Thread 17944501

So it's against the rules to talk about economics here.

Sorry Janny. I guess I distracted too many people from great threads such as
>why aren't christcucks as based and redpilled as us paganchads
>hitler appreciation thread, he was right about everything
>1000th virgin mary porn thread
>why marxism so GAY and TRANS
>TRUTHNUKE (nonsensical ragebait)
>what race is this
>DAE christians are brown
>if atheism so good why trans people??

I'll be sure to limit my posts to these very serious historical topics in the future

>>17944501 (OP)
Based Janny taking out the trash and removing /pol/shit. Get fucked retard.

>>17944509
Yeah, Jannies do a real good job of making sure /pol/ tier content doesn't get posted here:
>>17939886
>>17944320
>>17943524

Is there even a good board to discuss econ in the first place? /biz/ is to peddle cryptoscams, /sci/ isn't really good for it, /pol/ is a shithole. I can see removing econ threads for being thinly veiled politics threads, but then 75% of the board is just /pol/ threads with extra schizos

>>17944527
/lit/ might be good if you're discussing a particular book. /pol/ is cancer and if I made the thread there I'd just get 300 replies of DA JOOS and interracial porn spam.

It's not the deletion of the thread, it's the fact that this shit
>>17927718
is acceptable but discussing supply-demand curves isn't

>>17944501 (OP)
"Trickle down theory" has only existed as a leftist boogeyman for at least a decade, but I think the theory is a bit more complex than that. If I'm not mistaken, it goes that lower taxes incentivize business owners to expand their business, creating more and better jobs and reducing the price of consumer goods by increasing supply.

Damn jannigger at /a/

>>17944542
The basis of the theory is that added costs on the supply side of the economy raises prices for the demand side, so it's better to minimize costs to do the things that you said. We did it plenty of times in Econ classes, for example adding environmental cleanup costs shifts the supply-demand curve and raises the price of goods for consumers. Conservatives say less regulations and less taxes means low prices and more capital for expansion.

My question was simply how tariffs factor into this compared to domestic taxes like sales taxes or income taxes. Nobody was even talking about modern-day politics

A no-shit econ board with the (relative to the rest of the internet, shitty) intellectual standards of /sci/ would be amazing.

>>17944581
I agree, but I still contest economics belongs here far more that infinite "Christianity vs. Atheism vs. Neo-Pagans with occasional guest Islam" threads

Jannies are handing out bans like candy atm. I’m not really sure why but they’re definitely righting up moderation.

>>17944645
*tightening up

>>17944514
community notes -
jannies dont do anything until multiple reports
stop whining
start whacking

How important are economics REALLY though? Great Men are rarely ever beholden to them beyond making sure their people have money.

Kind of fascinating how the last remaining people to hold Nazi beliefs take refuge on this board, of all places.

>>17945248
It’s because it’s the only place that lets them

>>17944501 (OP)
Economics is not his, humanities is stupid too. Give them thier own board to share.

>>17945305
>Economics is not his
Economics and history are inseparable, you cannot talk about history without mentioning the economic forces driving it. Money is the reason why anybody does anything in this world.

>>17945200
Economics are incredibly important, I don't understand how you think notable leaders are not beholden to them. If we go to everybody's favorite medieval nation, the HRE, as the amount of imperial territory (the lands held by the office of the emperor, not the personal lands of him and his family) declined then it became impossible for poor dynasties to even run for the job because you had to be rich enough to finance the HRE bureaucracy out of your own pocket, which at that time limited the possibility to the Habsburgs, Luxemburgs and Wittelsbachs. Charles IV borrowed and spent a tremendous amount of money to secure the election of his son. From a historical lens money, politics and power are almost inseparable.
>>17944501 (OP)
The problem is that /pol/ is a complete shithole where no discussion can be had, /his/ has its fair share of schizos who can do nothing but regurgitate conspiracy theories but /pol/ posters are orders of magnitude worse. /his/ allows so much fucking garbage threads so I don't understand why it couldn't allow a single thread on economics where the discussion was very civil.

>>17945160
YWNBAW

Superb thread

>>17944501 (OP)
Yep. I got warned for asking for historical examples of hunting licenses for societal undesirables. Turns out there is an historical precedent in Rome called Proscription, but it doesn't matter, because the mods are worthless subhuman animals.

