Great strip and it reminds me that every person I've known who's touted the whole 'free markets are better no matter what!' crap has, without exception, understood fuck all about economics. You would think after the Enron scandals and 2007 financial crisis that people would have started to wake up, but not so much. Slack jawed accusations of being communists, no matter how ridiculous or off base have worked well into the 21rst century it seems.
I'm not versed on what happened at Enron, but the 2007 financial crisis had nothing to do with "free markets" and more to do with socially democratic economies like every major nation has. The first world nations all have partially or mostly free markets. Maybe that's the problem? Every major world economy is heavily intervened in by local, state, county, parish, federal, national and international governments. You may be completely in favor of that, which is fine (I mean terrible), but just keep that in mind when complaining about free markets. As long as power exists, and as long as money exists, people with money will pay people with power for power and/or benefits.
I guess you didn't read the strip I was quoting, which was what that comment was in reference towards. Much of the Enron scandal involved people thinking like you apparently do. Regulation of markets is bad so lets loosen the strings in California. The result was constant black outs and people paying exorbitantly more for less service, which is great if you're completely oblivious to what is going on and don't mind raping social infrastructure because herpa derp free markets! If you really don't understand at all how lack of oversight, an obstinate hands off policy, and what is in that strip relates to the financial crisis then maybe this will help you: http://www.economist.com/news/schoo...risis-are-still-being-felt-five-years-article
Do you have a source for that? I don't think they have the whole agreement, do they? As far as I know they have a few chapters, and while the things you're talking about are there, we don't know anything about a 5:30 ratio. I am curious about this though: Because this is fast tracked, congress can't change anything about it... Wouldn't that make Obama less inclined to add in a bunch of bullshit potential deal breakers? If you're negotiating, you come out with crazy demands knowing that they will be whittled down during the talks. But with this, it seems like Obama would want to present the best deal possible out of the gate because that's the only chance he has. Although I guess if the republicans in congress want the same crazy shit he does it doesn't matter anyway...
This all also reminds of a discussion I heard on the radio awhile back that was about American companies moving their headquarters off shore, effectively becoming a Canadian, Chinese, Guatemalan/whatever company so they could pay lower taxes at a huge cost to Americans, despite the fact that they still generated 90%+ of their revenue stateside. A lot of people think permitting that is a great idea because 'free markets', while we're over 18 trillion in debt no less. How a person can't see the complete stupidity in that line of thinking is absolutely baffling to me. Aside from the fact that it's fucking this country over, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to let a corporation reap all the benefits of starting up here, profiting here, and continuing to profit here and then just cheat the system when convenient.
So where a country generates revenue needs to determine where its HQ'ed and what taxes it pays? Very dangerous line of thinking. A country can't have the ability to determine if a company exists there.
Can you expand on that? Why is that dangerous? Doesn't it become scary and dangerous if countries DON'T have that ability?
So if I'm Guatemala I can go ahead at a whim and say head quarter here where you pay half the corporate tax rate, and I get to reap all the income from larger and more economically developed nations while generating virtually none of the business because... why exactly? Granted that's not quite what happens, but I'm not sure if you misunderstood what I was saying, or really don't see the problem with companies starting up one place, then continuing to make all their money there while planting an office elsewhere to dodge taxes.
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/27/julian_assange_on_the_trans_pacific My bad, it wasn't 5 of 29 pages, I meant to say chapters. Here's a small snippet of the discussion (emphasis mine):
So why is it dangerous if a country can determine what companies are headquartered in their nation state? Imagine Apple. Lets say Apple creates a significant amount of revenue in China, despite being HQ'ed in the US. Because of all the revenue created China wants to legally state because of that significant revenue Apple is now a Chinese company because of that amount. So China goes over the top of the US to declare Apple a Chinese company and now Apple must abide by Chinese taxes and laws. Should China have that right? The flip side is you guys are saying Apple was invented in the US and mostly ran here. Does Apple have the right to run to the Bahamas to avoid being taxed? The moral objection is no, they do not have the right to skip town to avoid taxes, however, what determines if a company has a right to change where they are legally headquartered? What standards must be met? If some legalese is created so that after a certain point companies can't skip town, what do you think they'll do right before that point? What does that do to those business right before that point or if they stay after that point? Companies are private entities, they need to have the freedom to move like you or I. By preventing a company from moving they are partially being nationalized by that country. If that country knows they can impose whatever taxes they want on that company after a certain point, what does that do to industry? What does that do to government? If the government can impose whatever taxes they want on a company and the company must pay those isn't that a bit of an unfair situation? Isn't that basically being held hostage? Lets say you live in a tax heavy state. You make a substantial income and decide to move to the next state over to avoid the taxes. Does the state you leave have the right to say you personally can't leave there? Does the state you leave say since you were born and raised here you must stay here and pay what we say?
