LOL now thats irony...

[CosmicCowboy]

Russia doing away with capital gains tax and encouraging private enterprises while the US is going in the exact opposite direction...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/81a03be0-7ac0-11df-8549-00144feabdc0.html

Medvedev sees chance for new world order
By Catherine Belton, Charles Clover and Courtney Weaver in St Petersburg
Published: June 18 2010 12:11 | Last updated: June 18 2010 12:11
Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, said Moscow was bidding to help lead efforts to build a new world economic order after the old system collapsed in the global financial crisis.

Opening Russia’s annual economic forum in St Petersburg where hundreds of global chief executives have flocked, Mr Medvedev said the renewed interest in Russia this year was a sign of a changing world in which the institutions of the western-dominated world order had had their day amid thousands of corporate defaults and the threat of sovereign defaults.

“What had seemed untouchable has collapsed. The bubbles that created the illusion of flourishing economies have burst,” Mr Medvedev said. “For Russia this situation is a challenge and an opportunity. We are living in a unique time. And we should use it to build a modern, flourishing and strong Russia ... which will be a co-founder of the new world economic order and a full participant in the collective political leadership of the post-crisis world.”

Mr Medvedev insisted “Russia has changed” in the past year as it sought to pursue a course of “smart politics” that would leverage its competitive advantages in the raw materials sector, while shifting emphasis towards modernising the economy and focusing on boosting innovation over resources.

Acknowledging that the country still had a great deal to do to meet these aims, Mr Medvedev laid out a series of new initiatives that aim to boost its attractiveness as an investment destination. “Russia needs a real investment boom”, in order to achieve its modernisation goals, he said. To stimulate that, Mr Medvedev announced Moscow would introduce zero taxation on capital gains for companies working on long-term investments starting from January next year and said Russia was improving the legal system to provide better protection for businesses against the long arm of bureaucracy.

He added Russia had already simplified migration procedures to help attract “highly-qualified specialists” working in investment and high-tech sectors into the country.

Responding to criticism that Russia’s approach to building an innovation economy was driven from the top down and state interference could hinder development, Mr Medvedev said the state would concentrate its efforts on fostering a good business climate. “No matter how many state-owned companies we have, modernization will happen, above all, through private business. And only if there is competition,” he said. “The state should not tear down the apples from the tree of economics. What the government should do is help grow our apple orchard, develop our economic environment.”

Mr Medvedev said he was cutting the list of strategic enterprises five fold in order to reduce the role of the state in the economy and foster more private initiatives.

[Drachen]

Even I will admit that this is actually very ironic on the surface, but I have two concerns. I would like to see how this is put into practice most specifically how much state control there will be (red tape) and what they will define as long-term investment as well as what other qualifiers they can put in. Secondly, I think it is a lot easier for a country to cut out entire portions of their tax base when they are funded by their ownership of very profitable businesses (oil and other raw materials).

Still, despite these concerns I am very interested to see how this works for them because this could be a tool used to spur growth in our own "green" energy sector, rather than grant money or government research (i.e. 0, or lower capital gains taxes for companies who are actually putting forth more than a cursory effort to invest in renewable energy sources).

[Wild Cobra]

I wonder how many rich American entrepreneurs will be moving to Russia, and we lose even more of a tax break?

[boutons_deux]

Profoundly corrupt Russia is simply enriching the oligarchic/kleptocratic rich, iow, the capitalists who have capital to invest and gains to be made.

[jack sommerset]

http://www.theblogmocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/cartoon-head_gif-anime-100422.gif

[Drachen]

I wonder how many rich American entrepreneurs will be moving to Russia, and we lose even more of a tax break?

Well, I don't know that there will be a rush (at least initially). There will likely be a trickle since there will be initial distrust of the Russian government's ability to cut out the red tape and keep a hands off approach. If it works, great! We have a working model to use in adjusting our own policies.

[ElNono]

I wonder how many rich American entrepreneurs will be moving to Russia, and we lose even more of a tax break?

Please let us know when you find out...

[RandomGuy]

Russia doing away with capital gains tax and encouraging private enterprises while the US is going in the exact opposite direction...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/81a03be0-7ac0-11df-8549-00144feabdc0.html

Medvedev sees chance for new world order
By Catherine Belton, Charles Clover and Courtney Weaver in St Petersburg
Published: June 18 2010 12:11 | Last updated: June 18 2010 12:11
Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, said Moscow was bidding to help lead efforts to build a new world economic order after the old system collapsed in the global financial crisis.

