|
Cerebral Bore posted:I, too, see no difference between a registry set up in the public interest and a registry set up specifically to facilitate harassment. Both the registry of phone numbers and addresses as well as tax information were set up in "the public interest" - the problem was that some guy decided to use the addresses for something very much not in the public interest, making it questionable whether setting up the registries in the first place was worth it if they can be easily abused. I'm not frustrated, I think my posts stand out more with the new government that everyone is complaining about except me. Puistokemisti posted:People, you should forget all this worthless juoruuminen and sivistää itseänne. Sign up for an university lesson, for example. Here's one I think would be beneficial for you people. registered
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
vuohi posted:Sure, it's a crime, and a lovely thing to do. I hope he gets the fine that he has earned. But why are we talking about this? Which is why our government should not be making any of this information easily accessible. Keep it public but keep it the way shareownership is, i.e. accessible only with a reason on a specific computer and ban the newspapers from making lists about it that can be tracked later. No one has to my knowledge been hurt by this yet and I don't know what the political motivation is, but I'm not sure having the addresses of people posting in "controversial" Facebook groups (keep in mind this is not easy to see on Facebook and is almost impossible to wipe out) being easily downloadable will ever be a good thing. There's nothing good that CAN come out of it. Like why is that information something anyone would need to have? You only need one person to abuse it, luckily Finland is incredibly safe now but things can change. Can you imagine this sort of list in Britain or the US for example?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
konna posted:Hilariously detached from reality article: Tämä pariskunta ei ikinä riitele rahasta – ”kun sopii heti pelisäännöt, voi keskittyä elämästä nauttimiseen”. A childless economist + DI couple who can: It does seem like a stupid "lifehacks" article but 150-200 euros per month for "going out" is hardly detached from reality for HS readers. It's easily doable for childless people earning the median income, even with some saving.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2015 12:03
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Yeah... it's all made up! One of the really annoying things about this is the current culture of "political correctness" around the police and some media outlets (e.g. Yle in particular in Finland). The fact that the police said after NY that there were no problems until enough people came out and said "well... actually" Meanwhile some people continue to go "oh you're citing Daily HEIL again  " like somehow this story has been blown way out of proportion instead of first having been covered up because it doesn't fit the "little angels fleeing war" narrative
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Discussed this elsewhere, but now that the Schengen treaty is functionally dead, it's only a matter of time before countries that rely on exporting labor start making GBS threads themselves. If Estonians, for example, can't no longer jump on a boat and come work to Finland, that country's economy is gonna go into the shitter. The right to work anywhere in the EU isn't a part of Schengen and even if Schengen dies, showing your passport before boarding a ship isn't a big deal
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
Cake Smashing Boob posted:Different legal standards and procedures for collecting, registering and reporting crime ought not to affect these results very much, though, seeing as they're from a survey, not a comparison of national crime statistics. Yeah but there are still different cultural standards for what constitutes abuse/violence (a slap? restraining someone? or just flat out smacking your bitch up) and maybe cultural differences even in answering the survey
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Let's ignore the unignorable fact that the government is just not as good as the private sector at managing most assets. The government has two choices: It can continue to be invested in a range of non-strategic assets (for example Solidium stakes). As a result, all citizens are automatically forced to 1) make the choice to invest instead of consume and 2) assigned a set of investments by the government instead of being allowed to decide on them on their own. Really the only reason to support government ownership of non-strategic assets is some sort of dogmatic belief that the government should always be involved. *looks at who made the post*. Oh, SnowblindFatal. So yeah, a dogmatic belief that the government needs to be involved in everything. Some exceptions to this: 1) When the government actually has a reason to make the consumption/investment decision because consumers undersave (saving for pensions, avoiding Dutch disease