Why is there such pessimism/paranoia about this deal in this thread?
Corporate tax can be controlled by the company itself. If you run your business economically, you pay more corporate tax. This is just wrong.
There's no reason for a company to raise consumer prices in response to a change in the corporate tax rate - if a company can make more profits just by raising prices, they should do so anyway regardless of what the tax rate is.
Further, if all companies in an already low-competition marketplace are equally affected by the tax, then it's quite possible for all of them to ~simultaneously raise prices to offset the tax, with or without explicitly illegal coordination, knowing that the others will follow suit.
Since everything is tied together it's hard to reason through all of this. For companies making investment decisions the interest rate will obviously be one factor, but projected consumer demand will be another, and it's easy to imagine in some cases higher middle-class incomes and consumer demand might be more important than a lower interest rate for decisions around building new factories etc.
Obviously it's complex and I don't have a strongly-held opinion. But taking a historical perspective interest rates are near record lows and financial asset prices are at record highs. On those grounds policies that might nudge us back a little into where the economy has been operating for the past 50 years (regarding interest rates etc) seem less risky than ones that push us further away from our post-WWII historical experience.
So what you incentivize is the misallocation of funds from their most beneficial use outside the organization to something in the organization.
Taxes should be taken into account in calculating where the best ROI would be here. Obviously it changes when you would return profit to shareholders.
So if the principles of software and politics are already so closely aligned, isn't it reasonable to assume that 136 independent governing bodies would be more robust than one?
You see, the way that we made exchange was translated from a moral domain to a material domain, which was finally transposed to a symbolic one. Dollar valuations of a lifetimes is an intrinsically abhorrent concept. A life can never be repaid, thus it can never be valued in real terms - yet it is, billions of times over. Globalism is just a long-range result of this. Exploitation and undervaluing of billions of lives in order to create increasingly competitive products to grow dollar values of a investments in the hands of an increasingly small proportion of the population. This itself founded on false pretense.
Every move towards globalism is increasingly dangerous, this is no exception.
> We made a wrong turn a very long time ago
What, inventing agriculture? Certainly some think that. Otherwise: what are you talking about?
> translated from a moral domain to a material domain, which was finally transposed to a symbolic one.
What? Can you explain what this is supposed to mean?
Could it be a lot of words to describe an interpretation of globalization as a perceived single point of failure across every subsection of civilization/humanity?
> What, inventing agriculture? Certainly some think that.
Are there really people who believe that? I've only read it in Sapiens by YN Harari, and it sounded like a ridiculous idea written to provoke thought, not an actual opinion. "Yes, hunter-gatherers could starve on a bad year, and they sometimes got eaten by tigers, but look at how un-alienated they were!"
The author probably wouldn't have been to write his book or share these thoughts to more than 30 people without the invention of agriculture...
The argument I saw put more emphasis on things like nutritional deficiencies after the switch [1], reflected in average male height going from 5'9" to 5'3". Obviously in the long run agriculture became very efficient, but he makes a reasonable case that in the short run individual quality of life went downhill, with the main advantage being reaching higher population densities before being at the limit of the food supply, and so winning any conflicts with hunter-gatherer societies.
The breakdown is basically:
* A statement of the premise: "Globalism is bad" without defining 'globalism'.
* Some vague ominous sentences that sound like they reinforce the premise but don't.
* A long paragraph that basically makes the statement "Human lives can't be assigned a dollar value" with no real attempt to tie it to the premise.
* Restatement of the premise.
I don’t really agree in the slightest unless you’re making the claim that all political systems above the family level are inherently fragile in which case it’s a moot point. The previous international standard was war when there were major disagreements. Globalism has helped make the entire planet relatively(relative is doing a lot of heavy lifting here but still counts) peaceful compared to the past