Opening Russia’s annual economic forum in St Petersburg where hundreds of global chief executives have flocked, Mr Medvedev said the renewed interest in Russia this year was a sign of a changing world in which the institutions of the western-dominated world order had had their day amid thousands of corporate defaults and the threat of sovereign defaults.

“What had seemed untouchable has collapsed. The bubbles that created the illusion of flourishing economies have burst,” Mr Medvedev said. “For Russia this situation is a challenge and an opportunity. We are living in a unique time. And we should use it to build a modern, flourishing and strong Russia ... which will be a co-founder of the new world economic order and a full participant in the collective political leadership of the post-crisis world.”

Mr Medvedev insisted “Russia has changed” in the past year as it sought to pursue a course of “smart politics” that would leverage its competitive advantages in the raw materials sector, while shifting emphasis towards modernising the economy and focusing on boosting innovation over resources.

Acknowledging that the country still had a great deal to do to meet these aims, Mr Medvedev laid out a series of new initiatives that aim to boost its attractiveness as an investment destination. “Russia needs a real investment boom”, in order to achieve its modernisation goals, he said. To stimulate that, Mr Medvedev announced Moscow would introduce zero taxation on capital gains for companies working on long-term investments starting from January next year and said Russia was improving the legal system to provide better protection for businesses against the long arm of bureaucracy.

He added Russia had already simplified migration procedures to help attract “highly-qualified specialists” working in investment and high-tech sectors into the country.

Responding to criticism that Russia’s approach to building an innovation economy was driven from the top down and state interference could hinder development, Mr Medvedev said the state would concentrate its efforts on fostering a good business climate. “No matter how many state-owned companies we have, modernization will happen, above all, through private business. And only if there is competition,” he said. “The state should not tear down the apples from the tree of economics. What the government should do is help grow our apple orchard, develop our economic environment.”

Mr Medvedev said he was cutting the list of strategic enterprises five fold in order to reduce the role of the state in the economy and foster more private initiatives.

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/russia


Russia’s economic freedom score is 50.3, making its economy the 143rd freest [out of 179 ranked, placing it in the bottom 1/5th]in the 2010 Index. Its score is 0.5 point worse than last year, reflecting reduced scores in six of the 10 economic freedoms. Russia is ranked 41st out of 43 countries in the Europe region, and its overall score is below the world and regional averages.

The Russian economy scores above the world average only in fiscal freedom, in part because of a reduced corporate tax rate that became effective in January 2009. Economic growth has averaged better than 6 percent over the past five years, but overdependence on oil and gas increases the risk of a sudden loss of competitiveness.

State involvement in economic activity remains extensive. Non-tariff barriers significantly increase the cost of trade. Monetary stability is weak, and prices are heavily controlled and influenced by the government. Deterrents to foreign investment include bureaucratic inconsistency, corruption, and restrictions in lucrative sectors like energy. Corruption weakens the rule of law and increases the fragility of property rights.


They have to try something.

Even with the taxes at that rate, the fact that the Russian government thinks little of seizing assets and companies on a whim, makes it a country I wouldn't invest in.

Which would you prefer CC?

No rule of law, or no taxes?

Here is your opportunity to prioritize. Are you rushing out to invest in Russia now?

[RandomGuy]

I wonder how many rich American entrepreneurs will be moving to Russia, and we lose even more of a tax break?

I would be willing to guess:

Very few. See my previous post.

[Wild Cobra]

I would be willing to guess:

Very few. See my previous post.
Is that article before or after the change in Capital Gains taxation?

[CosmicCowboy]

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/russia



They have to try something.

Even with the taxes at that rate, the fact that the Russian government thinks little of seizing assets and companies on a whim, makes it a country I wouldn't invest in.

Which would you prefer CC?

No rule of law, or no taxes?

Here is your opportunity to prioritize. Are you rushing out to invest in Russia now?

I would prefer rule of law, limited central government, and limited taxes.

[RandomGuy]

List of countries by received Foreign Direct Investment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_received_FDI)

Russia comes in fairly low given its size. Odds are that this newest bit will have little effect until they clean up the rest of their shitty market system.

[MannyIsGod]

Is that article before or after the change in Capital Gains taxation?

LOL

Does it matter? The issue isn't taxation when the government just seizes your assets. Why tax what they can just take?

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL

Does it matter? The issue isn't taxation when the government just seizes your assets. Why tax what they can just take?

You mean like BP's 20 billion?

