Political Ideology Important? (1 Viewer)

[funkshen]

Or businesses could just take grow a pair and take the extra cost for themselves without offsetting it into the community and know they took one for the team

If it was a publicly traded corporation that would be illegal.

If it was a private company, well, it depends on the terms of the contracts between the investors.

 

[mirakon]

If it was a publicly traded corporation that would be illegal.If it was a private company, well, it depends on the terms of the contracts between the investors.

Yeah but they could probably reduce the excessive salaries of those higher up in the chain.

 

[funkshen]

Yeah but they could probably reduce the excessive salaries of those higher up in the chain.

Which would probably only affect a negligible return to consumers (in fact, it'd probably be wholely to the benefit of shareholders). Besides, when was the last time you even saw a CEO take a voluntary pay cut because of a new tax on the business? Sure, CEOs might sacrifice their salary when there are solvency/liquidity/employment issues, but even then it's more of a gesture.

 

[mirakon]

Which would probably only affect a negligible return to consumers (in fact, it'd probably be wholely to the benefit of shareholders). Besides, when was the last time you even saw a CEO take a voluntary pay cut because of a new tax on the business? Sure, CEOs might sacrifice their salary when there are solvency/liquidity/employment issues, but even then it's more of a gesture.

Its true this doesn't happen, but that's what I'm saying, its their fault for being greedy rather than the government's to be honest

 

[Blastus]

Its true this doesn't happen, but that's what I'm saying, its their fault for being greedy rather than the government's to be honest

hahahahhaha class warfare

 

[Bored_of_HSC]

If the government takes money from a business (who is run and owned by individuals (google Free Lunch myth)), that business will correct this extra cost by upping their prices; so the consumer pays more. If the government takes the money the business already had, makes them increase their prices and then gives the consumer the ability to pay the higher cost with no extra impact, what's the fucking point of the tax in the first place? The government gains no revenue because it's just giving money to the masses, the business doesn't gain nor lose any money because its customers' demand hasn't changed despite the price change and the consumer just pays more for the same thing, but that new extra is paid for by the government. Retarded shit like this just leads to cost-push inflation which is fairly rampant amongst our economy and is partially the reason why we have lower purchasing power compared to other nations like the US.

Yes, the business will try and correct the extra cost. This tax will spark innovation as businesses will realise that cutting costs by emmiting less will save them much money in the long run. They shall hope to pass this onto the consumer not because they're nice but because it'll be the most bloody rational thing to do as they'll provide a price cheaper than competitors and thus gain revenue.

PS Maybe i'll just leave this discussion to the 'Carbon Tax' section.

70's supply shocks were caused by a few things, you can blame oil on the US being idiots about their foreign policy in relation to Iran and also starting a 700 billion dollar war in Vietnam. Otherwise any 'supply shocks' were probably caused by the price controls implemented by Nixon lol, even your economics textbook will tell you that

You got to get it out your head (once the HSC is over) that the 'flow' is all that matters; you can't put today's globalised economy on a fricken flow chart lol. I mean what happens when the government stimulus runs out? You still have the mal-investment of capital and labour, that problem isn't going away no matter how much inflationary money you shove down their throats.

So macroeconomic policy isn't complete shit, most of those problems in the 70's were caused by other factors (especially as oil is the lifeblood of economies around the world.)

Economics basically just supply and DEMAND. The flow is neccesary as when people don't spend, others don't receive their income, and those people don't spend, and other don't make an income....
I agreed with that view when i said the credit crisis couldn't have been solved by continual fiscal stimulus.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Yes, the business will try and correct the extra cost. This tax will spark innovation as businesses will realise that cutting costs by emmiting less will save them much money in the long run. They shall hope to pass this onto the consumer not because they're nice but because it'll be the most bloody rational thing to do as they'll provide a price cheaper than competitors and thus gain revenue.

PS Maybe i'll just leave this discussion to the 'Carbon Tax' section.



So macroeconomic policy isn't complete shit, most of those problems in the 70's were caused by other factors (especially as oil is the lifeblood of economies around the world.)

