Opinion and bias are not synonyms, especially when you're talking about journalism.
No. Everybody pays taxes. Not everybody gets special treatment from the government.
Preferential corporate taxation turns productive businesses into deferred income savings accounts for the super rich. It forces corporations to hoard cash they don't know how to spend because the money is literally worth more in their hands than it is in the shareholders'. Corporations should be taxed as though they were a single filer, and dividends should be tax-free.
There will always be
some necessary regulation preventing corporations from maximizing their profits, and corporations will always resort to some sort of maneuvering to try to get out from that law. Child labor, slavery, murder - there are very few crimes US corporations haven't committed, they just do it overseas where they are able to make it legal. (I assume I don't have to cite specific examples, but I can if you want.)
It's important to keep in mind how these monstrous corporations happen.
IP companies, like film studios and software companies, are very nearly natural monopolies. All it takes to tip them over are patents and copyrights, which I think we can all agree are socially necessary under our current capitalist system. If you want to prevent these kinds of companies from becoming monopolies, you need to find some other way of fairly compensating inventors and creators for their efforts.
Sometimes corporations are also given a regional monopoly as a reward for making some essential service available to everybody in that region, like utilities or healthcare. Microeconomics tells us that a competitive free market will only provide services to a profit-maximizing number of people. In the case of infrastructure, that means only the people who live in the highest density cities will receive service. If you want to prevent these kinds of companies from becoming monopolies, while still ensuring that people are able to buy the essential services they need to run their own businesses and households, you need to find some other way of distributing them.
And some corporations are just ****. Some will do illegal or abusive things to drive their competitors out of the market. Things like using their wealth or social connections to deprive competitors of vital suppliers or distributors, using their stake in a media company to smear their competitors, filing nuisance lawsuits that smaller companies can't afford to defend against. Standard Oil did this kind of thing. So did Microsoft. If you want to prevent these kinds of corporations from becoming monopolies, you need to make this kind of behavior illegal, and you need to enforce those laws. The US has those laws but effectively doesn't enforce them anymore
1 2 3.
However, even if you put all of that aside, Capitalism (the system, the model, the Marxist term, however you treat it) is based upon, and predicts, the ultimate accumulation and concentration of finite wealth. That means, when capitalism is left to its own devices, eventually all competitive markets cease to exist, and a handful of enormously powerful entities - people, or corporations - control functionally
all productive capital in the world. This happens on its own! Only external (non-capitalist, or extra-economic) influences have the power to avert this doom.
Pedagogy is a skill and effectively performing that skill requires specific knowledge and training.
I agree.
Professional economists are highly sought in finance and business. They are skilled data scientists and statisticians in their own right, with special expertise on developing predictive or explanatory models of human behavior. Even
Valve Software, a video game company, is snapping up economists.
"Climate science" is a uselessly vague term for this discussion, but people who work in the many field
s that contribute to climate science can find practical employment in everything from meteorology to geophysical surveying. This work is so important for so many industries that "climate scientists" are among the most highly demanded professionals -
especially by the oil and gas industries.
If you're going to make fun of a field for being useless, the least you could do is learn enough about it to be right.
Domain experts make worse teachers because they tend to teach from abstraction, and do not remember or appreciate the cognitive challenges faced by beginners. Overcoming this tendency requires conscientiousness and pedagogical skill.
In finance you have the opposite problem, where the SEC is largely staffed by experts drawn from the financial sector, who do favors for their old bosses. Perhaps the real question you ought to be asking is who benefits from punitive transportation laws enforced by unskilled workers.
hahahaha, no.
A portion of it will be economic rent, due to land scarcity. Another portion will be economic rent due to limited competition. Most of it, I suspect, is capital consumption and financial profit. TL;DR: Contract rent isn't the same thing as economic rent.
YouTube isn't free, and other video hosts followed similar pricing models and failed. "Free" isn't what's hard to compete against - anticompetitive business deals are.
Why shouldn't've Rockefeller been allowed to pay train companies to stop carrying his competitors' oil?
Of course it is. I've read papers on this: house prices are totally explained by down payment size and amortization period. Conservative governments in the US, Canada, Australia, and UK all deregulated down payments and amortization periods at varying times and have seen their own housing bubbles inflate at corresponding times. It's not a coincidence.
Let me give you an example. Say interest rates are 0%, and the median starter homebuyer has $10,000 in savings.
If you are required to have a 100% down payment (mortgages are illegal), then the median starter home price will be $10,000, because that will be the most anybody can pay.
If you are required to have a 50% down payment, then the median price will be $20,000.
If you are required to have a 20% down payment, then the median price will be $50,000.
If you are required to have a 5% down payment, then the median price will be $200,000.
If you are required to have a 0% down payment, then the median price will be infinite. (And you probably live in Canada or Australia.)
It's like magic!
A lot of people blame speculation for the price increases, but speculation is also debt-fueled. Even foreign buyers (i.e. rich Chinese) are getting mortgages to finance their purchases, because they can't smuggle enough money out of China to buy houses outright.
People who have studied economics are already aware that "macro is micro". Economic rents and monopolies are a microeconomics topic, including everything about it ^ upthread.
What I think you mean to say is that you personally have a hard time thinking about effects in aggregate, where it's not immediately obvious to you how many small infractions can add up to a major negative effect over the whole world. This doesn't just include economics, it includes things like pollution and climate change.
Overqualified.
I almost understand this post, but not quite?