>mfw Drumpf doesn't understand high school economics

...

Other urls found in this thread:

qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

mfw a high school economics dropout destroyed the smartest woman in the world.

Economics is all about learning why what you got told in the last class is bullshit

why aren't economics teachers all billionaires?

Comparative advantage isn't bullshit

No, no its not.

Yawn. The "comparative advantage" of shithole countries is paying workers 5 bucks a day and treating them like expendable slaves. The endless volumes of "scholarship" on free trade economics is just window dressing to make global labor arbitrage respectable so the ones doing it dont get hung.

this. if economics were anything but a meme pseudo-science all the economics goys would be hella fckn rich

>The "comparative advantage" of shithole countries is paying workers 5 bucks a day and treating them like expendable slaves
Expendable slaves who could leave and work for themselves or another firm any time they want... yet they almost never do.

Really tingles my pringles

Same reason that being a music theorist does not mean you can play an instrument. Having a grasp of one makes the other easier to make manifest but they are two different tasks

America is the only first world country with a growing consumer class. It is literally the goldmine for the rest of the world. If countries can't sell their shit here they are very screwed. Especially as Europe and China age demographically.

based nnt. reading your new book now

Economists can't beat markets because markets reflect all information and quantitative models cannot.

And? Was that a point? Of course if the other jobs in China pay 3 dollars a day and treat you even worse, youre going to go with the western factory. People always do whats most advantageous when given a choice. The comparative advantage of lets say China is having a billion people who will work under conditions and for pay that no westerner would accept.

>Expendable slaves who could leave and work for themselves
Right, just cobble together their vast wealth which consists of a pair of flip-flops, 2 t-shirts and 2 pairs of basketball shorts and invest in starting their own business.

>or another firm

One with better perks? LIke softer suicide netting? The options truly are endless. Either work 14 hours a day making crap in a sweat shop or be a subsistence farmer. Sounds like a real Capitalist dream.

Right and that's why we need trade protectionism from 3rd world markets. 1/10 is the cost of an American worker, or anyone else from the first world. 1/100 is the cost of a guy from Bangladesh.

>And? Was that a point?
Yeah, you're not a slave if you can choose where you work and the fact that Chinese workers overwhelmingly choose to work in manufacturing tells you that these western companies have made their lives much better. This is good on its own you wouldn't need trade economics to justify giving Chinese people jobs they want to work.

>The comparative advantage of lets say China is having a billion people who will work under conditions and for pay that no westerner would accept
And the comparative advantage of the US is designing tech for the Chinese to build. Why not have China and the US both play to their respective advantages?

>Drumpf doesn't understand high school economics
>Turned Millions into Billions
>Has more money than you'll ever had

yeah you're right Drumpffewjifqiuhqeueht doesn't understand anything and he's an airhead, right?

kek. good point.

It was funny listening to fox business channel today go into full shill mode against the tariffs this afternoon.
I hope Drumpf can hold out against them. So far he's been pretty accommodating to the globalist factions in the Republican party at the expense of his populist base

reminds me of the Rodney Dangerfield scene in Back to School. He owned that professor.

>Right, just cobble together their vast wealth
Farming? Sorting through refuse?

>Either work 14 hours a day making crap in a sweat shop or be a subsistence farmer. Sounds like a real Capitalist dream.
Well if I could ensure that everyone had thousands of dollars worth of education and were able to work in safe environments where they were paid as much as they want I would. But there are only so many resources and the only thing China has to offer is heaps of uneducated workers willing to take a very low wage rate and poor conditions so I'm afraid thats how it is for the time being. Such was the case in much of Europe for the 1800's/1900's, its just the natural progression of an economy after industrialisation.

Oh wow you totally destroyed the last few centuries of trade economics

Only rural and suburban retards didn't vote for HIllary.

Hillary isnt the smartest woman not by a long shot

>But but but comparative advantage

Literally baby's first economics. There's a whole lot more to it than that. If a country is dumping steel on the market, which many do, it's perfectly acceptable to eliminate. If Trump thinks its strategically important to have actual industry (not just fucking Silicon Valley) backing up his economy, which it is, that's another reason.

How did America become powerful economically? Massive tariffs.

>equilibrium theory
Into the trash is goes

oh wow that chart totally makes me love globalism.

You faggot, do you not understand that these charts are models with makers? First of all, the charts are based on economic theories which may or may not be correct. second of all, the makers of the chart may or may not have a vested interest in arguing in favor of the chart of the chart being correct. Just because you can make a model of something doesn't mean the model is right or accurate. Plus, it doesn't say where that money is going and it is well established that globalism benefits the (((rich))) and (((corporate))) and hurts the average hard working chap

no skin in the game senpai

>Why not have China and the US both play to their respective advantages?

Did you come here from 1991? "Oh, making stuff is so lame, we'll just all be software engineers now." But most people cant be and never will be. Instead of making things, those ppl work at McDonalds. And the difference in production goes 10 percent to consumers, 90 percent to shareholders. And that doesn't address the fact that with China, we are literally sending a hostile foreign power 600 billion a year and transferring untold amounts of that technology we designed.

