Posts by Thomas Fowler84

electrictiger21 said:I remember watching this segment on TV where they interviewed some big-shot executives from our most famous, household brands. I think the question was specifically about stuff like Cocoa Puffs or Gatorade—basically why everything is so overpriced locally. And honestly, the guy’s answer blew my mind. He basically argued that since these massive corporations want to make a splash in international markets, they HAVE to subsidize their exports. They slash prices abroad just to stay competitive and get noticed globally, then they make up the difference right here at home because, let's face it, we’re already hooked on these products. I felt like I was losing my mind listening to him try to justify it.
And believe me—the small corner stores I frequent (I can't speak for the giant chains)—they can't afford to slap huge markups on those big brands like Kraft or Nestlé, mostly because the wholesale cost is already through the roof.

Exactly. That is my point. These companies charge exactly what the market will bear. It inevitably boils down to the fact that goods cost more here than abroad simply because our citizens are willing to pay a 20% premium. Coca-Cola wouldn't survive in Austria under $4.00 because the competition there is much fiercer; they would either have to drop their prices or lose their shelf space entirely. I realize this is frustrating for the consumer, but if 99.9% of people in America owned these corporations, they would likely set the exact same prices.
The paradox is that we attempt to protect our interests by boycotting domestic firms, yet they have no incentive to lower prices as long as enough people continue to pay the higher rate.
That is just how capitalism works. 🤷

fadedpilot2 said:Can someone give me a logical explanation for why Tang is under a buck in Austria, but here it's like $4.00 maybe more?! 😕

In the US, it likely costs even less, assuming they even carry it. You have to realize that pricing is primarily driven by supply and demand; Austria is an entirely different market. If you were the CEO of Atlantic Trade, it would be irresponsible to sell a product for less than your acquisition cost. Beyond that, there are other variables at play. I suspect Austrian consumers might be more punctual with payments, which is a significant factor. Then, of course, there is the retail behavior—it is possible that retailers like Walmart hold much higher margins than their Austrian counterparts. I wouldn't rush to "blame" Atlantic Trade; it is somewhat naive to expect a commercial firm to act with social sensitivity. If they misjudge the market, the financial consequences will hit them directly, so do not worry. However, I am certain there is less monopoly power in the Austrian market, leading to slimmer margins. Here, Walmart effectively dictates prices because they possess the leverage to squeeze many suppliers.

hollowlynx5 said:That’s some serious cash. 😂 Honestly, thanks—I was stuck in this endless loop of debating whether to buy an apartment or just keep renting, so I really needed a second opinion. 😁

But wait, how exactly are you calculating that formula? Where did that extra 20,000 come from? Because looking at these third-party financial statements, it looks more like 206,284, regardless of how many decimals you throw at it. These formulas here the very last page, they don't even specify when interest is calculated, so I guess we're just assuming it's monthly?

I suspect the outcome depends heavily on the compounding frequency. It makes a difference whether interest is applied monthly or just once a year. If it's annual, interest only hits the principal at year-end. If it's monthly, January's interest starts working for you almost immediately.

Consider this example:
http://www.zinsen-berechnen.de/sparrechner.php
The tool allows you to toggle between monthly, quarterly, and annual compounding.
If you compare monthly against annual compounding, you will see a final difference of roughly $20,000.

casualfalcon86 said:The reason I'm leaning toward an LLC is that your liability is limited strictly to the capital you've put in—usually just $6.75—but there’s more to it than that. An LLC gives me way more flexibility when it comes to how I handle my taxes. Honestly, I can't stand the tax brackets for sole proprietors... even though I probably won't be pulling in anywhere near $0.00 a month, just the thought of facing a 45% tax rate versus 35% for a lower bracket is enough to make me walk away from the whole idea.

True, but it isn't quite that straightforward.
The catch with an LLC is that the obligation to pay sales tax (to the government) triggers the moment you issue an invoice. For example, if you sell something to Walmart, and Walmart practices a 90-day payment delay, you might issue the invoice in March, but you have to pay the sales tax in April while you don't actually receive the funds from Walmart until June. In effect, you are acting as a creditor for both the state and the client. I am not saying an LLC is bad; I am simply saying one must account for this "catch." Everyone will run their own numbers, and having both options available is useful. One could also operate as a sole proprietor under the profit system (meaning minimum wage plus a 20% corporate tax).

