Eric X. Li: A tale of two political systems

[Zsari]

The employees of the corporation, and the shareholders of the corporation, will continue to gain. True, not all of these will be citizens of the corporation's home country, but the majority of profit will belong to compatriots. I can see how from a Chinese perspective the state and the citizens are inseparable, but in the US, the citizens can still prosper while the corrupt state fails.

Naa, as corporation shift their focus offshore, tax are paid in the state where profits are made, and foreign investors are taking bigger share of these corporations as wealth is transferred. Like I said, the home country will benefit less and less with the deepening of globlization. Yes there are citizen that can prosper in a failed state, but the majority will not, instead suffer they will. China has been through that many times, and knows the suffering very well.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Naa, as corporation shift their focus offshore, tax are paid in the state where profits are made, and foreign investors are taking bigger share of these corporations as wealth is transferred. Like I said, the home country will benefit less and less with the deepening of globlization. Yes there are citizen that can prosper in a failed state, but the majority will not, instead suffer they will. China has been through that many times, and knows the suffering very well.

It doesn't matter if taxes are collected elsewhere, because corporations should not be subject to taxes at all; as far as I'm concerned, corporations should pay zero tax. The workers will draw an income and benefit from the corporation's activities, however. If you're saying that the corporation essentially offshores itself and thus the workers do not benefit, then the shareholders will still benefit. If neither the shareholders nor workers benefit, or the benefiting shareholders and workers are not citizens, then that corporation doesn't "belong" to that country anymore, anyway. In other words, I still don't see a problem here. The interest of corporations are aligned with the stakeholders of the corporations, and thus are not in conflict with the voting citizens. To be sure, those citizens focused on theft of earned wealth from other citizens (as most of the left-wing are) will lose out, but they never had a right to that wealth to begin with.

As far as citizens suffering from a corrupt government, that is because they are paying taxes and getting no value--the solution is to reduce the size of government and have value delivered at the closest level possible to the citizen (e.g. the city), and have the tax collected by that same unit. If the state itself fails, as in a place like Somalia, then no ideological alignment (capitalist, state capitalist, socialist, communist, democratic, authoritarian) will matter, because there is no state instrument to implement it.

 

[Zsari]

It doesn't matter if taxes are collected elsewhere, because corporations should not be subject to taxes at all; as far as I'm concerned, corporations should pay zero tax. The workers will draw an income and benefit from the corporation's activities, however. If you're saying that the corporation essentially offshores itself and thus the workers do not benefit, then the shareholders will still benefit. If neither the shareholders nor workers benefit, or the benefiting shareholders and workers are not citizens, then that corporation doesn't "belong" to that country anymore, anyway. In other words, I still don't see a problem here. The interest of corporations are aligned with the stakeholders of the corporations, and thus are not in conflict with the voting citizens. To be sure, those citizens focused on theft of earned wealth from other citizens (as most of the left-wing are) will lose out, but they never had a right to that wealth to begin with.

They may not "belong" to the country anymore, but they still do play in the country's political process, a major role at that.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

It doesn't matter if taxes are collected elsewhere, because corporations should not be subject to taxes at all; as far as I'm concerned, corporations should pay zero tax. The workers will draw an income and benefit from the corporation's activities, however. If you're saying that the corporation essentially offshores itself and thus the workers do not benefit, then the shareholders will still benefit. If neither the shareholders nor workers benefit, or the benefiting shareholders and workers are not citizens, then that corporation doesn't "belong" to that country anymore, anyway. In other words, I still don't see a problem here. The interest of corporations are aligned with the stakeholders of the corporations, and thus are not in conflict with the voting citizens. To be sure, those citizens focused on theft of earned wealth from other citizens (as most of the left-wing are) will lose out, but they never had a right to that wealth to begin with.

As far as citizens suffering from a corrupt government, that is because they are paying taxes and getting no value--the solution is to reduce the size of government and have value delivered at the closest level possible to the citizen (e.g. the city), and have the tax collected by that same unit. If the state itself fails, as in a place like Somalia, then no ideological alignment (capitalist, state capitalist, socialist, communist, democratic, authoritarian) will matter, because there is no state instrument to implement it.

