Posts by wearytrucker22

mellownomad said:Why would that be a bad thing for us?

First, do you honestly believe a debtor should have the right to decide how much they owe? If you live in the USA, you have that agency; if you live in a place like this, you don't.
Second, why do I refer to this as "mental socialism"?

We have this deep-seated tradition of taking from the wealthy to redistribute to the poor.
There is an old proverb that suggests a wealthy man can become poor, but he will find his way back to wealth; however, a poor man might find wealth, only to slide right back into poverty.
Why does this happen? It comes down to several factors, one being the fundamental relationship one maintains with money.
By taking from those who actually possess capital—whether through progressive taxation or various progressive levies and similar burdens—we effectively penalize the very people who drive success. It is the successful individuals who push society forward.
You can argue with me, but workers and laborers alone don't push a society forward; they merely maintain the status quo.
Whether it is through progressive taxation or the refusal to honor debts, we are essentially incentivizing a socialist mindset...

And where has that path led us? The US has seen its own eras of massive fiscal instability, and looking at our history, we see the patterns.
People have always been leaving this country; one major wave began back in the mid-60s when people headed toward Europe, and the latest wave is happening right now.
Does that suggest we are a successful society? We are certainly not...
Einstein once noted that "the mind which creates the problem is not the same mind capable of solving it." In other words, we require an entirely different mindset.

How is a country like Germany so prosperous? They are prosperous because they don't spend their time lamenting their inability to pay off debt; instead, they focus on working and saving, working and saving... and then using those savings to purchase things (as Hayek might suggest).
They likely understand that wealth is built over generations and passed down accordingly.
We lack that awareness... why? Because every 20 to 30 years, the system feels the need to reset itself—wealth must be seized from someone, someone must flee the country, and so on...
It is because we lived under socialism and continue to harbor a socialist mindset... our current social order simply leans on those old habits.
If the public weren't so easily swayed, they wouldn't fall for the repetitive political games played by the Republicans and the Democrats.

That is precisely why I left and moved away. From a comfortable distance, I am watching the Titanic sink, because four or five years ago, I predicted the economy would hit a breaking point (and I felt the same way even earlier).

To conclude: there is a saying, "choose your own battles," and fighting for our debts to be wiped clean is a lost cause. Creditors will likely be even harsher with us than they were with Greece, and our only saving grace is that our debt load isn't quite as massive as theirs.
Instead of chasing fairy tales, we should be looking at how to actually repay that debt and fix the state of the nation.

Germany is rich because they didn't pay back their debts after WWI or WWII, and because the US pumped hundreds of trillions of dollars in grants into them. On top of that, they haven't paid up for the roughly $50 trillion to $100 trillion in damages caused across Europe.
Because of them, America lost about 400,000 people multiplied by €2 million, which totals €800 billion.
If not a single German had ever been born, America would probably have at least 10 to 12 million more people today. But German barbarism and hooliganism set us back so far we still haven't recovered.
Under American law, if you're driving a getaway car for a bank robbery and the robber kills someone, you as the driver get the exact same sentence as the shooter. If you hadn't been driving, they wouldn't have reached the location or had the chance to shoot in the first place.

mellownomad said:The core argument behind voting on this thread is quite simple: we shouldn't give Greece an inch of leeway. In fact, we should push them straight toward bankruptcy rather than offering any concessions.

Think about it this way: if we decide to bail them out, we aren't just helping one nation; we are effectively opening the floodgates. It would set a precedent that invites every other country to come knocking, demanding their own debts be wiped clean.
long live socialism! long live the Communist Party! long live Comrade Marshall!

Why would we offer any concessions? The money lent to Greece, Italy, Portugal, and the rest was already spent, and only a tiny fraction of it actually built anything tangible. What’s done is done.
- Wipe out every single account across the entire European Union, cap them at $100,000 per Social Security number, and convert whatever's left into a new Euro.
- Give companies a flat $30,000 per employee.
- Erase all debt and start from scratch.
- Then, take a look at how much cash is sitting in pension funds, slash their holdings, and convert those remaining amounts into new bank shares so that, effectively, the pension funds end up owning 51% of the banks.
- Non-European Union countries holding Euros must hand over owner data tied to specific taxpayer IDs. For any country that agrees to cooperate, we swap out a portion of their currency immediately.
Money is meant to be spent, not hoarded in piles. Gold is what you hoard.

mellownomad said:The core argument behind voting on this thread is quite simple: we shouldn't give Greece an inch of leeway. In fact, we should push them straight toward bankruptcy rather than offering any concessions.

