Even as the Apple Corporation is being roundly criticized for using its Irish affiliates - some of which have no actual employees - to avoid paying billions in US taxes, American elected officials continue to call for LOWER corporate taxes to make the United States more "competitive." The cause of this seeming disconnect: a worldwide "race to the bottom" in which nations compete to attract capital investment, typically by cutting corporate tax rates, dismantling regulations and driving down wages. As a result, the power of transnational corporations continues to grow while individual nations lose their capacity to control their own markets.
There is a solution, however. In this video Robert Reich (Professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, and former Labor Secretary) explains how large economic entities, such as the United States and the European Union, can leverage one important bargaining chip - access to their consumer markets - to curb the power of corporations and serve their citizens, rather than the profit-at-all-costs interests of global capital.
Support The Point for FREE by doing your Amazon shopping through this link (bookmark it!) http://www.amazon.com/?tag=townsquaretyt-20
Corporate taxes are double taxation. Corporations are not people. Thus, when a stock holder pays taxes they pay 15%+35%+10%=55%. Why is it fair for the poor to pay 55%. We need to end all public funding to education. Parents should pay for their own kids education. Robert Reich is a dick.
A Moron can feel The Stupid flowing through him. A Moron uses The Stupid for Reganomics, never to benefit the people. Reason, Logic, Math - these are the ways of the Smart Side. Once you start down the Smart path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
One of the reason why China became the favourite nation for the corporations is that, they allowed exploitation of their resources and their people, after all China is not run by its people, China itself is a big corporation that does business with every corporation out there to make the Chinese Government rich.
Okay, so you're saying the top 1%'s economic results are unfair because some if it was based on land distribution that happened several generations ago. That's true, but that's combining two separate issues: unfair land distribution with unequal productivity and achievement. I think we should address and fix the land thing because without that, positionality vanishes & no longer matters because it just comes down to individual achievement and production which is always a positive step forward.
Robert Frank says that the demand for positional goods create waste in the market and advocates, as a result, for a luxury tax which would then be used to level out the positionality of necessities, such as education. I'm not 100% I agree on that.
Positionality does not refer to land ownership only. It refers to any good where the desirability of the good over any substitute drives up it's price. It can be as banal as a seat at the hottest restaurant or as serious as access to a decent education. By nature, access to positional goods are zero sum. If I get a spot in the best school district, by definition someone else does not.
Okay, so you are saying land ownership is not always fair, which I agree- Land is a zero-sum game and it should be determined and distributed in a fair manner by the government.
And unfair land ownership can lead to unfair produce inequalities. Okay, but the problem is the land distribution, not what people do with it. Hirsch's folding that phenomenon into economics with his terms "positional" and "non-positional is just bitching about the results, not attacking the cause: unfair land ownership
So you agree with my examples, but still won't let go of your beliefs? At 3:04, Robert complains "Almost all the economic gains have gone to the top 1% (that created those gains). How is that not identical to: Almost all the A's went to the top 1% students? Amost all the economic gains from Bill Gate's achievement of making computers run business applications went to Bill Gates? Almost all the economic gains of Google are going to the two guys who created it out of nothing?
If you need simplified labels to justify what you believe, fine. But since neither Reich nor I not Obama nor anyone else ever said anything about "kicking those who got straight A's out of the classroom", you're tilting at windmills. Which maybe you have to do to keep defending your beliefs, but don't expect me to respond to poppycock.
"Competition for goods and services"...Sounds Keynesian (Keynes never understood where goods come from, or how enterprises get started), but what's the point? How is that zero sum? Race you to McDonalds...If I beat you there, you'll have to wait an extra 4 minutes?
You and Robert believe inequality is a bad thing, which implies zero sum. There was a guy in my class who always got straight A's on every thing he did. Nobody even came close. If we had suppressed him or kicked him out of class, would our class have been better off? Would we be wealthier suppressing the Bill Gates and Sam Waltons or kicking them out of America?
