Obama: 'tax Inversions' Are Unpatriotic

言語: JP EN DE FR
2010-06-21
New Items
users online
フォーラム » Everything Else » Politics and Religion » Obama: 'tax inversions' are unpatriotic
Obama: 'tax inversions' are unpatriotic
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-27 15:11:06  
Cerberus.Doctorugh said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Industries that require regulation should be taxed in a way that keeps the regulatory costs off the backs of the government. But, at this point, the government has grown too large to be supported by only private citizens.
Then what is to prevent the government from making excess regulations as a way to create more federal revenue?

"Oh, you run a gas station? Let me create a gas station regulation and charge you for us making sure you conform to said regulations."

And you think government corruption is bad now?

Do you think before arguing or do you just argue for argument's sake? Regulation is established by congress, where the money comes from is irrelevant to the threat of overregulation. If anything, compartmentalizing funding is a better way to limit the scope of regulation. As well, when companies do a better job of self-regulation, their liabilities decrease and less oversight is needed. That's about as capitalist as you can get.
You stated that corporations should pay for the regulations themselves. I stated an obvious flaw in your logic.

I can't help it if you don't understand what you are typing.

The "obvious" flaw is nothing more than a small person's childish fear of the mean mean government. Overregulation is an entirely separate issue, and the way I described is LESS prone to it than the current system. You're a moron.
Lol calling someone names during an internet argument is like saying "I've got nothing else useful to add to this conversation, you win"

Do a little backreading on this particular troll.
[+]
 Garuda.Chanti
Offline
サーバ: Garuda
Game: FFXI
user: Chanti
Posts: 11096
By Garuda.Chanti 2014-07-27 15:55:47  
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
....
Garuda.Chanti said: »
The answer is fairly simple.

The government should not purchase any products, nor grant any contracts to foreign corporations unless there is no alternative*. Any corporation that offshores has all government contracts and purchases instantly voided.

*Like the British harrier aircraft for instance.
Believe it or not, most government contracts are locally* made.

*locally refers to the region, not the country in whole. A California corporation or partnership that only does business in California and Nevada would not be eligible to bid on a government contract in Florida. And I'm assuming you are talking about Federal contracts too.
Actually I did know that. And I think if the federal government tried to make states and smaller jurisdictions conform to my suggestion they would run headfirst into the interstate commerce clause.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-07-27 16:18:05  
Odin.Jassik said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Industries that require regulation should be taxed in a way that keeps the regulatory costs off the backs of the government. But, at this point, the government has grown too large to be supported by only private citizens.
Then what is to prevent the government from making excess regulations as a way to create more federal revenue?

"Oh, you run a gas station? Let me create a gas station regulation and charge you for us making sure you conform to said regulations."

And you think government corruption is bad now?

Do you think before arguing or do you just argue for argument's sake? Regulation is established by congress, where the money comes from is irrelevant to the threat of overregulation. If anything, compartmentalizing funding is a better way to limit the scope of regulation. As well, when companies do a better job of self-regulation, their liabilities decrease and less oversight is needed. That's about as capitalist as you can get.
You stated that corporations should pay for the regulations themselves. I stated an obvious flaw in your logic.

I can't help it if you don't understand what you are typing.

The "obvious" flaw is nothing more than a small person's childish fear of the mean mean government. Overregulation is an entirely separate issue, and the way I described is LESS prone to it than the current system. You're a moron.
You seriously think that, if the federal government starts charging companies and individuals for the regulations they themselves make, that the federal government would not abuse such power and create regulations for the sake of regulations (and the money associated with it)?

And you call me a moron? You sir, have the aptitude of stupidity and you should be ashamed of it.

But if you are so keen on this idea, please share with us how you think the federal government is less corrupt than, hell, you and I. I knowingly would not wrong anyone, but I am by myself. A person can be honorable, but the more people you get together, the more corrupt they become.

Please tell us why you think the federal government is above corruption, when it is the actual source of said corruption...
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-07-27 16:20:23  
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
....
Garuda.Chanti said: »
The answer is fairly simple.

The government should not purchase any products, nor grant any contracts to foreign corporations unless there is no alternative*. Any corporation that offshores has all government contracts and purchases instantly voided.

