So when you knock government services down to a fraction of the size you won't be expecting an emergency service at the other end of the phone line when you need it?
Ahh...and we have a false dilemma/choice. Good for you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I'd say the opposite. Eliminate the sales tax and only tax profits. Lower sale prices boost consumer spending and higher profit tax affects people who are making lots of profit, which isn't a problem.
You'd be attacking the problem exactly the opposite of the way you should. But thanks for playing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It reflects the amount you've hoarded from a closed monetary system.
Hoarded? Closed monetary system? So you don't know what you'r talking about either? I notice you skipped right over the part where I earned the money in the first place and jumped right to your Marxist wealth-is-a-zero-sum game perspective. Good job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If you win the lottery, inherit wealth...
Arguably these are corner cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
...have stock go up massively, your personal contribution is near zero...
Incorrect. But thanks for trying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
...your financial hoarding...
There we go with that whole hoarding thing again. How foolish and ignorant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You'd be suggesting that the high salaries of government employees are a direct measure of their contribution to society.
Actually, I wouldn't, because, if I recall, I specified wealth or income that comes from voluntary exchange. Government employees are not paid from voluntary proceeds so they do not fit that category. Arguably they are parasites.
I don't know what I'm talking about on a lot of things, want to be specific...
Sure:
Quote:
I'm looking at stress on the system and putting in what they take out.
People who have earned their income and wealth through voluntary exchanges are not "stressing the system". They are, in fact, making "the system" better by producing and exchanging and creating wealth and generally raising the standard of living.
The people "stressing the system" are those who are taxing it, taking money out and destroying wealth and generally distorting the economy. This the government. That's who is "stressing the system." Apple, for example, is not "stressing the system."
P.S. Your whole view of stress on the system appears to betray a vie of the system as closed and fixed and static in some manner. It is none of these things.
People who have earned their income and wealth through voluntary exchanges are not "stressing the system". They are, in fact, making "the system" better by producing and exchanging and creating wealth and generally raising the standard of living.
The people "stressing the system" are those who are taxing it, taking money out and destroying wealth and generally distorting the economy. This the government. That's who is "stressing the system." Apple, for example, is not "stressing the system."
P.S. Your whole view of stress on the system appears to betray a vie of the system as closed and fixed and static in some manner. It is none of these things.
Ah, the old "job creators" deal. I'm really not going to go into that. I am not American, so me speaking on US politics is disingenuous. I don't care. Not to say I don't care for the well-being of my American brothers and sister across the border, I do (I even have family who have lived there all of their lives) but the partisan bullshit and bizarre punishment based on economic status playing out down there is not for me. We aren't talking about the same "system" and the only "standard of living" being raised by job creators is their own, which is fine, as long as they don't lie saying it benefits everyone because it does not. It benefits the fortunate.
No, I'm dropping this. My initial comment was about the corporate tax as applied to Apple and how it has been misconstrued to punish a company that does well internationally and keeps the money it makes overseas, overseas. I also never said Apple was stressing the system, I said the imaginary person in my example was.
I'm speaking more generally and broadly about how the economy works to create wealth and how everyone who engages in voluntary exchanges helps to create wealth. But whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I am not American, so me speaking on US politics is disingenuous. I don't care. Not to say I don't care for the well-being of my American brothers and sister across the border, I do (I even have family who have lived there all of their lives) but the partisan bullshit and bizarre punishment based on economic status playing out down there is not for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
We aren't talking about the same "system" and the only "standard of living" being raised by job creators is their own, which is fine, as long as they don't lie saying it benefits everyone because it does not. It benefits the fortunate.
So you really don't know what you are talking about. I was right after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
No, I'm dropping this. My initial comment was about the corporate tax as applied to Apple and how it has been misconstrued to punish a company that does well internationally and keeps the money it makes overseas, overseas. I also never said Apple was stressing the system, I said the imaginary person in my example was.
I'd like to know how much government subsidies companies in those senator's two states are getting. Kettle calling the pot black! Apple is paying taxes while many companies (including big oil) are getting kickbacks from the government. Apple is getting reduced state taxes to build their server farms but this is the same thing that goes on in every state and by every type of company.
I really don't understand why politicians are so upset with Apple. The politicians can't balance a budget, can't do anything they're supposed to do all along while Apple is employing lots of people and has a ton of cash both inside and outside the US. Let's just rag on Apple for doing something right. People need to get a life.
