Obama is driving Houston oil companies to move to Switzerland

Centralized services are staying in Sugar Land.

 

ok go you, radical sociologist! Basically, you're saying that, and to cut through the rest, you can't come up with a better system (and neither has anyone else for the last two hundred years, "Iron Cage" or not, despite numerous attempts-i.e see the miserable failure of Communism.)

Hi, my name is mixed capitalism, and I am a system that perfectly describes what you are arguing against and what you are describing now...a free market with some degree of governmental intervention including cases in which certain fields (where competition would be detrimental) are administered and controlled by the use of gouvernment monopolies/firms (see: France, Britain, Canada and for more specific case studies, social medicine in Canada and Hydro Quebec). I'm an advocate of socialized medicare myself; so is half of the civilized world. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive from one another.

Buh? your stance doesn't even make sense, unless it's an issue of semantics that I'm not grasping. But in purely economic terms, what you're saying translates to this; I want companies to be smaller. But I want them to be more efficient.

um...ok, so your version of a better world is one where corporations are bound by geographical location rather then law. Not only does that inevitably lead to the rise of monopolies and oligopolies, which pretty much ensures crappy products and generally screwing over people in general, it's entirely unrealistic, since they would pretty much have to necessitate a global set of laws.

As for your talk about individual legal entities, it reflects some ignorance about corporate business structures. Individual legal entities existing with unlimited liability already exist...what you're describing are called partnerships and proprietor ships and they are alternatives to corporations...the reason why the corporation is a much better alternative however is BECAUSE of their unlimited liability and their distinct legal status, which makes it much more attractive for entrepreneurs to start them and also ensures the purchasing power that comes from issuing shares and the liquidity that comes with them. Basically, whether or not you realize it, you are advocating banning corporations.

...Nice of you to bring up China, probably the best example of the free market being a successful theory; on the whole, while there have been some abuses (sweatshops), the Chinese people are more productive and richer then they have ever been under Communism, all thanks to Deng and his 1980s reforms.

And hell yeah, the power structure allows certain individuals to profit excessively. Welcome to human history, 101 (monarchy, imperialism, communism etc.). Just that, this time, AVERAGE people are profiting quite well. hello middle class.

a) gouvernment bureaucracies are not part of the free market. Hypothetically however, if they were privately-managed, they'd probably still be charging the sketchy fees but at least they'd be better at doing whatever they do.
b) Social medicare and a free market are not mutually exclusive concepts.
c) Banks provide the necessary function of paring lenders with borrowers and thus contribute enormously to efficiency; they require an immense amount of logistics and infrastructure to do what they do and in turn, provide countless benefits and jobs to the economies. The whole point is moot however if you just put your cash under the mattress...power to the people lies in a "free" market.
d) People suffer from a lack of purchasing power in this system? Wow...your purchasing power is probably ten times more then what it was for your ancestors one century ago...in fact...

as an objective measure, England pre-industrial revolution and post-industrial revolution (where the idea of the modern corporation was born). You can only imagine how much that's grown now, where the average American can now afford a spacious house, food everyday and several amenities and technological luxuries.

Yes, this may be due to technological advancements and all that. But you can't discount the fact that ever since the modern corporation has risen, mankind has entered it's most purposeful and innovative period ever. Flight in space, hell, just regular flight was UNTHINKABLE just two hundred years ago. I'd say, on the whole, corporations as economic agents are doing a very good job of maintaining prosperity and of increasing it through the reinvestment of profits.

hell yeah, the world is run like that, and unless you're proposing we all just suddenly forget power structure and slumber into blissful utopia, you should be thankful that it's corporations ruling you and not King George IV.

The modern corporation as the concept you are fighting against has only existed for two hundred years. I'm assuming at this point that you're fighting against the corporation and not pure competition (which is basically the whole essence of a free market), but if you want to pick a fight about competition being an essential factor throughout human history...then bring it.

It's not even abstract. Can you really argue with me with a straight face that you, average American, have less purchasing power then Mr.1500s Serf or Mr.1800s English Factory Worker? I've already provided objective stats. If you want, I can go all into the purchasing power parity and the increase throughout the modern ages of standards of living, but really, I think it'd be common sense.

Okay. I've argued against this somewhere above this quote, but to reiterate.

Hypothesis; Corporations bring economic prosperity and innovation.
Evidence; Increase in standards of living as rated by the Human Development Index, massive increase in purchasing power for the average person, more innovations then have ever happened before in human history etc. etc. etc., corresponding to the period of the mid-1800s to present day, which corresponds to the rise of the modern corporation as we know it today.
Conclusion; At the very least, you must agree that modern corporations are a significant factor in the economic prosperity of modern times.

Hypothesis; God brings economic prosperity and innovation.
Evidence; Religion says so.
Conclusion; Make your own.

um okkkkkkkkkkkkkkk, you pretty much checkmated your own argument by saying "There are more people, thus more people suffer"

The average person is now better off then they have ever been. Proportionally, there is less suffering. If you want to argue with me that people in 1000 BC were better off then we are, then provide some objective measures. The onus of evidence is on you on this case. I don't say anything about history being a steady process, there are ups and downs everywhere...and it just so happens that we are living in a period with an immense up (which coincidentally enough, has corresponded and can be at least correlated if not given a straight out causal link to the rise of the modern corporation and free markets).

