6 ms·

We either need a much lower standard for anti-trust breakups or we will reach the day where corporations are more powerful than national governments. Tech gets

by Nbox9 6y ago

We either need a much lower standard for anti-trust breakups or we will reach the day where corporations are more powerful than national governments. Tech gets a lot of the focus on anti-trust concerns, but we have similar threats almost every industry.

nine_k 6y ago
The term "banana republic" was coined in 1904, exactly to describe Caribbean states where governments have less clout than United Fruit Company. But this is too close. Instead, let's remember how the Hanseatic Union, an multi-national sea trade corporation of medieval times, waged war on Danish and Norwegian kings which had the impudence to plunder one of its trade ports, and won singlehandedly.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  The Hanseatic League was a collection of city states and a naval power which wasn't too unusual and tended to be a regional norm - look at all of the Italian city states like Venice, Florence, and Milan. They could be called a northern counterpart to the Italian city states. By definition they weren't conquered by kings.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
I think we do need a more consistent standard. Right now it feels like it's a popularity contest judged almost entirely by which industry the media has decided to hate on.
geofft 6y ago
Isn't that day already here? For instance, isn't the existence of the Double Irish a demonstration that large corporations can basically choose national governments as if from a marketplace and arrange their corporate structure in whatever way exposes them to the most favorable laws, completely independent of where they're actually doing business?
- rhencke 6y ago
  Yes. Examples: Facebook - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680117000007/fb-12312016x10kexhibit211.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680117... Apple - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000032019317000070/a10-kexhibit2112017.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0000320193170... Google - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312507044494/dex2101.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312507...
- kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
  I am not sure if that's a bad thing? In some sense, that is the point of having different countries. It's nothing conceptually different from the US deciding to tax its citizens on their worldwide income even when they are living abroad. It's "completely independent of where they're actually doing business or living"
  - geofft 6y ago
    US citizens gain benefits from the US government by definition, and they have the ability to give up their citizenship if they don't want that. The reason they're taxed is that they are actually subjecting themselves to US jurisdiction, in addition to the jurisdiction of whatever country they're physically in. (For instance, they can choose to leave the country they're currently in and be allowed visa-free entry to any country that permits visa-free entry to US citizens, and of course they can choose to return to the US.) The Double Irish involves a company in non-Ireland country A doing business with a customer in non-Ireland country B, and routing that transaction through Ireland. I have no issue with either A or B deciding that they ought to tax this transaction, because both countries are relevant.
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    > In some sense, that is the point of having different countries. If large corporations can decide to pick their country of incorporation freely and according to what most benefits them, but people can't (in general) pick their country of citizenship, then something has gone wrong.
rhizome 6y ago
>or we will reach the day where corporations are more powerful than national governments It's been true for decades that multinational corporations can push governments around by threatening to move their HQ or manufacturing or literally any other public benefit that they provide (like jobs) to any of the other countries they operate in (and maybe even some new ones that are campaigning for their attention). Of course it's more complex than that in practice, but in a similar way that billionaires are (or can be seen as) a systemic economic failure, so too can highly capitalized organizations manipulate their living environments for their sole benefit, to the detriment of the vast majority of people that the organization touches with their actions. Jamie Dimon and Steve Mnuchin should be in prison right now for their performances around 2008, but instead they are vaunted leaders worldwide suffering zero consequences for their widely-destructive failures. This state of affairs is obviously not a meritocracy. Antitrust enforcement operates pretty much at the leisure of the offenders, regulatorily captured like a lot of oversight in our increasingly authoritarian world.
- technofiend 6y ago
  The same dance is played out with sports teams. Oh no payer-funded stadium? Fine, we'll move the team.
  - Traster 6y ago
    There are two issues here though. The first issue there is that you have a negotiation between a private entity for whom costs are directly associated, negotiating with a public entity where costs are opaquely passed on to taxpayers, but for whom public benefits are often very direct. The second issue is that federalisation of taxation and spending creates a race to the bottom between state entities. The problem isn't only that some city doesn't want to throw money away on a stadium - it's that they're put in a position where another city will buy the team a new stadium. In reality this is state intervention to prop up a private business like a state buying warehouses for Amazon. It destroys the prospect of ever taxing corporations - or indeed more than that, it uses state spending to subsidize private corporations.
  - jldugger 6y ago
Geezus_42 6y ago
"the day where corporations are more powerful than national governments." Snowcrash...
roenxi 6y ago
More powerful in what sense? For corporations to be more powerful than a standing government there would need to be a bunch of private armies roaming around. Although mercenaries can be found it isn't on the scale where it could threaten a government.
- mythrwy 6y ago
  Why hire mercenaries when you can just hire some lobbyists and let the taxpayers foot the bill for the muscle?
thereare5lights 6y ago
I don't see how this is possible unless either the corps become the government or the corps have their own military.
- jhbadger 6y ago
  Historically, there have been such things. For example, while one says "The British" colonized India, it was (until towards the end of the colonial era) not actually the British government but rather a British company called the East India Company that had their own military forces.
- BaronSamedi 6y ago
  The governor of Nevada is proposing exactly this. https://apnews.com/article/legislature-legislation-local-governments-nevada-economy-2fa79128a7bf41073c1e9102e8a0e5f0 https://apnews.com/article/legislature-legislation-local-gov... Autonomous zones appear to be leaving the realm of science fiction and into reality.
- geofft 6y ago
  Corps don't need a military in their own name if they can influence existing militaries to do what they want. Chiquita did this repeatedly, for instance - they got the Colombian military to fire on striking workers in 1928, they got the US military to overthrow the Guatemalan government in 1954, they funded a paramilitary terrorist organization in Colombia from 1997 to 2004, etc.
  - thereare5lights 6y ago
    Right but the issue is corps becoming more powerful than government. Needing to act through the government would seem to indicate that corps are not more powerful.
    - MikeUt 6y ago
      Do they "need to act through government", or do they "control government to act for them"?
hshshs2 6y ago
I’d argue that Facebook is already more powerful than many small and developing countries. Millions of people spend hours a day on their platform... in the past they’ve disclosed experimenting with affecting the emotions of users (with little self awareness and no express consent). They’ve contributed to genocide in Myanmar and numerous other social issues. A few minor algorithm shifts could potentially sway public opinion or even gradually radicalize people and they’re more aware of it than anyone, especially the leadership of the country they primarily operate in.