The point stands - there is nothing high-minded or way too complicated to understand about "free trade". It's simple labor arbitrage.

so you literally contradict yourself
>People working in factories can chose to worsen their almost bare minimum living conditions
>is surprised when they chose the western company that gives them slightly better wages

wow

Which debate?

Racist. Hope you like talking to the feds

Lived in cities my whole life. Didn't vote Hill dawg.

This graph is just about maximizing wealth in the short term and it's bollocks to base your economic policy on parallel lines. There is no economic strategy baked into comparative advantage. If this is how people actually thought, all manufacturing would move to china, with transportation costs being the only thing driving local markets.

And then boom, China is the sole manufacturing power and holds all the cards. This is not how national wealth is created. Nor is money an absolute measure of wealth.

>There's a whole lot more to it than that. If a country is dumping steel on the market, which many do, it's perfectly acceptable to eliminate
That would mainly depend on the means by which they do this. If the steel was subsidised then sure, but is this relevant to Trumps tariff?

>If Trump thinks its strategically important to have actual industry (not just fucking Silicon Valley) backing up his economy
There's no reason to think this is a good idea though. Consumers globally are huge fans of American designed tech, its clearly something they're good at. Whats more, these jobs tend to pay very well and they have great working conditions.

>How did America become powerful economically? Massive tariffs
No one thing made America economically powerful thats retarded. Somehow even more retarded is the idea that tariffs made the US economically powerful despite the empirical evidence and theory contained in all of trade economics that tariffs damage jobs and production.

Yeah totally they can leave and work for themselves those countries are such free countries totally not run by the people who benifit from having their population be slaves

So what? The US industry a long with the west has been specializing in things that these third world countries cannot do. Even China is trying to get into these specialized markets with cheap goods unsuccessfully.

High quality or highly technical goods is beyond their capacity. We don't need these shit industries that we supposedly want to bring back. It gives us nothing but misery.

Starting tariffs and trade wars is just suicidal. Enforcing immigration policies would have put an end to these shit industries long before and we would have had a lot more focus on highly skilled industries with higher pay.

Instead, we're getting into a bigger mess. Illegal immigration with trade tariffs. Not a good fucking mix at all.

I know registered Dems who didn't vote for Hillary. People just hate her guts apparently.

I voted Lib. If all you Dems had voted Lib instead of wasting your vote, we would have won!

>Instead of making things, those ppl work at McDonalds
Or any other thriving industry that the US has specialised in. Half of the US has a college degree I'm not sure where you get this from the US very definitely has the labour composition for high skilled work.

>And that doesn't address the fact that with China, we are literally sending a hostile foreign power 600 billion a year and transferring untold amounts of that technology we designed.
>hostile
>600 billion in trade
pick one.

Diplomacy is often best managed through trade, the US doesn't want to lose Chinese manufacturing capability and China doesn't want to lose US design. This alone provides incentive for peaceful resolution.

>The point stands - there is nothing high-minded or way too complicated to understand about "free trade". It's simple labor arbitrage.
Hmm I hadn't considered that every economist ever might have just been idiots who wasted their entire lives.

>makes an fbi tip
>against someone in canada
top keks

What

It doesn't surprise me that Chinese workers work in manufacturing.

Manufacturing isn't the only component of an economy, if it were than the US wouldn't be the richest country on the face of the earth. China needs US design and tech.

>protectionism wasn't deliberately pursued in the US from hamilton to ~1970
>protectionism didn't enable economic independence and an outpouring of domestic companies
>the US didn't become the world's largest economy with the highest standard of living under it, overtaking the UK which was shilling free trade
Lel

>I hadn't considered that every economist ever might have just been idiots who wasted their entire lives

If economists knew anything about wealth creation, they wouldn't be economists.

no

Finance is not a road to actual wealth... finance only exists once there is a need to amass capitol to support manufacturing, agriculture and other large-scale economic activities.

Tourism is not a way to amass wealth either, and an economy based on tourism will never survive any sort of conflict with any nation or any conflict within itself.

The internet is a cash generating machine but it requires a stable country with corporate law to support it, which can only be built on a manufacturing base.

the point is to stimulate innovation. basically raising your own prices because that is the price it SHOULD be if you didn't exploit wage gaps across other countries.

>being this new

I vaguely remember a saying about how the skills of financier and businessmen translate easily into the management of an economy, but the practice of an economist has no use in business or finance.

newfag

Just letting you know that bad things can happen while good things also happen. US once had a top marginal tax rate at ~90% during which time incomes rose. These two things are not positively correlated and modern economics will show us that incomes probably would've risen even higher without such exorbitant income tax. As I said, many things contributed to the US's economic standing, study after study will show that tariffs probably harmed the US economy.