Can you think of an example where solving inequality of achievement, produce, or results ever increases those things for society?
" At 3:04 Robert Reich demonstrates his lack of understanding of economics, as he shows that he thinks income is a zero-sum game."
No. Yet again, you're showing your own ignorance. Wealth disparity combined with privatization turns non-postional goods into positional goods. For example, as school districts become more and more unequal, houses with good schools increase in value. I experienced this myself recently when I paid more for a house than I wanted to for my son's schooling.
Only in your imagination is anyone, Reich or me or Obama, trying to prevent wealthy capitalists from generating wealth for themselves. We simply understand that there A) there is an upward bound and B) it's better for everyone, including the wealthy, when trusted institutions provide for the common good, because it creates a market friendly atmosphere.
Yes, that is true and vice-versa...the govt was investing money from taxes that came from American capital industries, which were organized by greedy capitalists, without which, such wealth would not have existed. :-) It may sound like chicken or egg, but wealth always has to start with some adventurous idiot taking a risk with a business venture. At 3:04 Robert Reich demonstrates his lack of understanding of economics, as he shows that he thinks income is a zero-sum game.
However, what libertarians like you (I assume) fail to grasp is that Jobs would never have had the opportunity to make that wealth if the govt had not invested vast sums of money and work into creating the institutions that gave Jobs the opportunity.
Sure, if Steve Jobs didn't create that wealth not one dollar of it would exist (except almost certainly someone else would have-you're making a huge fallacy in assuming Jobs is unique in human history because he did it first).
He benefited from the labor of many people, some of whom worked in horrendous conditions because they had no other opportunity. He benefited from his family living in the Bay area, where the govt was funding computer research that would help spark the tech boom. He benefited from the US govt's ability to keep and protect his patents.
Because it did not come from nothing. That's a simplified fallacy that you can burst by just taking to 2 seconds to think about it. Jobs benefited from public education so his employees know how to do their jobs, from publicly built roads that his employees commute on, from publicly maintained air and water shipping facilities that allow his products to travel to your door, from police and fire officials that keep his stores safe...
Yes, you already know these things, and they prove that his wealth came from nothing. Perhaps you can suggest a better word for it?
The ideology I'm battling is the illusion everyone has that each dollar of wealth that a top 1% person owns must have been taken/stolen/cheated/tricked/exploited out of someone else, who otherwise would have had that wealth in their hands. I'm saying if Steve Jobs didn't create that wealth, not one dollar of it would exist- anywhere. It came from nowhere.
Okay, I'll bite: So is that a bad thing for them to build a ton of wealth? Are you implying that these betters are making stupendous amounts of money that would have been earned by someone else, as if they are hogging the nations's income flow? Do the top 1% students hog the nation's A's? Or do they create them out of nothing(tangible)? Did Michael Jackson hog the nation's songs, or did he create them out of nothing? Why do people think that if someone makes money, it came from someone else?
Yeah, it was created in a laboratory then created in a factory than created in an Apple store where you bought it and profit was made. It's a chain. A chain. A chain. You're not telling me anything I don't know. It's you who can't see beyond the copy of Atlas Shrugged in your hand.
Steve Jobs created his profit, iphones, etc. out of nothing in that he didn't get them from anywhere. If he didn't design and set up a long line of dominoes (including Woz) to fall in a certain way to make it all happen, none of it would have happened. Woz would have remained a Zerox engineer. None of his employees or competitors would have made any iPhones, iPads or Galaxies, or made any of the profits or wealth that came out of it. It would not exist anywhere, which means it was CREATED.
Profit is created by a successful business venture, but it does not exist before it is created. It does not come from work from employees. Don't believe me? Hire 10 people for a year to do any job and see what happens. No matter what you have them do, there will be zero profit. You have to create a successful business venture to make a profit, which has no relationship to how many employees you hire. They get paid either way.
