Are there any economic beneffits from global corporations ?

[Toro]

Oh, and most don't "dump" either.

They do do their best at avoiding taxes though.

But then again, so do most people.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I am not attacking free trade ,.

you are but you lack the IQ to know it. You are attacking global free trade but not national free trade

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you are you just lack the IQ as a liberal to know it.

the rule is: the more with whom you trade the richer you get, the fewer with whom you trade the poorer you get.

Why not print it out and post on fridge for daily review?

Baiamonte ,
For once please try not to answer as a complete imbecile spambot.
I am not attacking free trade , but rather the use of global corporations which try to push all the income towards a certain region.
Now , thik about the economic benefit of a global corporation vs a local one ( yes, even a local one with foreign investment) or stop spamming the thread.

dear I gave you the rule!!!
the rule is: the more with whom you trade the richer you get, the fewer with whom you trade the poorer you get.

Imagine how poor you'd be if you had to make everthing yourself?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, thik about the economic benefit of a global corporation vs a local one.

don't have to buy Detroit, monopoly, liberal, crony socialist, union junk cars. Case closed

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since the products are being dumped ( via subsidies ) ,

What subsidies?

The corporation now has a monopolic position.

So if Ford sells too cheaply, because of some imaginary subsidies, they'll drive (hehe) every other car maker out of business? Seriously?

It is subsidy because they sell the products below they break-even price and they can operate with losses for one or two years while they get rid of the competitors. After they have secured the monopoly they rise the prices and recover the losses they got during the first two years of operations.

I have not seen this in the car industry (where it might be too expensive ) but certainly in the food sector.

Who took losses for years to get a monopoly in the food sector?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I wish we had an agency that looked at the books of a company like Ford and set up rules about inventory and purchases from subsidiaries, to assure they paid the proper amount of taxes.
We could call it the I.R.S.

Oh , they pay VAT, but the proffit is offshored to a country with low corporate tax.

Ford pays no VAT here. How do you imagine Ford can "offshore" profit on a car they built and sold here?

That was not the example I posted, but certaily they can follow the same strategy.
They pay for services at an overprice from the corporation which is located in a tax paradise .

They pay for services at an overprice from the corporation which is located in a tax paradise .

The government isn't smart enough to catch and disallow this?

 

[CultureCitizen]

I wish we had an agency that looked at the books of a company like Ford and set up rules about inventory and purchases from subsidiaries, to assure they paid the proper amount of taxes.
We could call it the I.R.S.

Oh , they pay VAT, but the proffit is offshored to a country with low corporate tax.

Ford pays no VAT here. How do you imagine Ford can "offshore" profit on a car they built and sold here?

That was not the example I posted, but certaily they can follow the same strategy.
They pay for services at an overprice from the corporation which is located in a tax paradise .

They pay for services at an overprice from the corporation which is located in a tax paradise .

The government isn't smart enough to catch and disallow this?

No , it isn't. Why should they? , it's perfectly legal.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am arriving to the conclusion that global corporations do not beneffit the economy at all.
They actually harm it because they tend create cross country monopolies, evade taxes and practice dumping.
But I would like to hear if someone thinks global corporations have some beneffit.

I must underscore the word global . Please notice corporations are an absolute must for every healthy economy, specially medium and small corporations.

Oh, my , this is just what I wanted to avoid.
Crusader, I am not against free markets. I am trying to see if allowing global corporations in a free market yields benefits or not, as compared to having free trade with only local corporations .

I am trying to see if allowing global corporations in a free market yields benefits or not,

Disallowing global corporations is no way to have a free market.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I wish we had an agency that looked at the books of a company like Ford and set up rules about inventory and purchases from subsidiaries, to assure they paid the proper amount of taxes.
We could call it the I.R.S.

Oh , they pay VAT, but the proffit is offshored to a country with low corporate tax.

Ford pays no VAT here. How do you imagine Ford can "offshore" profit on a car they built and sold here?

That was not the example I posted, but certaily they can follow the same strategy.
They pay for services at an overprice from the corporation which is located in a tax paradise .

They pay for services at an overprice from the corporation which is located in a tax paradise .

The government isn't smart enough to catch and disallow this?

No , it isn't.

It's nice to see the occasional liberal admit the limits of the intelligence of government.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I am trying to see if allowing global corporations in a free market yields benefits or not,

Disallowing global corporations is no way to have a free market.

