Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The EU takes half our exports... I think they are more than 4.5B.
[doublepost=1461479106][/doublepost]

Why would people repave stuff that didn't need it? That makes literally no sense. I don't really believe the US government is that corrupt.

The thing is there are things that make sense to do privately and there are things that make sense to do publicly. Healthcare is in the latter category.



So you think China's recent GDP growth is a conspiracy theory? Really? 9/11 truthers are more believable than that.

GDP growth is easy when you go from a third-world country with communist system to a more liberal system.
Nearly every asian nation has been able to go from third world to developed world, just as China has done.

The question is not whether China's GDP has been growing; the question is whether GDP numbers from the Chinese government is legitimate.

If you don't understand that Chinese government is capable of false propaganda, a lot of people, including the Chinese people, disagree with you.
Here are some articles which cast doubt on recent GDP numbers from the Chinese government.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...suspicions-a-very-predictable-pattern-emerges
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...data-accuracy-as-7-expansion-raises-questions
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/07/chinese-economy
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb446e10-6057-11e5-97e9-7f0bf5e7177b.html#axzz46j6JCm8Q
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pe...as-analysts-assess-gdp-growth-data-2016-01-19
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-05/china-s-li-doesn-t-believe-his-own-numbers

But, what do I know, I'm sure you, the UK guy, are the expert on Chinese politics.
And what do these people know, it's only their job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 997440
I agree with most of your post, except the 70% bit and the disparaging of libertarianism.
I don't speak for all libertarians, but I don't think libertarians should be confused with anarchists.
Libertarians are mostly just classical liberals, but since that term has been taken away by the left, they are using the suffix "-arian" to distinguish themselves.
America is still one of the most free countries in the world today in terms of individual liberty, which is why the best and the brightest and the most wealthy (especially from China) want to live in the US.
"Libertarians" stole the term libertarian from anarchists up until the fifties in the U.S. and still in most of the world libertarian is a synonym for anarchist (from the French word libertaire i.e. an anarchist).So don't be going on about taking terms away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe
GDP growth is easy when you go from a third-world country with communist system to a more liberal system.
Nearly every asian nation has been able to go from third world to developed world, just as China has done.

I think China has been rather more successful than pretty much anyone but the Asian Tigers (who are much smaller).

The question is not whether China's GDP has been growing; the question is whether GDP numbers from the Chinese government is legitimate.

Maybe there's an overestimate by a few percentage points, but that's likely been an issue for a long time.

Here are some articles which cast doubt on recent GDP numbers from the Chinese government.

There has been extra doubt in the past year, that doesn't mean the economy hasn't doubled in size since 2008.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe
I'd agree with him if governments weren't so wasteful with the money.

As if corporations building fancy headquarters with unnecessary specifications such as multi-million dollar specially built lunch tables, are not.

And, usually, government section leaders are not paid a huge multiplier of what their workers are paid. Unlike a corporation where the CEO makes tens of millions of dollars, while their employees make far less.

However, the good thing is, whether it's government or corporate overspending, it usually pays for a lot of jobs.
 
Last edited:
If Apple broke the law, then Apple should be punished in such a way that no corporation will ever dream of engaging in that kind of behavior. But so far, no government has been able to prove that Apple broke the law. Everything Apple did was perfectly within the bounds of the law.

I'm willing to bet that those of you on this forum criticizing Apple for using legal tools to minimize its tax burden would do exactly what Apple is doing if you were in charge of Apple. Blame Congress. They're the ones who write tax laws.

I find it comical when members of Congress criticize Apple for tax avoidance when Congress took lobbyists' money to pass those same laws. And on the subject of lobbying, it is important to note that Apple and the tech industry as a whole spends comparatively less than other industries. The combined amount of lobbying dollars by the tech industry range in millions or at most tens of millions. This figure is far below the billions of dollars that industries like pharmaceuticals spend.

The bottom line is Apple and other tech companies are simply working with a system that Congress has given them. If people aren't happy with the amount of tax Apple pays, then their anger should be directed at Congress.
 
If Apple broke the law, then Apple should be punished in such a way that no corporation will ever dream of engaging in that kind of behavior. But so far, no government has been able to prove that Apple broke the law. Everything Apple did was perfectly within the bounds of the law.

I'm willing to bet that those of you on this forum criticizing Apple for using legal tools to minimize its tax burden would do exactly what Apple is doing if you were in charge of Apple. Blame Congress. They're the ones who write tax laws.

I find it comical when members of Congress criticize Apple for tax avoidance when Congress took lobbyists' money to pass those same laws. And on the subject of lobbying, it is important to note that Apple and the tech industry as a whole spends comparatively less than other industries. The combined amount of lobbying dollars by the tech industry range in millions or at most tens of millions. This figure is far below the billions of dollars that industries like pharmaceuticals spend.

The bottom line is Apple and other tech companies are simply working with a system that Congress has given them. If people aren't happy with the amount of tax Apple pays, then their anger should be directed at Congress.

Criticising companies into line has worked reasonably well actually. And governments are starting to tighten up the rules as well.
 
