
FedEx's CEO on McCain, free trade and the tax bias against capital-intensive industries. - anthonyrubin
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122488966230768509.html
======
newaccountname2
>We absolutely have to cut the corporate tax. Our current tax rate is about
38%. Even Germany has a 25% rate.

This is so disingenuous; Germany also has a 19% VAT, and also has stronger
regulations on industry.

>If we had a lower corporate tax rate with the ability to expense capital
expenditures, guess what? We'd buy more triple sevens.

He wants to be able to write off the purchase of planes as expenses? What?
They already get to write off depreciation on planes, but you can't write off
the whole plane because you can sell the damn thing after you buy it.

~~~
vaksel
yeah regulation in europe is insane. You fire someone in Europe you have to
continue paying their full salary for a whole year or until they get a new
job.

Here its wham bam thank you mam, don't forget your box and enjoy living on
$1500 a month that you get from unemployment.

~~~
davidw
The reason I hate seeing politics here is that it's usually not up to the
usual standards of discourse about hacking and startups.

To use your post as an example, in a few brief lines, you sum up something
where there is a glimmer of truth, but there is so much more to be said on the
subject that what you have written is basically inaccurate. There are, in
reality, three broad models in 'Europe'. The 'southern' model: Spain, and
Italy (which I know quite well) don't give you a lot of government
unemployment benefits, but it's very difficult to fire someone. France and
Germany give you lots of benefits if you're fired, and it's also difficult. In
Denmark, it's easier to fire people, but the obligation to care for fired
employees is viewed as a collective one, payed for with taxes, rather than a
burden that falls exclusively on the employer in question.

~~~
davidw
Actually, that's just one reason. Other problems include:

* Attracting people who care more about talking about politics than other things, which creates a negative feedback loop.

* 'Pack' voting down of whoever is currently unpopular with the current groupthink. This is reinforced by the people above.

------
Prrometheus
That's pretty much the case against Barack Obama: Trade (BIG BIG BIG win for
McCain), Taxes (small win for McCain), Subsidies (big win for McCain),
Healthcare (big win for McCain: got to address cost, not access), and Energy
(slight win for McCain).

Barack on the other hand is better on avoiding World War III, Big Brother, and
Theocracy.

It's a depressing choice.

~~~
netcan
Question.

As a non American, I wonder what brings US to a (relatively) extreme position
on Health. Technicalities aside, most places consider health as part of the
suite of public responsibilities.

Does a significant portion of the opposition to the public assuming
responsibility for health also oppose the public assuming responsibility for
education? I ask because it seems a close parallel.

~~~
mattmaroon
We believe that health care is not a right but a privilege. The Constitution
does not ensure the right to "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and $10
copays."

Moreover, we believe that almost everything the government does, it does
poorly. Schools would be a great case in point.

~~~
netcan
I actually meant that as a genuine question without meaning to discuss it
but..

 _We believe that almost everything the government does, it does poorly_

There is definitely some truth in that in a general sense. But it seems to me
that it is really a technical side issue in this particular case. The
efficiency costs/gains are debatable. Even if you think you see an answer,
it's marginal. It largely depends on what you consider the 'output' of a
healthcare system. If you take traditional public health indicators such as
life expectancy at birth, rates of various avoidable deaths & such, as the
output of healthcare systems, private health systems are generally 'less
efficient.'

What I mean to suggest with the above line is that a lot of practical pieces
of general world views & rules of thumb (Government should not provide
services because it is inefficient) are taken to specific contexts regardless
of their validity in these cases.

That's why I always find it very hard to believe that anti public health
arguments are truly decided on technical grounds. This is a moral not a
technical issue.

 _We believe that health care is not a right but a privilege._

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic. But it does seem closer to the
point. In other words, _I_ have no duty to ensure _you_ have healthcare. I
have a duty to ensure you are not murdered, but not that you don't die from
diabetes.

If you take what seems to be a current debate in US politics, it seems very
fundamental & moral rather then technical: Assume the responsibility or try to
enable more healthcare without assuming the responsibility.

I think most would probably agree that regardless of the tax regime &
regardless of price of medical care (within possible levels), some people will
be left without. Many people in fact.