by Nbox9 6y ago

nine_k 6y ago

The term "banana republic" was coined in 1904, exactly to describe Caribbean states where governments have less clout than United Fruit Company. But this is too close. Instead, let's remember how the Hanseatic Union, an multi-national sea trade corporation of medieval times, waged war on Danish and Norwegian kings which had the impudence to plunder one of its trade ports, and won singlehandedly.

Nasrudith 6y ago
The Hanseatic League was a collection of city states and a naval power which wasn't too unusual and tended to be a regional norm - look at all of the Italian city states like Venice, Florence, and Milan. They could be called a northern counterpart to the Italian city states. By definition they weren't conquered by kings.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago

I think we do need a more consistent standard. Right now it feels like it's a popularity contest judged almost entirely by which industry the media has decided to hate on.

geofft 6y ago

Isn't that day already here? For instance, isn't the existence of the Double Irish a demonstration that large corporations can basically choose national governments as if from a marketplace and arrange their corporate structure in whatever way exposes them to the most favorable laws, completely independent of where they're actually doing business?

rhencke 6y ago
Yes. Examples: Facebook - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680117000007/fb-12312016x10kexhibit211.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680117... Apple - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000032019317000070/a10-kexhibit2112017.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0000320193170... Google - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312507044494/dex2101.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312507...
kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
I am not sure if that's a bad thing? In some sense, that is the point of having different countries. It's nothing conceptually different from the US deciding to tax its citizens on their worldwide income even when they are living abroad. It's "completely independent of where they're actually doing business or living"
- geofft 6y ago
  US citizens gain benefits from the US government by definition, and they have the ability to give up their citizenship if they don't want that. The reason they're taxed is that they are actually subjecting themselves to US jurisdiction, in addition to the jurisdiction of whatever country they're physically in. (For instance, they can choose to leave the country they're currently in and be allowed visa-free entry to any country that permits visa-free entry to US citizens, and of course they can choose to return to the US.) The Double Irish involves a company in non-Ireland country A doing business with a customer in non-Ireland country B, and routing that transaction through Ireland. I have no issue with either A or B deciding that they ought to tax this transaction, because both countries are relevant.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  > In some sense, that is the point of having different countries. If large corporations can decide to pick their country of incorporation freely and according to what most benefits them, but people can't (in general) pick their country of citizenship, then something has gone wrong.