Think about it this way: if we decide to bail them out, we aren't just helping one nation; we are effectively opening the floodgates. It would set a precedent that invites every other country to come knocking, demanding their own debts be wiped clean.
long live socialism! long live the Communist Party! long live Comrade Marshall!

Why would we offer any concessions at all? The money lent to Greece, Italy, Portugal, and the rest has already been spent, and only a tiny fraction was ever actually used for infrastructure. What's done is done.
- Wipe out all accounts across the entire European Union and cap them at $100,000 per SSN, then convert everything into a new currency.
- Leave companies with just $30,000 per employee.
- Erase all outstanding loans and just start from scratch.
- Then, take a look at how much cash is sitting in pension funds, slash their holdings, and convert those remaining amounts into new bank shares so that, effectively, the pension funds end up owning 51% of the banks.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Are these laws really that bizarre? And does this apply to every single bank regardless of ownership, or just the foreign ones? The federal budget only guarantees deposits up to a certain limit, and anything beyond that is just a depositor's loss.
By that logic, if I lease a car, get hammered, and wreck it because it was my own fault, the insurance won't cover it and the bank won't be able to collect.
And then they're just going to dump that onto the taxpayers?!

Small local American banks aren't affected by this. It doesn't apply to a Turkish bank operating here, and it doesn't apply to Chinese investors within the European Union either. This stuff only hits banks from the European Union and the USA—specifically those European Union and USA investors who are deeply embedded in powerful lobbying networks. You can see a textbook example of this in how Greek debt was handled, the Irish debt situation, and Iceland’s refusal to let private bank debt be dumped onto the shoulders of its citizens.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Are these laws really that bizarre? And does this apply to every single bank regardless of ownership, or just the foreign ones? The federal budget only guarantees deposits up to a certain limit, and anything beyond that is just a depositor's loss.
By that logic, if I lease a car, get hammered, and wreck it because it was my own fault, the insurance won't cover it and the bank won't be able to collect.
And then they're just going to dump that onto the taxpayers?!

Look, it's not like the next group of people leasing cars is going to cover the losses for one or two—or even a hundred—drivers. But when we're talking about massive loans from the European Union or US venture capital funds used to build a hundred failed shopping malls owned by foreign corporations, or massive highway projects, housing developments, or buying high-end military hardware from the European Union and the USA... when those things inevitably collapse, the whole mess gets dumped onto the public's back. On top of that, they toss an extra 20% into the federal budget for the sitting administration just to stabilize things and keep the public from revolting. When I asked why they include that 20% kicker, the answer was simple: what fool would agree to take on that entire debt without a bribe? It's basically a payoff to ensure governments stay in power.

mellownomad said:Could we hold a national referendum where every single citizen gets their own Ford Motor Company vehicle handed to them? Of course everyone would vote yes—it’s a no-brainer.

It is the exact same logic here;
The US Congress holds the authority to approve government borrowing, just as the federal administration does. If everything follows the legal framework, then the process is legitimate. We aren't paying off some foreign war debt; we are essentially paying back the money we borrowed from ourselves.

