Economics General?

I like to track commodity prices with what's going on in third world countries that produce them. That's more of a question that starts with game theory and international relations though.

guise is the purpose of taxes to control inflation

No.

then 4 what r they used

Nigga are you stupid, ignorant, or trolling?

not an argument
they r used to control inflation

Nigga, inflation is fought by stoking unemployment or by fiscal restraint. Government spending adjusts the balance of IS-LM along a different axis than the Fed does, and it is related to taxes.

I am interested OP

I definitely think the GBP is undervalued, I'm just worried about instability going into Brexit. I think investors will overestimate the impact of Britain not being in the single market and it seems like Britain is not going to prioritize single market access above all other aspects of the Article 50 negotiations (telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/26/britain-should-confident-brexit-quit-single-market-former-bank/).

I'm curious about the Indian demonetization attempts, is it just to fight organized crime or is there any economic backing on it as well (i.e. cashless society to make NIRP work better).

Thanks, this thread got pretty good traction so I think I'll post a general using links from there.

Indian demonetization is mostly to combat black markets and corruption.

The recent growth in their economy has mostly been from consumerism so I'm worried that demonetization will negatively impact growth.

Yeah I could definitely see that having an effect. Do you use any news sources in particular to get investing info about India?

Honestly I'm very interested but it's just going to turn into shit libertarian trolls talking about muh gold standard, whining supply siders who think they understand economics, and cuckservative retardation.

>economics
Pseudoscience belongs on

What would you identify yourself as? I'm a monetarist and yeah I worry about libertarians coming in and ruining the thread. Haven't seen much supply side stuff on here though.

>economics
>pseudoscience

That's Veeky Forums dude.

You're not technically wrong, but you haven't said enough for me to know whether you know you're right for the right reasons or if you're just talking shit.

No I don't sadly. Best I can get is going through recent articles on the Google finance ticker for the BSE 500.

Pseudoscience? So if higher GDP leads to higher inflation then the FED raising interest rates is just Pseudoscience?

If minimum wage increases, thus forcing an increase in unemployment/layoffs due to companies trying to combat higher labor costs, that's Pseudoscience?

So if the price of Gold increases during an economic downturn since it's an asset with a more stable price (then let's say securities), that's Pseudoscience?

Not trying to be a dick but Economics are legit

Not what he's getting at, but I don't think he knows what he's getting at.

Economics has serious problems with accurate predictions and lacks an internal mechanism for predicting a change in consumer preferences. A science, by definition, has the goal of first understanding a phenomena, being able to predict phenomena, and finally allowing humans to control those phenomena. Economics is very much lacking in the latter two departments, hence why some who deride it call it a pseudoscience.

I didn't find out that it lacked key predictive mechanisms until I got to senior level undergrad classes in econ. I almost quit in disgust.

Pretty much this.

While microeconomics is more or less consistent, macroeconomics is a bloody mess full of "models" that are sooner or later are being proven wrong by life.

It starts to get pseudoscientific when you get deeper into macroecon models. IS-LM curve doesn't hold. Taylors Rule doesn't hole, Philips Curve was proven wrong like 40 years ago and they still teach it and try to apply it somewhere.

Whole current macroeconomics is fully blown scientism which serves politicians when asked why they did X, so they try to scare away average joe with pseudomathematical models
>we did it because of mah macroeconomics mahdels

thanks dude!

Will Trump's ostensible tax changes and infrastructure developments bode well for the US economy? S&P up over 2017?

The political feasibility of Trump's infrastructure spending plan is a little unclear at the moment so I haven't really read into it. Lots of republican deficit hawks could cut into it or alter it here and there and from what Trump has said, it looks like he's going to be getting some private sector financing for it.

For tax reform though, I think it'll be good. I'm personally a supporter of Trump and tax reform, so I'll try and be objective here, but I think 2017 may be a golden year for equities. That being said, you need to weigh the benefits of Trump's corporate tax reform with the potential for a trade war and import tax. If China starts waging more economic warfare against the United States, it could put negative pressure on equities.

pic related (focus more on the rates themselves and not the effects on revenue if you're just looking for equity strategies)

>it looks like he's going to be getting some private sector financing for it.
the dude can't even get a loan for his own projects. He's not going to get private sector funding.

how's he going to pay it back when congress won't even budget for his shit to begin with? ridiculous.

