Carrier just announced

[iatrogenic]

They do, and it's sleazy. If you're OK with economic fascism, then so be it. (And while you're at it, don't complain about things like single payer health care and subsidies to companies like Solyndra.) However, if you like free and open markets and capitalism, then this is a bad thing.

So many things wrong with this line of thinking.
Taxation of any type is the exact opposite of free market activity. Taxes are taking property from the free market operators by force. Free market operators trade based on their own values and choices. Therefore, all tax reductions are a step closer to a free market.

Solyndra subsidies were a government taking property (currency) from the free market participants and giving it to another party (Solyndra). It wasn't reducing Solyndra's taxes. The same goes for a single healthcare system, which takes from the free market and gives to a government created entity.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Solyndra subsidies were a government taking property (currency) from the free market participants and giving it to another party (Solyndra). It wasn't reducing Solyndra's taxes. The same goes for a single healthcare system, which takes from the free market and gives to a government created entity.

Textbook.

One other thing to nerd out on if you're an econ dork like me - disparate tax-rates in countries (such as Mexico and the US) disincentives economic equilibrium and trade in a free global market. Same thing goes for artificial currency devaluation. See David Ricardo.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I would argue corporate welfare is a case by case basis. Part of what drives "special tax treatment" or "tax incentives" or what I call a lower, more competitive tax rate, is demand from the local economy for the presence of that company and what they bring to the local economy.

You know better than this. With this rationale, you could justify and deem almost anything as an act of the free market. Furthermore, you know that the biggest determiner of who gets tax incentives is who is in the sack with the right politicians, not some kind of local economic demand.

 

[Crockett]

It was interesting to study Buc-ees and tax iincentives. I'll admit that as a traveler I love the Wal-Mart sized gas stations/convenience stores. The bathrooms are cleaner than the ones at my house (if you don't count Saturday when I clean them) and the snacks and meal options are terrific and convenient. For fast food/convenience store workers, Buc-ees folks are well paid, starting at $13 an hour. But Buc-ees demands tax incentives. Property tax exemptions, rebate of local sales tax for 10 years. So the convenience store down the road, the gas stations, restaurants etc. are paying for municipal infrastructure and services while a gigantic competitor gets a free ride. I guess when we figure out a ways to have street signs, police, water and sewer services, etc. with no taxation (works for Somalia?) maybe we can have a free market. Otherwise, we have government playing favorites.

 

[Joe Fan]

......when I came to the conclusion that I couldn't believe what the media was telling me........

Someone should start a thread about what should be done with the corrupt, lazy US media.
They have been exposed as liars (if any reasonable person had any doubts before this election, Wikileaks put those to bed).
No one trusts them anymore.
They NYT and WAPO are both owned by Billionaires who are willing and able to sustain large annual losses just to get Americans to read their point of view (if you have to buy an audience, maybe your message was bad to begin with?).

Trump is supposed to be considering dumping the WHPC. If true, it's hard to blame him after their campaign coverage. The NYT even dropped pretense, writing a piece where it admitted to biased, unfair coverage. This helped open the door for countless other media outlets to do the same.

What are supposed to do with these hacks, who have so abused their 1st Amendment privilege?

 

[Clean]

Isn't the theory that if Indiana gives a 10 year subsidy to Carrier and as a result Carrier stays in Indiana and provides jobs, its' employees will earn salaries and (in Indiana's case) pay state income taxes and other state taxes, which will eventually compensate Indiana for the subsidy. Then at the end of 10 years, Carrier pays at the normal rate. It's certainly better than most of Carrier's employees going on unemployment.

Yes, it sucks for XYZ Air Conditioning down the street, but it's temporary and nothing prevents XYZ from doing the same thing.

 

[UTChE96]

I have not seen the details of what was promised to Carrier but I hope he did not promise them special treatment or threatened them with tariffs. The right course of action is to fix our broken system that makes it advantageous for companies to relocate overseas. Trump has proclaimed the right things in terms of reforming the corporate tax code. I just hope that is one of the things he actually meant when he said it.

 

[Horn6721]

Help me understand. Now y'all are saying no entity,city state, should offer incentives to businesses to entice that company to a local Area?

