LyrArc Article Gist
The different strategies of Apple and Samsung in getting to the point where the two companies now dominate the smartphone market. Whereas Apple makes only one phone, its iPhone, Samsung's strategy is to have multiple phones in each price segment. It has five levels of Android based phones, with 2-3 models in each price segment. Samsung also benefits from doing its own maufacturing. When faced with a number of technologies Samsung's strategy is to bet on all of the technologies until one of them emerges as a winner, and then concentrate resources on that technology. It uses a similiar strategy for televisions. Apple by contrast places more emphasis on original design and profit margins over sales, gaining sales without eroding margins by being the first innovator in the market. It also has its own unique arrangement for manufacturing at lowcost with Foxconn in China that supports its high margins. Apple is secretive about its designs and promotes its brand heavily with its own retail stores. Apple also uses its innovative edge as leverage to steer profits away from carriers. Analyst estimates are that carriers such as AT&T and Verizon pay about $400 per iPhone to subsidize its cost because this is the only way to get customers into their retail stores. IDC estimates are that the smartphone market is $219 billon in 2012. Both companies are very close in volume- IDC estimates Apple shipped 93.2 million smartphones in 2011, compared to Samsung's 94 million units. Apple has market share of 23.5% in the fourth quarter 2012, up from 16% in 2010. Samsung has 22.8%, up from 9.4% in 2010. Apple and Samsung have together taken 91% of operating profits of all cellphone companies in the fourth quarter, an increase of 30% from 2011, according to Strategy Analytics....

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that the federal tax rate for the top 1% is 34% in 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office, because president Obama let the high end Bush tax cuts to expire. It is the number to remember says Krugman- 34. In 2008 the figure was 28.2. Under Hillary Clinton the average tax rate for the top 1% would go up by 3.4 percentage points, according to the Tax Policy Center. Some of this would help pay for the tution plan to provide access to the middle class to public universities. Under populist Trump, Krugman points to the elimination of the inheritance tax and tax rates going down substantially, and no such programs to promote the upward mobility that everyone is talking about, and no way to pay for a big infrastructure building effort for growth and jobs- upward mobility that is the focus of every candidate's election campaign including Sanders, Trump in appealing to older white working class families, Clinton, Ryan, Bush, and others in both parties.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Daniel Altman's proposal for a tax on wealth over $1 million. He makes the case for taxing wealth not incomes to reduce inequality as this is where the situation in terms of inequality has worsened for the U.S. in recent decades. To support this proposal Altman cites the change in the U.S. Ginni coefficient, which measures inequality. The Ginni coefficient is anumber from 0 to 100 which goes up with higher income inequality. From the late 70's to the 1990's, the Cnesus Bureau showed this to be in the low 40's. By 1992 the Ginni coefficient went up to the mid-70's, according to the Federal Reserve data. It increased to about 80 in 2010. In 1992 the top 10% in the U.S. population controlled 20 times the wealth of the bottom 50%. By 2010 this figure triples to 65 times. and the graduated income tax even if it redistributes a small share of the wealth does little to affect the trend of wealth extremes from building up and threatening the social fabric of America, reducing mobility and opportunities for the bottom 50% to unprecedented levels since the 1950's. ...