[MannyIsGod]

You mean like BP's 20 billion?

Wow, seriously? :lol

[RandomGuy]

Is that article before or after the change in Capital Gains taxation?

That is before they changed the rate on corporate capital gains. I would assume they still have individual capital gains taxes, since he took care to specify "corporate".

I still have my doubts, despite Russian government protestations to the contrary, that the glaring deficiencies in their legal system and dearth of human capital can be corrected.

It will be interesting to see how their rankings shap up at the end of the year. I doubt much will change.

Feel free to head over there to be an entreprenuer in Russia though. I will stick to China/India.

[Wild Cobra]

That is before they changed the rate on corporate capital gains. I would assume they still have individual capital gains taxes, since he took care to specify "corporate".

I still have my doubts, despite Russian government protestations to the contrary, that the glaring deficiencies in their legal system and dearth of human capital can be corrected.

It will be interesting to see how their rankings shap up at the end of the year. I doubt much will change.

Feel free to head over there to be an entreprenuer in Russia though. I will stick to China/India.
I agree that only time will tell.

I know little to nothing or the corruption over there, but I do believe it probably exists to a high degree. Just think though, if they get their act together, they might actually become wealthy again.

[CosmicCowboy]

Wow, seriously? :lol

Serious as a heat attack. I realize that due process of law may seem like an antiquated concept to knee jerk liberals such as yourself but it really is the cornerstone of a democratic society.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

BP had every right to wait to see how things played out. They went this route because its cheaper for them. Its hilarious to listen to you make BP out to be a victim here.

[RandomGuy]

Serious as a heat attack. I realize that due process of law may seem like an antiquated concept to knee jerk liberals such as yourself but it really is the cornerstone of a democratic society.

So I take it you are as concerned about warrentless wiretapping as I am?

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

BP had every right to wait to see how things played out. They went this route because its cheaper for them. Its hilarious to listen to you make BP out to be a victim here.
BP is a victim of the Obama administration.

Granted, they fucked up, and will be held accountable. Now that they have been forced to put up billions in payouts, there are now two systems, making it harder to verify that someone isn't getting paid by two claims in two systems.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

BP had every right to wait to see how things played out. They went this route because its cheaper for them. Its hilarious to listen to you make BP out to be a victim here.

And you know this how? The White House had already announced they were going to do it. Hell, I have no love lost for BP but the precedent is scary. Who's next?

[Wild Cobra]

So I take it you are as concerned about warrentless wiretapping as I am?
That doesn't belong here. However, there is probable clause mentioned in the constitution for a reason.

[RandomGuy]

That doesn't belong here. However, there is probable clause mentioned in the constitution for a reason.

Oh. I thought we were talking about "due process of law".

That doesn't include the process of getting a warrant to conduct a wiretap?

[Wild Cobra]

Oh. I thought we were talking about "due process of law".

That doesn't include the process of getting a warrant to conduct a wiretap?
That depends on the level of the law enforcement, and laws they must follow.

BP is not a threat to national security, and does not fall under the presidents powers as the Commander in Chief.

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh. I thought we were talking about "due process of law".

That doesn't include the process of getting a warrant to conduct a wiretap?

I have mixed feelings about that. Personally since I'm not doing anything wrong I don't have a problem with them listening to my calls.

[RandomGuy]

That depends on the level of the law enforcement, and laws they must follow.

BP is not a threat to national security, and does not fall under the presidents powers as the Commander in Chief.

---oh the intellectual gynastics required for that one were impressive.

You realize that Hugo Chavez seizes all manner of assets under the guise of "national security" right. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

---oh the intellectual gynastics required for that one were impressive.

You realize that Hugo Chavez seizes all manner of assets under the guise of "national security" right. :lol
My God.... You're right, and I forgot that your diety, BHO, want's to follow in his footsteps...

[MannyIsGod]

BP had no reason to give in other than it was the best possible course for them. If they didn't think so they would have fought it in court.

Then again BP is obviously in the habit of making poor decisions.

[Wild Cobra]

BP had no reason to give in other than it was the best possible course for them. If they didn't think so they would have fought it in court.

Then again BP is obviously in the habit of making poor decisions.
It's not worth fighting sometimes.

[CosmicCowboy]

BP had no reason to give in other than it was the best possible course for them. If they didn't think so they would have fought it in court.

Then again BP is obviously in the habit of making poor decisions.

Of course BP made the best decision they could under the circumstances.

Unlike you, they don't live in a vacuum.

