Saturday, December 28, 2013

Is the Supply going to increase or decrease? ?

Is the Supply going to increase or decrease? ?
FOR ELECTRONICS RETAILERS it will be the holiday season of the flat- screen TV. But the companies that make the key component -- the flat screen itself -- won't have much to celebrate. Heading into the Christmas sales period, traditionally the biggest time of the year for electronics goods, prices of flat-screen TV sets are falling. Sharp Corp.'s 32-inch LCD-TV with built-in HDTV tuner, which was introduced to the U.S. in January at a suggested price of $5,000, now carries a suggested price of $4,000 and is being advertised by some online retailers for about $3,100, including shipping. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. recently began selling a 42-inch plasma set for under $2,000. As prices slide, sales of flat-screen TV sets are expected to double this year and account for about 5% of global TV unit sales. Even so, these sets still yield far more profit for retailers than ordinary, tube-based TV sets. That markup is keeping prices above the level that could turn flat TVs into a mass-market item, say the companies most responsible for the price drop: the Asian makers of the highly complex glass screens called panels. That isn't fair, these companies say. To build the liquid-crystal display, or LCD, panels, they are investing tens of billions of dollars in factories as advanced as those that make computer chips. But these manufacturers can't directly control retail prices since they are just one part of the flat-TV food chain. They sell their panels to TV-set makers, who in turn sell the finished sets to distributors, who then ship the TVs to retailers. Each piece of this chain takes a cut. The world's biggest LCD-panel manufacturers have been cranking out the flat screens faster than the TV industry can absorb as new screen factories have come online. That has prompted the panel makers to cut their wholesale prices by as much as 30% in recent weeks, a move that has lowered their profits. Now they are calling on TV makers, distributors and retailers to do their part to move the screens by reducing their markup on LCD-TVs -- which amounts to as much as 40% of their retail price, according to analysts. "Right now, to work on an immediate and quick liftoff of the LCD-TV market, the [retail] channel margin has to come down," says Ron Wirahadiraksa, chief financial officer of LG.Philips LCD Co.. The Korean company is the second-largest maker of LCD panels and is a joint venture of LG Electronics Inc. of South Korea and Philips Electronics NV of the Netherlands. Retailers insist their margins aren't unduly high. They say the costs of displaying and marketing such big-ticket TVs don't leave high net profits for them. Store chains have invested heavily in training sales clerks to explain the mind-numbing differences in flat-screen technologies. They also have a lot of money tied up in inventories of the costly TVs despite the relatively low sales volumes they generate. Average selling prices of big-screen TVs have dropped to about $3,000 from $5,000 two years ago. That's great for consumers. But for retailers, even if they keep charging the same markup in percentage terms, they end up with a lower gross profit per set sold in dollar terms, notes Michael T. Ryan, a former vice president of merchandising at Circuit City Stores Inc. and now president of international retail consultants Ryan Partnership. The LCD panel makers, meanwhile, face competitive pressure from other screen technologies, including plasma, which generally is used in screens larger than 40 inches, and from the new high-resolution projection TVs that are powered by digital-mirror chips. Since September, plasma-TV prices have plummeted and contributed to a market-share gain over LCD sets. Large LCD screens cost more to build than plasma screens, though that may change in coming years because of efficiencies in the newer LCD factories. Makers of plasma screens do face some of the same profit pressures as retailers apply a similar markup to those sets as well. But plasma- screen factories aren't as costly to erect as LCD-screen plants, and there's a bit less competition among plasma-screen makers, so the profit squeeze isn't as bad. Throughout the electronics industry, executives are plotting the rates of price declines and sales increases for flat-screen TVs and consulting their history books. Over the past decade, the pace at which consumers adopted each new electronic gadget -- from PDAs to DVD players to MP3 music players to camera cellphones -- seems to have accelerated. But most analysts predict that flat-screen TVs won't take off as quickly as flat-screen computer monitors, which went from single-digit market share in 2000 to represent more than half of all monitor sales this year. Monitor purchasing has been driven by businesses while TVs are chiefly purchased by consumers, who tend to be more sensitive to price. Still, flat-screen TV prices are reaching a level that draws far more buyers than the so-called early adopters of new electronics gear. "
Economics - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Im just a student and i am not that good. BUT if u want some really good econs majors nad professors to help you. PLEASE TYPE PROPERLY and leave lots of clear paragraphs... Coz it really doesn't inspire help that u seek.



