Versión Español
Spanish – It is no secret that the tenets of the communist Antonio Gramsci have been fulfilled over the years. The Italian thinker was one of the first to demonstrate that communism could not be established by force in the world, but through the intrusion of its agents in cultural spaces to make people accept communism naturally.
In recent years, several Nobel laureates have been defending and promoting failed socialist ideas. Paul Krugman, for example, winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics, dared to say that the problem in Venezuela was not socialism. He claimed that Chávez had done well by redirecting oil money to “favor” the working classes, but when he died, Maduro did not know when to stop, and the collapse of oil prices led Chávez’s replacement to print bills to support public spending and drive the economy into hyperinflation. In short, Krugman believes that it was not socialism that ruined Venezuela, but the fall in oil prices and Maduro’s poor decisions.
Thus, the Nobel Laureate overlooks all the mistakes, expropriations, subsidies, price controls, nationalization of industries, currency controls, protectionism, waste, corruption, and other absurd measures carried out for 21 years in the name of socialism.
Many people around the world look up to these Nobel laureates, who covertly defend socialism and communism. Anyone who is not very interested in economics and political science will read that a Nobel Prize winner in economics says “A,” and then “A” should certainly be put into practice.
This time around, Joseph Stiglitz was the one who stepped up to the task through the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation and called for the murder of private companies around the world, using the pretext of the coronavirus to establish communism. Of course, the prize-winning economist will not resort to emotional messages for the masses; he will not openly say “kill the companies” but instead use technical language that is difficult to understand and call for actions that “kill the companies.” Meanwhile, his actions appear to be saving the world.
So recently, I came across this news published by several print and cable news outlets around the world. Stiglitz told the commission mentioned above the following:
“Governments around the world must increase revenue through corporate tax and fiscal control to recover from the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.” The award-winning economist said:
Reductions in corporation tax ‘to stimulate reconstruction investment’ will be neither economically effective nor socially desirable. Rather, corporate tax systems should be strengthened by accelerating truly inclusive international cooperation on base erosion and minimum rates, by making these taxes more progressive to stimulate small firms, and by ensuring effective taxation of the offshore wealth of shareholders.
I am going to go through this one by one. What the economists are saying is that it is not viable to lower taxes on companies after the pandemic, but that taxes must be raised because these are difficult times. I’ll copy another excerpt from the article:
“The ICRICT argues that the pandemic has forced all governments to increase public spending to ensure the health response, protect jobs, and help vulnerable families. They believe that this spending should not fall disproportionately on those who have the least. That is why this group of economists is focusing its attention on the largest corporations, and their fiscal measures include the proposal for a progressive tax on digital services that can be applied globally, as well as a higher tax rate on the extraordinary profits of large companies. The institution also proposes a minimum of 25% corporate tax in all countries to stop the erosion of tax bases and fiscal relocation.”
I can go on. The leading economists are calling for higher taxes in all low-tax countries to prevent companies from escaping to countries where the tax burden is not so cumbersome. They are also asking for increased state intervention, and of course, they want all this to be done during a global economic crisis. They want increased tax rates to “deal with the coronavirus” when most companies in India, Canada, Colombia, Argentina, China, Italy, and even Jupiter have not produced a dollar in months due to massive closures caused by the lockdown measures.
In other words, forgive the repetition, what these savage murderers are proposing is that private enterprise that creates employment for millions of people around the planet and affords them food should be subjected to particularly high taxation just after they have spent months running up debts to cover their costs without producing a dollar. Well, they do not literally say, “kill private companies.” They use their awards and technical language to say in an elegant and seemingly justifiable way that, it is necessary to increase taxation on the private sector, which is already broke and in debt, to end private enterprise, and let the state take over completely.
As always, there is an attempt to throttle the “perverse rich”: “If the wealthy are not to bear a proportionate share of the economic burden of the pandemic, local income taxes and even international corporate tax coordination will not be sufficient,” the report states. Oxfam was one of the contributors to the publication of this report.
Economistas como @JosephEStiglitz, @PikettyLeMonde, @Jayati1609 y @JoseA_Ocampo que ha reunido la @icrict y @Oxfam, coinciden en que la recuperación a la crisis de la #COVID19 debería ser afrontada con una reforma tributaria, un sistema fiscal más justo. https://t.co/GnGEINkDQi
— Oxfam Intermón (@OxfamIntermon) June 16, 2020
Also, we can’t ignore this proposal to introduce a tax on digital services. Do they even understand what that means? Well, for starters, the ambiguity and lack of precision give rise to many interpretations, but it opens the door to tax collections for the use of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Internet, Digital Banking, etc. In other words, leading economists are close to asking for taxes to be charged for breathing.
Today, there is no doubt that Gramsci’s postulates are more valid than ever. He was the true revolutionary genius, not Marx; he was the one who devised the perfect way to screw humans, through culture, and unfortunately, they are succeeding in doing so, through propaganda, the media, academics and, it is worth noting, the passivity of the good guys.