Go read up on international law regarding this stuff. The US Congress has the right to request financing for specific projects that benefit all citizens. If the administration goes rogue and raises it on its own? No.
Do some research on those lost creditor lawsuits. It happens in thousands of cases.
The only legally valid way is
to take out a loan that was voted on by the US Congress for one specific project, requiring a supermajority of two-thirds plus one representative.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:We absolutely have to understand the structure of American debt.
This proposal can only apply to the debt taken on directly by the US government to keep federal institutions or public utilities running.
As for all the other liabilities, the state as a single entity isn't responsible for them.
Here is a solid article on the subject: http://fizzit.net/posao-i-financije/...e-bojati-1-dio

So, who is actually on the hook to pay that money back? The state pays its share, the banks pay theirs, and finally, the citizens pay theirs via the loans they took out. Look, if you find the statistic that every American is technically liable for a certain amount intimidating, just think about your own mortgage or that lease on your imported car: if you can't make the payments, nobody is going to step in and pay it for you. What happens if you default? Well, then the person who lent you the money—primarily the bank—has a massive problem on their hands. And the foreign owner of that bank will have a problem too. But does the government have a problem? Probably not. And neither do your neighbors: it is highly unlikely you'll be forced to settle someone else's debt unless you specifically signed as a guarantor.

CONCLUSION:

First off, as one can see from the text—which is buried under a rather paranoid headline—the debt of the US as a legal entity, or what the text refers to as the "central state," does not amount to 46 billion dollars as the headline claims, but rather 5.9 billion dollars. And that is the only slice of external debt that actually increased last year, and it's the only part the administration has direct control over: it's the external debt that Americans most commonly associate with the word "government." That is simply budget money that was spent when there wasn't enough domestic revenue to cover it.

Therefore, the aforementioned law can only apply to the Democratic Party!!



THE GOVERNMENT OWES US A REFUND ON GREENBACKS!! And honestly, that’s not even the most pressing issue here. As for everything else above that level—well, let the people who actually took out the loans deal with the fallout themselves!

Take my buddy, who’s currently staring down bankruptcy—he was just telling me the other day about how he’s stuck paying off his wife’s nebulous debts. He ended up acting as a guarantor, and now the bill has landed squarely on his doorstep.
They're looking at a $20,000 debt being settled by him and their partner, who’s already retired.
That works out to roughly $400 per person.
It makes you wonder—if their business partner had passed away, there wouldn't even be anyone left to settle his share. Unless, of course, the partner was smart enough to transfer all his assets over to his wife and kids beforehand. In this case, the wife played it smart and transferred the house to their daughter. It’s been over three years now, so it’s far too late for creditors to try any fraudulent conveyance lawsuits.
Regarding their specific debt, if they can't pay it back, the US Congress doesn't need to step in and pass some massive new piece of legislation. We already have wage garnishment laws that allow for up to a third of an average paycheck. That should be more than enough.

And it isn't quite what you think—or what you actually believe—that Greece just grabbed and burned through $550 billion in debt.
Here is the actual breakdown of the situation as of May 1, 2015, regarding the debt.

$13.6 billion for the federal budget
$1.4 billion for the Federal Reserve
totaling $15 billion
And usually, European bankers use incredibly convoluted legislation and rules to force the budget to absorb commercial bank debt—in our case, $8.2 billion. This includes debt owed to their financial institutions and funds from the American private sector, mostly 30-50%, plus some foreign investment. $18.3 billion represents the principal and part of the larger foreign investments, but they execute that by penetrating the monetary system with about $6.7 billion.
To handle this, any normal country would constantly need emergency capital control laws, or printed bonds or a domestic currency.
For instance, Iceland refused to let the state budget take on the debt of commercial banks and private companies. All of Europe, led by the UK and the Netherlands, attacked them for it. In the end, they actually paid off a good chunk of that debt, though they did assume part of it themselves. Ireland, on the other hand, took on the private banks' debt without hesitation. That was the first time I discussed this here and asked if the Irish government was sane and why they would do such a thing. By doing that, they jumped from roughly $15 billion in central debt to today's $182 billion, and they're paying interest on it. With interest rates at only 0.5%, they're basically finished.

