makes sense, investment has skyrocketted off of momentum and consumer confidence with actual firm profits not matching it. they need to appease the investors with something other than increased stock prices.

Except it doesn't. Most economists in our free market system argue for less regulation, which is not a very liberal ideal. My micro economics professor who bashes Trump on the regular says our corporate tax rate should be 0%. When all that shit was going on with price gauging in Texas he said he is all for the gauging, even dedicated whole chapters on covering why this "gauging" is actually good for efficient resource allocation.




And why is shareholders getting their money bad exactly?


This post was edited by ofthevoid on Dec 1 2017 12:43pm

it's easier to say 0% is better than admitting your governement is a sellout

Oh, I didn't know your micro professor felt that way. I guess I was wrong. Well played sir, well played.

lel.


Do expand on your point on how exactly are economists liberal biased then?

Well any good economists scoffs at laissez faire Austrian systems for one, and the ideal is usually something Keynesian.

There is nothing about the Trump admin for an economist or any professional to like. And its pretty well known that Republicans are usually poor economists, which is why they believe lies like 'tax cuts causes more money to be spent" when it actually reduces dollars being spent, and other things that sound like they make sense as long as you don't know thst much.

Ask your intro to econ teacher if tax cuts increase aggregrate expenditure like the GOP claims and watch his face

Economics is a liberal art. Liberal is right in the name. I thought you made fun of social sciences

This post was edited by Skinned on Dec 1 2017 05:31pm

economics departments are notoriously right wing mainly because there's a lot of pressure to only hire right wing friendly professors from funders.

The Kochs basically bought Florida States (might bw different name, but was prominent Fl school)department for 30 million a few years ago.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 1 2017 06:28pm

I'm about to be done with micro economics class and from the mini rants he had against Trump it's pretty clear he's on the left of the spectrum. For example we live in New York State where taxes on cigarettes are absolute rape. A pack of name brand smokes are ~11 dollars, he was telling us that a regulation like that one he absolutely agrees with because in essence NY is making smoking so expensive that it's hard for teenagers to afford them. If they don't start as teenagers, most likely they wont smoke for the rest of their life, saves a ton in healthcare costs. There's other such examples but generally he is "for" cutting regulations and "for" reducing the taxes on corporations and i tend to agree with him imo. At this point in my econ degree i can show you how a minimal increase in excise tax can cause a dead weight loss that's actually much higher not only to the producer surplus but to the consumer surplus (which is us). Point is, less regulation, less taxation is not a right vs left issue in economics, but a issue of efficiency in which most economists agree that the more burdensome those two are the less efficient an economy is.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Dec 1 2017 06:52pm

e/ double post

Fun fact:



There's no reason for us to have a corporate tax rate that's higher by almost 15% than the average of other developed nations.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Dec 1 2017 06:55pm

Yawn, go back to class. That raw number means nothing.