That is a great subject for a thread. And perhaps a desire to work to change ghe system.
However in regard to POTUS elect Trump and VP Pence convincing Carrier to keep 1000 jobs here surely you think that is a great thing for those Employees?
Not to mention their families

 

[UTChE96]

Help me understand. Now y'all are saying no entity,city state, should offer incentives to businesses to entice that company to a local Area?

I strongly support that. I do not support giving special treatment to ONE specific business because they threaten to relocate.

 

[iatrogenic]

It was interesting to study Buc-ees and tax iincentives. I'll admit that as a traveler I love the Wal-Mart sized gas stations/convenience stores. The bathrooms are cleaner than the ones at my house (if you don't count Saturday when I clean them) and the snacks and meal options are terrific and convenient. For fast food/convenience store workers, Buc-ees folks are well paid, starting at $13 an hour. But Buc-ees demands tax incentives. Property tax exemptions, rebate of local sales tax for 10 years. So the convenience store down the road, the gas stations, restaurants etc. are paying for municipal infrastructure and services while a gigantic competitor gets a free ride. I guess when we figure out a ways to have street signs, police, water and sewer services, etc. with no taxation (works for Somalia?) maybe we can have a free market. Otherwise, we have government playing favorites.

I agree that government intervention in a market is not a good idea (but government creation of a market is necessary). However:

Taking your example of Buccees at face value:

Your statement that Buccees is getting a free ride is inaccurate, and comparing the situation to Somalia is without merit. Taxes originating from a Buccee's store are broader than the property taxes paid on the physical location of Buccees. Buccees has to pay sales tax at the State level also. As mentioned, Buccee's employees are paid a good wage relatively speaking. Buccees employees also pay taxes (federal, FUTA, SUTA, Social Security) on their wages, and Buccees has to match some of those federal taxes. I would bet that some of the taxes paid on wages filter back to the community in the form of social security benefits, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, and road building and maintenance (via taxes paid on each gallon of gas a Buccee's employee buys). If a Buccees employee can buy a home, even a mobile home, with their Buccees wages, they will also pay property taxes. If the demand for apartment housing increases, property taxes will be paid on the apartment structure. I would suppose that most of the spending that Buccee's employees do in the community will have a sales tax associated, and whoever sold goods and services to a Buccee's employee will ultimately pay taxes just like a Buccee's employee did (and that cycle will be repeated).

If by crazy and unlikely coincidence, all of the transactions that resulted from building the subsidized Buccees would have occurred at the exact same prices without the Buccees, the subsidy was a mistake. If the Buccees increased the number of transactions taking place, the subsidy was, in all likelihood, a good idea.

The same principle applies to the U.S. losing jobs to foreign countries due to high corporate taxes. Democrats, like yourself, believe that lowering taxes is "corporate welfare", but you ***** and moan about companies that relocate out of the country, in part due to U.S. taxes being higher than other countries, because that decreases American jobs.

 

[Joe Fan]

....
Taking your example of Buccees at face value:.....

Alittle off topic, but I have long advocated the State of Texas incentivizing Buccee's to install natty gas pumps.
Along with a conversion of all state vehicles to NG.
As well as school districts (buses) and cities/counties (buses + whatever)
The state and local govts should convert their fleet vehicles as much as possible.
And fast-refueling stations should be made available to the consumer.
The technology is already there. The industry does not have to be propped up like solar/wind.

Just convert state/local vehicles in the regular course of the vehicle replacement cycle.
The "Buccees' inducement" would be the only non-regular expense to the state. I dont think the state would have to fork out for consumer purchases. Just convert all the fleet stuff, then let the consumer mkt take care of itself. WHich, I think it would if the pumps were there. But I am not certain. Converting fleet vehicles is still enough of a good plan to do all this anyway. Something I have been pushing since the 90s.

I think this state alone has 300 years worth of NG - something like that. Why not put it to better use? I generally do not favor subsidy on principle, but doesnt this make sense in this state, with this resource, in this industry?

 

[Mr. Deez]

So many things wrong with this line of thinking.
Taxation of any type is the exact opposite of free market activity. Taxes are taking property from the free market operators by force. Free market operators trade based on their own values and choices.

You've built at strawman the height of the Empire State Building. We're always going to have taxes. The only issue is how high they should be and who should have to pay how much. The taxes are going to be here. I think we should structure taxes to have as little impact on the free market as possible.