When the White House told them to put up 20 billion or "We WILL fuck you up" they had no real choice but to go along with the extortion.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh god - give me a fucking break. What was Obama going to send goons to break the BP's CEO's legs? Yeah, they'd make life hell for them in court but those are pretty much the consequences of being negligent fucks who make such huge mistakes.

[MannyIsGod]

CC, Champion of BP's cause. Keep up the good fight.

[MannyIsGod]

It's not worth fighting sometimes.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh god - give me a fucking break. What was Obama going to send goons to break the BP's CEO's legs? Yeah, they'd make life hell for them in court but those are pretty much the consequences of being negligent fucks who make such huge mistakes.
Not like that, but that would have been less drastic than what the power of the presidency can do.

Obama did threaten them. If you don't believe that, you are a fucking fool.

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh god - give me a fucking break. What was Obama going to send goons to break the BP's CEO's legs? Yeah, they'd make life hell for them in court but those are pretty much the consequences of being negligent fucks who make such huge mistakes.

Are you really THAT stupid? You do know that the US government is a partner with the oil companies and controls and profits from the oil rights leasing on all federal lands/waters right? You also know that BP is a major player in Alaska and the North Slope too, right? You don't think they could fuck over BP if they wanted to? It was extortion pure and simple to make Obama look like he was actually doing something.

[MannyIsGod]

Of course BP made the best decision they could under the circumstances.

Unlike you, they don't live in a vacuum.

When the White House told them to put up 20 billion or "We WILL fuck you up" they had no real choice but to go along with the extortion.

And by the way, this is due process. They had the choice and they made it. When an AG makes a criminal take a plea bargain that isn't deriving them of due process its using leverage.

No one ever said we had to bend over for corporations for it to be due process.

[MannyIsGod]

Not like that, but that would have been less drastic than what the power of the presidency can do.

Obama did threaten them. If you don't believe that, you are a fucking fool.

:lol

No shit he threatened them. Like I said, that isn't a deprivation on due process.

[MannyIsGod]

Are you really THAT stupid? You do know that the US government is a partner with the oil companies and controls and profits from the oil rights leasing on all federal lands/waters right? You also know that BP is a major player in Alaska and the North Slope too, right? You don't think they could fuck over BP if they wanted to? It was extortion pure and simple to make Obama look like he was actually doing something.

Using leverage over a company does not equate to denial of due process.

Its not like BP did anything to deserve this though. Poor BP is just another victim of Don Obama getting his pound of flesh.

[CosmicCowboy]

And by the way, this is due process. They had the choice and they made it. When an AG makes a criminal take a plea bargain that isn't deriving them of due process its using leverage.

No one ever said we had to bend over for corporations for it to be due process.

Maybe thats "due process" for a "progressive" but that is NOT due process of law.

[MannyIsGod]

Actually it is. When someone gives up their right voluntarily they're not being deprived of anything. Talk to any attorney general about how plea deals work. You don't think there are threats involved?

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually it is. When someone gives up their right voluntarily they're not being deprived of anything. Talk to any attorney general about how plea deals work. You don't think there are threats involved?

The threat that a DA uses against a criminal is to go to court and argue the facts of that specific case and the defendant could possibly get a worse outcome than the one offered.

In this case the threat was implicit...We have NO legal basis to make you give us 20 billion but we will fuck you up if you don't

Those are two dramatically different scenarios.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol @ AGs only using facts.

I clearly see you have a very weak grasp of due process.

[Wild Cobra]

Can we all agree that Chicago style politics are in the white house?

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol @ AGs only using facts.

I clearly see you have a very weak grasp of due process.

I clearly see that you have a very weak grasp on reality. Courts have clear rules concerning evidence, admissibility, etc. and yes Manny, at the end of the day criminal cases are tried on the FACTS.

The FACT is that BP could have probably taken the US to court and prevailed on the law that the US could not legally force a private company to put 20 billion in an escrow account controlled by politicians.

They didn't, however, because they knew that they would be fucked over in a thousand other ways and took the path of least resistance.

That is NOT due process any more than a robber sticking a gun in your face and telling you to give him your wallet or he will shoot you. You probably would voluntarily give him your wallet but that sure as hell isn't due process.

[RandomGuy]

My God.... You're right, and I forgot that your diety, BHO, want's to follow in his footsteps...

But you just said taking away due process was ok, for "national security".

That means, logically, that you endorse Mr. Chavez' actions to protect his country's national security, right?

