At risk of getting grossly off-topic, I’ll simply say that I disagree with your last point(though much of the rest is unobjectionable), and leave it at that.
I can’t see how you can endorse a society such as the American civilization that has been literally built since 1945 for the benefit of the corporation and the wealth. That boggles the mind. If corporations want to meaningfully join the whole society rather than becoming leeches upon everyone else I would welcome that. I do not like the future where corporations run around the world going to whatever country agrees to be raped the most leaving everyone else in the dust or forcing people to try to find jobs/employment in an increasingly shrinking environment. Even if you account for the fact that many jobs don’t require a physical human presence that post-nation state future is not a pleasant one. The economy should work for everyone not just a few.
I was trying to avoid getting off-topic, but if you’d rather embrace it, that’s fine too.
Your time period is arbitrary—the Gilded Age falls outside your era of “America being built for corporations”, and the 50s and 60s of New Deal dominance, strong unions, and the only electable Republican being so far left that Democrats look to him longingly today falls inside that era.
Corporations are thoroughly embedded in society—their biggest owners are mutual funds and pension funds, which are solidly middle-class investments.
“Rape” implies taking what you want by force—the Luxembourgs and Irelands of the world are benefiting massively from their tax structure. Yes, you collect less tax, but that’s hardly their problem. And the higher-tax countries are still getting theirs—the US can collect tax on your company’s US operations, just not their international ones, which seems eminently fair to me.
If the environment is “shrinking”, you may wish to figure out why. Also, why it seems to be shrinking so much more slowly in areas run by smaller governments.
At risk of getting grossly off-topic, I’ll simply say that I disagree with your last point(though much of the rest is unobjectionable), and leave it at that.
I can’t see how you can endorse a society such as the American civilization that has been literally built since 1945 for the benefit of the corporation and the wealth. That boggles the mind. If corporations want to meaningfully join the whole society rather than becoming leeches upon everyone else I would welcome that. I do not like the future where corporations run around the world going to whatever country agrees to be raped the most leaving everyone else in the dust or forcing people to try to find jobs/employment in an increasingly shrinking environment. Even if you account for the fact that many jobs don’t require a physical human presence that post-nation state future is not a pleasant one. The economy should work for everyone not just a few.
I was trying to avoid getting off-topic, but if you’d rather embrace it, that’s fine too.
Your time period is arbitrary—the Gilded Age falls outside your era of “America being built for corporations”, and the 50s and 60s of New Deal dominance, strong unions, and the only electable Republican being so far left that Democrats look to him longingly today falls inside that era.
Corporations are thoroughly embedded in society—their biggest owners are mutual funds and pension funds, which are solidly middle-class investments.
“Rape” implies taking what you want by force—the Luxembourgs and Irelands of the world are benefiting massively from their tax structure. Yes, you collect less tax, but that’s hardly their problem. And the higher-tax countries are still getting theirs—the US can collect tax on your company’s US operations, just not their international ones, which seems eminently fair to me.
If the environment is “shrinking”, you may wish to figure out why. Also, why it seems to be shrinking so much more slowly in areas run by smaller governments.