5 ms·

The business is effectively a parasite. No demand for local employment and no tax revenue from the businesses profits means everyone else has to pay for the sam

The business is effectively a parasite. No demand for local employment and no tax revenue from the businesses profits means everyone else has to pay for the same infrastructure the parasite gets for nothing. If anything the people of country B should care more.

tylersmith 9y ago
There is an alternative where the "parasite" and the others both pay for infrastructure voluntarily instead of at the point of a gun. The dregs of society can just deal with it while valuable people live without being shaken down by State thugs.
- downunderman 9y ago
  I'm not sure how serious you are. It reminds me of this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4 .
ucaetano 9y ago
Go ahead and close your country for foreign companies then, that has worked out well in exactly 0 times in history. Your "parasite" analogy doesn't make any sense. Trade relationships add value to both sides, but if you wish your people to have a worst product for a higher price, go ahead and ban competition.
- downunderman 9y ago
  How does having a company that contributes effectively zero to your country make that nation better off? As an example look at the similarities of clothes and shoes donations from the west to Africa with opening up to parasitic businesses. All these charity efforts have done is undermine the local clothes and shoes production and market making it impossible for people to build businesses and create jobs. If I open up a new fictitious nation to all trade and allow them all tax write off on investment in other countries then I don't get a prosperous nation. I get a basket case that cant compete with foreign existing industry, can't develop competitive local industry or employment, and likely stuck in debt because tax revenue would be so low.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    > How does having a company that contributes effectively zero to your country make that nation better off? It isn't "zero" at all. That's not how economics work.

tylersmith 9y ago

There is an alternative where the "parasite" and the others both pay for infrastructure voluntarily instead of at the point of a gun. The dregs of society can just deal with it while valuable people live without being shaken down by State thugs.

downunderman 9y ago
I'm not sure how serious you are. It reminds me of this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4 .

ucaetano 9y ago

Go ahead and close your country for foreign companies then, that has worked out well in exactly 0 times in history. Your "parasite" analogy doesn't make any sense. Trade relationships add value to both sides, but if you wish your people to have a worst product for a higher price, go ahead and ban competition.

downunderman 9y ago
How does having a company that contributes effectively zero to your country make that nation better off? As an example look at the similarities of clothes and shoes donations from the west to Africa with opening up to parasitic businesses. All these charity efforts have done is undermine the local clothes and shoes production and market making it impossible for people to build businesses and create jobs. If I open up a new fictitious nation to all trade and allow them all tax write off on investment in other countries then I don't get a prosperous nation. I get a basket case that cant compete with foreign existing industry, can't develop competitive local industry or employment, and likely stuck in debt because tax revenue would be so low.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > How does having a company that contributes effectively zero to your country make that nation better off? It isn't "zero" at all. That's not how economics work.