3 ms·

> I'm not even arguing in favor of the internet tax. Just against the arguments easyDNS used here against it Is that what you did? The main point was that corp

by smokeyj 13y ago

> I'm not even arguing in favor of the internet tax. Just against the arguments easyDNS used here against it Is that what you did? The main point was that corporations outside US jurisdiction will have a competitive advantage simply by not being in the US. You rebut claiming competitiveness is a non-factor in considering regulation, citing outsourcing and cheap foreign labor as evidence? > a company can be American in name, but in no more benefit to the US as a country than Toyota or Samsung. What does this mean? Toyota and Sumsung are a huge benefit to the American economy. A Toyota Tundra has more US manufactured parts than most "American" trucks. It seems you fail to realize the benefits of a globalized economy, and therefore promote American isolationism to bring us back to our glory days.

coldtea 13y ago
>Is that what you did? The main point was that corporations outside US jurisdiction will have a competitive advantage simply by not being in the US. You rebut claiming competitiveness is a non-factor in considering regulation, citing outsourcing and cheap foreign labor as evidence? No, I never claimed "competitiveness is a non-factor in considering regulation". I merely said, in a lot more words, that competitiveness should not be the BE ALL END ALL factor in considering regulation. And I argued that competitiveness can also be a BAD factor in considering regulation. Moreover, I said that this kind of "competitiveness" while great for the company that benefits from it, it's not that great for the country that hosts the company and its general population, and it can be a race to the bottom. Let me give an exaggerated example. If some regime had a huge competitive advantage against the US by forcing people, including children to work on their factories for almost nothing, should the US, and other affluent markets, consider introducing slavery and child labor again, in order to remain competitive? No, they should embargo, tariff, and tax the hell out of that regime's products, to ensure that competitiveness is due to improvements in engineering, efficiency, innovation, etc, not backwards practices and "a race to the bottom". >>a company can be American in name, but in no more benefit to the US as a country than Toyota or Samsung. >What does this mean? Toyota and Sumsung are a huge benefit to the American economy. A Toyota Tundra has more US manufactured parts than most "American" trucks. It seems you fail to realize the benefits of a globalized economy, and therefore promote American isolationism to bring us back to our glory days. It means that the "benefits of a globalised economy" are mainly for company owners, moguls, managers, golden boys and the like, and more often praised than seen in reality. I'm not talking about numbers in balance sheets, but about how those numbers trickle down to the country's economy. Samsung (or Apple) can make billions in the US market, but that doesn't mean you get to add those to the GDP and be happy about it. (The fact that Toyota also makes parts in the US is just a diversion from my main point. It's the "throwing a bone" to the US market action that I referred to in my comment. Toyota can open some part factories in the US (to silence the worries of the locals) and still pay piss all in taxes through labyrinthine out-of-country logistics and accounting -- and that's on top of tax cut deals made with the US government for them to agree to open their factories in the first place)).
- smokeyj 13y ago
  > I merely said, in a lot more words, that competitiveness should not be the BE ALL END ALL factor in considering regulation. Who was making that point? > Moreover, I said that this kind of "competitiveness" while great for the company that benefits from it, it's not that great for the country that hosts the company and its general population, and it can be a race to the bottom. How do you know? Would countries that employ child labor be slingshotted into the first-world because they adopted effective regulations? I speculate they'd be unemployed and go hungry. > It means that the "benefits of a globalised economy" are mainly for company owners, moguls, managers, golden boys and the like, and more often praised than seen in reality. Again, how do you know? Did Michael Moore tell you? > Samsung (or Apple) can make billions in the US market, but that doesn't mean you get to add those to the GDP and be happy about it. What? How does Apple not affect the GDP? What aren't you happy about?
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >Who was making that point? Lots of people. Including the EasyDNS post, implicitly. >How do you know? Would countries that employ child labor be slingshotted into the first-world because they adopted effective regulations? I speculate they'd be unemployed and go hungry. Only I made the reverse argument: that countries without child labour should not introduce it to compete with those countries. And in general, that countries with higher working standards should not lower them to compete with third world countries, dictatorships etc, in a race to the bottom. But, to also answer your question, I'd rather they go hungry than they use child labor, if that were the two options. Would you be OK with forced labor, ie slavery, if that was their only way to be competitive and not "go hungry"? All this is a false dichotomy you set up anyway. It's not "child labor" vs "hungry". Child labor is not employed because it's their only hope to compete, it's merely employed because they lack the regulations to enforce otherwise. If the employers in that country (and the huge multinationals that contract them) could not take advantage of 12 year old children in sweatshops, they'd pay a little more and employ their parents. It's not a case of "we can compete any other way". It's a case, "Hey, the laws here allow me to fuck over these people for an increased profit, so why not do it?". >Again, how do you know? Did Michael Moore tell you? Well, for one I'm not an American, and I have far wider horizons than Michael Moore. Should I also assume a caricature of you as some Fox News watching foaming at the mouth republican? It would be of similar quality and subtlety to your Michael Moore thing. Quite provincial, are we? Anyway, no Michael didn't tell me. Not being provincial, following world economy news, a quite extensive reading on the matter, and travelling (but not as some naive first world tourist), "told me". > It means that the "benefits of a globalised economy" are mainly for company owners, moguls, managers, golden boys and the like, and more often praised than seen in reality. Again, how do you know? Did Michael Moore tell you? > Samsung (or Apple) can make billions in the US market, but that doesn't mean you get to add those to the GDP and be happy about it. What? How does Apple not affect the GDP? What aren't you happy about?

