tax credit to exist an individual or company must first have earned the income. They are only taking less of what one earns. As for bail-outs and the like…I have a hard time reconciling this. It is a form of redistribution of wealth which I find counter-productive.

"The globalization issue plays a large part, and both sides have compelling arguments, and unfortunately, "how can we compete" comes down to the lowest common denominator."

The lowest common denominator is not a globalization issue, but a product life cycle issue. New products usually do not face this as a purchasing decision. Each product has its own life cycle and tend to become more cost/price sensative as they mature. If you are not producing new products, new services, new processes you will ultimately compete in the low cost quadrant.

"As for education, you do have a choice. Consuming education is legislated, but not the provider per se. You could homeschool your kids, or hire a private tutor, thus bypassing the Teachers Union."

Didn't I say this? I did and pointed out that regardless of my choice, I will pay the TU through my taxes. I really don't want to live in the Caymans and have found vouchers to be a work in progress. What I want is an ability to take those tax dollars that are currently imposed and desginate their educational use as I see fit for my children. I am of the persuasion who believes that I am a better decision maker regarding my childrens education than the NEA, TU and local school board.

"The point being is you do have a choice, and I would argue much more of a choice then with the oil industry. All the options you mention require substituting one oil product for another, albeit indirectly. Bikes save alot of oil/gas, but you will be riding on asphalt made from oil, constructed from oil, etc. Your home closer to work required substantial oil to construct (wool carpets notwithstanding), your groceries most likely used more oil by weight, (to process, package, transport) then their mass. So how much choice do you actually have?"

This is an argument of contributing to revenue streams. My point was that I have a choice in my contribution to the revenue of the oil company. If I drive my car, I am burning gas. If I ride my bike, I am burning calories. These are not oil/oil substitutions. The oil derivative used to produce the asphalt that my bike or car utilizes has long since been recognized as revenue. The choice of riding my bike does not contribute to the oil companies ongoing revenue. Similarly, If I am buying a new house, I am contributing indirectly to the oil company. However, if I purchase an existing residence, all those indirect cost have since been recognized with the initial purchase of that home. I am not suggesting that I can eliminate my contribution to oil, but that I have a choice. I have absolutely no choice with regard to the appropriation of my tax payment.

 

[vagabondo]

Cooper,

"I would agree that employment is a false sense of security. Unfortunately, for most people, their job is there only source of significant income. Without the illusion of job security, the economy (and your business) will suffer."

The problem IS the illusion of job security. If you believe your job is not at threat, you become complacent. If you hold the illusion of security, you tend to loose interest in improvement initiatives. The reality is that just about every job is at threat when considering emerging markets and countries. When we are honest about these competitive realities, we stop looking at what is due to us and look instead at how we can become more competitive. If viewed through this context, this is not a handicap to employees or employers. This is the kind of motivation that fosters great ideas, great products, great services. This paradigm was the fundamental difference between the cold war economies of the US and USSR. It is the kind of motivation that is difficult to tarnish.

"In my opinion, in a mixed economy such as the US, corporate welfare and entitlements to ensure systemic functioning are no different then individual entitlements (whether perceived are real) in the functioning of the system."

The tax break argument is difficult to accept as entitlement. Let us not forget that for a tax credit to exist an individual or company must first have earned the income. They are only taking less of what one earns. As for bail-outs and the like…I have a hard time reconciling this. It is a form of redistribution of wealth which I find counter-productive.

"The globalization issue plays a large part, and both sides have compelling arguments, and unfortunately, "how can we compete" comes down to the lowest common denominator."

The lowest common denominator is not a globalization issue, but a product life cycle issue. New products usually do not face this as a purchasing decision. Each product has its own life cycle and tend to become more cost/price sensative as they mature. If you are not producing new products, new services, new processes you will ultimately compete in the low cost quadrant.

"As for education, you do have a choice. Consuming education is legislated, but not the provider per se. You could homeschool your kids, or hire a private tutor, thus bypassing the Teachers Union."

Didn't I say this? I did and pointed out that regardless of my choice, I will pay the TU through my taxes. I really don't want to live in the Caymans and have found vouchers to be a work in progress. What I want is an ability to take those tax dollars that are currently imposed and desginate their educational use as I see fit for my children. I am of the persuasion who believes that I am a better decision maker regarding my childrens education than the NEA, TU and local school board.

"The point being is you do have a choice, and I would argue much more of a choice then with the oil industry. All the options you mention require substituting one oil product for another, albeit indirectly. Bikes save alot of oil/gas, but you will be riding on asphalt made from oil, constructed from oil, etc. Your home closer to work required substantial oil to construct (wool carpets notwithstanding), your groceries most likely used more oil by weight, (to process, package, transport) then their mass. So how much choice do you actually have?"

