What are Liberal's position on higher corporate taxes causing business to move overseas?

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by kazenatsu, Feb 22, 2018.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    4,862
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That was my point.

    Comparative advantage hasn't benefitted them and has even harmed their economy.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2018
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    32,789
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You didn't have a point. Comparative advantage, by definition, destroys zero sum games. Trade has not reflected comparative advantage. It has reflected corporate corruption engineered by our multinationals
     
    alexa likes this.
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    4,862
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would disagree with you, that is an oversimplified theory.

    Presuming from many of your other posts, you agree that inequality can lead to less economic activity. Well, what effect do you think trade can have on inequality (I mean within a country) ?
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2018
  4. Liberty Monkey

    Liberty Monkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2018
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    1,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Print more money.
     
  5. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    1,446
    Likes Received:
    603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are less than 50% of the number of companies on our stock market today, than there were before the Bushwhackers collapse of our economy in 2007-8.
     
    alexa likes this.
  6. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    32,789
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Comparative advantage is indeed simple. It's only a reference to opportunity costs. There are indeed complexities, notably learning eonomies. However, it is obvious that co.parative advantage destroys any notion of a zero sum game (making your comments vacuous)
     
  7. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    4,862
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But the question is opportunity costs for who? The one seeking to engage in the cross-national trade isn't necessarily the one who will be affected by it.
    Your simple-minded comparative advantage paradigm assumes two parties. But to try to apply that, in entirety, to two big economies could involve the fallacy of composition. You're not really looking at the larger macro aspect of it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2018
  8. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    32,789
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You've already tried this red herring. Comparative advantage destroys the zero sum game needed by the fascists. Redistribution of gains is easily ensured through liberal or social democracy.

    Prattle, nothing more. What does Heckscher Ohlin do? Combine factor proportions within a general equilibrium context. Your position is as follows: "Comparative advantage isn't convenient so I'm going to pretend that it doesn't hold". That's pishpoor. You haven't even tried to exaggerate the Leontief Paradox
     
  9. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    4,862
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except those "fascists" believe taxation has a disincentive effect on economic productivity, i.e. there's an inherent cost built into your version of comparative advantage; it's not a zero sum game.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2018 at 12:51 AM
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    32,789
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong again. Look up the theory of the second best and its impact on tax analysis.
     
  11. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    6,700
    Likes Received:
    4,390
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Liberals, or in this case, globalists were looking for a lever to force corporations to move into the undeveloped world, to induce development. It was the strategy all along. And because corporations are unlikely to also be patriotic, it has worked.
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    32,789
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're not making sense. The ultimate globalists are right wing, not liberal. Now its true that liberal economists supported free trade, but they also supported regulations to stop extreme inequalities from that trade.
     
  13. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    6,700
    Likes Received:
    4,390
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More likely, you're simply myopic. I vote for my version. I fear you aren't informed enough to have the conversation.
     
  14. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    4,862
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet you vehemently support globalism.
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    32,789
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope. I support free trade from the rich north, coupled with a trade organisation focused on delivering dynamic comparative advantage for the poor south
     

Share This Page