Eh? That's only true if the government sits on the money and never spends it in any way.



I'm gonna guess that the people in charge of Apple's cash probably know a bit more about potential investment opportunities than you do. Effectively they are financing well secured debt. It's not exciting, but that money has to come from somewhere. I very much doubt that luxury consumer electronics can absorb that much investment usefully, and they are too large to be really innovative at this point.

The trouble with corporate taxes is that it quickly becomes a race to the bottom. There's always a country that can undercut you to get the business. And for some reason, the US has decided to tax foreign profits, which no one else does, because penalizing investment of foreign cash makes no sense at all. You're better off taxing on individual capital gains, because while it may be no big deal to set up factories in Indonesia, the rich don't want to actually live there.

Yes you will have some losses due to crowding out, but predominately government is a monopsony for most goods so that effect is probably more limited than people generally think. There isn't much of a private market for stealth aircraft, for example, and by extension there isn't much of a labor market for stealth aircraft engineers outside of government contractors.

I'm not saying Apple is behaving irrationally, I'm saying they are stupid. Stock buybacks, dividends, backstopping their own financial division, those are all rational but destructive in a long term macroeconomic sense. Low inflation, low labor market growth, low consumer demand, low interest rates, low equity price growth on high p/e all mean there is no direct incentive to put the money toward anything productive. It's a good time to be a market maker because nobody else is doing anything interesting, but there's a big downside if you fail, so risk averse companies are not going to move first.

Governments should be working to make all of that money flow again. I am not just communicating my own opinion when I say this, even former Chicagoan monetarists have suggested things like bill expiration as a stick to keep idle liquidity down. IMO a better way is to print a ****load of money and spread it around. But taxing foreign profits is another way of going about it.

Okay, it sounds like you acknowledge the race to the bottom is a problem, so why is your proposed solution to win that race? Surely a better solution would be to tighten tax residency laws so corporate tax residency is based on where their business is actually conducted instead of where it is reported?

BS, all countries do this. Corporations are taxed based on residence which is a matter of fact, and every civilized nation has agreed to tax treaties which clearly establish rules for corporate residence and the fair division of tax (paid first in the tax jurisdiction where the profit was made, then topped up in the jurisdiction where the corporation is resident unless the tax rate is lower).

The main difference is that the US corporate income tax is relatively high, and that they actually (contrary to your claim) do very little to claw back profits reported by foreign subsidiaries. So you get the situation we have today, where all of the business operations of a company are conducted in the United States, but all of the profits are reported by a foreign subsidiary, and exactly enough money trickles back to cover operational expenses and nothing else.

u guises disappoont moi

[Unable to find specified attachment]

i'm a neoliberal

I also say whoa quite liberally

you're a neoliberace and you know it

I love the internet. It's a great place to write up a few paragraphs in which I never once express my own opinion, and then get straw-manned and assaulted with ad hominem attacks as if I had, in a manner that actually *confirms* the point that I was making in the first place. Woo!

Nobody cares.

You can be sure that I don't.

Clearly.

Saying that progressive support for Syrian refugees is based at all in a feeling of Iraq War culpability is the same sort of toxic prima facie argument that sought to discredit popular support of the Civil Rights Movement as a kind of white guilt. It is wholly an odious thing to claim.

If my worst offence is that I assumed you were intellectually honest enough to post your opinion, and that I responded in kind, I'm not too ashamed.

Actually, the part where you made arguments based on assumptions that were completely wrong was actually pretty funny. I cared about that part, inasmuch as it amused me.

That might be an odious thing to say, but you blatantly misread me if you think that's what I said. What I was in fact describing is a line of argument similar to what can be found in this New York Times op-ed written by Roger Cohen, comparing America/Germany on the crisis:



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/22/opinion/germany-refugee-nation.html

This line of argument doesn't discredit those who think the US should take in more refugees by claiming they're driven by ulterior motives (e.g., a desire to unburden themselves of their "feeling of Iraq War culpability", or something else). It's a sincere criticism of the US for failing to make good on its word and do more.

I didn't suggest that you held that belief. What you said is that it is a common perspective of the left, which it totally ****ing isn't.

The author of the article you just quoted is using the Iraq War to shame regressives to action. It doesn't mean all progressives frame suffering in terms of a trade deficit.

19+168+3+2+6 plus the 11 too many to count abortion murders equals what, 210? That does exceed the number of Islamic related murders I have found that total 139 or so since March 2002. Damn, I thought there were more somewhere.

No I didn't.

But hey, whatever lets you avoid having to defend an indefensible comment.

It's not their fault you republicans aren't as good at it.

Funny, I decided against making that tasteless joke.

lol.

This:



Doesn't imply that that it's a common view. In fact, it contrasts with the thing that I do identify as a common view.

I'm cracking up that you're lecturing me on "intellectual honesty" when you won't even read what i'm writing. This is quite amusing.

I've carefully read everything you posted. I'm willing to accept the possibility that you meant something different, but it doesn't change what you actually wrote.

What you wrote is that it is a stronger view, and since you didn't specify a change of subject, a reader can only possibly assume you are still writing about the popular opinions of progressives. Here is how you communicate what you claim to have meant:

"a contrasting view is"
"others think"
"a less popular opinion is"
"rightists argue that"

Look, thanks for the notes. But, again, you're wrong.

