That last part is so important. Our parents thought they were doing better, not knowing they were screwing their children over. The illusion of improvement.
@@BillClinton228 if it's so obvious that things are going down the drain why isn't anyone talking about it? Don't you think the progressive enslavement of humanity deserves at least a conversation?
Feels like we are in the late stages of a multi generational game of Monopoly, we are at the point when one or two players have too much money flowing to them for anyone to have much of a chance. Each new generation is coming to the game when hotels are already established on every tile and there is a minimal and shrinking amount of opportunity. At some point the game is just gonna seize up because there is nothing left to be bled from the lower/middle earners when everything they have a realistic chance to earn is not enough to cover the debts demanded of them to simply exist in society by the rich.
Human ingenuity applied to extracting wealth will find new ways to screw those without wealth over. If more people were familiar with economic history from the invention of finance and debt would realise that. This time is just a rerun of the same economic conflicts between those who rely on working for a living, the state, and the asset wealthy. Michael Hudson, an American Economic Historian has written about Debt in ancient to modern times. He's here on UA-cam. He's written books and articles about how Debt - known as Rentier Economics - from the beginning has been a destabilising force in societies, nations, and empires from the beginning. For example, the first extant legal code in history - The Code of Hammurabi - mentions laws to control the destabilising effects of Debt on Hammurabi's empire, by the use of a Debt Jubilee. We like to think we've progressed since those times, but in finance the perverse incentives still exist, because wealth provides power and influence. Check Michael Hudson out, as the more things change, the more they stay the same.
The actual rule is monopoly is: The Bank never “goes broke.” If the Bank runs out of money, the Banker issues IOUs for whatever amounts are required by writing the amount on a piece of paper. IOUs can be exchanged for cash whenever cash is available; otherwise they are simply counted in the assets of the player holding them. The same is true in the real world, banks/governments simply devalue the currency. ProTip: It doesn't end, the cycle is repeated roughly every 90 years. So you won't be here to tell future generations and humans have short memories. Cheers
Exactly! And the game of Monopoly is a complete equality of opportunity - exact same starting money and position _(though I suppose some players do sit closer to the bank...)_
So true. So much of our culture includes competition between "homeowners" and "renters" where we should really feel more solidarity between us when we are largely being screwed by the same super wealthy class.
@@altGoolam The only way to do that is to develop more awareness of what happens every time we open our wallets - it is a vote either for good or for not so good. Most don't understand money as a voting system. We are the ones making others rich, not themselves or the government. Home ownership is key to deciding where the majority of your income goes. When you own your own home, you keep your income, in the most part.
Yep. I'm a homeowner and I'm livid at how bad things are for renters, especially those in increasingly desperate situations. A massive sea-change is needed if we value our collective living standards and, tbh, basic human dignity.
I believe taking responsibility is an important part of my character where there really is choice. However, the idea of "voting with your money" often falls short when addressing societal issues. It places responsibility on the individual for things that can't be dealt with through individual actions alone. It's not that we are voting to make others rich, it is that we are structurally coerced into it. There is no free choice here. I can't, personally, chose to buy a house outright with cash or to get a mortgage because I can't afford it. I can either rent or be homeless. Nor can I buy food or energy without paying the rich person who owns the infrastructure that produces it. If someone comes up to you and forces you to give money to a rich person, are you voting for it? Similarly, if a political and economic system forces you to give rent/interest/profits to the rich, are you voting when you give them that money? This rhetorical tool has been used as to hide the structural - not individual - causes of problems in society, and hence shift blame and responsibility. It's a smokescreen to keep our eyes focused on where we are powerless. The rich are saying *"Look! Over there! That's where your power is! It's in the **_free_** market!"* It isn't. Edit: @HorseSaddleRider
From someone who bought a house who was previously stuck renting for 15 years while saving, there is also a big difrince in QOL not having to rely on someone else to sort out problems (washing machine broke, fence blew down) which they ignore for months, you can't decorate or fix your TV on a wall, you get told what kind of pets you are or aren't allowed, and you can get kicked out for any reason with two months notice so you never really feel secure, so long as you have money to pay for your repayments and repairs you feel much more secure and fulfilled in your own home.
This, I think people are ignoring a huge host of factors that drive people towards home ownership in this country as compared to places like Germany. We currently rent, we hide our cat from the landlord, the house has an awful dirty old carpet that the landlord won’t replace and we have no idea when we’ll get served an eviction notice. It simply isn’t worth the toll on your mental health to rent in the Uk
Yep, if you have kids you don't have to worry about cost of relocating, changing schools .etc if you can't afford anywhere else in the local area. You can actually change your home & make improvements to suit your living needs. Even things like heat pumps and solar panels to reduce your energy bills long-term, while for a rented home, it's worth nobody's while to do that. So it's an ecological disaster too.
I rent from an institutional landlord and have none of these issues. MY QOL would reduce from owning my shelter bc I'd have to fix everything and pay. All I have to do I call my landlord and they fix it the next day bc they benefit from economies of scale.
@@dlc2479 Until the landlord gets fed-up with the tenant who won’t stop complaining and issues them an eviction notice. I know a mother who was evicted for complaining about issues with her house, and she was a conveyancer who was well aware of her rights.
There are very few "smart" people in the world who actually make any sense. You are one. I hate finance, like really hate it, but I can listen to you talk for days.
Geez... Your message is so important. Maybe there is nothing the average person can actually do but becoming aware has got to be the first step. Thanks Gary.
And also even when mortgage people make a profit from the sale of their homes, you still have to buy a place to live again after in a more expensive market. Work together. Live together. Thanks for your amazing choice of where to apply your work time Gary. You’re on a national treasure trajectory for sure 👍
It’s always annoyed me the the worst paid pay the most interest. So say I wanted to buy a car and it’s £25000 I pay back maybe £32k but if a rich person buys it, they just pay £25k back. Same with houses and even small stuff like insurance. I pay monthly so costs more. This makes it harder for ordinary ppl to get out of a cycle of debt. Everything is more expensive the less you earn. Madness Great video again Gary I enjoy listening to you and I’m looking forward to the book
@@suvvx900There are (perhaps were is more accurate) exceptions. In 1993, I needed a car. I saw a Fiesta advertised in a national paper at a great price, though it was advertised by a london dealer... I bumbled into the local Ford dealership, and asked if they would match the advertised price... They said yes, and I also negotiated for rubber mats, mudflaps and a tow bar to be thrown in (not fitted, but thrown in) But, I couldn't have a cash discount, nor could I pay the price in cash. The only deal I could have was pay 20% down, pay £100 a month for two years, and pay the balance off at a particular time two years hence... I think I paid £900 down, £2,400 in payments, and £1,200 balloon payment, £4,500 in total, the list price of the car...Meanwhile, the cash I'd have happily paid at the outset was on deposit with the Halifax for two years, attracting interest, the payments were made out of income... And When I went into the dealership, with my chequebook, to pay off the balloon payment, the staff had to work out how to accept my payment... They expected people to roll over the first car as deposit for another... I bought an Escort, later that year (keeping the Fiesta) on the same scheme. £8,350 car paid for over 2 years, 0% interest. £1,700 down, £200 a month, about £1,800 balance in two years. Wouldn't discount for cash, but I got mats, flaps, and a discounted towbar this time... And a 1,400 engine instead of a 1,300? Same problem at the end of the term, paying the balance, they didn't know how... When my wife went in to replace the Fiesta with a Ka, they couldn't find anyone to speak to her... So we kept the Fiesta a long time. And the 95 Escort until 2002, when I got £800 trade in against a van... So the Escort cost under £1,000 a year, and never had any major issues, just consumables to pay for... I generally, though, pay cash. It's done and dusted, but, with payments outstanding on a new car, the buyer can pressurise the finance company and the dealership to get their act together and fix them...
@@suvvx900 but what if I have kids I need to drive to kindergarten, a 1h commute to work and a job that requires a personal car? Should I just not buy a car, get fired, and not bring my kids to kindergarten? "The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. " - Terry pratchett, Men at Arms If you need boots you cant just "not buy boots"
Thank you Gary for taking the time to explain how economics work. It is great that you understand how the average person out here like myself, needs to hear your analysis more than once, of how wealth works and is used . I believe that changes to this unnequal system will have to come from the ground up, with help from you and others like yourself.🤔😇xxx again big thank you x
@capri2673 We have no major party that advocates taxing wealth. The so-called "socialist" party, the NDP has spent the last 20 years trying strenously to prove how "fiscally responsible" they are, i.e. by cutting taxes (sometimes) and freezing or cutting spending. I would love for an actual leftist party to appear, or for the NDP to go back to its leftist roots! Whatever taxes are added, are always added on work, not on wealth as Gary advocates.