Saturday, December 14, 2013

Is this is a good platform for president?

Is this is a good platform for president?
This is for a school project... 1. Limited government/less spending a. Abolish many government agencies which are either unconstitutional or inefficient (like the Dep. of Education and a few others) b. Privatize social security by putting it in the hands of credit unions, rather than large corporations c. End useless foreign aid and make sure the only form of foreign aid is microloans, and that also to the poorest nations only 2. Decrease military spending and end the war a. End the war and bring the troops home, immediately, there's no use of us being in Iraq, and the only reason for us being in Afghanistan is to fight the 100 al-qaeda members which are still there... We are occupiers, and that only perpetuates the war b. Close useless military bases which help us defend our 'global empire'... We have over 700 military bases in over 100 different countries... We have about 30,000 soldiers in South Korea, Germany, and Japan, each, and all these countries are doing well enough to defend themselves 3. End foreign oil dependence and initiate new hemp based economy a. Systemically encourage ethanol usage instead of petroleum and legalize the growing of hemp, which has one of the best seed to oil ratios in the natural world... Hemp can replace corn as the main ethanol source which will lower food prices... b. Hemp fibers can produce 4 times as much paper per acre than trees, so we can add some more oxygen into the air by not cutting more trees 4. Clean up the environment a. Even though global warming has been proven a hoax (see: climategate), we still need to clean up air and the water supply b. We need to ban fluoride, lithium, and other substances which are purposely put into our water supply "to keep us healthy"... These are like forced vaccines, since nearly every community's water supply contains these hazardous substances c. "Cash for Caulkers" program where people are encouraged to be efficient in their household 5. Lower taxes a. Since many useless programs will be cut, our need for taxes will become less b. We abolish the individual income tax and abolish the dividend tax c. We instate an intangible property tax so we can efficiently tax the rich (this tax will make stuff like stocks, bonds, patents, and other things like real property, so we can tax it) 6. Empower local government a. Since local government are so numerous, they are all harder to infiltrate by the money powered elite b. Since we stop many programs, we can stop the chokehold the federal government has over the people and local governments What do you think? Would you vote for someone with this platform?
Elections - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Nope. I've had enough hope and change.
2 :
Yes. It's VERY good.




Saturday, December 7, 2013

Am I nuts? Just selfish? Bipolar?

Am I nuts? Just selfish? Bipolar?
Seriously. If your crazy do you know it. Okay, 24/male army brat. Mom, died when i was 11 of bone cancer. Mom and dad had a bitter divorce not long befoe she passed. Moved with dad to South Korea after mothers death. Dad has girlfriend's that were very young. He complained about them using him for money,yet he continued to send them money long after coming back to the U.S.. Four years later I move back to the states to the same community I lived before I left with my father. Began abusing Alcohol/Marijauna/LSD substantially for 9 years. Anyways, I understand everyone comes from a different background, but could these prior events plus self - medication make one go crazy? I have this hot and cold problem with almost everything. I seem to build up this standard for my friends and then feel upset by my expectations. One minute I want to have a party at my house the next I will litteraly be hiding out in my own house for reasons not caused by them. My outlook on life is also weary at times. I have always been flakey whether it be school or work. I lose intrest very easy. I feel like there's two me's. For example, my nephew turned 2 in Feburary and I bought this Jeep ride around thing for him but couldn't build up enough courage to bring it to him. I dont want him to see me drink. It seems at times the only thing holding me back is me. If you have read this so far, thank you. I am 100 percent serious. Do I need to get over myself? This is causing a drastic strain on my relationship with my girlfriend. I am at times thinking about suicide, but have seen the effects it causes on loved ones.This sounds selfish but, I know I abuse alcohol and marijauna, but I have never sought out treatment. And I don't picture myself ever quiting. Any Inquries would be great but in a constructive way. Thanks
Mental Health - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
About Just selfish can be read in http://health-schools.blogspot.com/?q=Just%20selfish
2 :
There seems to be a lot going on for you at the moment. For some of us a part of life is going through some extreme difficulties and the way we come out on the other end is highly dependent on what we have been equipped with throughout life to deal with it. To say that you are selfish or nuts should not even be relevant. The fact is that you seem to be experiencing a tremendous amount of distress and it is affecting you and those around you. You need to look after yourself and a good start would be going to see a psychologist. There could be many elements that are contributing to the problems you are experiencing and a professional will help you explore these and assist you in adressing them in an effective manner. I do hope that you would consider this as an option although it may be difficult. Sometimes we need someone objective to help us work through things...
3 :
You don't seem to have any of the symptoms of bipolar disorder so I think you can rule that out but there are any number of things that therapy could help you with. You have had it rough which can affect you personality, your outlook on life and your relationships with yourself and others. You do not sound inherently selfish. I would suggest you see a psychologist for advice and counseling.