rhizome 6y ago

>or we will reach the day where corporations are more powerful than national governments It's been true for decades that multinational corporations can push governments around by threatening to move their HQ or manufacturing or literally any other public benefit that they provide (like jobs) to any of the other countries they operate in (and maybe even some new ones that are campaigning for their attention). Of course it's more complex than that in practice, but in a similar way that billionaires are (or can be seen as) a systemic economic failure, so too can highly capitalized organizations manipulate their living environments for their sole benefit, to the detriment of the vast majority of people that the organization touches with their actions. Jamie Dimon and Steve Mnuchin should be in prison right now for their performances around 2008, but instead they are vaunted leaders worldwide suffering zero consequences for their widely-destructive failures. This state of affairs is obviously not a meritocracy. Antitrust enforcement operates pretty much at the leisure of the offenders, regulatorily captured like a lot of oversight in our increasingly authoritarian world.

technofiend 6y ago
The same dance is played out with sports teams. Oh no payer-funded stadium? Fine, we'll move the team.
- Traster 6y ago
  There are two issues here though. The first issue there is that you have a negotiation between a private entity for whom costs are directly associated, negotiating with a public entity where costs are opaquely passed on to taxpayers, but for whom public benefits are often very direct. The second issue is that federalisation of taxation and spending creates a race to the bottom between state entities. The problem isn't only that some city doesn't want to throw money away on a stadium - it's that they're put in a position where another city will buy the team a new stadium. In reality this is state intervention to prop up a private business like a state buying warehouses for Amazon. It destroys the prospect of ever taxing corporations - or indeed more than that, it uses state spending to subsidize private corporations.
- jldugger 6y ago

Geezus_42 6y ago

"the day where corporations are more powerful than national governments." Snowcrash...

roenxi 6y ago

More powerful in what sense? For corporations to be more powerful than a standing government there would need to be a bunch of private armies roaming around. Although mercenaries can be found it isn't on the scale where it could threaten a government.

mythrwy 6y ago
Why hire mercenaries when you can just hire some lobbyists and let the taxpayers foot the bill for the muscle?

thereare5lights 6y ago

I don't see how this is possible unless either the corps become the government or the corps have their own military.

jhbadger 6y ago
Historically, there have been such things. For example, while one says "The British" colonized India, it was (until towards the end of the colonial era) not actually the British government but rather a British company called the East India Company that had their own military forces.
BaronSamedi 6y ago
The governor of Nevada is proposing exactly this. https://apnews.com/article/legislature-legislation-local-governments-nevada-economy-2fa79128a7bf41073c1e9102e8a0e5f0 https://apnews.com/article/legislature-legislation-local-gov... Autonomous zones appear to be leaving the realm of science fiction and into reality.
geofft 6y ago
Corps don't need a military in their own name if they can influence existing militaries to do what they want. Chiquita did this repeatedly, for instance - they got the Colombian military to fire on striking workers in 1928, they got the US military to overthrow the Guatemalan government in 1954, they funded a paramilitary terrorist organization in Colombia from 1997 to 2004, etc.
- thereare5lights 6y ago
  Right but the issue is corps becoming more powerful than government. Needing to act through the government would seem to indicate that corps are not more powerful.
  - MikeUt 6y ago
    Do they "need to act through government", or do they "control government to act for them"?

hshshs2 6y ago

I’d argue that Facebook is already more powerful than many small and developing countries. Millions of people spend hours a day on their platform... in the past they’ve disclosed experimenting with affecting the emotions of users (with little self awareness and no express consent). They’ve contributed to genocide in Myanmar and numerous other social issues. A few minor algorithm shifts could potentially sway public opinion or even gradually radicalize people and they’re more aware of it than anyone, especially the leadership of the country they primarily operate in.