This Is Why The Rich Get Richer
2024 ж. 16 Нау.
103 909 Рет қаралды
If you look back across history, you find that inequality is the norm. After the second world war that changed, and there was a period of rising equality across the west. But rising inequality is back, unless we do something about it.
UNDERSTAND, SHARE & PUSH BACK
WEBSITE - www.garyseconomics.org
TWITTER - / garyseconomics
FACEBOOK - / garyseconomics
INSTAGRAM - / garyseconomics
TIKTOK - / garyseconomics
KZhead - / garyseconomics
PATREON - / garyseconomics
DISCORD - / discord
BLUESKY - bsky.app/profile/garyseconomi...
SUBSCRIBE, SHARE & START A CONVERSATION
Performed by Gary Stevenson
@garyseconomics
Hi Gary. I have your book and I mentioned it to my brother. He went to a book shop during a lunch break, read a few pages and then bought it. He’s going to start watching your videos once he’s finished it. Hope awareness about this issue continues to sky rocket. 😊
Gary make sound economic sense and put it in a way that people can understand
I binged the book, and nothing else really brought it home how the system is rigged... I'm a 50k a year guy, on a salary, and could not understand how I can't afford to save and just get by spending all i earn on goods and services yet having falling living standards
The problem is, Dave the accountant on £60k believes he is part of the elite wealthy family group and should vote accordingly, not realising he is as poor as the rest of us. They've divided us well.
Dave the account has tallied up the value of the rich and realised that even if you expropriate all the wealth from all the billionaires you still won’t be able to run the government for a year. Then after you’ve eaten the rich he know who’s next in the firing line.
@@andrewharris3900 In that case it turns out Dave's not much of an accountant.
@@andrewharris3900I guess exploitation is fine because it's all our system will deliver. Oh wait, no it's not.
an accountant on 60k is NOT POOR in any way shape or form.. live in the real world
@@davidbutlin8271he/she is poor in comparison to the super-rich. It’s all about relativity. A super-rich person wouldn’t blink if they lost 60K. To them, the difference between 60K and 30K or 20K is the difference to a person on a normal wage between 6 pence 3 pence and tuppence. Once you understand that, you understand just how loaded these people really are.
Gary, I’m an analyst, mediocre Python dev, graphic designer, film maker, photographer, and animator. I absolute love your channel. It gives me hope that I had lost having this argument with colleagues over the years and seeing the country decline as predicted. I am personally financially stable and have time, passionate belief that this is a necessary fight, and useful skills. If there is any way to get involved and help out, please let me know. If you need numbers crunching, websites building, motion graphics, footage, help to organise, or just donations, I want to pitch in so much. I’m sure there are others out here who feel the same.
❤👍
Join a union or a local community group and lobby your MPs/political representatives. The only way we have ever wrestled back power as workers is through unions and the low rates of union memberships across the developed world are not an accident - it’s decades of neoliberalism teaching us we are better off on our own and that nothing matters more than the individual. You need to be part of some sort of political movement to make this change and any activist, unionist or otherwise will tell you, it’s slow going and often things go backwards before they get better. Stay active in your community, get to know your neighbours, coworkers and talk to them about these things - everyone in your life (and mine) needs to be aware of these things. Our power is not our wealth but each other. Strength in numbers.
@@ninefablesfox4872 I have tried being politically active at the local level and didn't find it very inspiring or useful tbh. I would prefer to be part of an independent grass-roots movement focussed specifically on the issue of wealth inequality and to organise to apply pressure on the incoming government or the following to take decisive action. Imo we need two things: a platform to get the message out there as widely as possible so that people understand what is happening and an independent organisation that can apply pressure for a policy platform. We probably don't have much more than a decade to make serious change before our politics sours irreparably.
Spot on
Great offer.
Interestingly, the IMF has recently called on governments to tackle inequality if they want to see growth in future. How governments respond is of course a moot point. Love your videos.
IMF International Mafia fund
This is the level it must be dealt with. It will require international agreement, to prevent mobility. Considering that many politicians are those billionaires, thi is a big ask.
I'm still very cautious to what the imf really wants. They didn't even blink while basically killing greece
That was advice given after the lndependent Evaluation Office looked into the IMF group think, post 2008 GFC. Having said that the only real reason for the report was to form the most capital stability without losing complete control. We are back to the old behaviours.
IMF caused some of the inequality through debt slavery
You're on point Gary. The ultra rich need to bee taxed at a higher rate, not the middle class/upper middle class or the working class/poor.
The ultra rich need to be taxed the most, but I also think the middle class, and even some of the upper working class ( because there is an upper working class distinction now ) need to pay more. Tax is a good thing, right across the board, as long as you see you are getting something back by paying it. Tax pays for infrastructure, schools, care homes, refuse collection, libraries, recreational facilities, public transport etc etc, the poor need these more than anyone. Its the fact that over the last 25 years or so, particularly the last 14, people feel they are paying tax and getting nothing in return. The Tories/Rich are making political capital out of this, and advocating the abolition of tax, which is fine for them, because they don't need the infrastructure that the poor rely on. Obviously the poor, being poor, will snap the hand off of anyone who offers to lower tax,( think Tories/vote winner, and Labour to their shame nodding in agreement) because they are so hard up. Of course any savings they make through having more in their pay packet will be taken off them, because something they used to get for free or subsidised ( such as the bus to work ) they will now have to pay for in Taxi fares ( because the bus service has been cut) paying less tax is a big con, but there is no political party out there saying that.
No. He's off point he doesn't know who the rich are or how they got rich or anything really.
I think 'taxing the rich' is a distraction. We need to concentrate on incremental steps - the first of which should be to 'increase the size of the middle class' - this doesn't have to be done by targeting the 'ultra rich'. I feel we are creating a destructive narrative by 'blaming the rich'.
@@stevenfarrall3942 the richest 1% since the Covid pandemic, Oxfam said the world’s billionaires were $3.3tn (£2.6tn) richer than in 2020, and their wealth had grown three times faster than the rate of inflation. The report, Inequality Inc., finds that seven out of 10 of the world’s biggest corporations have a billionaire as CEO or principal shareholder, despite stagnation in living standards for millions of workers around the world.
@@stevenfarrall3942hes trying to get rich himself 😂 guy has no shame
I was working for a top sales manager with IBM in the 1980's when Thatcher cut tax bigtime on the rich. He was in the top tax bracket at the time. All of a sudden, within a few years, all his 3 children had nice big houses, cars, everything a young person could want. They were still at university. He couldn't believe his luck.
One of them had a huge house in its own grounds, that he was renting out to ten other students to pay his mortgage. His dad as a guarantor.
And that’s it in a nutshell, really. I was the skint kid who knew those rich kids!
So none of that trickled down to you, I reckon?
