4 ms·

There seems to be some philosophical disagreement here: what obligation is there beyond the letter of the law? If the tax code and labor regulations permit a le

by jfasi 8y ago

There seems to be some philosophical disagreement here: what obligation is there beyond the letter of the law? If the tax code and labor regulations permit a legal maneuver, and that something is generally accepted as being legal, how is taking advantage of that maneuver sidestepping regulation? In this context being upset at an organization for "tax avoidance and sidestepping labour regulations" seems to me to be about as rational as being upset at water for flowing downhill. What's more, there's nothing inherent to these loopholes that favors American companies, and yet it's almost universally American companies that are being targeted for this regulatory mob justice. I call sour grapes and attempt to reformulate my original point: American companies, the most vigorous of which have emerged victorious from the survival-of-the-fittest meat grinder of the American business environment, have set their sights on the comparatively sclerotic European continent, and are on a tear. To which the European system responds not by encouraging competition, thereby strengthening its own offerings in the long run, but by backdoor regulatory protectionism. I'm sure it's satisfying in the short term to siphon off a fine here and a tax there from these companies, but they're just going to keep coming. Either the EU steps up its approach to competition or it drowns in American tech prowess.

kuschku 8y ago
The entire point is that having mega-corporations like Amazon or Walmart is not the goal, their very existence should be prevented. The entire point is that profit at all costs, the very system you defend when you describe it like a natural law, is a pure dystopia, and shouldn't exist. Having many small, independent stores is desirable not even just because of competition, but also to provide an environment that allows a certain kind of society to exist in the first place. A society where american mega-corporations are dominating while avoiding taxes kills competition because smaller competitors don't have the same advantages. You end up with huge stores at the edge of town, as walmart often does in the US, and as result destroy walkability and accessibility of the entire urban environment. I live in a city in Germany where exactly that is happening. I'm now 22, in my childhood we had dozens of stores nearby. Two small supermarkets, a drug store, two pharmacies, three bakeries, a post office. Nowadays out of all these, one pharmacy and one bakery are left. The next supermarket is 2km away, and everyone drives there. Instead of parents sending children to go by foot and buy that loter of milk they forgot, they drive every time. As result, roads got more congested and had to be widened. Sidewalks were the first to be removed or made smaller to give way for more lanes. Also, walking to the stores you'd always meet other people, and walk together and talk. In 18 years, this district went from being a walkable place with a healthy social environment to a suburban hellhole, just because larger chains built ever larger supermarkets and killed the small competition. I'm moving to a different city in a few months, one where this hasn't happened yet, where everyone, child or adult, can still reach everything by foot, and where the streets are still calm enough that children can walk on the wide sidewalks without much risk. A place where there are still many smaller stores, each selling different stuff, giving together much more choice than the big retailers do.
- briandear 8y ago
  How did those small stores get “killed?” Who’s fault is that? The town voted to kill those stores when they stopped buying from those stores. Nobody forces you to go to a large store. And, if the public actually wants cheaper products, how do you have any right to oppose them optimizing for their own situation? That’s democracy in action: people vote with their wallets. If they cared about their kids buying a liter of milk, they’d have their kids still buying those liters of milk. Big stores didn’t put the small stores out of business — the people of your perfect little town did by exercising freedom. And you seem to be arguing against freedom to assuage your selfish nostalgia? Perhaps vote for lower taxes so people could afford to shop in overpriced small shops? Perhaps vote to eliminate all tariffs so that consumer products could be cheaper? Perhaps vote for fewer regulations so small shops wouldn’t be crushed by taxes and Byzantine labor laws. Try starting a small shop in France and see how hard it is to even open the doors, let alone make a profit. But the same people that lament the death of the small shop have no trouble voting for leftist politicians that create the very regulatory environment that makes those small shops unprofitable.
  - globber 8y ago
    Playing the devil's advocate here, but: - Some people may relate democracy more to a vote-with-ballots activity (among others aspects of democracy of course), more than the "vote with your wallet" thing you describe. If a town both votes for big shops with its wallet and for small shops with its ballot, which option has it voted for? - Some people may think that the outcome of indoviduals optimizing their own situation is often, but not always socially optimal. That's why for instance taxes are mandatory and not voluntary - otherwise no or few optimizing individuals would pay. Usually, the story is that central small shops have large positive externalities (sustaining what the comment you replied to call a "certain kind of society") and suburban malls have large negative externalities (congestion, decreased walkabikity for everyone else). Those exertanilities are not taken into account when people optimize their situation, leading to a suboptimal market equilibrium.
- arkh 8y ago
  > A society where american mega-corporations are dominating while avoiding taxes kills competition because smaller competitors don't have the same advantages. Here is an idea: remove the taxes so everyone is on an even playing field. One of the worst example of this is in France is the crédit recherche, meant to help R&D. But you need people who know the system to get this money so who get it? Huge CAC40 companies like Orange. The small companies? They pay the taxes for this so the bigger ones can enjoy their money.
tremon 8y ago
> There seems to be some philosophical disagreement here: what obligation is there beyond the letter of the law? Spoken like a true sociopath. The world doesn't exist purely for each and everyone to scheme their way through, the world is generally a much better place if everyone works to improve the world instead of their own standing in it. Here is where the disagreement comes from (very broadly speaking): Americans hold the utilitarian point of view that if everyone chases their personal goals the world will improve, while Europeans think the world will improve if everyone works towards common goals. In the latter worldview, the law isn't the only boundary to observe, it's merely the option of last resort. Here's where the utilitarian approach falls flat: it only works if everyone is of comparable power. Having one or two mega-corporations that have more power than entire countries is not going to produce a universally better society. > I'm sure it's satisfying in the short term to siphon off a fine here and a tax there from these companies I'm sure it's equally satisfying for American companies to siphon off European profits to overseas territories while giving nothing in return.
ionised 8y ago
> what obligation is there beyond the letter of the law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law