My dad always used to lecture us on the concept of "dead money", money that you spent but had nothing in your hand to show for it. He was focused on rent of not just houses, but stuff in the house too (paying on the never never). It was a bit more basic than the point here, but it did a lot to show me the futility of renting assets or money and the importance of not getting in debt.
Thank you for the educational message, everyone should be mindful of how modern society is relying on debt to pay not only essential things like a house, but also cars, phones, TVs and coffee machines. People need to take a step back and re-evaluate their needs otherwise they will be slaves of the system all their lives!
The education is more valuable than school . If only people open there ears and listen . That's why you were given 2 ears and 1 mouth . Brilliant advice. . Paul Dublin Ireland
Haha! People who “choose” to rent. There are those, but generally, they prove the rule. That said, no shade on Gary - he’s the man! Thanks again for this.
Left the UK after university. Worked long days with no holidays for several years. Saved my money and finally bought a home. I didn't get on the property ladder, I bought a home and kept it. It's the old story, hard work and sacrifices with a goal in mind.@@WilliamAhlert
@@geishasha Hi. I see people (elderly now) who bought very modest homes, raised 4 - 6 children in shared rooms, and now still have their home in their older ages. I see people (elderly now) who bought and sold, bought and sold, bought and sold expensive homes in areas where elderly do not have transportation and other services were missing. They could not stay, and now have to pay exorbitant rent (eating away at any money they had from the sales of their lifetime's homes). I think aging at home in a small paid off home (for many years) is the way to go. Congrats geishasha on buying a home and keeping it. Good luck to us all.
House prices have always gone up. My first house was built 1930s cost 1,670 . I bought it in 1996 for 210,000 . Now worth just over 1 million. It's not the value of the house that's changing it's the value of money. 210k was a lot of money in 1996.... A Roman senator's Togo cost an ounce of gold 2,000 years ago. A US senator's quality suite would cost around an ounce of gold today. Money is devaluing slowly and some times quickly. If you're not on the money train you're going backwards ... A millionaire used to be high high value. Not anymore...... Love your stuff Gary. A real education and thought provoking ❤️👍🙃
All prices are going up, that's called inflation. When economists are talking about house prices going up, what they mean is that *real,* that is, inflation-adjusted house prices are going up. In other words, houses are becoming more and more expensive relative to people's incomes. And you should know this. You're talking about a house that went from 210,000 to 1,000,000 over the last 28 years. Based on inflation alone -- I don't know where you are, I used the U.S. CPI Inflation Calculator at www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm -- it should have gone up to only 417,000. That means that its *real* price went up by a factor of 2.4.
House prices are rising much faster than inflation. When young people today are complaining it's much harder for them to become homeowners than it was for their parents or grandparents, *they are right.*
Deluded, everything is inflated but house prices are second only to executive salaries. Goods and services inflation is vey high but not in the same ball park. Wage inflation is way behind
@@davelab6 Well said Dave. Gary's Economics is exposing the huge inequality within our society. His agenda is to create a fairer society, and improve the lives of the many. Not increase the wealth of the ultra wealthy, at our expense!!
Although I have a master degree in economics, I am really grateful for your videos and mission. You're absolutely right, this is not being taught at universities neither explained in the (financial) media.
One aspect that is missing here is where the value is coming from. Say you bought a house and you are building equity. Where is that equity coming from? It's not coming from your work, you are not generating wealth. The house is doing nothing either, it's just standing there. It's the value of the land that goes up. And why it goes up? Because the whole community is working hard and improving. So you are capturing the value generated by the community. So that build up in equity is itself a form of rent that the community pays to you, as the owner of the asset.
Another analogy: You can go to a tool hire shop and hire a mower. While you are using the mower you pay hire charges. When you no longer need the mower you return it to the shop. Alternatively, you could go to a money hire shop (AKA bank) and hire some money. While you are using the money you pay a hire charge (AKA interest). They will probably let you return the money in installments.
Not only is most of your salary going towards paying to access the assets owned by the wealthy, but it's also paid to you on the basis that you create surplus value for the wealthy in your work
Best financial decision I’ve ever made was to buy a property. I was afraid of loosing my “freedom” and be a mortgaged debtor but could not be happier after two years. Rent and house prices skyrocketing but, for the first time in my life, I’m not taking part on it. I have a fixed interest rate, able to pay, and I own it which means I can do whatever I want with it: pets, painting, renovations…and the feeling of going “home”.
I would say the distinction lies in how many steps removed from productive activity your income is. Productive activity produces goods and services. Profit is the first step towards parasitism. It usually pretends to be a service like management. Rent is the next step, where ownership of something that was produced is used to generate income. Interest is when you yourself don't own anything productive, but you're investing in someone or some company that does.
The poorer you are the more people you get extracting profit, you rent a flat you are paying for your landlord and the landlords mortgage lender and the mortgage lenders shareholders on top of the thing you actually want which is space in a building.
Income derived from a company producing goods or services is absolutely contributing to productivity rates, regardless of how far removed you are from it, aside from extreme cases. But income derived from static assets that do not generate work or employment is indeed parasitic. EG: Owning shares contributes to businesses, investment, wages, growth and, yes, profits. But owning a house and charging the value + profit in rent is parasitic. It's disgusting that the UK has soooo much of its national wealth tied up in property. If we had proper taxation to encourage business investment instead, we'd have a much more propserous and hopeful nation.
@@matthale5526 As the government counts the full amount of each house sale in GDP figures (economic growth), it benefits them to encourage this house price inflation further and further. The phrase 'housing ladder', banks' buy-to-let mortgage offerings, various TV shows and newspapers focussed on buying and selling houses, all contribute to the national obsession - with average people becoming quickly priced out.
Just 3/4 the way through listening to your book on Audible. As well as the obvious brilliant life/financial aspect of it - really finding your Scouse, Japanese, American and various European accents top notch and raising a big smile every time from me 😀👍
Well articulated Gary. But all the parties have to promise to maintain the status quo in order to get elected.They will only change policies if they 100% have to.
It’s deeper than that though isn’t it? Isn’t Gary essentially saying that rent and interest are the cause of wealth inequality? I’ve not seen the video where Gary outlines his proposed solutions for wealth inequality but I’m guessing that ownership of residential property for any other reason than living in it will either be prohibited or taxed at such a high rate as to make it a totally unattractive option. I’m waiting.
I think its really important for people to know how assets work. Gary makes a very good job explaining it. Its crazy that there are economost that forget that
Appreciate the clear explanations, Gary! Your video on the similarity between rent, profit and interest is a game-changer in understanding economic concepts. Keep up the excellent work!
How do we take them down without social reform or full-on anarchy? Sharing a few vids that tbf, are stating the bleeding obvious? Don't see it myself. I voted for Corbin, "just" because I was ready for a different type of politician. If Jezza, Sanders & who ever else on the far left political specturm won't get a sniff due to right-wing MSM attack pieces etc, shit will never change. Gary should move into politics if he wants to really help, educate & try & change the system
Brilliant clear explanation, thanks Gary. One trivial point: why does everyone refer to mortgage buyers as house owners? They are not house owners, they are house buyers, as many have recently learned.
Agreed, it's a convenient misnomer. Just like most cars on the road are bought on finance, the driver is merely the registered keeper, not the legal owner. People are tricked into thinking they own thier biggest assets, but if they involve finance they don't at all.
What you said relates more or less to what Henry George had pointed out over 2 centuries ago in Progress and Poverty: that economic growth, infrastructure, and population growth tend to make land values go up, which of course disproportionately benefits the landowning class at the expense of the landless, and unless such accrued land values are adequately taxed (with a land value tax, which almost got implemented by David Lloyd-George and good ol' Winston back in his older Whig days but got blocked by the Tories) increasing inequality and poverty would be an almost inevitable outgrowth of prosperity.
What creates the economic growth in the first place? They also bare all of the risk. Left wing economists love talking about profits but the minute you ask them about losses they start squirming. Sharing profits sounds fantastic until you mention the other side of the coin. Redistribution of losses. If a company makes a loss do you think it would be morally correct or appropriate for the company to redistribute said loss to the worker? Imagine receiving your paycheck to find £0.00 for a months work and when you ask your boss they simply reply “oh we made a loss this month sorry”. You get paid for the work you have done regardless of what happens to the company that’s what makes it justified the same cannot be said for the owner. If you want to talk about theft of surplus value let’s talk about taxation…
@@user-yv4fp4do8m in all of those scenarios you still get paid at the end of the day so you didn’t really disprove my point. No one is walking away with a psycheck that says 0 or that’s in the negative.