*Like the British harrier aircraft for instance.
Believe it or not, most government contracts are locally* made.

*locally refers to the region, not the country in whole. A California corporation or partnership that only does business in California and Nevada would not be eligible to bid on a government contract in Florida. And I'm assuming you are talking about Federal contracts too.
Actually I did know that. And I think if the federal government tried to make states and smaller jurisdictions conform to my suggestion they would run headfirst into the interstate commerce clause.
Generally speaking, state and local governments go to local operators themselves, as there is no relocation costs associated with the work. Like you said, the only time governmental contracts are rewarded to outside parties is (generally) when there is no domestic parties willing or able to do said work.
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-27 16:59:40  
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Industries that require regulation should be taxed in a way that keeps the regulatory costs off the backs of the government. But, at this point, the government has grown too large to be supported by only private citizens.
Then what is to prevent the government from making excess regulations as a way to create more federal revenue?

"Oh, you run a gas station? Let me create a gas station regulation and charge you for us making sure you conform to said regulations."

And you think government corruption is bad now?

Do you think before arguing or do you just argue for argument's sake? Regulation is established by congress, where the money comes from is irrelevant to the threat of overregulation. If anything, compartmentalizing funding is a better way to limit the scope of regulation. As well, when companies do a better job of self-regulation, their liabilities decrease and less oversight is needed. That's about as capitalist as you can get.
You stated that corporations should pay for the regulations themselves. I stated an obvious flaw in your logic.

I can't help it if you don't understand what you are typing.

The "obvious" flaw is nothing more than a small person's childish fear of the mean mean government. Overregulation is an entirely separate issue, and the way I described is LESS prone to it than the current system. You're a moron.
You seriously think that, if the federal government starts charging companies and individuals for the regulations they themselves make, that the federal government would not abuse such power and create regulations for the sake of regulations (and the money associated with it)?

And you call me a moron? You sir, have the aptitude of stupidity and you should be ashamed of it.

But if you are so keen on this idea, please share with us how you think the federal government is less corrupt than, hell, you and I. I knowingly would not wrong anyone, but I am by myself. A person can be honorable, but the more people you get together, the more corrupt they become.

Please tell us why you think the federal government is above corruption, when it is the actual source of said corruption...

You're completely missing the structure of that system, which is not surprising. Regulations are based on need, not funds. Tax rates are dependent on liabilities of those regulations. The same system works for disability or workman's compensation and many other arenas. The lower the cost of enforcing regulations (less spills and EPA superfund sites for example) the lower the companies' liabilities to the regulatory agencies.

Nobody is above corruption, variable liability is a system which minimizes individual's ability to taint the system.

Try again.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-07-27 18:17:28  
Odin.Jassik said: »
You're completely missing the structure of that system, which is not surprising.
Wow, good attempt at a backpedal.

Your original post that I responded to was:

Odin.Jassik said: »
Industries that require regulation should be taxed in a way that keeps the regulatory costs off the backs of the government. But, at this point, the government has grown too large to be supported by only private citizens.

I was responding to this sentence. Which was pretty obvious, even an idiot would have seen that. I guess you must have missed it, or forgotten what you wrote.

You seem to think (for some asinine reason, like the government will never screw you out of money or something like that) the government is above creating taxes for the sake of having money. You obviously forgotten the large tax increase we received in 2010 that took effect starting in 2013. Or are you going to tell us all that the Additional Medicare tax that is imposed on those who make 200k+ are going to pay for those services that group of people will need in their lives?

Odin.Jassik said: »
Nobody is above corruption, variable liability is a system which minimizes individual's ability to taint the system.
Then why do you defend taxing companies to pay for regulations they have to abide by? Because anyone can see that as being a corrupt way of raising money.

Let me put it in simpler terms:

You receive 8 apples every day for a week. On day 1, I say that I will charge you 1 apple to inspect all 8 apples for worms. On day 2, I say that I will charge you 1 more apple to inspect all 8 apples for worms, and while I'm at it, to see if they are rotten or not. Day 3, I will charge you 2 more apples to inspect for worms, if they are rotten, and the "juiciness" factor of the apples, and oh, you don't get a say in this at all. Day 4, I will charge you 2 more apples to do all of the above, but also for the storage fees of the apples you will give me. Day 5, I take all your apples for inspections, storage fees, and taxes because you had 7 apples on day 1, and you can afford to give me all your apples.