There are countless historical precedents where nations have simply refused to settle their debts.
The USA-Spain conflict in 1898 following the Paris Conference involved hundreds of millions in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Then there was the Russian debt in 1917.
Or Costa Rica’s debt to Canada back in 1923.
There are probably a thousand other instances just like this. It’s all out there in the public record, but most people—especially American citizens—don't give a damn about it.
There is actually another legal avenue to consider.
Debt repayment can be rejected if settling those obligations would actively harm the citizens of that nation. There are legal principles suggesting that creditors should only extend credit to states if it serves to elevate the civilization of that nation, based on the idea that everyone has an equal right to a dignified life. If paying off the debt threatens the very ability of citizens to live with dignity, then that debt shouldn't be paid. You could reduce it, forgive portions of it, or even reclassify it as a humanitarian donation.
Take the Ottoman debt to Great Britain. British bankers handed out credits to the Turks purely out of greed and profit; it was proven that interest rates exceeded inflation, making that debt illegal. Consequently, the Turks didn't pay it back after WWI.
Anyone with enough initiative can find books detailing these specific debts.


As far as I'm concerned, the American national debt—which was racked up by the criminal organizations of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party—is immoral and a betrayal of the country. I am done paying it wherever I can. Furthermore, the debts held by American banks to their parent institutions are illegitimate; they need to be immediately converted into bank capital and wiped clean. We need to audit every single debt owed by offshore companies to American LLCs to see if the funds were used for their intended purposes, hunt for money laundering, and seize those assets. (To avoid confusion: imagine a foreigner opens an LLC with $6667 and lends itself $1 million from an offshore entity to build a vacation home for his family, while that debt is counted toward the American national debt.) That is pure money laundering and a direct assault on the American budget. Those properties should be seized and the offending LLC sent into bankruptcy. The only caveat is allowing the individuals involved to buy back those properties at the actual book value they paid, provided they pay the sales tax, while the rest can be sent back to that offshore firm.

Moving toward international law, which all UN member states have signed onto,
"Debt isn't binding for the citizens of a country if that debt was never actually used for the nation's benefit. Instead, it was funneled into keeping a specific government or dictatorship in power.
These types of laws emerged in the post-colonial world after WWII—and honestly, Germany exploited them quite effectively. But since we’re living under this modern 'democracy' where administrations use debt to basically buy votes just to get re-elected, I'd argue we have a moral right to utilize legal protections against odious debt.
The reality is that while old-school dictators used state funds to pay off secret police and the military to maintain control, today's leaders use the voters themselves to stay in power. There isn't much difference, really, other than the fact that dictatorships have simply adapted to the era we live in.
We can categorize these disgusting debts into several groups: war debt, imposed or conquered debt (like the obligations inherited from the former America), and regime-specific debt (the kind favored by the Republicans-Democrats).
Of course, debt taken out to build things like the interstate highway system is perfectly legal; you just have to look at whether the interest rates are predatory. If a believer mentions sovereign risk or credit ratings in court, they are essentially casting doubt on the idea that the debt is odious. Legally speaking, creditors must prove that
the loan proceeds weren't used for odious purposes—meaning, they shouldn't be used for things that harm the entire country or ensure that not all citizens had an equal opportunity to benefit from the debt. Everyone has an equal right to use a highway, so that debt isn't odious. But taking out loans specifically to bribe voters? That's odious, because those resources aren't being utilized equally by everyone.
"

We could honestly lean on the international legal principle of odious debt here. The way the Republicans and Democrats have teamed up like some kind of criminal syndicate means they’ve basically saddled our grandkids and great-grandkids with illegal debt, all without getting that necessary two-thirds majority from Congress.
Maybe some of you aren't fully up to speed on how the UN views this. International law regarding debt repayment has never been seen as
strictly mandatory. It’s frequently limited or qualified by several equal considerations, some of which fall under the umbrella of what we call "odious debt." Essentially, according to the UN, odious debt shouldn't be collectible or even pursued. While a country's debt to a private believer is usually governed by local laws, those legal systems are supposed to utilize doctrines like "clean hands" or declare credit agreements tied to illegal purposes as simply void.

Kulić: We need to tell the lenders that we aren't paying back debt that US Congress never authorized!
''They should start asking themselves who they're actually lending to. They ought to ask the Secretary of the Treasury if the decision to take on this debt was ever ratified by Congress. The message needs to be clear: the American people won't foot the bill for debts they were never informed about,'' says Slavko Kulić.