When I said in that paragraph that the opinion was a "stronger view", I meant that it was a stronger view -- that is, it is a progressive view, yet, like the argument in Roger Cohen's op-ed, it is also an opinion more strongly stated than the more "common view" that preceded it.

I did not say that it's something "rightists argue", nor did I intend to say it. So you are surely misreading me, because, as even you acknowledge, nobody could reasonably assume that it is what I meant to say. In your own words: "a reader can only possibly assume you are still writing about the popular opinions of progressives".

You're not going to get anywhere if you claim that "it doesn't change what wrote", and then rewrite what I wrote to mean the exact opposite.

Wait. So it's a common progressive view, but stronger, but not actually a stronger view, just stated more strongly (whatever that means), and you provided it to contrast the progressive viewpoint, but it's not in contrast to what progressives believe because it's actually what progressives believe, and you don't sincerely think it's what progressives believe and therefore you shouldn't be judged for thinking it's what progressives believe, even though you originally provided it as an example of what progressives believe.

Huh?

Do you want to take a mulligan on this one?

Am I really the only one here who thinks he was saying: "Progressives think we are responsible for creating Daesh and that is why they think we should take refugees"?

I've already given an example of one so-called "progressive" who believes some attenuated form of that statement, but I've never stated that it was something all on the left believe. You can look above to see what I said.



It's not as confusing as you're making it out to be. There are diverse views on the left. One view is one thing that some on the left believe, the second was another thing that others on the left believe.

Saying that progressive support for Syrian refugees is based at all in a feeling of Iraq War culpability is the same sort of toxic prima facie argument that sought to discredit popular support of the Civil Rights Movement as a kind of white guilt. It is wholly an odious thing to claim.

This was fun. No hard feelings, right?

Of course! No hard feelings.

I think I won though. :p

Looks like Guccifer 2.0 hacked the Clinton Foundation and is releasing documents. Claimed it was easy. Makes me wonder then if they truly are just one person? A state actor? Think he's the person who gave stuff to Wikileaks?

CrowdStrike claimed it was Russia who did "the hack", but given reports show the DNC was hacked multiple times over the years I don't know. Over/under on what's happening?

Guccifer 2.0 is donald trump's 10 year old son.

There's absolutely nothing in the DNC leaks that has any actual value (aside from (somewhat) the only obvious-in-hindsight-trivia-nugget is confirming that Sanders didn't even have a chance in his own party), especially to Russia.

If Russia/China/Peter Molyneux/whoever has got hold of any information of actual value - say, related to US military secrets - the US isn't going to go all "hey lol we gut hacked!" unless the info actually shows up on the Internet or something. And it most likely wouldn't, since of course the owner of such hacked data would want to keep tactical information like that to themselves.

But enough about that. Time for the classics:

Damn, you burgerboys are nuts!

Did anyone bother with the VP debate? I ended up downloading it from CNN Debates the next day and listening to most of it. Meh. I think the town hall is the next debate this weekend. I'm not a big fan of town hall debates but I do remember this classic moment:


And did we ever find out about the Dingle-Norwood bill?

I hardly know anything about either VP pick.

Wikileaks released emails today which include partial transcripts of Hillary's closed door speeches. Basically exactly what youd expect her to say behind closed doors.

My favorite: "You need to have a public position and a private position on policy." Basically sums up why nobody trusts her. Also admits she wants maximum free borders and trade, meaning more NAFTA and implicity the big three trade deals.

This is who will be running the country in 100 days.

No... Trump must win... I will have my 4-year Christmas!

I WILL HAVE MY 8-YEAR CHRISTMAS!

Well, we've learned some interesting new techniques for how to introduce yourself to women.

So it's officially unofficial. Donald Trump will be debating the next President of the United States tomorrow.

Can't wait to see what Alec Baldwin does with this ****.

JUST GRAB THE PUSSY

Of course in the abstract we learned nothing new, but getting the concrete evidence does change things. We know now by admission of her own staff that it's best for her to keep working Americans "in the dark", that she blatantly supports free trade and open borders (think H1B), that she believes investment banking is good for the economy.

She's economically a Republican without the racism and sexism. Well, a bit of racism but that's because she just wants to destabilize brown people countries so she can control them, which is I guess better than genocide. She also doesn't hate black people too so there's that. She also directly admitted she has nothing in common with middle class Americans and as a corollary we know she's lying when she says she is about small business.

I have a feeling she will be similar to Obama but more militarily aggressive and incompetent.

And yeah, Trump has lost the election. Republicans are jumping ship to figure out what to do in 2020. Which is a good thing. I can only hope the party dissolves and a new more progressive party forms, making Democrats the new right-wing party.

Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal, what, are y'all surprised? The Democratic Party is a Conservative party with urban populism, they are not a valid counterpoint to the Republican Party and its rural populism. You don't really get a choice.

By the way, H1-B is the literal opposite of open borders. It is a tightly rationed lottery program for foreign specialists (the fact that it is currently abused does not change the purpose of the program). It is also dual intent, which means you must apply for permission to apply for permanent residence (a step up from most other visas, which don't even allow that).

The US has absolutely nothing that even resembles an open immigration path.

Edit: unless you are rich or a business executive. EB-1 and 5.