Less money = fewer or worse services that require money to operate. I imagine what you're suggesting is that private businesses would rush in to save the day to fill the need, even in cases where the profitability of the company contradicts the provision of the service. Cat stuck up a tree? Hmm no that would cost us too much to sort out at today's fuel prices, sorry it'll have to stay there, that's just private business. You're being mugged by an armed gang? Sounds dangerous, I think we'll sit this one out. It won't work. Government has to provide services that contradict profitability and that needs taxes, which have to be paid fairly by everyone.
Hoarded? Closed monetary system? So you don't know what you'r talking about either? I notice you skipped right over the part where I earned the money in the first place and jumped right to your Marxist wealth-is-a-zero-sum game perspective. Good job.
All of the money at some point was put into the system. No matter if you think you can create wealth from nothing, at some point, a transaction has to take place using the funds from a fixed money supply unless you trade assets but assets are generally fixed in number too. They can abstract the amount of money with debt and interest owed and the amount of money due can be higher than the money available to pay for it but all that's doing is hiding the fact that it's a closed system and encourages the acquisition of wealth, which people believe they are creating through work. They aren't creating wealth, money is just being reapportioned. The more money that gets created from nothing, the more that gets moved around.
While providing a new service or idea is an asset derived from nothing, you still get paid with money that is backed by whatever comes from the money supply so no matter how many services are invented, the numbers you see in the bank accounts and stocks are hoardings from a fixed supply. Get the government to contract the money supply and see how far your wealth creation goes. I think they tried that before and it didn't work out so well.
In the extreme example, if there was no money supply, you would be trading worldly assets, which are fixed in number so yes, it is zero-sum. When people become rich, others become poor unless the rich reapportion their hoarded wealth by paying taxes and creating jobs. In another extreme example, assume that Apple maintained $1 trillion and didn't spend it. Do you think the entire world economy would be able to continue unaffected by that decision? Imagine that the top 20 companies in the world did that with $20 trillion. Do you think the rest of the world would just be able to adapt to that without an increased money supply in circulation?
An individual cannot create money by innovation or invention, that process will always be constrained by the money supply and the people in control of it.
Which invalidate the entire premise of what you're suggesting because it means money can be accumulated regardless of contribution therefore the accumulation of wealth is not a measure of contribution.
You have an idealistic view of a perfectly self-regulating free market, which doesn't exist. If Exxon provide fuel which people need and they can charge a lot for it, it's not that their contribution is higher than someone providing food, there's less competition for the provision of fuel because the supply is scarce.
...have stock go up massively, your personal contribution is near zero...
Incorrect.
Well, you can have a moan every now and again when it's not moving fast enough but I don't think that counts. Your contribution to the value creation is pretty much nothing, you rely on the employees of the company doing the work to increase the value of the business - as Einhorn put it "now we just wait". With startup investment, there's a need for capital but not a company like Apple and the capital in either case doesn't do anything by itself any more than moving capital into a savings account. Taking a risk is not the same as contribution to value creation.
I specified wealth or income that comes from voluntary exchange. Government employees are not paid from voluntary proceeds so they do not fit that category. Arguably they are parasites.
The terminology you use sounds familiar. On some level I agree with you here but you're taking varying levels of need out of that consideration like in the fuel vs food example above. The money you take in a voluntary exchange is partly determined by a market based on what you offer but it's so far from a perfect system that there's no way you can determine contribution directly from wealth, otherwise the mafia and their drug programs are some of the most contributory markets to society in the world and I hope you'd agree that the world could live without that contribution in which case its net value is zero or negative and contradicts the wealth it creates.
I really don't understand why politicians are so upset with Apple
It's not clear that they are but it's obvious that big businesses (Apple being the biggest) are avoiding paying taxes one way or another. Apple and others are doing it by using lower tax bases in Ireland, Luxembourg etc and choosing to borrow money instead of repatriating money. None of what any of them (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Starbucks, Apple, eBay) are doing is illegal but they are playing the system against its intent, which especially in poor economic times, pisses people off because Apple has more money than it can spend and unemployment is still fairly high and wages low. Apple is effectively hoarding a lot of wealth from a closed monetary system and not circulating it - the more that happens, the fewer jobs there can be and the salaries will be lower. These companies are trying to hold the system to ransom until they bend to their will by making the tax rates what they call 'fair'.
