Earlier quoted context omitted.
United states is 26% tax to GDP. Australia is 27.8%. Switzerland is 27.8%[1] Are those countries broken too? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_reven...
Yes?
[deleted]
Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy
51–60 of 67 posts
Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fail to see what your point is. You believe the totality of all U.S. healthcare spending ought to be viewed as a tax because - using your statement - 1/3 of the people receive healthcare via a department of the federal government?
> I fail to see what your point is. The point is exactly and only what the text of the comment said. > You believe the totality of all U.S. healthcare spending ought to be viewed as a tax No, I never said that. Nor, AFAICT, did anyone upthread. The claim rb808 made seems to be more "comparing tax rates between countries where there is a substantial difference in the extent to which essential services are provided thr…
I know that you didn't say that. Hence the question. I didn't claim you said it. But rb808 sort of did claim this:
...if we relabeled health insurance as a tax, US tax rates would be very high...
Your original comment doesn't appear to be relevant or to add to the conversation to me because VA, DOD, Medicare, and Medicaid spending are already taken into account when computing tax rates. I really don't understand what you are getting at with your original comment. The healthcare expenditures you mentioned are already part of the calculation for the tax rate in the U.S. So there is nothing to add with regard to the programs you mentioned when making the comparison to OECD average tax rates.
Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy
#53This is the inevitable result of efficiencies of scale. With computers, databases, instant communications, why would a business be restricted in anyway to expand as far as it can once it has perfected whatever it is selling. In the long run, it would be beneficial for all consumers to be able to select from multiple sellers, but in the short term, it's beneficial for each consumer to purchase from the whomever is giv…
I'm not sure it's fully from efficiency of scale, especially outside of manufacturing. What I keep seeing is using one's size to keep out newcomers as the most important factor. You have more patents and more lawyers and can accept financial losses longer on specific products to keep them out: products A and B subsidize C when C is threatened. And you can bundle multiple products into "special deals" the way a single…
Amazon is the archetypal example. They didn’t litigate their way to dominance. Amazon is just better than all the mom-and-pop alternatives, and that is fueled by technology and scale. Wal-Mart is another example, except optimizing for price. Apple is another.
Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I fail to see what your point is. The point is exactly and only what the text of the comment said. > You believe the totality of all U.S. healthcare spending ought to be viewed as a tax No, I never said that. Nor, AFAICT, did anyone upthread. The claim rb808 made seems to be more "comparing tax rates between countries where there is a substantial difference in the extent to which essential services are provided thr…
I know that you didn't say that. Hence the question. I didn't claim you said it. But rb808 sort of did claim this: ...if we relabeled health insurance as a tax, US tax rates would be very high... Your original comment doesn't appear to be relevant or to add to the conversation to me because VA, DOD, Medicare, and Medicaid spending are already taken into account when computing tax rates. I really don't understand what…
> rb808's comment is that the totality of healthcare spending ought to be added to the tax percent when comparing tax rates amongst OECD countries.
rb808 does not say it ought to be. He says that the comparison is complicated, and that it would be different if it was added in, not that it should be added in. One could with more justification interpret him as describing a problem and noting the effect of one plausible method of attempting to resolve the problem, rather than claiming that that particular method is necessarily correct.
> Your original comment doesn't appear to be apt to me
That's because you are trying to view it as an argument in defense of the position you've read into rb808's post rather than a tangent responding only to the specific claim in your post that was quoted, from someone who doesn't even agree that the position you've read into rb808's post was likely even rb808's position and who, in any case, wasn't arguing in defense of any position, actual or inferred, posited in rb808's post.
Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fail to see what your point is. You believe the totality of all U.S. healthcare spending ought to be viewed as a tax because - using your statement - 1/3 of the people receive healthcare via a department of the federal government?
> I fail to see what your point is. The point is exactly and only what the text of the comment said. > You believe the totality of all U.S. healthcare spending ought to be viewed as a tax No, I never said that. Nor, AFAICT, did anyone upthread. The claim rb808 made seems to be more "comparing tax rates between countries where there is a substantial difference in the extent to which essential services are provided thr…
I think I may have upset you. I don't understand your original comment in the context it was made. From my perspective rb808 thinks that health care expenditures ought to be added to the U.S. tax computation to make comparisons to other OECD nations' tax rates. I don't agree with this for the reasons I stated.
As an aside I think if one doesn't view something as a tax then it shouldn't be added to the tax calculation. If one wants to say we are both taxed low and in return don't receive as much government services and so it balances out then have at it. I don't agree with that perspective either but it's a logical one to make.