Not even a trickle@@rolyars
For me the elephant in the room is Capitalism, it doesn't matter how left wing governments get in as only left wing governments tax the rich to pay for the working to workers in their factories offices. healthcare childcare etc, long term people are brainwashed to think fear of this person or that guys skin colour or that person's religion vote for us they say and we will save you the right wing parties say, also you seem what the media and the establishment done to Corbyn he said he was going to tax the rich, for the environment and running out of resources Capitalism has to end the sooner people realise it the better
I think at the end of WW2, millions of trained soldiers were coming home from war & wanting to see some improvements in their future prospects as a result of seeing their mates being blown to bits in a vast catastrophic war against Fascist regimes that had arisen directly as a result of economic inequality, involving a Soviet Union that had literally been formed off the back of bread riots - so again, economic inequality, & the wealthy had on balance done spectacularly badly from inequality & the consequences of inequality, in the 'up against the wall' sense, or indeed the attempting to profit from the wrong side & having all theor wealth destroyed or confiscated sense. A generation of people returning from the war to the US & UK were uniquely vulnerable to the idea that they deserved better & that if 'they' told them to return to serfdom & bear all the costs of WW2 so that the great & the good could carry on like it was the 1920s again, it would all very much kick off in a way that couldn't be stopped, & the left was on the march all across europe, which had been liberated from fascism at enormous cost,. I reckon the political leaders & the wealthy industrialists who had survived the war realised in 1945 that returning to the pre-war economic settlement would likely have seen them being hung with piano wire from lamp posts in the streets in front of their mansions at some point, since the soviet propaganda machine would have been pushing at an open door. So the whole Bretton Woods settlement was devised to make sure wealth was spread around & everybody got richer, & it turns out that when everybody can do more than scratch together enough food & shelter to survive, you get incredible economic growth... Fast forward to the 1970s, it all went wrong, capital strike, Reaganomics/Thatcherism was the old feudal economy reasserting itself, & here we are...
Some great points in there
exactly!
Yep.... they're back and as hungry as ever.
Yep, how very true. The poor had guns, pain, and a need to make what they had gone through matter. It would have only taken a cake comment and it would have been pitchforks.
Exactly....A while back I had a little Facebook spat with some Thatcherite twonk when I suggested that the current Tory policies were a deliberate attempt to lead the country back to a state of feudalism. Of course the twonk got uppity, because it can't take a joke, so misrepresented my statement, and demanded to know which specific MPs and policies had that declared aim. As if Mogg and his ilk were going to be honest and upfront about what they envisioned for us lowlife proles as they drive us towards serfdom.
I think also the problem is that the rich and powerful have told the rest of us that we’ve got no power of our own and we’ve just believed them and let them do what they’ve always done. I don’t think anything will get better unless we non-rich and powerful realise that no one else has power over us and that we can make things better for ourselves individually and as a collective, but we have to choose to do it - and actually put in the work. Only then can we decrease the wealth and power of the rich and powerful and make society more equal. I’m definitely pushing back with you, Gary, and trying to help ‘ordinary’ people see that they have the power to do this too and create better conditions for all of us. It’ll take time but we’ll get there! Thanks for your awesome videos, I’m learning so much 😀
Incredible result with the book ranking #1 on the bestseller list 🎉
Anarchist theory (following native American thought) has always recognised that money is not the issue, it's the ability to transform wealth into power
I agree, although if you go down a couple more levels, the corruption of the heart is really where the issue is. That and just plain old game theory at the gene level
@@dannyjquinn880 Looks like you missed Gary's video on game theory
Money is power though so therefore it is the issue
@@jesusbf8169I like the vast majority of Gary's content, it's common sense and explained simply. His video on game theory is trash though. Completely ignores the fact that winning game theory strategies over repeated games are actually *cooperative* and are used to prove the survival utility of human cooperation in evolution. You can't blame game theory for excusing a lack of cooperation when the conclusions of game theory in academia is that we must cooperate. If you're interested, here's a much better explanation of game theory: kzhead.info/sun/oLecoKyMgJtjnoU/bejne.html
Native American philosophy knows nothing about economics.
It’s almost like building millions of affordable houses, investing in public services and protecting workers rights whilst taxing the rich a sensible amount is good for ordinary people and the real economy🤪
Do you mean like Norway for instance? One of the highest GDP per Capita in the World but also one of the most equal, an asset rich government, one of the most transparent etc etc....
And not inviting the third world in to make everything awful
@@FarmerGwyn yes exactly like that 🙌
But only in the short run.
@@jgmediting7770 did you even watch the video? We had 30 years of this policy and the positive effects lasted another 40 years and that was with successive Tory governments actively trying to undo it
I would consider changing narrative in a couple of places. You talk about the kids of the rich buying your house and your kids not having a house. I'd frame it as your kids having to pay rent to the kids of the rich. I think that highlights the propagation of this system (think proof by induction). How it maintains itself and worsens inequality. You also talk about spending most of your pay on rent, etc. I'd phrase that more as rich people pay you then you hand most of it straight back to another group of rich people, which again highlights how little of what ordinary people makes stays in their own pockets and how much stays in the pockets of the rich. There's probably more to be said around this concept. In a sense, you could say the economy is just a bunch of rich people using the poor as pawns in their fight between each other to suck money not only from the poor but also from other rich people. Which is very successful for residential property owners due to its necessity and less successful for diamond companies because people will prioritise a home over diamonds
Yeah fair insight I would say.
This is the kind of graphic insight Tomato above could work on in collaboration with others. Cartoon characters and simplified pictures are far more effective than graphs and charts.
@@michellebyrom6551 Cartoon characters are for children. Grow up.
It is not just money that is being sucked away, it is ecological resources. But like money, they are losing their value. Land that was once rich and fertile can no longer crow crops, because of the challenges from climate change and the loss of biodiversity. With ecological collapse we all die. The economic injustice is driving the ongoing extinction event. Humans are not exempt from the mass extinction event, and in recent years mortality is increasing. This animation will help you to understand how our foolish and failing attempts at economic growth are driving ecological collapse: kzhead.info/sun/rN1-da5_ppOCl2w/bejne.html
@@geoffas They are. But the sad fact is most people are not numerate, education standards have fallen enormously at the bottom end...and so they best way to spread a message is with symbolism that people can relate to.
Gary, as always, another super video that explains your ideas in an easy to understand way. I imagine that there can never really be a truly equally society, but I we could work to reduce it, so everyone has a fair and reasonable quality of life. A lot of us don’t really need a lot to have this either. The problem I see is that it took two world wars and over a 100 million deaths to being about the improved levels of equality that we enjoyed throughout the 60’s and 70’. The wealthy were then more than willing to pay a fair share of tax then that helped to rebuild our society. How we get a progressive tax system in place now without another world changing event is going to be challenging, but at least having people on the side of the consumer is a good start. Thanks again for all you do, it’s much appreciated.
Problem now is, due to technology the wealthy don't need us as much as they did then, in time of the industrial revolution and smokestack industries. Also there was a fear that the working class of the time, would not fight for the rich in WW2, after the promises made to them after WW1 ( A land fit for heroes ) were broken. The rich establishment elite of the time, were fearful of revolution by working class, it wasn't long after the Russian revolution, and of the working class, working but many living in poverty and struggling to survive, would fully embrace Socialism, this is I believe what brought some sort of compromise after WW2, that led to the NHS, slum clearance and a massive building of council housing. I do think some of the rich in Victorian times had genuine philanthropic views, but they were few and far between. People who are rich are generally rich for one reason, they don't like sharing their wealth around.
Hi Gary , I think it's refreshing to hear your perspective on how to heal division and inequality within society.The conundrum is that " One shoe does not fit all ", alternatively too much freedom results in unfettered and unregulated competition in markets We have all encountered "There was just so much choice, I could not decide what I wanted." Earlier this morning I heard Theo Paphitis say "Don't tax me more, I can do so much more good than give the money to the government." You mentioned taxing the rich more results in better public housing then why were so high rise apartments built during the sixties later demolished because of poor building practices. Life is just so full of anomalies it is difficult knowing where to nail your flag.What is true today may not be the same tomorrow. All we can do is ensure and maintain opportunities for all with access to education, information ,health,legal representation, housing with positive political direction and leadership for the greater good.