This is an argument of contributing to revenue streams. My point was that I have a choice in my contribution to the revenue of the oil company. If I drive my car, I am burning gas. If I ride my bike, I am burning calories. These are not oil/oil substitutions. The oil derivative used to produce the asphalt that my bike or car utilizes has long since been recognized as revenue. The choice of riding my bike does not contribute to the oil companies ongoing revenue. Similarly, If I am buying a new house, I am contributing indirectly to the oil company. However, if I purchase an existing residence, all those indirect cost have since been recognized with the initial purchase of that home. I am not suggesting that I can eliminate my contribution to oil, but that I have a choice. I have absolutely no choice with regard to the appropriation of my tax payment.

 

[vagabondo]

Cooper,

"I would agree that employment is a false sense of security. Unfortunately, for most people, their job is there only source of significant income. Without the illusion of job security, the economy (and your business) will suffer."

The problem IS the illusion of job security. If you believe your job is not at threat, you become complacent. If you hold the illusion of security, you tend to loose interest in improvement initiatives. The reality is that just about every job is at threat when considering emerging markets and countries. When we are honest about these competitive realities, we stop looking at what is due to us and look instead at how we can become more competitive. If viewed through this context, this is not a handicap to employees or employers. This is the kind of motivation that fosters great ideas, great products, great services. This paradigm was the fundamental difference between the cold war economies of the US and USSR. It is the kind of motivation that is difficult to tarnish.

"In my opinion, in a mixed economy such as the US, corporate welfare and entitlements to ensure systemic functioning are no different then individual entitlements (whether perceived are real) in the functioning of the system."

The tax break argument is difficult to accept as entitlement. Let us not forget that for a tax credit to exist an individual or company must first have earned the income. They are only taking less of what one earns. As for bail-outs and the like…I have a hard time reconciling this. It is a form of redistribution of wealth which I find counter-productive.

"The globalization issue plays a large part, and both sides have compelling arguments, and unfortunately, "how can we compete" comes down to the lowest common denominator."

The lowest common denominator is not a globalization issue, but a product life cycle issue. New products usually do not face this as a purchasing decision. Each product has its own life cycle and tend to become more cost/price sensative as they mature. If you are not producing new products, new services, new processes you will ultimately compete in the low cost quadrant.

"As for education, you do have a choice. Consuming education is legislated, but not the provider per se. You could homeschool your kids, or hire a private tutor, thus bypassing the Teachers Union."

Didn't I say this? I did and pointed out that regardless of my choice, I will pay the TU through my taxes. I really don't want to live in the Caymans and have found vouchers to be a work in progress. What I want is an ability to take those tax dollars that are currently imposed and desginate their educational use as I see fit for my children. I am of the persuasion who believes that I am a better decision maker regarding my childrens education than the NEA, TU and local school board.

"The point being is you do have a choice, and I would argue much more of a choice then with the oil industry. All the options you mention require substituting one oil product for another, albeit indirectly. Bikes save alot of oil/gas, but you will be riding on asphalt made from oil, constructed from oil, etc. Your home closer to work required substantial oil to construct (wool carpets notwithstanding), your groceries most likely used more oil by weight, (to process, package, transport) then their mass. So how much choice do you actually have?"

This is an argument of contributing to revenue streams. My point was that I have a choice in my contribution to the revenue of the oil company. If I drive my car, I am burning gas. If I ride my bike, I am burning calories. These are not oil/oil substitutions. The oil derivative used to produce the asphalt that my bike or car utilizes has long since been recognized as revenue. The choice of riding my bike does not contribute to the oil companies ongoing revenue. Similarly, If I am buying a new house, I am contributing indirectly to the oil company. However, if I purchase an existing residence, all those indirect cost have since been recognized with the initial purchase of that home. I am not suggesting that I can eliminate my contribution to oil, but that I have a choice. I have absolutely no choice with regard to the appropriation of my tax payment.

 

[vagabondo]

Cooper,

"I would agree that employment is a false sense of security. Unfortunately, for most people, their job is there only source of significant income. Without the illusion of job security, the economy (and your business) will suffer."

The problem IS the illusion of job security. If you believe your job is not at threat, you become complacent. If you hold the illusion of security, you tend to loose interest in improvement initiatives. The reality is that just about every job is at threat when considering emerging markets and countries. When we are honest about these competitive realities, we stop looking at what is due to us and look instead at how we can become more competitive. If viewed through this context, this is not a handicap to employees or employers. This is the kind of motivation that fosters great ideas, great products, great services. This paradigm was the fundamental difference between the cold war economies of the US and USSR. It is the kind of motivation that is difficult to tarnish.

"In my opinion, in a mixed economy such as the US, corporate welfare and entitlements to ensure systemic functioning are no different then individual entitlements (whether perceived are real) in the functioning of the system."

The tax break argument is difficult to accept as entitlement. Let us not forget that for a tax credit to exist an individual or company must first have earned the income. They are only taking less of what one earns. As for bail-outs and the like…I have a hard time reconciling this. It is a form of redistribution of wealth which I find counter-productive.

"The globalization issue plays a large part, and both sides have compelling arguments, and unfortunately, "how can we compete" comes down to the lowest common denominator."

