You could still play with the radio and the wiper blades, but okay, we're going to disagree about the car thing. I think you get my point about the necessity of an office suite to make computers useful to the large part of market.
That's the point, though, that Microsoft makes something that greatly enhances the functionality of the Mac. In various anti-trust cases, such as ATT's breakup, the government forced corporations with excessive market share to make unprofitable decisions in certain markets, because their actions could cause large, irrepairable harm to competitors. For example, ATT was essentially ham-strung by the government for over a decade. In the 1950's GM approached 50% market share and actually became concerned they might be subject to anti-trust actions by the government. They were careful not to do anything that would appear to harm Ford, American(?) Motors, or Chrysler.
Microsoft could probably stop making office because it's unprofitable, and especially with this DOJ, would probably not have to undergo serious anti-trust scrutiny. However, to can a profitable product, when you have the market power Microsoft has and with the sole purpose of harming a competitor, is a violation of the law. It's not a matter of being pro-mac or anti-microsoft. It's a matter of the laws we've put in place to ensure that markets are not directed by one or a few people. Competition makes capitalism work - monopoly is not much better than a state run economy. I can't remember specifics off hand but the DOJ has brought some recent anti-trust actions in other markets where the participants had far less than 95% of the market.
I was actually reaching for some analogy that didn't involve computers. I realized I wasn't like 95% of the computer users out there when I thought it was odd that Microsoft didn't deliver a compiler with Windows. After all, how useful is an OS without a compiler. Then came the horrible realization. For most computer users office software is the dominant tool outside of the web. I would argue that having an OS without an office solution, to most people, is like a car without tires. Note, also, I said Ford has a large percentage of the tire market, not 100%. GM could still buy tires from some other company, but it would be more of a niche solution. You probably wouldn't find the tires you needed at your local garage, etc.
Wow, I must have had it installed all along. Except, I think I'm out of space for pictures. I keep sticking more in the slot on the side of the laptop, but no more will fit.
You might as well. I imagine 99.999% of that is useless gibberish that people are retaining the way they retain random loose screws and bolts in coffee cans in their garage.
Web server log files with the history of people clicking around. My address stored by everybody I ever bought anything on line from. It's more an information land-fill than an information warehouse.
You really don't understand the nature of free-market capitalism, do you? The point is that a company with enough market power to kill competitors in unrelated markets actually harms all consumers. Preserving competition keeps capitalism from descending into the robber-baron economy of the early 20th/late 19th century. You're confusing a free market with an absence of rules. You are right that the remedy is a serious problem, you can't force a company to come out with a high quality product. However, you can make sure that companies understand there's a legal price to pay for throwing around their market weight.
He wasn't saying it sucked, just that it wasn't great, but in fact will be great in the near future. I used to use it work quite a bit because I spent most of my time in Linux and didn't want to reboot. However, I would get expense worksheets (from Sun!) that were Excel workbooks. I would get formatted, macro-filled workbooks for timesheets. Forms, policies and procedures that were done in Word documents. Most importantly, Visio diagrams. So, no, OOO is not ready to bump Office out of most corporate settings. Now, if everyone in that office used OOO, it would be fine.
That would be cool. Of course MS would then cram a bunch of A-player engineers back into Office for Mac, to crush Apple's office suite for the Mac. So that they could take it away again. On a serious note, I wonder if reverse engineering the Office file formats would tickle MS into suing Apple on copyright gournds?
I wish we could get some real research into cannibis, instead of Government FUD. I understand it also protects the brain against degenerative diseases like ALS. Now how does that one part go? I can't figure out the power cords for "And as we wind on down the road."
While I agree with you, I'm not sure what your remedy is. How much could you penalize Microsoft financially? If you made them come out with an office suite, under court supervision, could it possibly suck? (Would they just pour strawberry jam in the box and ship it?) From most of the postings I've read it seems like a lot of people confuse a free market with an absence of ethics and laws. While I don't think/. readers are *exactly* representative of the general population, I suspect a lot of Americans even more unaware that monopolies break capitalism. They just view Microsoft as being sucessful or even what a PC "is" in a sense.
