In which Jacob and Adriene teach you about the evils of fiscal policy and stimulus. Well, maybe the policies aren't evil, but there is an evil lair involved. In this episode we learn how government use taxes and spending influence the economy. Sometimes the government gives, and sometimes it takes. And the giving and the taking can have a profound effect on how economies behave.
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at http://www.patreon.com/crashcourse
Thanks to the following Patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:
Mark , Elliot Beter, Moritz Schmidt, Jeffrey Thompson, Ian Dundore, Jacob Ash, Jessica Wode, Today I Found Out, Christy Huddleston, James Craver, Chris Peters, SR Foxley, Steve Marshall, Simun Niclasen, Eric Kitchen, Robert Kunz, Avi Yashchin, Jason A Saslow, Jan Schmid, Daniel Baulig, Christian , Anna-Ester Volozh
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/YouTubeCrashCourse
Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/TheCrashCourse
Tumblr - http://thecrashcourse.tumblr.com
Support Crash Course on Patreon: http://patreon.com/crashcourse
CC Kids: http://www.youtube.com/crashcoursekids
Ok, genuine questions for anyone who knows a whole bunch about econ:
Surely the most logical government policy to expand the economy would be to cut taxes for the poor (as they save less and spend more, adding value), increase taxes on the rich (to reduce/manage the deficit, and reduce the amount of money lost into the savings accounts of the wealthy) and increase public spending, so as to increase jobs?
Everything there seems to make perfect sense... So why have there been so many cuts to taxes for the wealthy in recent history? Surely that damages the economy, as the rich are just saving, and the government is losing its spending power?
Similarly, why did anyone even consider austerity practices like my country, the UK?
i am watching your videos for over an hour now, which is literally saving me from failing my macroeconomics test tomorrow morning. you explain that stuff way better than some profs in university as your videos are perfect to understand mathemetically complicated theories! Greets from germany and lots of thanks for all the work :-)
I think Fiscal policy created job that is not sufficient since it does not have any incentive or demand on the job. Create a job is easy, I can tell someone to dig a hole and fill it up, that is a job.
questions I have for Fiscal Policy:
let say if the government deficit was applied then does that mean that the citizen have to pay more taxed or where does the money to pay the worker? If so does it creates incentive for business to grow bigger and create more job?( I bet no). Then I do not think Fiscal Policy do any good to the market.
I know that complete Fiscal Policy is impossible without inflation; inflation in the recession is abundance already, I do not think it is a good Idea
One thing the Fed ensures is inflation. As soon as you start raising interest rates to combat inflation prices go up. Somebody needs to study the short term impact of increasing interest rates on inflation and what the affect is on the feedback for the control loop regarding inflation and employment. haha Crypto might undo it all.
at 7:05 I was like "I thought u.s. debt went over $10t already, what happens to the clock?"so I googled and, guess what, another digit is added to it.
that is so sarcastically convenient as how congress raises the debt ceiling
Fiscal policy like presented here is economic mythology (I'm not saying it is wrong, where each nation's mythos makes the laws, but there are a lot of interpreted variables for any viewpoint); you can look at indicators after an event, you can change your stories as they happen, and you can teach how this happens, but nobody is sure. The problem with storytelling is that it is still a story, even if it is based upon belief. My concern is the national debt that comes with interest, and there is more at stake than spending money, because interest is a deep, deep hole to be in. In addition, the building a new bridge in government spending comes with political strings, where the Federal Government undermines State authority to political control the population through money programs and fancy idealist practices, and this undermines benefits in favor for what is socialism and the authoritarian caregiver state that even regulates religion through the tax codes. There is much more going on here than just stimulating the economy, it is also politically driven and is also about control, driven, national policies.
You can pay debt through higher taxes on the wealthy and making profit on government owned companies and money made from new workers buying things. Monetary involvement also helps through controlling interest rate and currency value.
I still think the Classical system, letting the economy run itself, is the better system. Private citizens will always try to manage their money in the best way, the government however doesn't care if it's productive or not; it's not theirs to lose. Plus it seems to me that when you give the power to indebt(A.K.A. enslave) to politicians, it doesn't go well.
P.S. I think the parallel of Classical economics and a doctor bleeding patients is incorrect and derogatory. It would be more comparable to letting the patient's body heal itself, with no doctor involved.
These guys were lying about the first part of the video. There are people who are the private sector of the economy,who own huge portions of bank stocks.
And these banks own portions of the federal reserve bank. Yeah,you may say that the "Fed" is owned by the GOP but its owned by central bankers.
These control the rate at which money is printed, which unconstitutional, its actually the GOP'S "TREASURY'S" job.
I wish people would know the truth that these organization's exist and that they are owned by powerful families.
THE FIRST PART WAS ABSOLUTELY TRUE,BEFORE SHE SWITCHED ON THE BULLSHIT.
I SEE YOU LADY.
But then with all of these ups and downs of unemployment, you've got people who are trying to find a job but can't. Do you let them become homeless? NO, that's where welfare is important - it's how you balance out the free market when things are out of control. Personally, I believe everyone, even if they aren't actively seeking work, deserves a basic standard of living through welfare payments. And then you've got to consider the fact that in the future robots will take most of our jobs. And then you have the problem where if 50% of our jobs will be taken and 50% will be on welfare, then why does anyone have to work at all? We can't fill all the jobs with robots (just yet) but we also don't want people to think it's unfair if some have to work and others don't.
unless they instated a socialist drug state that uses this policies to starve the country's people under the protection of CHINA, Russia and some of the worst dictators in the Arabs countries...
So yes maybe is a tool that can correct a country's economy but in the hands of conspirators and foreign interests like the Cuban regime that takes of resources for free, is just Evil lair mother...ers causing death and famine...
It's a bit unfair to compare Austerity to Stimulus on their merits if the purpose of one was to reduce debt, while the purpose of the other was to boost the economy even if that increases debt. Of course Stimulus is going to have a greater positive effect on GDP and Employment. The problem is, it's also going to massively increase Debt, which it has.
Classical theories still prove true. It's a fallacy saying that the government used classical theories in the early Great Depression years. Hoover and FDR used complete price controls and wage controls which made things 10x worse
You shouldn't really compare the Eurozone to the USA's economy. The Eurozone is incredibly diverse and consists of multiple economies in various states. Whilst Germany might do fairly well, Greece and Spain are failing miserably with massive youth unemployment and debt.
Work out if you need to pay.
When you know your gain you need to work out if you need to report and pay Capital Gains Tax.
You may be able to work out how much tax to pay on your shares.
the same type, acquired in the same company on the same date sold at the same time.
sold other shares in the tax year sold other chargeable assets in the tax year, such as a property you let out claim any reliefs are a company, agent, trustee or personal representative.
Reporting a loss.
The rules are different if you need to report a loss.
Fifth most actively traded share.
Market capital of DKK 206 bn.
Shareholders by geography.
Rest of Europe etc.
Ratings from equity analysts covering the Danske Bank share and consensus earnings estimates.
Selling in special circumstances.
shares you bought at different times and prices in one company shares through an investment club shares after a company merger or takeover employee share scheme shares.
Jointly owned shares and investments.
If you sell shares or investments that you own jointly with other people, work out the gain for the portion that you own, instead of the whole value. There are different rules for investment clubs.
What to do next.