As you can see (unless I need to paint a picture for you, but if I do, you are beyond help at this point), you receive less every day for "inspections" (regulations) and other excuses I make up as I went along until you receive nothing left.

You think that is fair?
 Cerberus.Doctorugh
Offline
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Doctorugh
Posts: 317
By Cerberus.Doctorugh 2014-07-27 18:38:51  
As far as corruption goes, any business could be corrupt, but typically its the government that allows and encourage this corruption through what is called "corporate welfare". Corporate welfare screws up free market capitalism (something we dont actually have in this country). It allows the government to choose winners and losers and even block people from getting into a market with heavy regulation. This heavy regulation is often suggested (with election contributions/etc) by the larger players in that market to prevent competition (capitalism) thus allowing them to control the price structure. Then people get upset with capitalism because they dont actually understand that many large markets (insurance, health care, energy, food prices/farming) arent operating as a free market at all.

Government regulations lead to
#1) higher prices for the end user (the consumer)
#2) Certain entities maintaining a grip of power and control on an industry when they would have already failed in a free market

A better option (than regulation from government) would be to allow for competition in a market place. People will ultimately choose the one that delivers the best goods and services at the best price.
 Odin.Zicdeh
Offline
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6558
By Odin.Zicdeh 2014-07-27 20:29:23  
Bill Maher had a good guest on this week, admittedly a Marxist through and through, who called for a more open debate about the real costs of Capitalism. Maybe it's a bit of a hold-out from the McCarthy era that being critical of Capitalism is professional suicide in just about every endeavor short of killing Czars, but we can see the cliff we're running towards, closing our eyes isn't going to change our direction.

I guess this just comes back to a fundamental problem with America in general, between the sensationalist shouting matches on the right and SJW walk on eggshells to offend no-one left, critical discourse in this country doesn't exist.
[+]
 Bahamut.Kara
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Kara
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-07-27 23:51:34  
Cerberus.Doctorugh said: »
As far as corruption goes, any business could be corrupt, but typically its the government that allows and encourage this corruption through what is called "corporate welfare". Corporate welfare screws up free market capitalism (something we dont actually have in this country). It allows the government to choose winners and losers and even block people from getting into a market with heavy regulation. This heavy regulation is often suggested (with election contributions/etc) by the larger players in that market to prevent competition (capitalism) thus allowing them to control the price structure. Then people get upset with capitalism because they dont actually understand that many large markets (insurance, health care, energy, food prices/farming) arent operating as a free market at all.

Government regulations lead to
#1) higher prices for the end user (the consumer)
#2) Certain entities maintaining a grip of power and control on an industry when they would have already failed in a free market

A better option (than regulation from government) would be to allow for competition in a market place. People will ultimately choose the one that delivers the best goods and services at the best price.

Part of running a successful company is delimiting the amount of competition you face. Established companies like lobbying, long intellectual property durations, protectionist legislation from outside competitive forces, and low consumer protection.

Free market and capitalism should not be used interchangeably. They are two different theories that have common ground on certain points, but they are different. Capitalism does not require free or open competition to work, where the free market does. Capitalism is about the protection of wealth (all businesses are private versus state held), while the free market is about the exchange of wealth with -ideally- no additional costs (e.g. Government regulations) and where sellers and buyers agree on the "best" price.

One assumption that gets glossed over is that free information exchange occurs between the sellers and buyers; that both are equipped with the same information to make a decision in the free market.

Free market leads to more of an equilibrilium in pricing (part of the assumptions comes from the perfect competition theory) which means businesses will have a severly reduced competitive advantage. Businesses do not want this.

Pure Free market will never exist, just like pure controlled (regulated) market will never exist (black markets arise).

Capitalism, however, definately exists in the US. It is not pure capitalism, but that's not likely to ever occur with no (or very limited) governmental regulation, as most don't want to experience the issues that occurred during the industrial revolution.