The fact that Office is on the Mac is an accident of history. Using market power in one market to harm competition in another market may be a violation of law (IANAL). However, they do use the fact there's no 100% compatible Office software for Linux as an sales point. I was an OOO user for a long time, because I spend 95% of my day pounding out code for Unix. It was easier to be on Linux full time for a variety of reasons. I had all sorts pesky, non-catastrophic issues with OOO. For example, reimbursement forms (from Sun!) that are excel spreadsheets. Or timesheets in Excel. Not to mention Word doc after Word doc on policies, procedures, meeting minutes, etc. that failed to open correctly.
If Microsoft stopped shipping Mac Office, it would take OSX off the radar for many companies, along with consumers and universities. Although I'm not sure what you could do to stop Microsoft from *not* doing something. The current administration (and therefore the DOJ) shows no interest in restricting businesses in any way, shape or form. I'm not sure you could compell Micrsoft to put out an Office release for the Mac.
BTW I'm sure Apple was very reluctant to offer any kind of Office suite because they knew that all too often No Microsoft Word == No Mac Sale.
It has to do with relative market power. Even though Apple has something like 2/3 market share for MP3 players, they have a much smaller fraction of music sales. They have a very small percentage of the hardware and software market so they can't really dictate terms in those markets. If they had traditionally licensed OSX and had 75% of the PC hardware market, deciding to stop licensing the OS is a possible anti-trust violation. Apple has less than 5% of the market for desktops. The iPhone has, as of today, a 0% market share. If Apple stopped making iTunes for PC's, the only real harm would be to Apple. Likewise, if Microsoft only had 25% of the office software market - their decision to create or not create a Mac OS version would be fine.
Microsoft, however, has such a large share of the office software market, that they can use it as an economic club in another market (operating systems). Traditionally, what the US has done is to break up concentrations of economic power to promote free-market capitalism. If we can't break them up, like the electric company which is usually a natural monopoly, then we regulate them and limit what the can do and what they can charge. Imagine if Ford had 90% of the tire market. If they stopped selling tires to other auto manufacturers they would be abusing their market power. You could still buy a car - the radio would work.
I'm not some pinko "everyone play fair" lefty. The concentration of market power into too few hands in industries actually goes against free market principles. Free markets are most efficient when there are many sellers. When you have abusive market power, sellers are able to extract excess profits and make everyone poorer as a result. It's even worse when abusive companies use their power to destroy competitors in other, unrelated markets.
You're right. If there had never been Office for the Mac, then there would be no abuse of monopoly power. However, Microsoft has such a large share of the office market that they can harm competitors in unrelated markets (i.e. operating systems) by discontinuing the product. That's the possible monopoly abuse. It would be like Ford having a 95% market share in road tires and deciding not to supply road tires to other manufacturers of cars. If you built boats - you would not be harmed by Ford's decision, but all the other car manufacturers would.
I'm actually a very free-market person, however, when too much of a market is concentrated in the hands of too few organizaitons you move away from free-market capitalism toward oligopolies and monopolies. The more producers of a product, and the less market share each producer has, the closer you are to efficient, free markets. Should we penalize a company for being successful? No, but we should also not put ourselves in a position where one company gets to use their power in one market to dictate winners and loosers in other markets.
Actually corporations are not extensions of investors. They are separate entities in the eyes of the law and their debts and liabilities cannot be attached to their shareholders. (Unless the "corporate veil" is lifted in the case of small corporations whose assets are co-mingled with their owners.) If you want to pass income through to individuals, you are welcome to organize your business as a partnerships. Until recently most large accounting firms were partnerships. The shareholders in a corporations are shielded from the liabilities of the corporation because it is a separate entity. You own stock in ExxonMobile, for example, but the state of Alaska can't go after your assets if they sue XOM. Likewise, the bankruptcy judge can't bring in the assets of UAL shareholders, when UAL when through bankruptcy. If UAL were a partnership, then the partner's assets would also be "on the table."
