6 ms·

Why can't the western world properly tax large job destroyers? I don't mean to sound inflammatory just focusing solely on the negative impact to mum and dad sh

Why can't the western world properly tax large job destroyers? I don't mean to sound inflammatory just focusing solely on the negative impact to mum and dad shops that Amazon can cause. Large American based organisations have been hoarding an extreme amount of cash. Why is this allowed? Why do they feel the need to "give back" and engage in philanthropy? Can't we just stop them from using tax loopholes and re-invest it in society with new preemptive educational programs and universal healthcare? Seriously now, why do I keep seeing examples of corporate America outdoing themselves on Corporate Social Responsibility? Why is it not just about applying special taxes on the mega profitable monopolistic entities?

ci5er 9y ago
"Now that you are super-successful - let the state take your money. Because, reasons" ? Why do you believe that the state (with its lifetime employeed mediocraties or venal politicians), with no competition itself to always be improving, would or could be a better steward of resources than a corporation?
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > would or could be a better steward of resources than a corporation? Because as an abstract entity, a corporation doesn't give a damn about the society beyond ensuring it has market opportunities to exploit. A state, on the other hand, will redirect those resources towards social good. At least that's how it happens in the ideal world. Our world is a bit more messy, but the base argument retains some merit.
  - ci5er 9y ago
    > A state, on the other hand, will redirect those resources towards social good. A state is also an abstract entity. Composed of people with a range of incentives based on their positions. Elected representatives offer us a fine view into what economists call "The Agency Problem" [0][1] Pournelle's "Iron Law of Bureaucracy" states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists, and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration. Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc. The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization. In both cases, the "state" is less benign than what one might suppose. But, because we are all (mostly) taught by agents of the state from childhood - this is never really brought to our attention during our early indoctrination process. [0]: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/agencyproblem.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/agencyproblem.asp [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
  - MR4D 9y ago
    I disagree completely. The State is run by humans, often humans who will do anything for power, including lying, cheating, killing. The difference between a corporation and the State is that the State has the final say, and thus, the ultimate power. Keep in mind that a corporation can't kill people without consequences, while a State can. That alone should be enough proof of the power they wield.
    - kiliantics 9y ago
      Ahem, Blackwater (or Academi)? East India trading company historically? And again, you're forgetting about the externalities that are less obvious and definitely less publicised. How many people working for Foxconn committed suicide because of the terrible working conditions or will die early as a result of them. Remember Erin Brokovich? How many lives have been ruined by companies like PG&E that were just never brought to justice?
      - MR4D 9y ago
        Blackwater is essentially an extension of the govt. East India company lasted 175 years - but the British govt is still going. Erin Brockovich won. Your point is?
        TeMPOraL 9y ago
        His point is that some corporations can, and do kill people without consequences.
- amelius 9y ago
  You could be right as long as there is no monopoly or oligopoly. However, in capitalism money agglutinates, and thus it has a natural tendency into this direction. Also don't forget that capitalism works until it doesn't, at which point a revolution may take place, and then anything can happen.
  - ci5er 9y ago
    You make a good point. I did a survey of national and local monopolies a while back, and I couldn't find many sustained ones (in the US) that weren't sponsored by the state. Oligopoly is another matter entirely. > Also don't forget that capitalism works until it doesn't, at which point a revolution may take place, and then anything can happen. Revolution may occur when the peasants feel injustice hard enough (the starvation poverty kind - not the poorer than Bill Gates kind) - but are there any examples of this happening in a more-or-less Laissez-faire market system? [I seriously don't know - could well have been]. Do you think that (for example, in the US) that we have enough mass of discontent to build up revolutionary momentum, given that the poor are (on average) fat, dumb and happy? For example, the driving force behind the French Revolution wasn't simply that people wanted social justice (although they wanted that too), but that they were hungry. And, in Venezuela, where there may be revolution soon (or simply escape), it isn't driven by a paradise of low-priced veggie options at every supermarket supplied by capitalism - it's desperation driven by hunger caused by extreme corruption that have gutted the country in the name of equality. For myself (and I realize that opinions vary), if the government keeps a light hand on making sure that people don't lie, cheat and steal as people engage in day-to-day commerce in the marketplace (as humans are wont to do - we like to trade, it seems), that generates "plenty" -- which we have seen from the kingdom of Lydia to the present day.
