Title pending... (edited2)

 A conversation rose between a guest and some other guests at a news talk show. 

A: Why would they be accusing you of being a sell out?

B: Well because they're drunk that's why

C: You see, who's accusing who?

B: Oh come on. Look it is only natural that one would hire a lawyer to do such scheme of business, but they were accusing me, keep in mind that such things just don't usually happen blatantly

C: In other words you're accusing without evidence

B: The evidence is in the difference its going to make to the difficulties of my personal commerce

A: Go on 

B: It is only natural if you were to set up a business that would help tourists made the most of their time overseas while taking advantages of the VAT return facilities, you would have some legislative preparation undergone. The problem is, wait a minute let me finish, the problem is some people wanted to take advantage of the "arbitrage" that being the lack of regulatory supervision.

C: So what is this? Isn't this a prove of what they said about you, and furthermore it is not me who said it it is just you. We are talking about a strawman debating of an accusation made by the strawman of concerns risen hypothetically of which Mr. B being the victim of such the thing he made up himself... he's making us all look embarassingly insane

B: So you're saying the problem that I'm dealing with is imaginary?

C: Let's stop talking with this lunatic

B: Then why we are here in the first place. So lets not waste time playing a social standing game and actually elaborate the potential issue here. 

C: You're crazy

B: If one were to build upon this so called "arbitrage" and you let this go on for years, the way it would be conducted were that the people that were bidding and buying were out of the supervision of the "receipts" lets say, unusual compared to regular transaction that was built upon a regulation. This is not a family exchange of services, nor neighbours borrowing and returning tools, this is an international law dealing. The "arbitrage" here is that the intricate and high stake nature of the commerce were producing economic advantages for a party in it, by relying on underhanded unofficially verifiable dealings between the stakeholders. So now, if you guys follow me let me present you with the point, thank you for bearing with me by the way, 

C: Oh get over it 

A: Please Mr. C, Go on...

B: It would be easy for the future regulators to shut the setup down

C: I just couldn't contain my irritation and anger for this fool! Future regulators? and so many foolishness I'm dumbfounded! You're so stupid

B: Well you're not considering the other side of the coin, ok. Because if you believed me then what would be the implication? 

C:... shut up you idiot

B: The implication would be there wouldn't be the slight "arbitrage" due to it being a commerce of receipt. 

A: Mr. B please finish your point

B: Say I'm a country like Japan, say I'm Japan, would I change my regulation to the direction of less facility? Assuming the policies that they've beein doing until now were indeed as they are.

C: This is crazy person talking

A: Mr. C please refrain from insult and slander, 

C: I'm getting out of this idiot show, and you'd just wait for you'd be out of business pretty soon. All of you, will lose your jobs, all of you

A: Please continue Mr. B, it seems like we wouldn't had any productive response from the opposite side, for that I apologize

(Mr. C went out)

B: Alright, so, why would a person wanted to rely on making a living that would encourage him/her from investing in a "real job", that's what I'm saying, the participator of the scheme would suddenly be changed for any correction made by the regulators, this is too fragile.

A: Well you are here putting this issue forward still, despite the heat you've been getting, quoting yourself

B: I'm just putting this on the public eyes so that people like me could start to build something that we would rely on for good, if that's possible. 

D: Am I getting this wrong I thought you're an activist of the anti going concern movement

B: Corporate going concern yes

D: Yet here you are talking about going concern 

B: I'm talking about regulatory infrastructure, there's no need for it to be a monopolistic entity, with the base, multiple buildings could be built on it and tore down

D: So what's the point of your previous explanation then... given it would be build and tore down anyway

B: Well that is the point, that is the point

D: Huh? Excuse me I'm starting to consider what he was saying before was true here, right? I mean please if you had something in mind please explain it better cause we've been listening all this time

B: Well that is the point you see, if I weren't to came out and speak of these things, there would be little predictability of the lines, therefore little could be planned in order to break apart or to rebuild anew

D:... I get it, fair enough

A: Alright panelists I guess that's it for this session we will resume the talk after the sponsorship messages coming up, NEXT.

A: Welcome back we're back and the topic of today is still on the distinction between foreigners and residents, should there be any in terms of business transactions? Now lets get in to Mrs E, you've been quiet the whole conversation, what can you take out of those points given you've been in the tourism business for decades.

E: Thank you, well I can see the point that Mr. B was saying and to add to the point he was making that was cut by the heated temper, which by the way I could also relate to maybe even more than him, however if I were a country like Japan who's trying to have this policy of inviting tourists as means to regulate the fiscal and monetary aspects of the economy, yes this would not be too much of a consideration

A; What do you mean by that?

E: Well for start if a country like Australia were to implement constrictive policies, higher barrier to entry on the tourists or the international customers than before, then it would be further setting aside of such huge potential that we have, why would we wanted to do that? While our position is not much different or should I say we are head to head competing for tourists with Japan and Korea as one of the destination that offered well diversed balance between quote unquote "exotic" tourism and "modern" tourism. 

A: So basically what you're saying is we are not going to see significant changes in the way countries deal with visitor taxation going forward?

D: She's saying there's no point in accusing Mr. B here for being a blabbermouth, reckless in conducting campaigns that might influence aspects of commerce throughout the public, just for his own popularity. I do think this setup right here would do better with scrutiny and is potentially dangerous otherwise, or rather would eventually be upsetting to a lot of people, not in a good way (otherwise). 

B: Thank you, that's highly accurate

A: Alright so now its time for some questions from the audience, anyone?

An audience member stood up, a man appeared to be in his 50's with rather chubby disposition with t-shirt and jeans trousers. 

Audience 1: What would this regulation look like, you're saying that there would be no significant changes, but would there be changes?

Mr. B: Yes, in a way. So the market had its way to balance things out, we would not impose further tax on those who tried to make the most out of our current policy. In turn we should open up transportation facilities to areas that's lacking of visitors.

Audience 1: Right, I think that's a good idea really. What's the use of all these bare ass and wide ass land if everything were centered only around the cities

(Mr D: Bare ass? Wide ass?)

A: (*chuckle) alright the next question?

Audience 2: Well I do agree with what you're saying however I don't think that our land is bare, yes it is wide, but it has plenty of vegetations, I wouldn't call it bare

A: Is that it? Alright

D: Right, there are plenty of bushes here and there

Audience 2: Right right mate it could be pretty bushy down here, not bare, it could be pretty hot though

D: Oh yeah, it is, hot ass of the world

Audience 1: Depends on where you look at it from the world is round north is not always up, the way we look at it, it might as very well be up, up here

D: Right... 

A: Ok so that concludes our talk show tonight, thank you all for watching, thank you for our panelists, our audiences, good bye.

 

---------------------------------------