There is also a discussion over here:

Robert Hall7 said:........ sure, if you say so.

You can get land classification at any local county assessor's office. Don't go looking for "Class 1" or "Class 2" soil—we don't use that system here in the States.

A 5,000 square meter plot is slightly smaller than a typical farm field. I don't see why buying a piece like that wouldn't make sense, though, from an efficiency standpoint, having everything in one contiguous block is much better for equipment handling, costs, and transport time. I've always been amazed by how some places in the Midwest just have these massive, endless stretches of farmland.

Yes, if you’re moving toward serious production, a single contiguous tract of several acres is the gold standard. When buying, always demand to see the deed to verify the actual owner and ensure there aren't any liens or mortgages on the property. Never hand over cash under the table. Don't sign anything without a lawyer present. Get everything notarized and file the paperwork for recording immediately. No second-guessing.

If the land sits right up against a forest, fencing is your first priority. Go with the heavy-duty wire. Make sure you bury the fence line at least 8 inches into the ground and reinforce it with barbed wire. If you decide on orchards, flowers, or vegetables, digging a well is a must. But before you start digging, you need to secure water rights from the state. The fines for unauthorized water use are brutal, expensive, and completely pointless. I can't even remember how much I ended up paying.

Terrain slope? For certain crops, a slight incline is actually beneficial. Soil quality? Just send samples off for a chemical analysis. You tell them what you want to plant, and they give you a roadmap on how to amend any nutrient deficiencies. Also, don't let thick woods block your sunlight; stay clear of the tree line to avoid pest issues—insects, wildlife, that sort of thing. If you can't avoid the woods, study the local hunting regulations. They're online. Be prepared to deal with the local hunting clubs or game wardens, depending on who holds the lease.

You need reliable access roads. You'll need paths for tractors and for your car, because you'll likely be driving out to check your crops more often than you think.

As for evaluating the specific plot you've set your sights on, leave it to a certified agricultural appraiser. Pay the fee, get it in writing, and then nobody can pull any fast ones on you. Of course, there's always room to negotiate and try to drive the price down.

Good luck.

Perfect, that is exactly what I was looking for, thanks!

Could you perhaps give a rough estimate of the price range per square foot for a smaller plot (up to 5,000 sq ft) near a major hub like New York City? I tried browsing the listings, but the range is massive, anywhere from a few dollars for larger rural plots to much higher prices in California or near the coast. I know a blanket answer is impossible, but I am wondering if I should budget around $1.00 per square foot, or if that is overly optimistic for what I described.

I don't have much experience investing in agriculture, but I was hoping someone here could point me toward where to find high-quality farmland with real growth potential.
Specifically, does it make sense to invest in smaller plots—say, about an acre—or does a serious investment typically require several dozen acres?
I’ve been browsing some listings, but I'm worried I lack the necessary expertise to make a sound purchase. I would appreciate any advice on what to look out for or perhaps a helpful resource. For instance, how much of a drawback is land situated right against a forest due to wildlife or shade? How significant are slope and terrain, or the general location, when evaluating soil quality? I realize this is a specialized field, but maybe there is a guide that summarizes these factors.

Also, could anyone provide a realistic idea of current market prices for small parcels near a major hub like Indianapolis (roughly an acre, road access, flat)? I am also curious about the pricing for larger tracts of several dozen acres. My plan is to bring in a professional for a formal appraisal before closing, but I want to be able to perform some initial screening myself.

Kimberly Nguyen said:Look, in a situation like this, they absolutely should have handed over those details. Honestly, the standard procedure ought to be for the bank representative to reach out to the recipient directly. If that fails, and you make a formal inquiry, the bank (I’m pretty sure they’re legally obligated to, though I can't say for certain) should provide the info because that money clearly isn't the recipient's to keep. You have every right to sue them for it... I actually know someone who went through a similar mess once and it worked out...

Naturally, the bank cannot simply hand over private data; imagine the chaos if banks routinely leaked their customers' personal information.