Therefore, all tax reductions are a step closer to a free market.

No, they aren't. A tax reduction that is across the board is a step closer to a free market. A tax reduction that is available to one business or industry but not to others is anti-competitive and anti-free market.

Solyndra subsidies were a government taking property (currency) from the free market participants and giving it to another party (Solyndra). It wasn't reducing Solyndra's taxes. The same goes for a single healthcare system, which takes from the free market and gives to a government created entity.

This is a distinction without a difference in most (but not all) scenarios. If the government enacts a special tax credit available only to me that wipes out my tax liability, it is not doing anything different than if it leaves my tax status alone but simply sends me a check for the full amount of my tax liability. The difference is semantic, not substantive. In both scenarios, I'm freeloading at the expense of others. Furthermore, if Carrier gets a special tax break, then there is still a taking of property from free market participants to make up for what Carrier isn't paying.

Can anyone argue that at least Trump intervened to try and keep jobs in the USA? Good god, that is why he was elected. People are tired of politicians who talk, but do nothing. I for one believe this is a great sign of things to come for the economy. You guys continue your fascism talk while employees of Carrier in Indiana celebrate keeping their jobs.

If you don't believe in capitalism and in the idea that the government should generally treat people the same way rather than doling out favors to preferred people and business interests, then it doesn't matter. In the words of Richard Spencer, "Hail Trump!" I don't think that's good policy, but if you do, that's fine. We can agree to disagree.

But where do we draw the line? Today it's Carrier. Who's it going to be tomorrow? Are we going to pay off GM to keep its plants in the US? Who's next after that? And how fair is this to the company that never threatened to leave? Do you realize what incentive we're sending to them? It's not a good one. What about newer or smaller businesses (or individuals) that aren't politically connected as Carrier obviously is? How fair is it to make them pay higher taxes so these huge megabusinesses can pay a smaller tax bill than they'd otherwise have to pay? What happens if the companies let these goodies affect their judgment the way government guarantees impact financial institutions? That's also not good.

In isolation, this kind of deal looks good. Who can argue with jobs being save? However, in the macroeconomic realm, it's not so good. What I'd much rather see Trump do is lower the corporate and individual tax rates for everybody and eliminate regulations that do more harm than good. (That's what conservatives used to say they liked.) Fortunately, he has suggested that he plans to do that, and I'll be glad when he does. However, if he decides to put more focus on goodies for preferred businesses or encouraging states and municipalities to dole them out, I'm not going to be pleased. It's bad policy.

 

[texas_ex2000]

You know better than this. With this rationale, you could justify and deem almost anything as an act of the free market. Furthermore, you know that the biggest determiner of who gets tax incentives is who is in the sack with the right politicians, not some kind of local economic demand.

Deez, conversely with your rationale...tax incentives in every practical form that's employed either locally or internationally is "corporate welfare" - a derogatory political term. China and Mexico give tax incentives to industries and companies. Startup's residing in "tech incubators" get tax incentives. Small businesses get tax credits.

I and most unbiased people would say the more accurate and less political definition/example of corporate welfare would be price floors and production subsidies, such as what you see in agriculture, grants, and bailouts.

No, they aren't. A tax reduction that is across the board is a step closer to a free market. A tax reduction that is available to one business or industry but not to others is anti-competitive and anti-free market.

That's the whole point. Mexico's corporate tax rate is 30% while the US is 39%. The world isn't fair, and Indiana did the smart thing to keep a company local. Is there any doubt to the positive NPV for this community? Employees still pay taxes that otherwise would have been shipped to Mexico, shareholders will pay taxes on what certainly would be a stronger company, and the corporation will still pay taxes on income that otherwise would have been retained in Mexico.

Are we going to pay off GM to keep its plants in the US?

Again Deez, who are you paying off? It's a perverted argument to say that reducing a person's or company's taxes is paying them off. It's especially perverted when saying this about corporations who shareholders are doubled taxed at the corporate and personal level at both income and capital gains.

 

[Crockett]

Your statement that Buccees is getting a free ride is inaccurate, and comparing the situation to Somalia is without merit. Taxes originating from a Buccee's store are broader than the property taxes paid on the physical location of Buccees. Buccees has to pay sales tax at the State level also

The services I mentioned are specifically local, so that is where Buc-ees is getting a free ride. The Somalia reference is just an expression of my hostility to the idea expressed on this thread that all taxation is an unfair market disruption. I contend taxes are needed to fund government and absence of government doesn't work very well.