Economics basically just supply and DEMAND. The flow is neccesary as when people don't spend, others don't receive their income, and those people don't spend, and other don't make an income....
I agreed with that view when i said the credit crisis couldn't have been solved by continual fiscal stimulus.

bussines won't cut emmissions they honestly don't care its just another tax in their view

When I'm talking about disregarding the flow I’m talking about stop looking at it in terms of ANY INCREASE IN 'FLOW' IS GOOD. What matters is what is produced and the circumstances of its production, no just upping aggregate demand. You can't simply apply some formula to the economy and say by doing X, B should follow and the economy will be ok again, that's mathematics not economics. You can't ignore individual desires and tastes, to assume you know what is best for people and thinking you can fix the economy through an agency like government would be assuming the pretense of knowledge.

EDIT: assume you have the pretense of knowledge when doing the HSC econ exam, because that exam is just a math exam with essays TBH

 

[Bored_of_HSC]

bussines won't cut emmissions they honestly don't care its just another tax in their view

When I'm talking about disregarding the flow I’m talking about stop looking at it in terms of ANY INCREASE IN 'FLOW' IS GOOD. What matters is what is produced and the circumstances of its production, no just upping aggregate demand. You can't simply apply some formula to the economy and say by doing X, B should follow and the economy will be ok again, that's mathematics not economics. You can't ignore individual desires and tastes, to assume you know what is best for people and thinking you can fix the economy through an agency like government would be assuming the pretense of knowledge.

EDIT: assume you have the pretense of knowledge when doing the HSC econ exam, because that exam is just a math exam with essays TBH

Cutting emmisions = lowering prices against competition = Profits.
The main aim for all businesses is profits. Economics is all about rational assumptions, if those businesses fail to act and improve technology another one will. That business will thrive. (kinda like Kodak failing to secure a place in the digital film market and then failing)

I'm not advocating the gov take over and assume a planned economy soviet style. I'm just saying that circulation from fiscal will provide a means for consumers to start spending again on what they want and through competition, how it's produced. It's by no means an end.

I agree that much of what we assume we know is just ovegeneralised speculation ect.

 

[Lolsmith]

bussines won't cut emmissions they honestly don't care its just another tax in their view

When I'm talking about disregarding the flow I’m talking about stop looking at it in terms of ANY INCREASE IN 'FLOW' IS GOOD. What matters is what is produced and the circumstances of its production, no just upping aggregate demand. You can't simply apply some formula to the economy and say by doing X, B should follow and the economy will be ok again, that's mathematics not economics. You can't ignore individual desires and tastes, to assume you know what is best for people and thinking you can fix the economy through an agency like government would be assuming the pretense of knowledge.

EDIT: assume you have the pretense of knowledge when doing the HSC econ exam, because that exam is just a math exam with essays TBH

Fuck you really love you some Hayek eh

I hope you are just using that term because hes studying year 11 economics, not because you believe that's a thing because that would suggest that inflation isn't just the expansion of the money supply and that any rise in prices means that inflation is present

Well due to a hulking public sector and obscene union movement, an increase in price is most definitely a cause of inflation within our economy (can't speak for others). Of course a simple rise in price doesn't automatically mean inflation. The same can be said for a decrease in prices.

 

[kaz1]

Well due to a hulking public sector and obscene union movement, an increase in price is most definitely a cause of inflation within our economy (can't speak for others). Of course a simple rise in price doesn't automatically mean inflation. The same can be said for a decrease in prices.

umm... isn't the definition of inflation an increase in the price over a period of time

 

[funkshen]

umm... isn't the definition of inflation an increase in the price over a period of time

depends who you're talking to. austrian economics is concerned with the phenomenon of monetary inflation, the 'general rise in prices over time' is secondary to this.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

depends who you're talking to. austrian economics is concerned with the phenomenon of monetary inflation, the 'general rise in prices over time' is secondary to this.

Yea pretty much, I and many others on this forum believe that inflation is the value of money going down from an expansion in the money supply. So since you your 10 dollar bill won't magically transform into a 9 dollar bill to show the devaluation, prices go up as a result. This belief is crucial to the Austrian school along with the Austrian business cycle theory, in regards to monetary policy