What is possible is filing a claim against an anonymous "offender" who misappropriated funds that don't belong to them (though technically, this doesn't qualify as a criminal offense).

P.S. Of course, the bank can contact the individual and act as a mediator to facilitate communication.

Mark Sullivan62 said:It all depends on whether we're talking about internal transfers or moving money outside the bank

If it’s within, say, Chase—like you're using your checking account to pay bills via their own cards—everything shows up instantly, like, in the same millisecond

But beyond that, there isn't much to see; I mean, the cash is pulled from your account immediately, but once it hits the recipient's side, you're basically flying blind anyway...

And honestly, there's this one shady practice over at Chase that's just straight-up dirty:

Look, if it's Saturday at 10 PM and I pay off a bill through the Chase app, they snatch the money from my balance right then and there. If I'm sitting in the red, they'll politely slap me with interest charges for it. But the actual funds don't reach the recipient until Monday morning. So, what's the difference? Whether I pay now or wait until Monday morning, the recipient gets paid at the exact same time, nothing sooner. The only thing that changes is that the bank grabs my money earlier and pulls those little interest fees out of my pocket while it sits in limbo

Where that money actually goes during those 36 hours? Nobody knows. Not me, and certainly not the person receiving it

I am familiar with those tactics. A few years ago, there was a massive outcry regarding this within the European Union. It is possible they adjusted regulations so that capital cannot simply vanish into thin air. It was the exact same issue you described, though it wasn't limited to weekends; it happened during business days too, where neither the sender nor the receiver saw any interest benefits.

Nicholas Turner said:Exactly! You have the right—well, the opportunity—to reverse something that hasn't cleared yet and is just sitting there waiting to be posted. But that's not what happened here; since the OP saw the money hit their balance, the transaction is officially finalized.

Bingo! 👍

I am not sure how Chase handles things, but when I transfer money between my own accounts at the same bank, my available balance jumps almost instantly. The system recognizes the incoming funds immediately, even if the official settlement doesn't occur until the next business day. I will double-check the specific mechanics next time, but it seems clear that the recipient's balance reflects the deposit right away.

Mark Sullivan62 said:Look, the whole point of this entire mess is that we’re talking about an Atlantic Airlines blunder here, not some massive banking scandal.

The bank was just following orders—they processed everything exactly how Atlantic Airlines instructed them to. They actually went on the record admitting they were paying out dividends based on a faulty shareholder list, and they offered their apologies to everyone affected.

Besides, why on earth would a bank even have access to the official shareholder registry for a private corporation like that?

And honestly, the individual clerk at the bank didn't have any other answers for me (it took her a full week just to get back to me on that one), so she basically just told me she didn't know. I didn't want to badger her because, frankly, she was being professional enough, and it wasn't like I was personally losing sleep over it—I haven't had any issues lately with suspicious deposits or withdrawals, so I just let it go. I wasn't trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I hear you, but while you claim Atlantic Marine made the mistake, the bank acted as if they were the ones at fault. I understand why you didn't want to cause a scene—I wouldn't have either—but it makes me wonder what would have happened if you had actually protested.

What interests me most are the transaction dates. Based on my understanding of how these things work, if I were to deposit $33 into your account today, those $33 might show up immediately, but there would likely be two distinct dates (I assume, though I'm not sure how Chase handles it)—one for today and one for tomorrow (the "value date" or "transaction date," depending on the terminology used here). You would see a credit of +$33 today, yet the funds wouldn't truly settle until tomorrow, which is when interest starts accruing. My theory is that if Atlantic Marine messed up and transferred $33, and then caught the error instantly and voided it, your statement would simply show +100 and -100 without the $33 ever actually settling in your balance. If you have the records handy, could you tell us if the +100 and -100 occurred on the same day, and whether they carried different dates?

