Damn... really makes you think huh?

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

Why is protectionism bad? Corruption?

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.

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

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.

>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.

Damn...Really makes you think...

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.

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

>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.

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

Why so butthurt Ha-Joong?

>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?

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.

How do we go back to that?

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

>How do we go back to that?
Vote Trump.

Consider it done!

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

...

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

Corporate farms are where the food comes from.

Amen.

>In the '70s, they thought that Vlocker's high interest rates would destroy the country rather than solve stagflation.
Well it did both.
>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.

Look into the US policy shift for agricultural subsidies

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

youtube.com/watch?v=MTO7XXSOhzI

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

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.

>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.