I imagine what you're suggesting is that private businesses would rush in to save the day to fill the need...
Correct, except of
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
even in cases where the profitability of the company contradicts the provision of the service.
Of course not. But then you presume the service is necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Cat stuck up a tree?
You didn't seriously use that as an example did you? I should stop right here if this is any indication of what to expect further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You're being mugged by an armed gang? Sounds dangerous, I think we'll sit this one out.
There's actually quite of bit written on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It won't work. Government has to provide services that contradict profitability and that needs taxes, which have to be paid fairly by everyone.
Thanks for sharing you opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
All of the money at some point was put into the system. No matter if you think you can create wealth from nothing, at some point, a transaction has to take place using the funds from a fixed money supply unless you trade assets but assets are generally fixed in number too. They can abstract the amount of money with debt and interest owed and the amount of money due can be higher than the money available to pay for it but all that's doing is hiding the fact that it's a closed system and encourages the acquisition of wealth, which people believe they are creating through work. They aren't creating wealth, money is just being reapportioned. The more money that gets created from nothing, the more that gets moved around.
While providing a new service or idea is an asset derived from nothing, you still get paid with money that is backed by whatever comes from the money supply so no matter how many services are invented, the numbers you see in the bank accounts and stocks are hoardings from a fixed supply. Get the government to contract the money supply and see how far your wealth creation goes. I think they tried that before and it didn't work out so well.
In the extreme example, if there was no money supply, you would be trading worldly assets, which are fixed in number so yes, it is zero-sum. When people become rich, others become poor unless the rich reapportion their hoarded wealth by paying taxes and creating jobs. In another extreme example, assume that Apple maintained $1 trillion and didn't spend it. Do you think the entire world economy would be able to continue unaffected by that decision? Imagine that the top 20 companies in the world did that with $20 trillion. Do you think the rest of the world would just be able to adapt to that without an increased money supply in circulation?
I really wish I had the time to address the numerous errors here. I just don't. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Which invalidate the entire premise of what you're suggesting...
Of course not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You have an idealistic view of a perfectly self-regulating free market, which doesn't exist.
Well it doesn't exist presently. But if you mean that it cannot, you'll have to work harder to support this claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If Exxon provide fuel which people need and they can charge a lot for it, it's not that their contribution is higher than someone providing food, there's less competition for the provision of fuel because the supply is scarce.
Says who?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Your contribution to the value creation is pretty much nothing, you rely on the employees of the company doing the work to increase the value of the business - as Einhorn put it "now we just wait". With startup investment, there's a need for capital but not a company like Apple and the capital in either case doesn't do anything by itself any more than moving capital into a savings account. Taking a risk is not the same as contribution to value creation.
Again, more confusion I wish I had time to address.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
On some level I agree with you here but you're taking varying levels of need out of that consideration like in the fuel vs food example above.
No I'm not. You're just assuming that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The money you take in a voluntary exchange is partly determined by a market based on what you offer but it's so far from a perfect system...
No one claimed it is a perfect system. That's a straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
...that there's no way you can determine contribution directly from wealth otherwise the mafia and their drug programs are some of the most contributory markets to society in the world.
Not sure what you're getting at. No one claimed perfection here. But generally speaking what I said stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
... and I hope you'd agree that the world could live without that contribution in which case its net value is zero or negative and contradicts the wealth it creates.
Obviously many people would disagree with you about its value.
Apple is using every loophole and trick known to Wall Street and leveraging offshore accounts to "pay every dollar they owe" which is very little. They used loopholes to pay dividends.
Now, I'm all for business and pro-business but this Apple corporate tax dodging highlights a big problem where average working people like me pay the most into the system
well, you can avoid the whole legit tax when it comes to international business because you do it out of country. I can't believe that apple pays all tax for US fed. I don't think so.
Apple is using every loophole and trick known to Wall Street and leveraging offshore accounts to "pay every dollar they owe" which is very little. They used loopholes to pay dividends.
Now, I'm all for business and pro-business but this Apple corporate tax dodging highlights a big problem where average working people like me pay the most into the system
Well said. These people who are praising Apple and cheer the fact that the company has 40% profit margins must love squandering their money as they have to make up the tax that Apple is dodging and paying well over the odds for what is an ugly and average phone. Wake up and smell the roses guys.