In addition corporations can sell stock in an open and liquid market, something that's impossible in proprietorships and difficult in partnerships. I don't think you can separate the notion of corporations as a separate entity for purposes of liability, access to capital, and so on, and then treat the investors as partners for tax purposes. Either corporations are a separate entity from their investors or they're not. The fact they are separate entities actually makes them attractive to investors, since your risk is only the size of the investment and not subject to tobacco lawsuits, asbestos claims, fraud (Enron), or criminal negligence (Bophal India).
And if you want a more classic and better example than the 3-button mouse, take wheat. Each farmer has essentially not control over the price of wheat in the market (for a certain grade) since there are many sellers (perfect competition). The further away you get from perfect competition and you go toward monopoly, the more power firms have to pass increases in prices to consumers. But, income taxes are not a "cost" to the corporation. There is no income tax if the corporation does not earn money (unlike rent, for example, which is still owed to the landlord that rents the corp its property). Income taxes are taken out after expenses are deducted from revenue (which is the definition of income). Now, you might argue that corporations will attempt to become more lean to make their "after tax" numbers, but you cannot argue that income taxes are a cost.
Also, the IRS allows entities to interprit the tax law in a manner that best suits the taxpayer. They are welcome to challenge your interpritation in an audit. If you so choose, you can go before an ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) and challenge their claim that a deduction is disallowed. If you want to appeal, there is an appeals process and even the ability to take the claim to Federal court. However, any claim of deduction on your return has always been subject to the IRS's interpritation of the tax code. In a sense there is nothing "perfectly legal" or "perfectly illegal" that gets serious challenge. The issues challenged are normally grey areas subject to one person or another's reading of the codes and laws that apply.
Taxes are not like labor costs. If you don't make money, you don't pay taxes. With labor costs, if you don't make money, you still pay labor costs. Taxes come after deductions.
Actually we do have a function of "fair share" and a definition we agree on (for the most part). Those who benefit most (measured by money earned) pay more than others. Certainly, if you're making 75% of your income from US operations, shouldn't 75% of your income be taxable in the US?
The disasterous policy in Iraq will probably exceed 1 trillion dollars when everything is said and done. However, that does not absolve corporations from paying their fair share. Otherwise, it will eventually fall to you and me to pay the debt.
Actually, that's the problem with entitlement programs. They're not easy to change. Social security is an example, where even modest changes in benefits come after with a great cost of political captial. Essentially medicare/medicaide and social security are promises we've made to people who've contributed to these programs during their working life. Taking their benefits away would be as much a tax on them as raising their income tax. (It also may be the case the benefits paid out are in excess of the contribution made by participants in the program - but that's another matter.)
Of a 1.5 trillion dollar budget, 7-8% represents about 100,000,000,000 USD. That means we have no control over 100 billion to 110 billion dollars. Keep in mind that something like 130 billion would insure the 46 million uninsured Americans with private health insurance. As we keep running deficits, that number goes up. As interest rates go up, that number goes up even faster. A modest raise in interest rates and we could well be up to 10%+. (There's a good chunk of the debt that comes due every year and must be "rolled over" with new bonds - which would be at the prevailing interest rates.
As far as corporations "passing costs" onto consumers - that's a function of the market. For example, you electric utility is (usually) a monopoly. If their costs go up they go before the PUC and get a rate increase, which is probably the most direct example of a cost being passed on. However, if you make a readily fungible product, like 3-button computer mice, you are not able to pass on costs and have to absorb a large portion of those costs. However, taxes are not like energy or labor costs (for example). Taxes occur on money you've made. If you don't make money you don't pay taxes. If you make a little money, you pay a little bit in taxes. If you make huge heaping spoonfulls of money, then you pay boatloads (metric boatloads - not the English crapload) in taxes.
So, no, I don't believe having corporations pay their fair share of the infrastructure they rely on as passing burdensome costs onto consumers. As an example, when corporations feel their intellectual property is being violated they can call on the FBI and local law enforcement to enforce it. Another example might be the SEC, which polices the markets, and keeps the cost of raising money low and markets liquid for both corporations and investors. These are all things that cost money and directly benefit corporations. Other examples are government sponsored research, education, police (so their stuff doesn't get stolen), negotiations to open overseas markets, protection of shipping lanes, courts for contract disputes, etc.
