VAT is territorial.
You cannot refuse to pay VAT in a territory.
172 karma · joined November 3, 2015
You cannot refuse to pay VAT in a territory.
And in many cases, those attempts failed by the 70's
As recently as 1997 https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sp0121...
Oh but rulers do opt out taking IMF money all the time...
Zimbabwe did for the past decade.
Angola just this year did ask for IMF money and then pulled back because the conditions were not acceptable.
Half of Africa is getting into all sorts of alternative deals (China..) for the same reason.
++++ edit
And those unacceptable conditions ?
- please be less corrupt... - at least try to have some sort of checks on how the funds are spent - there are other things than building stadiums and palaces
unacceptable
The IMF and the World Bank both predate those "policies". And they were giving loans and advise before.
Truth is: they're an easy scapegoat. It's that simple.
Countries have succeded by following the IMF/WB "Neo-Liberal" advise and other countries have failed by doing the same. Countries have also succeded by not following the IMF/WB "Neo-Liberal" advise and other countries have failed by the same.
Most of the time, local politics is the real issue.
I'm somehow suspicious of this claim. There's some circumstancial evidence that make me think that Belgium's crimes were more exposed.
For instance, compare the death tolls of the railways in the two Congos.
The explanation is that distribution rights are sold by territory because most old school distribution channels are by territory. And content is usally financed by the sale of rights (usually before anyone has seen anything).
But streaming is becoming more and more important and those deals will be reviewed.
To give you an example, when Netflix opened in my country, House of Cards wasn't in the catalogue. That's a show produced by Netflix. But that was because Canal + Afrique held the rights. A few months ago, it was added. Most likely because the contract expired or because they renegociated.
Followed by things like the Weather services and then things related to health or social security.
Those are "costumer"-oriented sites. But then again, some of them could be browsing from their work computers.
in your example, even if the security-driven development generates value by preventing a hack, it could simply be considered Cost of Goods Sold, or maintenance costs...
In accounting standards, Investment turns into an asset.
-> CCTV system = investment -> security guard = cost
they both generate value by increasing security and the dinstinction is not related to their usefullness for the company.
That's mostly because New Cars were unafforable to All. At least in the places I've visited there are more and more new cars.
- because people are richer than a few years ago
- because financing options that didn't exist now do
- because laws banning imports of cars "older than x years" also help (even if they have unintended consequences)
- it makes a lot more sense to ship by Air for product with such value per kg - Apple has been shipping products by Air since 1997(famously they booked the entire capacity for the holiday season) - Apple brags about how little inventory they keep all the time. Sea Freight is slow, very slow.
RACE
The article also mentions how many black families had fled the town and how they were ready to get another teenager. That's how the "grab anyone" part works. And it's definetly racism.
No Way, the Government of the USSR would have done that if they had any doubt about it being an hoax.
Even in Africa, not having those and having good, stable and cheap internet is a really weird case.
For smaller and poorer markets, there are plenty of content with no distribution deal in place.
So Netflix could be the only way to make any money in those markets.
Those catalogues will grow bigger. Possibly bigger than the catalogues in Big market where there is competition.
In Europe, even mid-size and smaller cities can be as dense as the big cities.
What he was arguing against was a model with a few huge metropolises instead of many Mid-size and Small cities.
I don't think legality was the issue. The issue is that there are dozens of countries that need to vote on the same exact text for it to have an effect.
Surely the US Congress could modify it but then the other players will at best ratify a different version and at worse change items here and there themselves.
In both cases, what you get is not an international trade agrement. You may as well vote "no" or not even try to negotiate a deal.
Goat Cheese farmers or Cab drivers have and will make hell if there's even one line that they deem unacceptable even if the whole thing could (not necessarily will) be beneficial for the whole country.
And given the populist tendencies of the media on some topics, the people will probably agree.
- you have a nascent agroculture sector that could benefit from some lower tarifs on exports to the US. - you also have some labour preference laws in your existing oil industry (this is quite common).
Because the only people in the US who care about your country are probably the Oil Companies operating there, getting rid of the labour restrictions in the oil industry is a priority on the US side. And lower tarrifs on your Cocoa or Vanilla exports wouldn't cost much.
But you know those entrenched local workers in the oil industry are a powerful lobby in your country. You know they will raise hell if those restrictions go away. And you know they'll probably win if you don't have something to show for it. Something real and something a more powerful "lobby" (like millions of farmers) will support.
Do you really think it's smarter to have that fight back home before starting the negotiations ?
Corporations' interests aren't identical so they cannot be defended by one lobby. And there are lobbies defending non-corporate interests. And those can be a. quite powerful b. quite nefarious.
The secrecy during negotiation is necessary because "someone soemwhere has a good reason to oppose something".
The fact that there are many somewheres, someones and somethings involved make it impossible to do it in public.
As there will be single-issue opponents in each of the parties, any multi-parties negotiation will fail if it happens in public.