5 ms·

>companies like Apple and Google will be forced to spend like the rest of the economy does Spending on what? I think one big problem here is that the capital i

>companies like Apple and Google will be forced to spend like the rest of the economy does Spending on what? I think one big problem here is that the capital is possessed by entities that were nurtured in very specific markets. Take Apple. They are really nothing more than a "shiny gadgets/personal computing" company. They have a ton of potential to invest in other markets but they do not have the expertise to do so. What are their options: 1) start acquiring and undoubtedly mismanaging companies that are outside of their market domain 2) setup a wealth management unit that invests passively in equity markets and such. I think this could easily be elaborated into an argument against the orthodox liberal economics claim that says that markets allocate capital to the most able entities; the implication being that those same entities will make best use of said capital. I think here it is clearly not the case. Sorry, but I don't really trust Apple to come up with a decent EV solution (I know they are trying). I don't even trust them to invest in the correct EV startups. What do they know? It's not their market domain.

justincormack 11y ago
Return the money to shareholders who can spend or invest it.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Or, to the employees who made it, whom can spend or invest it.
  - cm3 11y ago
    And that way making the economy stronger and more dynamic. Money isn't worth anything if everybody would just hold onto it in some ledger.
snitko 11y ago
Spending is only good if it is wise. If you tell a company "sorry, you have to spend it now" it is equivalent of telling you "sorry, I don't care if you don't like any house on the market now, you'll have to buy now, you can't wait". That's no freedom, but slavery. Only when you have a choice of hoarding vs spending, then you help the economy to truly grow by providing everyone with the best products and services. Incentivizing spending at all costs simply means creating more useless things instead of making technological breakthroughs and improving quality of life. When you say "you don't trust Apple" it doesn't matter. Apple made its money honestly. It didn't steal from or rob anyone. More importantly, simply because Apple made so much money, it must mean it knows damn well how to invest it.
- cm3 11y ago
  At least in my post I said "incentivize" and not "punish" or anything to the same extent. One big issue is with their shareholders whose mindset may not allow increased spending and less dead digital cash.
- Kliment 11y ago
  Honestly? By evading taxes they are stealing from hundreds of millions of people.
  - snitko 11y ago
    That's your opinion. I think taxation is extortion. Who's to say I'm not entitled to my point of view?
    - cm3 11y ago
      Ignoring fairness of certain taxes and issues with tax laws in general, taxes are the rent one has to pay for living in a place. If you don't have income you usually won't pay most taxes at all. It's arguable how much of the tax system works and what parts are just plain broken and favor certain interest groups, but that's an implementation detail. If you visit places where much of the population evades taxes, you'll find that the state of roads and infrastructure in general is worse than someplace with people paying their taxes. I'm with you if you argue that tax laws are unfair and do not reflect the live circumstances of most people. If there were no taxes, you'd probably have to buy tickets to walk and drive on roads, stroll in the park, swim in a sea, etc. I suppose you want more of a pay-what-you-use society where, if you just stay at one place most of the time, you pay considerably less taxes. Whether that can work universally I don't know.
      - snitko 11y ago
        > If there were no taxes, you'd probably have to buy tickets to walk and drive on roads, stroll in the park, swim in a sea Do you have to insert coins into your smartphone every time you call someone these days? And yet it's almost impossible to live without a smartphone today, so people buy them and pay for the plans. But, but, they do have a choice of which operator to use (and, frankly, US is the worst example here, Europe/Asia is much less regulated in this respect, so it's cheaper and simpler there). Do you see where I'm going with this example? Yes, I only want to pay for things which I use. And have a choice of, for example, which school to send my kids to (if any) without having to pay the same price. I want things provided on the market, which generally makes them cheaper, not more expensive. Almost any example of a market you take, where government once heavily regulated or provided a product or service, but then deregulated it and invited private companies to fill in - you will find that the price fell and quality rose, giving more people (not less) access to the said service or product. I don't want to pay for: 1) wars 2) torture 3) police abuse 4) government mismanagement 5) that guy who has no job and has a gambling addiction 6) that guy who smokes 3 packs a day and demands free healthcare 7) politicians flying big jets and employing goons with guns to protect them.
cm3 11y ago
One major spending they could do is bringing back more production to the US and thereby increasing the locally available know-how. Right now more and more production skills are only available outside the some companies' hq countries. Apple is a good example due to the high prices their customers are willing to pay.