It is impossible to pin down the total foreign debt of America because of the endless cycle of restructuring and refinancing. We have no idea what the actual amounts of these new loans are, because during restructuring, the cash doesn't even enter the US; it’s just tacked onto the existing balance. To be blunt, maybe 10 to 20 percent of the money actually hits our shores, while the other 80 to 90 percent is just paper debt being added to the pile. This proves the government is acting more like an agent for big banks than a representative of its citizens. These institutions pump in capital that ends up being 150 times more expensive than what the Federal Reserve could produce on its own! This is unconstitutional borrowing, plain and simple, since central banks are responsible for managing a nation's financial flows. What we are looking at is nothing less than high treason by the political elite. They aren't saddling the state with debt; they are saddling every single citizen with it. We are left holding the bag, even though nobody bothered to ask us. The real motive—the true endgame behind all this borrowing—is to force the public into bankruptcy. The 'elite' wants to strip everything away from us so we don't consume the resources they want to hoard for themselves. They want to seize everyone's assets so we can't drive cars, can't heat our homes, and can't contribute to emissions, leaving all those resources untouched for their own use. That is the heart of the entire game,” explains independent economic analyst Dinko Bartulović.

Dr. Slavko Kulić, a highly respected scientist, makes a similar argument.

Nathan Sullivan3 said:It feels like the clock is ticking for all of Europe as China rises, and they're moving fast, picking up all those high-paying jobs Europeans used to handle.

Sure, but you’re overlooking the fact that the TTIP tariffs implemented in the US for Chinese goods apply to the European Union too—and soon, it’ll be reciprocal. The EU utilizes various trade defense mechanisms to try and level the playing field for domestic industries whenever they get hit by dumped or subsidized imports.

Looking at how often the EU actually kicks these things off, the frequency of annual initiations between 2009 and 2013 dropped compared to the 1996-2008 stretch. During that 2009-2013 window, they averaged about 51 cases a year, down from the 67 cases seen over the preceding 13 years.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/acc...s-into-the-eu/

The EU-China trade balance is sitting heavily in China's favor at plus $144.8 billion. On top of that, roughly 45-50% of the goods being imported into the EU are actually owned by EU companies. Plus, every single year, somewhere between $100 and $200 billion flows out of China in the form of capital, interest, and profits.

boldbadger20 said:I guess all those economists out there just don't have much to say, either.😁>

Greece. If they tank this Monday, there’s nowhere left to go but down.

Drew Allen77 said:You can withdraw your initial capital from your account immediately.

Then, if he doesn't have enough to cover his own salary over the next few months, he could end up as a director facing massive problems he’ll never recover from. The only silver lining is seeing interest rates drop from around 15% down to 10%.
Don't go forming an LLC if you don't have $6667 instead if you don't have $66667.

-------
That’s why the new Penal Code has been getting so much media attention; failing to pay part or all of a worker's wages—whether once or repeatedly—is classified as a criminal offense punishable by up to three years in prison. "Wages" covers everything: base pay plus any other cash or in-kind benefits an employee receives for their work, calculated as the gross amount including payroll taxes. Essentially, you have to be careful because even missing out on mandatory additions like overtime, night shifts, or holiday pay could land you in criminal territory.
Can every employer who fails to pay wages be held criminally liable?
The answer is no. There is no criminal offense if the non-payment occurs because the employer simply cannot access the funds in their account or lacks sufficient funds due to circumstances that weren't intended to dodge payroll. This means those 70,000 employers won't face criminal charges if they're stuck because their accounts are frozen. Employers without funds also won't be criminally liable if those funds weren't spent specifically to avoid paying employees. However, this exception won't apply to struggling employers who fail to provide workers with pay stubs showing that the earned wages weren't actually paid.
Under the Labor Law, if an employer fails to pay wages, bonuses, or severance on the due date—or fails to pay them in full—they are required to provide the employee with a statement of the amounts owed by the end of that month. Failing to meet this obligation is treated as a major violation, carrying fines ranging from $61,000 up to $33333. That said, even if it's determined that an employer has the money but isn't paying, or if they spent the money specifically to avoid payroll, they might be spared the penalty if they settle the back pay later.
- See more at: http://www.poslovni-info.eu/sadrzaj/....zI54MS25.dpuf

Since he would only be pulling out that startup capital via a personal loan, it means he’s knowingly taking a loan from the company just to dodge paying payroll taxes to the government. That's three years in prison right there. Don't think for a second that trying to pass it off as "petty cash expenses" will fly with an auditor. It's bad faith business.
In accounting, only the truth counts, period.
And don't mess around with short-sighted criminal statutes. You find the loopholes, and you do it legally.