 

[Horn6721]

Croc?
Can you link where you get the information on Buckees? These;
"But Buc-ees demands tax incentives. Property tax exemptions, of local sales tax for 10 years."

These links from Boerne and Denton give different details. For instance Buckees is paying property taxes which help local schools and local infrastructure. Plus their tax incentive is not as you posted it. Also the point is made that there will be new revenus to area with no cost to taxpayer.
PLUS these incentives extend to other businesses that open on their site.

This from link on Denton explains it pretty well,
"Buc-ee’s would generate an estimated $800,000 in sales tax revenue annually, Bissett said. That means the city would start getting $400,000 per year in sales tax revenue after Buc-ee’s and the seven other businesses hit the $2 million threshold about three years after they open.

Additionally, she estimates the development would generate about $200,000 per year in property taxes.

Bissett says bringing Buc-ee’s to Denton would generate as much revenue for the city as raising property taxes on every resident by 1 percent.
“I want to be able to communicate that this is a significant source of new revenue for the city at no cost to the taxpayer,” Bissett said. “
http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20151117-city-talks-buc-ees-in


boerne link
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...ives-approved-for-Boerne-location-9134340.php

 

[Crockett]

I was referencing the tax incentive package Buc-ees requested and was denied in Corinth. Certainly Buc-ees and municipalities can negotiate incentives on a case by case basis. Seems like the Denton location is attractive enough to Buccees that it only demands a three-year exemption .... three years while QT and Rudy's Barbecue fund municipal services with taxes on their wares while a giant competitor skates. Certainly Buccees will sell gasoline and meals to folks who wouldn't otherwise stop in Denton. But I don't think any travelers would completely forgo eating or fueling their cars if Buc-ees was not accessible.

 

[Crockett]

The link didn't work for the Denton article. Here is an excerpt from the Boerne one:

The city and county each agreed to rebate, for 20 years, half their respective shares of sales taxes generated by the Buc-ee’s — an estimated $5 million — and from four yet-to-be-named retailers also planned at the site.

The city further sweetened the pot by agreeing to extend a road and municipal sewer service to the Buc-ee’s site, worth $1.75 million combined, though Buc-ee’s plans to seek a state grant to cover those costs.

Local government entities will reap property tax revenues from the site, including Boerne Independent School District, which expects to collect $180,000 off the site annually. The city projects the store will be its sixth-largest utility customer.

School districts, by state law, cannot grant tax exemptions.

 

[Horn6721]

Croc
I could not find details that Buckees asked for 10 yers of No sales tax nor could I fund any detail of no property tax.
And of the other deals I found online none were for NO propertytaxes OT for 10 years of no sales tax
OTOH even Boerne will get $180,00 in property taxes as well as a new source of taxes in the payroll of5.8 million.
Denton will get &200,00 in property taxes.
While Corinth still has that 18 acres of vacant unproductive land. Think Corinth could use $180,000 in new property taxes? new sources of employment? new businesses opening near Buckees?

This from the Corinth link is kinda sad
"While increased traffic of about 15,600 car trips per day was projected, increased profits and tax dollars for the city, county, state, and school district over time were also projected with the project breaking even from day one.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez, conversely with your rationale...tax incentives in every practical form that's employed either locally or internationally is "corporate welfare" - a derogatory political term. China and Mexico give tax incentives to industries and companies. Startup's residing in "tech incubators" get tax incentives.

I and most unbiased people would say the more accurate and less political definition/example of corporate welfare would be price floors and production subsidies, such as what you see in agriculture, and bailouts.

I define corporate welfare a lot more broadly than that, and it's derogatory for good reason. To me, corporate welfare exists anytime the government treats a business or industry differently than it treats others or uses its power to suppress competition, incentivizes or requires people to buy that business's product or service, artificially deflates that business's costs, etc. Yes, a direct subsidy is corporate welfare, but it's not the only form. If I run a gas station, and the city decides to tax me at a lower rate than it taxes the gas station down the street, yes, that's corporate welfare for me.

