jcd11235

Fair point. It would only discourage purchases from US retailers when the difference in shipping exceeds the tax. Of course, since the sales tax would necessarily be much higher than rates common today if they were to replace the federal income tax, the subtotal needed to justify using foreign retailers wouldn't be very high. Some foreign companies might even find it advantageous to offer free shipping so that it would always be advantageous to buy a product from them versus a US retailer at the same pre-tax price. Some foreign governments might even decide that it would be economically beneficial to subsidize shipping to US buyers in order to provide more income to their country's retailers. The Fair Tax sounds nice, but in the real world, it's economic repercussions would be disastrous unless tax avoidance is addressed. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The Fair Tax is the best way I know of to encourage Americans to stop shopping with domestic retailers and to buy as many goods as possible from foreign sellers in order to avoid paying tax. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Disregarding any taxes other than federal income taxes is a great way to create the illusion that many Americans don't pay taxes. That doesn't make the assertion true, but it is one way to try to fool people, nonetheless. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It is only when all other factors are equal or controlled for that efficiency can be analyzed. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Agreed, but that's straying from the topic of efficiency. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Just stop using Euclidean geometry. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

All else equal, they do. ...and...what, that's it? Prove it then. If China can build a widget for $100, but their process involves using human labor because there are so many Chinese, and they have to give people jobs (the joys of central planning), so the process takes 5 people to make, and since there is so much handling, the accuracy tolerances are within a few millimeters. Japan can build the same widget for $300, but their process involves one person, and computer aided assembly allowing for precise construction, tolerances within fractions of a millimeter. So, all else isn't equal. They aren't building the same widget, since the tolerances are significantly different. Go to a machine shop and ask to have a cube with 1.0 inch sides machined out of aluminum. Then ask to have a cube with 1.000 inch sides machined out of aluminum. Which is more expensive? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Nonsense. I'm just trying to figure out what it is that you're talking about. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

See post #381 in this thread. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

There lies the mistake of your argument. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Let no one claim this thread is without humor. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx] understood my point. What part do you not understand? By that logic, we could hypothesize that they were unaware that their lives were in danger. It would be foolish to believe that a gun is the only feasible weapon that could be used by an average person against a box cutter. As I pointed out previously, there are many objects allowed on board that would make far more effective weapons than a box cutter. Either the will to fight lies within the person, or the will to fight lies within the gun. You seem to be arguing that guns are required before anyone could have the will to fight. I think that argument is bullshit. I think the will to fight lies with the person, and they will fight with whatever means at their disposal. Au contraire. You think that things would have turned out differently if a passenger had had a gun. Why do you think that? Do you not believe that if someone is willing to commit an act of violence (justified or otherwise) that they will do so whether or not they have guns? Right. They will defend themselves whether or not they have a gun. If they didn't defend themselves without a gun, there is no reason to believe they would have done so with a gun, either. You described the negative act, not me. I merely offered the term used to describe the act. I paraphrased. FAM's and FFDO are not in the business of self defense. They are authorized to carry guns for the purpose of neutralizing threats. That comment is comical, at best, since it is you who keeps ignoring that the SCOTUS has explicitly stated that the right to bear arms is not an unlimited right. You seem to think that quoting founding fathers from their rhetorical attempts to build support for the adoption of the Constitution somehow gives your argument validation in spite of the explicit statements of the SCOTUS. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I believe it was Ron and Tom who made the claim initially. I agree that it's BS; I'm just following their claim to its logical end. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You're the one attempting to conjure up some imaginary difference. You tell me the proper term for it if you would like it to be addressed. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

All else equal, they do. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

According to Black's Law Dictionary (seventh edition): prior restraint. A governmental restriction on speech or publication before its actual expression. • Prior restraints violate the First Amendment unless the speech is obscene, is defamatory, or creates a clear and present danger to society. Please explain how prior restraint is relevant to the discussion on gun legislation. Have you been forbidden to talk about guns? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You should do that. While you're at it, check out the difference between average annual temperatures and average pent-annual temperatures. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

So, are you acknowledging that free speech rights are abridged when someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater, or are you defending a double standard? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Perhaps you would care to explain the difference in the context of manufacturing. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The obvious solution would be to buy it in a different location. Where? Manny's discount gun trunk (trunk of his car, that is) down at the corner of 5th and Main? As long as you're willing to face the consequences if you get caught, you are free to buy whatever guns you choose. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It would be nice if such an assertion was ever backed up with proof. The fact is, neither the public nor the private sector has an inherent advantage w/r/t efficiency. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The obvious solution would be to buy it in a different location. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The appleton. They were going to call it the newton, but that name had already been used to describe kg*m/s^2. Jeez, Bill. I thought you were an engineer. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You're still making the same mistake of picking a single year as a baseline against which to measure trends. You can't reach a valid conclusion by doing that. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No, they haven't. Sorry to disappoint you. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!