justincormack 11y ago

Return the money to shareholders who can spend or invest it.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Or, to the employees who made it, whom can spend or invest it.
- cm3 11y ago
  And that way making the economy stronger and more dynamic. Money isn't worth anything if everybody would just hold onto it in some ledger.

snitko 11y ago

Spending is only good if it is wise. If you tell a company "sorry, you have to spend it now" it is equivalent of telling you "sorry, I don't care if you don't like any house on the market now, you'll have to buy now, you can't wait". That's no freedom, but slavery. Only when you have a choice of hoarding vs spending, then you help the economy to truly grow by providing everyone with the best products and services. Incentivizing spending at all costs simply means creating more useless things instead of making technological breakthroughs and improving quality of life. When you say "you don't trust Apple" it doesn't matter. Apple made its money honestly. It didn't steal from or rob anyone. More importantly, simply because Apple made so much money, it must mean it knows damn well how to invest it.

cm3 11y ago
At least in my post I said "incentivize" and not "punish" or anything to the same extent. One big issue is with their shareholders whose mindset may not allow increased spending and less dead digital cash.
Kliment 11y ago
Honestly? By evading taxes they are stealing from hundreds of millions of people.
- snitko 11y ago
  That's your opinion. I think taxation is extortion. Who's to say I'm not entitled to my point of view?
  - cm3 11y ago
    Ignoring fairness of certain taxes and issues with tax laws in general, taxes are the rent one has to pay for living in a place. If you don't have income you usually won't pay most taxes at all. It's arguable how much of the tax system works and what parts are just plain broken and favor certain interest groups, but that's an implementation detail. If you visit places where much of the population evades taxes, you'll find that the state of roads and infrastructure in general is worse than someplace with people paying their taxes. I'm with you if you argue that tax laws are unfair and do not reflect the live circumstances of most people. If there were no taxes, you'd probably have to buy tickets to walk and drive on roads, stroll in the park, swim in a sea, etc. I suppose you want more of a pay-what-you-use society where, if you just stay at one place most of the time, you pay considerably less taxes. Whether that can work universally I don't know.
    - snitko 11y ago
      > If there were no taxes, you'd probably have to buy tickets to walk and drive on roads, stroll in the park, swim in a sea Do you have to insert coins into your smartphone every time you call someone these days? And yet it's almost impossible to live without a smartphone today, so people buy them and pay for the plans. But, but, they do have a choice of which operator to use (and, frankly, US is the worst example here, Europe/Asia is much less regulated in this respect, so it's cheaper and simpler there). Do you see where I'm going with this example? Yes, I only want to pay for things which I use. And have a choice of, for example, which school to send my kids to (if any) without having to pay the same price. I want things provided on the market, which generally makes them cheaper, not more expensive. Almost any example of a market you take, where government once heavily regulated or provided a product or service, but then deregulated it and invited private companies to fill in - you will find that the price fell and quality rose, giving more people (not less) access to the said service or product. I don't want to pay for: 1) wars 2) torture 3) police abuse 4) government mismanagement 5) that guy who has no job and has a gambling addiction 6) that guy who smokes 3 packs a day and demands free healthcare 7) politicians flying big jets and employing goons with guns to protect them.

cm3 11y ago

One major spending they could do is bringing back more production to the US and thereby increasing the locally available know-how. Right now more and more production skills are only available outside the some companies' hq countries. Apple is a good example due to the high prices their customers are willing to pay.