That's the whole point. Mexico's corporate tax rate is 30% while the US is 39%. The world isn't fair, and Indiana did the smart thing to keep a company local. Is there any doubt to the positive NPV for this community? Employees still pay taxes that otherwise would have been shipped to Mexico, shareholders will pay taxes on what certainly would be a stronger company, and the corporation will still pay taxes on income that otherwise would have been retained in Mexico.

THEN LOWER THE FRIGGIN' TAX RATE BELOW 30 PERCENT. I'm not saying Carrier shouldn't have its taxes cut. I'm saying it shouldn't have its taxes cut more than anyone else's. There's a right way to do this and a wrong way. You all don't care, but I suspect that's because you like who's doing it and you like the industry. If Obama was pitching a tax break for a green energy company, you all would be crapping in your pants.

Again Deez, who are you paying off? It's a perverted argument to say that reducing a person's or company's taxes is paying them off. It's especially perverted when saying this about corporations who shareholders are doubled taxed at the corporate and personal level at both income and capital gains.

No, it's not perverted. You're pissing around semantics to avoid the real issue. Let's suppose your tax liability is $30K this year. If Congress gives you a $30K tax credit, it has given you a "tax cut." If it doesn't give you the credit but has the Treasury Department write you a $30K check, you're getting a "payoff," but the difference is semantic. Either way, you're $30K richer, and the rest of the public is paying more to ensure that it happens. You're freeloading either way.

And I'll tell you the same thing I told The Eye. If you're OK with this sort of thing, that's up to you. Some countries let their governments use their tax policies to make some win and others lose, and some do it better than others. There are command economies of various degrees all over the world. If you want that kind of policy that's fine, but you're a bullshitter if you're going to clothe your ideology in a respect for free enterprise while you're for pitching sweet deals to preferred businesses and industries. You can't do both and call yourself intellectually honest.

 

[Crockett]

Corinth community needs are different than those in Denton. Don't think many people living in Corinth want jobs at Bucees where there are a lot of working class folks living in Denton. Also sounds like Denton got a much better offer ... only three years complete local sales tax rebate as opposed to a decade in Corinth. Even Boerne's deal ... 50% local sales tax rebate for 20 years, seems better than making a community wait 10 years for a payoff. There's nothing evil about Bucees negotiating incentives, but nothing evil about a community honoring its current business and saying "no" either.

 

[Horn6721]

Can you provide a link showing Buckees asked for 10 years of NO sales tax and No property tax with Corinth?

It appears the main objective by the people of Corinth was the number of people/cars stopping off 35 to get to Buckees.
Do you think people in Corinth could use $180,000 in new property tax?

 

[Crockett]

Sorry. I'm trusting my memory on the Buc-ees rejection in Corinth and I was a distant observer. It was memorable to me because the requests seemed over the top and the decade of sales tax rebates sticks out pretty strongly. I thought they asked for exemption for municipal property taxes. Again, I know new facilities pay school taxes ... no getting around an obligation the state has shifted from traditional state revenue sources mostly to local property taxation.

 

[Horn6721]

I think your memory needs an overhaul. I found nothing that suggested Buckees asked for no sales tax for 10 years and for sure as you suggested Buckees never asked to pay no property taxes.

But your faulty memory of facts and Corinth rejecting the Buckees offer does show that the offers are free market offers and can be rejected. Hardly fascism

 

[Musburger1]

In addition to the issue of "fairness" with respect to granting incentives for specific industries or specific companies, such deals have a political impact. It's not unusual for large companies to make political contributions (quid pro quo) either as a result of receiving preferential treatment or in expectation of same. Over time, granting preferential treatment in exchange for contributions become standard operating procedure. The wealthy not only reap financial benefits but also gain political influence (e.g. have executives appointed to government positions - revolving door). This takes on a merging of the government and industry; the definition of a fascist state.

 

[Crockett]

Yes my memory was faulty.
http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20140815-corinth-votes-against-buc-ees.ece

Looks like Buc-ees had wanted 15 years with 1 percent exemption from 1.75 percent local sales taxes for 15 years. I may have remembered a proposal floated before the City Council made its final vote. Having watched municipal governments for 30 years, I'm hardly surprised at suburbanites preferring vacant fields to acres of intensely lighted gas station and parking lots and lots of traffic near their neighborhoods. They would rather watch horses and cows graze.

