The answer to your question is simple. Governments are the highest sovereign bodies. They can agree on whatever they want.

You are right, of course. But Rousseau made it quite clear that the sovereignty of a government is discretionary. This sort of thinking isn't convincing on an ideological or theoretical level to anyone but a medieval peasant, and it only increases my indignation.

Then be indignant I guess? Countries pressuring each other to do things dates back as far as the existence of countries. And it isn't like this is a broadly unpopular idea either. Most people do actually believe that multinational corporation should pay their fair share of taxes.

It's interesting that you're being downvoted but you make a solid point. People in government are no different than those not in government, we're the same human beings. To suggest that they should be able to do anything they want seems pretty backwards and quite contrary to the enlightenment ideas.

It's a philosophical point disconnected from reality. In most countries we've got some system of elected government with various branches who get more power and influence than other people. Having a solid philosophical point against it doesn't change the world.

"Why is the government allowed to put me in prison for not paying my taxes, but when I kidnap someone and lock them up in my basement, I'm somehow the bad guy?!"

How so? do remember that they can only do things supported by the general climate of opinion so them being in government isn't the point of contention here. It's what we as people tolerate (passively or actively) that matters. Besides, this greatly undermines the justification for anti-trust laws as they're clearly communicating to everyone that "it's OK to collude"

Collusion between governments isn't illegal, and there is no governing body that would prevent this. At best there are economic treaties between countries.

This applies only to "global companies with at least a 10% profit margin". By definition, you're already playing ball with all of these actors if you're a global company.

>Why are governments allowed to collude like this?

Because otherwise everything becomes a race to the bottom.

Countries competing with each other to offer attractive business environments with the lowest taxes is a race to the top, not the bottom.

Countries competing with each other to lower environmental standards, workers rights and social programs is a race to the bottom.

Economic freedom reduces poverty.

https://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230114319_3

> Compared to those that were less free, countries with higher economic freedom ratings during 1980–2005 had lower rates of both extreme and moderate poverty in 2005. More importantly, countries with higher levels of economic freedom in 1980 and larger increases in economic freedom during the 1980s and 1990s achieved larger poverty rate reductions than economies that were less free. These relationships were true even after adjustment for geographic and locational factors and foreign assistance as a share of income. The positive relations between the level and change in economic freedom and reductions in poverty were both statistically significant and robust across alternative specifications.

> Some fear that growth propelled by economic freedom will leave the poor behind. This was not the case during 1980–2005. During this quarter of a century, the developing countries that moved the most toward economic freedom achieved both strong economic growth and substantial reductions in poverty. This indicates that an institutional and policy environment consistent with economic freedom is an important ingredient for progress against poverty.

https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/article/the-relationship-betw...

> We study the relationship between economic freedom and poverty rates in 151 countries over a twenty-year period. Using the World Bank's poverty headcounts of those living on less than $1.90 per day, $3.20 per day, and $5.50 per day, we find evidence that economic freedom, measured by the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, is associated with lower poverty rates. We also test the effect of various components of the Index of Economic Freedom. We find that a government's integrity and a country's trade freedom are associated with lower poverty rates. We check the robustness of our results using alternative freedom indices.

See also https://cei.org/blog/why-economic-freedom-is-the-best-weapon...

The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank[1]. I think I'll take what they have to say with a pinch of salt.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

Anyway we aren't really talking about removing peoples economic freedoms, you can have a strong economy whilst retaining workers rights, social support and environmental controls. It's the poorest parts of the world that don't have a handle on this stuff.

Are you referring to the Index of Economic Freedom in the second paper?

1. The data is freely available and you can check the methodology yourself: https://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2016/book/methodology.pdf

2. "We check the robustness of our results using alternative freedom indices."

Corporations profit the most from infrastructure, education and other collective achievements of a society, so it makes sense that they also funnel resources into that system.

The charitable interpretation of this agreement is that this is to be achieved by coordinating taxes of multinational corporations.

It seems reasonable to me, strategically speaking. I have political reservations (to say the least) towards high concentration of power though, since we’re talking large corporations, G7 and so on.

Cracking down on corporate tax avoidance is antithetical to 'neoliberalism', no?

On the internet “neoliberalism” simply means “stuff I don’t like involving capitalists”

There are some countries that you can move to that are generally free of the laws of western nations.

For some reason, people from “western neoliberal and socialist” countries generally don’t move to them, though.

People do move there. Singapore picks up a ton of US expats, as did Hong Kong before it got swallowed by China. Bermuda and the Caymans have tons of companies and restrict immigration so tightly that they are less attractive.

Singapore has Common Law inherited from the British. Hong Kong also used to have British-style laws, until, as you said, it was "swallowed by China" (and even then, it's fairly Western on paper).

Are you trying to cite Singapore and Hong Kong as countries that aren’t neoliberal?

Are you trying to cite Singapore and Hong Kong as countries that are socialist?

Singapore? Yes, obviously: Temasek and GIC own more than 60% of market cap on the Singapore Stock Exchange and 80% of people live in public housing.

Are you trying to claim any G7 country is socialist, while suggesting an administrative division of the one-party socialist People’s Republic of China is a good alternative?

for some reason everyone from socialist companies moved to the US and not the other way around.

Because if they did, bombs would soon fall in order to destabilise that threat.

I have difficulties to come up with current examples.

Maybe some could argue that pre Soviet Afghanistan (in the ‘60) was such a place. But today?

Its similarly difficult to find examples of competent propaganda ; because anything easily labeled propaganda is not competent.

Scientific and logical principles of "evidence" to not apply to human political systems, b/c the method of inquiry are too compromised by the power the system wields over them. Even information about Afghanistan comes through via the government. But today? There is us nothing modern the government wants you to know about.

On the contrary, those countries are extremely popular places to base your business activities or start a company or manage your finances from. Ever been to Bermuda? Or the Virgin Islands? You can't move for wealthy industrious Western expats and their business ventures. And also to a lesser extent Ireland, the Luxembourg, Singapore, Switzerland, etc. These are all some of the most popular countries to move to in the world.

But now the United States and Canada and whoever else is the G7 are trying to shut them down and force everyone to follow their hellish tax laws.

Are you implying Ireland, Luxembourg, Bermuda (part of the UK), the Virgin Islands (part of the US and UK), Singapore, and Switzerland aren't western countries part of or at very least allied with and influenced by other western "neoliberal" countries/G7?

Because that's a very, uh, unique idea. Also weird to jump from implying escape from western influence doesn't exist to listing western countries as a way to escape from the west.

Are you implying they're socialist?

I'm directly stating that they're not, and the implication that any G7 country is socialist is bizarre.

> The world needs at least somewhere where you can opt-out from Western neoliberalism and socialism.

Welcome to Iran...

I specifically mentioned Iran because they have a very low fiscal pressure (around 7%) comparing to say Cuba (40%) or France (46%).

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_reven...