Mark Sullivan62 said:I went through something pretty similar recently when ExxonMobil was paying out dividends based on a faulty list... since I hold positions in both, I wasn't technically losing anything, but looking at my checking account activity, I saw a deposit, then a withdrawal, then another deposit

I sent an inquiry over to Chase and got an official response stating that because I signed off on their Basic Account bundle, Article 1 explicitly states the bank has the right to correct any bookkeeping errors without needing my approval—in fact, I basically gave them the green light to do exactly this type of thing

How are we even supposed to know if it's a bookkeeping error? Well, based on what I saw:

On my deposit history, it showed something like:

+ $33
- $33
+ $33

It was obviously an error because these weren't actual payouts—those transactions $33 didn't show up on the credit side, they were on the debit side

If they had been actual withdrawals, there wouldn't be a minus sign; it would just show the amount $33 (at least, that's how it looks on the mobile app...)

Lesson learned: read what you're signing. I signed that basic account agreement five or six years ago—I honestly have no idea where the copy is anymore, let alone what the fine print actually says🤣

But then my personal banker reached out and sent me this note:

On X, you signed the Comprehensive Account Bundle Agreement while setting up your Y package. According to Article 3.2 of that agreement:
3.2. The Account Holder authorizes the Bank to rectify errors occurring within payment processing that cause account balances to deviate from the actual payment orders issued for or against the account, without requiring additional specific authorization from the Account Holder.
Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions.

Just because a clause exists in a set of terms and conditions doesn't mean it carries legal weight if federal law overrides it.
In this specific instance, however, your point is valid; the bank is essentially shielding itself from its own mistakes.
It would be fascinating to see how they would react if they didn't accept liability, but instead tried to shift the blame onto Atlantic Navigation.

Nicholas Turner said:A legitimate reason would require a final court order—something that, theoretically speaking, isn't going to happen within a single week.

Bank of America can't just claw back funds if they didn't make a mistake. It’s a matter of principle! For instance—let's say I deposit $1,000 $0.00 into a local business account this morning because I'm closing on a condo, then head over there to grab a receipt. If that firm tells me, "Hey, just tell your bank you made an error and they'll reverse it," well... good luck with that! You really think they'd just void a completed wire transfer simply because I asked? Not a chance—and they shouldn't be allowed to, either, given how massive the potential for fraud would be.

Both you and David Scott9 make valid points.
One must distinguish between the currency date, the recording date, and so on. Essentially, once I initiate a transaction, there is a specific window to cancel it—specifically before the funds actually settle in the recipient's account. In my experience, if I execute a transfer at 7:00 PM, I can call the bank by 9:00 AM the next morning and potentially void it. However, once a transaction is finalized, the situation becomes far more complex. I would have to prove the funds weren't intended for that individual, or sue them for the return of the money. There is no automatic reversal, and the bank has no authority to intervene simply because I requested it.

David Scott9 said:Sorry, but you've got it wrong. The government guarantees $250k based on your Social Security number. So, if every single bank in the US went belly up and you had $250k sitting in every single one of them, the most you'd actually walk away with is still just $250k.

I’m sorry, but you are speaking untruths.

The recent legislative updates regarding national energy infrastructure highlight a significant shift in how our domestic power grid will be managed. Much like a major overhaul at General Electric, these changes aim to streamline regulatory oversight to ensure long-term stability. It is a necessary step toward modernizing the system.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

Article 6.

Article 4 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Through January 1st, 2010, the FDIC guarantees all consumer deposits held within any bank, savings institution, or mortgage lender up to the following amount: $133333 It applies to the full amount, regardless of how many accounts are held, the balance within them, the currency used, or where those accounts are located.

So, we are looking at a $65,000 limit per bank.

Pure idiocy.
Tony Suker and Ivo Sanders can't even guarantee a hundred bucks per person at the bank. From where I stand, this looks less like reform and more like a way to ensure the tycoons stay rich while the working class gets left behind.

It is pure absurdity that a nation claiming to champion entrepreneurship fails to provide any actual guarantees to small business owners—something they only started considering back in 2010.

Kenneth Brooks5 said:checking my checking account-standing order

On March 13, 2009, someone accidentally dropped about $0.67 into my account—basically just some random person's paycheck.

Then, on September 19, 2009, the bank went ahead and reversed that whole $0.67
.
The thing is, nobody asked me for permission—not verbally, not in writing—and they didn't even bother to notify me that they were pulling the money back.

