How can you justify being anti-establishment/elite when you advocate tax-cuts on the wealthy and insist on giving them...

How can you justify being anti-establishment/elite when you advocate tax-cuts on the wealthy and insist on giving them more money and power?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=5EoetIL-MiM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Henry_Dow#Breaking_a_monopoly
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

By far the biggest tax cut and wages reduction is letting them operate overseas.

>letting them operate overseas
>letting them
as if we need permission from you to go work somewhere else.

Fpbp

You can run your business elsewhere and sell into the US, but you'll pay your taxes as a foreign company and not a local one, as you should for not using American labor. Enjoy your tariffs.

>as if we need permission from you to go work somewhere else.

you need it if you want to sell your goods

It can be disincentived. Nothing wrong with some moderate, common sense protectionism. There used to be a lot more of it.

what do you have against free markets?

what are you, robin hood? yeah let's steal from the rich and give to the poor lmao

I'm a nationalist before being a capitalist.

>Nothing wrong with some moderate, common sense protectionism
yes there is. it stifles growth and fucks with the markets.

free markets are flawed too, infact none even exist.

Because our problems stem much, much deeper then the rich's money and getting more gibsmedat. That would be addressing a symptom, it's not even worth debating.

>blah blah im retarded
>leaf
story checks out.

>implying free markets can be flawed

Most people do not benefit from GDP increases anymore. It all goes to the elite thanks to neoliberal policies. This could change though.
Post-industrial nations do not benefit much from comparative advantage at such a scale. They have a variety of issues, but productivity isn't one of them (with the exception that it can break domestic monopolies (but competition can be enforced other ways)).
Free trade is done for world order reasons. Not to make ordinary people more prosperous. They're throwing the working class under the bus for this.

you sound like a fucking kike desu

>(((markets)))

I don't. I'm anti-establishment because I see through what they're doing because I'd do the exact same things if I were in their position.

The Fed is genius. He methods for control of hearts and minds through the media is genius (but they're getting sloppy.)

>thinking some poor people in one country are more important than world stability.
>leaf
seems legit.

You ever gotten a paycheck from a poor person?

>implying the true elite pay taxes

Tax cuts help the rich goyim, like doctors, engineers, and small/medium business owners. >Our best and brightest.

youtube.com/watch?v=5EoetIL-MiM

There are other ways to keep the world stable. It's just that corporations have taken over the democratic process. And there are cabals of internationalists with ambitions for a one world government (but this is conquest really (and it is much more violent than it seems)). Schools and the media collaborated to eliminate nationalism (because nationalism is necessary for a people to organize and be stable to resist oppression from their elite).

What we have now is a form of capitalism where very large corporations play by different rules (and extremely hard to compete with). It's not *that* bad for most people, but nearly half of the US is poor or very near the poverty line. People who have decent wages often are terrified to lose their jobs (even if they hate it). People have much less real economic freedom than before.

This is social control. tbf the baby boomers forced the US to come up with different strategies. They refused to fight and kept on trying to dismantle their own culture.

If people truly wanted to impoverish themselves to achieve the goals of the globalists, then yeah, maybe, why not. But we're being lied to and manipulated.

>tax-cuts on the wealthy

Huge taxes on the wealthy are a placebo, they all have pro jew accountants on their payroll to save them millions - the only one that might eat that shit in full is Joe Schmoe the small business owner.

>insist on giving them more money and power

Increasing the government budget, and giving politicians more regulatory power does exactly that. It's practically baiting them to get in bed with corporations.

it keeps business-government collusion down

Monopolies and price-fixing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Henry_Dow#Breaking_a_monopoly

>There are other ways to keep the world stable.
such as?

One example, and of a near-monopoly. Interesting reading, but hardly a universal solution.

The wealthiest people already barely pay taxes because theu can afford to hire expensive accountants that are fucking good at their jobs. Plus a lot of them make most of ther money through investment.

Remove tax loopholes so they actually pay more than a negligable amount and you'll be getting more tax income even if you cut the % they're supposed to pay in hald.

In half*

An even more fun one was when two railroad companies went at it in a pricing war, so the owners of one company took advantage of this to start hauling cattle through the cars of the other, that were operating at a loss.

Price-dumping seems like a flawless strategy from the outset, but in application it pits the monopolist/price-fixer against everybody else's interest - against others in the cartel, his clients, any potential investor. They all stand to benefit from calling his bluff, and he carries all of the risk (unless he insures himself through government regulations).

Imagine being a consumer, who's seen a price dumping cycle take place twice - when the next competitor comes along, wouldn't you just go and immediately buy a year's worth of the stuff to save yourself money in the long run? Wouldn't you delay your consumption as long as possible when they hike the prices?