I know, lets pay Tim Cook another $365 million to halve the share price again.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
So when you knock government services down to a fraction of the size you won't be expecting an emergency service at the other end of the phone line when you need it?
Ahh...and we have a false dilemma/choice. Good for you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I'd say the opposite. Eliminate the sales tax and only tax profits. Lower sale prices boost consumer spending and higher profit tax affects people who are making lots of profit, which isn't a problem.
You'd be attacking the problem exactly the opposite of the way you should. But thanks for playing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It reflects the amount you've hoarded from a closed monetary system.
Hoarded? Closed monetary system? So you don't know what you'r talking about either? I notice you skipped right over the part where I earned the money in the first place and jumped right to your Marxist wealth-is-a-zero-sum game perspective. Good job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If you win the lottery, inherit wealth...
Arguably these are corner cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
...have stock go up massively, your personal contribution is near zero...
Incorrect. But thanks for trying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
...your financial hoarding...
There we go with that whole hoarding thing again. How foolish and ignorant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You'd be suggesting that the high salaries of government employees are a direct measure of their contribution to society.
Actually, I wouldn't, because, if I recall, I specified wealth or income that comes from voluntary exchange. Government employees are not paid from voluntary proceeds so they do not fit that category. Arguably they are parasites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I'm looking at stress on the system and putting in what they take out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
So you don't know what you're talking about then.
I'm sorry all I'm hearing is you talking but not actually saying anything.
I don't know what I'm talking about on a lot of things, want to be specific or are you just making noise and pounding your chest?
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I don't know what I'm talking about on a lot of things, want to be specific...
Sure:
Quote:
I'm looking at stress on the system and putting in what they take out.
People who have earned their income and wealth through voluntary exchanges are not "stressing the system". They are, in fact, making "the system" better by producing and exchanging and creating wealth and generally raising the standard of living.
The people "stressing the system" are those who are taxing it, taking money out and destroying wealth and generally distorting the economy. This the government. That's who is "stressing the system." Apple, for example, is not "stressing the system."
P.S. Your whole view of stress on the system appears to betray a vie of the system as closed and fixed and static in some manner. It is none of these things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Love to here your review of The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand
Are you for or against Ayn Rand? Or have you no opinion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
People who have earned their income and wealth through voluntary exchanges are not "stressing the system". They are, in fact, making "the system" better by producing and exchanging and creating wealth and generally raising the standard of living.
The people "stressing the system" are those who are taxing it, taking money out and destroying wealth and generally distorting the economy. This the government. That's who is "stressing the system." Apple, for example, is not "stressing the system."
P.S. Your whole view of stress on the system appears to betray a vie of the system as closed and fixed and static in some manner. It is none of these things.
Ah, the old "job creators" deal. I'm really not going to go into that. I am not American, so me speaking on US politics is disingenuous. I don't care. Not to say I don't care for the well-being of my American brothers and sister across the border, I do (I even have family who have lived there all of their lives) but the partisan bullshit and bizarre punishment based on economic status playing out down there is not for me. We aren't talking about the same "system" and the only "standard of living" being raised by job creators is their own, which is fine, as long as they don't lie saying it benefits everyone because it does not. It benefits the fortunate.
No, I'm dropping this. My initial comment was about the corporate tax as applied to Apple and how it has been misconstrued to punish a company that does well internationally and keeps the money it makes overseas, overseas. I also never said Apple was stressing the system, I said the imaginary person in my example was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Ah, the old "job creators" deal.
I'm speaking more generally and broadly about how the economy works to create wealth and how everyone who engages in voluntary exchanges helps to create wealth. But whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I am not American, so me speaking on US politics is disingenuous. I don't care. Not to say I don't care for the well-being of my American brothers and sister across the border, I do (I even have family who have lived there all of their lives) but the partisan bullshit and bizarre punishment based on economic status playing out down there is not for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
We aren't talking about the same "system" and the only "standard of living" being raised by job creators is their own, which is fine, as long as they don't lie saying it benefits everyone because it does not. It benefits the fortunate.
So you really don't know what you are talking about. I was right after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
No, I'm dropping this. My initial comment was about the corporate tax as applied to Apple and how it has been misconstrued to punish a company that does well internationally and keeps the money it makes overseas, overseas. I also never said Apple was stressing the system, I said the imaginary person in my example was.
