ITT: People who do not understand economics

he understand them better than Hillary "I'll tax everything that moves" Clinton

I really hope she gets elected so you can enjoy your 35% VAT like we do here in Europe

you deserve it for being such a shill shithead

*Himself

Hillary actually said the the recession was caused by tax cuts. Tells you everything you need to know about what a dumb statist she is.

Financials aren't everything. Twenty Skypes could make a trillion dollars, but if it meant throwing western civilization under the bus, it's not going to be worth it.

>Hillary "I'll tax everything that moves" Clinton

>tax everything
>slight increase that won't even get us anywhere near the tax rates we had under FDR.
>taxes are the lowest they have ever been in US history.

>Hillary actually said the the recession was caused by tax cuts.

Well let's see

Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, while fighting two illegal wars and spending like crazy. What do you think would happen faggot? Did the Bush tax cuts make everyone rich faggot?

>I really hope she gets elected so you can enjoy your 35% VAT like we do here in Europe

Trump said in the debates he wants a VAT

Y'know, before yesterday no one was talking about Trickle Down Economics. Today, after Clinton's "Trumped Up Trickle Down" focus group approved zinger, people keep forcing it into threads where it doesn't belong. How much of that Clinton Foundation money trickling down to you?

So when I earn money, the more of it I get to keep the worse the economy is? Leftists really are this dumb.

He should read some Adm Smith

How the fuck can you have so much money and yet not have a fucking clue what to do with it ffs.

>"Trump knows nothing about Economics"
>He's a billionaire
>"ALL THAT PROVES IS THAT HE KNOWS ABOUT ECONOMICS"

>be dirt-poor
>say a mutli-billionaire doesn't understand economics

Which group of people in America is the least intelligent and why is it Shillary supporters?

Trump is the one that wants VAT, Clinton wants higher income taxes for the wealthy.

VAT is an anti-poor tax, since poor people spend a greater proportion of their money on VAT taxable goods.

>Top 1%
>Federal Reserve owns all the money
>be surprised they fuck everyone over for personal gain

That's the whole point of the Federal Reserve private bank. They get all the money via interest payments and when they decide not to hand out money, the economy shrinks drastically. This plummets property prices into the ground, allowing them to buy homes and businesses. Then they give out money again and suddenly all their new acquisitions are worth a thousand times what they paid for it.

This is the sole reason trickle down economics don't work. Everywhere else, people invest their money to make more money.

>Y'know, before yesterday no one was talking about Trickle Down Economics.

It's been brought up several times. Trump is the same bullshit we've seen under Reagan and Bush Jr. Cut taxes and hope everyone gets rich. GUESS WHAT IT DOESN'T WORK

>Trump is part of the 1% but he'll turn against his own rich elite and help out the average people.

user I.....

Debate last night showed that Clinton doesn't know shit about economics.

Every time she opened her mouth about the 2008 crisis she made absolutely no sense.

>2912
>this correlates with the number of book reviewers needing a copy

Niggas don't read, she would have been better off releasing a rap album to reach her voter base.

You do realize that everyone making over 500k per year is the 1%, right? Hardly the "ultra rich".

>Every time she opened her mouth about the 2008 crisis she made absolutely no sense.

Oh yes user, pls educate us on your wise know how about the 2008 crash from arm chair econ 101.

To entice manufacturing companies to come back, we will raise their taxes, tighten regulation, expand entitlements, pass punishing employment laws and increase energy costs.

-Liberals

I agree OP

Trump utterly destroyed her.

He talked about real plans and policy and Clinton just talked about Trump.

He had her on the ropes the whole times. All she could do was arrogantly smirk while she was losing. It was embarrassing for her and for the Democratic party.

Almost all the polls except for LOL (((CNN))) agree.

Trump dominated, faggot

>Trump is risking his entire business empire for a job nobody appreciates him for to make less money than he would just ignoring everything and gaming the system, just so he can help his "rich buddies" who are constantly slamming him in the media

Right. Thanks CTR, remember to Save The Day and Tuck Frumph!

youtube.com/watch?v=jfJZsXGzYp0

god CTR, at least come up with some new memes. You fags are the bottom of the barrel arent you.

