Damn

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

damn... really makes you think huh?

All urls found in this thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTO7XXSOhzI
Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

@Harmless_Venom
wait is this something new to you?
are you fucking with me?

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

@Harmless_Venom
Trickle down economics is the worst left wing meme, just after "neoliberalism is bad"
No one has ever supported anything called trickle down economics, no economist has ever advocated for it. Tax cuts were done under different logic. That quotes wrong anyway as tax cuts for the rich would not be redistribution but returning to the pre-redistributed incomes. Ha-Joong Chang is a hack.
Hurr durr protectionism= growth

FastChef
FastChef

@Harmless_Venom
I can't speak for the efficacy of tax cuts for wealthy personal incomes, but reducing business taxes of all sorts are beneficial

Snarelure
Snarelure

/leftypol/

Emberburn
Emberburn

@FastChef
but reducing business taxes of all sorts are beneficial

Beneficial to the business' maybe. If a business can't exist without tax cuts it shouldn't exist, only emerging industries should be given tax cuts or incentives to exist.

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

@CouchChiller
Trickle down economics is the worst left wing meme
The term originated in United States politics. It has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."

so it's literally a meme kek

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

@Emberburn
What about farmers and such? We need them for food but they are often unprofitable without such cuts.

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

@Crazy_Nice
Not my personal point of view, but one could argue there is an oversaturation of farmers due to these tax cuts and price regulations, leading to inefficient produce uses (majority of US corn utilized in factory farms). Getting rid of these protective measures would lower farming output to organic levels, where outputs would be used in an efficient manner and food prices will accurately reflect that.

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

@Crazy_Nice
need them for food
Like we fucking need more corn, we have so much corn we make it into corn syrup because we don't know what to do with it.

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

@Harmless_Venom
Trickle down economics is a straw man, as a professor of economics he should know better.

farquit
farquit

@CouchChiller
Why is protectionism bad? Corruption?

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

@Harmless_Venom
Man, I wish there were more tax cuts for the rich.

Feels shit giving away hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to pay for hillary clinton's makeup for her shit aged face.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

@SomethingNew
@BinaryMan

Hilarious how liberals use this strawman only when it supports their

You didn't see this coming up when all those green energy pump n dumps got massive tax cuts and government subsidies.

You don't see Shillery giving back all that tax free money from the Clinton foundation.

No one has ever defined "the rich", but they supposedly need to be taxed

Trickle down is just a subtle idpol

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

@Harmless_Venom
what the fuck is he even talking about?

Ausfag here, i don't know what it's like in the U.S, but over here, the tax free threshold is at like 18k a year with a rate that ranges from 18% to 45% for incremental amounts after.

add to that public education, subsidised healthcare, public welfare and the rest..

the "disadvantaged" in this country pay absolutely nothing into the system. even people on the 19-32% thresholds would likely take more out of the system than they put in.

meanwhile the working stiff who takes on a second job to get ahead get's crucified, while tanysha and steve have 10 kids down in boganville courtesy of centrelink.

these types of champange socialists are disconnected from reality, and are the worst kind of hypocrites.

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

hurr durr an economist doesn't agree with my opinions
You guys sound like fucking /pol/ on the matter of sjws or pc culture. Joon is one of the world best economist that conservative politicians worldwide respect his view and take it in consideration for their country policies. All the economics school of teh world agree trickle down economics has destroyed an generation of wealth and innovation. The rise of wealth inequality in the developed world is is direct respond to supply-side economics. Anyone who has training in economics and finance knows this to be true.

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

Damn...Really makes you think...

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

@TalkBomber
@Sharpcharm
Seconded. In the US you could actually do with a few broke farmers and starving people off a touch. The last thing you need is more food.

RumChicken
RumChicken

@CouchChiller
Hurr durr protectionism= growth
Protectionism can be good, ala american school of economics.

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

@RumChicken
american school of economics.

It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@Harmless_Venom
Distribution is not part of economics, economics is always about overall income.
Distribution is part of politics.

Supergrass
Supergrass

@VisualMaster
Why so butthurt Ha-Joong?

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

@RumChicken
Gee why was inequality so bad during the gilded age

Maybe because the people were forced to buy more expensive and shittier America goods rather than superior foreign goods?

