"Free" Trade

[Montmorency]

If a single body were to collect all corporate tax, OWG or no, would it make sense to distribute the money to governments on the basis of absolute direct sales by large corporations within each state-unit...

But then you have to get around conversion rates...

OWG it is, then!

[HopAlongBunny]

OWG it is, then!

It isn't a bad idea but it does suffer from certain problems of uniting diverse claims and hostility from multiple sources.
The history One Big Union might serve as a model for the rise and fall of OWG ;)

Small snapshot of present practices needing attention:

https://youtu.be/ZBe0zXV5M2Q

[HopAlongBunny]

Continuing to beat the dead horse
Another aspect of not collecting taxes, and at the same time maintaining wages and bargaining environments beneficial to business is the increasing cost to social programs.
So governments are asked to hand over authority and oversight and subsidize the recipients into the bargain.
Any studies of the "all in" cost of corporate welfare?

http://america.aljazeera.com/article...-families.html

[Montmorency]

Check this out:

If you zoom out and consider both states and corporate businesses as large organizations, and then as complex adaptive systems, you come to realize that their primary objectives and activities are self-perpetuation and growth.

That is the real essence of complex adaptive systems, including the human brain and the very universe.

What are the consequences of this approach? Well, it forces (pro-)corporatists into a very awkward position. After all, providing goods in an efficient manner is ultimately tangential to both states and corporations alike. If that is so, then:

How could one argue that corporations are inherently better-suited to the efficient provision and oversight of most economic activity and services than governments are?

The most salient differences between the two are just:

1. There are more (large) corporations than governments (as of now).
2. Corporations have very few even-nominal obligations towards the bulk of the human population.

[Papewaio]

The alignment is better if you consider shareholders citizens in their corporations.

Often country citizens devalue other countries citizens. With corporations they are their explicitly first and foremost to make a profit for their shareholders not the corporations wage slaves or unaware buyers of the corporations goods and services. Corporations generally are highly competive and /or hostile to other corporations in their niche unless a steady state can be formed. However most governments frown on cabals.

[HopAlongBunny]

Doesn't this speak against free trade?
If we agree that corporations are primarily concerned with the profit motive; predatory and at times parasitic; to allow it unfettered access to society is literally to put a wolf in with the sheep.
So if regulation is needed to protect society, what regulation preserves the benefits of this hostile insertion allowing both parties to thrive?

[Fisherking]

Well, Monty you did identify the problem. State Capitalism, aka Crony Capitalism, aka Mercantilism.

The Free Trade agreements are not free trade, just more cronyism. It favours some and excludes others. It is just international cronyism.

Hoppy, Businesses are concerned with profit. Therefore they would be extremely sensitive to public opinion to maintain that profit, if they were not being protected from completion by the government. We think of government regulation as a good thing protecting us from all those foul businessmen, when actually it is just protecting the businesses and not the people. Predatory business practices will result in people not buying from the business if it harms customers.

Real free trade would be a boon to the public but a bane to all those huge protected corporations that we all love to hate. Many of those corporations only sell to governments and are subsidised by them. The biggest antitrust problem is government protected businesses and enforced monopolies.

[Kadagar_AV]

Monty

I will re-invent my first post here, as it hasn't been answered.

A) Exactly what does schizodoxy mean? Heck, I teach my 11 year old students to not use words they can not themselves explain... I teach my 12 year olds that they should never try to brag with words, as they will only come off as stupid when they meet someone intelligent...

B) You really do live in a bubble, don't you? The way you articulate yourself is, well, stupid to say the least. This is, I say AGAIN, a international forum. The mere fact that you write the way you do, especially when you choose to make words up to sound "clever", is enough reason to write you off as a serious participant in an argument or debate.

What you write most of the time comes off as something an Asperger teen would write while living with his parents, in a very secure environment.

[HopAlongBunny]

Quick quibble.
Free trade/managed trade/autarky/communism/democracy are not bound to each other in any way.
It is conceivable for a communist country to be a free trader and a democracy to be an autarky; the political system does not determine the economic stance of a given regime, though historically, it has had considerable influence.

[Montmorency]

Kad, come back when you have moved beyond the level of 12-year-old kids.

I could write a book for a popular audience of high-school graduates and I wouldn't have to dumb it down anywhere near as much as I would just to cater to you specifically.