by smokeyj 13y ago

coldtea 13y ago

>Is that what you did? The main point was that corporations outside US jurisdiction will have a competitive advantage simply by not being in the US. You rebut claiming competitiveness is a non-factor in considering regulation, citing outsourcing and cheap foreign labor as evidence? No, I never claimed "competitiveness is a non-factor in considering regulation". I merely said, in a lot more words, that competitiveness should not be the BE ALL END ALL factor in considering regulation. And I argued that competitiveness can also be a BAD factor in considering regulation. Moreover, I said that this kind of "competitiveness" while great for the company that benefits from it, it's not that great for the country that hosts the company and its general population, and it can be a race to the bottom. Let me give an exaggerated example. If some regime had a huge competitive advantage against the US by forcing people, including children to work on their factories for almost nothing, should the US, and other affluent markets, consider introducing slavery and child labor again, in order to remain competitive? No, they should embargo, tariff, and tax the hell out of that regime's products, to ensure that competitiveness is due to improvements in engineering, efficiency, innovation, etc, not backwards practices and "a race to the bottom". >>a company can be American in name, but in no more benefit to the US as a country than Toyota or Samsung. >What does this mean? Toyota and Sumsung are a huge benefit to the American economy. A Toyota Tundra has more US manufactured parts than most "American" trucks. It seems you fail to realize the benefits of a globalized economy, and therefore promote American isolationism to bring us back to our glory days. It means that the "benefits of a globalised economy" are mainly for company owners, moguls, managers, golden boys and the like, and more often praised than seen in reality. I'm not talking about numbers in balance sheets, but about how those numbers trickle down to the country's economy. Samsung (or Apple) can make billions in the US market, but that doesn't mean you get to add those to the GDP and be happy about it. (The fact that Toyota also makes parts in the US is just a diversion from my main point. It's the "throwing a bone" to the US market action that I referred to in my comment. Toyota can open some part factories in the US (to silence the worries of the locals) and still pay piss all in taxes through labyrinthine out-of-country logistics and accounting -- and that's on top of tax cut deals made with the US government for them to agree to open their factories in the first place)).

smokeyj 13y ago
> I merely said, in a lot more words, that competitiveness should not be the BE ALL END ALL factor in considering regulation. Who was making that point? > Moreover, I said that this kind of "competitiveness" while great for the company that benefits from it, it's not that great for the country that hosts the company and its general population, and it can be a race to the bottom. How do you know? Would countries that employ child labor be slingshotted into the first-world because they adopted effective regulations? I speculate they'd be unemployed and go hungry. > It means that the "benefits of a globalised economy" are mainly for company owners, moguls, managers, golden boys and the like, and more often praised than seen in reality. Again, how do you know? Did Michael Moore tell you? > Samsung (or Apple) can make billions in the US market, but that doesn't mean you get to add those to the GDP and be happy about it. What? How does Apple not affect the GDP? What aren't you happy about?
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Who was making that point? Lots of people. Including the EasyDNS post, implicitly. >How do you know? Would countries that employ child labor be slingshotted into the first-world because they adopted effective regulations? I speculate they'd be unemployed and go hungry. Only I made the reverse argument: that countries without child labour should not introduce it to compete with those countries. And in general, that countries with higher working standards should not lower them to compete with third world countries, dictatorships etc, in a race to the bottom. But, to also answer your question, I'd rather they go hungry than they use child labor, if that were the two options. Would you be OK with forced labor, ie slavery, if that was their only way to be competitive and not "go hungry"? All this is a false dichotomy you set up anyway. It's not "child labor" vs "hungry". Child labor is not employed because it's their only hope to compete, it's merely employed because they lack the regulations to enforce otherwise. If the employers in that country (and the huge multinationals that contract them) could not take advantage of 12 year old children in sweatshops, they'd pay a little more and employ their parents. It's not a case of "we can compete any other way". It's a case, "Hey, the laws here allow me to fuck over these people for an increased profit, so why not do it?". >Again, how do you know? Did Michael Moore tell you? Well, for one I'm not an American, and I have far wider horizons than Michael Moore. Should I also assume a caricature of you as some Fox News watching foaming at the mouth republican? It would be of similar quality and subtlety to your Michael Moore thing. Quite provincial, are we? Anyway, no Michael didn't tell me. Not being provincial, following world economy news, a quite extensive reading on the matter, and travelling (but not as some naive first world tourist), "told me". > It means that the "benefits of a globalised economy" are mainly for company owners, moguls, managers, golden boys and the like, and more often praised than seen in reality. Again, how do you know? Did Michael Moore tell you? > Samsung (or Apple) can make billions in the US market, but that doesn't mean you get to add those to the GDP and be happy about it. What? How does Apple not affect the GDP? What aren't you happy about?