Is the American economy suffering because of corporate tax rates

It's because you need a healthy labor force to have a healthy economy, and the US has created a labor force that is anything but healthy.

>>1972289
Are you trying to say most American are out of work or that most Americans are fat?

Whats the economic system that believes in regulated markets and thats profits are good and all, but ultimately, the plebs need some sugar or else there will be problems and that's more important than the freedom to become a multi-billionaire.

>>1972308
Mostly that they have shit education and they don't care enough to get good at their wageslave jobs.

Also, that they aren't getting paid enough to stimulate demand.

>>1972284
>high taxes on the higher income earners

They're the lowest they've ever been, did you forget about the Bush tax cuts? And now Trump will try to lower them even further.

This trickle-down meme needs to die, it clearly doesn't work. America has been tremendously successful even when the upper bracket tax rates were very high.

Tax cuts are just crowd-pleasers for lazy politicians who don't want to figure out what the real problems are.

>>1972348
second

>>1972321
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiburg_school
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism
Sorta

>>1972348
Whilst taxes gave decreased other things that strangulate the free market such as regulations have only skyrocketed since bush started

>>1972383
Name one.

Because Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush all made deregulation a key part of their economic platforms.

>>1972389
Is your face straight right now?

>>1972284
>doesn't produce anything
learn what the tertiary sector of the economy is

>>1972348
>This trickle-down meme needs to die
Agreed, retarded liberals need to stop pushing this meme as if it is a real concept and not a leftist strawman designed to attack Chicago School Economics without having to actually learn economics.

>>1972408
Maybe you should listen to right wing retard radio some time, because trickle down economics are sold by the right exactly the way it's supposedly "strawmaned" by the left.

>>1972419
Find me a single economist who seriously advocates "trickle down" economics. It is always a term used by the left to mock the right.

>>1972397
Carter is the reason that airline tickets are like a quarter the price they were in the 70s, relative to inflation. He pulled the Feds out of commercial aviation in such a huge way that the history of the industry is commonly divided into pre and post deregulation eras.

Reagan's big thing was to reduce the number of pages of federal regulations period.

Clinton made FOX news into the hegemon it is today by loosening the monopoly requirements on broadcasters, and directly caused the Great Recession by allowing the Republicans to repeal Glass-Steagal.

The stereotype of Democrats regulating everything hasn't been true for a long while.

>>1972368
Thanks

>>1972284
>Is the American economy suffering?
fixed.

File: 1470738169687.jpg (125KB, 535x510px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 535x510px

>>1972422
>It is always a term used by the left to mock the right
well they don't call em right wing retards for nothing.

you're all just useful idiots for the rich.

File: 1423443408446.jpg (235KB, 700x540px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 700x540px

>>1972426
>directly caused the Great Recession by allowing the Republicans to repeal Glass-Steagal

But that's wrong. The housing bubble caused the recession, the same housing bubble that expanded well beyond what the market would have allowed before it popped because of Fannie and Freddie and a complete lack of oversight of the activities of these two federal organizations. Republicans tried in the early oughts to get more stringent oversight of them, but they were blocked by Democrats because they thought they'd reel in spending by the two and thus "lower access to affordable housing" for poorer people. As it turns out, there was a reason those people weren't offered loans in the first place - they wouldn't repay them.

Ironically, the guy in the OP's picture that tries to mock him wrote an excellent little book on the whole mess. Muh Glass-Seagal was a meme created by the Democrats for more post-recession regulation.

>>1972455
>change in SHARE of income

Meanwhile, all incomes have been going up quickly until quite recently. Why do you care if CEOs make more money if your standard of living is vastly improved over that of your parents?

>>1972498
>large investment banks collapse
>it has nothing to do with there being no control over how stable investment bank's finances are
>incidentally, economic crises caused by this have only happened when the Glass Steagal Act wasn't in force
>turning a surplus into a massive deficit, wiping out a 5 trillion dollar rainy day fund and still ending your term with the most massive recession since 1929 has nothing to do with the fiscal policy of that president

GOP """""fiscal responsibility"""""

>>1972284
It's suffering because workers don't own the means of production.

Yes, productivity has gone up of the years. So has the ability of capitalists to take that capital way from America and hire foreign labor to have the same productivity for lower costs.

Wage-labor is a simple commodity, and high standards of American living rely on wages above the market rate, and cheap imports using wage-labor based on the actual market rate.

The only way to justify high wages, is for the laborer to also own the means of production, so the laborer owns not only his own commodity wage-labor, but his general productivity as a whole, the fruits of his labor, which increases with capital, and take for himself the cut due to the owner of the capital.

Trade is beneficial due to comparative advantage, but this comparative advantage comes from capital, and benefits from those who make use of the capital. If capitalists are easily able to move capital from one country to another, then trade serves only the capitalists.

Americans must open their eyes to reality. Employee ownership is the only way forward.