Whatever.
I'd like to know how much government subsidies companies in those senator's two states are getting. Kettle calling the pot black! Apple is paying taxes while many companies (including big oil) are getting kickbacks from the government. Apple is getting reduced state taxes to build their server farms but this is the same thing that goes on in every state and by every type of company.
I really don't understand why politicians are so upset with Apple. The politicians can't balance a budget, can't do anything they're supposed to do all along while Apple is employing lots of people and has a ton of cash both inside and outside the US. Let's just rag on Apple for doing something right. People need to get a life.
Less money = fewer or worse services that require money to operate. I imagine what you're suggesting is that private businesses would rush in to save the day to fill the need, even in cases where the profitability of the company contradicts the provision of the service. Cat stuck up a tree? Hmm no that would cost us too much to sort out at today's fuel prices, sorry it'll have to stay there, that's just private business. You're being mugged by an armed gang? Sounds dangerous, I think we'll sit this one out. It won't work. Government has to provide services that contradict profitability and that needs taxes, which have to be paid fairly by everyone.
All of the money at some point was put into the system. No matter if you think you can create wealth from nothing, at some point, a transaction has to take place using the funds from a fixed money supply unless you trade assets but assets are generally fixed in number too. They can abstract the amount of money with debt and interest owed and the amount of money due can be higher than the money available to pay for it but all that's doing is hiding the fact that it's a closed system and encourages the acquisition of wealth, which people believe they are creating through work. They aren't creating wealth, money is just being reapportioned. The more money that gets created from nothing, the more that gets moved around.
While providing a new service or idea is an asset derived from nothing, you still get paid with money that is backed by whatever comes from the money supply so no matter how many services are invented, the numbers you see in the bank accounts and stocks are hoardings from a fixed supply. Get the government to contract the money supply and see how far your wealth creation goes. I think they tried that before and it didn't work out so well.
In the extreme example, if there was no money supply, you would be trading worldly assets, which are fixed in number so yes, it is zero-sum. When people become rich, others become poor unless the rich reapportion their hoarded wealth by paying taxes and creating jobs. In another extreme example, assume that Apple maintained $1 trillion and didn't spend it. Do you think the entire world economy would be able to continue unaffected by that decision? Imagine that the top 20 companies in the world did that with $20 trillion. Do you think the rest of the world would just be able to adapt to that without an increased money supply in circulation?
An individual cannot create money by innovation or invention, that process will always be constrained by the money supply and the people in control of it.
Which invalidate the entire premise of what you're suggesting because it means money can be accumulated regardless of contribution therefore the accumulation of wealth is not a measure of contribution.
You have an idealistic view of a perfectly self-regulating free market, which doesn't exist. If Exxon provide fuel which people need and they can charge a lot for it, it's not that their contribution is higher than someone providing food, there's less competition for the provision of fuel because the supply is scarce.
Well, you can have a moan every now and again when it's not moving fast enough but I don't think that counts. Your contribution to the value creation is pretty much nothing, you rely on the employees of the company doing the work to increase the value of the business - as Einhorn put it "now we just wait". With startup investment, there's a need for capital but not a company like Apple and the capital in either case doesn't do anything by itself any more than moving capital into a savings account. Taking a risk is not the same as contribution to value creation.
The terminology you use sounds familiar. On some level I agree with you here but you're taking varying levels of need out of that consideration like in the fuel vs food example above. The money you take in a voluntary exchange is partly determined by a market based on what you offer but it's so far from a perfect system that there's no way you can determine contribution directly from wealth, otherwise the mafia and their drug programs are some of the most contributory markets to society in the world and I hope you'd agree that the world could live without that contribution in which case its net value is zero or negative and contradicts the wealth it creates.
It's not clear that they are but it's obvious that big businesses (Apple being the biggest) are avoiding paying taxes one way or another. Apple and others are doing it by using lower tax bases in Ireland, Luxembourg etc and choosing to borrow money instead of repatriating money. None of what any of them (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Starbucks, Apple, eBay) are doing is illegal but they are playing the system against its intent, which especially in poor economic times, pisses people off because Apple has more money than it can spend and unemployment is still fairly high and wages low. Apple is effectively hoarding a lot of wealth from a closed monetary system and not circulating it - the more that happens, the fewer jobs there can be and the salaries will be lower. These companies are trying to hold the system to ransom until they bend to their will by making the tax rates what they call 'fair'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I imagine what you're suggesting is that private businesses would rush in to save the day to fill the need...
