Franc28 Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 Hello. I am trying to make a comparison between the corporate welfare budget in the US and in other countries. I searched and searched on the Internet but all I found was data for US (around 300$ per capita) and Canada (around 160$ per capita). Does anyone have an idea of how both compare to the rest of the world ? I don't need numbers specifically, but I'd like more than opinions. I have finished compiling a long list of data about how the US compares to the rest of the world (pretty badly, as it turns out) and would like to compile them, but I still need that tidbit of information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 I'd be interested in a brief explanation of "corporate welfare" and the methodology used to measure it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristopherSchlegel Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 Hello. I am trying to make a comparison between the corporate welfare budget in the US and in other countries... I'd be interested in a brief explanation of "corporate welfare" and the methodology used to measure it. Good point, softwareNerd. The definition at this site, for example, is the general one I have heard being used. Notice that the fundamental problem with this manner of defining the term is the lumping together of "subsidy" & "tax break". I would regard a subsidy as unearned redistribution of wealth, but a tax break as the potential removal of govt. coercion. So, regardless of the numbers you have complied, you may have a faulty premise in your analysis, Franc28. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottkursk Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 Actually it would be almost impossible to calculate a realistic number just like GDP. Example: France allows importations of certains goods but only in a limited number of ports which creates choke points which effectively bans importation. So, in a very roundabout way, they are subsidizing their domestic industry. Therefore, what welfare dollar value can you assign the pain in the butt it takes Ford to get a truck into the 1 port they are allowed to bring their vehicles into verus the lack of pain that Peugot or Renault doesn't have to face? Also, the link on Answers.com doesn't really address various governmental programs that subsidize advertising products overseas, hosting things like airshows and "Life in America" expos. I think we can all remember that Rand's sister saw the picture of her sister at such an expo in Russia. It was effectively a form of corporate welfare in that the US government was using tax dollars to put us produced products in front of foreign nationals in the hopes they'd want to buy them. Same goes for things like the Paris Air Show, all the gazillion Trade Legations that go on every day of the week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franc28 Posted July 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 True, I can't dictate how my sources find their data. That's the problem of not being an expert. But all I need is a general idea of how the US is positioned relative to other developed countries such as Sweden, UK, Japan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 14, 2005 Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 True, I can't dictate how my sources find their data. That's the problem of not being an expert. But all I need is a general idea of how the US is positioned relative to other developed countries such as Sweden, UK, Japan.One obvious question to ask is why you need to have a general idea. The general answer is that so-called corporate welfare is lower in the US than in other countries. Since the concept you're invoking is entirely arbitrary, this is a generally valid answer and any complaints about the specifics would have to be taken up with those who think that it's a meaningful or even possible computation, i.e. those who assigned you to care about this mock statistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted July 14, 2005 Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 True, I can't dictate how my sources find their data. That's the problem of not being an expert. But all I need is a general idea of how the US is positioned relative to other developed countries such as Sweden, UK, Japan. I would like to expand on softwareNerd's insightful request for you to discuss your terms and methods. How would you expect to get "a general idea" without knowing the facts from which the idea is abstracted? I have further questions. When you say "corporate welfare," exactly what do you mean? For instance, does "corporate" refer to all corporations: for-profit and nonprofit, alike? Most churches are incorporated, aren't they, so would they qualify? According to news reports I have seen, some European countries locally subsidize churches by declaring their buildings to be "historic" and then providing funds to pay for maintenance. How much of that goes on in the U. S. compared to Europe or Latin America, for example? To decide which economic/political system provides the most "corporate welfare" is possible only with exact definitions of "corporate" and "welfare." Without exact definitions applied consistently throughout the research, how can any conclusion be drawn logically from the facts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal Posted July 14, 2005 Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 Notice that the fundamental problem with this manner of defining the term is the lumping together of "subsidy" & "tax break". I would regard a subsidy as unearned redistribution of wealth, but a tax break as the potential removal of govt. coercion. Giving a tax break to just some corporations or industries results in them gaining an unfair advantage over their competitors, so I dont think the difference is as pronounced as you seem to suggest (although the distinction should still be kept in mind). Imagine the government were to scrap income tax for everyone in your city, except for your family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franc28 Posted July 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 I am not doing "research". I am also not an economist and don't know how to define the term specifically. I didn't know this was needed to just get a general idea about the topic. I guess I'll just assume that the US has high corporate welfare, based on the limited information I have, and forget about this for now. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 14, 2005 Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 I guess I'll just assume that the US has high corporate welfare, based on the limited information I have, and forget about this for now.Do what you want, but I told you that the US has low corporate welfare, so if yo want to ignore that fact, it's your mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted July 15, 2005 Report Share Posted July 15, 2005 (edited) I am not doing "research". I am also not an economist and don't know how to define the term specifically. By "define the term specifically," do you mean a formal genus/differentia definition? No, you don't initially need to create such a definition. However, you should always be able to answer this question about any concept you are focusing on: What do I mean by this idea? In other words: What facts of reality give rise to this idea? Further, to understand an idea, you should be able to name a range of examples of the idea. If you don't know what an idea refers to in reality, how can you make sure the idea is valid? Also, how can you possibly integrate such an "idea" into the rest of your knowledge? I didn't know this was needed to just get a general idea about the topic. I guess I'll just assume that the US has high corporate welfare, based on the limited information I have, and forget about this for now. Thanks. I do not undersand what you mean by "general idea." Would you explain? [Minor edits.] Edited July 15, 2005 by BurgessLau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristopherSchlegel Posted July 15, 2005 Report Share Posted July 15, 2005 Giving a tax break to just some corporations or industries results in them gaining an unfair advantage over their competitors, so I dont think the difference is as pronounced as you seem to suggest (although the distinction should still be kept in mind). Imagine the government were to scrap income tax for everyone in your city, except for your family. Fair enough; that's why I used the word potential. I used the answers.com definition & my stated distinction merely as one example of how the concept of 'corporate welfare' is poorly defined in general usage (at least when I have encountered it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.