The left see a fixed pie when convenient and an endless pie when convenient, but they never seem to notice that it is demand for reciprocity and the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, and advocacy along short, medium, and long term time horizons that continuously produces an ever expanding pie.
Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy
-
The Fixed, Equilibrial, and Unlimited Pies 😉
The left see a fixed pie when convenient and an endless pie when convenient, but they never seem to notice that it is demand for reciprocity and the division of perception, cognition, knowledge, and advocacy along short, medium, and long term time horizons that continuously produces an ever expanding pie.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. UM. ELIMINATING TAX HAVENS IS BAD POLICY. Is
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
UM. ELIMINATING TAX HAVENS IS BAD POLICY.
Is eliminating corporate tax havens such a good idea?
Juan Carlos Suárez Serrato says maybe not:
—“We show that eliminating firmsâ access to tax havens has unintended consequences for economic growth. We analyze a policy change that limited profit shifting for US multinationals, and show that the reform raised the effective cost of investing in the US. Exposed firms respond by reducing global investment and shifting investment abroad â which lowered their domestic investment by 38% â and by reducing domestic employment by 1.0 million jobs. We then show that the costs of eliminating tax havens are persistent and geographically concentrated, as more exposed local labor markets experience declines in employment and income growth for over 15 years. We discuss implications of these results for other efforts to limit profit shifting, including new taxes on intangible income in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.”—
via Tyler Cowen
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-25 12:45:59 UTC
-
UM. ELIMINATING TAX HAVENS IS BAD POLICY. Is eliminating corporate tax havens su
UM. ELIMINATING TAX HAVENS IS BAD POLICY.
Is eliminating corporate tax havens such a good idea?
Juan Carlos Suárez Serrato says maybe not:
—“We show that eliminating firms’ access to tax havens has unintended consequences for economic growth. We analyze a policy change that limited profit shifting for US multinationals, and show that the reform raised the effective cost of investing in the US. Exposed firms respond by reducing global investment and shifting investment abroad — which lowered their domestic investment by 38% — and by reducing domestic employment by 1.0 million jobs. We then show that the costs of eliminating tax havens are persistent and geographically concentrated, as more exposed local labor markets experience declines in employment and income growth for over 15 years. We discuss implications of these results for other efforts to limit profit shifting, including new taxes on intangible income in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.”—
via Tyler Cowen
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-25 08:45:00 UTC
-
Centralization
Centralization is achieved by suppression of local parasitism and rents, and levying taxation instead, that is used for that suppression. This drastically reduces transaction costs and associated risks, which in turn produces volume and velocity. The problem of taxation arises when it is not used for the purpose of suppressing local parasitism and rents and instead simply centralizes parasitism and rents.
-
Capitalism vs Socialism and Public Private Partnership
Capitalism is impossible since no group can survive competition with other groups as other than parasites without producing commons open to free riding or defection. The question is only the method for producing those commons while suppressing free riding and defection. Communism is impossible since no group can survive competition with other groups as other than predators and parasites, by producing commons to the exclusion of private property, because all are incentivized only to free ride (do as little as possible) and defect (engage in black markets and corruption). State (corporation) private (shareholder) partnerships have the best record in history, when the state provides roles of insurer and banker in exchange for returns to the commons. At present the only reason the USA is not competing successfully in the world market is a failure to produce public-private partnerships. The reason we cannot do so is because the left can seek rents on these public private partnerships both politically, economically, and socially by the use of syndicalism (unions etc). Unions are only necessary because the courts do not provide universal standing in matters of the commons – ever since the british began violating the ancestral common law of reciprocity and universal standing.
-
Capitalism vs Socialism and Public Private Partnership
Capitalism is impossible since no group can survive competition with other groups as other than parasites without producing commons open to free riding or defection. The question is only the method for producing those commons while suppressing free riding and defection. Communism is impossible since no group can survive competition with other groups as other than predators and parasites, by producing commons to the exclusion of private property, because all are incentivized only to free ride (do as little as possible) and defect (engage in black markets and corruption). State (corporation) private (shareholder) partnerships have the best record in history, when the state provides roles of insurer and banker in exchange for returns to the commons. At present the only reason the USA is not competing successfully in the world market is a failure to produce public-private partnerships. The reason we cannot do so is because the left can seek rents on these public private partnerships both politically, economically, and socially by the use of syndicalism (unions etc). Unions are only necessary because the courts do not provide universal standing in matters of the commons – ever since the british began violating the ancestral common law of reciprocity and universal standing.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM AND PUBLIC PRIVATE PA
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM AND PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
Capitalism is impossible since no group can survive competition with other groups as other than parasites without producing commons open to free riding or defection. The question is only the method for producing those commons while suppressing free riding and defection.
Communism is impossible since no group can survive competition with other groups as other than predators and parasites, by producing commons to the exclusion of private property, because all are incentivized only to free ride (do as little as possible) and defect (engage in black markets and corruption).
State (corporation) private (shareholder) partnerships have the best record in history, when the state provides roles of insurer and banker in exchange for returns to the commons.
At present the only reason the USA is not competing successfully in the world market is a failure to produce public-private partnerships.
The reason we cannot do so is because the left can seek rents on these public private partnerships both politically, economically, and socially by the use of syndicalism (unions etc). Unions are only necessary because the courts do not provide universal standing in matters of the commons – ever since the british began violating the ancestral common law of reciprocity and universal standing.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-23 20:42:36 UTC
-
CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM AND PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP Capitalism is impossible
CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM AND PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
Capitalism is impossible since no group can survive competition with other groups as other than parasites without producing commons open to free riding or defection. The question is only the method for producing those commons while suppressing free riding and defection.
Communism is impossible since no group can survive competition with other groups as other than predators and parasites, by producing commons to the exclusion of private property, because all are incentivized only to free ride (do as little as possible) and defect (engage in black markets and corruption).
State (corporation) private (shareholder) partnerships have the best record in history, when the state provides roles of insurer and banker in exchange for returns to the commons.
At present the only reason the USA is not competing successfully in the world market is a failure to produce public-private partnerships.
The reason we cannot do so is because the left can seek rents on these public private partnerships both politically, economically, and socially by the use of syndicalism (unions etc). Unions are only necessary because the courts do not provide universal standing in matters of the commons – ever since the british began violating the ancestral common law of reciprocity and universal standing.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-23 16:42:00 UTC
-
Groups Differ in The Degree of Suppression of Externalization of Costs
—“Why should I be barred from contributing to the growth of another who would in turn contribute to my own growth?”— Bennard Ebanks When doing so imposes costs upon others by externality, who tolerate your presence only under the condition that you do not do so. Groups differ in the degree of suppression of externalization of costs. High trust high performance, homogenous polities are intolerant – and because they are, they have the choice. Low trust, heterogeneous, low performing are tolerant. Because they have no other choice.