One point, as a response to MJ1970's remark: "Well, it's true, laws are imperfect and have "loopholes." I don't see that as being relevant to what's going on here. But to your question, I think it depends on the law as to whether exploiting its holes and imperfections is okay."
Isn't this odd? Law is imperfect, but still defines what is "okay" or not "okay"? Doesn't this "imperfectedness" imply there's "something" else besides law deciding on whether - in this case - Apple (or any other firm making use of loopholes in tax) is actually "okay" in doing what they are doing? What do you think that "something" would, or should be?
A better context for allowing morality into this discussion would be the practices of big pharma, btw. Lots of things happening "within law and/or its loopholes" right there. But not in the sense that it's "okay", I'd argue. At least, "not okay" for the people outside of those firms or their shareholders. Wouldn't you agree? Or rather, see there could be circumstances where "okay" might go beyond "the law"?
A personnel department is part of a larger firm. If the firm as a whole fails to make profit, it fails.
Exactly. And its productivity, while not measured in sales or profits directly, is measured by how well it takes care of and hires and handles the employees of the firm so it can make a profit. The claim pof un-productivity for that department was absurd.
But doesn't that simile take you back to the earlier point? If government is the personnel department (and other analogues) then the overall firm is the nation. If the nation fails the government has failed. There can be intra- and inter-department failures, resulting in reshuffles and restructures, but as long as the firms stays in the black (and doesn't revolt against the personnel department) then it's doing well enough.
Of course, USA Inc isn't in the black, so read into that what you will...
Governments aren't companies, it's a silly analogy.
But doesn't that simile take you back to the earlier point? If government is the personnel department (and other analogues) then the overall firm is the nation. If the nation fails the government has failed. There can be intra- and inter-department failures, resulting in reshuffles and restructures, but as long as the firms stays in the black (and doesn't revolt against the personnel department) then it's doing well enough.
Of course, USA Inc isn't in the black, so read into that what you will...
Governments aren't companies, it's a silly analogy.
I agree it is a silly analogy. It was Luykx that brought it up. I was extending his analogy to demonstrate its falsity.
I mean that Apple knows how to allocate its capital better than the government. More importantly, they have the right to the fruits (apples, of course) of their labor. Government is by its nature unproductive, it only exists by taking resources from productive members of society. If a company fails to produce goods and find customers it fails the most basic test of productivity (profit) and goes out of business. Government does not produce, and it continues to exist regardless of having customers and making a profit, therefore it is by definition unproductive. That you think government is the management of a firm called the U.S. makes me think you need to read some Hayek.
The rest of your reply is hard to decipher. Since you did not address my questions directly, I will not answer yours. You do appear to come to this discussion from the perspective of a statist. This is understandable, since you presumably reside in Europe. Being American, I approach things from a perspective of liberty.
Interesting post. Sorry for not addressing al questions. It's not that I'm using not enough words, I believe. Can't adress everything at once. Especially when people nitpick on each individual sentence. as mentioned, I'm sorry but I'm just not a native english speaker. and not canadian, either btw
Why is the (un)productivity of government relevant? The only argument I've seen is that government is unproductive, and there shouldn't get any money. What kind of nonsense is that? That's just like saying government should not exist. You should try to read Montesquieu, perhaps. I'll try to go for Hayek. What would the business case of having a government look like? Well, for starters, the business case should be based on the comparison of a situation between having no government and having a government. I think the notion of how productive a government actually is, would be a different notion than the one you currently seem to hold.
Also, I hope you're not implying that a distinction between having a statist or libertarian (?) view implies one is better than the other (under all circumstances, at any point in time...etc). That's a pretty static view on what liberty would be, and I do believe pragmatism is as much of a fundamental part of the American society as liberty. Or that might just be my personal delusion.
Sorry for the extra final post. It's getting late on this side of the pond, so I should be really going. (But it's such a friggin interesting discussion... )
I agree it is a silly analogy. It was Luykx that brought it up. I was extending his analogy to demonstrate its falsity.
The whole point on the (un)productivity of government was brought into our discussion by you, btw. Ironical, isn't it? See post #98
Before that I can't see where I brought the government is a firm point, btw. I'd assumed the (un)productivity point to be about firms. That's my mistake perhaps. But you happily dug that hole with me by pointing towards Hayek, so I think it's a bit of an hypocrisy to start pointing fingers in my direction now others have argued it's just a ridiculous argument. Pretty weak as well, imo.
Depends what things you would or would not otherwise do, and why the government is impelled to force you to do or not them I suppose.
Fair enough. Let's just say that if is anything beyond prevention of left, fraud, assault, murder, etc. Then you'd be overstepping the bounds of our "friendship."
The whole point on the (un)productivity of government was brought into our discussion by you, btw. Ironical, isn't it? See post #98
Before that I can't see where I brought the government is a firm point, btw. I'd assumed the (un)productivity point to be about firms. That's my mistake perhaps. But you happily dug that hole with me by pointing towards Hayek, so I think it's a bit of an hypocrisy to start pointing fingers in my direction now others have argued it's just a ridiculous argument. Pretty weak as well, imo.