What a way to miss the point. Do not pass Go or collect £200!
What they are doing is not in keeping with the image of whiter than white that Tim likes to portray. Guess what, Tims employees and Apple themselves get to take full advantage of the public services that Apple does not contribute properly to. Which means I pay more and/or get less. Just like you.


Says the guy who uses what, a British pounds symbol for currency! Apple is a American company. Might want to keep your opinion to yourself when it comes to how OUR government spends OUR money.

I wouldn't be so bold to talk about how your taxes go to pay for your royalties extravagant lifestyles while not truly being part of your political process, etc.
 
The bottom line is Apple and other tech companies are simply working with a system that Congress has given them. If people aren't happy with the amount of tax Apple pays, then their anger should be directed at Congress.

Oh yes, poor Google, Apple, and other companies.

They were forced into finding, creating and exploiting incredibly obscure and complicated tax loopholes.

They had no choice. None at all. :rolleyes:
 
I love Woz, but there is one little flaw with his idea. What would a dysfunctional government do with all this corporate money? If it can't handle the money of the people right, it won't do any better with the Apple treasure.

Agreed. However, that conservative philosophy runs counter to Apple's outspoken liberal values. I would do what they are doing but they are hypocrites.
 
Nonsense, and not true at all? That's quite a naive thing to say I'm afraid.

Nevertheless, there is no legal obligation for a corporation to pay as little taxes as possible, nor, for that matter, to make as much profit as it can.

--

Side comment:

Many companies used to take care of their employees first and foremost; this goal kept entire towns alive. Now, corporate leaders are into squeezing out every last penny by downsizing, while making tons of money themselves.
 
Nevertheless, there is no legal obligation for a corporation to pay as little taxes as possible, nor, for that matter, to make as much profit as it can.

Nobody has said there was a 'legal' obligation to pay as little taxes as possible. I think you misread a comment and took issue with something that nobody claimed.
 
No. It wouldn't and here's proof:

#138

Here is your graph with a graph of corporate profits laid on top. Notice how as profits skyrocket, money velocity decreases. If you want more money velocity, it appears that you should push for better wages, rather than more profits. But, I'm sure you have an explanation to counter.
[doublepost=1461513287][/doublepost]
Nobody has said there was a 'legal' obligation to pay as little taxes as possible. I think you misread a comment and took issue with something that nobody claimed.

It's been said on here many times before:

Quit your whining - it's embarrassing - seriously.
Apple Philosophy of no choice
Why "Stick-it" is proof that iTunes Movies will work
Subtopic (Drugs) split from - [Pope rejects condom use in Africa] (not sure this one is serious)
Wouldn't it be funny...if all these iPhone leaks weren't for real after all?

That's but a few...
 

Attachments

  • profits v spending.png
    profits v spending.png
    565 KB · Views: 187
  • Like
Reactions: keysofanxiety

Oh dear, people really don't know what the word 'legal' means. Thanks for taking the time to highlight this.

I guess nobody said it in this thread, though. :D
 
Why would people repave stuff that didn't need it? That makes literally no sense. I don't really believe the US government is that corrupt.

The road I take to get home goes directly over the interstate. Every day and night as I did my commute I could see the paving operation as it worked its way down the road. This road was less than 20 years old and nary a single pothole marred its surface. The airport, well I work there. I'm all over the property all morning long. The signs were very evident, proudly proclaiming it was Americorps, putting Americans back to work. When all was said and done, the only thing I could tell was different was patterned tile in the entranceway.
There was zero need for the work, and it was happening all over the state.

The thing is there are things that make sense to do privately and there are things that make sense to do publicly. Healthcare is in the latter category.

Why does it make sense to do healthcare publicly? I don't pursue my own healthcare the way you might, or anyone else reading this post. I refuse to go to doctors for anything other than acute care. The few times I've been injured at work I was beset with all sorts of therapies I wouldn't consider on my own, and these therapies ranged from useless (actively waiting for something to clear up on its own) to dangerous (massive overprescription of various drugs). And that was the result of a state-protected collusion between the insurer and employer. I can't imagine how bad it would be if the government would get in there as thoroughly as they could with a fully socialized system.

I want you to consider the danger of socialized medicine in a realistic light. By way of illustration, consider the political system. Love or hate Bernie Sanders, his followers are being disenfranchised wholesale. Despite having a very sizable and vocal group on his side, he keeps getting pushed back further and further. I don't agree with the guy, but I don't hate him. The people who believe what he says should have that much control over their own lives, but they don't. Likewise with Trump. Love him or hate him, his people are on the verge of getting disenfranchised by a loaded convention filled with oligarchs eager to hang on to their power. Said people keep screaming about loyalty to GOP values but these same people sell out their values to hang on to power. Why? Because they know better than us what to do with our lives and our country. They just know it. People can be trusted with the vote, unless they support someone outside the accepted narrative, in which case they're obviously just mistaken and misinformed and need to be held in check for their own benefit.

