40 ms·

Good. The way multinationals are allowed to take the resources of the various nation states they operate in while contributing nothing themselves, yet still cl

Good. The way multinationals are allowed to take the resources of the various nation states they operate in while contributing nothing themselves, yet still claiming to be 'people' and demanding all sorts of rights, is beyond the joke. Before anyone says it, yes I'm aware they pay GST/VAT/PAYE etc, but if I have to pay company tax, why don't they?

logicchains 10y ago
>while contributing nothing themselves They contribute a service, in this case a search engine that's miles ahead of its closest competitor, Bing. They don't "take" anything, they offer something that you're free not to use. Unlike nation states, which are happy to take whatever they want (claiming they're owed it for providing you things you may never have asked for, which are paid for by other people potentially against their will, and for which you're probably not allowed to solicit alternative providers) and your only option if you don't like it is to emigrate. Google doesn't throw black people in prison for recreational drug use, Google doesn't prevent people from marrying who they want, Google doesn't send people to die fighting pointless wars in the middle east, or drone bomb weddings. >but if I have to pay company tax, why don't they If you're uncomfortable with how much taxes you pay, then blame whoever's taxing you, not Google.
- cscurmudgeon 10y ago
  Except Google was heavily dependent on funding from various branches of the USG in its early stages. Search for it. > case a search engine that's miles ahead of its closest competitor, Bing Thats debatable. Any blind studies?
  - logicchains 10y ago
    >Except Google was heavily dependent on funding from various branches of the USG in its early stages. Search for it. But that funding could have came from anywhere. Just because the government funded something, doesn't mean that the thing would never be funded if the government didn't fund it. >Thats debatable. Any blind studies? Entirely anecdotal, but I've never met anyone who tried Bing and didn't switch back to Google after finding it flounders with more complex searches. I'm not sure how one'd go about designing such a study, to avoid favouring one search engine by inadvertently testing queries it's more suited to (or picking people who make queries more suited to one than the other). Or how quality of results would be measured. One somewhat empirical measure: Google has a much larger market share.
    - cscurmudgeon 10y ago
      By the same logic Bing, Yahoo and DuckDuckGo (much better for technical searches) could provide Google's services if they disappeared from the face of the earth. The USG was wise enough to fund them when they were extremely risky.
      - logicchains 10y ago
        What I meant was Google's founders could still have founded it without government money, it would just have taken them longer to obtain the funding. Money isn't enough to make a search engine; Baidu for instance has the Chinese government behind it but still produces worse results even for Chinese language searches than Google. Bing's had quite a lot of funding from Microsoft put into it.
        byroot 10y ago
        Even besides that early governmental founding. Companies aren't created nor exist in a vacuum. Tax payer's money payed for most of the infrastructures, research and education those companies requires to operate. How can you run a company like Google or any other without educated employees, roads, internet, etc. Entrepreneurs love to think they built themselves alone, but they are just a product of the society they lives in. Now as a society you can choose to either socialize or privatise your infrastructures, but you'll have to pay for them either way.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    Do you need blind studies to know that you like Chocolate? To know that it's raining? Yes, a study could show that Bing's results are x% less useful that Google's, but who would want to keep using Bing long enough to quantify the suck?
    - cscurmudgeon 10y ago
      How scientific of you! :) > but who would want to keep using Bing long enough to quantify the suck? 20% of the market?
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        Even if we believe the 20% figure, what's the chance that they made that choice? Considering Microsoft popularized the dark pattern of changing preferences during auto-updates...
        cscurmudgeon 10y ago
        Sigh. > Even if we believe the 20% figure, Those are widely accepted. > Considering Microsoft popularized the dark pattern of changing preferences during auto-updates... You think Google never does anything like that? http://hothardware.com/news/google-paid-apple-1-billion-for-default-search-engine-status-in-ios http://hothardware.com/news/google-paid-apple-1-billion-for-... http://www.wired.com/2016/04/eu-accuses-google-antitrust-violations-android/ http://www.wired.com/2016/04/eu-accuses-google-antitrust-vio... > According to the complaint, Google requires companies that want to bundle Google’s apps with their products to make Google Search the default search engine on those devices. They’re even offered financial incentives to not even include any other search engines, European authorities allege. When Google does it, it is all kosher I guess.
        EdHominem 10y ago