like Norway)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Puistokemisti posted:We can get money at negative interest. It would be profit just to take as much as we can and just sit on it until the payment time comes. And if we as nation have no better sijoituskohteita than ~0.01% profit, then game over man, rip in piss. If your idea is that you will take money from private investors for almost no return and invest in something they have complete access to (publicly listed stocks were being discussed earlier) with the expectation of earning a positive return, the old saying of "if you can't spot the sucker, you are the sucker" comes to mind. The money the government borrows comes from the same people who can invest in the stock market. And many other things. What does the government know that they don't? Why is the government better at bearing the risk than they are?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
SnowblindFatal posted:Sorry guys I didn't mean to summon him. If you don't want me to point out elementary errors in your posts about economics, try to think through the basic logic behind just one of your posts while resisting the urge to immediately jump to "the government's going to make me as rich as my high school classmates"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
doverhog posted:If you consider the amount of money that's just rotting on zero interest bank accounts, or the disproportionate amount of wealth tied to omistusasunnot, forcing citizens to invest in this manner might not be such a bad idea. In your previous post, you recommended the government take money from people because it can do so at a low interest rate. Now you're saying the government should discourage investments with a low rate of return. The bottom line is that outside of making sure that people are saving enough for their retirements and that the expected rate of return on these investments is high enough, I don't think the government should do anything (other than nudge-style programs and basic financial literacy) about whether people keep the money in a bank account or the stock market. People will have their own reasons for doing what they want. The reason we have so much wealth in housing is because it's something that the government has promoted for years. There's no other asset class that's as supported as housing. I'm all for people moving away from housing, but the answer isn't to funnel money into the next bubble but instead just let people make decisions on their own.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Darkest Auer posted:The private sector is really good at laundering profits through tax havens while making the tax payers pay for their real or imaginary losses, yes. Also: at providing goods and services consumers want
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:
ligur are so dumb lol edit: i mean 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
LA and any other leftist party would sell out in the same manner for their one ministerial spot (see: LA in Katainen govts), maybe they'd make a bit more noise about somethings but otherwise it'd be the exact same. The electorate overwhelmingly gave the mandate until 2019 for economically center-right parties to govern, PS just figured that they wouldn't stand in the way if they could influence other things. But they've failed pretty hard at influencing most other things, though that's partly due to factors outside of their control. And by that I mean the one non-economic thing everyone will remember was the refugee flood, and that was going to happen anyway - PS doesn't have much control over that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Veropolitiikka Eduskuntavaaliohjelmassa 2011 perussuomalaiset vaati jyrkempää progressiota verotukseen, lapsiperheille verovähennyksiä, perintöveron lakkauttamista asuntojen osalta ja alempaa ruoan, autojen ja polttoaineiden verotusta. Puolueen mielestä suurten perintöjen verotusta ei saa laskea.[29] Perussuomalaiset halusivat kiristää yritysten osinkoveroa ja yli 5 000 euroa kuussa ansaitsevien verotusta sekä korottaa pääomatuloveron 30 %:iin sekä perua energiaverojen korotukset.[30] Vaaliohjelma vastusti myös niin sanottuja ”vihreitä veroja” kuten ruuhkamaksuja. Vihreä verouudistus veisi puolueen mielestä teollisuustyöpaikat ja tulisi vähävaraisille kalliiksi.[31] Perussuomalaiset on vaatinut varallisuusveron palauttamista.[29][32] Pääomatuloverotuksesta pitäisi puolueen mukaan tehdä progressiivinen yksityishenkilöille, ja suurten säätiöiden sekä yritysten kaikista pääomatuloista verollisia. Pieni- ja keskituloisten ihmisten ja pienyritysten verotusta ei saa kiristää.[29] Yhteisöveron laskua 24,5 prosentista 20 prosenttiin perussuomalaiset piti vuoden 2014 vaihtoehtobudjetissaan hätiköitynä ratkaisuna ja kannatti veron laskua enintään 22 prosenttiin. Myös arvonlisäveron korotusta vuoden 2013 alussa perussuomalaiset pitivät virheenä ja rahoittaisivat prosentin alennuksen Kela-maksun palauttamisella yksityiselle sektorille.[32] Perussuomalaiset vastustavat Suomen ”yltiömarkkinavetoista” suuntaa ja kannattavat hyvinvointivaltiota.