Remember corporations are not some outside entity that the government is poking their nose into, they are complete fabrications of government and law. They are not holy, devine or sacrosanct. They exist because their benefits greatly outweigh their cost to society.
One of the points the article brought up was rising substance abuse. How does not having homework keep kids from getting stoned? When I was in high school (and dinosaurs roamed the earth), the crispies (crispy critters - because they were so baked) never did homework anyway (or they were ridiculously smart and didn't have to be spoonfed material). Wouldn't homework force some kids to do something else besides sit around, stoned, trying to work out Stairway to Heaven on their guitar?
There's a huge difference! I'm in what's called a right to work state (or employment at will). Unless you have a contract for your employment (generally that's executive level employees only), your employer can terminate you at any time for any reason and does not have to provide severance (although you accrued vacation is payable - but that's 2-3 weeks not the four weeks+ that a lot of Western Europeans get). In many jurisdications in the United States you are basically in the same boat, although some have somewhat better employment protections. There's also been a huge movement towards temporary workers or contract workers that are exempt from those protections. Unions provided a lot of employment protection in the United States, but private sector unions have been pretty much eviscerated. I don't remember if they're a majority of organized labor, but many union workers are actually government employees.
As a concrete example of how easy it is to fire people in my state, a former employer decided after a meeting that he'd had enough of too many people in the sales group, so he fired three that day. After a little thought, he pink-slipped three more over the next week. Two of those fired were friends of mine who recieved two weeks severance and their vacation.
I would never say that the employment protections that European workers have are a bad thing. I think we could do a little better in this country if we raised the cost of firing employees. Maybe then it wouldn't be so common to see entire communities forced into poverty as large employers shut down factories. Maybe they would make a more concerted effort to make that factory or plant work.
I was going to reply to your ridiculous post, but then I remembered something:
"Arguing on the Internet is like running the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."
Slashdot Mirror
You could still play with the radio and the wiper blades, but okay, we're going to disagree about the car thing. I think you get my point about the necessity of an office suite to make computers useful to the large part of market.
That's the point, though, that Microsoft makes something that greatly enhances the functionality of the Mac. In various anti-trust cases, such as ATT's breakup, the government forced corporations with excessive market share to make unprofitable decisions in certain markets, because their actions could cause large, irrepairable harm to competitors. For example, ATT was essentially ham-strung by the government for over a decade. In the 1950's GM approached 50% market share and actually became concerned they might be subject to anti-trust actions by the government. They were careful not to do anything that would appear to harm Ford, American(?) Motors, or Chrysler.
Microsoft could probably stop making office because it's unprofitable, and especially with this DOJ, would probably not have to undergo serious anti-trust scrutiny. However, to can a profitable product, when you have the market power Microsoft has and with the sole purpose of harming a competitor, is a violation of the law. It's not a matter of being pro-mac or anti-microsoft. It's a matter of the laws we've put in place to ensure that markets are not directed by one or a few people. Competition makes capitalism work - monopoly is not much better than a state run economy. I can't remember specifics off hand but the DOJ has brought some recent anti-trust actions in other markets where the participants had far less than 95% of the market.
I was actually reaching for some analogy that didn't involve computers. I realized I wasn't like 95% of the computer users out there when I thought it was odd that Microsoft didn't deliver a compiler with Windows. After all, how useful is an OS without a compiler. Then came the horrible realization. For most computer users office software is the dominant tool outside of the web. I would argue that having an OS without an office solution, to most people, is like a car without tires. Note, also, I said Ford has a large percentage of the tire market, not 100%. GM could still buy tires from some other company, but it would be more of a niche solution. You probably wouldn't find the tires you needed at your local garage, etc.
Wow, I must have had it installed all along. Except, I think I'm out of space for pictures. I keep sticking more in the slot on the side of the laptop, but no more will fit.
I keep pressing my ear to my computer, but the pictures don't make any noise. They're actually pretty quiet.
You might as well. I imagine 99.999% of that is useless gibberish that people are retaining the way they retain random loose screws and bolts in coffee cans in their garage.
