In this video we're going to talk about what janet yellen just said, she dropped a massive bombshell about the u.s economy, inflation and the interest rates. Look at what this lady just said. Higher interest rates would be good for the country which country janet. Definitely not the us, it's definitely not the u.s economy, but i'm going to talk about the second.

I think i understand what she's doing here and it's quite alarming. To be honest, also, we have to talk about tesla there's some interesting news coming out of tesla, good and bad for the good part, it seems that tesla is moving in into indian market, which is very interesting, and i think it's potentially game-changing for the good for The bad part, it seems that literally days before the launch of the pled model - s whatever they just canceled the plaid model, s plus for no apparent reason other than glad model. S is just good enough. According to elon himself, based on the tweet war that he had with the universe, uh, now i'm not even going to talk about the cam rocket, the that happened on twitter with elon we're strictly talking about tesla, because i mean that thing has gotten out of control.

Also, we have to talk about the g7 minimum global corporate tax haven elimination initiative. Whatever you want to call it, i mean this thing is spiraling out of control. Now i keep reading misinformation about it. That just makes no sense in this video.

I also want to show you why practically this initiative cannot exist. It lacks a few fundamentals that you absolutely have to have if you want to actually carry out this global tax. Whatever this thing is nothing but a cheap pr stunt designed to just influence the voters and the people who don't really understand what the hell is going on, if you actually are advocating for higher corporate tax liability for corporations, this initiative is not serving your purpose. Trust me i'm going to show you why so, first of all, let's start with jen and ellen before that, let me just say hello for the new guys.

My name is tom nash. I used to be a financial analyst now, as you can see, i'm wearing adidas like a good russian and i'm on youtube, breaking down economics, financials and the stock market, and in this video we have to talk about inflation. I've been beating the inflation drum for months now. I did make a video saying we're not going to hyperinflation, because i think a lot of people didn't understand that hyperinflation economically means 50 inflation per month.

We're not headed there, but we're definitely headed into some very dangerous terms. As far as high inflation and every time we had jerome powell go on tv and basically swear pinky swear boy scouts. Where he's not going to raise interest rates, i told you this can't be sustainable with the amount of money they printed and through at the market with the zero interest rates. Inflation is just a matter of time, and now we have first signals of admission coming out of the government, so janet yellen came on tv and said higher interest rates would be good for the economy.

Now check this out. The former federal reserve chair said the president's plans would total about 400 billion each year. A level of spending she argued was not enough to create an inflation overrun now. First of all, that statement in itself is a little problematic because you're talking about the 400 billion per year, once you already spent billions on the infrastructure bill and more billions on the stimulus bill, and once you have zero rate interest, i mean inflation is not going To be a problem, it's kind of a problematic statement in my opinion, but hey let's see, but the second part of her statement is actually what's infuriating me a little bit, because i want to show you how ridiculous what she's saying here if we ended up with A slightly higher interest rate environment, it would actually be a plus for society's point of view and the fed's point of view.

So what she's saying here is that higher interest rates will serve you, the citizens of the united states, which i think is preposterous. I mean it's just ridiculous, because we know that higher interest rates mean slowing down the economy. When you raise interest, what happens, people save more, they spend less when you have less spending the economy slows down. When you raise interest, what happens? Growth stocks and tech stocks take a hidden valuation, so the stock market suffers everything apart from inflation, halts, because the only way to stop inflation, that's spiraling out of control is by taking this poison pill to the economy and slowing down, saying that it's like saying well, This antibiotics is great for your body.

No, it's not it's not good for your body, but you got to take it if you want to get better, but it's definitely not good for your body and higher interest rates are not good for the us economy or the u.s stock market. The reason i think she's doing it, i don't think she's insane. I don't think she's crazy. I think she has a purpose here.

She isn't delusional she's, saying that on purpose to prepare the people of the united states for the understanding that interest rates are going to go up, you can't just do it overnight after swearing that you'll never do it. You have to slowly prepare the people for that. It takes time - and this, of course, is just the first stage, you're gon na hear more of these experts come out and explain to you why higher interest rates are really great for you. That's amazing, and not really, i'm just here to dispel all the nonsense and show you the real picture.

I mean i agree that interest rates will have to go up because you don't want to get runaway inflation, but saying it's a good thing and patting yourself in the back. It's kind of ironic, but i'm here just to give you the facts now. The second story i want to talk about is actually tesla in india, which is fascinating. So i'm looking at this article right here, tesla hits a higher gear in efforts to set up shop in india.

So what they're saying in this article is that tesla is actually setting up shop in india prepping for the launch of the model 3 in india and here's the thing i think tesla is once again ahead of their time, because india is the fifth biggest automotive market. In the universe - and it's currently completely overlooked by any major manufacturer that has any sort of navy plate, let me show you so, as you can see here, suzuki is in the lead, with 1.3 million you have 470 000 yundais tata, which is a local brand kia. Mahindra toyota, renault, i mean renault - has a little bit of an eevee play for sure honda ford, i mean mg. Volkswagen is only at 20 000..