[33] Valtion pitää kaventaa tuloeroja. Finanssikriisi pitää panna finanssimarkkinoiden ja ”suurpääomapiirien” maksettavaksi.[34] Sosiaali- ja terveyspolitiikka Eduskuntavaaliohjelmassaan 2011 puolue vaati perusturvan parantamista ja sen sekä lapsilisien sitomista kuluttajahintaindeksiin.[35] Suurituloisten lapsilisiä piti perussuomalaisten mukaan leikata ja pienituloisia kannustaa lastenhankintaan. Toimeentulotuesta ei tullut vähentää lapsilisiä ja yksinhuoltajakorotuksia. Alle 4 000 euroa kuussa ansaitsevia lapsiperheitä lisätuettaisiin lapsivähennyksellä.[36] Työeläkkeiden ”taitettua indeksiä” pitäisi parantaa, ja nuorten eläkekarttumaprosenttia korottaa.[37] Puolue haluaa parantaa vanhustenhoidon ja vammaishoidon tasoa ja on huolissaan terveydenhoidon pätkätöistä ja epäpätevistä työntekijöistä. Omaishoitajien työ on korvattava paremmin.[38] Puolueen mielestä sosiaali- ja terveyspalveluissa tulisi aina säilyttää julkinen palveluntuotanto yksityisen rinnalla ja palvelumaksuja pitäisi laskea.[39] Vaaliohjelmassaan perussuomalaiset vaativat kyläkoulujen säilyttämistä[31] ja pieniä luokkakokoja.[37] Puolue pitää tärkeänä taito- ja taideaineiden sekä liikunnan opetuksen lisäämistä, ruotsin muuttamista vapaaehtoiseksi aineeksi peruskoulussa, ylempien korkeakoulututkintojen pakollisen virkamiesruotsin poistoa sekä opintotuen sitomista indeksiin.[40] Työelämä ja valtionyritykset Työehtoja rikkovia työnantajia tulee puolueen mukaan rangaista ankarasti sekä harmaata taloutta ja talousrikollisuutta torjua.[41] Perussuomalaiset haluaa pysäyttää valtionhallinnon "tuottavuusohjelman", koska heistä se on pelkkä ”irtisanomisohjelma”.[41] Työeläkerahastoja ja valtion rahoja pitää käyttää enemmän suomalaiseen työhön.[37][41] Valtion tulisi toimia aktiivisena omistajana suomalaisen työn edistämiseksi.[41] Puolue kannattaa Veikkauksen ja RAY:n monopoleja, ja sen mielestä Yleisradion tehtäviä ei voi jättää markkinoiden armoille.[42] Puolueen mukaan ylikansalliset yritykset polkevat työntekijöiden oikeuksia kehitysmaissa ja jakavat miljardivoittoja omistajilleen. Niiltä pitää ottaa rahaa ilmastoinvestointeihin.[43]
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:So, like, this was the program of one of the parties that were given this overwhelming mandate for governing "economically centre-right"? Still mad about the result, huh? Even without PS, you could have had a center right govt, while both of the main left wing parties had huge losses. PS might be left wing but that's not why people voted for them (Greece and immigrants being the main reasons)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Given the ensuing parade of incompetence and buffoonery from our current government, I don't see why any reasonable person should be happy about the election result. Therefore the whole "u mad bro" thing confused me for a second until I remembered who I was replying to. quote:
How does that change anything I said? Aside from the fact that the votes might have shifted PS->SDP because now they realize that PS isn't all that special when it comes to immigrants either, it doesn't change the fact that during the election, these guys opted to vote for the one issue party instead of the left wing party. And since most others voted for the center-right parties, the electorate gave a clear mandate to the center-right. It doesn't matter what the opinion polls show now, hell you could even argue that those PS voters have all of a sudden turned "left wing" now that unions are threatened. --- Also lol at the people who are taking the 47 sexual crimes as some sort of representative statistic. Most of the asylum seekers have been here less than 6 months (and those stats are for 2015 so they ignore Iraqi New Year's celebrations for example). Now of course 47 crimes isn't the end of the world (there were 3000 sexual crimes reported/committed in Finland in 2014), but what they managed to do in their first few months here while living in a home and being uncertain of their status isn't representative of their long term impact on crime stats.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Melkein ko tilauksesta! The police just had an infotilaisuus. According to your live-thingy, 926 asylum seekers are suspected of crimes, so roughly 1/30th of them. When most have been here less than 6 months. I wonder how that compares to native Finns. I'm always surprised when I hear how high the actual percentage of people with a criminal record / suspected of crimes is.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Rexroom posted:Shouldn't this foreign rapist talk be done in the Europe thread? I mean, this isn't exactly confined to just Finland. I recommend ScanPol because it's the worst
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Puistokemisti posted:Rip ScanPol, taken from us by immigration. Lol they seriously shut it down because it was more than just Ligur and Cardiac disagreeing with them
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
