I don't know much about them (small businesses), myself, except for the couple I am involved with.
But the BizBuySell Insight report says that the median sale price for small businesses in Q1 this year was $225,000. That's probably a reasonable value when you consider that most small businesses are things like small retail stores, plumbing, carpentry, and electrical businesses.
So, if half of all small businesses are worth $225,000 or less, as this report says, how many small businesses do you think are worth more than $5.3 million, which is the value needed to bring the estate tax into play?
How can stock buyback be an outgrowth of QE? Stock buybacks were happening in the 1980's, and have been happening ever since.. QE1 began in 2008.
He didn't say that QE was perfect, but simply that it worked better than the approach that the EU took.
And are you saying that stock buyback is a good thing? Stock buyback increases the value of shares already in circulation, shares already owned by the wealthy. It increases the wealth of wealthy stock owners, but it doesn't create new products, build more efficient factories, or hire more employees.
Springer, I know lots of farmers, and I grew up on a farm. Only 2% of Americans are farmers, and only a few of them actually own large farms that are worth millions. In many cases, the land is owned by land trusts, investors, banks in the form of mortgages, or dozens of family members who share the farmland.
As I said before only about 2% of Americans have a net worth more than the minimum $5.4 million required before the estate tax kicks in, including all the farmers, a well as business CEOs, and stock speculators, and those who inherited their wealth.
Only the rich even have the $5.4 million that is the minimum before the estate tax even kicks in. Only 20% of American retirees even have a net worth of $1 million, to say nothing of $5 million.
No, carbon is to CO2 as wheat is to bread. Just as wheat can be used to make bread, biscuits, pasta, or pies, Carbon can be used to make CO2, carbon monoxide, methane, butane, or any number of greenhouse gases.
CO2 is no more of a pollutant than nitrogen is, but both can be a big problem if there is too much of it in our atmosphere. Most an chemist or biologist can tel you how much is too much, if you ask them.
How often do people tell you when you are just being silly?
Lan, and it's the greenhouse gases that act exactly like the greenhouse's glass roof. that's why they are called "greenhouse" gases.
Iyt's interesting that you now pick Judith Curry to quote.
Judith Curry believes that global warming is happening.
Judith Curry believes that global warming is caused by human release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Her contention is that we still can't predict how fast we can expect to see big changes in our environment, and how we can best spend our limited resources to protect ourselves from those changes.
So play your semantics game if you wish. Then what are our national interests in the Middle East and Iran? If we knew what our national interests were, w would also have a pretty good idea what our goals wre, as well.
Are our national interests with Iran worth a war that must cost much more than $5 trillion dollars, and 10's of thousands of American lives (and millions of Iran ones).
Iran has more than 3 times the population and more than 3 times the area of Iran. Iran's economy and GDP are 4 times the size of Iraq's. Iran's population has twice the education of Iraqis. And also Iran has a military that is at least 3 times the size of Iraq's armed forces, and the Iranian forces are much better trained and equipped, as well.
If our national interest includes a war with Iran, then we'd better double our income taxes now to pay for it, because it must cost well over $5 trillion, given the huge differences in the 2 countries. We didn't win the war in Iraq, after spending $2 trillion there. What makes you think we could do any better in Iran?
Might our national interests actually put finding peace with Iran as our most important goal, because it would be in the best interest of both our countries? As Ronald Reagan said, trust, but verify!
We really need to spend some time talking about what our goals are in the Middle East. If we really want to fight a war there, why, and who should be our allies? Should we support the largest democracy in the Middle East (Iran), or a religious monarchy (the Saudis).
Iran has twice the population and GDP of Saudi Arabia, similar to Turkey in both size and it's democratic government.. Turkey is an ally. why not Iran?
The situation in the Middle East has been very complicated for centuries. Can trillions of American dollars, and thousands of American lives change that in any way?
We have been in the Middle East to defend the world's primary supply of oil for half a century. Is that still necessary now?
We have been there to defend our ally, Israel. Does Israel still need our defense?
We need to have a good, long discussion on what we want to do, and must do in the Middle East. It used to be our Congress' job to decide what our foreign policies should be. Why are they letting Obama make these big decisions on his own?
It doesn't matter much to me. I usually just attribute it to typos or spelling deficiencies on the part of the poster, and then ignore it (at least if I can figure out what the poster is trying to say, which is admittedly difficult sometimes)
Yes, I still miss WFB. He had a big house a few miles from where I grew up (although he worked and centered his life in NYC). He appeared in the local paper from time to time. I miss him, although I didn't always agree with him, especially before his big switch on civil rights.
We neither want to or can return to the "greatness" that we enjoyed in the 19th century.
- Our population is not 50 to 100 times greater than it was in the earl 19th century.
- We could not feed, cloth, or house our current population using the "greater" technologies and social structures of the early 19th century.
- We have invented thousands of chemicals and weapons over the past couple of centuries, which could each kill all of us if we let the wrong people, or even anyone, use them, in many cases.
- Our wastes are more abundant, and more dangerous than they were in the 19th century, and we create them, and manage them, as we live and work much closer together.
Life is much more complicated that it was in those older, golden years of "greatness". Perhaps those added complexities, and the ways we have learned to deal with them are what has made as great as we have become, but in any case, we will never be able to return to those same older golden years and still feed, cloth, and house ourselves.
wh)me2000 - I don't think those points only apply to conservatives. They certainly don't. I'm simply wondering where the conservative who thought that way went.
- In 1940 less than 40% of Americans had graduated from high school. Now the average is about 75%, with only a half dozen states having graduation rates below 70%.
- In 1940 less than 5% of Americans had college degrees. Now that number is over 30%.
- In 1940 there were 60,000 of what they call utility patent applications to the US patent office. Last year there more than 570,000 of them.
Those are certainly not signs of "dumbing down".
I agree. Our taxes are much more complex than they need to be. When do you think that you can get Congress to pass a big tax reform bill that removes the complexities, exclusions, and deductions, and flattens the tax rates out?
What happened to all the rational conservatives who used to be part of our American society, Americans like Everett Dirksen, and William F. Buckley. These were people who understood how a budget worked, and what a deficit was. These were people who understood why many of our ancestors came to America in order to be free to worship as they wanted, and to escape economic slavery in their homelands. These are people who supported civil rights, and equality for all. These were people who understood the importance of American leadership in the world, an the the importance of the United Nations. There where peoepl who understood how our American democracy works, and why it was and still is so important.
Why is it that today's conservatives show so little understanding of American government, or even simple budgeting, arithmetic, or how to read a thermometer?
I didn't miss the part about able-bodies childless adults, as that's a small, almost insignificant part of total number of people using food stamps. They probably don't even make up 10% of the people on food stamps (SNAP. More than half of those on food stamps are children. Add to that the mothers of the children who have been abandoned by their fathers, the elderly, the sick, and the people who are already working in very low paying jobs.
Very few of the people collecting welfare and food stamps are able-bodied childless adults who are not already working.