So here's the thing so, as you can see by this chart, there's not a lot of companies with a good ev play present in the indian market right now, and that in itself is kind of crazy, because the indian market is the fifth biggest in the world. 3.5 million cars annually, 3.5 million cars every single year, 82 billion dollars in actual cars being sold every freaking year. It's a massive market, completely untapped by the big eevee place, and the reason that's happening is because i think the indian market is grossly misunderstood by a lot of these big players, because they still think of india as the india of 2000, not india of 2021. It's a completely different market, different demographic, different socio-economic status of the majority of their clients.

It's a really good market with a lot of cash to spend it's not dirt poor, like people. Imagine this and i think, once again, tesla is ahead of the curve identifying the opportunity. First, they did it with china. Of course, they did it in us and now they're about to do it in the fifth biggest market, which is wide open for them to just come in there and swoop it off their feet.

However, there is one problem which i can already see. I mean the full self-driving system in india. I mean it's like new york. If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.

If the fsd actually functions on indian streets - oh my god, it can even drive in russia. I give you my step of approval and now, let's talk about this tesla kansas model s plat, plus no need, as plus, is just so good to its elon musk. Now, basically, about three days before the event, the launch event tesla pulls the rug under the model s play plus and for no reason other than that model s is already pretty good or just as good or whatever it is, but not something that you didn't know. Two or three or four months ago i mean nothing, has really changed.

Why do it three days before the event? Either have two options here and i don't know which one is correct and both of them are an opposite size of the spectrum. On the one hand, you have the option that something up something bad happened, and they don't want people to see it, and once that happens, they have to hide it or basically cover it up or whatever. The other is that this is a publicity stunt, as you can see in this video we're all talking about it three days before the event hyping it up. So maybe - and i think it's completely plausible, given what we know about elon and the cam rocket tweets.

We might think that this whole thing has been staged from the beginning. The cancellation of the model s play plus was maybe just a stunt. They set up a motion in the beginning to get people talking about it three days before the event with elon. You honestly, don't know which one of these options is the one, and i can't tell you either, but i mean in any case.

I do think that the overall statement is actually true. Why would you need the model s plate plus when the model s goes zero to 62 seconds? I mean it's just ridiculous and now let's talk about the g7 global minimum tax initiative and i think in the next few days, you're gon na hear a lot of nonsense being written by people who don't understand tax. I want to read you this piece of article and prove to you how people talk about this without having any understanding of tax, so check it out bigger picture they're. Talking about this issue, of course - and i do agree with the overall statement - there's still a long way to go, whether you like this initiative or not as far as the ends it's designed to achieve, which is essentially get more tax liability on these big corporations, i'm Going to show you why this system doesn't really solve that.

That's the big problem. I don't have any issue with the premise. I just think the execution is trash and it's straight up a pr move. Let me show you bigger picture in this current form.

The deal would require that companies pay at least 15 tax on income, regardless of where they're based making it less advantageous to relocate operations to countries with lower tax rates. An online company that has no physical presence in any country but has a significant sales there via digital advertising, would be obligated to pay some taxes to the government of that nation. So this example is actually pretty moronic and i'll. Explain why in a second and i'm sorry for the guy who wrote it, but that's definitely written by somebody who doesn't understand the way international tax works.

When you have an online company that doesn't have a presence in the country it cannot get taxed in the country. Not based on this initiative not based on any local law, it's based on multiple 3 000 bilateral tax agreements that countries have with each other, based on either the uin model or the oecd model or the us model. In any case, in all of these model, tax treaties there's one close, which is completely identical in every tax credit, it is the permanent establishment clause, the permanent establishment close - and i know it's getting boring, but trust me this is going to get interesting. The pyramid, establishment clause determines quite simply that if you don't have presence in a country either by a warehouse or employees or marketing people or any sort of physical location that you're actually operating in that country and you're just deriving income from that country by sales, you Cannot get taxed in the country? That's based on the 3 000 network of treaties.

That's been on for decades to change that you have to change 3 000 bilateral agreements. You know how long it takes to negotiate one agreement between two countries, probably three to six years, and i'm telling you this every tax person. Please comment below. Tell me i'm wrong.

I want to hear some tax people in the comments talk about this three to six years to negotiate one bilateral tax agreement, we're talking about a network of 3 000 with one of the major clauses being the principle of permanent establishment. This whole thing basically says well permanent establishment. Let's just completely cancel that, and i want to see you go through the list of the 3000 agreements and actually get people to sign this most of them. In fact, 85 of them have no leverage to sign that.

In fact, you need ratification congress, approval or parliament approval in every single country negotiations. This thing is going to take at least 15 to 20 years to carry out, even if it was possible, so a pr stunt. Yes, an actual executable plan. That's going to achieve the goal of living more tax on corporations.

No, but here's the crazy part, if you would actually lower tax rates and attract companies to your jurisdiction. You will increase the tax burden by definition, but it's not going to look good for the pr people, so they won't do it. Instead, they'll use these bogus pr moves to make. You think that they're fighting the bad guys, while in fact they're helping them this thing.

Essentially, stalls any real progress in getting companies to pay more tax, which is kind of sad, but i'm just here to give you the truth. I don't have any skin in the game. Obviously i don't care, but i do want you to know the real truth and don't let them you.