Re: IBM vs MS...was: Re: DOLLAR COLLAPSE NOW IMMINENT

On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:29:24 -0700 (PDT), BobR
<reed1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On May 20, 4:13 pm, retrogro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:43:43 -0700 (PDT), BobR
>>
>> <re...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> It matters who and what is directly taxed.
>>
>> >I agree totally that it does matter who and what is directly taxed.
>> >No argument on that point.  In one case, the people know without a
>> >doubt that they are paying the tax but in the other, those same people
>> >think it is some nasty old cor****ation that is paying the tax.  My
>> >point is when you tax that nasty old cor****ation they quite simply
>> >pass that tax on to the consumer in their prices.
>>
>> And your point is a lie. It happens some times, but mostly it does not
>> because supply and demand and maximizing profits won't allow it. If
>> the customer would pay more for the product or buy more product the
>> company would already be doing it. Adding a tax will ****ft the demand,
>> unless it's not passed on to the consumer and taken from the
>> shareholder profits (or expenses - like management bonuses). Saying
>> the customer pays it reflects a lack of understanding of economics.
>>
>> It means you've bought the s**** oil. And then defend the purchase.
>
>No, it means you don't have a damn clue about economics.  Now I see
>why you didn't make it through Econ-101.


LOL. I've done probably a couple hundred hours of economics credits. I
do about 15 economic courses or books a year. The reason I'm calling
BS on your 101 summaries is I DO understand economics. 

I've done everything on economic here:
http://www.knowledgeproducts.net/

and here 
http://www.teach12.com/teach12.asp?ai=16281

in addition to the books.

You're just name calling (and badly). It's too hide the fact you're
not making your case. 

If you say I don't get the economics - LAY THEM OUT.