File: 1445900474416.jpg (15KB, 250x329px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 250x329px

>>1972508
Everybody before 2007 would've declared that housing and real estate were very, very safe investments, made safer by the fact that two very large federal organizations might bail out any failures even if there was no word on whether they would or would not. There was no guarantee, but would the government ever allow itself to fail? Probably not. Even if Glass-Seagal had been in force, it would not have effected the outcome because everyone, including those in government, believed real estate to be a safe investment. Real estate was historically one of the most stable investments you could make - government playing fast and loose and lending to shitty borrowers helped to pump up the bubble beyond what it should have been. But you've never studied it in depth because you got what you needed from the suffering of millions to further your political agenda - why truly understand the reasons for something happening so it won't happen again when you can hit Republicans over the head with it?

Of course the Democrats can't accept responsibility for anything, so this had to be the Republicans' fault anyway. They're party of irresponsibility, which makes it ironic that they're the great regulators.

>>1972535
So fuck poor people across the world, essentially. Americans can only be rich if others are poor, and the great working class of America deserves to be richer than the working classes of the rest of the world.

Also, why are American jobs moving overseas and the cost of living still going down? If capitalists are taking advantage of Americans by moving away to also take advantage of non-Americans, why are the average Americans coming out on top with access to cheaper goods and services? Why is internet fast and affordable when it was not this way ten years ago? Cell phones? Personal computers? Air condition, heating, more efficient and cheaper cars, etc. I'm at a loss to see who is being harmed by global competition; of course, inefficient losers must lose so that more efficient and better producers can succeed. Even employee-owned businesses would still face these same pressures, unless they had government mandates to protect them from it.

>>1972323
The average wages are at an all time low compared to GDP.

Economy growth is consumer spending and business investments. Consumers aren't getting paid to spend and corporations are sitting on mountains of cash and care more about profit margins than investments and growing.

If every company operates like Amazon the economy would grow. If every company operates like Apple wed go even deeper in shit.

File: taxation1.jpg (214KB, 946x827px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 946x827px

Any economy is suffering from taxes.

File: liberal economics.jpg (191KB, 955x713px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 955x713px

>leftists in charge of economy

>>1972498
>the same housing bubble that expanded well beyond what the market would have allowed

Let's see what Greenspan has to say about your claim.
>Referring to his free-market ideology, Greenspan said: "I have found a flaw. I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact." When Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) pressed him to clarify his words. "In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working," Waxman said. "Absolutely, precisely," Greenspan replied. "You know, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well."[95]

>>1972627
Because American capitalists still get their cut from foreign investments.

>>1972284
The American economy isn't suffering at all.

>>1972665
But trump and fox news told me obama was a disaster and that 97 million people were out of the labor force

>>1972665
explain >>1972654
(not trying to be rude)

>>1972665
[Citation needed]

>>1972498
>Meanwhile, all incomes have been going up quickly until quite recently. Why do you care if CEOs make more money if your standard of living is vastly improved over that of your parents?

you're the biggest cuck in the world

Japanese CEOs make 7x more than crew level employees meanwhile american CEOs make 300x more.

>>1972715
Not an argument

>>1972738
You're okay with being exploited. I don't debate with slaves.

>>1972738
Not an argument.

>>1972715
Why didn't Japan never embrace socialist/communist ideals, then?

Checkmate, tankies.

>>1972748
Japan is more socialist than the USA.

>>1972741
nice cop-out, faggot

>>1972753
>says the faggot that regurgitates his idol's only line

>>1972748
Japan has one of the largest and most active communist parties in the developed world.

>>1972753
Not an argument.

>>1972685
>leftists control the economy
Liberals are capitalist cucks.

>>1972654
None of these graphs appear to be adjusted for inflation.

File: 1414270925847.png (526KB, 826x738px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 826x738px

>>1972657
First, that does not address my claim in the slightest. Second, how is Greenspan's opinion relevant? Am I supposed to take his word as some god-king of the free market, when he himself presided over the bubble and helped inflate it?

>>1972715
>not wanting to steal from other people makes me a cuck

I mean, alright I guess. Who cares what the CEO of Goldman-Sachs makes when I enjoy a standard of living kings would have killed for a century ago? I've got more than enough money to enjoy my life without resorting to declaring others' wealth immoral and therefore subject to my seizing.

>>1973624
>i could have a much higher standard of living
>i just dont want it

GOOD goy

>>1972649
Consent is implied by being a citizen of the country and accepting it's laws, no?
If you don't accept to being taxed as returns for all the benefits that country provides, then an able citizen should feel free to move somewhere else with either less stringent taxation or no taxation at all.

File: 1460766839688.jpg (29KB, 400x396px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x396px

>>1973640
You're right, I could have a much higher standard of living... if I worked 60-80 hours a week on my own business or worked for years to advance in an established company. Oh, there's also the risk I won't make it, and the reward is the higher income.