William Morgan said:I’ve got about $100k tied up in my apartment, and honestly? The idea of starting a business scares the hell out of me because my personal assets are on the line. Even if I had total control over everything, my parents worked their fingers to the bone to help me get this place. I could never risk putting that at stake.

@Ashley Mendoza6
The nature of this business really requires people to trust me. I'm offering something that makes their lives easier—essentially, I'll be doing the heavy lifting so the company itself becomes the reliable factor. But I totally hear where you're coming from. Maybe I'm overthinking it? Maybe they won't even care? It's hard to know until you're actually in the thick of it. At the end of the day, I have to find clients first. You can't exactly launch something and then try to pay the bills out of thin air... meh.

Do you honestly think there’s a single idiot in this entire country who would actually give you that? $33 Getting high-value goods without having to cough up the cash upfront.
Do you honestly think there’s a single idiot in America who would hand over goods before seeing that the cash actually hit their account?
They probably have it filed away somewhere under the small business records. $167 And if you find yourself in a bind, you just flip that sole proprietorship into a seasonal operation that only runs for thirty days a year—and then you pay those taxes. $500 Either you pay up to the government, or you shut the whole thing down. It's that simple.

If you find yourself drowning in legal headaches with an LLC and you're left without any real recourse, things get messy fast. $5000 If you get locked up, don't expect a safety net. You aren't entitled to social services, and you certainly won't have health insurance coverage. Your only real move at that point is to pack your bags and get out of the country entirely.

Look, if you don't have enough cash on hand to cover your Social Security taxes a full year in advance, just set up a seasonal business instead—something that only runs for one to six months out of the year. It’s basic math. When you're starting out, you're solely responsible for your own payroll taxes and healthcare premiums. Don't expect anyone to extend you credit on inventory; no supplier is going to give you goods on net-30 or net-60 terms during those first two or three years while you're trying to prove you aren't a flake. Even the big banks won't look at you twice for a mortgage or a business loan unless you can show a solid track record of successful operations for at least three years. It's just how the game is played.

William Morgan said:You only ever show up when there’s something to complain about. Hahaha 👍

Everything is fine; I know exactly what my next move is. I've got the flyers ready and clients are already lining up. Once I land a solid contract, I’ll officially pull the trigger on opening the business. I know I'm taking a bit of a gamble by working with a client before I have my LLC set up, but I’m going to reserve my business name right now just to make sure everything stays organized while I navigate the paperwork.

Look, friend, I get it. It’s a massive headache, and you’re clearly feeling totally discouraged. But I'm new to this. 😁 My biggest advantage? Honestly, I have a family behind me that has worked their way up the ladder and built real wealth, if you know what I mean. But I want to build something from nothing without leaning on them. It’s going to be great. Let's do this!

It would be cheaper for you to just set up a sole proprietorship and handle your own bookkeeping.

mistyraven20 said:Look, I’m saying this with the best intentions—honestly, just so you don't run into trouble later—but I have to point out the contradiction here. You claim you're "great at accounting," yet most of the questions you asked in your first post suggest otherwise. Personally, I would never call someone a skilled accountant if they were asking those kinds of fundamental questions. That’s stuff you should expect your accountant to explain to *you*.

College knowledge and actual hands-on experience are two totally different beasts. It might be a smart move to consult with a seasoned, pro accountant before you dive headfirst into the job.

An accountant has no clue about how much space needs to be between restroom stalls, how often machinery needs certification, or which specific bolt needs a UL rating to meet safety standards.