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

@farquit
If your countries firms aren't exposed to competition they will have less pressure to innovate or bring prices down. This is bad for the consumer. Even if you plan on having the tariffs for only a few years special interest groups will lobby to keep them. You will also be fucking over foreigners who produce goods that your people want to buy but aren't allowed to due to your policies.

America uses tariffs to protect its sugar farmers. This means that the consumer has to pay more for his sugar, but also that poor farmers in places which are better at sugar growing (Mexico/Colombia) can't sell their sugar and have had to turn to growing plants from which drugs are made to make a living. This has caused gang wars.

Bernie sanders hates the poor as he wants to use tariffs to stop people from paying Chinese/Vietnamese/Cambodian etc peasants wages.

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

@VisualMaster
How do we go back to that?

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

@Fried_Sushi
It also coincided with the USA becoming a world superpower (arguably -the- world superpower) and its people the richest in the world.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

@Fuzzy_Logic
How do we go back to that?
Vote Trump.

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

@Raving_Cute
Consider it done!

eGremlin
eGremlin

@Need_TLC
Superpower != Good economy for consumers
Look at the USSR.

Lunatick
Lunatick

@Need_TLC
and its people the richest in the world.
Bill gates walks into a room of welfare recipients
Average networth becomes a few dozen million.

5mileys
5mileys

@Raving_Cute
When we're all equally poor, in their utopia, will they still live in Manhattan writing society columns for elitists that no longer exist, or do me(commisar Cletus) and commisar Tyrone just chop them up and feed their remains to sewer alligators?

idontknow
idontknow

@CouchChiller
neoliberalism is bad"
This is true for 99% of people though.

Snarelure
Snarelure

Rich people have a long and storied history of being on the wrong side of economic debates, usually because old systems have served them well so they're naturally reluctant to change.

In the early 19th century, they supported mercantilism and were heavily in favor of tariffs
In the late 19th century, they were opposed to the free minting of coinage to prop up inflation rates.
In the early 20th century, they couldn't imagine a world without the gold standard.
In the '70s, they thought that Vlocker's high interest rates would destroy the country rather than solve stagflation.

Makes you wonder what they're wrong about now.

Flameblow
Flameblow

@eGremlin
@Lunatick
Wages increased lots during the gilded age and US citizens, while mostly poor, were still doing better than those in Europe at the same time. Also American school oversaw the rise of the middle class to the status of richer-than-kings-of-yore in like the 50's etc. The period was overall fucking great for US workers/citizens, I don't really see how anyone can convincingly argue otherwise.

SniperGod
SniperGod

@Harmless_Venom
Except that poor people dont pay income tax and are eligible for dem programs.

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

@Crazy_Nice
Corporate farms are where the food comes from.

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

@Carnalpleasure
Amen.

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

@Snarelure
In the '70s, they thought that Vlocker's high interest rates would destroy the country rather than solve stagflation.
Well it did both.
@Carnalpleasure
@TurtleCat
even people on the 19-32% thresholds would likely take more out of the system than they put in.
So do the 1%. They take far more income than they contribute in taxation.
he "disadvantaged" in this country pay absolutely nothing into the system.
It's hard to pay more if you're earning less.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

@Crazy_Nice
Look into the US policy shift for agricultural subsidies

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@TurtleCat

The name is sure. You can do some research though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTO7XXSOhzI

Nojokur
Nojokur

@PackManBrainlure
Shillery
save this shit for /pol/, lets atleast try to be more intelligent here

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

@Fried_Sushi
Strange, people from all over the world were fighting just to get into the US because the standard of living was so high. Even weirder, people from all over the world were buying "shitter" US goods.

@Crazy_Nice
If your countries firms aren't exposed to competition
domestic competition

foreigners who produce goods that your people want to buy but aren't allowed
Tariffs aren't a ban, sorry.

America uses tariffs to protect its sugar farmers
Not exactly. NAFTA, unfortunately, allows free export of sugar into the US. Even so, America produces most of it's own sugar and there's nothing unaffordable about sugar. You're not exactly build a case.

poor farmers in places which are better at sugar growing (Mexico/Colombia)
Lol, is their sugar sweeter?

can't sell their sugar
There's that word "can't" again. Anyway, if their sugar is truly better, then people will be willing to pay more for their "better" sugar.
Sad, free traders are so uninformed.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page