Sorry? What happened in aftermath to the 2008 banking crisis? Weren't the bank losses socialised? And it's "bear", not "bare" Carry, as opposed to denude... And...Capitalists can close a company that's performing quite reasonably, strip it of its assets, because that way offers quicker returns, (may even reduce the competition in an area they are active in) but they've made the erstwhile employees the responsibility of the state... (socialising that responsibility) Capitalists/industrialists can run a business into the ground, declare bankruptcy, bugger off with severance payments... and the cost of reinstating the contaminated land upon which steel was made, or oil refined, or coal was won (say) is socialised... The Phoenix Four and MG Rover? The Civil servants that took over Quinetiq and became millionaires overnight? That was OK, taking public assets to make private profit, I suppose... @@creatorbens
@@robertlawson8572 as you yourself just noted that’s not capitalism so I’m not entirely sure why you’re attributing it to capitalism. We shouldn’t be bailing out any businesses. It undermines the core function of capitalism. Competition. Somewhat ironically speaking of the 2008 financial crisis it highlights exactly why markets are essential to a healthy economy and you shouldn’t artificially prop things up. It was caused and somewhat ironically “solved” I’m not sure i’d use that word postponed is probably a more fitting word by artificially propping assets up that should’ve failed. Early libertarians(who support the most extreme form of capitalism laissez faire capitalism) highlighted concerns about the exact thing you just mentioned when it comes to state intervention. Monopolies are not inherently bad in fact they are great providing they are earned. They are bad when they are not earned and instead they are given by the state through bailouts or another example the state giving private banking institutions(fun fact your central banks are private) control over the issue of currency or the state controlling which companies have access to funding via stock market etc
However a renter also bears risk as the mortgage holder passes on cost rises (whether sue to interest hikes and/or costs of repairs) to the renters - often by a larger percentage than said rises/costs. So the mortgage holder benefits from the increase in value, and passes on costs to the renters.
Thanks Gary, lets educate ourselves and wake up so that we can rise up and do something good for the vast majority who are living in challenging conditions.
On the rent / mortgage debate it is probably worth adding that with a repayment mortgage you are investing into a property and paying interest. However, you could chose to pay just rent and invest in something else, say the stock market, and if compared in that way using a standard index fund you may very well be better off having invested in stock rather than a home. So that it’s always better to buy than rent needs to considered in a more comparable context.
@@JHBEM Very true. In many markets appreciation can be very slow so the equity that we build in our house can be somewhat limited by the money that you’re investing into it by paying off the mortgage. When you consider the long term cost of property taxes, house insurance and general maintenance/upkeep not to mention the possibility of your labour to complete upgrades/repairs to the house it can be a very costly endeavour. When we sell generally we are doing that through a real estate agent and that also costs a significant amount. I still believe that investing in rental houses is a fantastic way to build wealth, especially if your overhead will be covered plus some cash flow if possible. Renting is a great option if you are also investing your money in other places.
Yep... my dad is the peak of our family tree financially. At my age he had 4 properties. Never had a mortgage over £35k. I am poorer and live in a house too small for my family. I own it/mortgage but I'm not prepared to take more debt for a bigger house.
Just wanted to say thankyou gary i,ve understood how these systems work but only vaguely and the way you explain them helps me to be angry and thats a good thing more power to you young man keep going.
Hi Gary. Thank you for the absolutely brilliant content! Never have I found anybody who was better at explaining the ever increasing feeling of pressure many of us live with every day, while being force fed some narrative that we can also join wealth club if we're just innovative / hard working / smart enough. Collective economic gaslighting to keep people from seeing that the system is fundamentally unjust.
Nice one Gary ,this ,if it were taught in schools would change the face of finances throughout the country so you can see why its not!.Cant wait to get your book in my mitts butty.
This is why we need community & public ownership of utilities, trains, public transport etc as they do in other countries because life will just continue to get more expensive with shareholders in the picture
Governments do the same thing whenever they can. Thing is, it's worse when the government does it because they can put you in prison or shoot you for non-compliance. I'd rather deal with a free market where I can take my business elsewhere. Not some government mandated monopoly where I'm stuck with whatever horror show some bureaucrat picks out for me.
Ok so you mean communism 😀 oxford dictionary definition of communism “a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs”. The common man doesn’t really know what he’s asking for. It’s really scary.
Really like what you're saying and really enjoyed your book. My only qualm being when you use the example of farmers or farm land. For the most part, there is very little difference to your average home owner paying rent or having a mortgage on their house. Many of us are asset rich but incredibly cash poor with absolutely negligible disposable income. Basically all we do is earn money to replace machinery or try to upgrade it to make out working life easier. The difference being that farmers work on their 'house' to provide the income that pays the rent or mortgage rather than off site. Some have to work off site to supplement their farm income. In your example I would wager that the overwhelming majority of active farmland is owned under mortgage or rental agreements. Huge huge swathes of land are own in trust by royalty and obscenely rich people like James Dyson who then either have it in long term tenancies or set up a farming company to operate the farming enterprise to provide tax relief for their massive business profits or inheritance. The people making the biggest margin on every item of food you buy is the supermarket or processor. Which is more often than not, the same company.
My parents generation had final salary pension schemes, Free university education and affordable property. These have all largely gone. The consequence of this will be mass homelessness for people in there 60’s or older who can’t no longer work, don’t have adequate pension or own there property. Gary what do you think is the governments plan for this pending disaster?
Another interesting video from you Gary. The owners of assets also seem to own our Government and all avenues of politics and law making. The multiple dwelling law is only one example. If you buy more than one dwelling in a transaction you’re actually able to avoid Stamp Duty?? Certainly not a law put in place for the average Jo or Joanna.
There is something missing from this for me, and that is the transfer of ownership of the asset. The main reason for buying with a mortgage is that eventually you will own the asset. This should mean that it is more expensive per month than renting. The issue with renting is that is not any cheaper nowadays as the renter is paying the mortgage for the landlord, so your monthly payments will transfer of asset to the landlord not to you. This is why, I feel the 2 ways of living in a property are not the same
Thanks Gary for sharing yet another interesting perspective. Btw, I fixed the link to your UA-cam channel on your Wikipedia page. Cheers from Bangalore, India.
Totally agree 100% Gary. They are all the same thing. Only difference is their respective tax treatments which also affects value to the owner/recipient
PSome profits, interest and rent are earned or serve a legitimate function in incetivising productive output. Monopoly rents (or what economists call supernormal profits) are distinct in that they are 100% unearned, land rent is the most obvious and clear cut example, being 60% of UK wealth and 100% unearned. A landowner gets 2 incomes, this unearned land rent and the return to the building which as a depreciating asset requires servicing (which requires investment and some labour). In a sane economy we would tax away all of the unearned portion of rent and only allow the earned portion to remain.
It’s interesting how people see rents as so evil today, and long ago people used to view interest from loans as evil, so much so that it’s prohibited in some religions. Are these things extortionate or just the best way to get things done?
Maybe it's because rents are so astronomically high? I believe that in Germany they are not considering them so evil as they amount to much lower proportion of earnings (although it changes gradually towards higher rents). I believe that recently many people have started considering interest evil due to rising interest rates... It's all about the right balance. If you pay 2% interest it's not extortionate as it doesn't hurt too much. The same if you pay 20% of your monthly income towards rent. It's there any better way? You can build council housing which means socialism, the history shows it doesn't work too well as even if it could seem cheaper, the quality suffers greatly as well as individual freedoms.
The rent you pay is usually much higher than the interest you'll pay on a mortgage. Also interest will fall over time as you pay off the mortgage, yet rent will likely go up with the price of a property.
May I add inheritance tax is probably the biggest obstacle to passing wealth on generationally. Excellent video Gary. Can you give some thoughts about how shares in companies are affected by events such as BlackRock buying land in Ukraine or knock on effects of gas pipelines being destroyed, IMC, and shipping being diverted as a result of conflict etc...
You would be better telling them, ignore the designer labels, latest phones, not clearing credit every month, loans to buy shite new car's etc etc,,, live within Your Means.
Of course not. The media is basically there to stop you even thinking about this. We're all arguing over the definition of woman while 1 bed ex council flats are sold for 350k
Big thumbs up. I've been thinking along these lines for a while, but the way you've explained it is brilliant. You've filled in some blanks for me, but on the whole solidified and affirmed to me that my view is correct. It's a very sad situation.