What an accountant actually does is know which account to debit or credit, which taxes are due when and how much, everything regarding Labor Law, those annoying little tax nuances, travel expenses, and petty inventory management.
The slightly more experienced ones understand the finer details concerning inspections. A handful of top-tier pros in America understand things like circular investments, advanced double taxation avoidance, hiding capital through trusts, or creative accounting where profits are funneled straight into capital instead of being recorded as net income. (That last one is what companies like Monsanto or Ina do on a smaller scale, but 99.99% of global corporations and billionaires pull the same stunts).
Generally speaking, it is easy to hide a billion dollars in profit, yet incredibly difficult to hide five hundred bucks in cash.
The owner of IKEA used to receive perks from the Swiss government in the form of free public transit passes and home medical assistance—there was even some social welfare involved, though it was covered up. It was all technically legal, just morally bankrupt. His domestic housekeepers end up paying a higher effective tax rate than he does.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Well, since I have a lawyer in the family, he went ahead and reached out to the notary in San Francisco who’s handling the case over in San Diego.
And honestly, he just went on the offensive—threatening to report them to the Bar Association to get this settled after eight long years. After a bit of back-and-forth, we finally reached an agreement: they’ll pay the amount, not $867 but strictly ONLY $383 😲😁😲 regarding that debt from $96 back in November 2006.

The thing is, I was at the AT&T store in San Diego, and they were completely clueless—it's like they don't even have the records in their system anymore. Meanwhile, the creditor (AT&T) always has the option to withdraw their enforcement request whenever they feel like it.

Since they weren't being particularly helpful—or even remotely courteous, frankly—I walked straight into the competitor next door (Verizon) and signed up to port my number over to their service.
My Verizon line should be active by tomorrow.
On top of that, I'm getting ready to cancel both my landline and my mother's landline, which are under my name. She barely uses it, and I only ever use it for the internet. My kids just call my cell since they get unlimited minutes anyway.
I think I'll buy my mom one of those old-school, ugly flip phones with buttons, and for myself, I'll grab a Verizon hotspot stick for wireless internet. I'll set up free calls on the phone for $17 months.
All in all, Deutsche Telekom is going to lose two entire accounts.

Look, if you've got a subpar lawyer at home, you're asking for trouble. I dealt with something similar when an AT&T bill showed up out of nowhere. I filed a formal dispute, making sure to emphasize that I distinctly remembered paying that bill a decade ago and that I had all the receipts (total lie, by the way). I challenged the validity of their documentation and demanded they produce the actual proof, insisting on a full forensic audit of the records and my account history for the entire calendar year.
About four or five months later, I finally got word that the collection agency was dropping the whole thing.

Andrew Howard75 said:In my experience, the actual control system on the machine itself shouldn't really interfere with how the software operates. Usually, when a worker kicks off a production run for a specific part, they just log it directly into the software. From there, everything coming off the machine into the software could simply be triggered by a sensor—you know, like a little signal sent once a unit is finished. If the software doesn't receive that signal for a while, it realizes there's a downtime issue. That’s pretty much how the OEE Analyser over at gamed.com handles things.

You really need to get your company's ERP provider to handle this, obviously for a fee. Honestly, when you ask me this, I picture beer bottles rolling down an assembly line. Or, you know, why don't you just reach out to your plant's engineers?

mellownomad said:I don't think $15-20 million is what it should cost; it definitely ought to be less than that. However, you have to factor in the potential ROI if a program like this doesn't already exist on the market.
Think about how many manufacturing plants out there are running machinery and desperately need to know their actual utilization rates...

Then again, I suspect there might already be solutions out there, though they’re likely priced at those steep industrial rates.

$15-20 million wouldn't even cover the full software suite. However, if you develop a semi-finished product and launch it with a few solid pieces of code, once this crisis blows over, you could flip it to a massive corporation for a fortune or dump it onto some unsuspecting investors on the NASDAQ.
You’d actually need a legal team of at least 30 or 40 lawyers just to handle negotiations with machine manufacturers to ensure your software can actually bridge the communication gap between the hardware and the dashboard. And honestly, looking at those "special offer" price lists? We're talking peanuts—maybe $20,000 to $50,000 a year.