AnAfrican

Russia is an Empire though.

Its Multiculturalism has always been about hadling Subjects who could become Citizens by Russifying.

THe quote is :

>the west got better at the expense of the rest of the world

"At the expense" means that there's a link.

but the argument is that oligarchies are more prone to corruption because power corrupts.

To be fair, that's mostly an American thing.

compaign donations are tightly controlled in almost all the rest of the West.

there is a penalty because the system is supposed to reduce costs by enrolling everybody (even the healthiest who may feel like they don't need it) WHILE the health insurance sector still is a for-profit competitive market (so there's no "auto-enrolment").

yep (with few minor exemptions related to income from tax heavens)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation#Individ...

As a side note, the biggest difference seems to be how countries treat foreign income.

Almost every country that has Income Taxes will tax any local income.

But there's a lot of variance on what they do for foreign income.

density for countries is such a bad datapoint... (remember half of China is empty which lowers the national average by a lot)

But the worry about overpopulation has been damn near constant.

Rebuked again and again and again each time we reached the previous "unsustainable" threshold.

It has turned out well for a bunch of countries.

But only as a transition measure, to rebuild trust.

It's neither a good nor a bad idea.

The point of pegging your currency to a foreign currency is to rebuild trust in your currency by guaranteeing a fixed exchange rate.

But if you do that by pegging to multiple currencies that all have variable exchange rates, how do you handle the relative changes between them ?

The only way would to be adjust it almost daily. Which is the same thing as letting it float.

++ PS: I'm talking about a somehow hard peg here. Most countries tend to use targets and will try to maintain some levels of rate. But they do so by operation on the market rather a peg by fiat.

Actually Black outs happen in Europe.

If I'm not mistaken, all of the Bundesliga games are available for free on Bundesliga's streaming service if watched outside of Germany.

Furthermore, in the US, local channels pay for exclusive rights to broadcast sports events for local teams.

So while your New York-Chicago may be available on MLB or NBA's streaming service, it will be blacked out in Chicago and New York because a TV channel has paid for the exclusive rights.

Blackouts in Europe don't happen because most right-holders are national.

But basically, a particular sports event shown on one channel will not be broadcasted because another channel holds the rights in that juridiction.

It happens a lot on Sattelite TV in Africa...

TF1, the biggest French Channel is broadcasted on Canal Sat Africa. TF1 shows Formula One events. But they only hold the rights for France.

Since Canal Plus (the channel) or SuperSports (South African Channel) hold the rights for Africa, TF1 is blacked out during Formula One events.

My guess is also no.

It's actually the sport teams/leagues that rode the gravy train.

ESPN paid huge amounts because they had to outbid the competition. If sportsbroadcasting gets less profitable, sports will get less profitable.

That quote is about Inventory and Just-In-Time production.

Not product freshness.

well yes.

If the share was calculated by individual PC models and not by company, even in the PC business, there would be a bunch of Apple stuff ranking quite high.

So they can scale on many aspects much better than their competition. (plus they still have margins)

Communist societies are more prone to "favors" because Price discrimination (and other market mechanisms) do not exist.

Actually, that happens in all sort of societies that are not Legal-Rational Liberal-Capitalist.

Swaziland is so much of an outlier that it's not even funny.

It's like 4 times above South Africa which would be my guess for "highest gun homicide per capita" rate in Africa.

There's simply no way this is even close to a continent wide average.

You know what can be even better ?

Car with a driver. Flexibility + you get to do other stuff besides driving.

But I guess affording that means more work and stuff.

because in many cases, the well-being of other conscious creatures is attained by reducing the well-being of some humans.

it's also quite interesting that the humans who should make sacrifices for the well-being of other creatures are usally not the ones asking for it.

ISP are ordered to do so.

You can resist but then there will be consequences...

The interesting thing is that Gabon shut down the Internet right after announcing the results.

In Congo, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, the internet was shut down right before the votes and stayed shut down for days after.

Looks like someone was unprepared.

none really.

VSATs may be an option but : - they're highly visible (which makes a physical shut-down easier) - there has been some sort of crackdown (or rather, tax-up-until-it-gets-too-expensive) on the use of said technology.

Going further, if your VSAT provider is local, they will probably shut down your service the same way any other ISP has.

So Iridium/Thuraya is really the only option.

Why do you think Apple set up a subsidiary in Ireland ?

That's because BMW sells to a third party.

Apple doesn't. (or rarely does). Amazon doesn't. Microsoft does less and less.

>Local subsidiaries are not usually resellers, and even if they were, the parent company can set an arbitrary price

The main reason why subsidiaries are set up is to enter a market and sell stuff. The main reason tax is discussed is because sales/revenue/profit is generated in one place.

And they do set up arbitrary prices within the limits of anti-dumping laws. But then again, someone somewhere will tax something.

>no direct revenues, just a big cash transfer to fund the costs from the parent company

In Apple (and many others' case), the local subsidiary has revenue. They actually bill consumers and collect payments.

>the fact is that they don't originate the product they are selling

They are billing locally. They have local accounts in which local payments are made.

so no, they have local revenue. Value is created there.

>how they hell would they even do that, given that they don't have the full set of accounts covering all the company's operations, to even know whether the company was profitable or not.

But they have the accounts of the local subsidiary. And that local subsidiary either makes a profit or not.

And, the company is taxed in each country of operations, for relevant operations.

Because there is an Apple-owned company in Ireland. And that company makes profits from operations that would be much harder (may be impossible) to setup as a US-based company.