Two small companies are better than one big company because it complies with the following principles of perfect competition :

A large number buyers and sellers
No barriers of entry and exit
No externalities

How does one big company adhere more closely to perfect competition ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am trying to see if allowing global corporations in a free market yields benefits or not,

Disallowing global corporations is no way to have a free market.

Two small companies are better than one big company because it complies with the following principles of perfect competition :

A large number buyers and sellers
No barriers of entry and exit
No externalities

How does one big company adhere more closely to perfect competition ?

Two small companies are better than one big company

Ridiculous government regulations make one big company more efficient than two smaller companies.
Compliance costs for Sarbanes Oxley, for example, are ridiculous.
Yet another example of a liberal solution making things worse for the people liberals claim they are helping.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Who took losses for years to get a monopoly in the food sector?

United Fruit Company
"One of the company's primary tactics for maintaining market dominance was to control the distribution of banana lands. UFCO claimed that hurricanes, blight and other natural threats required them to hold extra land or reserve land. In practice, what this meant was that UFCO was able to prevent the government from distributing banana lands to peasants who wanted a share of the banana trade."
United Fruit Company - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And an example of an externality

Monsanto in Argentina
http://www.dw.de/pesticide-illness-triggers-anti-monsanto-protest-in-argentina/a-17013525

And luckily , not food related
Monsanto in India

"Bhargava states that 64 percent of India’s population derives its sustenance from agriculture-related activities. Therefore, whosoever controls Indian agriculture would control the country. And here lies the crux of the matter. To control Indian agriculture, the bedrock of the country, one needs to control only seeds and agro-chemicals. Monsanto and its backers in the US State Department are well aware of this fact. And to control Indian politicians is to control India"

America 8217 s Political Subjugation of India Rests on Monsanto s Overriding Control of Agriculture Global Research

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who took losses for years to get a monopoly in the food sector?

United Fruit Company
"One of the company's primary tactics for maintaining market dominance was to control the distribution of banana lands. UFCO claimed that hurricanes, blight and other natural threats required them to hold extra land or reserve land. In practice, what this meant was that UFCO was able to prevent the government from distributing banana lands to peasants who wanted a share of the banana trade."
United Fruit Company - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And an example of an externality

Monsanto in Argentina
Pesticide illness triggers anti-Monsanto protest in Argentina Environment DW.DE 25.10.2013

And luckily , not food related
Monsanto in India

"Bhargava states that 64 percent of India’s population derives its sustenance from agriculture-related activities. Therefore, whosoever controls Indian agriculture would control the country. And here lies the crux of the matter. To control Indian agriculture, the bedrock of the country, one needs to control only seeds and agro-chemicals. Monsanto and its backers in the US State Department are well aware of this fact. And to control Indian politicians is to control India"

America 8217 s Political Subjugation of India Rests on Monsanto s Overriding Control of Agriculture Global Research

United Fruit Company

A company bribed a corrupt government to reduce competition.
How is that "taking losses for years to get a monopoly in the food sector?"

 

[CultureCitizen]

Ridiculous government regulations make one big company more efficient than two smaller companies.
Compliance costs for Sarbanes Oxley, for example, are ridiculous.
Yet another example of a liberal solution making things worse for the people liberals claim they are helping.

This only applies to natural monopolies.

"In the case of natural monopolies, trying to increase competition by encouraging new entrants into the market creates a potential loss of efficiency. The efficiency loss to society would exist if the new entrant had to duplicate all the fixed factors - that is, the infrastructure"
Natural monopolies exist when one firm dominates an industry

And natural monopolies MUST be ragulated.

"Natural monopolies are uncontestable and firms have no real competition. Therefore, without government intervention, they could abuse their market power and set higher prices. Therefore, natural monopolies often need government regulation."

That is just basic economics 101.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ridiculous government regulations make one big company more efficient than two smaller companies.
Compliance costs for Sarbanes Oxley, for example, are ridiculous.
Yet another example of a liberal solution making things worse for the people liberals claim they are helping.

This only applies to natural monopolies.

"In the case of natural monopolies, trying to increase competition by encouraging new entrants into the market creates a potential loss of efficiency. The efficiency loss to society would exist if the new entrant had to duplicate all the fixed factors - that is, the infrastructure"
Natural monopolies exist when one firm dominates an industry

And natural monopolies MUST be ragulated.