...Man, what the hell. Everything is abstract with you because the words stick in your mind. Look at the hard, cold objective truth...the idea of a class of people corresponding to the average American, henceforth referred to as the "middle class", is a concept never before seen in human history, where the MAJORITY and not the minority of people have enough purchasing power to live a satisfactory life material-wise. That my friend, is a cold, hard, objective sign of the improvement brought along by the corporation.

are you like picasso?

stop abstracting everything. seriously.

Just to conclude, YES YOU, ME AND EVERYBODY ARE BEING RULED AND EXPLOITED. get over it. that's been constant throughout human history and unless someone is devising an utopia or a drastic change in human nature as we speak, that's not going to change.

Just be glad that a) you can join the ruling class now. money is a lot more tolerant then royal blood ever was and b) you are living in some of the most exciting/innovative/prosperous times in human history.

whee!

 

Weatherford's HQ isnt in Houston, it was in Sudan and Bermuda before that lol

 

So to sum it up, a company that used to have it's "headquarters" in Delaware moved it to the Cayman Islands for tax purposes and is now moving it to Switzerland. All the while their Houston area office will be unchanged.

 

You got your nerve!
What scares me is people like you who are allowed to vote.

Think, bigtexxx, think, if you can.
Are you telling me that the hundreds of companies which had already moved oversea knew that Obama is becoming president of the US?
Are you telling me that these 2 had not planned about the move months if not years ago?

 

perfect! they can invest their golden parachute bonuses into the Swiss banks and get even richer!

 

ya who cares??? who needs their tax dollars anyways??

o wait...we do!

this is just the beginning.

 

My god this not about Obama or the incoming president whoever it was going to be. No this about the failure of our Government which on one hands nationalize greed and failed enterprises like AIG, Citi, Fannie/Freddie, GM, Ford, Chrysler etc...and on the other hand has driven business and jobs out of this country because we have one the world's highest corporate tax. For a long time now the rest of the world has been catching up the US in terms of productivity and standard of living. Instead of making our companies competitive to this global change, we have chosen to punish them and confiscate much of their income and labor forcing many to go bankrupt or move elsewhere. Ironically the government tries to bailout the same companies it help destroy in the first place. The state of our economy is pathetic these days were the government is the lender or first and last resort. The bureaucracy has given rise to a system where we are going to depend on our government for livelihood and not the other way around.

 

Spot on.

Yet another stupid, misleading thread by bigtexxx. All of the companies listed were incorporated outside of the US to begin with. littleoklahoma acts like the sky is falling and blames it all on Obama. What a moron.

 

I read the same thing...not sure if I missed something, but didn't Bigtexxx read this part?
So, you basically lie about something, blame Obama, then don't respond to anyone that calls you out. I dread the day the conservatives on this board will actually have something of substance to say...you know it's going to be all "SEEEE PWNED! OBAMA IS WRONG!!" For like 20 pages.

 

I hope that what happens is that Congress puts a tax on those corporations that leave the country and rewards those that stay with tax breaks.

It is only fair.

No free access to our consumers....time for limited tariffs.

DD

 

There are some conservatives on this board who talk issues, it's just that people like chickentexx fill threads with trash that dumbs down legit discussion.

 

The other day I actually heard someone on Bloomberg radio try to make the claim that the entire downturn in the economy was a result of the Obama election being priced in beforehand.

I expect we will see a certain group that I would describe as the 'true believers' who will see anything negative that happens during the entire length of Obama's term as a direct result of Obama being president. And the amazing thing about that to me is that they probably will really believe what they are claiming.

 

You can not escape the Obamaborg, resistance is futile.

All he'd have to do is renegotiate the tax treaties with Switzerland and get it approved by the Politburo..er...Senate.

All your profit is proletariat's.

 

That's great, except that you don't have an income tax on foreign corps. They will pay taxes in their home country. Of course, we could impose tarriffs, but for oilfield equipment that is a bad idea.

 

If we don't have free trade with another country, they should have to pay to have access to our economy.....

DD

 

DD, it's one thing for them to move corporate headquarters out of the U.S. But the manufacturing and shipping of oil & gas drilling equipment, tools, seismic equipment, etc will continue from the Houston area like it always has. UNLESS you try to discourage it with punitive measures, which would be incredibly foolish. Foreign companies (whether they are formerly American or not) should be encouraged to manufacture and ship from the U.S. to other countries.

It's the manufacturing jobs that need to stay.

 

I never said corporations weren't important. They just aren't important enough to let them f*** over a country's future. If we have the human capital, we wont need to worry about jobs or companies leaving. And if tax cuts spur a manufacturing renaissance of sorts, then there really is no deficit. It will more than pay for itself. Add those companies will come crawling back.

 

I'm not drawing any line in the sand. Its common sense to expect corporations to contribute a fair share to the countries they are in. As far as oil, they dont leave or complain when host countries make them build schools, roads, etc. Why is it any different here.

I'm not sure how you get that from my posts. This kind of thinking is dangerous and naive. Corporations dont stay just because you make things good enough for them. They stay because you give them an overall advantage. If we let the system to crap, it wont matter how much incentives we give. They'll leave anyways.

LOL... seriously? This is your counterpoint on oil companies leaving houston?

 

It would be funny if all this corporate posturing actually caused a backlash, sending the American system deeper in to socialism. What if after four years of calling out corporate incompetence and malfeasance, Obama wins a landslide mandate and decides to appoint Dennis Kucinich Secretary of the Treasury to nationalize some of these leeches.

That would be pretty funny.