 

[Horn6721]

Mus
can you describe a gov't system that would eliminate the haves from getting advantages?

 

[Musburger1]

Mus
can you describe a gov't system that would eliminate the haves from getting advantages?

In my estimation, you have to have a very small nation with a decentralized governmental structure. Perhaps somewhere like Monaco or a tribal dominated region autocratically ruled by an ideolog that isn't susceptible to bribes.

Unfortunately, the best example might be pre-war Libya where there was little poverty and a large lower middle class.

Other examples haven't turned out well. Cuba under Castro has prevented oligarch rule but there is much poverty. Venezuela tried this route also but government mismanagement and the collapse of oil price brought about failure.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Deez,

You and many others are misinterpreting what this Carrier thing is. It's not a harbinger of micromanaging the economy or a policy precedent for tax-incentives or anything else. Trump's time spent with Carrier is simply a statement that he would keep his word. He made an explicit detailed promise to keep this Carrier division in Indiana. That's how people see it, and that's frankly all it is.

I define corporate welfare a lot more broadly than that, and it's derogatory for good reason. To me, corporate welfare exists anytime the government treats a business or industry differently than it treats others or uses its power to suppress competition, incentivizes or requires people to buy that business's product or service, artificially deflates that business's costs, etc. Yes, a direct subsidy is corporate welfare, but it's not the only form. If I run a gas station, and the city decides to tax me at a lower rate than it taxes the gas station down the street, yes, that's corporate welfare for me.

You and I disagree on this, but incentivizing companies, 1 company, a few companies, an industry, or the whole economy by lowering their taxes (which are based on the income they earned) is not, in my opinion against a free market philosophy. Municipalities and states have the liberty to do so in our capitalist system. States and municipalities have buying power, companies have supplying power. There are countries where their municipalities in other countries that have no control over that. They are in state-controlled economies.

That's my opinion from an economics perspective. If you want to say that's semantics, that's fine. You're a lawyer, I'm a banker and semantics matter in indentures and bond notes and legal briefs.

I'll write more on this later...working right now.

 

[Crockett]

Horn6721. Do you favor government intervention that gives one business an advantage over local competitors? I'm OK with it on a case by case basis, but the business better make a good case about benefit to the community. If the community has to rebate too much or if there are factors that mitigate community benefit, say no. And I can long for the old days where businesses saw community building as a worthwhile use of resources as opposed to an obligation they try to negotiate away.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You and many others are misinterpreting what this Carrier thing is. It's not a harbinger of micromanaging the economy or a policy precedent for tax-incentives or anything else. Trump's time spent with Carrier is simply a statement that he would keep his word. He made an explicit detailed promise to keep this Carrier division in Indiana. That's how people see it, and that' frankly what it is.

Frame it how you want, but he has encouraged the government to use its power to pick a winner by discriminating against businesses that haven't threatened to leave the United States. Yes, he promised to do it, and again, if you don't care how the promise is kept, that's fine. Just don't claim to be pro-free enterprise. Accept that you dig government-rigged economies, Five Year Plans, etc. (He also promised to deport all illegal immigrants, and he threw that promise out the window.)

You and I disagree on this, but incentivizing companies, 1 company, a few companies, an industry, or the whole economy by lowering their taxes (which are based on the income they earned) is not, in my opinion against a free market philosophy.

Here's the problem. You roll these scenarios all into one and deem them synonymous when they're not. They're extremely different and represent almost diametrically opposed ideologies. Lowering taxes for the entire economy is a pro-free market principle. Lowering taxes for one guy or one company and making up for it by taxing others at a higher rate is not. It's cronyism and anti-competitive.

Municipalities and states have the liberty to do so in our capitalist system. States and municipalities have buying power, companies have supplying power. There are countries where their municipalities in other countries that have no control over that. They are in state-controlled economies.

Yes, they do have the liberty to do this. That doesn't make it a good idea. The federal government has the right to take every penny of income you have "from whatever source derived," and it has the right to do completely arbitrarily and without any process or cause for doing so. (See the Sixteenth Amendment.) It has the power to, without any limit, "borrow money on the credit of the United States." That doesn't make it fair or smart for them to do either, and it doesn't make the specific act "capitalistic."