Some essential resources should NOT be allowed to become privately-owned market-controlled commodities and thus profit should not be allowed to be made from them eg Housing, Public Transport, Energy, Water
actually, it's not necessary for public services running at a profit to be unusable for a large section of society. the world's most successful metro in many ways, Tokyo, is run for profit. and a huge chunk of the city uses it.
Thanks Gary. This is a good explanation. I particularly liked how you stated your grandfathers generation would be mortgage free by 40, your father half way by 40 and now the children might still have 80/90% on the mortgage at 40. Generational slippage
Land value tax and modern debt jubilee would solve the problem of u-earned income. Replace income tax and council tax with land value then gradually increase land value tax to get rid of the other regressive taxes.
Another reason people have bought is because since the loss of social house as an option there are are only two options left rent or buy. Social housing peaceful people from this and was therefore anti-inflationary for prices of renting and buying.
Great video. There is a another significant difference between paying rent and paying a mortgage though - in the latter you’re making capital repayments (which you’re essentially keeping, barring changing house prices) as well as the interest payments.
Thankyou soooooo much Gary you make everything so clear. And although I’m pretty left wing I’m very impressed and happy that you’re managing yo do this without publicly allying yourself to a political ideology
Hi Gary, amazing work, truly incredible. I hope to have a pint (most certainly not half a litre!) with you one day. You are a video version of Branko Milanovic 🙂 - I'm sure you must have come across his work about inequality in a more global sense. I see a lot of doom and gloom in the comments, just because the messenger is showing us a mirror of our society. It's called Feudalism - started in UK soon after 1066 (and the rest of Europe around that time), as a BETTER economic form than chaotic tribal/communal life before the Norman conquest. Feudalism was and is a stable system for many centuries. Capitalism in UK always had very strong feudal undertones, and as return on capital dwindled, it simply reverts back to pure feudalism. Nothing unusual is happening, this is merely regression toward the mean. People working very hard all day with no rights, just to eat and stay warm in a rented room - this is humanity for thousands of years. World and life doesn't end in feudalism - it just remains the same, grim and stable for centuries. If you're over 40 and poor, it's a bit late to ask where you went wrong - you know it best. Good luck. You will NOT be able to change the society, you can only spend time on politics if you're loaded, or very driven, or very ideological. You can do that in your SPARE time. If you still have health and drive, here is what a poor individual CAN do, while waiting for "the world to become fair": 1. do your best to have knowledge/abilities with added value. Any profession that takes years to master and get better at - work it, and you will earn a little more than the next serf. A little more than an Uber or delivery driver. Perhaps much more! 2. do your best to find the best possible wife/husband. This is the most important decision if you live in a developed country. The significant other that you can respect, rely on, and devout your life to. Be ready to change, be ready to compromise, to work on yourself, to be the best person you can be, to find the best person you can. A couple can be so much more than two individuals on their own. 3. Chose a country to live in that fits YOU. If you live in underdeveloped country (India, Pakistan, Nigeria...) - parts of UK are becoming just that - relocating to a prosperous economy fitting for your skills is probably even more important than finding the best partner. If you're a dentist or veterinarian, it's very good to be in UK. But if you're a chemistry teacher, it's terrible. But it's good to be a teacher in France! If you are at the bottom of marketable skills, a European social democracy will cater to you MUCH, MUCH better than highly unequal country like UK. If on the other hand you have no family but a lot of skills, you might thrive in even more unequal societies, like South Africa or Dubai/Singapore etc. But... if you're not ready to toil and learn new skills, not ready to change a country, and not ready to be the best partner possible to get a competent wife/husband... then all there is left is crying and voting for far right/left fanatics who promise to take money from "somebody else" and give it to you. Rinse/repeat until death in misery. And this - this is not because feudalism, it is not because the elites are screwing the poor (which they have been for centuries all over the world, and will continue for ever), it is because you've had it so good and so comfy that you became entitled. Things just 'belong' to you, you're invoking the 'passport privilege'. "I am British/American/French, so I have a right to this and that, like my parents". Well, wake up and smell the coffee. There is no 'British right' anymore, it is an insignificant country in a violent and chaotic world where might is right, and nothing will be given to you if you're not ready to take it by force. This is why Gary is trying to make you politically aware and active. The class war is not raging, it's already over and you've lost. But you can still mitigate the consequences - things will be bad, but they can be just slightly bad, or really, really bad. If this was too long to read, if you just need a video to passively watch... then your biggest problem is you.
Fundamentally it’s comes down to this. There are only 3 legal ways to make money. 1. Work, so money for your time. 2: transfer via rent sell goods, assets, services, convincing another party to transfer, etc. 3: make it, print it (banking and interest). Aside from stealing there is no other way.
I saw a video of a guy criticizing the calculation of UK interest not actually measuring mortgages and using rent as a reference. In my pessimistic, destined to always rent mind, I thought along the same lines as this video. If the majority is Buy to Let; what's the difference?
Hi Gary.... sold bungalow couldn't afford as single.... rent a lovely housing association ground floor corner flat..£400 pm.... paid all debts then bought ALL new furniture etc.... it was a wise choice ...x
Hey Gary just got done with your audiobook and man, I couldn't put it down! The concept you talk about, with the ultra-rich squeezing out the middle class by shrinking assets, it's a real eye-opener. We've gotta figure out a way to stop that train wreck! For us regular folks, maybe the best bet is to try and find cheap rental properties, toss our cash into index trackers, and cross our fingers for that sweet compound interest magic to kick in. Hopefully, down the line, we'll have enough assets to break free from the grip of the wealthy elite. In terms of house prices what if we shook things up with a massive housing building programme ? Could that help stabilise housing prices, at the very least? It's kinda crazy how in British media and society, if food or fuel prices spike, it's bad, but when housing costs soar, it's somehow celebrated. Housing is a primary need. You only have to look at the French Revolution to see what happens when appress the poor for long enough.. Anyway thanks for writing what is fantastic book and making great content on here.
When was it, in western society made illegal? Even in societies where interest is proscribed, workarounds developed to permit lenders to profit from lending... In the Christian tradition, I think the "parable of the talents" says all we need know about profiting on loans, and the story of JC turning over the money changers' tables in the temple tells another, slightly different one. If you want to get rid of interest, you will have to get rid of inflation, too, and investments in precious metals, rare artefacts, artwork...
how does one do it then? because as it stands now, lenders take risk with their money. does one just agree a higher price later? borrow 1 and repay1.3? what if the payment is late? maybe just add linearly adjusted for inflation rather than compounded?
@@snorttroll4379 No, I'm saying stop lending and/or borrowing money. Period. Financing can still be found for start-ups, but you'll just be sacrificing ownership, (potential future income) rather than incurring a feudal style indentured servitude to your master because he had the resources required for the business.
The corollary to all this is that you can do well for yourself by getting on the other side of the equation: use that little bit of downpayment to buy a rentable place (tenant or even roommate), which will reduce your living expense by offsetting the mortgage payment (in whole or in part). And also enjoy the (probable) upside of a highly-leveraged asset appreciation.
The parasitical nature of rent i think can just about be grasped by most people. But how do you address the counter argument that some people have worked hard to afford property which they then want to rent out, or built business etc?. Why is that wrong? My view to this is that yes these people have worked hard, but so do most of the population. A friend told me that rich people deserve to be rich because they have 'worked smarter'. Again i think its bs. The ideology of trickle down economics is interesting because it serves to justify the system that produces inequality, and actually destroys the economy.
Since watching you I have been inspired to educate myself on the inequality we have in these countries that we live. The best book I have read is '33 myths of the system' by Darren Allen. Well worth a look Gary.
Gary is a national treasure, make no mistake. I'll express that same sentiment in a different way: Gary Stevenson Future of the UK - 100%; Rishi Sunak Future of the UK - 0%. It's that crass. Whether Starmer understands any of this, I have no idea.
Thank you Gary, as an ex self-employed I quickly realised, I was not self-employed, Capitalism is a dark horse, Please help spread the word, Lets stop this Treadmill,
Hi ! Love what you’ve done! It’s fantastic to see someone like you putting back in to this great community. I am just a factory worker with a strong understanding of finance. I think with good life choices and being sensible you can become financially secure. My wife and I have banked over 1.5m in total investments by learning about money from people like you! I do have to say as I understand there is a big issue in the pipeline with trust funds that been badly set up. As I understand there is 2.5 million trust fund’s set up which are not legally secure. Which could mean massive tax bills for people. I would love to hear more from you about this.
