4 ms·

Right, trade is neutral. Quality of life is a normative statement, however. The implication being that the state, as a centrally planning agent, is capable of c

Right, trade is neutral. Quality of life is a normative statement, however. The implication being that the state, as a centrally planning agent, is capable of calculating what will objectively increase or decrease QoL. Taken to its conclusion, we reach the spectacular failures of the Five-Year Plans and similar initiatives.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
I'd say the US economy isn't centrally planned. I would also say existing tax policy is used to encourage certain behaviors. I'm suggested further tax policy to encourage other behaviors as well. I don't see the problem. Shareholder's don't get as high of a dividend? Because its not like Pfizer is going to be using those savings for R&D. Its either going into people's pockets or used to acquire competitors (which arguably does not help consumers or increase their quality of life).
- eggy 11y ago
  Following your suggestion, go ahead and tax US corporations at a very high rate, they GTFO as you suggest, and now US citizens have to pay either for an inferior, generic low-priced drug, or a high-priced one imported by the very same, once-US-based corporation that also supplied jobs to US citizens that are now also exported overseas. What Pfizer does with its savings whether for R&D or not, is not yours or the government's business as long as they are not doing anything illegal with the profits. If they didn't invest in R&D or maintain competitiveness and their profit margins will go down. Eliminate any government subsidies and corruption that may enable them and other companies to escape market forces and it will take care of itself. Central planning - no thank you.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    You're free to your opinion in the same way a government is free to not enforce any "intellectual property" rights a corporation may attempt to exert.

4 ms·

Right, trade is neutral. Quality of life is a normative statement, however. The implication being that the state, as a centrally planning agent, is capable of c

by vezzy-fnord 11y ago

toomuchtodo 11y ago
I'd say the US economy isn't centrally planned. I would also say existing tax policy is used to encourage certain behaviors. I'm suggested further tax policy to encourage other behaviors as well. I don't see the problem. Shareholder's don't get as high of a dividend? Because its not like Pfizer is going to be using those savings for R&D. Its either going into people's pockets or used to acquire competitors (which arguably does not help consumers or increase their quality of life).
- eggy 11y ago
  Following your suggestion, go ahead and tax US corporations at a very high rate, they GTFO as you suggest, and now US citizens have to pay either for an inferior, generic low-priced drug, or a high-priced one imported by the very same, once-US-based corporation that also supplied jobs to US citizens that are now also exported overseas. What Pfizer does with its savings whether for R&D or not, is not yours or the government's business as long as they are not doing anything illegal with the profits. If they didn't invest in R&D or maintain competitiveness and their profit margins will go down. Eliminate any government subsidies and corruption that may enable them and other companies to escape market forces and it will take care of itself. Central planning - no thank you.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    You're free to your opinion in the same way a government is free to not enforce any "intellectual property" rights a corporation may attempt to exert.