I agree partially with your point on anomalies, but it is known that a portion of charities and organisations exist soley to benefit the rich too no? or maybe I'm just nitpicking here
Up until the 80s the level of executive pay was many times less too! A head of a FTSE company was paid 8 times that of an average worker in 1980 …now many get multiples of over 100 x or more . If average pay multiples had stayed linked in same way …then average salaries would be over £250k a year …to justify a CEO getting over £2 million +++
Yep….. completely true. Charity bosses have followed the corporate model with £100k plus wage and pension and bonus increases. I am sure I read that when the workers took less than 65% of the gross income of a company and the remainder given to shareholders and bosses the economy is slowly damaged. With cost cutting meaning huge bonuses for bosses, 0 hours contracts and minimum wage only jobs for huge numbers, food banks for working people it’s come to pass.
Well said as always....tax the mega-rich or face disaster.
We have to face the fact that extreme and exclusive wealth is simply unaffordable
Its pointless taxing the rich if the taxation is not distributed to the poor. And it never is, and never has been and never will be. It gets distributed to special interest groups of voters, party donors and politicians and their mates.
@@JonnyFoxxxso true
@@JonnyFoxxx As I recall back in the 70s, (pre Thatcher) Jonny, taxes were high and big money was scarce, but public services by comparison to today were actually really good. By comparison to now, transport was cheap, utilities and housing was affordable, you could get same day appointments to see a doctor or a dentist, (if you needed one) homelessness was extremely rare, foodbanks were unknown of, [Yeah, I know, cars, buses and trains were seriously crap] and overall we had a better standard of living for the time than we do now. And all this at a time when we were still recovering economically from the 2nd World War.
@@JonnyFoxxx It's not necessary to distribute it to the poor, like some sort of Robin Hood. The tax take from the mega wealthy should be funneled into appropriately expanding and properly paying for public services for our growing and aging population, this is turn creates jobs that are commensurately paid, so nurses can afford to buy houses, and social care is accessible etc etc. If the social sector isn't appealing, consider that the UK renewable energy sector needs continued support from government in order to stay competetive in the world and offers immense employment opportunity too.
Great Vlog, as usual. Whilst I agree on the need for the rich to pay more tax, in order to have a less unequal society, I also think you need to mention the role the Trades Union Movement played in that 70 years you speak of, when inequality narrowed, I think 1974 or 1975 was the year when the income gap between rich and poor was at its narrowest. I believe the period between the 1830s and 1870s was one where the standards of living remained stagnant over a 40/50 year period, I feel we are 15 years into a similar period, unless of course we fight back. The Trades Unions and the subsequent Labour Party that followed gave ordinary people the power to determine their own destiny, without relying solely on the rich paying high taxes, and paternalism, which at the time was only offered to those who didn't rock the boat. Its no coincidence that the demise of unions and subsequently the demise of the Labour Party, that is now the party of choice for neo-liberals , looking after big business rather than the working class, that standards of living have fallen. For example, after the war, The Labour Party and the influence the unions had within it, were responsible for Nationalisation of the major industries, and the building of millions of council houses and the demolition of slum housing, the NHS and the benefit system. All these things helped narrow inequality, and you can see why inequality is now widening, the same thing is happening in reverse, no council houses being built, many people now having to rent, and privatisation of the major industries and the NHS. Its basically the battle between Capital and Labour, the re-distribution of wealth, the rich have always held the upper hand, apart from that period between the end of the war and Thatcher, when the poor took back some of the wealth previously denied them, narrowing inequality, improving lives, and better standards of living. The rich are now taking it all back, without a whimper from the working class. If we don't fight back, we will end up in the same dire situation our forebears had to endure before WW2. We still have a lot to lose, pensions, benefits, NHS, rights and laws put there by generally Labour governments to protect us. If we have to start from scratch like our forefathers did in the 1800s, it will be painful as it was for them, death by hanging, deportation, jail and blacklisting, you may think think I am exaggerating, but the rich elite will not stop, given the chance they will take everything back they think is rightfully theirs, a private school education teaches them that they are the chosen ones, better than you, and that the working class are basically dogshit, I'm sure you Gary heard as much said when you worked in the City of London. Think of the recent Extremism bill getting pushed through Parliament recently under the guise of the so called threat of Islamic terrorism, its not , its to make terrorists of those who dare to fight back, its a re-run of history, what happened to and after the Tolpuddle Martyrs. People who speak out and or advocate civil unrest will be sent to jail, mark my words. The Dystopian future is here.
That's why Brexit happened, to implement control and to hide their money in off shore accounts. They got out of the EU just on time, as the EU were just about to collar the rich. Sadly people believed the lies. They didn't do their homework on what was really happening.
It's such a tragedy that I'm in agreement with everything you wrote. As a child, I listened when my grandparents, and great grandmother told me what their childhoods were like. It was a lesson in socialism for me.
Amazing post.
Great point regarding the role unions played.
Yep, unionised labour made a big difference - the reason why Thatcher's neoliberals were so eager to get rid, of course.
Love your stuff :) Totally agree. Born into the slums & poverty of a northern England industrial city in 1950, I was one of the 'fortunates' to live my 73 years in that 'golden period', having had a beautiful life in Australia for most of my time. In 1980 I stopped watching TV & reading newspapers as I increasingly understood what was happening both in the unseen background of that time and to us working class people. That being the fact that the availability of 'more work, money & goodies' changed us. We became conditioned by the advertisers etc to believe 'happiness' meant having more of everything, just like the rich! But, that pretty much changed the shared common life values we had been brought up on, putting us into a world we did not understand nor knew how to navigate. I believe this period and its experiences, literally destroyed those 'old values' and therefore the communities & individuals that onced lived by them? Add in more recent times of the online worlds we now frequent, the high levels of immigration (that eventually dilute the culture) creates an environment & sociopolitical atmosphere of division, self interest, hatred, anger etc, GB in 2024 basically. There is no solution to this. Today is the outcome of a period of changes no one could have foreseen and understood the ramifications of. The only pragmatic and rational solution would be as you say, to limit those enormous economic disparities from existing, but, it's too late! Those atop the pyramid now, not only determine how economics unfolds but they also learned how to corrupt/own/manipulate every facet of so called democracies (govts, civil service, national infrastructures, police, education, law, local govt etc etc etc). The pyramid sitters not only own all the money they own pretty much every facet of contemporary 'civilization'! There needs to be one mother of a global collapse that 'may' allow for a rebuild that could perhaps, rebuild using those old values and structures of common sense etc :) There seems to a serious collapse of the global economic systems coming, but will it be enough?
I think at this point, the super rich would be OUTRAGED if they had to pay the SAME percentage as the average person. The problem is many people think they are just temporarily dispossessed millionaires and that somehow these people drive the economy.
In America, rich people and upper middle class pay almost ALL the taxes. And yes…I know what I’m talking about..studied Finance. You people need to put energy into getting where you want to be…or at least learning how lost you are.
And not sure what “average” means. A lot of people here get refunds.
Things people just do not understand. Example. Average farmland within the UK is approximately 10,000 pounds per acre. Farmland with planning permission for a crop of houses can easily exceed one million per acre. Now after that sale concludes if within 36 months the recipient of those funds (farmer) ... they spend this money investing in buying other farmland/business they pretty much 0 tax.... ZERO!! And in a twisted ironic situation the Farmers buying up other farmland thus increasing its value are also the same people complaining it's difficult for young people to be able to afford farms 🤦
Any evidence? I bet agribusiness run by investment bankers would do this, but actual farmers?
Good example of government failure, land should be free to build on without planning permission
@@CCP_Operativejust, no...