But how it's created matters. Profit is produced by workers working for less than the value of our labour. Therefore we can impact profit through industrial action which gives us our most powerful political and economic weapon. Don't ignore that folks. Therein lies our route to ending this BS system
The value comes partly from framework of the business. Tools and methods and facilities. If you are out of that framework your effectiveness is close to zero. The value is only within system. If you can make The same outside the firm then go for it.
The next step would be to solidify that system directly into work: add democracy to work itself. Elect your managers and your boss. Decide your boss's yearly bonus, decide how you get bonuses and how much. Decide how to do necessary but dangerous work. Get rid of the unelected people (dictators) at the top that increasingly make our lives more unequal.
Have any of you ever ran a business? Or even had a business go bankrupt? Honestly it not quite as simple as big greedy boss exploits workers and sits in their chair smoking fat cigars whilst poor old worker is ground to a pulp. The reality of running a business is sleepless nights, chasing people that owe you money, dealing with all sorts of workers problems, dealing with difficult clients, constantly paying loads of different taxes (PAYE, VAT, Corporation Tax, Business rates, levies that your obligated to pay etc)
Thanks for the info Gary. Unfortunately, the system is inherently flawed and will always be. My solution would be an ideological shift to a resource based economy, using sustainable materials with local sourcing where possible, making things to last using modular tech and the best materials rather than unreliable plastic products for profit. Managing biodiversity, protecting ecosystems and having communal tools, transport and housing for those without. Providing a healthy, happy, thriving society for all with local management from communities, towns, counties all the way up to countries.
@@goych It's inherently flawed, even if you change things it will just drift back. It's inherent to have a poverty gap and the powerful continually manipulating the system for their own ends. Money is simply a construction, not a real resource - we are social animals and need a system that thrives on cooperation as opposed to competition. Inequality always leads to exploitation and a continual cycle of the 99% being subservient to the 1%. While the 1% game the system and are virtually free from consequences - to the point where we risk the future of the species...
Great analysis and translation for those who have not read Marx. However one thing to add about why you should buy if you can is that rents tend to inflate over time and eventually your house will be paid off. If you lock in a mortgage for 30 years your payment will stay the same over that 30 years and you can pass that to your children paid off.
That last part is so important.
Our parents thought they were doing better, not knowing they were screwing their children over.
The illusion of improvement.
Totally agree, the last 2 minutes are vital to understanding the modern economy.
....I think they knew they were screwing over the next generation. I just don't think they cared. I think the Boomers are a selfish bunch.
I hear this rhetoric a lot, but why do you think it's your parents who have screwed you over and not the system?
I'm really glad this crackhead explained how economics works... otherwise I wouldn't have been able to understand very obvious things about money.
@@BillClinton228 if it's so obvious that things are going down the drain why isn't anyone talking about it? Don't you think the progressive enslavement of humanity deserves at least a conversation?
Feels like we are in the late stages of a multi generational game of Monopoly, we are at the point when one or two players have too much money flowing to them for anyone to have much of a chance. Each new generation is coming to the game when hotels are already established on every tile and there is a minimal and shrinking amount of opportunity. At some point the game is just gonna seize up because there is nothing left to be bled from the lower/middle earners when everything they have a realistic chance to earn is not enough to cover the debts demanded of them to simply exist in society by the rich.
i saw another youtube person saying about the game of monopoly, i agree the game must be close to the end
Human ingenuity applied to extracting wealth will find new ways to screw those without wealth over. If more people were familiar with economic history from the invention of finance and debt would realise that. This time is just a rerun of the same economic conflicts between those who rely on working for a living, the state, and the asset wealthy. Michael Hudson, an American Economic Historian has written about Debt in ancient to modern times. He's here on UA-cam. He's written books and articles about how Debt - known as Rentier Economics - from the beginning has been a destabilising force in societies, nations, and empires from the beginning. For example, the first extant legal code in history - The Code of Hammurabi - mentions laws to control the destabilising effects of Debt on Hammurabi's empire, by the use of a Debt Jubilee. We like to think we've progressed since those times, but in finance the perverse incentives still exist, because wealth provides power and influence. Check Michael Hudson out, as the more things change, the more they stay the same.
workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose except your chains.
The actual rule is monopoly is: The Bank never “goes broke.” If the Bank runs out of
money, the Banker issues IOUs for whatever amounts are required by writing the amount on a piece of paper. IOUs
can be exchanged for cash whenever cash is available; otherwise they are simply counted in the assets of the player holding them.
The same is true in the real world, banks/governments simply devalue the currency.
ProTip: It doesn't end, the cycle is repeated roughly every 90 years. So you won't be here to tell future generations and humans have short memories.
Cheers
Exactly! And the game of Monopoly is a complete equality of opportunity - exact same starting money and position _(though I suppose some players do sit closer to the bank...)_
So true. So much of our culture includes competition between "homeowners" and "renters" where we should really feel more solidarity between us when we are largely being screwed by the same super wealthy class.
Exactly this. We need to re-engineer our social relations.
@@altGoolam The only way to do that is to develop more awareness of what happens every time we open our wallets - it is a vote either for good or for not so good. Most don't understand money as a voting system. We are the ones making others rich, not themselves or the government. Home ownership is key to deciding where the majority of your income goes. When you own your own home, you keep your income, in the most part.
Yep. I'm a homeowner and I'm livid at how bad things are for renters, especially those in increasingly desperate situations. A massive sea-change is needed if we value our collective living standards and, tbh, basic human dignity.
I believe taking responsibility is an important part of my character where there really is choice. However, the idea of "voting with your money" often falls short when addressing societal issues. It places responsibility on the individual for things that can't be dealt with through individual actions alone. It's not that we are voting to make others rich, it is that we are structurally coerced into it. There is no free choice here. I can't, personally, chose to buy a house outright with cash or to get a mortgage because I can't afford it. I can either rent or be homeless. Nor can I buy food or energy without paying the rich person who owns the infrastructure that produces it.
If someone comes up to you and forces you to give money to a rich person, are you voting for it?
Similarly, if a political and economic system forces you to give rent/interest/profits to the rich, are you voting when you give them that money?
This rhetorical tool has been used as to hide the structural - not individual - causes of problems in society, and hence shift blame and responsibility. It's a smokescreen to keep our eyes focused on where we are powerless. The rich are saying *"Look! Over there! That's where your power is! It's in the **_free_** market!"* It isn't.
Edit: @HorseSaddleRider
@@theowhite you couldn’t have put it better. Structural coercion is precisely the right way to describe it.
From someone who bought a house who was previously stuck renting for 15 years while saving, there is also a big difrince in QOL not having to rely on someone else to sort out problems (washing machine broke, fence blew down) which they ignore for months, you can't decorate or fix your TV on a wall, you get told what kind of pets you are or aren't allowed, and you can get kicked out for any reason with two months notice so you never really feel secure, so long as you have money to pay for your repayments and repairs you feel much more secure and fulfilled in your own home.
This, I think people are ignoring a huge host of factors that drive people towards home ownership in this country as compared to places like Germany. We currently rent, we hide our cat from the landlord, the house has an awful dirty old carpet that the landlord won’t replace and we have no idea when we’ll get served an eviction notice. It simply isn’t worth the toll on your mental health to rent in the Uk
Yep, if you have kids you don't have to worry about cost of relocating, changing schools .etc if you can't afford anywhere else in the local area. You can actually change your home & make improvements to suit your living needs.
Even things like heat pumps and solar panels to reduce your energy bills long-term, while for a rented home, it's worth nobody's while to do that. So it's an ecological disaster too.
I rent from an institutional landlord and have none of these issues. MY QOL would reduce from owning my shelter bc I'd have to fix everything and pay. All I have to do I call my landlord and they fix it the next day bc they benefit from economies of scale.
@@dlc2479 Until the landlord gets fed-up with the tenant who won’t stop complaining and issues them an eviction notice. I know a mother who was evicted for complaining about issues with her house, and she was a conveyancer who was well aware of her rights.
I don't want to be paying rent when I'm a pensioner. That is totally money down the drain.
There are very few "smart" people in the world who actually make any sense. You are one. I hate finance, like really hate it, but I can listen to you talk for days.
I pray Gary’s content doesn’t get removed/silenced ❤️best financial educator on the net
why would it? wholesome content.
@@keirdoubasbecause the rich do not want the peasants to know.
Geez... Your message is so important. Maybe there is nothing the average person can actually do but becoming aware has got to be the first step. Thanks Gary.
And also even when mortgage people make a profit from the sale of their homes, you still have to buy a place to live again after in a more expensive market.
Work together.
Live together.
Thanks for your amazing choice of where to apply your work time Gary.
