Are there any economic beneffits from global corporations ?

[danielpalos]

There is less evasion of general taxes than there is of direct taxes.

 

[kaz]

Consumers are just not part of the socialist's world. Why do you like paying less for something? How does that benefit you?

There's no such thing as free lunch right ?

No, but there is such a thing as paying less for the same lunch. Why do you like paying less for the same lunch? What benefit is there to you? Why can't you asnwer that question?

And while I might pay less for something , there is allways a downside.

Yes, everything comes with an upside and a downside, liberalism is focusing on the downside of everything.

Gas is up: OMG, how are we going to pay to fill our tank?
Gas is down: OMG, the stock price of oil companies is falling! What is it doing to retirement accounts!

The US Dollar is up: OMG, this will harm exports!
The US Dollar is down: OMG, travelling overseas will be more expensive!

On whole, the availability of the same goods for less cost is good for our economy. The reason you like paying less for something is you leave more money in your wallet. The answer you couldn't come up with. You ... wait for it ... buy more. That creates jobs. Economic efficiency is positive, not negative. If today's liberals were around a hundred years ago, we'd still have blacksmiths. And no, that would not be good for our economy.

In this case I am particularly concerned about tax evasion and how the power of corporations can get to be greater than that of local governments.
Central to this question is the balance of power, when power concentrates in too few hands the usual outcome is corruption.
Other undesireable effects might be concentration of wealth and uncontrolled externalities

Corporate taxes are double tax, they shouldn't exist. The US is the worst in what we do to our own corporations, even socialist Europe isn't as bad.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is less evasion of general taxes than there is of direct taxes.

He means direct taxes are less invasive. He's correct. This is why the Constitution did not permit direct taxes. Taxes tended to be excise taxes that one could avoid by just not purchasing the taxed item. It was only after the liberal cancer had spread that they allowed the central govt to directly tax the individual.

 

[CultureCitizen]

On whole, the availability of the same goods for less cost is good for our economy. The reason you like paying less for something is you leave more money in your wallet. The answer you couldn't come up with. You ... wait for it ... buy more. That creates jobs. Economic efficiency is positive, not negative. If today's liberals were around a hundred years ago, we'd still have blacksmiths. And no, that would not be good for our economy.

I completely disagree. This holds true while the imports and exports remain balanced in the medium run ( 10-15 years). If imports are larger than exports, in the long run , there will be a very serious problem. The offshoring of jobs has been bad, but worse could be the fact that the dollar stops being the reserve currency.

I would rather pay $50 more for a smartphone or some extra cents for the gas.
Yea, nice having economic efficiency ... as far as the trade remains balanced , which hasn't been the case for a very long time.

 

[danielpalos]

There is less evasion of general taxes than there is of direct taxes.

He means direct taxes are less invasive. He's correct. This is why the Constitution did not permit direct taxes. Taxes tended to be excise taxes that one could avoid by just not purchasing the taxed item. It was only after the liberal cancer had spread that they allowed the central govt to directly tax the individual.

Just making stuff up as you go along, can sometimes be indistinguishable from appeals to ignorance. direct taxes are in the Constitution after the first census or enumeration.

In any case, the alleged conservative Cause of lowering Taxes while creating more government programs is worse.

 

[kaz]

On whole, the availability of the same goods for less cost is good for our economy. The reason you like paying less for something is you leave more money in your wallet. The answer you couldn't come up with. You ... wait for it ... buy more. That creates jobs. Economic efficiency is positive, not negative. If today's liberals were around a hundred years ago, we'd still have blacksmiths. And no, that would not be good for our economy.

I completely disagree. This holds true while the imports and exports remain balanced in the medium run ( 10-15 years). If imports are larger than exports, in the long run , there will be a very serious problem. The offshoring of jobs has been bad, but worse could be the fact that the dollar stops being the reserve currency.

I would rather pay $50 more for a smartphone or some extra cents for the gas.
Yea, nice having economic efficiency ... as far as the trade remains balanced , which hasn't been the case for a very long time.

I'll make you the same offer as other liberals, show me first how you know the field of economics is wrong, then I'll take your argument which contradicts economics seriously. Finance and economics is a bizarre area in the mind of the citizenry. No one would tell a doctor you know more than the doctor about treating a wound or a disease. No one would tell a pro-baseball player you know better how to hit a ball than they do. But lawyers who have zero economic knowledge or training tell you things that make zero logical sense and aren't supported by economic theory or any empirical data and you all believe it and repeat it like you know better than people who do it for a living. It's very strange.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I'll make you the same offer as other liberals, show me first how you know the field of economics is wrong, then I'll take your argument which contradicts economics seriously. Finance and economics is a bizarre area in the mind of the citizenry. No one would tell a doctor you know more than the doctor about treating a wound or a disease. No one would tell a pro-baseball player you know better how to hit a ball than they do. But lawyers who have zero economic knowledge or training tell you things that make zero logical sense and aren't supported by economic theory or any empirical data and you all believe it and repeat it like you know better than people who do it for a living. It's very strange.

The field of economics is not wrong, that doesn't mean it's allways right. As any science, it evolves and generates new models.
What I have found is that mercantilists tend to base their asumptions on oversimplified views. They have a blind faith in the invisible hand of the market and forget that events such as externalities, asset bubbles, and market failures occur and if they ever occur they'll blame it on government intervention.