Yea just take a bit of time and Google Churchill. Speech in 1912 the monopoly of land.the mother of all monopolies He was talking about it back then
The British farmers are being put out of business. A big land grab happening
these videos are all great. they help to explain the difference between "real economics" and what is talked about in the media
From the history and anthropology I’ve read I’d say inequality has always been a back and forth thing and something societies throughout time have experienced and also done things about such as debt jubilees, taxation etc. some societies would have wealth resets where they would make the richest give up some of their wealth and pay for a big feast or festival as a way of maintaining social cohesion by making things fairer in a way that brought everyone together. It may be right to say our societies are more prone to inequality than equality but it’s not an impossible challenge to do something about it.
Is it as simple as the wealthiest consolidate and increase wealth over time until the general population reach a point of "enough is enough" and force reform?
@@lukemclellan2141 pretty much. Same as everything else in the universe. Waves of cause and effect rippling everywhere all at once
. @@lukemclellan2141 Yes, but look what it takes to force reform. It usually takes a lot of violence and social unrest. Why? Because the wealthy don't want to give up anything and it will take brute force to accomplish any meaningful reform. Look at what happened during the Bolshevik Revolution and the French Revolution. It's far from easy to achieve meaningful reform. We had a shot at reforming things without bloodshed in the US in the wake of 2008, but Obama blew it for us. Instead of prosecuting those who created the world's biggest financial collapse, he put them in charge of the "recovery". This virtually guaranteed ZERO recovery for working people while the wealthy laughed all the way to the bank.
I always thought 1945-1979 was golden period
Graeber ?❤
Realised this whilst reading economics at Manchester Uni in the early 90s. Back then Yuppies were celebrated and greed was good, my heart was broken at the indifference that systemic poverty inflicted on billions of people. Gary's book is brilliant and just on time to give voice to the disaffection the majority have with the current social/economic/political climate. Change is inevitable. We are the people, we have the numbers, we have the power.
Thank you for your videos. I would like your thoughts on the "redistribution of wealth" as an underpinning concept and economic goal. Post war Keynesian economics presented a model for Western Governments but since the Regan/Thatcher adoption of the Market economics model many things have changed. I am not an academic having only studied economics at A Level in the mid 70s. There seem to be about 32m tax payers in the UK. At the last budget various actions and lack of actions seem to me to have increasingly continued to focus the tax burden on to the wider working population. It reminds me a bit of the Sheriff of Nottingham taking bushels of corn from peasants to provide for his "life style". In the recent budget, for example, the much reported reduction in NI by 2% may not be all it seems - Do basic rate tax payers pay 20% income tax on the much mentioned average increase of £450 per annum please? A contribution from you on on the "redistribution of wealth" and Keynesian economics would be most welcome.
Spot on!. Tax the dividends and interest derived from owning assets. This would in effect be a wealth tax but legally unavoidable.
Gary, I love the way you just keep the solutions simple and not over complicate things like the political class and their enabler economists. This video reminds me of when Rutger Bregman the Dutch historian and Author of "Utopia for Realists", said at Davos, that talking about economic problems and not mentioning TAX, was like being at a fire brigade conference and not talking about WATER!!!! 🤷🏾♂️👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Thank you, I took the time to look at the history of tax in the UK, it was an intresting read but also highlighted the need to understand your incomes and how they are affected by tax and then making a choice on what form of income you want to put more effect towards to retain more of your overall income inclusive of the portion which is affected by the income tax.
The problem you have convincing the masses that we need to tax the rich is because Dave the accountant on £60k thinks he is rich, and worries that it will adversely affect him. You then also have the mentality of the dreamers (me 2 decades ago), that think that they may one day become wealthy and don’t want to be heavily taxed when they get there. Today’s video was a really good one. 👍🏼
It's not Dave who thinks he's rich, it's those who earn 20/30k who think he's rich. But there's a section of society who are invisible to most of society so. So people only see, train drivers, doctors, lawyers as the rich but they're just a bit more comfortable than you. The wealthy and powerful do a great job of convincing you via media that those are the enemy. They're not.
Finished The Trading Game on Wednesday, really enjoyed it... My big question is what is next? What can we do in the short term future?
Start asking the right questions - force the topic in to the public & political conversation.
What are the right questions?
The political issue is that we cant all come together and agree. Even this comment section is swinging wildly from different issues and different wealth brackets. Gary, you are right, the issue is how do we maintain the just cause of this, without people spilling over into personal hatred and side issues, which will kill credibility and support, considering there are so many devisive issues in the UK. (After all, thats how we got here, we've been divided and conquered).
Hmm 🤔 I'm glad your talking about the inequality we are seeing. Everytime I talk about the rising inequality I am told I am talking nonsense. I remember a time where one person could get a high paying good paying job that they could buy a house with and start a family with now that is not possible. Now with two persons working you can't buy a house you can't start a family. Buying a house and starting a family is out of reach now and for years after years decades after decades.
Tax avoidance is now a mahoosive problem in the UK and Private Equity is robbing the exchequer of hundreds of £millions if not £billions. Just look at Asda and Morrisons who no longer pay corporation tax. Ordinary people are taxed increasing amounts to balance the books. Is genuine Corporate Social Responsibility alive or dead, or has it been conveniently replaced by the drive for "sustainability"?
Agreed Rishi sunack paying 23% tax on 2.8m.
It does make me wonder what are we working for!? Where does all this wealth go ? Alright I know the money goes to the rich but what do they do with this money we have all generated with our efforts? Are we really just working for yachts and fancy cars that we will never own? What’s the whole point of our economy? What’s the whole point of our lives? Are we really going to accept what’s happening? Do we want this for our children? Our we really happy to work all the hours in the day just to be able to raise children so that those children we worked hard to raise can repeat the process? Are we not just choosing to enslave ourselves and our children? For what ? Just so a few rich people can have yachts and fancy cars? While everyone else suffers… It’s madness and to think that we are choosing this.
The meaning you're looking for, lies in how you fight to stop wealth inequality from growing so much that everyone has miserable living conditions bar the ultra wealthy.
Do we have a choice? The education system persuaded generations to get into debt. Genius
Hi Gary, one thing I'm interested in, is a potential time frame that you think it would take to turn the tide. Not so much with regards to the rebuilding of social infrastructure (which will inevitably take decades), but in the time frame it will take to change laws/regulations/property prices. Can tax laws be incrementally changed, or are we so far down the timeline that big step changes are required? Step changes to valuation of properties for example can cause obvious problems - and while I agree with your sentiments in the long term - getting wider backing across the country may be difficult if negative equity becomes the short term consequence for a large percentage of people. I have no doubt this is something you aware of and have views on, so I would be interested to know your thoughts. (I will confess, I have not read your book yet!)
It was caused by the pressure of Socialist revolutions, labour movement, USSR and general industrial growth. There's no incentive to share after the USSR dissolution.
Aye, he's on the right track but doesn't quite understand what's going on..
Hi Gary, I was at your book launch a few weeks ago. I keep hearing your name pop up at the office (Asset Management). Colleagues at my prior company also. Wanted to let you know you are making inroads in your campaign. Great profile boost. Increasingly apparent how standards of living have diminished from one generation to the next. Keep up the good fight.
The Rich don't Pay enuff Tax !! End of
Who are the rich?
@@MRW515 people who don’t work and subsist off generational assets on an accumulation model
Everybody pays too much tax. Younger generations pay significantly more tax than previous generations did, because there's more taxes and levys, and more importantly people on low-median income have been inflated into those higher tax brackets.
@@user-sk8gq3yl9q so what tax changes would you bring in to address that?
