4 ms·

Tax base is based on total income, or total production (, monopolies extract economic profit (contrast, accounting profit) by artificially constraining quantity

Tax base is based on total income, or total production (, monopolies extract economic profit (contrast, accounting profit) by artificially constraining quantity supplied such that the price is higher than the marginal cost of production. In no world does this increase production in the domestic market. If you want to price fix on only the export market, well, you can encourage cartelisation for export only, sure. Only way to turn that into revenue is to tax it, and politicians don't tend to like putting tariffs on their countries exports, I can't imagine why at all. (There are both good reasons and bad reasons). > If you are so sure of you're reasoning, then why the rhetorical framing? Because I'm not putting in more effort if my counterpart refuses to. I'm not going to dignify the "economically globalist society" part with a response unless I'm forced to, I'm still not sure you sincerely believe that, but I can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into.

mrangle 3y ago
>monopolies extract economic profit (contrast, accounting profit) by artificially constraining quantity supplied such that the price is higher than the marginal cost of production. Market warping commodity monopolies are rare, due to regulation. Proving them takes a lot more than a neo-communist rant. Modern monopolies are most often predicated on IP. Protecting them is protection of the global market for their goods, which in turn protects the all-important trade-balance as well as GDP. IP protection is not cartelization / price fixing. >Because I'm not putting in more effort if my counterpart refuses to You responded to me by inventing a strawman argument and then basing a rhetorical question on it that, in turn, justifies itself by assuming the strawman. I'm not your counterpart nor did I ask you to participate. Your particiaption should be self-evidently valuable if you want to be considered a participant in a debate. Your mode of response was not valid. Ie: if you respond to a statement with a false strawman and a question that assumes that it is correct, then expect that to be called out. > I'm not going to dignify the "economically globalist society" part with a response No one asked you for a response. I could care less if you respond, but will point out the flaws in your response if you do. Incresing internal wealth is always predicated on importation of foreign currency. This is why sanctions work to impoverish nations, in spite of possession of valuable items like oil. Nations can sell their production internally all they like. They'll remain third world hellholes without an export market.
- Alpha3031 3y ago
  > IP protection is not cartelization / price fixing. Dear god, which rock have you been living under if you're somehow not even able to conceive of the similarities with the other industries where monopolies are good, actually. Coase did good work but clearly he was a disaster to public education, if you're not even able to at least recapitulate his arguments. Wait, wait, you do at least know what a marginal cost is, right? > You responded to me by inventing a strawman argument Ah yes, the strawman of microfoundations. I really wonder how some heterodox economists manage to even take themselves seriously sometimes. I assure you that having microfoundations for your model is much stronger than not having any foundations whatsoever. > Your particiaption should be self-evidently valuable if you want to be considered a participant in a debate. See, pigeon chess. There's no point in debating you lot, I mean Adam fucking Smith, the commie bastard he is, wrote a book about that mercantilist BS, so if three centuries hasn't been long enough for it to sink in nothing I say or do will. > Incresing internal wealth is always predicated on importation of foreign currency. This is why sanctions work to impoverish nations, in spite of possession of valuable items like oil. Like, wow, this is some breathtakingly novel take on the paradox of plenty right here, we should get this published so you can win the next Sveriges Riksbank Prize.

mrangle 3y ago

>monopolies extract economic profit (contrast, accounting profit) by artificially constraining quantity supplied such that the price is higher than the marginal cost of production. Market warping commodity monopolies are rare, due to regulation. Proving them takes a lot more than a neo-communist rant. Modern monopolies are most often predicated on IP. Protecting them is protection of the global market for their goods, which in turn protects the all-important trade-balance as well as GDP. IP protection is not cartelization / price fixing. >Because I'm not putting in more effort if my counterpart refuses to You responded to me by inventing a strawman argument and then basing a rhetorical question on it that, in turn, justifies itself by assuming the strawman. I'm not your counterpart nor did I ask you to participate. Your particiaption should be self-evidently valuable if you want to be considered a participant in a debate. Your mode of response was not valid. Ie: if you respond to a statement with a false strawman and a question that assumes that it is correct, then expect that to be called out. > I'm not going to dignify the "economically globalist society" part with a response No one asked you for a response. I could care less if you respond, but will point out the flaws in your response if you do. Incresing internal wealth is always predicated on importation of foreign currency. This is why sanctions work to impoverish nations, in spite of possession of valuable items like oil. Nations can sell their production internally all they like. They'll remain third world hellholes without an export market.

Alpha3031 3y ago
> IP protection is not cartelization / price fixing. Dear god, which rock have you been living under if you're somehow not even able to conceive of the similarities with the other industries where monopolies are good, actually. Coase did good work but clearly he was a disaster to public education, if you're not even able to at least recapitulate his arguments. Wait, wait, you do at least know what a marginal cost is, right? > You responded to me by inventing a strawman argument Ah yes, the strawman of microfoundations. I really wonder how some heterodox economists manage to even take themselves seriously sometimes. I assure you that having microfoundations for your model is much stronger than not having any foundations whatsoever. > Your particiaption should be self-evidently valuable if you want to be considered a participant in a debate. See, pigeon chess. There's no point in debating you lot, I mean Adam fucking Smith, the commie bastard he is, wrote a book about that mercantilist BS, so if three centuries hasn't been long enough for it to sink in nothing I say or do will. > Incresing internal wealth is always predicated on importation of foreign currency. This is why sanctions work to impoverish nations, in spite of possession of valuable items like oil. Like, wow, this is some breathtakingly novel take on the paradox of plenty right here, we should get this published so you can win the next Sveriges Riksbank Prize.