True - the name Billy Tauzin jumps to mind. Put a prescription drug package into Medicare that doesn't allow the government to negotiate prices, and become the head of the Pharma lobby with a $2 million/yr payday.
You are missing the point. No one turns to doctors or structural engineers for their opinions on how to manage the economy. They do that with economists, and most of them, like Reich, don't understand what's wrong with the economy, and don't take account of climate change, peak oil, ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity, the end of growth, etc. That is why Reich and his ilk are dangerous fools.
Profit is created out of nothing. Yes, out of nothing. Steve Jobs waves his magic little pinkie and iPods appear everywhere. Warren Buffett takes a poop and billions in capital comes pouring out. Lloyd Blankfein blows his nose and mortgage derivatives come tumbling forth.
From nothing at all. No work from employees. No infrastructure. No institutions. Just out of blank air, profit is magically poofed into existence.
SO if you get the same answer asking that from a doctor or a structural engineer, they would also not "live in the real world" and be irrevevant distractions?
You argument is based on the assumption that there is only one single important problem to solv e and everything else is useless bunk.
I can about climate change and the health of the enviroment, but your argument is no bettter than those who suggest that the only important problem is fiscal dilligence.
Wealth comes from profit, and profit comes from nowhere- it is created out of nothing. If a businessman or investor doesn't create a profit at his business or venture, that profit/wealth doesn't exist and doesn't get created anywhere. Profit is like produce out of your garden. If you don't grow tomatoes in your garden, they don't magically appear in soneone else's garden. They don't exist. Profit/produce is never taken from or off the backs of someone else. It is produced or not produced.
Fun fact: Corporate Capitalism, the government providing subsidies to corporations, was originally a Marxist concept. FDR made an argument that corporate capitalism essentially leads to a fascist-like government, where the decisions are made in the interest of a few (corporations) and against the will of the people. Republicans (and Democrats alike in some cases) have successfully persuaded everyone that this is free-market capitalism. It's not.
Because it illustrates that conventional economists like Reich, Krugman etc don't live in the real world. Their models may have worked in the past, but now they are an irrelevant distraction from the big issues humanity faces. As evidence, just read the comments here.
Big thumbs up Robert.
It is a policy I have long espoused. If a company wants access to a market it should have to contribute to the upkeep of the very market it needs. Multinationals could easily be required to operate separate accounting bodies per market and pay tax accordingly to the production and revenues in each market.
"We exist in a political-economic system that allows people who manufacture nothing and bet on everything to control the financial destinies of the rest of the population with impunity, and make stupendous amounts of money doing it. " sic Les Leopold
Almost all the wealth created by the top 1% has gone to the top 1%. That's not fair- they should have allthe wealth they produced (out of nothing) confiscated and shared evenly throughout the country. Everything will still get produced, right Comrads?
I have been saying this since the 80's. Rather than tariffs, if the US and EU were to get together and simply close their markets to companies that do not meet certain basic standards would force them to modify their behavior. This is necessary because a corporation, by design, is a soulless entity. Stockholders and fund managers reward companies based on the bottom line only. and the people who run the companies are rewarded or punished based on the same thing.
Basically Ireland got saved by tax payers from Germany and other wealthy Northern EU countries to bail out Ireland, after Ireland bailed out their banks. Now Apple and other global companies started a new round to profit again from low taxes in Ireland, while people in Ireland suffer from austerity politics. It is not just the US citizens losing tax money. Everybody does. I can tell you one thing: Ireland and other black sheeps will get kicked out of the EU.
The class of drugs that Levitra, Viagra, Stendra, and Cialis belong to are called PDE5 inhibitors. They work by relaxing tight blood vessels, allowing more blood to surge into the penis and cause an erection, says Gregory Bales, M.D., an associate professor of urology at the University of Chicago.
The little pills do the trick for more than two-thirds of men with Viagra protects the heart (ED). They also work for guys who simply need them for a short time to get their “confidence back,” says Michael Eisenberg, M.D., director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford University.