Darkest Auer posted:If you ask Geriatric Pirate, that never happens because private business is altruistic and they never raise prices. It's not altruism, it's competition. And no matter how much you cry about it, it tends to work a lot better than letting bureaucrats run the show. Anyway, in this case, the government decided to mandate huge investments (change in some requirements required updating a lot of the infra) the year after it privatized the company. So no poo poo prices would increase. Lol if you think it would have worked differently with a valtionyhtio.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
The sooner we get rid of the farce known as corporate income tax, the better. It doesn't work in a globalized world, and it really doesn't make sense for companies to pay tax either when you can tax the owners and workers. Cerebral Bore posted:I, too, think that competition will lower prices when we're talking about a natural monopoly. The government is "running the show", they're the ones who dictate how much profit Caruna and other similar companies can make. If you knew anything about this case, you'd realize that Caruna (as a natural monopoly) is already heavily regulated and the profit they can make (as a percentage of capital employed) is capped by the government. It just so happened that the government told the companies that they had to invest heavily (i.e. employ more capital), so companies raised prices to meet this percentage. Also the always benevolent government did raise the percentage in order to encourage investments. Herman Merman posted:What is Caruna's ROI over the last few years?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Herman Merman posted:That sounds like an exceedingly bad idea in the case of capital-intensive businesses with owners residing in tax havens! Accidental, I'm sure. And exactly how would you show where the profit originates? Starbucks' profits in Finland are due to the Starbucks brand, not their operations in Finland for example. If Nokia does 50% of it's R&D in Silicon Valley and 50% in Finland and then makes a sale to a global conglomerate, where do you tax that? It's immensely complicated and in the end will go nowhere as companies keep relocating, hiding businesses etc while we're stuck with huge rising costs of enforcement. No, just tax the owners. And for those owners who are substituting their labor income for capital income, these are normally smaller businesses and with them it would be much easier to bust them for tax evasion. Also, they aren't as capable of relocating. Darkest Auer posted:Yes, because obviously taxing the poor who can't hide their income in tax havens is better than closing the loops in the Finnish tax system. Speaking of tax evasion by Caruna, another great blog post by Asiaton on the topic, debunking the line of thought that leftists usually have about how "OMG WE SOLD ANOTHER CASH PRODUCING GOVERNMENT ASSET  ":http://asiatonlehdistokatsaus.blogspot.com/2016/02/onko-valia-maksaako-caruna-veroa-vai-ei.html Of course, since Caruna was spun off from a valtionyhtiö with private operations instead of the government directly, it's not that straightforward but reading it would probably still have positive educational value for most posters here. Geriatric Pirate fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Herman Merman posted:If the operations are in Finland, you tax the entire profit in Finland. I don't care where they do their R&D or branding work. If the conglomerate wants to deduct R&D or other expenses they should provide an audited financial statement outlining those expenses, which can then be proportionally deducted in all the countries they make sales in. That's literally what companies already do. That's the Dutch sandwich / double Irish etc. The R&D etc is charged from the Finnish company. Of course it's not just charged by expenses but there's a profit there as well, which you kind of expect if you invest in R&D. You just assume that this can be simply taxed and other countries won't immediately dispute everything (after all, if some country hosts all the R&D of course they expect the tax from profits since they provide everything) and everyone will agree to proportionality. Or that it wont be a huge expense to track it all and negotiate each company's share. It's just stupid. You're already double taxing, corporate taxes add a third layer of tax, cost a lot to enforce, discourage investment and create huge competition between countries to offer the lowest tax rates so companies chase tax rates instead of the best places to do business. They overwhelmingly favor large multinationals and hurt smaller companies. Also, I don't give a poo poo about how much tax people living in other countries pay to Finland. They don't use our social services, they don't owe us anything. Ofc checks like needing to prove you have weak ties to Finland are necessary to avoid temporary tax exile, but we hav had those for ages.