Actual economics publications are a demonstrable failure at accounting for the real impacts of economic activity. The field of economics has repeatedly failed to provide a forward-looking analysis that would help avert the twinned economic and ecological collapse we’re seeing worldwide. Every economist who isn’t desperately clinging to a…
Actual economics publications are a demonstrable failure at accounting for the real impacts of economic activity. The field of economics has repeatedly failed to provide a forward-looking analysis that would help avert the twinned economic and ecological collapse we’re seeing worldwide. Every economist who isn’t desperately clinging to an unjustifiable six figure income will tell you the same thing: the field is rotten, unscientific, and completely bought and paid for by the rich. Just because you’ve been so beguiled by the snake oil of macroeconomic mysticism that you take it as Truth doesn’t mean everyone should make the same mistake. Get out of here
I DO follow the Bank of Canada and what Tiff Macklem is doing. He helped us out of the pandemic and managed to keep the economy out of a recession, BUT he made is VERY clear that the Bank of Canada will not help people out of the housing crisis. I can really respect that.
It’s one thing disagreeing with mainstream economic analysis on certain issues, but it’s quite another to misunderstand basic facts about the stock market and taxation. By all means object to some of the conclusions being drawn by economists, but I’d advise doing so with at least a basic understanding of economic theory and how certain institutions work.
Assuming other people don’t have this knowledge, based on very little information, makes your concerns appear to be in bad faith. What’s the point of engaging in this discussion in bad faith? If you want to do anything other than use the idea of economics as a rhetorical gotcha, you’d have been more specific in your objections. Tiresome non-contribution.
“This is all done quite openly. It is not a secret at all. Apple manufactures its iPhones in gargantuan worker villages in poor countries like India and China and Apple evades tens of billions of dollars in taxes by stashing its money in offshore tax havens and Apple is, not coincidentally, worth close to $3 trillion.”
In this paragraph alone, we have:
- A confusion between market capitalisation and actual revenue. Apple being ‘worth $3 trillion’ is more of a function of the stock market betting in favour of its future success, rather than actual value - even before factoring costs, its revenue last year was only about $380bn - a decent amount, but on nowhere near the same scale, and even leaving aside tax avoidance this isn’t something you could just tax away.
- No acknowledgement anywhere about the fact that globalisation has overwhelmingly benefitted these poor countries and led to some of the largest quality of life increases in history. There are still potentially arguments to be made about living standards, as well as the impact on eg American workers (although I’d partly attribute this to poor economic policy), but the fact of the matter is that the likes of China and India have very much benefited from these changes
- A lack of understanding that, in macroeconomic terms, tens of billions is pocket change when it comes to government revenues, particularly in the US. For all the cries of tax avoidance (as far as I’m aware none of what they do is illegal) this is essentially a rounding error in US budgets, and the notion that you could somehow solve every problem by taxing them this is naive at best. Furthermore, this also fails to acknowledge the positive externalities that result from such tax havens with respect to places like Ireland, that benefit far beyond the missing billions in tax.
There are several more of these points I can point to. By no means am I an expert on these issues and I may well be unfairly misrepresenting the author’s understanding on this. Individually there is also much to debate on each of these points and I’d be happy to discuss further. However, taken altogether, this essentially comes across like a sixth-former’s (or high-schooler for those across the point) understanding of economics - well meaning yes, but lacking some basic conceptual knowledge and having seemingly not done any research beyond what other left wing authors from the same brand of well meaning naïveté have put out (I say this as someone who themselves identifies as left wing, and probably agrees with many of the author’s beliefs).
While some of Zucman’s proposals seem plausible, and certainly the tax evasion of individuals carries comparatively fewer positive externalities, at the end of the day he only attributes $200bn to the amount of missing tax - for reference, this is less than the GDP of New Zealand or the operating budget of the NHS in the UK. While it may be helpful, you are not going to change the world with that. Furthermore, at least in the stuff of his I read, he offers no account of the positive externalities of corporation tax avoidance - this for example is massively beneficial to the economy of Ireland, and it is dubious that the possibility of recouping a relatively small amount of tax income is worth destroying a viable engine for growth.
As far as I’m aware, he says nothing on either of the other points, so I’m not sure how this is supposed to refute what I say.