@@Mitjitsu- they pay MORE tax cos the rich pay LES tax - its that simple
1) Capitalist societies by definition trend towards inequality as the rich can save and grow capital and the poor can’t. 2) Neoliberalism since the 1980s has made this worse by slowing /lowering the redistribution of money back to the poor 3) The GFC and Covid crisis has worsened the effect due to excessively low interest rates and asset appreciation 4) Wealth also leads to the ability to lobby and distort laws and taxes even further towards the benefit of the rich
I knew you were a Beatles fan when you wrote about drawing their pictures in Japan. America has areas that are just as poor as Third World countries. Look at black areas in Mississippi- schools without functioning plumbing, people living in shacks with open sewers nearby, and segregation just as bad as ever. Look at what Mexican-Americans live like in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. It has to do with racism, for sure. These conditions are taken for granted by the white population. Inequality is at the root of the worst of it, from living conditions to education to a lack of available credit. Many Indian reservations are even worse. US media mostly just ignore these situations. If they do cover them, it's pure sensationalism without looking into the causes. The UK hasn't seen the worst yet. I hope you never do.
I would be wary of generalising world histories and reducing global history to the European experience. My country in the pre-colonial era was characterised by largely acephalous, egalitarian societies. Inequality started when Europeans created 'chiefs' to enable indirect rule. Unjust taxes, land appropriation, forced labour laws etc were then used to compel the indigenous people to enter the capitalist system in positions of subordination (no land, made colonial labour was necessity to pay taxes etc.) With time, the colonialist recognised the need to offer minimal education to some indigenous people to lower the administrative costs of empire and enhance the gains of resource extraction and expatriation. Consequently, a new petit bourgeois class was created...it's a long history and what's even more interesting is how these dynamics play out after independence via neocolonialism.
Great discussion as always Gary. One NB qualification to add: hunter gatherer societies were famously egalitarian ... inequality certainly does define large agricultural and modern societies but inequality is not an intrinsic, inevitable feature of human socieities throughout history. Also, as you mention, the Post-War period was an example where a degree of equality was achieved.
Hey, my name is Dave! Not an accountant though 😢. I love your content, and think it is very important stuff! I hope that in the future you can hilight how current countries with the least inequality have, across the board, very high labor union militancy and density. The direct relationship of inequality and union density can be seen very clearly illustrated in charts comparing the two over time in the United States. Couldnt agree more that we need to tax the rich, and the best way to make that happen is strong labor unions that restore economic and political power to the working class like it was before Thatcher and Reagan had their way. That's my two cents on how to connect a problem with a clear and actionable solution. Cheers!
the thing is, after ww2 we had the soviet union competing with the west for being the dominant power. in that situation the rich and powerful in the west couldn't afford to consistently lower the living standards of ordinary people or they'd have had a revolution. now that the soviet union is gone and the mindset of the general public is that communism has failed, they don't have to play nice anymore and can with time take as large of a slice of the pie as they want (which is all of it).
The economy is a thermodynamic system where heat flows from cold to hot (given heat = wealth). This is the opposite to regular thermodynamics where heat flow always drives the system towards equilibrium. In essence, this is saying that the economy is inherently unstable in the sense that it tends towards a state where wealth(heat) gets concentrated and the average wealth (heat) of a randomly chosen person (point) is zero. With this in mind, the only type of economy that works for everyone is a meta stable Robin Hood economy where wealth is forcibly taken from the very rich and used to support the poor
But then under that system, game theory dictates that the endgame would exactly be communism, because you take away incentive for people to become rich, and hence everyone would produce spirally less and less.
IMO it's the simplest aspect of economics: the more wealth you have the more assets you can invest in which, in turn, acrue more wealth. It's an inevitable upwards spiral, while everyone else spirals downward (might take a long time though, meaning the little people don't kick off too much). Sooo... I guess it's not capitalism per se that's the problem but laissez faire capitalism? Gary, would you agree? Is there a way of creating a self-sustaining "closed loop" of economics rather than the current one which only pushes upwards and downwards (sorry, I'm not trained at all in economics, just trying to cobble together the bits and pieces I've learned about, plus a hefty dose of my own thoughts)?
State creates inflation which benefits "the wealthy". Yet people ask the state to tax more 😂
Semantics, but isn't that capitalism? The belief that pursuit of monetary wealth is an end in itself. I'd point out that money is the antithesis of true economy. It flows in the opposite direction to the truly important stuff - goods & services. The real economy exists in the real universe: it is subject to actual phenomena, particularly entropy. It's no surprise the wheels come off if we allow the fantasy of monetary wealth to escape the laws of physics, particularly entropy.
Check out saifedean ammous.
Think like Monopoly. An unregulated capitalistic game where everyone starts out the same but sooner or later one or two players will start to accrue wealth that allows them to accumulate assets which grows their wealth, all the time ultimately at the expense of other players. The solution to unregulated capitalism is right there: regulation. Basically a rule to stop one person winning Monopoly. A system that limits the ultimate accumulation of wealth into the hands on one person, or one small group by continuously maintaining a distribution into the broader group.
Yes. There is a solution, and we actually got somewhat close to it until politicians and pseudo democracy took over. The real problems are the tax system and finanicalisation of properties and commodities. Or in other words, corrupt governance and Keynesian economics. We now have a system where: 1. ordinary people with average or below average intellect are brainwashed into believing in democracy 2. these people voting for the wrong people whilst having a broken voting system which results in having bipartisan politics 3. have corrupt politicians working for the aristocrats while having the average person to believe that their interests are being genuinely represented and protected 4. Mass propaganda to keep ordinary people in the matrix who get orgasms when hearing buzzwords such as "freedom", "democracy", "rights", "equality", "the rule of law", etc. 5. Working class and middle class get taxed the shit out of them while the poor are so poor that they don't have a conceptual understanding of what "rich" is and have their fingers pointing at someone who's earning £200k but getting half of that taxed 6. Finacialising everything so the whole economy is basically a huge casino where big banks and corporates (which hold most our money) are "too big to fail" with all the risk being reverted back to us
He speaks mainly about wealthy held in property. The tax system he want for property already exists in UK. Tax is basically exempt for average buyer who lives in property. No capital gains and exempt stamp duty levels and IHT exemptions. On large and multiple property owners Stamp duty can be up to 15% of purchase price with 28% capital gains and full IHT exposure. The argument maybe the very rich work round the rules.
Here are parts of an AI response to a question about tax in the UK: “After the Second World War, the UK saw a significant increase in tax rates to fund the rebuilding efforts. The highest marginal tax rate skyrocketed to 99.25% in 1949, affecting the country’s wealthiest citizens. The highest marginal tax rate gradually declined, reaching 83% in the late 1970s. The 1980s witnessed a significant tax reform under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 60%, to promote private enterprise and investment. In recent years, income tax rates have continued to evolve. The highest marginal tax rate for individuals is currently set at 45%.”
When I listen to people argue against higher taxes, what I often hear is an almost religious attitude towards property. What I mean is that, fundamentally, they seem to wonder by what right the government should deprive them of THEIR property through tax. I say "almost religious" because it doesn't really make much sense when you think it through; but it seems to be an article of faith. For example, they will say that it's their money and the government has no right to interfere in what they do with it, forgetting that there are and always have been all sorts of rules about what you can and can't do with your property in order to protect society. Just ask anyone who can afford a car what they can and can't do with it. Similarly, during Covid, the dynamics you described in your early videos partly seem to have happened (if I understand correctly how the money from the government all ended up with the rich) because the government deemed the situation serious enough to limit both what people could go to work and what forms of consumption were allowed; but the flow of wealth from workers to asset holders couldn't be suspended at the same time and in fact, this was never even considered as far as I can tell.
Ask yourself these questions: 1. Where did government get the moral right to tax people? 2. Why do humans need property? 3. Which of these two concepts is more fundamental? I can help direct you with more questions if you wish. Here's one hint for one direction out of several of answering this: notice that the concept of taxation must assume the right to property in order to be defined in the first place.