Edited~
[+]
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13617
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-28 00:50:47  
It's incredibly naive to assume that any business would not take advantage of an opportunity to save money. If legislation causes businesses to seek tax breaks overseas, that's the fault of the legislation, not the businesses.

If someone laid down millions of dollars at your feet and said, "You can have this... but beware. It'd be totally unpatriotic to take it!", would you take the money?
[+]
 Bahamut.Kara
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Kara
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-07-28 02:05:06  
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
It's incredibly naive to assume that any business would not take advantage of an opportunity to save money. If legislation causes businesses to seek tax breaks overseas, that's the fault of the legislation, not the businesses.

If someone laid down millions of dollars at your feet and said, "You can have this... but beware. It'd be totally unpatriotic to take it!", would you take the money?
Who do you think writes or help write a lot of protectionist legislation for businesses?

Edit:
Example: intellectual property extensions and reform. Mickey mouse protection act.
Quote:
The Walt Disney Company lobbied extensively on behalf of the Act, which delayed the entry into the public domain of the earliest Mickey Mouse movies, leading to the nickname "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act". In addition to Disney, California congresswoman Mary Bono (Sonny Bono's widow and Congressional successor), and the estate of composer George Gershwin supported the act.
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13617
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-07-28 04:41:51  
Not all businesses who take advantage of legislation are the ones lobbying for it. Calling them all unpatriotic is unsubstantiated bullcrap. Calling the government unpatriotic for writing and passing the legislation would at least be firing the blame in the right direction. Nice deflection, Mr. Obama.
[+]
 Bismarck.Bloodrose
Offline
サーバ: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
user: Bloodrose
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2014-07-28 04:46:15  
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Not all businesses who take advantage of legislation are the ones lobbying for it. Calling them all unpatriotic is unsubstantiated bullcrap. Calling the government unpatriotic for writing and passing the legislation would at least be firing the blame in the right direction. Nice deflection, Mr. Obama.
What's been reported, is that he's said the law, or loopholes, that allow businesses (and the businesses who take advantage of the loopholes) are unpatriotic, and likens the act of doing so, to renouncing their citizenship.
 Cerberus.Doctorugh
Offline
サーバ: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
user: Doctorugh
Posts: 317
By Cerberus.Doctorugh 2014-07-28 05:44:32  
It's natural for a business to want to lower its costs any way it can to increase its competitive edge in the market. They can lobby, find loopholes, w/e. Its the responsibility of our elected official to keep the playing field as even as possible, not hamstringing some companies and assisting other to create equal outcomes. So ultimately it falls on the voters to boot officials/not reelect officials that don't understand this concept. Ultimately we get what we deserve and most of the populace doesn't understand the difference between fair and equal.
 Leviathan.Chaosx
Offline
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
user: ChaosX128
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-07-28 06:20:29  
America has the leader it deserves, not the leader it needs.
[+]
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-07-28 07:10:09  
Bismarck.Bloodrose said: »
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Not all businesses who take advantage of legislation are the ones lobbying for it. Calling them all unpatriotic is unsubstantiated bullcrap. Calling the government unpatriotic for writing and passing the legislation would at least be firing the blame in the right direction. Nice deflection, Mr. Obama.
What's been reported, is that he's said the law, or loopholes, that allow businesses (and the businesses who take advantage of the loopholes) are unpatriotic, and likens the act of doing so, to renouncing their citizenship.
And yet, he goes about it completely the wrong way by signing legislation that forces (aka illegal activity according to international law) foreign companies/countries to withhold money and send it to the IRS for foreign income for both domestic and foreign citizens. If a company could possibly have a US citizen as either an investor or customer, that "law" forces the company to withhold 30% of all income as taxes and sends it to IRS, and it is the responsibility of the foreign customer to file a 1040 to claim the refund. It's pretty obvious that this is Obama's and his democrat allies idea of creating more revenue through bad and illegal legislation aimed at the successful.

Oh, and guess what? Now that they are under 1040 rules, they are also under FBAR rules, which require them to report the maximum value of their bank and securities account to IRS, or risk losing up to 50% of each account for willful negligence as a penalty. That comes from the Bank Secrecy Act in the late 1970s.