There are economists who have already warned about the danger of USA's trade deficit, growing inequallity and capital hoarding. But I am sure you would disregard them as left wing propaganda.

 

[danielpalos]

Consumers are just not part of the socialist's world. Why do you like paying less for something? How does that benefit you?

There's no such thing as free lunch right ?

No, but there is such a thing as paying less for the same lunch. Why do you like paying less for the same lunch? What benefit is there to you? Why can't you asnwer that question?

And while I might pay less for something , there is allways a downside.

Yes, everything comes with an upside and a downside, liberalism is focusing on the downside of everything.

Gas is up: OMG, how are we going to pay to fill our tank?
Gas is down: OMG, the stock price of oil companies is falling! What is it doing to retirement accounts!

The US Dollar is up: OMG, this will harm exports!
The US Dollar is down: OMG, travelling overseas will be more expensive!

On whole, the availability of the same goods for less cost is good for our economy. The reason you like paying less for something is you leave more money in your wallet. The answer you couldn't come up with. You ... wait for it ... buy more. That creates jobs. Economic efficiency is positive, not negative. If today's liberals were around a hundred years ago, we'd still have blacksmiths. And no, that would not be good for our economy.

In this case I am particularly concerned about tax evasion and how the power of corporations can get to be greater than that of local governments.
Central to this question is the balance of power, when power concentrates in too few hands the usual outcome is corruption.
Other undesireable effects might be concentration of wealth and uncontrolled externalities

Corporate taxes are double tax, they shouldn't exist. The US is the worst in what we do to our own corporations, even socialist Europe isn't as bad.

I agree that only artificial persons should be burdened with a direct tax on income.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What I have found is that mercantilists

dear, there are no mercantilists to speak of. There are liberals and conservatives.

Do you understand?

 

[CultureCitizen]

dear, there are no mercantilists to speak of. There are liberals and conservatives.

Do you understand?

Yea , you're right . My bad, that should have read economic liberals or neoliberals.
The rent seeking attitude remains though.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear, there are no mercantilists to speak of. There are liberals and conservatives.

Do you understand?

Yea , you're right . My bad, that should have read economic liberals or neoliberals.
The rent seeking attitude remains though.

dear, why not cut the utter BS and tell is if you're a libNazi who would like to make global corporations illegal and why, or simply admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to defend your own topic.

 

[danielpalos]

Does anyone disagree that general forms of taxation are much to be preferred to direct forms of taxation?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Does anyone disagree that general forms of taxation are much to be preferred to direct forms of taxation?

dear, the whole world seems to disagree. Right now they want to directly tax the rich for example. And, Obama wants to directly tax young adults to pay for the health care of old adults health care.

 

[danielpalos]

Does anyone disagree that general forms of taxation are much to be preferred to direct forms of taxation?

dear, the whole world seems to disagree. Right now they want to directly tax the rich for example. And, Obama wants to directly tax young adults to pay for the health care of old adults health care.

so, would artificial persons of wealth be better off or worse off with general forms of taxation over direct forms of taxation?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

would artificial persons of wealth?

dear that is non sensical english. why not learn to speak english?

The issue is freedom versus govt, not direct versus indirect taxes.

Is this really too difficult for you?

 

[danielpalos]

would artificial persons of wealth?

dear that is non sensical english. why not learn to speak english?

The issue is freedom versus govt, not direct versus indirect taxes.

Is this really too difficult for you?

general forms of taxation are "freer" than direct forms of taxation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

general forms of taxation are "freer" than direct forms of taxation.

yes dear thats true and our Founders agree but its a very very trivial issue given all the direct taxes we have today. The important issue in human history is freedom versus govt. Did you know that? When will you decide if you are for freedom or govt?

 

[danielpalos]

general forms of taxation are "freer" than direct forms of taxation.

yes dear thats true and our Founders agree but its a very very trivial issue given all the direct taxes we have today. The important issue in human history is freedom versus govt. Did you know that? When will you decide if you are for freedom or govt?

dear, if you are asking if prefer Order to Chaos; then you must realize why i believe in our form of socialism.

We have our general "marching" Orders:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear, if you are asking if prefer Order to Chaos; then you must realize why i believe in our form of socialism.

too stupid as always:
1) the issue between Plato and Aristotle, and between Democrats and Republicans is freedom versus govt, not order v. chaos. Still over your illiterate head?

2) in Econ 101 class one, day one, hour one they teach that we have an mixed economy with elements of both capitalism and socialism. Did you ever think of going to school so you would not seem so illiterate?

 

[danielpalos]

dear, if you are asking if prefer Order to Chaos; then you must realize why i believe in our form of socialism.

too stupid as always:
1) the issue between Plato and Aristotle, and between Democrats and Republicans is freedom versus govt, not order v. chaos. Still over your illiterate head?

2) in Econ 101 class one, day one, hour one they teach that we have an mixed economy with elements of both capitalism and socialism. Did you ever think of going to school so you would not seem so illiterate?

dear, it isn't me that hasn't' a clue or a Cause.

This is socialism:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

The Federalist Number 2