>>17947039
Be nice to them, they do it for free

>>17945160
No u

>>17944501 (OP)
I don't see how tariffs have anything to do with trickle down. They aren't a direct benefit for the rich.

V

>>17944501 (OP)
I have a historical economics question:
Does Norway becoming rich through left-leaning economic policies over time serve as an example of socialism or market socialism working?

>>17950493
Norways social expenditures as a percentage of their GDP is actually below the OECD average.

>>17950509
I guess I got fooled by leftist grifters again. Any book recommendations of the historical economics of Norway?

>>17944501 (OP)
I'm guessing the janny chose to interpret the list in the sticky as an exhaustive list of what qualifies as "other humanities" and therefore economics didn't make the cut

45v hydrogen tax?

>>17944501 (OP)
sorry lolbertroon, this is an idpol board :^)

>>17945248
I take it you don't use any social media

>>17944501 (OP)
>tariffs = taxes
A 25% sales tax and a 25% tariff are fundamentally different than an income tax. One is destined to influence the customer while the other is meant to get money from enterprises.
The idea of trickle-down is that enterprises will lower their cost if their taxes are lowered. The reality is that since taxes don't affect the price, companies will just keep the extra credit.

>shit thread on /his/
What did you expect from christians and racists. They're the lowest IQs. Unironically leftypol has a much more intellectual base precisely because they're not right-wingers despite being schizos like /pol/

>>17945541
Yeah I agree. The problem is that there's no place for any constructive analysis on 4chan overall except for niche topics. There should be a general board where people are mandated to a quality minimum and where they can talk about "intellectual" topics.

>>17950509
That's because their socialized oil revenue is kept and not spent, and because a lot of their social services don't register as transactions. IRL norway has much more socialized programs than the average in the OECD.

>>17950493
Yes and no.
Yes because socialized means of production for essential goods do indeed work better as have their history shown.
No because their model isn't market socialist but more so a strong welfare state that's reliant on fleeting capital and oil.
If you want to look at market socialism working, look at China's growth.

>>17951891
*since tax-cuts don't affect the price

>>17951891
>trickle down
My understanding of trickle down is when company's are taxed less they spend more.
In theory this means they pay other companies more money. The company becomes larger and employs more people. More employed people buy more stuff. The list goes on but wages may even increase, not on a utopian level but they do.

>>17951907
>In theory this means they pay other companies more money. The company becomes larger and employs more people. More employed people buy more stuff. The list goes on but wages may even increase, not on a utopian level but they do.
Not really

>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292122000885#sec6
>"When analysing the heterogeneity of reported effects across studies in more detail, we obtain the following main results: First, corporate tax cuts tend to be even less growth friendly when considering a short time horizon. Second, considering both rate and base changes by looking at an effective average corporate tax rate may lead to slightly more positive growth rates in response to tax cuts. However, this is an outlier as compared to the rest of the literature using effective marginal tax rates, corporate tax shares in GDP or statutory tax rates"

the tldr is that it works short-term slightly, but not long term.

>>17951979
The non tl,dr is your own post refutes your conclusion.
>First, corporate tax cuts tend to be even less growth friendly when considering a short time horizon.
My guess would be that they are hesitant to invest this money when they know it's short term

>>17951907
>>17951979
>>17952001
The results are more damning once you realize that short boost is useless and boosts inequality.

>https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/20/2/539/6500315#365254752
>"The upper panel shows that major tax cuts lead to a significant increase in inequality and that this effect becomes stronger with time. Three years after the major tax cut, the top 1% income share increases by 0.6 percentage points. Over 5 years, the top 1% share of pre-tax national income increases by more than 0.7 percentage points."
>"Thus, we find no evidence that countries that cut taxes for the rich experience a stronger (or weaker) growth in inequality prior to tax reforms. In other words, the findings show strong support for the parallel trends assumption that underlies the difference-in-differences estimator."
>"The results suggest that tax reforms do not lead to higher economic growth. The effect size of major tax cuts for the rich on real GDP per capita is close to zero and statistically insignificant."
>"Finally, we look at the effect of major tax cuts for the rich on unemployment. The lower panel of Figure 3 [picrel] shows the results. In general, we see more fluctuation in the estimates. In the years immediately following the tax reform, the point estimates are negative. In the medium term, the estimates return to close to zero. However, none of these estimates are statistically significant at any conventional level."