If you agree with rb808 I wish you well in convincing others with your point of view.
Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy
#56This is the inevitable result of efficiencies of scale. With computers, databases, instant communications, why would a business be restricted in anyway to expand as far as it can once it has perfected whatever it is selling. In the long run, it would be beneficial for all consumers to be able to select from multiple sellers, but in the short term, it's beneficial for each consumer to purchase from the whomever is giv…
I think what it comes down to is the appropriate amount and type of regulation that suits the market. As market concentration happens, those corporations must necessarily become more regulated to ensure consumer choice and employee rights. The less concentrated the market, the less regulation required because natural market forces will have larger impacts. Once a corporation reaches a significant size, they largely o…
The hardest part of regulation is not erecting artificial barriers to entry.
There are a lot of examples where regulatory capture happens to ensure that a near monopoly can comfortably maintain its position, and it strangles competition from startups.
Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
you're suggesting we optimize along a single axis of a (probably infinite) multidimensional system. the simplistic retort would be that "value" condenses all that complexity down into a single metric, but we know how well optimizing for one metric works out. we get all kinds of distortions and mis-aligned incentives. we might even name that class of problems "externalities". the corporate free lunch ain't free. bigne…
I'm not suggesting we optimize along a single axis, I'm stating what the reality is. Short term, it makes sense for each individual to use Costco/Target/Walmart/Amazon/Google/Apple/BoA/Chase/Nordstroms/Trader Joes/Aldi/United/Delta/American/Hilton/Marriott/Home Depot/Lowes/AMC/Regal/P&G/J&J/Conagra/UPS/FedEx etc. These big organizations have achieved efficiencies of scale (and political clout) to be able to offer ser…
but it also "makes sense" to patronize small and local businesses over large businesses if you care about anything (any other axis) other than just price (a single axis).
your argument is a form of reductio ad absurdum because you're saying your preferred option (buy from large corps) is the only smart and practical choice (so why consider anything else?). but people (like me) choose differently all the time.
with that said, yes, people do take that shortcut (limit choice to large corps) because it's less cognitive load in a world overloaded with moneyed, attention-seeking (self-)promotion, but that certainly doesn't mean it's the best or only choice given the plethora of considerations.
Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preferred by the monopoly and nobody else, is what you mean, yes? Which is to say it is against the will of the people,
Are you asserting that capitalists care about freedom and the will of the people?
I'm going to use the first definition of capitalist I found on google:
"a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism."
As we know there is a huge spectrum of investment strategies, from VCs to Bond holders etc.
Some capitalists like VCs, absolutely value market freedom, others likely don't, but it's too large a swatch of people to generalize by saying they don't care about economic freedom.
Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy
#59The irony of monopoly is that when broken upmitntypically benefits the former monopoly parts. Rockefeller Made more money after being broken up than he had as a monopolist. AT&T has underperformed since being reassembled from its post-breakup pieces, which had flourished with competition.
Is that's the case then why don't companies voluntarily break up?
Companies break up all the time, it's just that such moves are rarely sexy enough to break through into the mainstream news cycle. Take Hewlett Packard for example, the comapny's very existence is owed to its origin as a manufacturer of test equipment (calibration and measurement equipment) but they decided to spin off that core business unit in 1999 as Agilent (this move was the largest ever IPO in Silicon Valley at the time). Their decision wasn't made on entirely financial grounds either, the idea was actually that a smaller, more focused leadership team would allow the business to become more agile and thus more profitable than it could be while under the burden of HP's broad-focused bureaucracy.
To take that one step further, Agilent then spun off the electronic test equipment portion of the business (which was HP's original market when it was founded) as Keysight to focus on their life science divisions. Each of these decisions was made despite the spun-off division being successful under the greater corporate umbrella.
Re: Market Concentration Is Threatening the US Economy
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a side effect that I'm willing to deal with. The problem with monopoly is not so much about the concentration of individual wealth in my mind, it's about the lack of competition between companies which make investment in R&D and innovation less of a factor to success. Rockefeller rightfully became more wealthy when he owned a large portion of stock in very successful, but highly competitive companies, as oppo…
It's also interesting that when Rockefeller dominated the oil market and standardized it, the price of kerosene dropped dramatically. Rather than monopoly being negative for consumers, the competition had actually driven up prices and lowered quality standards as competitors sabotaged eachother
I think that was a function of the phase of the S curve.
Also remember his tying: he controlled all the tankers so even if you competed with him in petroleum products he controlled your (literal) path to market.