I don't even like trump, I'm hoping he crazes and burns but you niggers make me want to vote for him simply due to your lameness

go suck on a nigger dick and die

I'm a little baffled how anyone could think Clinton won that debate. Unless its from lowered expectations of "if she doesn't go onstage and drop multiple shartbombs then its a win" I just don't see how a working brain could reach that conclusion.

Trump clearly won the first few rounds and the rest while Clinton lost them. But she started off at a medium level and never improved, while Trump improved over time and was clearly getting under clinton's skin as her performance diminished. Its a clear 10-0 decision.

The very reason we're hearing all this post-debate discussion of biased moderators and microphones not working is spin for the Clinton loss.

Now, a debate performance is in the eye of the beholder, supporters or either candidate are going to come away from it thinking their side won. But objectively one side does better than the other and in this first debate Trump pulled off a win of moderate proportions.

Since you want to have a discussion on Trump's tax plan.

I found an article for you and the rest of the people here to read.

taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

The Conclusion

>Donald Trump’s tax plan would enact a number of tax reforms that would both lower marginal tax rates on workers and significantly reduce the cost of capital. These changes in the incentives to work and invest would greatly increase the U.S. economy’s size in the long run, leading to higher incomes for taxpayers at all income levels. The plan would also be a large tax cut, which would increase the federal government’s deficit by over $10 trillion, both on a static and dynamic basis.

Even you, the paid shill, won't pay taxes on your income if you fall into the right bracket.

>adam smith is relevant when YOU HAVE TO PAY 35% TAXES

NO

Hmmm, my turn..... Karl Marx.

Please show me how you turn a million Dollars to billions

These CTR employees are the people who could get no jobs because they weren't good enough at anything to do anything.

In the one field they are supposed to be good at, shitposting, they get outdone by groups of random posters from around the planet by such a crushing margin, it's not funny just sad at this point.

Kill yourselves CTR, you're going to be jobless soon.

He doesnt own them, his name is on them

Less than that, I think it's around 250k that puts people in that category. Which by the way, is the average CEO annual. Hardly billionaire tier.

ITT: People who suck baby jew dick.

I'll start, op.

>take a million turn it in to billions in real estate, one of the most cutthroat businesses out there.
>Doesnt understand economics

Technically nobody. That's the nature of economics.

>The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

Economics is about understanding what you don't know, not about understanding what you know. That's why people say if you lay down every economists end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion

> billionaire
[citation needed]

>Having to correct himself after calling someone a stupid nigger

40% of the 1% are of a certain faith...weird considering they are 2.6% precent of the American population.

She blamed it on low taxes from Reagan era.

Clearly the most important ingredient was forcing banks to loan money to people who couldn't pay them back... Then banks using their sift monopoly to package those loans into toxic assets.

As of 2016, the 1% is $525k annual income.

I think that's a fucking lot of money.

This guy gets it

OP

The official number from the IRS is an annual income of 380k.
However, due to cost of living, the number differs by state. The top 1% in a poor state wouldn't even be in the top 10% in a rich state, yet he'd live just as well.

Fair point

>economics is a set of truths, not theories
>My econ textbook says X
>Therefore Trump is wrong

Pretty much this.

Economics is more about learning a particular way of thinking about things. They like to use the word intuitive in Econ, but it's a misnomer. Often relying on your intuition leads to the wrong result. You have to train your intuition for economics. It is far more art than science.

t. Economics graduate

yep, the problem comes when people think they can reduce it down to formulae, like neo-classicalists

meme tier choice, in fact he was pretty clued up.

Based Leaf

Except Trump literally espouses trickle UP economics

Explain to me who is hurt the most when the US government tells a company they cannot outsource to improve profitability. Is it the workers or the investors?

The minute hillary said trickle down, I would have corrected the shit out of her.

More often than not, economics is completely counter intuitive which is what makes it so fascinating.