All this started this year, so expect a lot of IRS lawsuits in the coming years and a lot of reporting of said incidences.
 Ragnarok.Nausi
Offline
サーバ: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
user: Nausi
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-28 09:05:51  
Odin.Jassik said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Industries that require regulation should be taxed in a way that keeps the regulatory costs off the backs of the government. But, at this point, the government has grown too large to be supported by only private citizens.
Then what is to prevent the government from making excess regulations as a way to create more federal revenue?

"Oh, you run a gas station? Let me create a gas station regulation and charge you for us making sure you conform to said regulations."

And you think government corruption is bad now?

Do you think before arguing or do you just argue for argument's sake? Regulation is established by congress, where the money comes from is irrelevant to the threat of overregulation. If anything, compartmentalizing funding is a better way to limit the scope of regulation. As well, when companies do a better job of self-regulation, their liabilities decrease and less oversight is needed. That's about as capitalist as you can get.
You stated that corporations should pay for the regulations themselves. I stated an obvious flaw in your logic.

I can't help it if you don't understand what you are typing.

The "obvious" flaw is nothing more than a small person's childish fear of the mean mean government. Overregulation is an entirely separate issue, and the way I described is LESS prone to it than the current system. You're a moron.

I am continuously baffled by this stated opinion, as if there aren't enough examples in the world of tyrannical governments out of control.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-07-28 09:07:03  
Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Industries that require regulation should be taxed in a way that keeps the regulatory costs off the backs of the government. But, at this point, the government has grown too large to be supported by only private citizens.
Then what is to prevent the government from making excess regulations as a way to create more federal revenue?

"Oh, you run a gas station? Let me create a gas station regulation and charge you for us making sure you conform to said regulations."

And you think government corruption is bad now?

Do you think before arguing or do you just argue for argument's sake? Regulation is established by congress, where the money comes from is irrelevant to the threat of overregulation. If anything, compartmentalizing funding is a better way to limit the scope of regulation. As well, when companies do a better job of self-regulation, their liabilities decrease and less oversight is needed. That's about as capitalist as you can get.
You stated that corporations should pay for the regulations themselves. I stated an obvious flaw in your logic.

I can't help it if you don't understand what you are typing.

The "obvious" flaw is nothing more than a small person's childish fear of the mean mean government. Overregulation is an entirely separate issue, and the way I described is LESS prone to it than the current system. You're a moron.

I am continuously baffled by this stated opinion, as if there aren't enough examples in the world of tyrannical governments out of control.
It is his only excuse. When corruption is rampant in government, the best way to solve it (in his mind) is to bury your head in the sand and hope it goes away.
 Garuda.Chanti
Offline
サーバ: Garuda
Game: FFXI
user: Chanti
Posts: 11096
By Garuda.Chanti 2014-07-28 09:36:17  
Bahamut.Kara said: »
....
Pure Free market will never exist, just like pure controlled (regulated) market will never exist (black markets arise).

Capitalism, however, definately exists in the US. It is not pure capitalism, but that's not likely to ever occur with no (or very limited) governmental regulation, as most don't want to experience the issues that occurred during the industrial revolution.
Pure free market capitalism does exist but only within black markets. Unless, of course, you consider black markets in illegal substances to be subsidized by making them illegal. Which would still leave black markets in regulated goods, like currency exchanges, as examples of both free market and capitalism.
Offline
Posts: 35422
By fonewear 2014-07-28 09:39:36  
I take offense to the term black market. It's African American market.
[+]
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-07-28 09:44:33  
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Bahamut.Kara said: »
....
Pure Free market will never exist, just like pure controlled (regulated) market will never exist (black markets arise).

Capitalism, however, definately exists in the US. It is not pure capitalism, but that's not likely to ever occur with no (or very limited) governmental regulation, as most don't want to experience the issues that occurred during the industrial revolution.
Pure free market capitalism does exist but only within black markets. Unless, of course, you consider black markets in illegal substances to be subsidized by making them illegal. Which would still leave black markets in regulated goods, like currency exchanges, as examples of both free market and capitalism.
Black markets aren't really pure free market either, since it on itself limits the amount of demand (since there are people who would refuse to go to a black market due to it's illegality alone) on said products.
 Bahamut.Kara
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Kara
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-07-28 09:47:03  
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Bahamut.Kara said: »
....
Pure Free market will never exist, just like pure controlled (regulated) market will never exist (black markets arise).

