11–20 of 38 posts
That's why any startup that wants business will make an Inc in the US. It's legally much simpler to do so, and leave your offices in the cheap EU. US Inc can employ your offices and at the same time have no people working in the US. US is saved by ruthless capitalism. When I see what politicians from my country voted on I'm realizing that journalists, political science majors, historians, spanish/english/lang languag…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Lets take for example a simple law that says all employers must give their employees health insurance. No sane person is against people having health insurance Given that in many countries apart from the US, health insurance is provided by the government and/or private sector, I'd posit that there are quite a few sane people who don't believe having employers be responsible for providing health insurance is necessar…
I do not live in the US, I chose a specificlly US example because most people are probably familiar with the US system here. Regardless, if you read my statement, it has nothing to do with whether a company/govt should or should not provide insurance, just that "no sane person is against people having health insurance". If someone thinks, in general, people should not have health care services I think there is someth…
That's why any startup that wants business will make an Inc in the US. It's legally much simpler to do so, and leave your offices in the cheap EU. US Inc can employ your offices and at the same time have no people working in the US. US is saved by ruthless capitalism. When I see what politicians from my country voted on I'm realizing that journalists, political science majors, historians, spanish/english/lang languag…
That's why any startup that wants business will make an Inc in the US. It's legally much simpler to do so, and leave your offices in the cheap EU. US Inc can employ your offices and at the same time have no people working in the US. US is saved by ruthless capitalism. When I see what politicians from my country voted on I'm realizing that journalists, political science majors, historians, spanish/english/lang languag…
That's why any startup that wants business will make an Inc in the US.
It's legally much simpler to do so, and leave your offices in the cheap
EU. US Inc can employ your offices and at the same time have no people
working in the US.
US is saved by ruthless capitalism. When I see what politicians from my
country voted on I'm realizing that journalists, political science
majors, historians, spanish/english/lang language teachers,
philosophers, artists and bunch of other social scientists know much
about nothing - maybe it says something about our national universities,
maybe about these science areas as a whole, who knows. But for some
reason they think they are capable of having a career in politics, and
it works.
It states that the US has more stringent and complete controls on net neutrality than the EU. The EU has loopholes, therefore less controlling and protectionist (consumer) than the US.
If you want to take corporate advantage of lax net neutrality protection laws, then you are better off utilising "ruthless capitalism" in the EU (for this particular instance), and not in the US.
You argument is backwards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The European Parliament has partially eroded net neutrality with its decision on the 27th October due to loopholes.
No. The Parliament had written a version without loopholes. The Council then modified it, and said "If you don’t add these loopholes, we’ll veto it and all future variants of it". As the council is representatives of the governments of the nations, complain to your government, not to the EU.
An often cited example in Germany is Regulation (EC) 244/2009 which bans classical light bulbs. Always blamed on the EU. What nobody tells you, is that it was proposed by then-minister for environment Gabriel and heavily lobbied for by chancellor Merkel. Doesn't stop one of them to use it as an example of over-regulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. The Parliament had written a version without loopholes. The Council then modified it, and said "If you don’t add these loopholes, we’ll veto it and all future variants of it". As the council is representatives of the governments of the nations, complain to your government, not to the EU.
It's the same pattern as always: If the EU does something positive, then "your countries government worked really hard for that". If it's something people think critical of, blame the evil EU and deny your involvment. An often cited example in Germany is Regulation (EC) 244/2009 which bans classical light bulbs. Always blamed on the EU. What nobody tells you, is that it was proposed by then-minister for environment G…
EC 244/2009 led to lots of LED manufacturers trying to push their products and competing, leading to 8W 1200 Lumen warm-white LED light bulbs being available for less than 15€ by now everywhere.
In my family, before the regulation we had several light bulbs and mercury-bulbs from IKEA which were expensive, but now we switched to these LEDs and have better light at lower cost. (At $0.40 per kWh German electricity prices make switching to LED make sense).
Also many fun fair attraction owners switched to LED, and quickly discovered how having a programmable LED array is far better for flashy lights than few larger lights.
--------------------
In general, though: Yes. It always happens.
Same as in the refugee crisis, too. For the cost of building fences between all the EU countries that we did, we could have built a fence at the outer borders twice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. The Parliament had written a version without loopholes. The Council then modified it, and said "If you don’t add these loopholes, we’ll veto it and all future variants of it". As the council is representatives of the governments of the nations, complain to your government, not to the EU.
It's the same pattern as always: If the EU does something positive, then "your countries government worked really hard for that". If it's something people think critical of, blame the evil EU and deny your involvment. An often cited example in Germany is Regulation (EC) 244/2009 which bans classical light bulbs. Always blamed on the EU. What nobody tells you, is that it was proposed by then-minister for environment G…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the same pattern as always: If the EU does something positive, then "your countries government worked really hard for that". If it's something people think critical of, blame the evil EU and deny your involvment. An often cited example in Germany is Regulation (EC) 244/2009 which bans classical light bulbs. Always blamed on the EU. What nobody tells you, is that it was proposed by then-minister for environment G…
And, as a German: EC 244/2009 led to lots of LED manufacturers trying to push their products and competing, leading to 8W 1200 Lumen warm-white LED light bulbs being available for less than 15€ by now everywhere. In my family, before the regulation we had several light bulbs and mercury-bulbs from IKEA which were expensive, but now we switched to these LEDs and have better light at lower cost. (At $0.40 per kWh Germa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The European Parliament has partially eroded net neutrality with its decision on the 27th October due to loopholes.
No. The Parliament had written a version without loopholes. The Council then modified it, and said "If you don’t add these loopholes, we’ll veto it and all future variants of it". As the council is representatives of the governments of the nations, complain to your government, not to the EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The European Parliament has partially eroded net neutrality with its decision on the 27th October due to loopholes.
No. The Parliament had written a version without loopholes. The Council then modified it, and said "If you don’t add these loopholes, we’ll veto it and all future variants of it". As the council is representatives of the governments of the nations, complain to your government, not to the EU.