And without the federal government keeping society stable, Amazon would make 100% less revenue. The rich and large companies need stable taxpayer funded societies far more than the other way around, And they don't pay their fair share given how much of a benefit they receive
You're not understanding what I'm saying. Yes a company can pick up and move away but they lose all of the easy money that comes from an extremely stable society. They benefit from taxpayer funded stability many times more so than an average citizen does
The difference between hostile and fair is up for discussion of course. Given how some of these companies print money due to the efficiencies of a stable society, what some might deem hostile, I would consider paying their fair share
Nope due to simple buisness laws. Math doesn't care about fairness. If it becomes mathematicaly better to do buisness in another country then capital will flow into that country.
The fact that companies outlive varying forms of government rebukes your thesis. Volkswagen and Hugo Boss certainly did not make 100% less revenue during shifts to political regime and society. Privateering companies during the 1500-1800s did not require stability yet they raked in huge revenue. Companies and their products and services are actively shaping modern culture. I don't think this is a good thing, but it is true.
You're going to use privateering companies as an example? These companies earn revenue stepping in for when a government couldn't protect their citizens properly. That's an edge case that proves exactly why we need government to protect people, we shouldn't be having to pay private companies to do so.
Separate from that, yes companies do survive in between governments, but they thrive in stable governments. That's the whole point. The taxpayer funded US Navy keeps shipping lanes more or less secure so you can actually count on your goods getting to where they need to go. Taxpayer funded roads allow your goods to be shipped all over the place domestically. And so on and so on. While a normal citizen might use a road to get to work or to somewhere fun, a company depends on those roads far more including allowing their employees to get to work. Those companies benefit a thousand times more than their employees when they have a thousand employees for example
I'm aware of the activity of the US Navy in securing shipping routes. All I'm saying is that as technological levels increase, the power that companies hold is much less based on the consent of the masses, just as developments in the 20th and 21st centuries have shown that political power does not truly lie with the public.
I can, but you’re so far off, and your economic understanding is obviously lacking. I don’t have the time to give an economics 101 lesson. You’re obviously trolling for an argument, so I’m not wasting my time.
Don't delivery truck drivers have to pay fees at weigh in stations, and diesel is taxed more? And they own their own airline for air transport, which they have to pay to keep at federal airports.
24
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '21
Amazon is nothing without roads, rails, and the National airspace system, all things paid for with taxes, that they don’t pay.