    - kiliantics 9y ago
      I'd say the recent elections have shown that people are reaching that point. Or at least, the people who matter in electoral politics finally are - especially young people with no prospects of living an American dream style of life. There is a very significant portion of the population that have always had the need for a revolution and still do - the vast number of black people living in poverty or, worse, in and out of the prison industrial complex. There are also plenty migrant workers who suffer terrible work conditions to produce all that food (among other things) so cheaply here, government subsidies or not. If the racial divide could be crossed, as recently seems to be happening, where young educated white people are starting to see solidarity with people of colour with similarly grim prospects, there could be a considerable force to challenge the established class relations in the USA. I think there are interesting times ahead.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  If I had to choose, I would rather have an incompetent and bloated organization dedicated to helping people than a sleek and hypercompetent one dedicated to exploiting people. The former will at least occasionally bumble its way into helping people; the latter will do the bare minimum necessary to keep its worker units productive, and aggressively optimize away all other good outcomes.
  - ci5er 9y ago
    Sure. I agree. If that was the choice. But we have an incompetent and bloated organization dedicated to serving themselves, not the people. EDIT: Where I come up a bit baffled is where people got the idea that government is here to serve them? [1] Where did that idea come from? They clearly (the people, generally) understand that corporations (say, Walmart) are here to serve themselves, and maybe as a by-product offer low-cost goods to people who want them, but they don't understand that bureaucracies have their own incentives that also don't exist to serve the people. With Walmart, I get what I pay for. With the government, I don't - and they spy on me on the side. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Decisions-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465037380 https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Decisions-Thomas-Sowell/dp/...
    - kiliantics 9y ago
      The state exists to protect and serve the interests of the wealthy IMO
      - ci5er 9y ago
        Given who the establishment's people's friends are, and the nature of the revolving door, I find it hard to find fault with that assessment. But "the wealthy" is maybe a too broad brush. Co-conspirators, maybe...
    - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
      Most western nations have some sort of program with a mandate to help the disadvantaged, however feeble and inadequate it may be. Corporations are not generally interested in spending any money on public welfare beyond token charity donations for PR purposes. If they're publicly traded, it's actually illegal for them to "waste" money on the public good without improving shareholder value.
- kiliantics 9y ago
  Because the state is accountable to voters and not just shareholders, so there is an intrinsic incentive to redistribute wealth in a more equitable way than a corporation has any incentive to. I'm not a huge fan of the state myself but it for sure helps people that corporations never would (because it's not profitable to do so) so in many ways they are better custodians of a society's collective wealth.
  - ci5er 9y ago
    The bureaucracy is beholden to itself (and acts to survive on that basis), and the elected official presents a principle-agent problem. Now, I understand how it is supposed to work. But I am asserting that this is not how it does work.
closeparen 9y ago
If you start confiscating all their profits, why would they continue doing the work to generate them?
gozur88 9y ago
>I don't mean to sound inflammatory just focusing solely on the negative impact to mum and dad shops that Amazon can cause. But why are you just focusing on the negative effects? If I can buy something cheaper on Amazon, it leaves me more money to spend on something else, creating jobs. The problem with this kind of thinking, pace Bastiat, is there are things you see and there are things you don't see. If you make policy based only on the things you see the effects of your policies won't be what you intended.