Is a bank actually allowed to do that when the cash had been sitting in my account for six days?

If they aren't allowed, can I demand that the money they snatched from my account be put back so I can donate it to charity instead? (They could just deposit it directly to the charity so I don't look like a jerk.)

My take is that once money sits in an account for six days, it belongs to the account holder. It’s straight-up rude that they didn't give me a heads-up.

If anyone knows the actual banking regulations regarding this kind of situation, let me know what you think.

Thanks

Your situation is much like someone losing their wallet due to their own carelessness and having it land at your feet. You spot the wallet and take the cash without returning it to the person identified in the ID.

Legally, you are obligated to return the money (though finding lost property may entitle one to a finder's fee).

Simply possessing something does not mean you own it. You can rest easy; you won't face trouble because the bank cannot prove you intentionally withheld the funds. You can simply claim you didn't realize someone had "lost money." However, since you weren't the one who reported the incident, there is no chance of a reward. Keeping the money or suggesting the bank donate it to charity is out of the question; be careful not to invite legal trouble.🙂.

U.S. PROPERTY LAW
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/article-2

Quincy:

Lost Property and Finder's Rights Section 134. (1) An item that an owner has lost, misplaced, or had stolen does not cease to be their property. A finder is obligated to return it without delay to the owner, provided the owner can be identified through markings on the item or other circumstances and is easily reachable. (2) If a finder cannot return the item directly to the owner, they must promptly surrender it to the nearest police station or the authority managing lost property in the location where it was found. A finder is not required to report items of negligible value.

Michelle James13 said:A negligible distinction, really; since late last year, the government has been guaranteeing amounts up to 400 $0.00.

The government isn't actually guaranteeing it; they are just claiming to guarantee it to prevent a panic. It is much like an insurance policy that lacks funding. If a major bank were to collapse, the federal government simply wouldn't have the liquidity to reimburse creditors, regardless of their intentions.
One shouldn't take politicians at their word.

Furthermore, the logic behind guaranteeing $400 per person, per bank, rather than just per person, is flawed. They could have easily removed all limits under that structure. In the US, we have thousands of banking institutions. When you look at the math, they are effectively promising over $12 million per individual.

Arthur Garcia59 said:It wasn't limited to just one composer. The repertoire spanned everything from Elgar to The Beatles (personally, I thought their arrangement of "In My Life" was a absolute high point—truly masterful execution).

Is this the specific arrangement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFBophgJNjc&fmt=18
?

John Palmer4 said:We had a little debate over on the NFL forums recently about those legal disclaimers you see at the bottom of emails. We basically decided it’s all a bunch of nonsense, but it got me wondering—what’s the actual legal reality behind them?

So, in the US, does an email actually count as a document that carries any criminal liability?

Thanks!

To simplify the matter of disclaimers: NO.

You haven't specified which type of disclaimer you mean (they range from "if this wasn't intended for you, please delete it" to "these views don't represent my employer...").
Generally speaking, if a disclaimer attempts to act as a contract or set specific terms, those terms are invalid because the recipient never agreed to them. It would be different if the reader had to accept the terms before even opening the message. If the reader accepted those terms through another method—for instance, via a previous email stating "by replying to this message, you agree to X"—then they might carry some weight.

As for your second question, it is a separate issue entirely. An email is simply a tool for communication. If you send a threatening message and it can be proven authentic, you will be held accountable regardless of any disclaimer attached.

I don't believe we will see any actual enforcement of these laws until we fully integrate into the EU.
The debate over church bells is actually a global issue. Looking at it from the outside, there is a much more logical perspective: not every ringing is prohibited, but the noise must be "reasonable."

Here are a few examples:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...ly.catholicism
http://www.ra-kotz.de/glockenlaeuten.htm
...

Mark Sullivan62 said:it’s really not that big of a deal

you honestly need to see how things get down in New Orleans; I was there a few years back

around seven at night, when everyone turns toward the local soul food joints and the speakers start pumping, at least half the city is listening, and since the whole place is tucked into a basin, when that sound starts echoing through the streets......

I am uncertain if our legal precedents apply to neighboring states😉.
Let our neighbors handle their own enforcers of the law.