You’re on a national treasure trajectory for sure 👍
It’s always annoyed me the the worst paid pay the most interest. So say I wanted to buy a car and it’s £25000 I pay back maybe £32k but if a rich person buys it, they just pay £25k back. Same with houses and even small stuff like insurance. I pay monthly so costs more. This makes it harder for ordinary ppl to get out of a cycle of debt. Everything is more expensive the less you earn. Madness
Great video again Gary I enjoy listening to you and I’m looking forward to the book
Save up and buy a car for £2500 rather than borrowing for the £25k one and you'll be a bit closer to becoming 'rich'
@@suvvx900There are (perhaps were is more accurate) exceptions. In 1993, I needed a car. I saw a Fiesta advertised in a national paper at a great price, though it was advertised by a london dealer... I bumbled into the local Ford dealership, and asked if they would match the advertised price... They said yes, and I also negotiated for rubber mats, mudflaps and a tow bar to be thrown in (not fitted, but thrown in)
But, I couldn't have a cash discount, nor could I pay the price in cash. The only deal I could have was pay 20% down, pay £100 a month for two years, and pay the balance off at a particular time two years hence... I think I paid £900 down, £2,400 in payments, and £1,200 balloon payment, £4,500 in total, the list price of the car...Meanwhile, the cash I'd have happily paid at the outset was on deposit with the Halifax for two years, attracting interest, the payments were made out of income... And
When I went into the dealership, with my chequebook, to pay off the balloon payment, the staff had to work out how to accept my payment... They expected people to roll over the first car as deposit for another...
I bought an Escort, later that year (keeping the Fiesta) on the same scheme. £8,350 car paid for over 2 years, 0% interest. £1,700 down, £200 a month, about £1,800 balance in two years. Wouldn't discount for cash, but I got mats, flaps, and a discounted towbar this time... And a 1,400 engine instead of a 1,300? Same problem at the end of the term, paying the balance, they didn't know how...
When my wife went in to replace the Fiesta with a Ka, they couldn't find anyone to speak to her... So we kept the Fiesta a long time. And the 95 Escort until 2002, when I got £800 trade in against a van... So the Escort cost under £1,000 a year, and never had any major issues, just consumables to pay for...
I generally, though, pay cash. It's done and dusted, but, with payments outstanding on a new car, the buyer can pressurise the finance company and the dealership to get their act together and fix them...
@@suvvx900 doesn’t change the principle that the more you have, the more you can make
Probably the banks want the rich person to take out a larger debt leverage thus getting the same return from them
@@suvvx900 but what if I have kids I need to drive to kindergarten, a 1h commute to work and a job that requires a personal car?
Should I just not buy a car, get fired, and not bring my kids to kindergarten?
"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. " - Terry pratchett, Men at Arms
If you need boots you cant just "not buy boots"
Thank you Gary for taking the time to explain how economics work. It is great that you understand how the average person out here like myself, needs to hear your analysis more than once, of how wealth works and is used . I believe that changes to this unnequal system will have to come from the ground up, with help from you and others like yourself.🤔😇xxx again big thank you x
Thanks Gary, I’m watching from Canada. I sure hope other Canadians are watching because this message is desperately needed here!
@capri2673 We have no major party that advocates taxing wealth. The so-called "socialist" party, the NDP has spent the last 20 years trying strenously to prove how "fiscally responsible" they are, i.e. by cutting taxes (sometimes) and freezing or cutting spending. I would love for an actual leftist party to appear, or for the NDP to go back to its leftist roots! Whatever taxes are added, are always added on work, not on wealth as Gary advocates.
Conservative Party is even worse
Another Canadian here - we are fckt
Canadian, too. Couldn't agree more 😢
Complete G! This is the sprit... ''we're going to keep talking about it untill we understand it.''
My dad always used to lecture us on the concept of "dead money", money that you spent but had nothing in your hand to show for it. He was focused on rent of not just houses, but stuff in the house too (paying on the never never). It was a bit more basic than the point here, but it did a lot to show me the futility of renting assets or money and the importance of not getting in debt.
Thank you for the educational message, everyone should be mindful of how modern society is relying on debt to pay not only essential things like a house, but also cars, phones, TVs and coffee machines. People need to take a step back and re-evaluate their needs otherwise they will be slaves of the system all their lives!
The education is more valuable than school . If only people open there ears and listen . That's why you were given 2 ears and 1 mouth . Brilliant advice. . Paul Dublin Ireland
Haha! People who “choose” to rent. There are those, but generally, they prove the rule.
That said, no shade on Gary - he’s the man! Thanks again for this.
The one thing I'm proud of in my daft life is that I was able to buy a home outright. Life without a mortgage/landlord is playing on the easy setting.
How did you go about it?
Left the UK after university. Worked long days with no holidays for several years. Saved my money and finally bought a home. I didn't get on the property ladder, I bought a home and kept it. It's the old story, hard work and sacrifices with a goal in mind.@@WilliamAhlert
Nice!
@@geishasha Hi. I see people (elderly now) who bought very modest homes, raised 4 - 6 children in shared rooms, and now still have their home in their older ages.
I see people (elderly now) who bought and sold, bought and sold, bought and sold expensive homes in areas where elderly do not have transportation and other services were missing. They could not stay, and now have to pay exorbitant rent (eating away at any money they had from the sales of their lifetime's homes).
I think aging at home in a small paid off home (for many years) is the way to go. Congrats geishasha on buying a home and keeping it.
Good luck to us all.
My reply to you has vanished!@@WilliamAhlert
Brilliantly explained! I had never drawn the line between the 3 before being the same in regards to wealth transfer, love your educational stuff ❤
To be rich / not poor, you need to be self sufficient. Housing, food, water, electricity, communications, transport.
House prices have always gone up. My first house was built 1930s cost 1,670 . I bought it in 1996 for 210,000 . Now worth just over 1 million. It's not the value of the house that's changing it's the value of money. 210k was a lot of money in 1996.... A Roman senator's Togo cost an ounce of gold 2,000 years ago. A US senator's quality suite would cost around an ounce of gold today. Money is devaluing slowly and some times quickly. If you're not on the money train you're going backwards ... A millionaire used to be high high value. Not anymore......
Love your stuff Gary. A real education and thought provoking ❤️👍🙃
All prices are going up, that's called inflation. When economists are talking about house prices going up, what they mean is that *real,* that is, inflation-adjusted house prices are going up. In other words, houses are becoming more and more expensive relative to people's incomes.
And you should know this. You're talking about a house that went from 210,000 to 1,000,000 over the last 28 years. Based on inflation alone -- I don't know where you are, I used the U.S. CPI Inflation Calculator at www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm -- it should have gone up to only 417,000. That means that its *real* price went up by a factor of 2.4.
House prices are rising much faster than inflation. When young people today are complaining it's much harder for them to become homeowners than it was for their parents or grandparents, *they are right.*
Deluded, everything is inflated but house prices are second only to executive salaries. Goods and services inflation is vey high but not in the same ball park. Wage inflation is way behind
Thank you Gary, for continuing to expose the truth, and keeping us informed!!
Except he will make up anything he can it seems to further his own agenda lol
@@Garycarlyle and what's your agenda Gary? To stay being on the wrong end of the inequality stick? Lol
He's stating the bleeding obvious. There is no 'exposure'.
@@Garycarlyle What’s the agenda? Please let us know
@@davelab6
Well said Dave. Gary's Economics is exposing the huge inequality within our society. His agenda is to create a fairer society, and improve the lives of the many. Not increase the wealth of the ultra wealthy, at our expense!!
Good morning Gary. Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge. Your wisdom and words are very relevant.
Although I have a master degree in economics, I am really grateful for your videos and mission. You're absolutely right, this is not being taught at universities neither explained in the (financial) media.
One aspect that is missing here is where the value is coming from. Say you bought a house and you are building equity. Where is that equity coming from? It's not coming from your work, you are not generating wealth. The house is doing nothing either, it's just standing there. It's the value of the land that goes up. And why it goes up? Because the whole community is working hard and improving. So you are capturing the value generated by the community. So that build up in equity is itself a form of rent that the community pays to you, as the owner of the asset.
Thank you! The last two videos have been bangers! Valuable concepts. I love the big picture, macro point of view. This is where our problems are
Another analogy: You can go to a tool hire shop and hire a mower. While you are using the mower you pay hire charges. When you no longer need the mower you return it to the shop.
Alternatively, you could go to a money hire shop (AKA bank) and hire some money. While you are using the money you pay a hire charge (AKA interest). They will probably let you return the money in installments.
Not only is most of your salary going towards paying to access the assets owned by the wealthy, but it's also paid to you on the basis that you create surplus value for the wealthy in your work
they took the risk. you did not. but yes. more development should be done.