I think that the essential problem here is that we consider land to be individual propriety. Which it isn't really, it's subject to many restrictions as a common good should be, but we somehow allow these schizophrenic views to coexist. If we make it clear that a Nation, not the State, but its people own the land as a common good, and it's lent to individuals for a fee, then the tax debate goes out of the window, you're not taxing anything, you are lending a common good. From this we can derive taxes based on wealth - not income, and close corporate loopholes that hide wealth. If that's what we really want.
@@nomadbl 1. Violence, and if you're lucky to live in one of the more democratic countries: Votes. Whether you consider that sufficient is up to you. Wait, what do you mean with moral right? Because depending on your answer my answer could change massively. 2. They don't. They need consumption of air, water, and food. And they need protection from other deadly environmental factors (like temperature). 3. Fundamental? Neither. Neither is fundamental. No, you don't need property for a government to put demands on the governed, they could demand labour instead of property.
@@nomadbl You are missing the fact that it isn't property per se that is being taxed but using it in certain ways that lead to adverse effects for society. Receiving interest, using it to buy more assets, leaving it to descendants, receiving a passive income through ownership ofphysical or intellectual property, etc. Restricting what citizens can do with their property for the good of society is already an accepted part of daily life (think about what you can and can't do with you car if you have one) as is using taxes to discourage certain behaviours, such as the very high tax on cigarettes. If you accept Gary's argument about the damage wealth inequality causes, higher taxes on certain uses of wealth are justified.
@@PaulSpades That is an interesting perspective. I would like to ask some follow-up questions: 1. How did the people come to own this land? What are the borders/delineation of this property? Can there be unowned land under this view? 2. Does this collective ownership imply part ownership of individuals? Can they sell their share? Buy a share of another land? 3. What about the derivative products? Is oil, water, metals etc also collectively owned? Can they be sold? Since we feed upon the land in order to live, are we also owned by others in part?
Extremely clear and powerful, but simple reason for inequality! Human nature (unfortunately) has a tendency towards greed and 'power' without consideration of others! War has modified such behaviour and legislation in taxation has helped in the past to equalise society. But now we have both main parties unwilling to tax the wealthy and prevent abuse of power in society that deprives the majority of a decent standard of living. Thanks for your efforts to help address the issues and bring that reality to Governments attention!
Where are you getting this information from? That humans are "naturally greedy "? Check out Dr Gabor Mate's take on this theory...
kzhead.info/sun/ocakfaiaaJyAdq8/bejne.html
I love your channel. Everything you say is sadly 100% correct. The rich are getting super rich and the super rich are getting ultra super rich. Labour won't fundamentally , change, anything just slow down the process of decline. I believe that people won't but their selfishness aside until civil war breaks out or something equally horrible, then they might listen. This is a moral question for our society as serious as artificial intelligence..
I was surprised by the Post Office story. I've been aware of it for years, it's been in the news on and off for years. I've been discussing it with friends who have feigned mild interest. And yet when ITV make a drama suddenly *everyone* is interested. I'm genuinely surprised, it was already out there but people needed a reconstruction. So perhaps this is a clue as to how to get the message across... We can all make noise and influence those around us but it needs something dramatic to appeal to the masses. One of the few politicians I respect.. Rory Stewart.. tremendous chap and held important positions but even he couldn't make a difference. He's got a great podcast with Alastair Campbell (The Rest Is Politics) which is regularly number 1 in the podcast charts and yet still people ask "who?" when I mention him. Got to appeal to the masses in some televisual drama sort of way. OR. The Labour party need to adopt these policies. How the heck would it not be a vote winner... there are more of us than there are them...
You only stand a chance of changing things if you employ thousands of workers than you can use them as bargaining chips towards the country/government to get better terms or even direct government funding which I could imagine is extremely profitable. The other option is political funding of a party or individual campaign that pay you back in policies if they win power. If you have a massively successful business you can use both of those options to lower individuals tax rates plus all the other tax loopholes that will make even more wealth on top of the successful business. Global financial systems have way too much power to punish any country that try to tax too high. The mortgage industry changed things dramatically starting in the 1980s. Don’t forget wealthy individuals are in direct competition with other wealthy individuals and one side must lose out but wealthy individuals don’t like losing so they all rig the system where they can.
Everyday workers used to have that power through unions.
The government did not build houses but told their friends to buy houses. Doing this meant demand would go through the roof and everyone of their fat rich friends would get richer.
The govt are not in control and leading the elite to water, it's the other way around.
number of houses built each year has actually increased minorly but opening the floodgates to 750,000 net immigrants per year is the real problem. Where exactly do you house these people???
@@MrSpiderman1321 with an aging demographic, weak economy and lack of relevant skills we need a lot more young people so we need immigration. The latter isn't the problem, it's the refusal of the govt to provide enough infrastructure - doesn't matter whether or not UK nationals, the govt isn't doing it's job. Pretending its immigration is just Tory deflection from their failures.
Do you have the source on this?
And bringing in millions of third worlders to compete with natives for everything
The fundamental change has to be that council tax and business rates are paid by the owner of the property (land). It will transform the economy. It's a little simplistic to say higher tax rates made equality. It was a factor but inconclusive to say it was the difference. No harm in trying it again but you need to also look at "citizenship global income" and "abolition of Trusts". Central Banking, Interest Rates and Deflation in a FIAT currency world are key discussions too.
You touch on ideas that many people know already, but have found it difficult to articulate. That is great. However what you did fail to mention is that when wealthy people have the power to influence others, it isn't just the idea that they have the power to take the money away from you through debt, of the goods they own and sell; but, that they also have the power to suborn and induce the lawmakers, and authorities, alter the laws so that the wealthy can obtain financial advantages. What is also not touched is that even if the wealthy are taxed, they will do their best to pass on those tax costs they are burdened with, to the poor masses, as cost of doing business. And thus not get hurt as much by higher taxes on them, which lull the poor to think that the playing field has been leveled somewhat. It has not.
Brilliant explanation Gary, thank you. Really useful to share and explain to others what's really going on.
Gary we stand by you. Great work, you are educating the masses.
There is a society in the Indus valley which by all accounts was egalitarian for a few hundred years. It's enigmatic because we just don't understand how it was able to both be a society of specialist workers and avoid the radical stratification that is usually tied to that mode of production. Of course hunter-gathers and early agrarian societies are also pretty egalitarian too, but VERY few societies have ever managed to build cities without building palaces.
Hi Gary don'tknowifyouwill read this but, have you read the book, The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists by Robert Tressell? There's a great bit in it explaining exactly what you are talking about in this video, how as working class people the money we earn goes around and ends up in the richest pockets. Even though the story is set in the 1920s it's so relevant to the current situation with regards wealth inequality around us today. I'd would highly recommend the book to anyone to read. Love your work mate thank you for what you're doing keep going and I will definitely be reading your book 👍
I like to think of it that money has gravity towards other money. It's not the people, it's just that money will vacuum in more money slowly and steadily because that's how money and capital works if you remove government from the system. That has some pretty scary consequences if we just 'let it run'. Also good book Gary, thanks, enjoying it so far. Don't think I'll look at London restaurants the same way.
Fundamental issue is that the problems are being handled by a chancellor who's had no experience working in economics and Gary and other educated and experienced voices are merely commentators.