Short of assuming responsibility for health, you are debating ways of getting
the number of uninsured from 17% to 12% or 10% or some moral equivalent. Some
people will be left out. But that's ok because they chose that or made a dumb
mistake or had a fighting chance.

~~~
mattmaroon
I don't think it's safe to measure various health care systems against each
other. The prevailing theories these days seem to suggest that most of the
problems are due to lifestyle. Diet, pollution, obesity, exercise levels, etc.
all play a major part as well, and those have little to do with the health
system. So I don't think it's safe to say that publicly funded health systems
would work as well here as they do elsewhere.

Also, I always try to resolve arguments on practical grounds first. For
instance, I feel that moral stances on drug laws are irrelevant, because the
facts show that drug laws don't stop drug use, cause violent crime and many
deaths of dealers/distributors, policemen and civilians. So even if you accept
that drug use is immoral, just like with alcohol before it the laws still
should not be on the books.

A law that has almost entirely negative effects is not a good law no matter
what the moral justification.

~~~
netcan
_I don't think it's safe to measure various health care systems against each
other_

OK. How about measuring various health care systems against themselves? What I
am putting forward is that given that we are talking about improvement in the
types of metrics used to compare health care systems, the US system would
improve it's output by being public to an extent.

Various implementations are possible from direct government ownership of
hospitals to means-tested health care subsidies & everything in between.
Obviously crappy implementation has the ability to make things worse. But
within the realm of the currently probable, steps taken in that direction
would probably lead to an improved result.

But again, that's a purely technical line of argument. I think that in this
case the rule of thumb economic liberalism is wrong. I'm reasonable happy to
let economists bash that one out. But I do think that in the absense of an
overwhelming victory for one of the practical debates, the moral argument here
is very strong.

 _practical grounds_

That's an area worthy of discussion in itself. Even if you do believe that
drug use is deeply immoral, but see that the consequences of prohibition on
are so severe, it'd be very rational to let it slide. But then, I wonder what
I would think if I did understand drug use to be deeply immoral in the same
sense as rape or murder is immoral. Would I allow legalised rape if the long
term if the consequences of prohibiting it were as severe as the drug case. I
dn't know how to answer that. (*Most would say no to a purely utilitarian
approach [http://www.nysun.com/arts/putting-practice-into-
ethics/69595...](http://www.nysun.com/arts/putting-practice-into-
ethics/69595/))

For me that particular issue is all about practical. It's hard for me to see
any justification for drug prohibition on moral grounds, just the opposite.
It's an infringement on liberties. So there have to be net benefit reasons.
But I would consider the flipside. In Australia (where I live) Alcohol &
gambling are legal. Certain communities (usually extremely remote communities)
here have severe social problems linked to abuse of these. Very severe. Some
have decided that Alcohol prohibition (like dry counties in the states) are
necessary to get the situation under control.

Even though I think individuals should have the right to consume alcohol, in
these circumstances the prohibition creates large net gain for the community.
I'm OK with that.

~~~
mattmaroon
I think even in the case of rape, practical grounds matter. If making it
illegal didn't decrease the amount of rapes but increased violence and
furthered the profits of organized crime families, why would one make it
illegal? You'd simply have to attack the problem from another angle, as we
should be doing (but aren't) with drugs.

Of course there are gray areas. What if rape laws decreased rape by 10%, but
increased other forms of violent crime double that?

But in general, if a law's overwhelming result is negative, like our drug and
gambling prohibitions, there's no point to them no matter how moral they may
be. The money and effort would be much better spent on prevention and
rehabilitation.

Unless your communities that are so afflicted are much different than ours, I
expect prohibition won't work much better for you than it does for us. People
are going to get what they want. Demand for vices seems to be inelastic the
world over.

~~~
netcan
_I think even in the case of rape, practical grounds matter._

People disagree with you instinctively. It seems that we have Deontological
tendencies by nature. Mostly people do not find utilitarian arguments
compelling. You have to weight the scales very far in favour of utility before
people will violate a principle.

 _the dry communities_

It's an extreme case. These are mostly very small very isolated (like 2 days
drive to a store) communities. Generally self imposed by direct democracy or
community elders/leaders. I don't know if it works. I don't know if it helps.
But that is besides what I was saying. Assuming it's a net gain, I approve.