Anyone who dislikes the US should wish that to happen to the US as what you just wrote.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

They may not "belong" to the country anymore, but they still do play in the country's political process, a major role at that.

Even assuming you're correct, and they play a major role in US politics, what's wrong with that? They benefit US citizens, either as employees, or shareholders, or both.

Anyone who dislikes the US should wish that to happen to the US as what you just wrote.

Please elaborate.

 

[Zsari]

Even assuming you're correct, and they play a major role in US politics, what's wrong with that? They benefit US citizens, either as employees, or shareholders, or both.

Since we are talking about coporations that no longer "belong" to their home country, majority of their employees & shareholder will not longer be US citizens and their corporate interest would mainly be in their offshore sectors, as such what's good for the corporation then could very well be detrimental to the interest of the US.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Since we are talking about coporations that no longer "belong" to their home country, majority of their employees & shareholder will not longer be US citizens and their corporate interest would mainly be in their offshore sectors, as such what's good for the corporation then could very well be detrimental to the interest of the US.

Understood. This would be a serious concern if the companies could simply buy politicians, but as long as the politicians must in turn entice (bribe) voters in order to get elected, the system will force alignment of interests. When those interests are not aligned (e.g. when the voters demand environmental protection, and corporations want unlimited license to pollute), it will not matter if it's a foreign corporation or a domestic corporation that is providing campaign funds--the voters will not allow it.

This is the only strength of the democratic system. When this self-correcting mechanism fails, democracy will fail. (Majoritarianism will also cause, or is causing, the failure of democracy, but that's a topic for another time).

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Please elaborate.

There is not much to elaborate, just read what you wrote again and think about the people who cannot participate in the process. They are the not the 1%, not even the 10%.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

There is not much to elaborate, just read what you wrote again and think about the people who cannot participate in the process. They are the not the 1%, not even the 10%.

Since we're coming at this from different philosophies, I would need you to be more explicit in explaining what the problem is. If 1% benefit from something and 99% do not, then 1% should be prevented from benefiting? What is your specific objection?

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Since we're coming at this from different philosophies, I would need you to be more explicit in explaining what the problem is. If 1% benefit from something and 99% do not, then 1% should be prevented from benefiting? What is your specific objection?

Indeed, we are coming from two different philosophies. We in Europe didn't start the revolution to remove feudalism just to have it replaced with a new corporate feudalism. Our philosophy is that all citizens have the intrinsic right to be an active participant in all basic matters such as good healthcare, education, food, housing and functioning infrastructure that we are willing to pay (high) taxes for. We want that even weak members of our society, whether through birth or man-made misfortune, should not be excluded to these basic rights. Our constitution states that ownership of property also entails social responsibility. We have nothing against a functioning free market, but this must not be at the expsense of the community spirit.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Indeed, we are coming from two different philosophies. We in Europe didn't start the revolution to remove feudalism just to have it replaced with a new corporate feudalism. Our philosophy is that all citizens have the intrinsic right to be an active participant in all basic matters such as good healthcare, education, food, housing and functioning infrastructure that we are willing to pay (high) taxes for. We want that even weak members of our society, whether through birth or man-made misfortune, should not be excluded to these basic rights. Our constitution states that ownership of property also entails social responsibility. We have nothing against a functioning free market, but this must not be at the expsense of the community spirit.

I certainly sympathize, and wish we, as a society, could provide for all to the highest degree. Unfortunately, it's not possible to maintain such ideals in the real world. Sweden was strangled by its social programs and had to undertake a significant welfare reform program in the 1990s. Germany, as you are no doubt aware, had to enact its own Hartz IV program a decade ago to boost economic competitiveness--and Germany's success since then speaks for itself.

I support some form of social safety net, although nothing resembling the vast and deep social compact that is present in Europe. Still, the balance of responsibility for an individual's welfare must lie with the individual, not society. Society's job is to provide the opportunity for that individual to provide for himself, through a strong economy. A strong economy, at least in the US, is derived from a minimalist state. European countries may be able to support a larger government because they are not mired in the failed multi-cultural experiment to the same degree as the US.