The comment about the unproductivity of government was intended as a truism. You brought up the concept of government qua management. I interpreted Crowley's quibble to be about this. If you think this is pedantic, you might be right. I do not apologize for being misinterpreted.
The comment about the unproductivity of government was intended as a truism. You brought up the concept of government qua management. I interpreted Crowley's quibble to be about this. If you think this is pedantic, you might be right. I do not apologize for being misinterpreted.
LOL
You got that right! And pedantic is pedantic in and of itself too. So the internal consistency is both waterproof and an understatement.
You deserve a star!
Also, truisms don't grant you freedom from their implications. As far as I'm concerned, whether or not the "government is productive" point is a truism, the idea is that talking about government in terms of productivity implies business-like, or rather, "being an (un)productive part of the economy"-like notion of what a government is or does.
The act of making a point like that implies some sort of equivalence between firms and governments, at some level. No matter how others might argue the analogy doesn't make any sense. The economy needs governments and laws as much as it needs firms, imo. Where else would Apple go to with their set of precious patents? To a certain extent the business model on making money on producing (patented) technology is built upon the existence of governments and the set of laws they produce (or should produce). Perhaps firms should invest in governments to produce better laws by paying taxes, instead of lobbying? (Of course, the counter argument would be "but every other firm lobbies"...as if that is a good excuse)
You got that right! And pedantic is pedantic in and of itself too. So the internal consistency is both waterproof and an understatement.
You deserve a star!
Also, truisms don't grant you freedom from their implications. As far as I'm concerned, whether or not the "government is productive" point is a truism, the idea is that talking about government in terms of productivity implies business-like, or rather, "being an (un)productive part of the economy"-like notion of what a government is or does.
The act of making a point like that implies some sort of equivalence between firms and governments, at some level. No matter how others might argue the analogy doesn't make any sense. The economy needs governments and laws as much as it needs firms, imo. Where else would Apple go to with their set of precious patents? To a certain extent the business model on making money on producing (patented) technology is built upon the existence of governments and the set of laws they produce (or should produce). Perhaps firms should invest in governments to produce better laws by paying taxes, instead of lobbying? (Of course, the counter argument would be "but every other firm lobbies"...as if that is a good excuse)
You write and comprehend English quite well. Which EU country are you from?
Comments
As far as I'm concerned this is my final post.
One point, as a response to MJ1970's remark: "Well, it's true, laws are imperfect and have "loopholes." I don't see that as being relevant to what's going on here. But to your question, I think it depends on the law as to whether exploiting its holes and imperfections is okay."
Isn't this odd? Law is imperfect, but still defines what is "okay" or not "okay"? Doesn't this "imperfectedness" imply there's "something" else besides law deciding on whether - in this case - Apple (or any other firm making use of loopholes in tax) is actually "okay" in doing what they are doing? What do you think that "something" would, or should be?
A better context for allowing morality into this discussion would be the practices of big pharma, btw. Lots of things happening "within law and/or its loopholes" right there. But not in the sense that it's "okay", I'd argue. At least, "not okay" for the people outside of those firms or their shareholders. Wouldn't you agree? Or rather, see there could be circumstances where "okay" might go beyond "the law"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregord
A personnel department is part of a larger firm. If the firm as a whole fails to make profit, it fails.
Exactly. And its productivity, while not measured in sales or profits directly, is measured by how well it takes care of and hires and handles the employees of the firm so it can make a profit. The claim pof un-productivity for that department was absurd.
Well it appears we dispatched Luykx with our unassailable logic and wit. If only Carl Levin read AI.
But doesn't that simile take you back to the earlier point? If government is the personnel department (and other analogues) then the overall firm is the nation. If the nation fails the government has failed. There can be intra- and inter-department failures, resulting in reshuffles and restructures, but as long as the firms stays in the black (and doesn't revolt against the personnel department) then it's doing well enough.
Of course, USA Inc isn't in the black, so read into that what you will...
Governments aren't companies, it's a silly analogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Governments aren't companies, it's a silly analogy.
We start and end there I think.
The closer analogy for a government is a criminal gang.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
But doesn't that simile take you back to the earlier point? If government is the personnel department (and other analogues) then the overall firm is the nation. If the nation fails the government has failed. There can be intra- and inter-department failures, resulting in reshuffles and restructures, but as long as the firms stays in the black (and doesn't revolt against the personnel department) then it's doing well enough.
Of course, USA Inc isn't in the black, so read into that what you will...
Governments aren't companies, it's a silly analogy.
I agree it is a silly analogy. It was Luykx that brought it up. I was extending his analogy to demonstrate its falsity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
We start and end there I think.
The closer analogy for a government is a criminal gang.
Now you're getting into unique absurdities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregord
I mean that Apple knows how to allocate its capital better than the government. More importantly, they have the right to the fruits (apples, of course) of their labor. Government is by its nature unproductive, it only exists by taking resources from productive members of society. If a company fails to produce goods and find customers it fails the most basic test of productivity (profit) and goes out of business. Government does not produce, and it continues to exist regardless of having customers and making a profit, therefore it is by definition unproductive. That you think government is the management of a firm called the U.S. makes me think you need to read some Hayek.