*It's interesting that we arrived here from the public health care questions. I'm actually surprised that someone open to a 100% practical outcome argument would be so against public healthcare. I expected more fundamental objections: despite the net loss..

~~~
mattmaroon
Yeah, I instinctively disagree with the rape issue too. In fact, I wrote that,
thought about it, and deleted it.

~~~
netcan
This is an area with some experiments actually. Peter Sinegr seems to be
involved in a lot of them. He's a famous(ish) utilitarian. Considered pretty
extreme. Actually, you can almost use his moral prescriptions as a what
happens when you take your above reasoning to the extreme.

Anyway, most people are instinctive deontologists. From the above link:

 _"the minority of subjects who did consider that it would be right to push
the stranger off the footbridge {Right from a utilitarian/net-good
perspective} took longer to reach their judgment, and had more activity in the
parts of their brains associated with cognitive activity, than those who said
that it would be wrong to push the stranger off the footbridge{Right from a
deontological perspecitve}"_

You seem to be a good example. Instinctively/emotionally a deontologist,
rationally a utilitarian. A torn man. (;

~~~
mattmaroon
I bet everyone is that way instinctively, just some of us think enough to
overcome it, for better or for worse.

~~~
netcan
Most of us are remarkably similar regardless of race, religion, nationality,
_education_ etc. are like that.

I think that those who go with a utilitarian approach think harder about the
decision, but that might be just because it makes the decision harder. You
need to work out consequences. It's a stretch to say it makes it smarter.

But when you get right down to the root of your stack of 'whys,' you generally
hit a principle at some stage. When your trying to rationalise morals, that
is. Even Bentham the old time 'extremist' utilitarian had 'the principle of
equal consideration.'

Your Constitution & other fundamental documents that you sited earlier are
essentially principals (held to be self evident, no?). If you are going to try
& rationalise your ethics, most strategies can be deciding on what level to
define you principles, define them somehow then apply. Most people
instinctively do it at the same sort of level as the law. Some mostly pretty
bookish characters go to a slightly higher level.

In that respect, the US founding documents (which I am always surprised to
hear quoted & treated in the way that they are) conform to that. Confucius as
an example goes to a slightly lower level.

------
anthonyrubin
I apologize for the political content, but the article actually contains very
little commentary on the election.

------
joubert
I will never use FedEx again.

------
logjam
I did consulting work for FedEx.

Instead of asking America to bail him out like we've bailed out banks, Fred
might want to look at his company. I've never actually encountered a more
inbred group of incompetents. They, like Microsoft, happened to become lottery
winners....and like Microsoft, they will watch themselves slowly lose to more
agile organizations. He (and McCain) are completely backwards looking.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I mailed a FedEx letter once.

I don't believe that running successful business is like winning the lottery.
If I did, I wouldn't spend so much time learning about how to form and run
startups.

FedEx is a tremendous success story. Created an entire business niche where
none existed before. You can either have more of that or less of it. I know
where I stand.

~~~
timr
I agree. We should promote entrepreneurship by doing things like funding
universal health coverage -- with the money we save from rolling back the
corporate welfare state.

Giving more money to companies that are already successful doesn't encourage
innovation; it encourages hoarding.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
How about we don't "give" money to anybody? Maybe let them keep more of the
money they've already earned?

Since when did the entire economic output of the country become ours to decide
how to allocate? Did I miss the revolution?

~~~
walterk
The answer as to when some portion of the economic output of the country
became ours to decide how to allocate is when a majority of taxpayers approved
of it, including some fantastically wealthy folks who earned their money.
Those are the breaks of living and doing business in a democratic country.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
When the question begins with "Since when", I would expect the answer to
involve a date. which I believe to be 1913.

The gist of the question was when the default mode of taxation changed to be
for social engineering. That answer, of course, is much more complicated.

The point of the question, of course, is that the tax code is a monstrosity
and intellectual abortion and to argue that it's broken, but only in these
small areas, is to engage in the same idiocy that created the monster in the
first place. To understand "when" -- it's roots and history -- is to
understand why bickering over details is specious.