Since it's been proven higher minimum wage doesn't eliminate jobs or impact inflation why don't we just raise it to $100/hr? Nobody would ever have to study in hs or college again. You're welcome.

I didn't want to read the whole thread, but why do people give into the Corporate Tax meme, on both sides, especially on the Democrat side of things?

I voted for Trump.

Corporate taxes are based on profits. Profits are not revenue. Revenue is the base income for any business and doesn't include paychecks, unemployment insurance, FICA, salaries, bonuses, investments, actually any expense at all. If they can hire 100 people to produce more income, they would be completely alleviated of THAT much pay in their corporate income tax.

A company could create a bunch of jobs, which would reduce their profits and reduce their corporate tax liability.

So when we have this idea of "let's reduce corporate tax to create jobs," what the fuck are people talking about? Corporations pay less income tax to pay an individual than to NOT hire an individual, since everything from compensation, to half SE tax, to benefits, to unemployment insurance, IF THEY ARE PROFIT INDUCING, is cheaper than paying the government. They are all direct business write-offs.

Hire someone, pay less taxes, it's really that simple.

HOWEVER. Many corporations do not have a need for more employees. An investment would mean to be able to put capital toward something that will fan the flames. So many companies don't have flames to fan. So why add more fans, when it's dead, at the time? How would reducing the corporate tax ever alleviate that? If a company could make a bigger profit over what they do now, of course they would hire more people!

There's very little association with lower income tax and job creation. No sane corporation would give up 29% in spite of an 80% revenue gain. Just stupid.

There is nothing to gain by raising or lowering corporate income taxes from either side. Just a dumb and very distracting argument.

>implying I was talking about Trump's company building and not the fact that Trump may offer tax credits to private companies to invest in infrastructure, as proposed by Peter Navarro

Did your parents drop you on your head or something?

so you're going to give me tax credits for throwing up some shoddy infrastructure?

no, you're going to inspect it and make sure it's up to par before I get my credits?

back door contracting so you don't need congressional approval of your budgets? Even the GOP will impeach him for that shit.

GOP won't impeach him for that. Obama has been doing it all along with no trouble. Just one case would be Solyndra. Point is, government can't help these people. Also if you want to look at the most pessimistic numbers of jobs that Trump supposedly saved with Carrier, by any economic level - totally worth it. Let's use the 800 number that is commonly accepted. $7MM for 10 years. $700k a year. With 800 jobs, that's $875 a year. That's a very tiny tax premium to pay for an individual considering they'll probably keep at least $35-40k a year in the Country, each.

He better stick to his word, everything else will fall flat, but that one deal is a taste of the kind of benefits we may see. As I say to everyone who is skeptical: We were all skeptical of Obama, he did some good and bad things. Let's see. Dude isn't even President yet and we're giving him ratings. No matter what side, so fucking stupid with the "what ifs" and "will comes.". He has at least another month before you can become critical and actually be serious about it. Brain up, folks.

>Just one case would be Solyndra.
he got close to impeachment for that. But their budget isn't even a fraction of what trump would need for infrastructure.

I don't think congress would even block infrastructure spending, the last 2 presidents spent hundreds of billions on it.

I just think the idea of Trump getting private funding for anything is laughable. You have better credit than he does.

>You have better credit than he does
You're probably right(or wrong, depending on your perspective). I don't borrow.

For the rest, I think the post you were originally replying to was worded improperly. We're on Veeky Forums, so people mish-mash terms all the time. I think what they intended to say(in their ignorance) was that he could incite people to invest money, not just finance it. I also know that providing private financing, buying government bonds, or giving tax credits are a totally different games. I was specifically referring to tax credits. Sorry if I missed your point.

Made a somewhat relevant post at
Sorry if someone has brought it up already, im on my phone and haven't read the thread

Shit wrong post

I'm just saying getting private funding for government contracting via tax credits violates Federal Acquisition Regulations and Congress's constitutional authority over budgets.

and republicans aren't going to hand the pursestrings over to the executive branch because eventually there's going to be another democrat in office.

I just don't see it happening. At all. We'd probably need a constitutional amendment to do it. It's creative thinking, but it's also dictator thinking.

>It's creative thinking, but it's also dictator thinking.
it's also entirely unnecessary since he currently controls congress and even if he didn't infrastructure spending has always had bipartisan support.