So long, Dirk
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html
The British government has brought down its long-awaited Digital
Economy Bill, and it's perfectly useless and terrible. It consists
almost entirely of penalties for people who do things that upset the
entertainment industry (including the "three-strikes" rule that allows
your entire family to be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in
your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or
evidence or trial),...
£50,000 fines if someone in your house is accused of filesharing. A
duty on ISPs to spy on all their customers in case they find something
that would help the record or film industry sue them (ISPs who refuse
to cooperate can be fined £250,000). ...
Peter Mandelson, the unelected Business Secretary, would have to power
to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes.
And he says he's planning to appoint private militias financed by
rightsholder groups who will have the power to kick you off the
internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files
or the blocking of websites, and Mandelson will have the power to
invent any penalty, including jail time, for any transgression he
deems you are guilty of. And of course, Mandelson's successor in the
next government would also have this power.
wis...@yahoo.com
Mandelson, so Jewish.
ted
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> I hope you enjoyed your internet while you had it...
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html
>
> The British government has brought down its long-awaited Digital
> Economy Bill, and it's perfectly useless and terrible. It consists
> almost entirely of penalties for people who do things that upset the
> entertainment industry (including the "three-strikes" rule that allows
> your entire family to be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in
> your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or
> evidence or trial),...
No, it means that your ISP *might* cut you off and force you to go to
another ISP.
> �50,000 fines if someone in your house is accused of filesharing. A
> duty on ISPs to spy on all their customers in case they find something
> that would help the record or film industry sue them (ISPs who refuse
> to cooperate can be fined �250,000). ...
I prefer it to your system:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html
"A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of
illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each
-- a total of $1.9 million -- for 24 songs."
> Peter Mandelson, the unelected Business Secretary, would have to power
> to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes.
> And he says he's planning to appoint private militias financed by
> rightsholder groups who will have the power to kick you off the
> internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files
> or the blocking of websites, and Mandelson will have the power to
> invent any penalty, including jail time, for any transgression he
> deems you are guilty of. And of course, Mandelson's successor in the
> next government would also have this power.
Dead duck.
FFF
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
You forgot "homosexual" and all round creep.
Doug Freyburger
>
> The British government has brought down its long-awaited Digital
> Economy Bill, and it's perfectly useless and terrible. It consists
> almost entirely of penalties for people who do things that upset the
> entertainment industry (including the "three-strikes" rule that allows
> your entire family to be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in
> your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or
> evidence or trial),...
Currently in the cinemas is the movie "Pirate Radio" about a ship that
broadcast unlicensed rock music to Britain in the 1960s. Hilarious and
light as mindless enterainment movies go.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Radio Caroline.
I used to listen to that, as well as 208 Luxembourg.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
> > £50,000 fines if someone in your house is accused of filesharing. A
> > duty on ISPs to spy on all their customers in case they find something
> > that would help the record or film industry sue them (ISPs who refuse
> > to cooperate can be fined £250,000). ...
>
> I prefer it to your system:http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/ind...
>
> "A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of
> illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each
> -- a total of $1.9 million -- for 24 songs."
I'm not sure there's a whole hell of a lot of difference between
$80,000 and £50,000.
robert bowman
> Currently in the cinemas is the movie "Pirate Radio" about a ship that
> broadcast unlicensed rock music to Britain in the 1960s. Hilarious and
> light as mindless enterainment movies go.
You could get more drama out of Allan Weiner:
http://www.biographicon.com/wiki/hbulp
The whole M/V Fury deal with Brother Stair was a long drawn out train wreck,
much to the amusement of the SWLs.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Well, there are two differences.
The �50,000 would be the maximum fine against an ISP that did not
cooperate with the new law.
The $80,000 was the fine imposed on one ordinary person for downloading
one song illegally.
FFFF
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 11:06 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> £50,000 fines if someone in your house is accused of filesharing. A
> >>> duty on ISPs to spy on all their customers in case they find something
> >>> that would help the record or film industry sue them (ISPs who refuse
> >>> to cooperate can be fined £250,000). ...
> >> I prefer it to your system:http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/ind...
>
> >> "A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of
> >> illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each
> >> -- a total of $1.9 million -- for 24 songs."
>
> > I'm not sure there's a whole hell of a lot of difference between
> > $80,000 and £50,000.
>
> Well, there are two differences.
> The £50,000 would be the maximum fine against an ISP that did not
> cooperate with the new law.