I agree with your conclusion, but I feel rather pessimistic about those holding the levers of power relinquishing them in any significant manner. At the same time I feel rather unenthusiastic about becoming involved in a fight to restore equilibrium when I am currently spending tremendous personal capital on simply navigating the current system in such a way as to produce an acceptable standard of living for myself and those close to me. So very few see the problem, and of those I feel that many are in similar positions. Of the remainder, few are willing to be convinced of the problem, many feel that political apathy is akin to a virtue, and of those who are political most have been divided (and conquered). Combine these with factors like the proliferation of distracting media, media illiteracy, manufactured consent, gerrymandering, and the courts (I'm in the US), and I can only conclude that I should spend my energy on shoring up my own bunker, more or less.
Gary's taken a different perspective with this question than I suspected. I was expecting an explanation of how wealth accumulates more wealth, as per Einstein's "compound interest is most powerful force in the universe". His is the more important question. Asking why society is going down the pan, is more meaningful than explaining how the U bend works. He could crank his analysis back to WW1, or even the unification of Germany leading a new kid on the colonialist block. That's when the super rich faced the very real prospect of losing all their wealth (if they were on the losing side), motivating them to pay their share of taxes. Then we had universal suffrage, set against the background the Russian Revolution, as a salutary tale. Even the US wasn't left out with the dust bowl triggering the Wall Street Crash. I'd argue there are more important, if nuanced, lessons to take from the Industrial Revolution. The huge increases in industrial productivity would have been impossible without an equal increase in the consumerist market. There was only so much Wedgewood the aristocracy could buy, creating & expanding the middle class was even more important than steam engines.
A successful economy needs Everyone to take part in it, not just a few, it makes for very poor outcomes....
Bloody hell you’re brilliant mate!
I believe one of the main reasons why there was a move towards a more equal society after the second world war was that there were a large number of military trained, fighting experienced, working class men, that were returning to the workforce...
I’ve finished the book. Blimey, a cracking read and a cautionary tale. I did the audible as well and I can recommend it as Gary’s voice should be the one you hear in your head when reading it. Excellent book. Question for Gary: Is there an economist out there you would consider doing a follow up that encapsulates the work you’re doing now?
Gary I bought The Trading Game on Friday and finished it this morning. I'm a slow reader and usually take my time with books but I couldn't put it down. It was a great read.
4:10 is there a paper that provides evidence that society with a high level of inequality is correlated to the highest rent prices? Or lower property ownership? Any correlation between OCDE Gini indicators and income? Wealth? Or any correlation between Gini and minimum wage salary? Do societies without minimum wage are more inequal?
I think a big issue is that the super wealthy will leave the country if they are taxed at a high rate. This wealth tax would have to apply on a global level to really be effective at combating financial inequality.
A levy on multiple home ownership form small landlords to landlord corporations AND housebuilders... Every additional property that they own should subject to a 1% levy... This would instantly raise tens of billions that could be given to first time buyers as grants
I think the small landlord has been clobbered enough
@@stephen6262 no lol
@@stephen6262 nopes...not at all. 1% is fuck all.... But the net result is a windfall for the broken Exchequer, bankrupt councils, first time buyers etc etc.
@@PlaguevonKarma Yes lol, which is why they are all selling up, pushing up rents further.
If we're not going to build more houses, then the tax burden on second homes should be slowly increased over a number of years to dampen demand from investors such that the price of the average home returns to being 3-4 x average salary.
It's possible to reverse the tide of rising inequality. If it's been done before it can be done again.
WW2 did that... i doubt anyone would want that to happen again.
Yes, its called taking personal responsibility, investing in yourself and doing whatever it takes to become successful and achieve your goals in life. It's too radical for most people who would rather do nothing and blame others for their own shortcomings.
@@jjefferyworboys8138shut up you div
5:45 more equal? Based on what metrics/indicators?
You talk very well about endogenous economic causes. However exogenous causes, I believe, will play a bigger and bigger role. When the Ukraine war ends, I see devaluation (probably initially in Europe) as supply chains gradually become refactored as european (western) exceptionalism after 500 odd years is gradually replaced by a charter driven order of interaction between states and other economic poles emerge. That means that currency devaluation seems inevitable as commodities, not to mention assets become revalued and governing legitimacy is further eroded. Glenn Diesen articulates this view very well.
Gary you are absolutely 💯 right Huge respect to you for trying to change things . Keep exposing the truth Gary ✊👏
I've had the best 70 years this country has ever offered a poor person. Born in the fifties, I went miles on a bike or walking, out 10-12 hours every weekend day. Hitchhiked all over UK, some of Europe. Stayed at mates or mates mates places, all free. Food and alcohol was cheap. Camped in farmers fields, waking up to milk, eggs and bacon ready to cook. Festivals were cheap or free, drugs were safe. Bought a house, kids are well into life, grandkids here. So why do I fear for them? Scum tories and super rich overshadowing it all..
Hi Gary - Very interesting. I agree with your analysis that inequality is a problem for us all. I can see that taxing the rich is one way to deal with this - although I struggle to see exactly how you would actually tax the rich. To me you have to implement a clear rules based tax system and as soon as there is a set of rules - the rich can employ very smart people to bypass those rules. We see this with increasing tax rates leading to lower tax takes. For me the focus needs to be on labour - pay for the lower tiers in society so that not all of their money is consumed by rent / mortgages / food /etc. Arguably the reduction in inequality that you discuss was also driven by an increase in workers power - so yes more equal power - but that power used for workers to take a bigger share to start with and not a redistributive tax system.
It's such a great point - "back in the day postmen and hairdressers could buy houses." People should never forget that was a possibility and then something flipped which meant those same people are constantly scraping to get back and Gary is telling people why.
Hi Gary, love your book and channel. I don't disagree with you're view that tax rates helped. Sounds reasonable. But surely the other dynamic 1940/1980 is that technology improved so quickly, as we pivoted from war industry to capitalist production, that we had a supply side boom. If you've seen wonder women 1984 😅... guy from second world War who turns up in the 80's and is amazed by the increase in technology. New technology rapidly decreases the cost of goods which can crush the value of old industry meaning new entrants make money and old money loses out. Flights became cheap because we invented passenger planes, not because we taxed rich people etc.. so today in the UK for example if we rapidly built really good homes, in really good neighbourhoods, we start to crush the value of homes.. if we rapidly increase energy production to cut the cost of energy we support industry to produce and crush the value of products. Etc....?
After the Second World War, the United States prospered as a lot of the industrialised world was bombed. Let’s not forget that in the UK there were price controls on bread in the 1950s. People need to understand more on why US fiscal spending on wars, moon landings and the great society welfare programs bankrupted the US to the point where they came off the gold standard in 1971. The rest is history, high inflation in 70s mean women had to work in the 80s/90s. Now both couples work and can’t afford a house. Too big government and too much deficit spending. Hollowing out economy. Time to return to Austrian School. Sadly we will have to go as bad as Argentina before they eventually woke up with Milei.
Have you read Adam Tooze's "The Deluge"?
'Big Government'? We've not had 'Big Government' since the 1980s in the UK, there's no smaller you can make it now, it's all been outsourced to Capita & it literally has to hire people in to manage infrastructure projects who themselves profit when it overruns & fails. All this Austerity fetishism is how we ended up with Fascism all across Europe in the 1930s. Absent Roosevelt's New Deal, the US would arguably have been a fascist state by the time of WW2. Absent public works & rearmament in the UK in the 1930s, Mosely's blackshirts might have been able to achieve what Mussolini or Hitler did, rather than getting their heads kicked in by the people of London...
Think where the salaries come from if 33% of jobs come from the public sector. Print and deficit spending.
I’ll look it up
Have you read Adam Tooze's "The Deluge"? Europe's gold went to the USA for 'safety'!
Gary didn't kill himself
2:15 I think there is a prior question: how do you define inequality? And how do you measure it? What indicators are you using to argue that historical behaviour?
