The Great (and Continuing) Economic Debate of the 20th Century

Imprimis/Hillsdale College ^ | March 2006 | Steve Forbes

[Valin]

U.S. corporations pay roughly 38% tax to the U.S. Treasury on their world-wide income

Learn something new every day.

[1rudeboy]

You may be surprised to hear that the U.S. is one of the only, if not the only, countries in the industrialized world (I don't follow taxation in the developing world that closely) that taxes its companies in that fashion. It places us at an enormous competitive disadvantage, and in a perverse way, may even encourage off-shoring.

The fact that the U.S. Treaury gets away with it shows how strong (economically) we really are.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Please explain that to my paternal Grandfather. He's dead. Died from lung cancer brought-on by smoking tobacco (onset was 5 years after he'd quit in 1972).

The Surgeon General Report on smoking came out in 1964.

If you deliberately shirked personal responsibilty by not voting to recall a product quitting smoking once you became aware that it was fatal and failed to bring it up to board members, then you'd be complicit at the least.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tobacco is NOT "lethal"!

I smoked a cigarette once. Why am I not dead yet?

[1rudeboy]

Is this turning into a smoking thread? I'm beginning to regret my comment #51.

[Toddsterpatriot]

My fault. Post #59.

[1rudeboy]

I don't know about you, but when I hear or use the term "collective," I think:

"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and power down your weapons. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."

[Toddsterpatriot]

Definitely the best Star Trek movie.

[hedgetrimmer]

With that, let me reiterate that the United States remains committed to multilateral collective action. The President believes that American interests are best served by addressing problems with strong partners. Multilateral collective institutions multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations and so the United States is committed to lasting institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Organization of American States, and NATO as well as other long-standing alliances.

As we look to the multilateral collective institutions best able to promote transformational diplomacy, the U.S. will always view the United Nations as an essential partner. When the UN Charter was flown from San Francisco to Washington in June 1945, it was given its own parachute even though the diplomat who was carrying it had to travel without one!

Kristen Silverberg, Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs

[1rudeboy]

Which definition are you using today? I'ts getting tough to keep track.

[hedgetrimmer]

Which definition are you using today?

Pascal Lamy's, "free trader" president of the WTO.

In a speech delivered in Brussels on 15 September, European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy presented a case for consideration of so-called 'collective preferences' in trade relations. The speech was entitled 'The emergence of collective preferences in international trade: implications for regulating globalisation'. Collective preferences are the end result of choices made by communities that apply to the community as a whole (in short, values). Amongst other issues, the speech offered reasoning behind the EC's positions in areas such as clarifying the relationship between WTO rules and multilateral environmental agreements and advocating sustainability impact assessments of trade agreements. Notably, Lamy forwarded the idea of a special safeguard clause to clarify how collective preferences might be integrated into WTO rules. The aim in taking such an approach in trade, Lamy said, is to make the most of greater openness through trade liberalisation while ensuring that it does not threaten to override domestic policy choices.

While he admitted that the concept of collective preferences can be an ambiguous one, Lamy outlined a number of specific European examples, namely multilateralism, environmental protection, food safety, cultural diversity, public provision of education and healthcare, precautions in the field of biotechnology, and welfare rights.

In the speech, Lamy commended the WTO's Appellate Body for being a "faithful guardian" of collective preferences under the WTO system by balancing wider public concerns with WTO principles such as non-discrimination as well as with rules of international public law.

[1rudeboy]

Ok, got it. Now how about collectivism?

[1rudeboy]

bttt

[nopardons]

I'd suggest that you read the NANNY STATE threads, but I doubt that you'd believe a word of the factual truth, so PLEASE stay off them. We have more than enough smokeNazis on them, as it is.

In SubSharan Africa, every death, that they possibly can get away with claiming so, is put down as from AIDS. That is a LIE. So is the "he/she died from smoking/second hand smoke" here is.

No, I am NOT saying that smoking is risk/harm free...just that it is NOT "lethal".

[CowboyJay]

"the free-marketers are the collectivists."

No. Anyone organizing under various articles of incorporation, or purchasing shares in a corporation is engaging in collectivist activity.

[1rudeboy]

You mean "collective" activity, not "collectivist." Doesn't it disturb you in the slightest that you are unaware of the difference?

[CowboyJay]

"Whether it is removing the shield from liability of shareholders, or banning the manufacture of "ephedrinates," you are suggesting a course of action that requires a greater level of collectivism1."

Exactly the opposite. Removing the liability sheild from the collectivist shareholders is a move towards a less collectivist society. By removing their protections, collectivism will take a hit. I believe that ephedrine would be pulled from the shelves voluntarily if these legal protections were removed, and the collectivist shareholders could be liable for the deaths and damage to society that their product causes. This would actually NEGATE the need for further laws, and further expansion of law enforcement (collectivist action on the part of society "socialism").

Corporate collectivism leads to protectionist activity on the part of society through socialist legislation. Removing the collectivist protection of corporation would help to remove society's impetus for further regulation, laws, and expansion of government.

Remember. It was the expansion of government through the authoring of protective laws that created the modern corporation. What I'm calling for is actually a repeal or scaling-down of protectionist legislation in this regard.

[1rudeboy]

Let me know when you get to my comment #197.

[CowboyJay]

Nope. I believe you're still confusing collectivism with with other terms.

By purchasing a share in a corporation, one becomes part-owner in a collective enterprise which then assumes greater importance and power than any of its' sum parts.

Collectivism is the antithesis of individualism.