The article seems to indicate that the £50,000 fines are levied
agaisnt the house where the law was broken. The ISPs who do not co-
operate get fined £250,000
> The $80,000 was the fine imposed on one ordinary person for downloading
> one song illegally.
I guess it would've been cheaper to just *buy* the song legally, then.
Theft has a downside. Who knew?
root
And voted most likely to become a "Bond Villain" by his university
class ;)
;)
golwg
Matthew
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Known in the media here as "The Prince of Darkness", he made it.
Forced to resign twice previously due to unethical, if not actually
corrupt behavior. He knows where the bodies are buried.
The only one in NuLab worse than him is that fascist prick Jack Straw.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
> The only one in NuLab worse than him is that fascist prick Jack Straw.
It's good to see that you are recognizing that fascism is basically a
left-wing ideology.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
It's ugliest defining feature is authoritarianism and dictatorship.
Plenty of right wing fascism in the old S American client states of the US.
robert bowman
> It's ugliest defining feature is authoritarianism and dictatorship.
> Plenty of right wing fascism in the old S American client states of the
> US.
The defining feature of 'fascism' is "what I don't like." Lukacs states
that Stalin popularized the term because, as a national socialist, he
needed something to call the people that already had registered the brand
name.
At least in this country, it was popularized by the left over, aging
Communists intellectuals in the '60s, and applied by their students
indiscriminately.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 10:04 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> The only one in NuLab worse than him is that fascist prick Jack Straw.
>
> > It's good to see that you are recognizing that fascism is basically a
> > left-wing ideology.
>
> It's ugliest defining feature is authoritarianism and dictatorship.
So, again, left-wing.
> Plenty of right wing fascism in the old S American client states of the US.
What made them "right wing?" Were they small governments with minimal
taxation and laximum personal liberty?
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Probably the death squads had something to do with it.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 2:00 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>> On Nov 26, 10:04 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> The only one in NuLab worse than him is that fascist prick Jack Straw.
> >>> It's good to see that you are recognizing that fascism is basically a
> >>> left-wing ideology.
> >> It's ugliest defining feature is authoritarianism and dictatorship.
>
> > So, again, left-wing.
>
> >> Plenty of right wing fascism in the old S American client states of the US.
>
> > What made them "right wing?" Were they small governments with minimal
> > taxation and laximum personal liberty?
>
> Probably the death squads had something to do with it.
Ok, once again you're describing "left wing."
You keep defining fascism as a leftist movement, but keep *calling* it
a rightist movement. What's up with that?
Doug Freyburger
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>> > It's good to see that you are recognizing that fascism is basically a
>> > left-wing ideology.
>
>> It's ugliest defining feature is authoritarianism and dictatorship.
>
> So, again, left-wing.
Nope. I go with left/right being collectivist/ownship-ist. That's a
different dimension than authoritarian/laisez-faire. Calling fascism
left-wing is like calling my left hand tall.
Is there an implied stance on either of these dimensions in the ancient
lore? I don't think there is. The ancients spanned as recently as the
settlement of Iceland by folks dodging a king grown powerful through
countries with oppressive kings so they span the
authoritarian/laisez-faire dimension. The closest the ancients could
get to collectivist was heavy taxation so we have tales like Robin Hood
who does just that sort of wealth redistribution.
wis...@yahoo.com
Only a military coup can save the UK. That or the chaos
resulting from some military attack or a natural catastropic
event. Then a rebuild, tens of thousands sent back to
their homelands.
ted
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >> > It's good to see that you are recognizing that fascism is basically a
> >> > left-wing ideology.
>
> >> It's ugliest defining feature is authoritarianism and dictatorship.
>
> > So, again, left-wing.
>
> Nope. I go with left/right being collectivist/ownship-ist.
Well, since in fascism the government pretty much owns everythign
*including* the people, that means that fascism = collectivism =
leftism. Sure, under fascism there is the pretense of private
propertry ownership and corporate independence... but its pretense
only. Just as the German industrialists thought they could buy Hitler
in the early thirties and wound up his vassals... well, insert your
own current banking/automotive/healthcare government takeover analogy
HERE.
> Is there an implied stance on either of these dimensions in the ancient
> lore? I don't think there is.
It's pointed out that:
A) it's ok to be rich
B) it's not ok to steal other peoples stuff
C) even the most messed-up people can hold down a damned job and be
useful
These are pretty much the antithesis of collectivism.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Rightist (in this sense) = capitalism + murder
robert bowman
> Rightist (in this sense) = capitalism + murder
The British Empire?
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
In some respects, yes.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
> Rightist (in this sense) = capitalism + murder
That's an odd definition.