Capitalism, however, definately exists in the US. It is not pure capitalism, but that's not likely to ever occur with no (or very limited) governmental regulation, as most don't want to experience the issues that occurred during the industrial revolution.
Pure free market capitalism does exist but only within black markets. Unless, of course, you consider black markets in illegal substances to be subsidized by making them illegal. Which would still leave black markets in regulated goods, like currency exchanges, as examples of both free market and capitalism.
Free market includes free competition and lots of it to get consumers the best price.

Illegal drug producers try to limit the competition available by killing the competition or dividing up areas. They act as a monopoly or an oligopoly.

Interesting fact: The EU has started estimating the black market to figure out how much is spent there each year on goods and services and adding it to the GDP to get a more accurate picture.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/business/international/eu-nations-counting-sex-and-drug-trades-toward-gdp.html?_r=0
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-07-28 09:51:57  
Bahamut.Kara said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Bahamut.Kara said: »
....
Pure Free market will never exist, just like pure controlled (regulated) market will never exist (black markets arise).

Capitalism, however, definately exists in the US. It is not pure capitalism, but that's not likely to ever occur with no (or very limited) governmental regulation, as most don't want to experience the issues that occurred during the industrial revolution.
Pure free market capitalism does exist but only within black markets. Unless, of course, you consider black markets in illegal substances to be subsidized by making them illegal. Which would still leave black markets in regulated goods, like currency exchanges, as examples of both free market and capitalism.
Free market includes free competition and lots of it to get consumers the best price.

Illegal drug producers try to limit the competition available by killing the competition or dividing up areas. They act as a monopoly or an oligopoly.

Interesting fact: The EU has started estimating the black market to figure out how much is spent there each year on goods and services and adding it to the GDP to get a more accurate picture.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/business/international/eu-nations-counting-sex-and-drug-trades-toward-gdp.html?_r=0
Doesn't that signify that the EU nations are starting to accept said illegal activities? Wouldn't that just break up the whole concept of having the laws in place if they start accepting that said illegal activities take place and quantifying those activities as part of their domestic numbers?

Which is sad really.
 Bahamut.Kara
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Kara
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-07-28 09:57:04  
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Doesn't that signify that the EU nations are starting to accept said illegal activities? Wouldn't that just break up the whole concept of having the laws in place if they start accepting that said illegal activities take place and quantifying those activities as part of their domestic numbers?

Which is sad really.

How so?

By quantifying something you don't make something legal. You just get more information on how money is spent, which means you can make better laws or better enforcement policies. By ignoring something it doesn't make it disappear.

If you've ever been to Italy or Greece you would see signs in shops (or shopkeepers telling you when you checkout) that you can get a 20%+ discount if you pay in cash instead of a credit/debit card. Those sales go unreported and therefore are illegal but they are still part of the market.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 3206
By Enuyasha 2014-07-28 09:57:56  
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Bahamut.Kara said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Bahamut.Kara said: »
....
Pure Free market will never exist, just like pure controlled (regulated) market will never exist (black markets arise).

Capitalism, however, definately exists in the US. It is not pure capitalism, but that's not likely to ever occur with no (or very limited) governmental regulation, as most don't want to experience the issues that occurred during the industrial revolution.
Pure free market capitalism does exist but only within black markets. Unless, of course, you consider black markets in illegal substances to be subsidized by making them illegal. Which would still leave black markets in regulated goods, like currency exchanges, as examples of both free market and capitalism.
Free market includes free competition and lots of it to get consumers the best price.

Illegal drug producers try to limit the competition available by killing the competition or dividing up areas. They act as a monopoly or an oligopoly.

Interesting fact: The EU has started estimating the black market to figure out how much is spent there each year on goods and services and adding it to the GDP to get a more accurate picture.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/business/international/eu-nations-counting-sex-and-drug-trades-toward-gdp.html?_r=0
Doesn't that signify that the EU nations are starting to accept said illegal activities? Wouldn't that just break up the whole concept of having the laws in place if they start accepting that said illegal activities take place and quantifying those activities as part of their domestic numbers?