        >> the 20% figure, > Those are widely accepted. Almost every time I saw IE, or MSN, and now Bing, I'd been tricked into using it. MS users are rarely voluntary users, I know because I've been one. > When Google does it You're getting pretty defensive. Does that means you admit MS does it and the only defense is that other companies might as well? What's your estimate of people who have tried two or more search or mapping engines and have intentionally settled on the Microsoft product?
- cmdkeen 10y ago
  Google aren't in France in order to better serve up search results - that can be done from anywhere. Google are in France to sell advertising, they are carrying on a business selling services to French companies. One of the big things in the UK was Google claiming they sold all their adverts from the Republic of Ireland not the UK and thus could pay Irish taxes. This was despite having lots of sales staff at their London office...
  - logicchains 10y ago
    >Google aren't in France in order to better serve up search results - that can be done from anywhere. Google are in France to sell advertising, they are carrying on a business selling services to French companies. This doesn't contradict my point that Google are providing service to people (or the businesses people run) in France.
- nametakenobv 10y ago
  Google makes money in France. Given France's economy size, it's probably billions. They need to pay taxes to the french government for the privilege of doing business there, so the government can sped it on schools and other infrastructure, so the french citizens can be prosperous.
  - mike_hearn 10y ago
    The idea that doing business is a "privilege" granted by the state is exactly why France's economy is famously bad, with unemployment double that of the UK.
    - nametakenobv 10y ago
      This idea is in place for every government, everywhere in world, at any point in history.
      - JBReefer 10y ago
        Can you cite that? That's certainly not the opinion of ~50% of Americans
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Which might explain why Americans are driven slave labor with little to no protections and a laughable excuse for social safety net. Just because an opinion is majority, does not make it intelligent, nor right.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - chillacy 10y ago
      Is doing business not a privilege elsewhere? In the US you need to register your business and pay taxes (money from corporations are doubly taxed as well). The only businesses here who don't do that are drug dealing / crime enterprises.
jessriedel 10y ago
This is an excellent attitude to take if you want Google to physically exit France.
- te_chris 10y ago
  This argument makes no sense. They obviously need a presence in the world's 6th largest economy, otherwise why else would they have said presence.
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    I think you should look closer at the history of the paris office and why it exists. It's tremendously arrogant to think it "needs" to be there. It wasn't there for quite a long time, and i doubt it "needs" to be there.
    - eloisant 10y ago
      They've had an office in Paris since 2002, for business. Maybe you're talking about their engineering office. You might think they made it to please politicians, but I think the real reasons is for recruitment. There are many talented engineers in France, some of them not willing to move to Zurich, London or Silicon Valley. If they want a chance to hire them they need an office in France. Anyway, supposing they get rid of their engineering office in Paris as a revenge, they'll still need to have a business office like they have since 2002.
      - DannyBee 10y ago
        Yes, they've had a business office, that precisely noone cares about :) "You might think they made it to please politicians" This is not even a secret. The original office existed because of certain folks not wanting to relocate, but it was only ever grown to please politicians. It was even made into a media event with eric schmidt and the president of france. "but I think the real reasons is for recruitment" This is false, sorry. I wish it wasn't. As I said, i'm pretty sure this isn't even secret. "If they want a chance to hire them they need an office in France." I'm just going to be blunt here: They did okay without having to hire them before, they would do okay without having to hire them afterwards. This is not a knock on french engineering folks, really, it's more a statement "there is sufficiently high quality supply of engineers elsewhere that it is not actually necessary to be there". Heck, the engineers in france are probably even significantly more expensive than elsewhere, too. The office was not made, or expanded, for recruitment. It was, like a lot of other companies do, to have skin in the game.
Kurtz79 10y ago
" multinationals are allowed to take the resources of the various nation states they operate in while contributing nothing themselves". I agree with the sentiment that they should receive equal treatment than local/smaller companies, but saying that they contribute "nothing" is unfair and ingenuous, they do in terms of creation of local jobs and the direct and indirect taxes they pay for them.
- te_chris 10y ago
  That's the whole reason they're being raided though. They're not paying enough "direct" taxes!
- tobltobs 10y ago
  Please not the trickle down theory again.
  - asuffield 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics means something different. "Creating jobs" is not "trickle-down economics".
    - tobltobs 10y ago
      There is nothing in your wikipedia article which says that "Creating jobs" is an antipattern for "trickle-down" economics.