How about "collectivism + murder?" Would that not then equal
"Leftist?" If so, that's fascism right there, so we're back to fascism
being a left-wing ideology.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Fascism is not collectivist in the sense that the state owns everything.
Private property, and personal wealth, are still allowed.
The only difference is that individual and companies are not allowed to
act against the interests of the state, and at the highest levels the
owners of businesses and the rulers of the state are often
interchangeable. As in China, Japan etc, it is state directed
capitalism. In other words, you won't see China exporting jobs and tech
to the US etc in order for their companies to make more money. The CCP
would not allow it.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>> On Nov 30, 7:02 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Rightist (in this sense) = capitalism + murder
>>
>> That's an odd definition.
>>
>> How about "collectivism + murder?" Would that not then equal
>> "Leftist?" If so, that's fascism right there, so we're back to fascism
>> being a left-wing ideology.
>
> Fascism is not collectivist in the sense that the state owns everything.
> Private property, and personal wealth, are still allowed.
> The only difference is that individual and companies are not allowed to
> act against the interests of the state, and at the highest levels the
> owners of businesses and the rulers of the state are often
> interchangeable. As in China, Japan etc, it is state directed
> capitalism. In other words, you won't see China exporting jobs and tech
> to the US etc in order for their companies to make more money. The CCP
> would not allow it.
>
capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third way. They
claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither
laissez-faire capitalism nor communism.[15] They favoured corporatism
and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and
separate social classes was beneficial (contrary to the views of
socialists). Fascists argued that the state had a role in mediating
relations between these classes (contrary to the views of liberal
capitalists).
An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme, meaning
an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and
effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general,
apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies
were based on private property and private initiative, but these were
contingent upon service to the state.
Fascism operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their
aim was to promote superior individuals and weed out the weak. In terms
of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful
businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the
working class. Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism
makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State
pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and
individual. Loss is public and social." Fascist governments encouraged
the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large
businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity
should serve the national interest.
In most cases, fascists discouraged or banned foreign trade; fascists
believed that too much international trade would make the national
economy dependent on international capital, and therefore vulnerable to
international economic sanctions. Economic self-sufficiency, known as
autarky, was a major goal of most fascist governments.[24]
Fascism was highly militaristic, and as such, fascists often
significantly increased military spending.
--
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 7:02 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Rightist (in this sense) = capitalism + murder
>
> > That's an odd definition.
>
> > How about "collectivism + murder?" Would that not then equal
> > "Leftist?" If so, that's fascism right there, so we're back to fascism
> > being a left-wing ideology.
>
> Fascism is not collectivist in the sense that the state owns everything.
> Private property, and personal wealth, are still allowed.
So on the continuum, you have freedom and capitalism on the far right,
totalitarianism and collectivism on the far left. Fascism falls in
between, but the right to own private property was only allowed until
the government wanted your stuff, so it wasn't *much* of a right.
This, coupled with the colelctivism inheirent in fascism, puts the
ideology well to the left of center.
> The only difference is that individual and companies are not allowed to
> act against the interests of the state...
With "interests of the state" interpretted extremely broadly... and by
the government, not the marketplace.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
> The fascists opposed both international socialism and liberal
> capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third way.
And Stalin and Trotsky both thought the other was doing Communism
wrong. Doesn;t change the fact that both were commies.
They
> claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither
> laissez-faire capitalism nor communism.[15] They favoured corporatism
> and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and
> separate social classes was beneficial (contrary to the views of
> socialists).
Socialists may *say* such things, but they never *live* such things.
The higher up int he government you are, the more goodies you get.
Look at health care in Cuba. If you are in good with the Party, you
get good healthcare. If you are a regualr slob, you get shitcare. But
hey, at least it's free...
> An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme, meaning
> an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and
> effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general,
> apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies
> were based on private property and private initiative, but these were
> contingent upon service to the state.
All *screamingly* left-wing positions.
>
> Fascism operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their
> aim was to promote superior individuals and weed out the weak. In terms
> of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful
> businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the
> working class. Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism
> makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State
> pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and
> individual. Loss is public and social."
Ah, yes... Stimulus Package. But don't ever claim that Obama is a
fascist. That would be *wrong.*
Fascist governments encouraged
> the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large
> businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity
> should serve the national interest.
Socialism.