The rest of your reply is hard to decipher. Since you did not address my questions directly, I will not answer yours. You do appear to come to this discussion from the perspective of a statist. This is understandable, since you presumably reside in Europe. Being American, I approach things from a perspective of liberty.
Interesting post. Sorry for not addressing al questions. It's not that I'm using not enough words, I believe. Can't adress everything at once. Especially when people nitpick on each individual sentence. as mentioned, I'm sorry but I'm just not a native english speaker. and not canadian, either btw
Why is the (un)productivity of government relevant? The only argument I've seen is that government is unproductive, and there shouldn't get any money. What kind of nonsense is that? That's just like saying government should not exist. You should try to read Montesquieu, perhaps. I'll try to go for Hayek. What would the business case of having a government look like? Well, for starters, the business case should be based on the comparison of a situation between having no government and having a government. I think the notion of how productive a government actually is, would be a different notion than the one you currently seem to hold.
Also, I hope you're not implying that a distinction between having a statist or libertarian (?) view implies one is better than the other (under all circumstances, at any point in time...etc). That's a pretty static view on what liberty would be, and I do believe pragmatism is as much of a fundamental part of the American society as liberty. Or that might just be my personal delusion.
Sorry for the extra final post. It's getting late on this side of the pond, so I should be really going. (But it's such a friggin interesting discussion...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Now you're getting into unique absurdities.
Am I? How so?
I think the broader political discussion should be left out of the thread.
Needless to say I don't agree with your opinion of government. Doesn't mean we can't be friends though
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Now you're getting into unique absurdities.
Not a unique absurdity, rather a repeated truth. It is on the bottom of his every post, if you cared to pay attention.
Good point. A not-so-unique repeated absurdity then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
I think the broader political discussion should be left out of the thread.
Fair enough. I suppose. Problem is that these issues are all interconnected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Needless to say I don't agree with your opinion of government.
Understood. Many don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Doesn't mean we can't be friends though
That all depends. Do you advocate using the government to steal from me and make me do (or not do) things I wouldn't (would) otherwise do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregord
I agree it is a silly analogy. It was Luykx that brought it up. I was extending his analogy to demonstrate its falsity.
The whole point on the (un)productivity of government was brought into our discussion by you, btw. Ironical, isn't it? See post #98
Before that I can't see where I brought the government is a firm point, btw. I'd assumed the (un)productivity point to be about firms. That's my mistake perhaps. But you happily dug that hole with me by pointing towards Hayek, so I think it's a bit of an hypocrisy to start pointing fingers in my direction now others have argued it's just a ridiculous argument. Pretty weak as well, imo.
Depends what things you would or would not otherwise do, and why the government is impelled to force you to do or not them I suppose.
Though I tend not to advocate either way with regards the US government. Not my business what your criminal gang does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Depends what things you would or would not otherwise do, and why the government is impelled to force you to do or not them I suppose.
Fair enough. Let's just say that if is anything beyond prevention of left, fraud, assault, murder, etc. Then you'd be overstepping the bounds of our "friendship."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luykx
The whole point on the (un)productivity of government was brought into our discussion by you, btw. Ironical, isn't it? See post #98
Before that I can't see where I brought the government is a firm point, btw. I'd assumed the (un)productivity point to be about firms. That's my mistake perhaps. But you happily dug that hole with me by pointing towards Hayek, so I think it's a bit of an hypocrisy to start pointing fingers in my direction now others have argued it's just a ridiculous argument. Pretty weak as well, imo.
The comment about the unproductivity of government was intended as a truism. You brought up the concept of government qua management. I interpreted Crowley's quibble to be about this. If you think this is pedantic, you might be right. I do not apologize for being misinterpreted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregord
The comment about the unproductivity of government was intended as a truism. You brought up the concept of government qua management. I interpreted Crowley's quibble to be about this. If you think this is pedantic, you might be right. I do not apologize for being misinterpreted.
LOL
You got that right! And pedantic is pedantic in and of itself too. So the internal consistency is both waterproof and an understatement.
You deserve a star!
Also, truisms don't grant you freedom from their implications. As far as I'm concerned, whether or not the "government is productive" point is a truism, the idea is that talking about government in terms of productivity implies business-like, or rather, "being an (un)productive part of the economy"-like notion of what a government is or does.
The act of making a point like that implies some sort of equivalence between firms and governments, at some level. No matter how others might argue the analogy doesn't make any sense. The economy needs governments and laws as much as it needs firms, imo. Where else would Apple go to with their set of precious patents? To a certain extent the business model on making money on producing (patented) technology is built upon the existence of governments and the set of laws they produce (or should produce). Perhaps firms should invest in governments to produce better laws by paying taxes, instead of lobbying? (Of course, the counter argument would be "but every other firm lobbies"...as if that is a good excuse)
You write and comprehend English quite well. Which EU country are you from?