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Herman Merman posted:They completely ignore the most pressing point, namely that a natural monopoly should never have been sold to a private owner, domestic or foreign, in the first place. Also the fact that accurately estimating the net present value of future taxes is extremely hard or outright impossible, and cannot take into account e.g. future changes in tax rates. So yeah, typical libertarian pap based on a hanken101 understanding of economics. And you're completely ignoring the fact that the monopoly was sold with regulations on maximum profits and the government was the one who changed these and forced the new investments to be made. Also lol @ estimating the NPV is difficult. Aside from the fact that it's relatively trivial (you know profit, tax rate, and can easily estimate the value of the business with and without these because cash flows are super stable) it's also irrelevant. Just because a calculation can't be done easily doesn't change their point at all. Which is that the buyers knew they wouldn't pay taxes, so they estimated the value of the company without taxes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
ALLAN LASSUS posted:Well there's a blog post where notorious neoliberalist rear end in a top hat Heikki Pursiainen whips up a completely insane example and finishes it off with "well yeah this isn't how things actually work but better believe it", golly gee whiskers Oh sorry instead we should let goons with no training in (or understanding of) economics continue to misunderstand basic things and make dumb logical errors BECAUSE WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Herman Merman posted:Not what I proposed at all. The international conglomerate profit is sales minus expenses. R&D is an expense. Sales happen in individual countries. Expenses may be deducted proportionally to sales, the rest is taxed with the local corporate tax rate. Tax havens? You know Finland just as an example makes a ton of money off of R&D that's been done here and then turned into profitable products? Let alone some place like US, which unlike Finland can also easily tell people to gently caress off when Finland says "no, Starbuck's sales in Finland clearly have nothing to do with the brand capital Starbucks has accumulated abroad" or something about Apple's profit margin being attributable to work Apple has done in the US. If you have sales in Finland, you pay the Finnish value added tax. That's a fairly easy way to tax sales without a need for huge armies of lawyers and accountants. It already exists. It's not perfect and it has a lot of negative externalities, but it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to figure out where a company's profits are attributable in a global economy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
ALLAN LASSUS posted:I was about to ask if you've read his recent insane neoliberalist ramblings on the Libera site about deregulation of apothecaries or university tuition fees or other, erm, issues he has but then I remembered who I'm talking to so nevermind Do you actually have an issue with the logic of tax avoidance being included in the price that Fortum received for their sähkönsiirto company or are you just going to keep posting "well he's a neoliberal  " while still being clueless?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
li <3 #perustulo #feminismi #ympäristö #elvytys #koulutus #liittoutumattomuus welcome to the future of LA
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Hope she makes it. She's pretty sensible, and as a bonus it will rile up the dumbshits to no end. Caruna was owned by Fortum before, so no, the government couldn't have "found ways of funding the necessary infrastructure spending that didn't gently caress over the average citizen" because Fortum can't tax anyone either. But I assume you're probably referring to one of your communist fantasies again where even Fortum doesn't exist and the government controls the company directly. Can't help but wonder how the government would actually fund it though, I realize this is a bit pointless as I'm arguing from a position of "this is reality" and you're arguing from "in my communist utopia we could" and of course there's no point for me to address everything else that's wrong with your communist utopia. Right now the infrastructure investments are being funded by the consumers through price increases, so that's a "tax" that hits a) big consumers of electricity disproportionately highly (good for the environment) and b) industry and services much more heavily than consumers (redistributive, unavoidable tax on industry). I'm sure in Cerebral Boristan the government would be able to tax Republicans and tax havens and the company would be run super efficiently despite managers getting paid the same as janitors, so it's pointless to argue this much further... Geriatric Pirate fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You're the one who started yelling about how a hypothetical valtion yhtiö would have handled the thing just as badly. Like, this is something that you brought up of your own volition, and now you're having a meltdown because somebody did address a thing that you brought up. Let's see: 1) Goons start crying about electricity company raising prices, claim privatization is to