> In most cases, fascists discouraged or banned foreign trade; fascists
> believed that too much international trade would make the national
> economy dependent on international capital, and therefore vulnerable to
> international economic sanctions. Economic self-sufficiency, known as
> autarky, was a major goal of most fascist governments.[24]
Much as is the case with the screamingly left-wing anti-globalism
movement.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Many when your job gets outsourced to China you might reconsider the
unconditional desirability of "the market". Will you be happy when the
lawyer tells you that you own the IP of the gun pointing at your head?
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 9:44 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>> On Nov 30, 7:02 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Rightist (in this sense) = capitalism + murder
> >>> That's an odd definition.
> >>> How about "collectivism + murder?" Would that not then equal
> >>> "Leftist?" If so, that's fascism right there, so we're back to fascism
> >>> being a left-wing ideology.
> >> Fascism is not collectivist in the sense that the state owns everything.
> >> Private property, and personal wealth, are still allowed.
>
> > So on the continuum, you have freedom and capitalism on the far right,
> > totalitarianism and collectivism on the far left. Fascism falls in
> > between, but the right to own private property was only allowed until
> > the government wanted your stuff, so it wasn't *much* of a right.
> > This, coupled with the colelctivism inheirent in fascism, puts the
> > ideology well to the left of center.
>
> >> The only difference is that individual and companies are not allowed to
> >> act against the interests of the state...
>
> > With "interests of the state" interpretted extremely broadly... and by
> > the government, not the marketplace.
>
That'd be a neat trick, being self-underemployed.
> you might reconsider the
> unconditional desirability of "the market".
Actually, "the market" would do a wonderful job of reducing job
outsourcing. Imagine what would happen to the American job market (or
the English, for that matter) if the government got rid of business
and corporate taxes. The reason why jobs are outsourced is because
when all factors are included, it's cheaper. If you got government
taxation out of the way, even paying extortionist American union wages
woudl be cheaper than paying Indonesian slave labor. IIRC, Ireland was
an economic basketcase until the Irish government dropped corporate
tax rates to "only" 25% or so. Ireland became cheap enough that many
businesses moved there, and then the Irish economy boomed. Imagine if
they'd drop it to 10%. Or 0%.
So, once again the collectivist approach fucks things up where "the
market" would have been vastly superior.
robert bowman
> Fascism is not collectivist in the sense that the state owns everything.
> Private property, and personal wealth, are still allowed.
> The only difference is that individual and companies are not allowed to
> act against the interests of the state, and at the highest levels the
> owners of businesses and the rulers of the state are often
> interchangeable. As in China, Japan etc, it is state directed
> capitalism. In other words, you won't see China exporting jobs and tech
> to the US etc in order for their companies to make more money. The CCP
> would not allow it.
Sounds pretty good to me.
robert bowman
> Fascism was highly militaristic, and as such, fascists often
> significantly increased military spending.
>
They might not have been quite as militaristic if they knew the countries
promoting liberal democracy and capitalism would rest until any alternative
was destroyed.
robert bowman
> Ah, yes... Stimulus Package. But don't ever claim that Obama is a
> fascist. That would be *wrong.*
Yeah, most of the real fascists actually made the stimulus packages work.
robert bowman
> IIRC, Ireland was
> an economic basketcase until the Irish government dropped corporate
> tax rates to "only" 25% or so. Ireland became cheap enough that many
> businesses moved there, and then the Irish economy boomed. Imagine if
> they'd drop it to 10%. Or 0%.
Just as a heads up: Ireland is an economic basket case again. The market
moved the jobs to Eastern Europe where the peasants would work for even
less.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
Then Ireland should up their game and drop their taxes again.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Eastern Europe is poorer, hence...
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
I'm not sure if it is still true, but it certainly was up to the 90s
that no foreigner could buy major shares in a Japanese multinational.
Those companies that underpinned the wealth of Japan were to remain
Japanese.
robert bowman
> I'm not sure if it is still true, but it certainly was up to the 90s
> that no foreigner could buy major shares in a Japanese multinational.
> Those companies that underpinned the wealth of Japan were to remain
> Japanese.
The US believes in the free market; selling Winchester to FN or half of NYC
to Arabs is just fine. There is no market requirement for a company to
consider the welfare of the country in which it operates if it impacts
profits. National security is safe in the hands of the lowest bidder, even
if they happen to be an erstwhile enemy.
Whoring after dollars is the true purpose of man; it isn't the heroic that
fare to Valhalla, it's the wealthy.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if it is still true, but it certainly was up to the 90s
> > that no foreigner could buy major shares in a Japanese multinational.
> > Those companies that underpinned the wealth of Japan were to remain
> > Japanese.
