hi Maurice Winn,
i don't understand your continued focus on QCOM as some kind of savior for the US on a macroeconomic level. i'll admit it is funny (most people making this line of argument would pick the multihundred-billion-dollar auto sector or the home sector to save the economy, not the 4-billion-dollar leader of a minor digital wireless standard), but perhaps not in the way you intended. to recap, you wrote
QUALCOMM ships a lot of the dollars home as profits, pays taxes to USS Enterprise to maintain the system
to which i posted a detailed reply which, like my other replies, you seem unable to respond to except with analogies containing logical flaws, and i included (unlike you) various FACTs from QCOM's 10-K (e.g., QCOM states, "Cash amounts paid for income taxes were $44 million, $68 million and $58 million for fiscal 2000, 1999 and 1998, respectively".). this of course contridicts your thesis of QCOM paying LOTS of taxes.
confronted with that reality, you have decided to fall back on the ole' multiplier effect.
i then explained to you why it is a fallacy to get obsessed with multiplier effects of taxation, since that ends up with the logical absurdity of an aggregate which is a multiplier of itself.
i could continue on with arguments about macro and/or QCOM, but i prefer to debate facts against facts, not against hypothetical (though amusing) arguments. |