"Natural monopolies are uncontestable and firms have no real competition. Therefore, without government intervention, they could abuse their market power and set higher prices. Therefore, natural monopolies often need government regulation."

That is just basic economics 101.

This only applies to natural monopolies.

Idiotic compliance costs only apply to natural monopolies?
How do you figure that?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Idiotic compliance costs only apply to natural monopolies?
How do you figure that?

What I meant is that regulations are only meant for big "monopolic" companies.
So , you might hate regulation , but at times it becomes a chicken or egg problem.
For some reason companies are allowed to grow too big , and then , instad of splitting them they get regulated.

So , so far any advantage of multinational corporations over local ones, apart from the morally dubious advantage of tax evasion ?

Oh , I should add that global corporations increase systemic risk.

 

[williepete]

CultureCitizen,

With all due respect, I think you need to analyze the term "need to be regulated" and ask yourself who is doing the regulating, and are they competent to regulate.

Inefficient businesses go out of business immediately. Successful businesses survive. Successful businesses are run by competent businessmen backed by informed investors.

Politicians are predominantly lawyers with no business experience and government regulators are civil servants with no experience in economic accountability. I know. I worked for the federal government or a long time and there is nothing more dense, more incompetent, more sloth-like in their work ethic or more hard to fire than a federal employee.

So are you advocating incompetent, dictatorial, regulatory power to strangle the competent?

Where has that worked before? Does the 5-year plan ring any bells? Does a Google search of 'command economy' bring up any admirable results? What was the efficiency rating of the Soviet Politburo?

Where does this blind trust in faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats come from?

 

[CultureCitizen]

With all due respect, I think you need to analyze the term "need to be regulated" and ask yourself who is doing the regulating, and are they competent to regulate.

Ok pal , I am just quoting economy 101 texts.

Natural Monopoly - Economics Help

"Natural monopolies are uncontestable and firms have no real competition. Therefore, without government intervention, they could abuse their market power and set higher prices. Therefore, natural monopolies often need government regulation."

Now, if you have another source that states the oposite ,that is , that monopolies (natural or otherwise) can go about their own business unregulated, I'll gladly read your source and discuss it.

 

[williepete]

OK, that's a dodge. Would you care to address my questions?
Where have command economies worked? Where does your faith in lawyers and bureaucrats to do a better job with your investment money come from?

In your profile, you describe yourself as a 'computer scientist' and a writer. EDIT: You're in a prime position to take advantage of investing in global corporations with your salary. Just saying.

What do you do for a living and how do you manage your investment portfolio? Do you invest in global corporations or do you only invest in national, state or local companies? Do you employ a broker or financial advisor to guide your investments or do you hire a politician, lawyer or government bureaucrat?

EDIT: The reason I ask is that it's always telling to see how people treat public money versus their own money.

Computer Scientist Job Summary

• A master’s degree or a PhD in a computer-related concentration is required for employment in this field.
• Individuals seeking to obtain a graduate degree in this area can start out with a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, software engineering, information technology or information systems.
• Extensive knowledge and experience are often required for most jobs.
• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) records for May 2009 indicate that the average annual wages for this occupation were $105,370.
• Computer Scientist Job Description Salary Education Requirements

 

[CultureCitizen]

OK, that's a dodge. Would you care to address my questions?
Where have command economies worked? Where does your faith in lawyers and bureaucrats to do a better job with your investment money come from?

In your profile, you describe yourself as a 'computer scientist' and an writer.

What do you do for a living and how do you manage your investment portfolio? Do you invest in global corporations or do you only invest in national, state or local companies? Do you employ a broker or financial advisor to guide your investments or do you hire a politician, lawyer or government bureaucrat?

No , that's not a dodge, you took my comment out of context.
The baseline of my argument is that global corporations do not bring any beneffit for free market economies.

Now your questions :
Where have command economies worked?
An economy which is mostly command based seldomly works. On the other hand mixed economies are the norm in most of the countries, where part of the economy is planned by the govenrment ( mostly infrastructure ) and the rest is left to the free market.

Where does your faith in lawyers and bureacrats to do better job with your investment money came from ?
I have not made such claim.

What do I do for living ?
Mostly coding programs and doing data analysis for customers, which may include but not be limited to : cost , sales profitability analysis as well as data quality and data cleaning.
My investments are mostly real-estate, though at some point I held stock of the company for which I worked.
No broker or politician has been involved in any of my investments.