Which is sad really.
But claiming that this flow of money doesnt exist skews numbers?

If you want to claim that people earning money and spending money makes up a certain number then you wont find any bigger gain and expenditure in the stereotypical drug dealer, pimp, or weapons dealer.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-07-28 10:04:07  
Bahamut.Kara said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Doesn't that signify that the EU nations are starting to accept said illegal activities? Wouldn't that just break up the whole concept of having the laws in place if they start accepting that said illegal activities take place and quantifying those activities as part of their domestic numbers?

Which is sad really.

How so?

By quantifying something you don't make something legal. You just get more information on how money is spent, which means you can make better laws or better enforcement policies. By ignoring something it doesn't make it disappear.

If you've ever been to Italy or Greece you would see signs in shops (or shopkeepers telling you when you checkout) that you can get a 20%+ discount if you pay in cash instead of credit card. Those sales go unreported and therefore are illegal but they are still apart of the market.
But by reporting said illegal activity by a government, it is the same as saying "I know you are doing something wrong, but since it is too rampant of an issue, we will just ignore it"

Let me rephrase it as an example:

I sell unregistered services to the public. By having it unregistered, it is illegal in the eyes of the law. By extension, my sales from said illegal activities are part of the domestic product reported by the federal government. In order for my sales to be reported, they would have to be known. But, by being known, and not being addressed or even punished for committing said illegal activities, the federal government has expressed (indirectly, and can be argued in a court of law if this issue ever gets pressed) acceptance of said practices.

That is the sad part. The EU governments know of illegal activities in their countries, and are doing nothing (or not enough) to stem said activities, based on their acceptance and reporting of said illegal activities as part of their domestic product.

You could argue that by knowing the number could lead to better laws, but where are those laws? These numbers have been known a long time, and nothing effective has been done to stop it. So, EU basically gave up and started accepting these amounts in their whole domestic product, by your article's findings.
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-07-28 10:07:17  
Enuyasha said: »
But claiming that this flow of money doesnt exist skews numbers?

If you want to claim that people earning money and spending money makes up a certain number then you wont find any bigger gain and expenditure in the stereotypical drug dealer, pimp, or weapons dealer.
Who said that the money doesn't exist again? Oh right, you did.

I'm saying that the best way to combat illegal activities is to be actively involved in the community and strongly punishing said activities to prevent people into thinking that these activities will go unpunished and also that these activities are worthwhile.

One of the ways to prevent crime is to make it not worthwhile. Crime exists if it is beneficial to the person committing it.
Offline
Posts: 3206
By Enuyasha 2014-07-28 10:17:46  
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Enuyasha said: »
But claiming that this flow of money doesnt exist skews numbers?

If you want to claim that people earning money and spending money makes up a certain number then you wont find any bigger gain and expenditure in the stereotypical drug dealer, pimp, or weapons dealer.
Who said that the money doesn't exist again? Oh right, you did.

I'm saying that the best way to combat illegal activities is to be actively involved in the community and strongly punishing said activities to prevent people into thinking that these activities will go unpunished and also that these activities are worthwhile.

One of the ways to prevent crime is to make it not worthwhile. Crime exists if it is beneficial to the person committing it.
The way you phrased your statement (that i responded to) made it sound as if the activity didnt exist which would then mean that the currency gained and spent related to these activities didnt exist either. Logic, conceptualization, all that, etc.

by simply recognizing that this flow of money exists they recognize that their country is positively gaining through the negative circulation via criminal activity (basically, crime is a part of our economy even though we dont like whats going on).
 Bahamut.Kara
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Kara
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-07-28 10:19:17  
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Bahamut.Kara said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Doesn't that signify that the EU nations are starting to accept said illegal activities? Wouldn't that just break up the whole concept of having the laws in place if they start accepting that said illegal activities take place and quantifying those activities as part of their domestic numbers?

Which is sad really.

How so?

By quantifying something you don't make something legal. You just get more information on how money is spent, which means you can make better laws or better enforcement policies. By ignoring something it doesn't make it disappear.

