Jacobtldr Categories Economy
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
Interesting thread, but I don't think ecosocialists or degrowthers are arguing that if German socialists had come to power the world would be green by now. Socialism is not automatically green. Eco-socialism is what it says - a green version of socialism - to be tested /1
The historical counterfactual also in not totally convincing. So let's assume Germany and Europe went socialist. The world economy would have evolved exactly the same way it did? 🤔 I doubt it, this is too deterministic. Examples: /2
We do not know if the transition from coal to oil would have taken place when it took place, the way it did. From Timothy Mitchell we know that oil was a fix for capitalism to bypass the labour strikes of coal workers. One would think that socialists would treat workers better /3
We also do not know if socialist governments would strong arm the Middle East the way capitalists did, starting wars to secure cheap oil, and setting up puppet governments. One would want to think that Rosa Luxembourg would not go down that path..../4
We also do not know if they would have continued colonial unequal exchange, extracting raw materials as cheap as possible from the rest of the world. Without cheap oil and cheap materials, it is anyone's guess if GDP and CO2 would be where it is now. /5
You get the impression from the eco-socialists and degrowthers that humanity wouldn\u2019t face the threat of climate change or biodiversity loss if it weren\u2019t for capitalism (or rather, if it weren\u2019t for capitalist modernity).
— Leigh Phillips (@Leigh_Phillips) February 2, 2021
But I see no evidence to suggest this is the case.
The historical counterfactual also in not totally convincing. So let's assume Germany and Europe went socialist. The world economy would have evolved exactly the same way it did? 🤔 I doubt it, this is too deterministic. Examples: /2
We do not know if the transition from coal to oil would have taken place when it took place, the way it did. From Timothy Mitchell we know that oil was a fix for capitalism to bypass the labour strikes of coal workers. One would think that socialists would treat workers better /3
We also do not know if socialist governments would strong arm the Middle East the way capitalists did, starting wars to secure cheap oil, and setting up puppet governments. One would want to think that Rosa Luxembourg would not go down that path..../4
We also do not know if they would have continued colonial unequal exchange, extracting raw materials as cheap as possible from the rest of the world. Without cheap oil and cheap materials, it is anyone's guess if GDP and CO2 would be where it is now. /5
I wrote about the exceptional opportunity in US NatGas about a week ago, and things are moving quickly...
Let’s do an update and go through some exciting developments. In short, the picture for NatGas continues to improve from all angles.
A thread.
Let’s do an update and go through some exciting developments. In short, the picture for NatGas continues to improve from all angles.
A thread.
Time for a thread about US NatGas and why it will surprise to the upside...
— BVDDY (@BvddyCorleone) October 22, 2020
There\u2019s an exceptional opportunity setting up in the energy space, in particular for US NatGas and related equities.
I\u2019ll explain the setup in this thread and also reveal my top pick. \U0001f920
For reference, multinationals (almost entirely US-based) typically use the “Green Jersey” tax evasion tactic, utilising Ireland and Jersey/Cayman, etc to avoid paying taxes in the US.
These tax avoidance techniques result in effective tax rates of ~0-2.5% https://t.co/R433UuKInX
MNCs have been a bright spot in a faltering domestic economy during Covid lockdowns. They’ve provided a much-needed, reliable source of inflows as other streams have dried up.
However, we’re not 12 years old, so let’s have a deeper dive, as this is not showing the full picture.
Leo and his ilk will try to lightswitch-brain you into thinking that raising taxes on MNCs will drive them away. You should be grateful!
In reality, largest threat is from US and EU tax reform. Take Biden’s tax reform proposals, which targets US MNC offshoring/“GILTI” profits
GILTI, or Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income utilities “Base Erosion” or “BEPS” to lower the taxable profit in the United States by shifting ownership of US IP into Irish tax jurisdictions.
I would wager targeting these techniques is popular on both sides of the isle in America.
This represents a significant geo-political and economic risk for Ireland. At any moment, any change, whether intentional or accidental can change the incentive structures for US MNCs, resulting in these companies pulling billions of IP from Ireland over night.
These tax avoidance techniques result in effective tax rates of ~0-2.5% https://t.co/R433UuKInX
Multinationals played a crucial role in lifting Ireland out of the last recession and they will again as we rebuild our economy after Covid.\xa0What does SF want to do? Tax them.\xa0https://t.co/B7n8esbzPN
— Leo Varadkar (@LeoVaradkar) October 11, 2020
MNCs have been a bright spot in a faltering domestic economy during Covid lockdowns. They’ve provided a much-needed, reliable source of inflows as other streams have dried up.
However, we’re not 12 years old, so let’s have a deeper dive, as this is not showing the full picture.
Leo and his ilk will try to lightswitch-brain you into thinking that raising taxes on MNCs will drive them away. You should be grateful!
In reality, largest threat is from US and EU tax reform. Take Biden’s tax reform proposals, which targets US MNC offshoring/“GILTI” profits
GILTI, or Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income utilities “Base Erosion” or “BEPS” to lower the taxable profit in the United States by shifting ownership of US IP into Irish tax jurisdictions.
I would wager targeting these techniques is popular on both sides of the isle in America.
This represents a significant geo-political and economic risk for Ireland. At any moment, any change, whether intentional or accidental can change the incentive structures for US MNCs, resulting in these companies pulling billions of IP from Ireland over night.
Not the easiest to follow, but for those interested in the big picture of trade relations between US, EU and China this exchange between @alanbeattie and @IanaDreyer is an essential read. Real debate on key issues, and good points on both sides.
Also reading this from @gideonrachman on EU-China. My view (cynically?) - that EU-China is a deal that makes a lot of sense given a probably unresolvable trade policy superpower triangle with the US, and best for the EU to move while China will.
The US and EU roughly agree on China that it should do some things differently, but not really the details of what those are. Meanwhile the EU and US have long standing trade policy differences, which neither (or their key stakeholders) prioritise resolving.
For the EU, the China deal has sent a message to the new US administration, you can't just tell us what to do. And delivered some (probably marginal in reality) benefits to business. For China, this is the 3rd deal with EU or US in 12 months. Pretty clear strategy there.
The key assumption that lies at the heart of too much writing on EU-US relations is that the two should cooperate on trade. After 25 years of largely failing to do so, I'd suggest we might want to question that a bit more deeply.
V good points but overall I stick with the conclusion that this is a v risky deal.
— Alan Beattie (@alanbeattie) January 5, 2021
1. It\u2019s overstating it to say that COM now has final say over investment. FDI screening remains a MS competency. COM has had to take a v secondary supporting role over Huawei and 5G.
1/n https://t.co/RVg2jnoFgK
Also reading this from @gideonrachman on EU-China. My view (cynically?) - that EU-China is a deal that makes a lot of sense given a probably unresolvable trade policy superpower triangle with the US, and best for the EU to move while China will.
The US and EU roughly agree on China that it should do some things differently, but not really the details of what those are. Meanwhile the EU and US have long standing trade policy differences, which neither (or their key stakeholders) prioritise resolving.
For the EU, the China deal has sent a message to the new US administration, you can't just tell us what to do. And delivered some (probably marginal in reality) benefits to business. For China, this is the 3rd deal with EU or US in 12 months. Pretty clear strategy there.
The key assumption that lies at the heart of too much writing on EU-US relations is that the two should cooperate on trade. After 25 years of largely failing to do so, I'd suggest we might want to question that a bit more deeply.