>https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_published.pdf
>"We find that major tax cuts for the rich push up income inequality, as measured by the top
1% share of pre-tax national income. The effect holds in both the short and medium term."
>"Turning our attention to economic performance, we find no significant effects of major tax cuts for the rich. More
specifically, the trajectories of real GDP per capita and the unemployment rate are unaffected by significant reductions in taxes on the rich."

>>17952001
p2 of >>17952012 since no more char available but the result is that trickle-down doesn't work. If you limit trickle down to tax-cuts for enterprises, models show that the boost is temporary and arguably beneficial on the long term (especially when you take into consideration that it often implies deregulation and privatisation).
If you expand trickle-down to less taxes for the rich in general (which was one of the crux of the neoliberal & libertarian policies in the 1980s and even to this day), the results imply that this short term boost is not only irrelevant, but it hurts the economy by pushing inequality and concentrating wealth in the hands of few people.

my apologies for the format btw

>>17952027
Interesting. The thing is there are so many variables that affect those figures i usually assume they don't take enough factors in to account. Like other countries economies and trade and probably twenty other things i cant name right now. But interesting none the less.

>>17945305
Human record history, dummy

>>17944527
Go to /pmg/ inside /biz/

>>17950493
>serve as an example of socialism or market socialism working?
Interesting, now lets introduce 40% non-Whites

>>17944509
>/pol/shit but keep the same 100 christfag threads with op talking about how sucking jew cock is appreciation of god for giving him will and to own da athiests
k.

>>17951907
It might've worked if stock buybacks were made illegal or heavily regulated. The SEC had its teeth gutted when reagan introduced trickle down and companies use and still use tax cuts for buying back half their stocks and artificially inflating the other stocks in their portfolio instead of putting it towards company health and bottom line like was promised. Every company has done this making the entire economy fucking fake and meaningless as there is little to no performance improvements

>>17944501 (OP)
you don't get it
>/his/tory
>>christianity
& humanities
>>christianity
I hope that clears your doubts

Anime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fu7tHL2Og0

GRRM have weird obsession over taxes policy

>>17945320
>Money is the reason why anybody does anything in this world.
that's very semitic.

>>17955989
currency predates jews

>>17956019
that's less relevant than ever thoght possible.

It's both hilarious and very fitting that my thread complaining about getting deleted by the jannies has lasted far longer than the actual delted thread.

>>17955103
;)

>>17944509
>/pol/shit
you'll never be a woman tranny

>>17944514
>Oy vey shut it down
fuck off kike
the world is waking up to the JQ and there's nothing you can do about it

>>17956025
The idea of money isn't Semitic

>>17945305
>Economics is not his
Why? Economies of various scale existed for all of human history.

>>17956220
>>17956227
/pol/tranny meltdown

>>17956239
>think of shemale

>>17956231
what does this and your previous post here >>17956019 have to do with whether there are other motivations besides money as stated here >>17945320 or not? people who seem to think money is everything are not to be trusted, also common perception is that jews are overwhelmingly believing this. I guess it's cultural, but still...

>>17956372
>people who seem to think money is everything
Because it is everything. Cope and call me a kike all you want, money (more importantly, what money can buy) are the primary motivations of human behavior. Everything else is a side justification. Nobody does anything for free, you give something to gain something. (You) are no exception, Anon. Even the things you do for pleasure and self-fulfillment, even those that are free, need money, because money is required to meet your basic needs to give you free time for pleasure.

Money is everything.

>>17956389
'money is EVERYTHING' and 'it is the PRIMARY motivator' are mutually exclusive statements. make up your mind.

>>17956268
>shemale
That's a term that only exists in the context of porn categories. Good job outing yourself as a tranny porn watching faggot.

>>17956476
No you faggot, it another term originally used for tomboy

>>17944514
Two fantastic threads and one off topic thread that the jannies removed. Meanwhile you're wasting everyone's time with another dogshit off topic thread.

>>17956476
>Seems a bit silly to call others faggot when you brainlets can barely speak English.