Absolutely it can, and not dangerous at all. The inverse, actually. It's a country's job to defend its citizens, not ensure the profits or viability of a company.
If a country isn't going to be headquartered locally, then let them go through normal import rules and regulations, not benefit from local and federal tax breaks. If you want to be centred in Ireland, then expect to be treated as a foreign entity and go through normal import taxes, even if your manufacturing and distribution is local.
It is fundamental to business that an elected government or tyrant can't decide if it can leave or not or have the ability to impose unreasonable rules and regulations.
But then every company would just move their HQ to wherever has the lowest tax rate and everyone would be fucked. You don't think that would cause problems?
The mere fact that this TPP is being discussed in private, and the vast majority of the politicians involved are being bought by the big companies that are behind it and want to see it enacted, screams to me that this is only good for companies, not the citizens of the countries involved. Because as I said, it's not a company's job to look after the people, it's to make money... and one usually comes at the expense of the other.
You don't think thats happening now? This is why we have tariffs. This is why we have trade agreements. A gov't can't determine who stays and who goes but they can determine what that company pays to import their goods into a country
Dude, it's not like there's some guy who can just slam a gavel and say 'fuck it, pay a 98% tax rate'. It's obviously not in a country's economic interest to just raise taxes to sky rocket levels. But yes, permitting what basically amounts to legal tax evasion, and letting companies avoid paying back their share whenever they feel like it is really, really fucking stupid. Not sure what else to tell you. If I'm a smaller, poorer nation why wouldn't I let companies set up shop there? They can pay a significantly lower rate and I'm still making bank. Just to be clear so it doesn't seem like I'm mincing words, I'm 100% in favor of telling companies that think they have the 'right' to do this that they can go fuck themselves and sell their crap elsewhere if they aren't going to pay their taxes like the rest of us. The tariffs you talk about that supposedly equalize everything generally don't actually do that, and it's also the kind of practice that these types of treaties erode.
I'm not defending tax evasion (and however that is determined, not interested in discussing because its over my head and we this isn't the place) however, I'm firmly against creating a standard where an entity must stay after a certain point. Deciding who can move where is simple tyranny and I promise businesses react to that negatively and as a result many bad things happen. Btw, smaller nations do that all the time, lower tax rates etc. Look at the Irish Tiger and so on.
Take a look at the BP Oil spill and tell me how good government is at looking after the people that make up that country. Chris Christie unilaterally settled an Exxon Mobil damages judgment of almost $9b for under $225m.... why? Because they bought him off and supported his campaign. http://inthesetimes.com/article/17736/chris_christie_exxon_mobil Big companies are buying the politicians left, right, and centre, and they're not even trying to hide it any more. They all have special interest lobbyists in government, and they're outright buying the politicians whose jobs are to be the people's lobbyist. It's maddening to sit back and watch it happen while everyone gets caught up in the bullshit arguments on the news media that do nothing but distract people from the real issues. I think that's part of why Sanders is really appealing to the common, intelligent person... he IS taking on these kinds of issues head on, while his opponents are playing games and trying to do what will get them elected.
Big business has always been in the game. I forgot which president it was but basically Carnegie and Rockefeller bought a campaign and won. Its not a new phenomenon. Its fundamental to a capitalistic, democratic society. Its not a new issue, and its something that every nation which exists in such a system was debate and find their own solutions. Businesses will look out for themselves at the expense of everyone else. Business also drive prosperity and GDO growth. The role of the government should be to ensure the workers of those companies aren't abused, the products they sell are safe. The fact that they make some cash off of them isn't a fundamental right of a government, its a by product of the company being physically there and the gov't having the power to impose those taxes