logicchains 10y ago

>while contributing nothing themselves They contribute a service, in this case a search engine that's miles ahead of its closest competitor, Bing. They don't "take" anything, they offer something that you're free not to use. Unlike nation states, which are happy to take whatever they want (claiming they're owed it for providing you things you may never have asked for, which are paid for by other people potentially against their will, and for which you're probably not allowed to solicit alternative providers) and your only option if you don't like it is to emigrate. Google doesn't throw black people in prison for recreational drug use, Google doesn't prevent people from marrying who they want, Google doesn't send people to die fighting pointless wars in the middle east, or drone bomb weddings. >but if I have to pay company tax, why don't they If you're uncomfortable with how much taxes you pay, then blame whoever's taxing you, not Google.

cscurmudgeon 10y ago
Except Google was heavily dependent on funding from various branches of the USG in its early stages. Search for it. > case a search engine that's miles ahead of its closest competitor, Bing Thats debatable. Any blind studies?
- logicchains 10y ago
  >Except Google was heavily dependent on funding from various branches of the USG in its early stages. Search for it. But that funding could have came from anywhere. Just because the government funded something, doesn't mean that the thing would never be funded if the government didn't fund it. >Thats debatable. Any blind studies? Entirely anecdotal, but I've never met anyone who tried Bing and didn't switch back to Google after finding it flounders with more complex searches. I'm not sure how one'd go about designing such a study, to avoid favouring one search engine by inadvertently testing queries it's more suited to (or picking people who make queries more suited to one than the other). Or how quality of results would be measured. One somewhat empirical measure: Google has a much larger market share.
  - cscurmudgeon 10y ago
    By the same logic Bing, Yahoo and DuckDuckGo (much better for technical searches) could provide Google's services if they disappeared from the face of the earth. The USG was wise enough to fund them when they were extremely risky.
    - logicchains 10y ago
      What I meant was Google's founders could still have founded it without government money, it would just have taken them longer to obtain the funding. Money isn't enough to make a search engine; Baidu for instance has the Chinese government behind it but still produces worse results even for Chinese language searches than Google. Bing's had quite a lot of funding from Microsoft put into it.
      - byroot 10y ago
        Even besides that early governmental founding. Companies aren't created nor exist in a vacuum. Tax payer's money payed for most of the infrastructures, research and education those companies requires to operate. How can you run a company like Google or any other without educated employees, roads, internet, etc. Entrepreneurs love to think they built themselves alone, but they are just a product of the society they lives in. Now as a society you can choose to either socialize or privatise your infrastructures, but you'll have to pay for them either way.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  Do you need blind studies to know that you like Chocolate? To know that it's raining? Yes, a study could show that Bing's results are x% less useful that Google's, but who would want to keep using Bing long enough to quantify the suck?
  - cscurmudgeon 10y ago
    How scientific of you! :) > but who would want to keep using Bing long enough to quantify the suck? 20% of the market?
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      Even if we believe the 20% figure, what's the chance that they made that choice? Considering Microsoft popularized the dark pattern of changing preferences during auto-updates...
      - cscurmudgeon 10y ago
        Sigh. > Even if we believe the 20% figure, Those are widely accepted. > Considering Microsoft popularized the dark pattern of changing preferences during auto-updates... You think Google never does anything like that? http://hothardware.com/news/google-paid-apple-1-billion-for-default-search-engine-status-in-ios http://hothardware.com/news/google-paid-apple-1-billion-for-... http://www.wired.com/2016/04/eu-accuses-google-antitrust-violations-android/ http://www.wired.com/2016/04/eu-accuses-google-antitrust-vio... > According to the complaint, Google requires companies that want to bundle Google’s apps with their products to make Google Search the default search engine on those devices. They’re even offered financial incentives to not even include any other search engines, European authorities allege. When Google does it, it is all kosher I guess.
        EdHominem 10y ago
        >> the 20% figure, > Those are widely accepted. Almost every time I saw IE, or MSN, and now Bing, I'd been tricked into using it. MS users are rarely voluntary users, I know because I've been one. > When Google does it You're getting pretty defensive. Does that means you admit MS does it and the only defense is that other companies might as well? What's your estimate of people who have tried two or more search or mapping engines and have intentionally settled on the Microsoft product?
cmdkeen 10y ago
Google aren't in France in order to better serve up search results - that can be done from anywhere. Google are in France to sell advertising, they are carrying on a business selling services to French companies. One of the big things in the UK was Google claiming they sold all their adverts from the Republic of Ireland not the UK and thus could pay Irish taxes. This was despite having lots of sales staff at their London office...
- logicchains 10y ago
  >Google aren't in France in order to better serve up search results - that can be done from anywhere. Google are in France to sell advertising, they are carrying on a business selling services to French companies. This doesn't contradict my point that Google are providing service to people (or the businesses people run) in France.
nametakenobv 10y ago
Google makes money in France. Given France's economy size, it's probably billions. They need to pay taxes to the french government for the privilege of doing business there, so the government can sped it on schools and other infrastructure, so the french citizens can be prosperous.
- mike_hearn 10y ago
  The idea that doing business is a "privilege" granted by the state is exactly why France's economy is famously bad, with unemployment double that of the UK.
  - nametakenobv 10y ago
    This idea is in place for every government, everywhere in world, at any point in history.
    - JBReefer 10y ago
      Can you cite that? That's certainly not the opinion of ~50% of Americans
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Which might explain why Americans are driven slave labor with little to no protections and a laughable excuse for social safety net. Just because an opinion is majority, does not make it intelligent, nor right.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - chillacy 10y ago
    Is doing business not a privilege elsewhere? In the US you need to register your business and pay taxes (money from corporations are doubly taxed as well). The only businesses here who don't do that are drug dealing / crime enterprises.