Web server log files with the history of people clicking around. My address stored by everybody I ever bought anything on line from. It's more an information land-fill than an information warehouse.
You really don't understand the nature of free-market capitalism, do you? The point is that a company with enough market power to kill competitors in unrelated markets actually harms all consumers. Preserving competition keeps capitalism from descending into the robber-baron economy of the early 20th/late 19th century. You're confusing a free market with an absence of rules. You are right that the remedy is a serious problem, you can't force a company to come out with a high quality product. However, you can make sure that companies understand there's a legal price to pay for throwing around their market weight.
He wasn't saying it sucked, just that it wasn't great, but in fact will be great in the near future. I used to use it work quite a bit because I spent most of my time in Linux and didn't want to reboot. However, I would get expense worksheets (from Sun!) that were Excel workbooks. I would get formatted, macro-filled workbooks for timesheets. Forms, policies and procedures that were done in Word documents. Most importantly, Visio diagrams. So, no, OOO is not ready to bump Office out of most corporate settings. Now, if everyone in that office used OOO, it would be fine.
That would be cool. Of course MS would then cram a bunch of A-player engineers back into Office for Mac, to crush Apple's office suite for the Mac. So that they could take it away again. On a serious note, I wonder if reverse engineering the Office file formats would tickle MS into suing Apple on copyright gournds?
I wish we could get some real research into cannibis, instead of Government FUD. I understand it also protects the brain against degenerative diseases like ALS. Now how does that one part go? I can't figure out the power cords for "And as we wind on down the road."
While I agree with you, I'm not sure what your remedy is. How much could you penalize Microsoft financially? If you made them come out with an office suite, under court supervision, could it possibly suck? (Would they just pour strawberry jam in the box and ship it?) From most of the postings I've read it seems like a lot of people confuse a free market with an absence of ethics and laws. While I don't think /. readers are *exactly* representative of the general population, I suspect a lot of Americans even more unaware that monopolies break capitalism. They just view Microsoft as being sucessful or even what a PC "is" in a sense.
They can't be convicted of crimes, but they can be sued civilly from the harm caused by those crimes.
The fact that Office is on the Mac is an accident of history. Using market power in one market to harm competition in another market may be a violation of law (IANAL). However, they do use the fact there's no 100% compatible Office software for Linux as an sales point. I was an OOO user for a long time, because I spend 95% of my day pounding out code for Unix. It was easier to be on Linux full time for a variety of reasons. I had all sorts pesky, non-catastrophic issues with OOO. For example, reimbursement forms (from Sun!) that are excel spreadsheets. Or timesheets in Excel. Not to mention Word doc after Word doc on policies, procedures, meeting minutes, etc. that failed to open correctly.
If Microsoft stopped shipping Mac Office, it would take OSX off the radar for many companies, along with consumers and universities. Although I'm not sure what you could do to stop Microsoft from *not* doing something. The current administration (and therefore the DOJ) shows no interest in restricting businesses in any way, shape or form. I'm not sure you could compell Micrsoft to put out an Office release for the Mac.
BTW I'm sure Apple was very reluctant to offer any kind of Office suite because they knew that all too often No Microsoft Word == No Mac Sale.
It has to do with relative market power. Even though Apple has something like 2/3 market share for MP3 players, they have a much smaller fraction of music sales. They have a very small percentage of the hardware and software market so they can't really dictate terms in those markets. If they had traditionally licensed OSX and had 75% of the PC hardware market, deciding to stop licensing the OS is a possible anti-trust violation. Apple has less than 5% of the market for desktops. The iPhone has, as of today, a 0% market share. If Apple stopped making iTunes for PC's, the only real harm would be to Apple. Likewise, if Microsoft only had 25% of the office software market - their decision to create or not create a Mac OS version would be fine.
Microsoft, however, has such a large share of the office software market, that they can use it as an economic club in another market (operating systems). Traditionally, what the US has done is to break up concentrations of economic power to promote free-market capitalism. If we can't break them up, like the electric company which is usually a natural monopoly, then we regulate them and limit what the can do and what they can charge. Imagine if Ford had 90% of the tire market. If they stopped selling tires to other auto manufacturers they would be abusing their market power. You could still buy a car - the radio would work.