But no, let's just kill the goose that lays the golden egg because I'm a greedy little prick and people owe me a better living than I can provide for myself. The irony of being told I'm a "good goy" for not wanting to '''''redistribute'''''' money from someone else to myself by some stormfaggot who likely derides Jews for being greedy is laughable.

>>1973661
We could live in a post-labour world, but no you'd rather keep wagekeking.

Your government is occupied by corporations, do not even care about your liberty?

File: wage_slavery.jpg (167KB, 966x805px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 966x805px

>>1973692
>We could live in a post-labour world

Pure fantasy. Wageslavery is economically illiterate memery.

>Your government is occupied by corporations

Another meme. My government is occupied by politicians, the same as every government is; that they use that power to enrich their friends and punish their enemies is more my concern.

>>1973699
The value of someone's labour is typically worth more than their wages to the corporation. That's why capitalism is exploitation.

File: 1427354617418.jpg (54KB, 361x361px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 361x361px

>>1973812
Well if it wasn't worth more than the wages they wouldn't be hired. No business can last without profit, and profit also serves a secondary societal function of communicating demand and necessitating the re-allocation of scarce resources to meet that demand. The wage earner also earns the benefit of steady pay and a guarantee of employment, whereas the wage payer has no guarantee of a payout and takes great risks.

Profit =/= exploitation, otherwise workers would technically be exploiting their employers if those employers were in the red because then the workers would be "profiting" more than the employer.

>>1973823
Im not trying to argue that the market isn't logical and that capitalism doesn't work but its unethical and also FUCK the chicago school of economics. Neoliberalism is terrible and those ivory tower fucks dont understand why the land is awash with populism.

>>1972498
>your standard of living is vastly improved over that of your parents?

But it hasn't

File: 1445988626114.jpg (118KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 960x960px

>>1973842
>its unethical

It only communicates the very real desires and needs of people, and underlying constraints natural to the human condition. There may be unethical people in the market, but the market is not, by itself, unethical.

>neoliberalism

Not an actual term used by anyone who would be described as neoliberal. Liberal in the USA came to mean "social liberal" so actual liberals had to be called something else when the 1980s came by and Reagan and Thatcher rose to prominence.

And some people may lose out in technological change and a globalizing economy, but the makers of typewriters had to go out of business after the PC came on the scene and digital cameras replaced film for all but the hobbyist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the majority of people have had their lives improved, and while the displacement of some people is regrettable it is not worth the retardation of society's advance to coddle them.

>>1973848
You have access to the internet, you can already buy 90% of the stuff your parents could at vastly cheaper rates, and a whole shitload of stuff that was invented since then. Something tells me you also have A/C, heating, reliable plumbing, and a whole host of other things. Cars and transportation are cheaper (if you go for cars without all the new fancy doodads) and more efficient than in your parents' time as well, taking less hours worked on average to be able to afford than in their heyday.

I suppose you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. People's lives may be improving by many measurable metrics, but they may not feel it is improving, so the reality of their situation is a moot point as to how they feel. It's totally understandable, because we're more fixated on what's negative; it's probably an evolved survival mechanism, but one that can be hard to look past.

>>1973873
Socialism is what you arrive at when you realize property is a social construct and not a natural right.

That's really all there is to it.

Corporations dodge corporation taxes with. . . fuck I forgot what it is called.
Point being the real amount the pay before jumping through more loopholes is 15%
Dropping them will do nothing, raising them will do nothing until loopholes and foreign tax havens are closed.
the tax haven thing trump wants to do so.
Could get better.

>>1973880
Closing tax havens has been a US policy since forever. America got so good at it that America became a tax haven, because America would fuck over all the other tax havens.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-27/the-world-s-favorite-new-tax-haven-is-the-united-states

You are incredibly deluded if you think tax havens are a Trump issue.

>>1973873
Neoliberals dont use the word because its dirty. Neoliberals are comparable to classic economic liberals.

>>1973879
>property is a social construct and not a natural right

I can't wait to fuck your wife. I mean your ownership of her is just a social construct, so why not share with your fellow man in need?

Maybe we aren't address the elephant in the room.

What we really need to solve this debate is divide the US into red and blue states into their own country.

Then the red states can try their libertarian paradise and the blue can try their socialist utopia.

We'll check back in 25 years to see which one is the best country to live in.

File: 1460251101053.png (73KB, 210x200px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 210x200px

>>1973918

>Thinks wife as property who would just fuck everyone else if released from indentured servitude.

Really now.

>>1973918
Its up to my wife whether she fucks the bull you idiot.

>>1973926
Wouldn't she?

Huh.

It's possible your marriage is a little different than mine.

>>1973937

As far as I know, as long as you don't live in Muslim nation, wives aren't property and only chose to not fuck other people because they like you more than other people.

I mean if all you got going for you is that she is your property, then well, she's probably fucking people behind your back anyways.