Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
You’re obviously very knowledgeable in “economic theory”.......................
Supply, demand etc but most importantly choice, desire. Products that beat the market, and accelerate before competing suppliers can catch up and when they do their response is inferior.
iPod v zune
Windows v Top view, visi on, Gem
iPhone v no-one (it took years for anyone to get near it)
So these examples of apple v Microsoft ( and both made duds along the way) but they were both so ahead of everyone else they made their founders billions. Do say that is wrong? That they should have had their wealth stripped from them?
Both have massive charitable foundations by the way.
|
It’s a failure of capitalism, yes. Those billions aren’t coming from thin air, they’re coming from the pockets of consumers because competition doesn’t exist. That’s literally the economic definition of market failure.
The example you cite are innovative yes, but many are not in the previously nationalised industries. They’re benefiting from taxpayer investment previously made and being sold off cheap.
The fact they have charitable foundations is an irrelevance to the matter.
---------- Post added at 19:15 ---------- Previous post was at 19:09 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
His businesses will still pay tax, and the article says "planning", not "has".
If you drive down profits by imposing additional costs, there reaches a point where they go bust. In the meantime, the tax revenue goes down, investment goes down, ability to expand goes down, etc.
Where exactly has Communism/Socialism actually succeeded? Russia? China? Cuba?
|
I think it’s safe to say people planning to save £4bn in tax don’t wake up one morning with a dose of altruism and decide to pay it.
It’s okay though, they made £1bn of investment for some good news stories so the net loss of £3bn.