blame 2) I point out it's a heavily regulated industry and the price increases were allowed by the government because investments were needed and that any operator would have increased prices 3) You come up with some retarded stuff about how if the government were running the company, they would do it a lot better by not increasing prices because omg these electricity transfer charges are hurting the poor so much 4) I point out that that's extremely detached from reality and that any increases in electricity charges actually affect the rich disproportionately (almost as disproportionately as our tax system) 5) You: omg what a meltdown, better not try to argue with any facts The whole point is that it's an almost complete non-issue that wasn't handled badly. The only decision you could question is whether the investments were necessary or not. Everything else (price increases) happened exactly the way they would have happened in almost every ownership option. You just needed another thing to cry about. Geriatric Pirate fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Rexroom posted:I'm beginning to think Geriatric Pirate is actually Björn Wahlroos. The tax havens are completely separate from the price hikes, it's not the same issue but since Caruna started being discussed jn the news, people figures "here's something else to be outraged about! Gragrhgr". For a basic explanation of why using tax havens doesn't really matter, see the asiaton blog post I linked. Sipila probably needs to act outraged because even though the economic argument presented is really simple, most people seem to have a hard time understanding it (or just not bothering to think about it) if this thread is anything to go by.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Herman Merman posted:Which is naive libertarian nonsense because of what I posted, among other things. But let's not dwell on that. What you posted was completely wrong though
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Rexroom posted:Great argument. Really convincing. Maybe read the post after his next time. The prices are pushed to the maximum (well, profits are) by everyone, Finnish governmental players and foreign privatized players. The article is just stupid. Of course everyone wants a higher return. The point is that the return is capped by the government. When people bought Caruna, they knew this. All the power companies aim for the maximum allowed return, regardless of who owns them. It has absolutely 0 to do with then being privately or foreign owned. The government allowed higher profits for a while to encourage further investment. Both Caruna and Finnish companies responded to these incentives. Caruna hiked prices more, so they presumably invested more as well. The profit they're allowed to make is also proportionate to investment as it's measured by return on capital. If it was a private sector thing, Elenia, another power network operator (owned by freaking Goldman Sachs instead of a Canadian pension fund), would also be under fire. It really is ridiculous how low the level of general understanding around this issue seems to be. Normally you have people here who understand at least some basic concepts around the issue. Now it's like I'm talking to 10 SnowblindFatals.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Rexroom posted:I think we have an agreement over that companies play for profits. The problem is that Caruna is a sähkösiirtoyhtiö, who you can't switch to another competitor like in any free market utopia, because they own the electricity grid in the region. So as a consumer you're getting a pretty raw deal. Why Fortum/government thought it was worth the risk to create a private company with a natural monopoly is anyone's guess, but it should be pretty apparent now why privatizing infrastructure is problematic, to say the least. As I mentioned 3 times in the post you quoted and many more in this thread, the government has, by law, restricted the profits these companies are allowed to make... And that the system seems to be working fine for other privatized operators in the same field, and that public operators also increase prices when they make investments. Pretty basic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
http://www.hs.fi/m/talous/a1379664130915 Lol. The date on the article. In 2013 it was clear that prices would rise because of investments, privatization or not. Amazing how difficult this is to understand.