Government Size and Growth: A Survey and Interpretation of the Evidence

 

[Götterdämmerung]

I certainly sympathize, and wish we, as a society, could provide for all to the highest degree. Unfortunately, it's not possible to maintain such ideals in the real world. Sweden was strangled by its social programs and had to undertake a significant welfare reform program in the 1990s. Germany, as you are no doubt aware, had to enact its own Hartz IV program a decade ago to boost economic competitiveness--and Germany's success since then speaks for itself.

I support some form of social safety net, although nothing resembling the vast and deep social compact that is present in Europe. Still, the balance of responsibility for an individual's welfare must lie with the individual, not society. Society's job is to provide the opportunity for that individual to provide for himself, through a strong economy. A strong economy, at least in the US, is derived from a minimalist state. European countries may be able to support a larger government because they are not mired in the failed multi-cultural experiment to the same degree as the US.

Government Size and Growth: A Survey and Interpretation of the Evidence

We had to enact Hartz IV exactly because we have left our ideal. Germany in the last 20 years has become richer than ever and yet, poverty has risen. If we could give such a high stadard of social welfare in the past with a smaller GDP, it begs the question why it's not possible anymore although our economy has grown so much!

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

We had to enact Hartz IV exactly because we have left our ideal. Germany in the last 20 years has become richer than ever and yet, poverty has risen. If we could give such a high stadard of social welfare in the past with a smaller GDP, it begs the question why it's not possible anymore although our economy has grown so much!

Germany enacted Hartz IV because it was forced to, not because of some secret conspiracy by greedy capitalists. The German welfare state, as it stood, was no longer sustainable.

When productivity increases, output increases without having to increase inputs. Germany has grown wealthier because it is more productive after its reforms, and may not need as many workers as before. This is one of the contributors to the rising poverty in the developed world. Offshoring to Asia, increased automation, efficiencies realized over the internet, etc. are all causing displacement in society. It's an intractable problem, akin to the social displacement caused when a society moves from the agrarian stage to the industrialization stage. Wealth transfer will not only fail to solve this issue, but it will drag down the most productive elements of society, thus slowing down the rate of economic growth overall--this doesn't help anyone.

It's trite to say that education is the answer, because it's really retraining of skills that society requires. When countries discover how to make the unproductive segments into productive contributors, we will be able to move beyond the social displacement that we are seeing today. Until then, poverty will continue to be with us.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Germany enacted Hartz IV because it was forced to, not because of some secret conspiracy by greedy capitalists. The German welfare state, as it stood, was no longer sustainable.

When productivity increases, output increases without having to increase inputs. Germany has grown wealthier because it is more productive after its reforms, and may not need as many workers as before. This is one of the contributors to the rising poverty in the developed world. Offshoring to Asia, increased automation, efficiencies realized over the internet, etc. are all causing displacement in society. It's an intractable problem, akin to the social displacement caused when a society moves from the agrarian stage to the industrialization stage. Wealth transfer will not only fail to solve this issue, but it will drag down the most productive elements of society, thus slowing down the rate of economic growth overall--this doesn't help anyone.

It's trite to say that education is the answer, because it's really retraining of skills that society requires. When countries discover how to make the unproductive segments into productive contributors, we will be able to move beyond the social displacement that we are seeing today. Until then, poverty will continue to be with us.

Sorry, I don't have that much time to go through this with you. Let me tell you that I know a tad more about what happened here since the end of the Cold War than you can ever imagine.

And as I said, you can have all of that in the US for all I care, but spare us with that.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Sorry, I don't have that much time to go through this with you. Let me tell you that I know a tad more about what happened here since the end of the Cold War than you can ever imagine.

And as I said, you can have all of that in the US for all I care, but spare us with that.

I look forward to your elaboration of what happened in Germany since the end of the Cold War and its bearing on our discussion. East Germany is not relevant to our discussion here, since its problems are of a structural nature, and are far more entrenched due to its unfortunate history.