by jfasi 8y ago

kuschku 8y ago

The entire point is that having mega-corporations like Amazon or Walmart is not the goal, their very existence should be prevented. The entire point is that profit at all costs, the very system you defend when you describe it like a natural law, is a pure dystopia, and shouldn't exist. Having many small, independent stores is desirable not even just because of competition, but also to provide an environment that allows a certain kind of society to exist in the first place. A society where american mega-corporations are dominating while avoiding taxes kills competition because smaller competitors don't have the same advantages. You end up with huge stores at the edge of town, as walmart often does in the US, and as result destroy walkability and accessibility of the entire urban environment. I live in a city in Germany where exactly that is happening. I'm now 22, in my childhood we had dozens of stores nearby. Two small supermarkets, a drug store, two pharmacies, three bakeries, a post office. Nowadays out of all these, one pharmacy and one bakery are left. The next supermarket is 2km away, and everyone drives there. Instead of parents sending children to go by foot and buy that loter of milk they forgot, they drive every time. As result, roads got more congested and had to be widened. Sidewalks were the first to be removed or made smaller to give way for more lanes. Also, walking to the stores you'd always meet other people, and walk together and talk. In 18 years, this district went from being a walkable place with a healthy social environment to a suburban hellhole, just because larger chains built ever larger supermarkets and killed the small competition. I'm moving to a different city in a few months, one where this hasn't happened yet, where everyone, child or adult, can still reach everything by foot, and where the streets are still calm enough that children can walk on the wide sidewalks without much risk. A place where there are still many smaller stores, each selling different stuff, giving together much more choice than the big retailers do.

briandear 8y ago
How did those small stores get “killed?” Who’s fault is that? The town voted to kill those stores when they stopped buying from those stores. Nobody forces you to go to a large store. And, if the public actually wants cheaper products, how do you have any right to oppose them optimizing for their own situation? That’s democracy in action: people vote with their wallets. If they cared about their kids buying a liter of milk, they’d have their kids still buying those liters of milk. Big stores didn’t put the small stores out of business — the people of your perfect little town did by exercising freedom. And you seem to be arguing against freedom to assuage your selfish nostalgia? Perhaps vote for lower taxes so people could afford to shop in overpriced small shops? Perhaps vote to eliminate all tariffs so that consumer products could be cheaper? Perhaps vote for fewer regulations so small shops wouldn’t be crushed by taxes and Byzantine labor laws. Try starting a small shop in France and see how hard it is to even open the doors, let alone make a profit. But the same people that lament the death of the small shop have no trouble voting for leftist politicians that create the very regulatory environment that makes those small shops unprofitable.
- globber 8y ago
  Playing the devil's advocate here, but: - Some people may relate democracy more to a vote-with-ballots activity (among others aspects of democracy of course), more than the "vote with your wallet" thing you describe. If a town both votes for big shops with its wallet and for small shops with its ballot, which option has it voted for? - Some people may think that the outcome of indoviduals optimizing their own situation is often, but not always socially optimal. That's why for instance taxes are mandatory and not voluntary - otherwise no or few optimizing individuals would pay. Usually, the story is that central small shops have large positive externalities (sustaining what the comment you replied to call a "certain kind of society") and suburban malls have large negative externalities (congestion, decreased walkabikity for everyone else). Those exertanilities are not taken into account when people optimize their situation, leading to a suboptimal market equilibrium.
arkh 8y ago
> A society where american mega-corporations are dominating while avoiding taxes kills competition because smaller competitors don't have the same advantages. Here is an idea: remove the taxes so everyone is on an even playing field. One of the worst example of this is in France is the crédit recherche, meant to help R&D. But you need people who know the system to get this money so who get it? Huge CAC40 companies like Orange. The small companies? They pay the taxes for this so the bigger ones can enjoy their money.

tremon 8y ago

> There seems to be some philosophical disagreement here: what obligation is there beyond the letter of the law? Spoken like a true sociopath. The world doesn't exist purely for each and everyone to scheme their way through, the world is generally a much better place if everyone works to improve the world instead of their own standing in it. Here is where the disagreement comes from (very broadly speaking): Americans hold the utilitarian point of view that if everyone chases their personal goals the world will improve, while Europeans think the world will improve if everyone works towards common goals. In the latter worldview, the law isn't the only boundary to observe, it's merely the option of last resort. Here's where the utilitarian approach falls flat: it only works if everyone is of comparable power. Having one or two mega-corporations that have more power than entire countries is not going to produce a universally better society. > I'm sure it's satisfying in the short term to siphon off a fine here and a tax there from these companies I'm sure it's equally satisfying for American companies to siphon off European profits to overseas territories while giving nothing in return.

ionised 8y ago

> what obligation is there beyond the letter of the law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law