>
> The US believes in the free market; selling Winchester to FN or half of NYC
> to Arabs is just fine.
And what's wrong with that? it's not liekt he Arabs are goign to pack
up NYC and take it home with them. hell, now that Dubai's economy is
collapsing, you can probably buy the Amrican properties they bought
for big money, for small money.
There is no market requirement for a company to
> consider the welfare of the country in which it operates if it impacts
> profits.
Since the *government* has no such requirement, why should companies?
If you truly want jobs at home, look to *why* it's cheaper for
companies to outsource. If you're honest, you'll recognize that the
multiple layers of sales, income and corporate taxes can drive up the
cost of manufacturing in the US by several times.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
> robert bowman wrote:
> > scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >> IIRC, Ireland was
> >> an economic basketcase until the Irish government dropped corporate
> >> tax rates to "only" 25% or so. Ireland became cheap enough that many
> >> businesses moved there, and then the Irish economy boomed. Imagine if
> >> they'd drop it to 10%. Or 0%.
>
> > Just as a heads up: Ireland is an economic basket case again. The market
> > moved the jobs to Eastern Europe where the peasants would work for even
> > less.
>
> Eire boomed because of EU grants to poor regions.
> Eastern Europe is poorer, hence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_tax_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
"Over the past decade, Ireland’s corporate taxation system has been a
source of controversy with some of Ireland’s fellow-member states in
the European Union. The French government has over the past decade,
most particularly during the premiership of Lionel Jospin,
consistently condemned and criticised the Irish corporation tax
system. This criticism is based on the belief that the low corporation
tax rates enabled Ireland to compete unfairly in attracting
international investment. However, despite the French critique of the
Irish corporate tax system, the Irish example has won many followers,
with many ‘emerging’ and Eastern European economies following the
Irish example."
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> On Dec 1, 2:44 am, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> robert bowman wrote:
>>> scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>> IIRC, Ireland was
>>>> an economic basketcase until the Irish government dropped corporate
>>>> tax rates to "only" 25% or so. Ireland became cheap enough that many
>>>> businesses moved there, and then the Irish economy boomed. Imagine if
>>>> they'd drop it to 10%. Or 0%.
>>> Just as a heads up: Ireland is an economic basket case again. The market
>>> moved the jobs to Eastern Europe where the peasants would work for even
>>> less.
>> Eire boomed because of EU grants to poor regions.
>> Eastern Europe is poorer, hence...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_tax_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
>
> source of controversy with some of Ireland�s fellow-member states in
> the European Union. The French government has over the past decade,
> most particularly during the premiership of Lionel Jospin,
> consistently condemned and criticised the Irish corporation tax
> system. This criticism is based on the belief that the low corporation
> tax rates enabled Ireland to compete unfairly in attracting
> international investment. However, despite the French critique of the
> Irish corporate tax system, the Irish example has won many followers,
> Irish example."
>
And they managed to do it because EU grants more than covered the cost
of the lost revenue. Now it's the turn of Eastern Europe.
--
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Not only manufacturing, but R&D
China graduates (IIRC) are 3m engineers per year and they earn about one
fifth of a US engineer.
Doug Freyburger
And so Singapore has not conducted any military invasion campaigns.
This does not make Singapore "Disneyland with the Death Penalty" not
fascist and it does not make them not militaristic. It does make them
not express territorial ambitions through invasion. So they do not
bring the furry of the liberal democracies down upon them.
I think it's a pretty good strategy - They are trying to out last and
out thrive the liberal democracies. China is taking a similar route for
the moment so Singapore is winning the marathon by having a very large
child nation of sorts.
Whether China remains not invasive remains to be seen. The existance of
nuclear weapons in the world has kept the level of wars lower than they
were before. It's possible that China will avoid invading other nations
until their one child per couple policy starves their labor force and
makes them incapable of it. Possible and optimistic, sigh.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
> And they managed to do it because EU grants more than covered the cost
> of the lost revenue.
What "lost revenue?" If you cut tax rates and as a result businesses
flock to your shores...e ven though you're taking a smaller
percentage, you're taking a smaller percentage of a larger pile of
money. Such tactics almost invariably wind up increasing your revenue.
So, is the goal of taxation to provide revenue for the government, or
to punish success?
robert bowman
> There is no market requirement for a company to
>> consider the welfare of the country in which it operates if it impacts
>> profits.
>
> Since the government has no such requirement, why should companies?
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America."
Yeah, I know. The Congresscritters have no more read that paragraph than
they have the 2000 page boondoggle they're trying to pass.