Best financial decision I’ve ever made was to buy a property. I was afraid of loosing my “freedom” and be a mortgaged debtor but could not be happier after two years. Rent and house prices skyrocketing but, for the first time in my life, I’m not taking part on it. I have a fixed interest rate, able to pay, and I own it which means I can do whatever I want with it: pets, painting, renovations…and the feeling of going “home”.
I would say the distinction lies in how many steps removed from productive activity your income is. Productive activity produces goods and services. Profit is the first step towards parasitism. It usually pretends to be a service like management. Rent is the next step, where ownership of something that was produced is used to generate income. Interest is when you yourself don't own anything productive, but you're investing in someone or some company that does.
For the wealthy there is zero distinction.
The last one can be called profit, if you've bought shares in such companies (rather than lending money to them).
The poorer you are the more people you get extracting profit, you rent a flat you are paying for your landlord and the landlords mortgage lender and the mortgage lenders shareholders on top of the thing you actually want which is space in a building.
Income derived from a company producing goods or services is absolutely contributing to productivity rates, regardless of how far removed you are from it, aside from extreme cases. But income derived from static assets that do not generate work or employment is indeed parasitic. EG: Owning shares contributes to businesses, investment, wages, growth and, yes, profits. But owning a house and charging the value + profit in rent is parasitic. It's disgusting that the UK has soooo much of its national wealth tied up in property. If we had proper taxation to encourage business investment instead, we'd have a much more propserous and hopeful nation.
@@matthale5526 As the government counts the full amount of each house sale in GDP figures (economic growth), it benefits them to encourage this house price inflation further and further.
The phrase 'housing ladder', banks' buy-to-let mortgage offerings, various TV shows and newspapers focussed on buying and selling houses, all contribute to the national obsession - with average people becoming quickly priced out.
Just 3/4 the way through listening to your book on Audible. As well as the obvious brilliant life/financial aspect of it - really finding your Scouse, Japanese, American and various European accents top notch and raising a big smile every time from me 😀👍
Well articulated Gary. But all the parties have to promise to maintain the status quo in order to get elected.They will only change policies if they 100% have to.
All about applying that pressure then🔥🔥🔥
Moral of the story- Without money, you’re screwed!
Without self-owned assets, more rather
It’s deeper than that though isn’t it? Isn’t Gary essentially saying that rent and interest are the cause of wealth inequality? I’ve not seen the video where Gary outlines his proposed solutions for wealth inequality but I’m guessing that ownership of residential property for any other reason than living in it will either be prohibited or taxed at such a high rate as to make it a totally unattractive option. I’m waiting.
I think its really important for people to know how assets work. Gary makes a very good job explaining it. Its crazy that there are economost that forget that
They dont forget it. If they spoke the truth they would lose their jobs.
It's not that economists forget, they all know, but their job is to deceive the public for the benefit of their benefactors.
Appreciate the clear explanations, Gary! Your video on the similarity between rent, profit and interest is a game-changer in understanding economic concepts. Keep up the excellent work!
Yes let's keep talking about it til we understand and overcome it. Thank you Gary for getting the conversation going 🙏 ❤
Everyone needs to like and share Garys video. Spread the word and let’s take down the wealthiest in society.
How do we take them down without social reform or full-on anarchy?
Sharing a few vids that tbf, are stating the bleeding obvious? Don't see it myself.
I voted for Corbin, "just" because I was ready for a different type of politician. If Jezza, Sanders & who ever else on the far left political specturm won't get a sniff due to right-wing MSM attack pieces etc, shit will never change.
Gary should move into politics if he wants to really help, educate & try & change the system
It's essentially how you gain money in life:
Interest - owning cash
Rent - owning property
Profit + dividends - owning companies
Brilliant clear explanation, thanks Gary. One trivial point: why does everyone refer to mortgage buyers as house owners? They are not house owners, they are house buyers, as many have recently learned.
I've often wondered this as well. It's probably because you are the legal owner of the house, if you buy with a mortgage.
Agreed, it's a convenient misnomer. Just like most cars on the road are bought on finance, the driver is merely the registered keeper, not the legal owner. People are tricked into thinking they own thier biggest assets, but if they involve finance they don't at all.
Erm, because they ARE owners. Their name is on the title deeds from the day of completion.
Bank rent. Co owner with bank
What you said relates more or less to what Henry George had pointed out over 2 centuries ago in Progress and Poverty: that economic growth, infrastructure, and population growth tend to make land values go up, which of course disproportionately benefits the landowning class at the expense of the landless, and unless such accrued land values are adequately taxed (with a land value tax, which almost got implemented by David Lloyd-George and good ol' Winston back in his older Whig days but got blocked by the Tories) increasing inequality and poverty would be an almost inevitable outgrowth of prosperity.
What creates the economic growth in the first place? They also bare all of the risk. Left wing economists love talking about profits but the minute you ask them about losses they start squirming. Sharing profits sounds fantastic until you mention the other side of the coin. Redistribution of losses. If a company makes a loss do you think it would be morally correct or appropriate for the company to redistribute said loss to the worker? Imagine receiving your paycheck to find £0.00 for a months work and when you ask your boss they simply reply “oh we made a loss this month sorry”. You get paid for the work you have done regardless of what happens to the company that’s what makes it justified the same cannot be said for the owner. If you want to talk about theft of surplus value let’s talk about taxation…
@@creatorbens read Progress and Poverty 🤓
@@user-yv4fp4do8m in all of those scenarios you still get paid at the end of the day so you didn’t really disprove my point. No one is walking away with a psycheck that says 0 or that’s in the negative.
Sorry? What happened in aftermath to the 2008 banking crisis? Weren't the bank losses socialised? And it's "bear", not "bare" Carry, as opposed to denude... And...Capitalists can close a company that's performing quite reasonably, strip it of its assets, because that way offers quicker returns, (may even reduce the competition in an area they are active in) but they've made the erstwhile employees the responsibility of the state... (socialising that responsibility) Capitalists/industrialists can run a business into the ground, declare bankruptcy, bugger off with severance payments... and the cost of reinstating the contaminated land upon which steel was made, or oil refined, or coal was won (say) is socialised... The Phoenix Four and MG Rover? The Civil servants that took over Quinetiq and became millionaires overnight? That was OK, taking public assets to make private profit, I suppose...
@@creatorbens
@@robertlawson8572 as you yourself just noted that’s not capitalism so I’m not entirely sure why you’re attributing it to capitalism. We shouldn’t be bailing out any businesses. It undermines the core function of capitalism. Competition. Somewhat ironically speaking of the 2008 financial crisis it highlights exactly why markets are essential to a healthy economy and you shouldn’t artificially prop things up. It was caused and somewhat ironically “solved” I’m not sure i’d use that word postponed is probably a more fitting word by artificially propping assets up that should’ve failed.
Early libertarians(who support the most extreme form of capitalism laissez faire capitalism) highlighted concerns about the exact thing you just mentioned when it comes to state intervention. Monopolies are not inherently bad in fact they are great providing they are earned. They are bad when they are not earned and instead they are given by the state through bailouts or another example the state giving private banking institutions(fun fact your central banks are private) control over the issue of currency or the state controlling which companies have access to funding via stock market etc
However a renter also bears risk as the mortgage holder passes on cost rises (whether sue to interest hikes and/or costs of repairs) to the renters - often by a larger percentage than said rises/costs. So the mortgage holder benefits from the increase in value, and passes on costs to the renters.
Thanks Gary, lets educate ourselves and wake up so that we can rise up and do something good for the vast majority who are living in challenging conditions.
Thanks, Gary, you just answered about 10 of my questions all in one video. Thanks man
im literally addicted to this channel . respect
On the rent / mortgage debate it is probably worth adding that with a repayment mortgage you are investing into a property and paying interest. However, you could chose to pay just rent and invest in something else, say the stock market, and if compared in that way using a standard index fund you may very well be better off having invested in stock rather than a home. So that it’s always better to buy than rent needs to considered in a more comparable context.
@@JHBEM Very true. In many markets appreciation can be very slow so the equity that we build in our house can be somewhat limited by the money that you’re investing into it by paying off the mortgage. When you consider the long term cost of property taxes, house insurance and general maintenance/upkeep not to mention the possibility of your labour to complete upgrades/repairs to the house it can be a very costly endeavour. When we sell generally we are doing that through a real estate agent and that also costs a significant amount. I still believe that investing in rental houses is a fantastic way to build wealth, especially if your overhead will be covered plus some cash flow if possible. Renting is a great option if you are also investing your money in other places.