Correct, except of
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
even in cases where the profitability of the company contradicts the provision of the service.
Of course not. But then you presume the service is necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Cat stuck up a tree?
You didn't seriously use that as an example did you? I should stop right here if this is any indication of what to expect further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You're being mugged by an armed gang? Sounds dangerous, I think we'll sit this one out.
There's actually quite of bit written on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It won't work. Government has to provide services that contradict profitability and that needs taxes, which have to be paid fairly by everyone.
Thanks for sharing you opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
All of the money at some point was put into the system. No matter if you think you can create wealth from nothing, at some point, a transaction has to take place using the funds from a fixed money supply unless you trade assets but assets are generally fixed in number too. They can abstract the amount of money with debt and interest owed and the amount of money due can be higher than the money available to pay for it but all that's doing is hiding the fact that it's a closed system and encourages the acquisition of wealth, which people believe they are creating through work. They aren't creating wealth, money is just being reapportioned. The more money that gets created from nothing, the more that gets moved around.
While providing a new service or idea is an asset derived from nothing, you still get paid with money that is backed by whatever comes from the money supply so no matter how many services are invented, the numbers you see in the bank accounts and stocks are hoardings from a fixed supply. Get the government to contract the money supply and see how far your wealth creation goes. I think they tried that before and it didn't work out so well.
In the extreme example, if there was no money supply, you would be trading worldly assets, which are fixed in number so yes, it is zero-sum. When people become rich, others become poor unless the rich reapportion their hoarded wealth by paying taxes and creating jobs. In another extreme example, assume that Apple maintained $1 trillion and didn't spend it. Do you think the entire world economy would be able to continue unaffected by that decision? Imagine that the top 20 companies in the world did that with $20 trillion. Do you think the rest of the world would just be able to adapt to that without an increased money supply in circulation?
I really wish I had the time to address the numerous errors here. I just don't. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Which invalidate the entire premise of what you're suggesting...
Of course not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You have an idealistic view of a perfectly self-regulating free market, which doesn't exist.
Well it doesn't exist presently. But if you mean that it cannot, you'll have to work harder to support this claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If Exxon provide fuel which people need and they can charge a lot for it, it's not that their contribution is higher than someone providing food, there's less competition for the provision of fuel because the supply is scarce.
Says who?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Your contribution to the value creation is pretty much nothing, you rely on the employees of the company doing the work to increase the value of the business - as Einhorn put it "now we just wait". With startup investment, there's a need for capital but not a company like Apple and the capital in either case doesn't do anything by itself any more than moving capital into a savings account. Taking a risk is not the same as contribution to value creation.
Again, more confusion I wish I had time to address.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
On some level I agree with you here but you're taking varying levels of need out of that consideration like in the fuel vs food example above.
No I'm not. You're just assuming that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The money you take in a voluntary exchange is partly determined by a market based on what you offer but it's so far from a perfect system...
No one claimed it is a perfect system. That's a straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
...that there's no way you can determine contribution directly from wealth otherwise the mafia and their drug programs are some of the most contributory markets to society in the world.
Not sure what you're getting at. No one claimed perfection here. But generally speaking what I said stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
... and I hope you'd agree that the world could live without that contribution in which case its net value is zero or negative and contradicts the wealth it creates.
Obviously many people would disagree with you about its value.
None of the above.
Margin dollars are meaningless. After you subtract all your overhead expenses, you're left with net income - which DOES affect the balance sheet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eat@me
Apple is using every loophole and trick known to Wall Street and leveraging offshore accounts to "pay every dollar they owe" which is very little. They used loopholes to pay dividends.
Now, I'm all for business and pro-business but this Apple corporate tax dodging highlights a big problem where average working people like me pay the most into the system
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/apple-corporate-income-tax-rate_n_1429955.html
Well said. These people who are praising Apple and cheer the fact that the company has 40% profit margins must love squandering their money as they have to make up the tax that Apple is dodging and paying well over the odds for what is an ugly and average phone. Wake up and smell the roses guys.
I know, lets pay Tim Cook another $365 million to halve the share price again.