Or is it that you are ok with getting rid of due process when something meets your definition of "security", but not for others' definition?

Smacks of hypocrisy to me.

[RandomGuy]

The threat that a DA uses against a criminal is to go to court and argue the facts of that specific case and the defendant could possibly get a worse outcome than the one offered.

In this case the threat was implicit...We have NO legal basis to make you give us 20 billion but we will fuck you up if you don't

Those are two dramatically different scenarios.

So, you think that BP won't be found to be criminally negligent?

[CosmicCowboy]

So, you think that BP won't be found to be criminally negligent?

Honestly? Based on the information I have read I don't think BP will be found to be criminally negligent. Even if they WERE found to be criminally negligent based on existing law they would technically only be on the hook for 75 million. Despite all the posturing from the White House there was no way they could legally raise that limit after the fact.

[ChumpDumper]

Serious as a heat attack. I realize that due process of law may seem like an antiquated concept to knee jerk liberals such as yourself but it really is the cornerstone of a democratic society.Out of court settlements are as old as the court systems themselves.

CC just apologized to BP.

[CosmicCowboy]

Out of court settlements are as old as the court systems themselves.

CC just apologized to BP.

Out of court legal settlements are done when there is a risk that if the case goes to trial that the trial outcome would be worse than the settlement. That wasn't the case here.

This was never about whether to US government could legally force BP to give them 20 billion. They couldn't.

The robber/wallet analogy was a better description of what really happened.

[Drachen]

Honestly? Based on the information I have read I don't think BP will be found to be criminally negligent. Even if they WERE found to be criminally negligent based on existing law they would technically only be on the hook for 75 million. Despite all the posturing from the White House there was no way they could legally raise that limit after the fact.

Not true. They are on the hook for only $75 million ONLY if they are NOT criminally negligent. If they are found to be criminally negligent then the sky is the limit.

[CosmicCowboy]

Not true. They are on the hook for only $75 million ONLY if they are NOT criminally negligent. If they are found to be criminally negligent then the sky is the limit.

I'm not saying there wasn't a cascade of fuckups, but what law did they actually break?

[Drachen]

I'm not saying there wasn't a cascade of fuckups, but what law did they actually break?

I actually wasn't responding to if they are criminally negligent or not, (though from what I've read I believe the could be found so) I am however responding to the following statement that you made.


Even if they WERE found to be criminally negligent based on existing law they would technically only be on the hook for 75 million.

That statement is untrue. The 75 million dollar cap is only in cases of pure accident. Criminal negligence (like not following SOP regarding using mud instead of sea water) removes that cap.

[ChumpDumper]

Out of court legal settlements are done when there is a risk that if the case goes to trial that the trial outcome would be worse than the settlement. That wasn't the case here.Actually, the case here is that BP knew it was going to pay out a shitload of money one way or another, so they agreed to put aside $20 billion toward that end. It doesn't even mean they are going to pay it all out.


This was never about whether to US government could legally force BP to give them 20 billion. They couldn't.If you believe BP to be above the law, sure.


The robber/wallet analogy was a better description of what really happened.In your fantasy world.

Why do you feel the need to apologize to BP?

[clambake]

it looks like they consistently bypassed procedures and ignored problems that were reported by personnel.

negligence is one thing........"willful negligence" is the rope that hangs you.

[ChumpDumper]

The great thing about this is that the claimed proponents of rugged individualism and personal responsibility are now demanding that US taxpayers pay all but $75 million for this disaster.

LOL now thats irony...

[CosmicCowboy]

The great thing about this is that the claimed proponents of rugged individualism and personal responsibility are now demanding that US taxpayers pay all but $75 million for this disaster.

LOL now thats irony...

Who said that? I didn't say the government should pay anything...BP has already said they are going to pay all legitimate claims and have already spent over 2 billion.

[clambake]

and not one peep about the missing billions in iraq.

[Drachen]

and not one peep about the missing billions in iraq.

try to focus. LOL

[clambake]

try to focus. LOL

:lol thought i'd throw that out there and see if i could reel in a darrin utube.

[DarrinS]

The great thing about this is that the claimed proponents of rugged individualism and personal responsibility are now demanding that US taxpayers pay all but $75 million for this disaster.

LOL now thats irony...



Who ever said that?

[ChumpDumper]

Who ever said that?Ask Cosmic Cowboy to post a YouTube.

Or read.

Or not.

[EmptyMan]

http://pw0nd.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/political-pictures-vladimir-putin-russia-president-assassinates-you.jpg