Now think how that is going to work with fully socialized medicine. What if a person prefers homeopathic medicine. It had fairly widespread support in the USA prior to the advent of the AMA, but now its widely ridiculed. What if that is your preferred method of treatment? What if you prefer aromatherapy? What if you prefer acupuncture? What if you like ear-candling, chanting, LSD, or hanging upside down during full moons?

As I'm typing this I know there are people who are ready to type a response to this post based on the fact that I mentioned homeopathy, something that many people feel has been firmly discredited. Their blood will be rushing in their ears as they figure "this guy just discredited himself by bringing up this quackery, and its time to shut him down". Or something like that. Now imagine that 51 percent of those kind of people disagree with the other 49 percent who want their own choice of therapy. The majority wins. And since the majority decides how things go, and the bigger the group of people the easier it is to influence their direction, it will be easy to step on peoples' choice of therapy.

Think it can't happen? Think again. Americans are forced to go through the federal insurance database now in one way or another. The next big health care debate isn't going to face the fraud or waste of that system, its going to focus on alternative therapies and how much a drain they are on the economy. Providers will be forced out of business or forced into "respectable" alliances with MDs to keep their doors open. Costs will rise, insurers will refuse to reimburse alternatives, and those people will be done. And the whole time, SJWs will be talking about how its time people wake up to science and abandon unproven therapies.

I'll take my personal choice in my own well-being over that of the state, any day of the year. FWIW, its not homeopathy.
 
I think China has been rather more successful than pretty much anyone but the Asian Tigers (who are much smaller).



Maybe there's an overestimate by a few percentage points, but that's likely been an issue for a long time.



There has been extra doubt in the past year, that doesn't mean the economy hasn't doubled in size since 2008.

Just to be clear, you're saying that Chinese system of governance is good for the economy, right?
You do understand that the Chinese system is an authoritarian system, with unelected officials, with all powers centralized?

Once again, have you ever lived in China?
What is your background on China?
Are you sure it's a better place to live in than other Asian countries?
Have you lived in other Asian countries that have higher GDP per capita than China?
 
Just to be clear, you're saying that Chinese system of governance is good for the economy, right?
You do understand that the Chinese system is an authoritarian system, with unelected officials, with all powers centralized?

Who said anything about preferring China over the US?

So China copied what worked so well for us back when (albeit with their own little totalitarian spin on it), and now we're screaming about how evil it is? Why? They're aping our style.
 
As if corporations building fancy headquarters with unnecessary specifications such as multi-million dollar specially built lunch tables, are not.

And, usually, government section leaders are not paid a huge multiplier of what their workers are paid. Unlike a corporation where the CEO makes tens of millions of dollars, while their employees make far less.

However, the good thing is, whether it's government or corporate overspending, it usually pays for a lot of jobs.

The difference between the two is that corporate overspending usually provides higher-quality jobs than government overspending.
People who are upset about Jobs' enormous floating Apple Store yacht or the cost of the Spaceship campus fail to see that the skill set of people who build yachts and giant sheets of custom glass is far higher than that of a person who simply puts up cinder block buildings with 90 degree corners. The pay is much higher too. I applaud every billionaire who commissions a yacht or a vanity building because I think of all the highly paid people who are involved with designing, building, upgrading, and maintaining such a place. Many times, new building techniques and materials are derived from such projects, ultimately benefiting all. Any resentment people feel from seeing these things are simply class-warfare stoked by the media, I think. Rather than figure out a way to increase personal value and thereby enable a person to earn more for their time, its easier to keep people angry and make them want to bring out the torches and pitchforks to burn the people responsible for the witchcraft that has blighted their lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 997440
And why are we listening to this loser chump? If he wants to give 50% of his money to the government that is fine. It is perfectly legal for you to pay more taxes than required by law. Go ahead, Woz. Pay my day. But wait, no, he isn't wanting to give up his money! He wants to force other people to do it his way! Ah...! How totalitarian of the Woz of Id.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 997440 and Sill
Bingo.

While I wouldn't call Woz a loser, you're right in wondering why "the rich" don't just voluntarily pay more into taxes. Where is Warren Buffett's largesse?

The answer is that when they do give up their money, its generally a charitable contribution and not a check written to the government. Why? Because they want some say in how their money was spent. Hence we have amazing museums, hospitals, libraries, and research facilities paid for outright by wealthy people. Many of those projects were paid for by people known commonly as "robber barons", a misnomer if there ever was one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 997440
Many of those projects were paid for by people known commonly as "robber barons", a misnomer if there ever was one.

That's whitewashing history a bit.

Some of the so called robber barons were great people. Carnegie would be one of them. A businessman like no other, with a social conscience to match.

Others were outright pirates who took as much as they could, and heeded no mind towards who they screwed in the process.

So what can you gather from this? Not much. Like any group of people, some where good, some were bad, most were merely alright. Though generally speaking, allowing any single group of people to exert that much market and political influence isn't too good an idea. As the middle of the 20th century has shown us, our market is at its best when it's more greatly decentralized, without power pooling too heavily in any one place.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.