I agree with you . I am pretty much always a Tory voter but I can see that what you say is right . Tax the excessively rich more and reduce the taxation of the poor and middle classes . The gap is widening parabolically. If we don't act sooner rather than later none of us will own anything .
Increase the nil rate tax threshold to £20k and then a flat rate of 20% income tax for everyone regardless of how much they earn. Let those capable of creating the most wealth do so without being penalised for being better at it and encourage everyone else to follow suit without limitation. Our present system promotes laziness, kills ambition and demonises success.
Thanks Gary for having the balls to say what needs to be said. I fear the laziness of Australians to speak up about inequality will lead to the majority being poor.
Because we don’t eat them? 😅 seriously though, I find it fascinating how humans as a species put so much of our power onto wealth… the poor outnumber the wealthy… if we put our power on ourselves, we could just refuse to cooperate and change the system. (Maybe not literally eat them 😅)
Speaking of eating, are you familiar with the trophic pyramid from biology? It is where you group species based on what they eat (simple version: plants > herbivores > carnivores) and show their biomass. This forms a pyramid, because you need a lot of plants to feed herbivores and a lot of herbivores to feed carnivores. Now apply that same concept but instead of species use people. And instead of biomass use wealth. Logically speaking you would need a productive lowest class that has most of the wealth (even though there are a lot of them, so each individual isn't all that rich) for a small elite to be on top and be wealthy. But that's not how wealth is distributed right now. Right now the pyramid is inverted and top-heavy. And upside down pyramids aren't stable, they must fall.
Thanks Gary for another informative video. Interestingly there a few articles in the mainstream media that shows the movement of wealth all too clearly. The first is the Norwegian billionaire that is one of those behind corporations running a large chain of vets in the UK that are supposedly charging ridiculous sums for treatments. The second is about billionaire owners behind the main players in the UK high street slot machine casinos that are expanding to many towns and cities these days. All of the profits from both these situations no doubt flow to those with plenty of assets as Gary has said. For a long time I’ve thought as the majority of us as puppets or the plebians as the romans called us. We are pawns in a system that has been established and slowly improved over the centuries for the benefit of the few. They play on the human weaknesses that we all possess, and this seems to have accelerated in recent times with access to credit in particular, so a large proportion of the UK survives on debt and paying interest directly or indirectly to the wealthy for most of their lives. What’s more we always seem to come back for more. Getting a new car via a PCP for example probably to replace one that was perfectly serviceable just because we can. We never even get to own the asset and even better for the wealthy behind these schemes we think we are getting a good deal and will come back time and time again! It really is Christmas Day every day for those with wealth and know how to make it work. It can be a depressing scene as everywhere you look, to live the everyday lives that most do in the UK one can potentially see wealth rolling through to the proper wealthy. From using Amazon to help Jeff Bazos send his ridiculous rockets into space when many in the world go hungry to shopping at Aldi to enrich the Albrecht family it seems to be everywhere. Little wonder, they are clever those wealthy folk and the system they help build tends to keep it that way. So, let’s all keep watching Gary and other interesting commentators such as Yanis Varoufakis as we plebs need to be as well informed as we can be to at least try and make some decisions that could help our wealth go to the worthy and not the those just making a name for themselves.
Your economics analysis is top notch, but you’re very focused on the future. I’d love to see you speak to David Wengrow about the history of inequality, because I don’t think it’s fair to say that ‘human society has been massively unequal for the last 2000 years’. This is good news because we can find lots and lots of ways for human civilisations to structure themselves. Find inspiration for how to fight it inequality. Those who don’t learn from learn from the past are doomed to repeat it and all that. Aaron Bastiani did an interview with him on downstream, maybe he could put you in touch?
Trickle up economics
Yes! Or even, “syphon off economics”?!
One could replace trickle with ‘gush’, ‘pour’ or ‘stream’ to be closer to reality
Thank you for your passion to help human kind.
Single man , earn 37500 in the east , take home about 27 k then take away 4800 csa, cost of getting to work about 3500 leave 19k to rent a a small home for a town for my kids to stay over 850 per month leavening 700£ per month for water ,sewage ,gas electricity , council tax tv licence Internet etc then food , then try see my kids it’s impossible and i apparently earn an average salary……..? The worlds gone mad .
Keep telling us Gary. Simple and clear. And whilst the people still have a living memory of the better ways of life that come from widespread wealth equality.
I have no memory of that time other than my childhood, why are the boomers so anti this message then?
@@goychUnfortunately, they think it's in their self-interest to hurt others. Personally, I think it comes from a really bad education system with too many toilet-duckings! Most of them never had to pay rent or live without a fixed roof, but a few of us did. I'm seeing changes. It does help when people try to get along though and sympathise with the other person… even if it's a Tory whose problems are a little facile and their hero was Thatcher. They've got a lot of learning to do and they have had it so easy they're not used to life lessons. Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and squint a little, because democracy shouldn't really be working for billionaires. But it does if we can only despise each other's identities and can't find common ground.
Think there is more at play here Gary, I grew up in the 70s, it was proper bleak compared to now. There is a concentration of wealth in London / SE. I live in the Midlands. Just checked my town on Rightmove, 60% of the houses cost less than £250k. They start at £70k for a perfectly decent 2 bed. Wages are average, plenty of work if you want it. We are 1 hr from London by train, it seems a different country where you are.
One of the issues with taxing mega rich people is how easy it is for them to pick a country to pay tax in, and other tax loopholes. Some rules serve no purpose other than to make millionaires and their accountants richer. (Such as film schemes, where a millionaire makes more money through investing in a film that makes a loss at the box office, than they would if the film made a profit). Same with inheritance tax. Until people are stopped from passing on their wealth tax free, by putting it in a trust, little or nothing would be gained by increasing the tax rate (as more people would use trusts to avoid tax)
Wont happen! Been threatened before, but they are here for many reasons. And if they are not hear they are not dominating the market so balance.
Main issues are increasing pay inequality, lack of jobs, lack of well paying jobs, increasingly poor social mobility, increasing private sector dominance of society and parasitic jobs like financial ones which only take from others and contribute nothing. In short, democratic pluralism was replaced by technocratic neoliberalism since about 1980.
@garyseconomics There is another way, that is in the hands of everyone: Change the definition of “assets”. If the working class make property ownership more of a liability, for maintenance costs, and company shares more of a liability for wage costs, and choose decentralised assets to store and invest, then wealth can be redefined. Basically, make big things a liability and small an assets. Swarm theory. It’s happening in war, it can happen in peace.
I think a great way to explaining it is Warren Buffet earnestly was giving advice of how to invest and he said as a beginner an index fund is the best way. Which I think is good advice. His example was if in 1942 you invested $10,000 into an index fund it would be worth 51 million today. However 10,000 in 1942 would be the equivalent in terms of wages of just over 400,000 in todays money. So let say okay the person invested the equivalent of 4,000 today, so 100 in 1942. as a couple years saving that would be achievable, that means they'd have 510,000 today. A decent chunk, yet not the same. When you think both did the exact same thing, yet went from a difference equivalent today of 396,000 to a gap of over 50 million dollars...
David Graeber would have disagreed with you slightly on "there has never been equal societies except for the last 70 years". But your point is very valid that these 70 years have been very unusual for our current civilisation. (I'm talking from the point of view of his book "the dawn of everything" which gathers anthropological research on societies of the past) It's a big book, but if you find time to read a bit of it, it's very eye opening. It deconstructs a lot of preconceived ideas about "human nature" and selfishness, I think you might like it, given your take on game theory :)
Also can you speak about massive companies like black rock and their impact on economy?
Enjoyed your audio book narrated by yourself with different voices and characters cheers.
Loved your book!