I'm not some pinko "everyone play fair" lefty. The concentration of market power into too few hands in industries actually goes against free market principles. Free markets are most efficient when there are many sellers. When you have abusive market power, sellers are able to extract excess profits and make everyone poorer as a result. It's even worse when abusive companies use their power to destroy competitors in other, unrelated markets.
You're right. If there had never been Office for the Mac, then there would be no abuse of monopoly power. However, Microsoft has such a large share of the office market that they can harm competitors in unrelated markets (i.e. operating systems) by discontinuing the product. That's the possible monopoly abuse. It would be like Ford having a 95% market share in road tires and deciding not to supply road tires to other manufacturers of cars. If you built boats - you would not be harmed by Ford's decision, but all the other car manufacturers would.
I'm actually a very free-market person, however, when too much of a market is concentrated in the hands of too few organizaitons you move away from free-market capitalism toward oligopolies and monopolies. The more producers of a product, and the less market share each producer has, the closer you are to efficient, free markets. Should we penalize a company for being successful? No, but we should also not put ourselves in a position where one company gets to use their power in one market to dictate winners and loosers in other markets.
This is exactly the kind of anti-competative behavior that monopolies engage in.
Actually corporations are not extensions of investors. They are separate entities in the eyes of the law and their debts and liabilities cannot be attached to their shareholders. (Unless the "corporate veil" is lifted in the case of small corporations whose assets are co-mingled with their owners.) If you want to pass income through to individuals, you are welcome to organize your business as a partnerships. Until recently most large accounting firms were partnerships. The shareholders in a corporations are shielded from the liabilities of the corporation because it is a separate entity. You own stock in ExxonMobile, for example, but the state of Alaska can't go after your assets if they sue XOM. Likewise, the bankruptcy judge can't bring in the assets of UAL shareholders, when UAL when through bankruptcy. If UAL were a partnership, then the partner's assets would also be "on the table."
In addition corporations can sell stock in an open and liquid market, something that's impossible in proprietorships and difficult in partnerships. I don't think you can separate the notion of corporations as a separate entity for purposes of liability, access to capital, and so on, and then treat the investors as partners for tax purposes. Either corporations are a separate entity from their investors or they're not. The fact they are separate entities actually makes them attractive to investors, since your risk is only the size of the investment and not subject to tobacco lawsuits, asbestos claims, fraud (Enron), or criminal negligence (Bophal India).
And if you want a more classic and better example than the 3-button mouse, take wheat. Each farmer has essentially not control over the price of wheat in the market (for a certain grade) since there are many sellers (perfect competition). The further away you get from perfect competition and you go toward monopoly, the more power firms have to pass increases in prices to consumers. But, income taxes are not a "cost" to the corporation. There is no income tax if the corporation does not earn money (unlike rent, for example, which is still owed to the landlord that rents the corp its property). Income taxes are taken out after expenses are deducted from revenue (which is the definition of income). Now, you might argue that corporations will attempt to become more lean to make their "after tax" numbers, but you cannot argue that income taxes are a cost.
Also, the IRS allows entities to interprit the tax law in a manner that best suits the taxpayer. They are welcome to challenge your interpritation in an audit. If you so choose, you can go before an ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) and challenge their claim that a deduction is disallowed. If you want to appeal, there is an appeals process and even the ability to take the claim to Federal court. However, any claim of deduction on your return has always been subject to the IRS's interpritation of the tax code. In a sense there is nothing "perfectly legal" or "perfectly illegal" that gets serious challenge. The issues challenged are normally grey areas subject to one person or another's reading of the codes and laws that apply.
Taxes are not like labor costs. If you don't make money, you don't pay taxes. With labor costs, if you don't make money, you still pay labor costs. Taxes come after deductions.
Actually we do have a function of "fair share" and a definition we agree on (for the most part). Those who benefit most (measured by money earned) pay more than others. Certainly, if you're making 75% of your income from US operations, shouldn't 75% of your income be taxable in the US?