If you've ever been to Italy or Greece you would see signs in shops (or shopkeepers telling you when you checkout) that you can get a 20%+ discount if you pay in cash instead of credit card. Those sales go unreported and therefore are illegal but they are still apart of the market.
But by reporting said illegal activity by a government, it is the same as saying "I know you are doing something wrong, but since it is too rampant of an issue, we will just ignore it"

Let me rephrase it as an example:

I sell unregistered services to the public. By having it unregistered, it is illegal in the eyes of the law. By extension, my sales from said illegal activities are part of the domestic product reported by the federal government. In order for my sales to be reported, they would have to be known. But, by being known, and not being addressed or even punished for committing said illegal activities, the federal government has expressed (indirectly, and can be argued in a court of law if this issue ever gets pressed) acceptance of said practices.

That is the sad part. The EU governments know of illegal activities in their countries, and are doing nothing (or not enough) to stem said activities, based on their acceptance and reporting of said illegal activities as part of their domestic product.

You could argue that by knowing the number could lead to better laws, but where are those laws? These numbers have been known a long time, and nothing effective has been done to stop it. So, EU basically gave up and started accepting these amounts in their whole domestic product, by your article's findings.

Right. The amount of assumptions in this post makes it difficult to answer you.

1. Estimate =/= reported
2. By estimating a quantity you don't condone something. One has nothing to do with the other. I know a person who does research for the UN on slave trafficking. That doesn't mean the UN condones slave trafficking it means they are trying to get information it.

Would you rather governments make laws without having any idea what they need to do in order to mitigate unintended consequences?

3. You assume they are doing nothing about illegal activity. Have you looked into the 28 countries laws? Have you analyzed how many people are put in jail each year and compared before and after the black market statistics were added to the GDP?

4. These numbers have not been known for a long time ....as this is a new statistic.

5. The article was extremly biased and still it showed that the black market affected each country different. With it only being 0.4% of the GDP for the Netherlands.

TL;DR: gathering information =/= magically make something legal
[+]
 Asura.Kingnobody
Bug Hunter
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-07-28 10:52:57  
Bahamut.Kara said: »
1. Estimate =/= reported
Except they are using their estimate to report it. So, explain that away.

Bahamut.Kara said: »
By estimating a quantity you don't condone something. One has nothing to do with the other. I know a person who does research for the UN on slave trafficking. That doesn't mean the UN condones slave trafficking it means they are trying to get information it.
The estimation is not the issue, it is the reporting and including the estimated amounts in GDP that is. Also, explain that away too.

Bahamut.Kara said: »
Would you rather governments make laws without having any idea what they need to do in order to mitigate unintended consequences?
I would rather have governments use the estimates to combat these issues, instead of using the estimates as part of their GDP to boost their perceived economy. Kindof like how China is reporting their GDP.

Do you want the EU nations to have the same level of disbelief of their reported figures as official China numbers are?

Bahamut.Kara said: »
3. You assume they are doing nothing about illegal activity. Have you looked into the 28 countries laws? Have you analyzed how many people are put in jail each year and compared before and after the black market statistics were added to the GDP?
I'm using logic to determine that not enough is being done if the estimates keep growing.

If laws are there to help prevent said activities, and yet, these estimates grow (to the point that they are considered to be part of GDP), then what is the point in having those laws in the first place? And why aren't they doing anything to stem the growth?

Bahamut.Kara said: »
4. These numbers have not been known for a long time ....as this is a new statistic.

Sorry, I guess 3rd party research into these haven't existed for years and are ignored by said governments. Not my fault the EU had it's head in the ground for years and finally started to wake up to the fact of these issues.

Unless you still consider this a new statistic because it hasn't been a century of historical evidence to prove these numbers....

Bahamut.Kara said: »
The article was extremly biased and still it showed that the black market affected each country different. With it only being 0.4% of the GDP for the Netherlands.

I'll grant you that.

Bahamut.Kara said: »
TL;DR: gathering information =/= magically make something legal
I didn't say that it was made legal, I said that the perception of legality could be argued in a court of law. There is a big difference there, and I would expect an "economist" (which I still don't believe you to be, as you have proven with your lack of knowledge of economic law) to know the difference between legal and perception of law.
Log in to post.