Why should economists be good at wealth creation?

economic theories fall apart when individuals/companies/nations act against their own economic interest for other, possibly nefarious, reasons.

>finance only exists once there is a need to amass capitol to support manufacturing, agriculture and other large-scale economic activities
Good thing there's large scale manufacturing, agriculture etc.

The shillpill is finance is the engine of the modern economy. Capital is useless if it is not efficiently allocated. Maybe back in the day when economies operated on smaller, more local scales it made sense to organise capital through other means or government but I guarantee much of your modern conveniences wouldn't exist or would exist in inferior form if not for finance.

>Tourism is not a way to amass wealth either, and an economy based on tourism will never survive any sort of conflict
Maybe, but thats becoming less important as war becomes less prevalent. It would be a bad idea to base your economy entirely off of tourism in any case, thats just poor risk management. But I don't see whats wrong with an economy partly comprised of tourism.

There are other non-manufacturing jobs such as education, healthcare, tech etc. that the US tends to excel and where China lags behind.

Either
A) He's being given economic advice from someone who isn't a learned economist
or B) It's yet another highly complicated 4D chess move
I mean the steel tariffs on canada is next-level retarded

>the us had a top marginal tax rate of ~90%
Which also had an effective rate half as much

>"modern economics" will show us that incomes would've risen even higher
Lolno. What is MPC/MPS and economic multipliers?

>study after study will show that tariffs probably harmed the us economy
Lol! market fundamentalists have been pushing that unemperical nonsense for ages.

Economics is autism for rootless cosmopolitans. I can't believe i took this in university...

Equilibrium theory falls apart as soon as you recognize that perfect competition doesn't exist

>Which also had an effective rate half as much
Half of 90%? That's still quite high.

Regardless if you were a high earner effective tax rates increased as well

qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/

>Lolno. What is MPC/MPS and economic multipliers?
Probably not relevant when you have such high effective tax? MPC drops off reasonably quickly. Besides most literature shows that higher income tax rates has a deleterious impact on growth.

>Lol! market fundamentalists have been pushing that unemperical nonsense for ages.
I'd expressly reject the ideas of anyone who said that there's no/little role for government in the economy

>thats still quite high
Not really

>MPC drops off reasonably quickly
>somehow not proof that the higher rate of taxation would have little-to-no impact on spending and therefore, economic growth

>most literature shows that higher income tax rates have deleterious impact on growth
Lolno. What you mean to say is that's what the failed ideology of supply siders and market fundamentalists says.

How is this STILL getting replies?

Trump should have just massively reduced taxes for steel industry if we really need to be producing our own that badly.

>somehow not proof that the higher rate of taxation would have little-to-no impact on spending and therefore, economic growth
Ever heard of investment?

>Lolno. What you mean to say is that's what the failed ideology of supply siders and market fundamentalists says.
It sounds like you have a pretty warped view of what economics is like these days...

The economics of today isn't like it was in the 20's. Mainstream economists tend to support proposals like minimum wage, environmental regulation and counter-cyclical fiscal policy

This is exactly what China does. There's a reason why Chinese cheap steel is dominating the world.

>Ever heard of investment?
Have you? You do realize that real, meaningful investment in the economy is a function of spending, correct? Speculation in paper securities being called "investment" is just a market fundamentalist perversion--it's approximately as productive and conducive to economic growth as playing poker in a casino.

Basically, investing in you business by upgrading equipment (spending money in the real economy) isn't the same thing as speculating on the price of a stock or a piece of land.

>It sounds like you have a pretty warped view of what economics is like these days
Not at all.

>Speculation in paper securities being called "investment" is just a market fundamentalist perversion--it's approximately as productive and conducive to economic growth as playing poker in a casino.
No its just the efficient allocation of capital, not necessarily more or less conducive to growth than going down to the store and buying an apple. The balance of investment and consumption in an economy is fundamentally an economic calculation and hence can't be planned by a government.

>Basically, investing in you business by upgrading equipment (spending money in the real economy) isn't the same thing as speculating on the price of a stock or a piece of land
Speculation isn't a huge part of what goes on in finance and investment. Most investors hold onto securities because they believe they're under valued.

>No its just the efficient allocation of capital
By definition, there's nothing "efficient" about speculation. It's axiomatic.

>not necessarily more or less conducive to growth than going down to the store and buying an apple
This is just plain empirically wrong.

>Speculation isn't a huge part of what goes on in finance and investment
This is easily debatable, but the true degree of speculative vs. hedging activity in the markets is impossible to know for sure.

>Most investors hold onto securities because they believe they're under valued.
That doesn't mean it's productive.

Its almost like the most basic charts don't capitulate the market!!! Wowee?!?!?!

Why can't drumftards accept the undeniable fact that it is current year. It's the most simplistic concept and destroys their arguments whether they be social or economic.

Flooding markets with highly subsidized goods, substantially below market value, so you may destroy any competition, is not comparative advantage. You're a shill and an idiot.

Fuck tariffs. Nuff said.