The disasterous policy in Iraq will probably exceed 1 trillion dollars when everything is said and done. However, that does not absolve corporations from paying their fair share. Otherwise, it will eventually fall to you and me to pay the debt.
Actually, that's the problem with entitlement programs. They're not easy to change. Social security is an example, where even modest changes in benefits come after with a great cost of political captial. Essentially medicare/medicaide and social security are promises we've made to people who've contributed to these programs during their working life. Taking their benefits away would be as much a tax on them as raising their income tax. (It also may be the case the benefits paid out are in excess of the contribution made by participants in the program - but that's another matter.)
Of a 1.5 trillion dollar budget, 7-8% represents about 100,000,000,000 USD. That means we have no control over 100 billion to 110 billion dollars. Keep in mind that something like 130 billion would insure the 46 million uninsured Americans with private health insurance. As we keep running deficits, that number goes up. As interest rates go up, that number goes up even faster. A modest raise in interest rates and we could well be up to 10%+. (There's a good chunk of the debt that comes due every year and must be "rolled over" with new bonds - which would be at the prevailing interest rates.
As far as corporations "passing costs" onto consumers - that's a function of the market. For example, you electric utility is (usually) a monopoly. If their costs go up they go before the PUC and get a rate increase, which is probably the most direct example of a cost being passed on. However, if you make a readily fungible product, like 3-button computer mice, you are not able to pass on costs and have to absorb a large portion of those costs. However, taxes are not like energy or labor costs (for example). Taxes occur on money you've made. If you don't make money you don't pay taxes. If you make a little money, you pay a little bit in taxes. If you make huge heaping spoonfulls of money, then you pay boatloads (metric boatloads - not the English crapload) in taxes.
So, no, I don't believe having corporations pay their fair share of the infrastructure they rely on as passing burdensome costs onto consumers. As an example, when corporations feel their intellectual property is being violated they can call on the FBI and local law enforcement to enforce it. Another example might be the SEC, which polices the markets, and keeps the cost of raising money low and markets liquid for both corporations and investors. These are all things that cost money and directly benefit corporations. Other examples are government sponsored research, education, police (so their stuff doesn't get stolen), negotiations to open overseas markets, protection of shipping lanes, courts for contract disputes, etc.
Remember corporations are not some outside entity that the government is poking their nose into, they are complete fabrications of government and law. They are not holy, devine or sacrosanct. They exist because their benefits greatly outweigh their cost to society.
One of the points the article brought up was rising substance abuse. How does not having homework keep kids from getting stoned? When I was in high school (and dinosaurs roamed the earth), the crispies (crispy critters - because they were so baked) never did homework anyway (or they were ridiculously smart and didn't have to be spoonfed material). Wouldn't homework force some kids to do something else besides sit around, stoned, trying to work out Stairway to Heaven on their guitar?
There's a huge difference! I'm in what's called a right to work state (or employment at will). Unless you have a contract for your employment (generally that's executive level employees only), your employer can terminate you at any time for any reason and does not have to provide severance (although you accrued vacation is payable - but that's 2-3 weeks not the four weeks+ that a lot of Western Europeans get). In many jurisdications in the United States you are basically in the same boat, although some have somewhat better employment protections. There's also been a huge movement towards temporary workers or contract workers that are exempt from those protections. Unions provided a lot of employment protection in the United States, but private sector unions have been pretty much eviscerated. I don't remember if they're a majority of organized labor, but many union workers are actually government employees.
As a concrete example of how easy it is to fire people in my state, a former employer decided after a meeting that he'd had enough of too many people in the sales group, so he fired three that day. After a little thought, he pink-slipped three more over the next week. Two of those fired were friends of mine who recieved two weeks severance and their vacation.
I would never say that the employment protections that European workers have are a bad thing. I think we could do a little better in this country if we raised the cost of firing employees. Maybe then it wouldn't be so common to see entire communities forced into poverty as large employers shut down factories. Maybe they would make a more concerted effort to make that factory or plant work.
With all the right parts.
I was going to reply to your ridiculous post, but then I remembered something: "Arguing on the Internet is like running the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."