4 ms·
That isnt dumping. There is a big difference between running a company at a loss and selling a good at a loss. This is exactly what we want our tax structure t
by s1artibartfast 5mo ago
That isnt dumping. There is a big difference between running a company at a loss and selling a good at a loss.
This is exactly what we want our tax structure to incentivise. Investing in the future for growth and cheaper goods.
- SoftTalker 5mo agoYes, I should not have used the word dumping there as it's not in the same context as its usage upthread. I just meant they plowed all their profits into R&D and infrastructure growth, and as a result had very little or even negative taxable income. They operated at a loss, but it was contrived. They had revenue pouring in. While I agree we want to incentivize investing in future capacity, I don't think we intend that incentive to be used to create monopolies. As with many things, what's good at small scales can be bad at huge scales.
- s1artibartfast 5mo agoThe tax situation isnt what created monopolies. It was and is available to all. It is unclear what is bad about it, as long as they provide a better or cheaper product than the competitor. If they are ilegally preventing competition, then regulatory action should be swift. Otherwise, it is a win-win and the consumer is getting a better product than others could provide. This is the classic walmart scenario.
- SoftTalker 5mo agoIt is win-win until there's no competition left and they can now raise prices and enshitify their products with impunity.