jessriedel 10y ago

This is an excellent attitude to take if you want Google to physically exit France.

te_chris 10y ago
This argument makes no sense. They obviously need a presence in the world's 6th largest economy, otherwise why else would they have said presence.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  I think you should look closer at the history of the paris office and why it exists. It's tremendously arrogant to think it "needs" to be there. It wasn't there for quite a long time, and i doubt it "needs" to be there.
  - eloisant 10y ago
    They've had an office in Paris since 2002, for business. Maybe you're talking about their engineering office. You might think they made it to please politicians, but I think the real reasons is for recruitment. There are many talented engineers in France, some of them not willing to move to Zurich, London or Silicon Valley. If they want a chance to hire them they need an office in France. Anyway, supposing they get rid of their engineering office in Paris as a revenge, they'll still need to have a business office like they have since 2002.
    - DannyBee 10y ago
      Yes, they've had a business office, that precisely noone cares about :) "You might think they made it to please politicians" This is not even a secret. The original office existed because of certain folks not wanting to relocate, but it was only ever grown to please politicians. It was even made into a media event with eric schmidt and the president of france. "but I think the real reasons is for recruitment" This is false, sorry. I wish it wasn't. As I said, i'm pretty sure this isn't even secret. "If they want a chance to hire them they need an office in France." I'm just going to be blunt here: They did okay without having to hire them before, they would do okay without having to hire them afterwards. This is not a knock on french engineering folks, really, it's more a statement "there is sufficiently high quality supply of engineers elsewhere that it is not actually necessary to be there". Heck, the engineers in france are probably even significantly more expensive than elsewhere, too. The office was not made, or expanded, for recruitment. It was, like a lot of other companies do, to have skin in the game.

Kurtz79 10y ago

" multinationals are allowed to take the resources of the various nation states they operate in while contributing nothing themselves". I agree with the sentiment that they should receive equal treatment than local/smaller companies, but saying that they contribute "nothing" is unfair and ingenuous, they do in terms of creation of local jobs and the direct and indirect taxes they pay for them.

te_chris 10y ago
That's the whole reason they're being raided though. They're not paying enough "direct" taxes!
tobltobs 10y ago
Please not the trickle down theory again.
- asuffield 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics means something different. "Creating jobs" is not "trickle-down economics".
  - tobltobs 10y ago
    There is nothing in your wikipedia article which says that "Creating jobs" is an antipattern for "trickle-down" economics.