It had more to do with the adjustable rates which made it so that people could afford it in the short run, but in the long run they couldn't have any hope to come close to affording it. But since the initial rate looks so appealing, a housing bubble was created.
Package these toxic assets together as a mortgage backed security and banks ended up buying into nothing because they were making money.

And then the Minsky moment happened. A Minsky moment (which is actually a very rare phenomenon) is also called the wile e coyote moment. We ran over the ledge long ago, the crash was just when we stopped, looked down, and then gravity does the rest.
In the case of a Minsky moment, gravity is a deflationary spiral. That's why the bailouts and quantitative easing were so important, if we didn't pump money into the banks then the banks wouldn't have any money. The housing bubble and the financial crisis were separate problems but they were both caused by each other. That's why they're always considered to be the same thing, but it was much more complicated than that.

The problem now is that so much of that money is stuck in the banks and interests rates are so low that nobody can make money off of investments. Growth requires a certain amount of risk and right now we're not seeing any benefit from taking risks right now.

I dont see how it's counter intuitive, maybe game theory but I think game theory has been proven false.

What dont you guys think is intuitive? Maybe I can help explain it to you.

She's accumulated a LOT of money during her tenure in politics. She probably has nearly as much wealth at her disposal as Donald

But we are though
REITs are up 14%

how many millions of dollars do you make a year?

When I was getting my masters, I recall what one of my better economics professor said.

He said "Economics is all about building boxes, and then working within those boxes"

Economics is first order logic based on real analysis. It's not something you can study in a lab. It's something that's discovered in the mind and on paper.

There are some actually reliable econometric models (I am an actuary, I give credit where it's due), but they are fundamentally flawed despite their accuracy. That's why econometrics is an unreliable field

Liquid cash? I doubt it. She's an investor just as much as Donald. She makes plays on commodities, which is how most people in government get rich.

They're above the law. Specifically the insider trading law. It's bullshit

A lot of things sound correct on the surface but end up having the opposite effect. For example anti-trust legislation is designed to prevent monopolies and/or break them up, but the effect has been to create and sustain monopolies. As you well know, monopoly behavior is when a firm restricts output to where MR=MC rather than MC=P, however anti trust legislation leads regulators to call an MC=P price level "predatory pricing" and forces a firm to raise prices closer to a MR=MC level.

But that is wrong. I Economize and seek the highest value in all cases but the bottom right box. There I just seek the highest value.

>thread full of asshurt trump shills
>all foreigners who can't vote
lmao

There are different schools of economic.

Fuckin' Mororns
I'll start:
OP

Things like opportunity cost, sunk cost, unintended consequences, externalities, are not intuitive unless you are a trained economist. At least I don't think they are. Also most people don't think on the margin.

There's probably more, especially when it comes to all the nifty graphs you draw in micro.

Game theory hasn't been proven false.

Economics isn't like science which are based on observations of nature. That's second order logic. That's the scientific method.

Economics uses first order logic based on real analysis. It operates on a much more pure level than any science. It's not about what's observable, it's about what's true given a set of axioms and premises. People uneducated in real analysis fail to make these connections, and so they seem counterintuitive. Like You have to train yourself to think a certain way.

i would be interested in seeing trickle down economics if it was adjusted to only show real economy and not wall street investors, which is what most of that chart is reflecting . all of the dips are related to stock market crashes. trickle down economy works, if it didn't work then what the fuck is hillary clinton talking about when she says she wants to corner the 'clean energy' market. big company pay small employee , small employee buy local goods. trickle down economics

Well that's just the first layer. That's where its counterintuitive for the layman. It becomes counterintuitive to the economist when diving in past intermediate micro, but that's for people getting advanced degrees

No you don't. Gifting is inefficient by nature

...

maybe trump is smart enough to realize that being the in the 1% of flies on a steaming pile of shit doesn't account for much. maybe he wants to be the 1% of a global super power, a country the world respects

That's why I said wealth and not cash, you fucking idiot

I doubt she's nearly a fraction as wealthy, but she's far beyond the point of being rich. She's got almost $100 million in personal wealth at hear disposal

But people like James Patterson have 10x as much as her, and Trump has 5x as much as those people

>Hopes the housing market crashes so he can profit off of it

>THATS CALLED GOOD BUSINESS

Adam Smith is definitely relevant wrt Trump's mercantilism (and frankly Clinton's too).