Actual economics publications are a demonstrable failure at accounting for the real impacts of economic activity. The field of economics has repeatedly failed to provide a forward-looking analysis that would help avert the twinned economic and ecological collapse we’re seeing worldwide. Every economist who isn’t desperately clinging to an unjustifiable six figure income will tell you the same thing: the field is rotten, unscientific, and completely bought and paid for by the rich. Just because you’ve been so beguiled by the snake oil of macroeconomic mysticism that you take it as Truth doesn’t mean everyone should make the same mistake. Get out of here
I DO follow the Bank of Canada and what Tiff Macklem is doing. He helped us out of the pandemic and managed to keep the economy out of a recession, BUT he made is VERY clear that the Bank of Canada will not help people out of the housing crisis. I can really respect that.
It’s one thing disagreeing with mainstream economic analysis on certain issues, but it’s quite another to misunderstand basic facts about the stock market and taxation. By all means object to some of the conclusions being drawn by economists, but I’d advise doing so with at least a basic understanding of economic theory and how certain institutions work.
Assuming other people don’t have this knowledge, based on very little information, makes your concerns appear to be in bad faith. What’s the point of engaging in this discussion in bad faith? If you want to do anything other than use the idea of economics as a rhetorical gotcha, you’d have been more specific in your objections. Tiresome non-contribution.
“This is all done quite openly. It is not a secret at all. Apple manufactures its iPhones in gargantuan worker villages in poor countries like India and China and Apple evades tens of billions of dollars in taxes by stashing its money in offshore tax havens and Apple is, not coincidentally, worth close to $3 trillion.”
In this paragraph alone, we have:
- A confusion between market capitalisation and actual revenue. Apple being ‘worth $3 trillion’ is more of a function of the stock market betting in favour of its future success, rather than actual value - even before factoring costs, its revenue last year was only about $380bn - a decent amount, but on nowhere near the same scale, and even leaving aside tax avoidance this isn’t something you could just tax away.
- No acknowledgement anywhere about the fact that globalisation has overwhelmingly benefitted these poor countries and led to some of the largest quality of life increases in history. There are still potentially arguments to be made about living standards, as well as the impact on eg American workers (although I’d partly attribute this to poor economic policy), but the fact of the matter is that the likes of China and India have very much benefited from these changes
- A lack of understanding that, in macroeconomic terms, tens of billions is pocket change when it comes to government revenues, particularly in the US. For all the cries of tax avoidance (as far as I’m aware none of what they do is illegal) this is essentially a rounding error in US budgets, and the notion that you could somehow solve every problem by taxing them this is naive at best. Furthermore, this also fails to acknowledge the positive externalities that result from such tax havens with respect to places like Ireland, that benefit far beyond the missing billions in tax.
There are several more of these points I can point to. By no means am I an expert on these issues and I may well be unfairly misrepresenting the author’s understanding on this. Individually there is also much to debate on each of these points and I’d be happy to discuss further. However, taken altogether, this essentially comes across like a sixth-former’s (or high-schooler for those across the point) understanding of economics - well meaning yes, but lacking some basic conceptual knowledge and having seemingly not done any research beyond what other left wing authors from the same brand of well meaning naïveté have put out (I say this as someone who themselves identifies as left wing, and probably agrees with many of the author’s beliefs).
Ironically you are the one who seems to have misunderstood every single point you make above. Read more Gabriel Zucman.
While some of Zucman’s proposals seem plausible, and certainly the tax evasion of individuals carries comparatively fewer positive externalities, at the end of the day he only attributes $200bn to the amount of missing tax - for reference, this is less than the GDP of New Zealand or the operating budget of the NHS in the UK. While it may be helpful, you are not going to change the world with that. Furthermore, at least in the stuff of his I read, he offers no account of the positive externalities of corporation tax avoidance - this for example is massively beneficial to the economy of Ireland, and it is dubious that the possibility of recouping a relatively small amount of tax income is worth destroying a viable engine for growth.
As far as I’m aware, he says nothing on either of the other points, so I’m not sure how this is supposed to refute what I say.
Hey, I bet you don't know everything about economics and accounting. So stick a sock in it.
Not in the slightest, nor do I pretend to. However, I at least know the difference between a company’s market capitalisation and its revenue.
You may find this link helpful: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/122414/what-difference-between-market-capitalization-and-revenue.asp#:~:text=Market%20capitalization%20and%20revenue%20are%20two%20metrics%20used%20for%20value,as%20a%20result%20of%20sales.