ci5er 9y ago

"Now that you are super-successful - let the state take your money. Because, reasons" ? Why do you believe that the state (with its lifetime employeed mediocraties or venal politicians), with no competition itself to always be improving, would or could be a better steward of resources than a corporation?

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> would or could be a better steward of resources than a corporation? Because as an abstract entity, a corporation doesn't give a damn about the society beyond ensuring it has market opportunities to exploit. A state, on the other hand, will redirect those resources towards social good. At least that's how it happens in the ideal world. Our world is a bit more messy, but the base argument retains some merit.
- ci5er 9y ago
  > A state, on the other hand, will redirect those resources towards social good. A state is also an abstract entity. Composed of people with a range of incentives based on their positions. Elected representatives offer us a fine view into what economists call "The Agency Problem" [0][1] Pournelle's "Iron Law of Bureaucracy" states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists, and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration. Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc. The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization. In both cases, the "state" is less benign than what one might suppose. But, because we are all (mostly) taught by agents of the state from childhood - this is never really brought to our attention during our early indoctrination process. [0]: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/agencyproblem.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/agencyproblem.asp [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
- MR4D 9y ago
  I disagree completely. The State is run by humans, often humans who will do anything for power, including lying, cheating, killing. The difference between a corporation and the State is that the State has the final say, and thus, the ultimate power. Keep in mind that a corporation can't kill people without consequences, while a State can. That alone should be enough proof of the power they wield.
  - kiliantics 9y ago
    Ahem, Blackwater (or Academi)? East India trading company historically? And again, you're forgetting about the externalities that are less obvious and definitely less publicised. How many people working for Foxconn committed suicide because of the terrible working conditions or will die early as a result of them. Remember Erin Brokovich? How many lives have been ruined by companies like PG&E that were just never brought to justice?
    - MR4D 9y ago
      Blackwater is essentially an extension of the govt. East India company lasted 175 years - but the British govt is still going. Erin Brockovich won. Your point is?
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        His point is that some corporations can, and do kill people without consequences.
amelius 9y ago
You could be right as long as there is no monopoly or oligopoly. However, in capitalism money agglutinates, and thus it has a natural tendency into this direction. Also don't forget that capitalism works until it doesn't, at which point a revolution may take place, and then anything can happen.
- ci5er 9y ago
  You make a good point. I did a survey of national and local monopolies a while back, and I couldn't find many sustained ones (in the US) that weren't sponsored by the state. Oligopoly is another matter entirely. > Also don't forget that capitalism works until it doesn't, at which point a revolution may take place, and then anything can happen. Revolution may occur when the peasants feel injustice hard enough (the starvation poverty kind - not the poorer than Bill Gates kind) - but are there any examples of this happening in a more-or-less Laissez-faire market system? [I seriously don't know - could well have been]. Do you think that (for example, in the US) that we have enough mass of discontent to build up revolutionary momentum, given that the poor are (on average) fat, dumb and happy? For example, the driving force behind the French Revolution wasn't simply that people wanted social justice (although they wanted that too), but that they were hungry. And, in Venezuela, where there may be revolution soon (or simply escape), it isn't driven by a paradise of low-priced veggie options at every supermarket supplied by capitalism - it's desperation driven by hunger caused by extreme corruption that have gutted the country in the name of equality. For myself (and I realize that opinions vary), if the government keeps a light hand on making sure that people don't lie, cheat and steal as people engage in day-to-day commerce in the marketplace (as humans are wont to do - we like to trade, it seems), that generates "plenty" -- which we have seen from the kingdom of Lydia to the present day.
  - kiliantics 9y ago
    I'd say the recent elections have shown that people are reaching that point. Or at least, the people who matter in electoral politics finally are - especially young people with no prospects of living an American dream style of life. There is a very significant portion of the population that have always had the need for a revolution and still do - the vast number of black people living in poverty or, worse, in and out of the prison industrial complex. There are also plenty migrant workers who suffer terrible work conditions to produce all that food (among other things) so cheaply here, government subsidies or not. If the racial divide could be crossed, as recently seems to be happening, where young educated white people are starting to see solidarity with people of colour with similarly grim prospects, there could be a considerable force to challenge the established class relations in the USA. I think there are interesting times ahead.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
If I had to choose, I would rather have an incompetent and bloated organization dedicated to helping people than a sleek and hypercompetent one dedicated to exploiting people. The former will at least occasionally bumble its way into helping people; the latter will do the bare minimum necessary to keep its worker units productive, and aggressively optimize away all other good outcomes.
- ci5er 9y ago
  Sure. I agree. If that was the choice. But we have an incompetent and bloated organization dedicated to serving themselves, not the people. EDIT: Where I come up a bit baffled is where people got the idea that government is here to serve them? [1] Where did that idea come from? They clearly (the people, generally) understand that corporations (say, Walmart) are here to serve themselves, and maybe as a by-product offer low-cost goods to people who want them, but they don't understand that bureaucracies have their own incentives that also don't exist to serve the people. With Walmart, I get what I pay for. With the government, I don't - and they spy on me on the side. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Decisions-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465037380 https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Decisions-Thomas-Sowell/dp/...
  - kiliantics 9y ago
    The state exists to protect and serve the interests of the wealthy IMO
    - ci5er 9y ago
      Given who the establishment's people's friends are, and the nature of the revolving door, I find it hard to find fault with that assessment. But "the wealthy" is maybe a too broad brush. Co-conspirators, maybe...
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    Most western nations have some sort of program with a mandate to help the disadvantaged, however feeble and inadequate it may be. Corporations are not generally interested in spending any money on public welfare beyond token charity donations for PR purposes. If they're publicly traded, it's actually illegal for them to "waste" money on the public good without improving shareholder value.
kiliantics 9y ago
Because the state is accountable to voters and not just shareholders, so there is an intrinsic incentive to redistribute wealth in a more equitable way than a corporation has any incentive to. I'm not a huge fan of the state myself but it for sure helps people that corporations never would (because it's not profitable to do so) so in many ways they are better custodians of a society's collective wealth.
- ci5er 9y ago
  The bureaucracy is beholden to itself (and acts to survive on that basis), and the elected official presents a principle-agent problem. Now, I understand how it is supposed to work. But I am asserting that this is not how it does work.

closeparen 9y ago

If you start confiscating all their profits, why would they continue doing the work to generate them?

gozur88 9y ago

>I don't mean to sound inflammatory just focusing solely on the negative impact to mum and dad shops that Amazon can cause. But why are you just focusing on the negative effects? If I can buy something cheaper on Amazon, it leaves me more money to spend on something else, creating jobs. The problem with this kind of thinking, pace Bastiat, is there are things you see and there are things you don't see. If you make policy based only on the things you see the effects of your policies won't be what you intended.