Re: And that's why...
But remember off-site does not mean somebody else's computer.
42029 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
Directories where I'm doing work are synced to NextCloud which not only has a backup of the last version but the version before that and before that.... Which has been handy from time to time.
Actually I don't keep local systems up 100% of the time. Laptops are switched off when not in use ant not even NextCloud is up all the time, thanks to the local electricity supply. It helps that updates aren't a monthly source of angst. They Just Work. The doffing of your hat is only occasioned by making sensible choices in the first place and those choices are also open to you.
Not needing to blame someone is better than having someone to blame. As soon as some remote server enters into the mix there's a whole extra universe of things that can do wrong and give rise for reason to blame. Is taking a one-off effort to learn something new better than having frequent failures to work at all?
And how often does the commercial version require new ways that have to be learned? Genuine question since the last version of Office I used was not noticeably different to Libre Office - at least I moved from one to the other with no sense of effort. The big issues I did find with use of previous versions of Office was that being given a file from a slightly newer version would be unopenable by the older.
"I tell you you're getting 30% tariffs so you and your supplier work out an agreement to split it in half and cover the costs. 15% each."
Who's "you"? The tariff gets paid at customs and passed on to the customer. There needs to be a substantially higher mark-up than 30% for the trade to be worthwhile otherwise.
Either the US customer gets nothing or they pay a 30% tax to the USG which is indistinguishable to them as 30% inflation.
Trump. That's why the US can't have nice things.
A good point. Tariffs are charged on the goods arriving at the border and paid by their recipient. It doesn't matter who the recipient is and most likely for, say, EU car makers iit will be their US subsidiary. But the cars have crossed the border at the port consigned to them and the tariff becomes due. Stuff arriving by post generally gets through on de minimis rules or else it goes through an import handler who adds a handling fee (experienced this buying on eBay from the US).
But what are the practicalities of tariffing internet service deliver?
How does a streaming service cross the border? Delivered to the user de minimis would probably have to apply.
What about services free at point of delivery paid for by advertising?
It might be possible to work something out on subscriptions but non-tariff measures such as enforcing GDPR and going beyond it to require storage of user data onshore and not under US sovereign or commercial control. Going further still, moving at least government IT onshore and strongly encouraging commercial and home use of onshore services and technology might be even more effective in the long run.
Short answer:
1. Despite Leave's bleatings the EU isn't a federal state. As a trading bloc/customs union VAT rates are unified but countries are allowed to set other taxation.
2. For multinationals there's a global market in corporation tax. Small countries (including Luxembourg) do very well out of this by setting low rates. It enables them to attract a lot of multinationals who per relatively low tax on relatively very large sums with the additional benefit of low tax rates enabling local businesses to prosper.
If the small countries in the EU didn't play that game they, and the EU as a whole, would simply lose that business to small islands elsewhere, even if the corporations there were little more than than brass plates on a small office.
'What is more worrisome is that the US might be moving towards the Orwellian world of "Empires" where the USA controls the Americas (and the UK) and the two Oceans, and Europe and China divide Eurasia and Africa.'
More likely he's thinking of himself and Putin which is whcy I think this need only as light modification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caricature_gillray_plumpudding.jpg
How taxation is perceived may depend on how its applied. Tariffs are effectively sales taxes and are perceived as inflation. So far that hasn't occurred to the MAGAts. It might never occur to them. But one of the jobs expected of governments is to reduce inflation so they might end up cheering him on for sticking it to the RotW but blaming him for inflation.
Non-tariff moves would be better. Enforcing existing regulations instead of providing privacy fig-leaves would be a start. But mandate that government IT move over to non-US vendors and, as far as possible, technology within, say, a couple of years and that customer data should also be held outside of US sovereign control within the same time period.
Pension funds holding US shares aren't limited to the US. Apart from those who saw this coming and bailed out early just about all funds will be hit to some extent and, of course, the value of businesses world-wide will be hit by the effects of trade with the US.
I'm still of the view that the best thing would be to wait for a while and see what sort of backlash meets the inflationary effect. Giving him excuses, however invalid, to deflect the blame will help him. In the meanwhile there are a few non-tariff actions that could be taken such as governments demanding resident's personal data be housed not just locally but also outside US control and generally removing dependency on US IT services, at least for their own use and preferably for commercial and private use.
Also Cameron wasn't alone. After May wondering what to do with it BoJo took the baton over the line. In fact, Cameron was only responding to Major's Bastards, AKA the Dunning-Kruger wing of the party. I don't think he actually expected, let alone want, Leave to win even a slim majority. If he had bothered to plan for that eventuality there's a good deal he could have done to defang the whole proceeding.
"US companies don't like EU rules because they make them accountable, and they want only profits, not accountability."
The thing about making profits is that people need to trust them with their data. Their reasoning is that if people don't hear about abreach they'll continue to trust them so if there is one and they can hide it by keeping shtum. The flaw in that reasoning is that if they try to keep shtum and get found out it makes them look like ... errm what? A shower of weaselly, untrustworthy nuppits? In the long run, sticking to the rules isn't a bad way to do things.
"Despite ambitions to position itself as a science and tech superpower, the UK has cut the budget for the government body responsible for university research funding."
A basic misunderstanding here. All a government has to do is announce that the country will be a world leader in science, tech, AI and a few other things that have slipped my mind at the moment it will happen. It certainly won't need such inconveniences as investment. Same with decreeing net zero and EV adoption. So cutting budget won't make any difference and that "despite" is entirely misplaced.
The comparison is also being made only in goods and the US tends to have a trade surplus with a lot of countries on its hit list. And that's where those countries are likely to hit back. Those feeling the pain of that aren't going to be the MAGA men, they're the money men and likely to be a whole lot more trouble for him in the end.
In a parliamentary system the head of government as party leader is ultimately a creature of the majority party if they think the leader has lost the plot they can replace them. Truss was more easily toppled than Trump. If the majority party doesn't have an overall majority they can be toppled by a confidence vote. The presidential system entrenches the president.