The lowest common denominator is not a globalization issue, but a product life cycle issue. New products usually do not face this as a purchasing decision. Each product has its own life cycle and tend to become more cost/price sensative as they mature. If you are not producing new products, new services, new processes you will ultimately compete in the low cost quadrant.

"As for education, you do have a choice. Consuming education is legislated, but not the provider per se. You could homeschool your kids, or hire a private tutor, thus bypassing the Teachers Union."

Didn't I say this? I did and pointed out that regardless of my choice, I will pay the TU through my taxes. I really don't want to live in the Caymans and have found vouchers to be a work in progress. What I want is an ability to take those tax dollars that are currently imposed and desginate their educational use as I see fit for my children. I am of the persuasion who believes that I am a better decision maker regarding my childrens education than the NEA, TU and local school board.

"The point being is you do have a choice, and I would argue much more of a choice then with the oil industry. All the options you mention require substituting one oil product for another, albeit indirectly. Bikes save alot of oil/gas, but you will be riding on asphalt made from oil, constructed from oil, etc. Your home closer to work required substantial oil to construct (wool carpets notwithstanding), your groceries most likely used more oil by weight, (to process, package, transport) then their mass. So how much choice do you actually have?"

This is an argument of contributing to revenue streams. My point was that I have a choice in my contribution to the revenue of the oil company. If I drive my car, I am burning gas. If I ride my bike, I am burning calories. These are not oil/oil substitutions. The oil derivative used to produce the asphalt that my bike or car utilizes has long since been recognized as revenue. The choice of riding my bike does not contribute to the oil companies ongoing revenue. Similarly, If I am buying a new house, I am contributing indirectly to the oil company. However, if I purchase an existing residence, all those indirect cost have since been recognized with the initial purchase of that home. I am not suggesting that I can eliminate my contribution to oil, but that I have a choice. I have absolutely no choice with regard to the appropriation of my tax payment.

 

[vagabondo]

Cooper,

"I would agree that employment is a false sense of security. Unfortunately, for most people, their job is there only source of significant income. Without the illusion of job security, the economy (and your business) will suffer."

The problem IS the illusion of job security. If you believe your job is not at threat, you become complacent. If you hold the illusion of security, you tend to loose interest in improvement initiatives. The reality is that just about every job is at threat when considering emerging markets and countries. When we are honest about these competitive realities, we stop looking at what is due to us and look instead at how we can become more competitive. If viewed through this context, this is not a handicap to employees or employers. This is the kind of motivation that fosters great ideas, great products, great services. This paradigm was the fundamental difference between the cold war economies of the US and USSR. It is the kind of motivation that is difficult to tarnish.

"In my opinion, in a mixed economy such as the US, corporate welfare and entitlements to ensure systemic functioning are no different then individual entitlements (whether perceived are real) in the functioning of the system."

The tax break argument is difficult to accept as entitlement. Let us not forget that for a tax credit to exist an individual or company must first have earned the income. They are only taking less of what one earns. As for bail-outs and the like…I have a hard time reconciling this. It is a form of redistribution of wealth which I find counter-productive.

"The globalization issue plays a large part, and both sides have compelling arguments, and unfortunately, "how can we compete" comes down to the lowest common denominator."

The lowest common denominator is not a globalization issue, but a product life cycle issue. New products usually do not face this as a purchasing decision. Each product has its own life cycle and tend to become more cost/price sensative as they mature. If you are not producing new products, new services, new processes you will ultimately compete in the low cost quadrant.

"As for education, you do have a choice. Consuming education is legislated, but not the provider per se. You could homeschool your kids, or hire a private tutor, thus bypassing the Teachers Union."

Didn't I say this? I did and pointed out that regardless of my choice, I will pay the TU through my taxes. I really don't want to live in the Caymans and have found vouchers to be a work in progress. What I want is an ability to take those tax dollars that are currently imposed and desginate their educational use as I see fit for my children. I am of the persuasion who believes that I am a better decision maker regarding my childrens education than the NEA, TU and local school board.

"The point being is you do have a choice, and I would argue much more of a choice then with the oil industry. All the options you mention require substituting one oil product for another, albeit indirectly. Bikes save alot of oil/gas, but you will be riding on asphalt made from oil, constructed from oil, etc. Your home closer to work required substantial oil to construct (wool carpets notwithstanding), your groceries most likely used more oil by weight, (to process, package, transport) then their mass. So how much choice do you actually have?"

This is an argument of contributing to revenue streams. My point was that I have a choice in my contribution to the revenue of the oil company. If I drive my car, I am burning gas. If I ride my bike, I am burning calories. These are not oil/oil substitutions. The oil derivative used to produce the asphalt that my bike or car utilizes has long since been recognized as revenue. The choice of riding my bike does not contribute to the oil companies ongoing revenue. Similarly, If I am buying a new house, I am contributing indirectly to the oil company. However, if I purchase an existing residence, all those indirect cost have since been recognized with the initial purchase of that home. I am not suggesting that I can eliminate my contribution to oil, but that I have a choice. I have absolutely no choice with regard to the appropriation of my tax payment.

 

[Author]

Posts