As I asked in my reply above, why should investment in country A come at the expense of tax revenue in country B? That isn't right.

> As I asked in my reply above, why should investment in country A come at the expense of tax revenue in country B? That isn't right.

That's perfectly right, unless you're suggesting that every country should have only local companies and should block every foreign company from operating there.

Not only it is right, it is very, very good for society. In the past 60 years, poverty went from 60% to 9% dues to that.

I'm not against foreign companies operating where ever they want but tax comes as a cost of business. If a company won't contribute to a nation it whether through taxes or investment it has no right to be there. It's effectively a parasite.

That doesn't make any sense. If your product costs 100 to make in country a and you sell it for 100 in country b, you're not having any profits.

But if you want to ignore that and charge non-existing profits in your imaginary country, go ahead, you're dooming your imaginary country to failure for not understanding basic economics.

Yes you are. Look I know you want to seen the big picture but that's not how it should work. If you spend money in country A that shouldn't give you the right to write of revenue in country B. From the perspective of country B you were profitable. If you want to write off revenue in country B then invest, pay taxes or don't do business there.

Countries don't need parasitic businesses like that. All they will do is undermine the economy and local competition.

Sorry, it doesn't make any sense at all from a global economics perspective. You seem to want completely isolated countries with no international trade.

There's no such things as parasitic businesses, "right of revenue" or anything like that.

You're not even wrong.