Sunday, December 1, 2013

Australian PM Blames Geithner for Directly Messing Up Indonesia.?

Australian PM Blames Geithner for Directly Messing Up Indonesia.?
Obama's economic saviour savaged as Keating lets rip. Australian PM Blames Geithner for Directly Messing Up Indonesia, and Indirectly for Contributing to Housing Boom In a speech to a closed gathering at the Lowy Institute in Sydney on Thursday, Paul Keating gave a starkly different account of Geithner's record in handling the Asian crisis: "Tim Geithner was the Treasury line officer who wrote the IMF [International Monetary Fund] program for Indonesia in 1997-98, which was to apply current account solutions to a capital account crisis." In other words, Geithner fundamentally misdiagnosed the problem. And his misdiagnosis led to a dreadfully wrong prescription. Geithner thought Asia's problem was the same as the ones that had shattered Latin America in the 1980s and Mexico in 1994, a classic current account crisis. In this kind of crisis, the central cause is that the government has run impossibly big debts. The solution? The IMF, the Washington-based emergency lender of last resort, will make loans to keep the country solvent, but on condition the government hacks back its spending. The cure addresses the ailment. But the Asian crisis was completely different. The Asian governments that went to the IMF for emergency loans - Thailand, South Korea and Indonesia - all had sound public finances. The problem was not government debt. It was great tsunamis of hot money in the private capital markets. When the wave rushed out, it left a credit drought behind. But Geithner, through his influence on the IMF, imposed the same cure the IMF had imposed on Latin America and Mexico. It was the wrong cure. Indeed, it only aggravated the problem. Keating continued: "Soeharto's government delivered 21 years of 7 per cent compound growth. It takes a gigantic fool to mess that up. But the IMF messed it up. The end result was the biggest fall in GDP in the 20th century. That dubious distinction went to Indonesia. And, of course, Soeharto lost power." Exactly who was the "gigantic fool"? It was, obviously, the man who wrote the program, Geithner, although Keating is prepared to put the then managing director of the IMF, the Frenchman Michel Camdessus, in the same category. Worse, Keating argued, Geithner's misjudgment had done terminal damage to the credibility of the IMF, with seismic geoeconomic consequences: "The IMF is the gun that can't shoot straight. They've been making a mess of things for the last 20-odd years, and the greatest mess they made was in east Asia in 1997-98, so much so that no east Asian state will put its head in the IMF noose." China, in particular, drew hard conclusions from the IMF's mishandling of the Asian crisis. It decided that it would never allow itself to be dependent on the IMF, or the US, or the West generally, for its international solvency. Instead, it would build the biggest war chest the world had ever seen. The Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/obamas-economic-saviour-savaged-as-keating-lets-rip-20090306-8rk7.html?page=-1
Politics - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Just think what Timmy the Tax Cheat is going to do to us...