>big company pay small employee , small employee buy local goods. trickle down economics
The economy isn't some circular flow that you can explain in a single post. See the quote in The economy is an organic entity. It is the most powerful thing in the entire world, and possibly the universe. It's not going to be as simple as "trickle down"

I know a guy who said that if he was given a million dollars, he could have turned it into a billion dollars easy via "investing."

This same guy had to ask me what a mutual fund was.

>game theory has been proven false

someone that has clearly never taken a game theory course

Some people think it's easy as spending money to make money, buy low and sell high. Those are the kind of people who fuck up the stock markets. The people who get on those internet investment sites because they think they can become rich with just a little bit of capital and a lot of ambition.
They're also usually the same people who think that rich people never worked for anything and that you just have to be lucky enough to inherit the capital necessary to get rich.

It is true that nothing breeds success like success, but there's still more to it

wow such a profoundly enlightened post, do you find you write your best posts in your fedora, or your trilby ?

You might wanna check out this read

ouch, i don't think i'll have time, i'm going to kill myself after reading this brutal post :(

i'm not sure if you have read hillary clintons clean energy plan, but it is trickle down economics. it's not left or right, it is just a source, those closest to the source benefit the most and it dissipates the further away it gets.

>be billionaire
>Implying
LOL Drumpf probably doesn't even own a million dollars. He's deep in the red and if he doesn't win this election he'll just be arrested for raping a 13 year old or call for bankruptcy. Fucking delusional Drumpfkins

ok

He literally has a degree in economics and a massive business empire to back it up.
fpbp

>his private jet was a gift and costs nothing to run
[citation needed]

Do you think I'm pro-hillary or are you just strawmanning at this point?

WTF Donald Trump is in this thread??!?! I love Trump now

I'll finish:

Karl Marx

He understood economics pretty well. Das Kapital is still pretty much considered the standard (save for the labor theory of value)

It's his writings on history and society that are wrong

Love how no one understands charts these days... This means shit.
It just means smart people are making more money, it doesn't mean low class make less. The cake gets bigger, your slice doesn't reduce, it's just a relatively smaller, but it's not actually smaller.

Does he understand anything?

>"Economics is all about building boxes, and then working within those boxes"

economics is studying how other people make and spend their money, and then complaint that would have made it faster and spent it better.

it's meaningless.

Well it is actually, what's the wrong in this ? You have his money and knowledge of the housing market you would have done the exact same thing...

Economics is about studying incentives.
It's not about how people make and spend their money. That's finance.
Economics is about why, not how.

Great job proving your ignorance though

clinton supporters
>mannerism
>omg r u giddy me

Trump supporters
>policy
>polls

WTF I'm with her now.

economics is the study of the efficient allocation of resources you tard
economic education of the populace stops the government from sucking you dry

i'm not going to debate semantics with a pseudo-intellectual between the differences of how and why

make money (Positive economics) (((what is)))
spend money (Normative economics) (((what ought to be)))

I'm a little baffled how anyone could think Clinton won that debate. Unless its from lowered expectations of "if she doesn't go onstage and drop multiple shartbombs then its a win" I just don't see how a working brain could reach that conclusion.

Trump clearly won the first few rounds and the rest while Clinton lost them. But she started off at a medium level and never improved, while Trump improved over time and was clearly getting under clinton's skin as her performance diminished. Its a clear 10-0 decision.

The very reason we're hearing all this post-debate discussion of biased moderators and microphones not working is spin for the Clinton loss.

Now, a debate performance is in the eye of the beholder, supporters or either candidate are going to come away from it thinking their side won. But objectively one side does better than the other and in this first debate Trump pulled off a win of moderate proportions.

Trickle down economics isn't even a real thing, user. It's the economic equivalent to "assault rifle". It is literally a buzzword that's applied to several different situations.

Yep. It's basically the left saying that they don't want business expansion.

Utter stupidity.

((()))

Good goyim