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Mulli posted:that news article also states that 2/3 fortum's power grid is already good enough for the new standards? Which leaves 1/3rd? I'm not a power network expert, so I can't comment except to say that if the problem is that they overinvested, then that's not something thats been brought up on this thread or the media until the post before yours. Everyone is just crying about thr tax arrangements (which is dumb because it would be reflected in purchase price for a tax free investor) and price increases. No "god drat foreigners buying our power grid and over investing in it". And to be honest, had they not invested and there was another big storm, the same goons crying about investments here would be crying about how we let the drat forriners buy our power grid and not invest in it, leading to power cuts. Same goons would be crying either way. I mean the whole thing is just a ridiculous whinefest, which seems to be why people like Markku Kuisma are the people being cited instead of the normal economics commentariat or energy economists. The price hikes are basically meaningless for most people, it's companies who are hit the hardest since they consume much more power than anyone else yet of course goons do the whole "this is terrible for the poor"  ing. The tax argument is easy to counter by just noting that the tax is probably reflected in the purchasing price. And people seem to be completely ignoring that the push to invest started from the government jn the first place, they allowed companies to make higher profits to encourage investment and forced them to do at least some investments.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Pussy Noise posted:But why would one sell these assets in the first place? It's a valid question that you don't get to dodge by pretending that you have some uniquely pure understanding of corporate finance. If you're asking why they were sold, that was a purely corporate decision by Fortum, probably to free up cash for productive investments and avoid the reinvestment. If it's a more general why doesn't the government run everything, probably because the evidence suggests that private sector efficiency gains combined with strong regulation is an ideal model for situations like this one. The "bank savings" thing is also just dumb populism. Firstly, our money doesn't just sit in our bank accounts, it's loaned out which helps the economy. Secondly, people might prefer a bank account where they can take their money out at any time, have lower risk, avoid huge capital calls and in general not be invested into things we don't really have any expertise in managing. That being said, our (professionally managed) pension funds are minority partners in many of these, but these guys know their liquidity needs a bit better than Kuisma knows the liquidity needs of our general population. If there was a case for people putting their savings into this outside of their pensions, they could have invested in one of the funds involved here or in Elenia or someone could have organized them pooling their money for this. Ok, not that realistic, but the fact is people keep their money in their bank accounts instead of investing in many funds which are perfectly investable which invest in situations like this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Puistokemisti posted:Oh yes, private sector is so much more efficient with monopolies than public. Must be all that competition forcing them to improve quality and lower prices. The invisible hand saves us once more. Mountains of evidence suggest the private sector gets better quality per € spent on the production side. On the market/selling side, regulation caps prices, including in this case.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Fish of hemp posted:I mean god drat Jesus christ do you guys ever stop ing about the smallest things? In Finland the maximum profit on the sector is regulated by the government. The same government you want to run the whole thing.OhYeah posted:Speaking of privatisation of rail transport... Nauta posted:state doesnt have to care though if somebody sues them. why are african countries and russia for example viewed as risky investments? because they may nationalize private property if that seems like a good thing to do that day and corporations are pretty powerless to do anything about it. okay it's a bit more complicated than that and a slippery slope but the point is state has the monopoly on violence so unless corporations start recruiting their own armies the state can wipe its rear end on any corporation. in principle
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
Rexroom posted:Like clockwork. You trying to aim for the PR department? You guys seem pretty fixated on getting at least one angle at this thing where you crying would actually have some merit. Tax dodging, increasing prices, not investing enough, investing too much, not caring about the environment etc. But I realized I forgot this post: Darkest Auer posted:Out of all the neolib 101 talking points, this is the most retarded. No, when a foreign tax-avoiding corporation buys a national asset, they don't include 60 years of lost-to-the-goverment tax income in the deal. quote:30% price increase to something you can't do without is not meaningless. Are you one of those people who have no idea what a carton of milk costs because you have your butlers and servants do all of the shopping for you? adhuin posted:Onnibussi is great, when you only need to travel between bigger cities. If you need to go to perähikiä or more importantly out of there, you're screwed in onni-Finland. Geriatric Pirate fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 01:17
|
|