Yep... my dad is the peak of our family tree financially. At my age he had 4 properties. Never had a mortgage over £35k. I am poorer and live in a house too small for my family. I own it/mortgage but I'm not prepared to take more debt for a bigger house.
Why 4 houses?
Just wanted to say thankyou gary i,ve understood how these systems work but only vaguely and the way you explain them helps me to be angry and thats a good thing more power to you young man keep going.
Hi Gary. Thank you for the absolutely brilliant content! Never have I found anybody who was better at explaining the ever increasing feeling of pressure many of us live with every day, while being force fed some narrative that we can also join wealth club if we're just innovative / hard working / smart enough. Collective economic gaslighting to keep people from seeing that the system is fundamentally unjust.
Nice one Gary ,this ,if it were taught in schools would change the face of finances throughout the country so you can see why its not!.Cant wait to get your book in my mitts butty.
Thank u Gary u are really helping me understand finances .
This is why we need community & public ownership of utilities, trains, public transport etc as they do in other countries because life will just continue to get more expensive with shareholders in the picture
Don't expect it from Labour. It was what "Thatcher's greatest achievement" was all about. see also Clause IV
Governments do the same thing whenever they can. Thing is, it's worse when the government does it because they can put you in prison or shoot you for non-compliance.
I'd rather deal with a free market where I can take my business elsewhere. Not some government mandated monopoly where I'm stuck with whatever horror show some bureaucrat picks out for me.
@@gemmapeter7173 what's clause 4?
Ok so you mean communism 😀 oxford dictionary definition of communism “a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs”. The common man doesn’t really know what he’s asking for. It’s really scary.
@@MatthewEGoldenthey get £18b a year in subsidy they were given away so we should just take them back
Really like what you're saying and really enjoyed your book. My only qualm being when you use the example of farmers or farm land. For the most part, there is very little difference to your average home owner paying rent or having a mortgage on their house. Many of us are asset rich but incredibly cash poor with absolutely negligible disposable income. Basically all we do is earn money to replace machinery or try to upgrade it to make out working life easier.
The difference being that farmers work on their 'house' to provide the income that pays the rent or mortgage rather than off site. Some have to work off site to supplement their farm income.
In your example I would wager that the overwhelming majority of active farmland is owned under mortgage or rental agreements. Huge huge swathes of land are own in trust by royalty and obscenely rich people like James Dyson who then either have it in long term tenancies or set up a farming company to operate the farming enterprise to provide tax relief for their massive business profits or inheritance.
The people making the biggest margin on every item of food you buy is the supermarket or processor. Which is more often than not, the same company.
My parents generation had final salary pension schemes, Free university education and affordable property. These have all largely gone. The consequence of this will be mass homelessness for people in there 60’s or older who can’t no longer work, don’t have adequate pension or own there property. Gary what do you think is the governments plan for this pending disaster?
I don't think the government actually have a plan. Their thinking is short-termist at best.
Governments act on short termism ie getting re-elected so they honestly dont care.
To Ignore it when they can. Status quo and all that.
Same as their plan for pothole repairs, probably.
Do your best not to depend on the government….
I liked the video before I hit play. That's how much confidence I have in this channel
Another interesting video from you Gary. The owners of assets also seem to own our Government and all avenues of politics and law making.
The multiple dwelling law is only one example. If you buy more than one dwelling in a transaction you’re actually able to avoid Stamp Duty??
Certainly not a law put in place for the average Jo or Joanna.
There is something missing from this for me, and that is the transfer of ownership of the asset.
The main reason for buying with a mortgage is that eventually you will own the asset. This should mean that it is more expensive per month than renting. The issue with renting is that is not any cheaper nowadays as the renter is paying the mortgage for the landlord, so your monthly payments will transfer of asset to the landlord not to you.
This is why, I feel the 2 ways of living in a property are not the same
Thanks Gary for sharing yet another interesting perspective. Btw, I fixed the link to your UA-cam channel on your Wikipedia page. Cheers from Bangalore, India.
Thanks boss!
You're an amazing UA-cam channel🎉
Highly appreciate these videos, you put into words things that I've been seeing in the street for a while now
Commenting for the algorithm, because i really want change in the UK
Totally agree 100% Gary. They are all the same thing. Only difference is their respective tax treatments which also affects value to the owner/recipient
PSome profits, interest and rent are earned or serve a legitimate function in incetivising productive output. Monopoly rents (or what economists call supernormal profits) are distinct in that they are 100% unearned, land rent is the most obvious and clear cut example, being 60% of UK wealth and 100% unearned.
A landowner gets 2 incomes, this unearned land rent and the return to the building which as a depreciating asset requires servicing (which requires investment and some labour). In a sane economy we would tax away all of the unearned portion of rent and only allow the earned portion to remain.
"They are so beyond clueless that they even don't know they are clueless" - this is the motte of the neototaliarianisme. Gary Stevenson said that.
It’s interesting how people see rents as so evil today, and long ago people used to view interest from loans as evil, so much so that it’s prohibited in some religions.
Are these things extortionate or just the best way to get things done?
Maybe it's because rents are so astronomically high?
I believe that in Germany they are not considering them so evil as they amount to much lower proportion of earnings (although it changes gradually towards higher rents).
I believe that recently many people have started considering interest evil due to rising interest rates...
It's all about the right balance.
If you pay 2% interest it's not extortionate as it doesn't hurt too much. The same if you pay 20% of your monthly income towards rent.
It's there any better way?
You can build council housing which means socialism, the history shows it doesn't work too well as even if it could seem cheaper, the quality suffers greatly as well as individual freedoms.
The rent you pay is usually much higher than the interest you'll pay on a mortgage. Also interest will fall over time as you pay off the mortgage, yet rent will likely go up with the price of a property.
To exploit others or not to exploit others, now is the question.
A question with a such a simple answer.
May I add inheritance tax is probably the biggest obstacle to passing wealth on generationally. Excellent video Gary. Can you give some thoughts about how shares in companies are affected by events such as BlackRock buying land in Ukraine or knock on effects of gas pipelines being destroyed, IMC, and shipping being diverted as a result of conflict etc...
You would be better telling them, ignore the designer labels, latest phones, not clearing credit every month, loans to buy shite new car's etc etc,,, live within Your Means.
We'll never hear this on the news which is a shame
Of course not. The media is basically there to stop you even thinking about this. We're all arguing over the definition of woman while 1 bed ex council flats are sold for 350k
Big thumbs up. I've been thinking along these lines for a while, but the way you've explained it is brilliant. You've filled in some blanks for me, but on the whole solidified and affirmed to me that my view is correct. It's a very sad situation.
Some essential resources should NOT be allowed to become privately-owned market-controlled commodities and thus profit should not be allowed to be made from them eg Housing, Public Transport, Energy, Water
Except they are.
What you gonna do?
if it requires someone elses work, it is not a right
actually, it's not necessary for public services running at a profit to be unusable for a large section of society. the world's most successful metro in many ways, Tokyo, is run for profit. and a huge chunk of the city uses it.
Welcome back Gary. Prescient as usual. Keep these coming. We need one sane voice out there!
Thanks Gary. This is a good explanation. I particularly liked how you stated your grandfathers generation would be mortgage free by 40, your father half way by 40 and now the children might still have 80/90% on the mortgage at 40. Generational slippage
Thank you, these are some of the lessons we ought to be teaching our school age children.
That passive income gets none-passive real quick if the house needs a new roof or the tenant stops paying.
Indeed. Unfortunately with all business ventures there is a degree of risk. A good tenant is to be treasured.
Land value tax and modern debt jubilee would solve the problem of u-earned income.
Replace income tax and council tax with land value then gradually increase land value tax to get rid of the other regressive taxes.
Another reason people have bought is because since the loss of social house as an option there are are only two options left rent or buy. Social housing peaceful people from this and was therefore anti-inflationary for prices of renting and buying.
*protected*
The end of that video was pretty sobering. Bring the bloody wealth tax in already!
Great video. There is a another significant difference between paying rent and paying a mortgage though - in the latter you’re making capital repayments (which you’re essentially keeping, barring changing house prices) as well as the interest payments.
if someone rents instead of paying capital repayments they could instead invest in stocks with that money and get a similar effect.
Thankyou soooooo much Gary you make everything so clear. And although I’m pretty left wing I’m very impressed and happy that you’re managing yo do this without publicly allying yourself to a political ideology
Option 4
The nice and kind moneybags person buys the house for the poor person outright no strings attached 😂
Love your work ❤
Hi Gary, amazing work, truly incredible. I hope to have a pint (most certainly not half a litre!) with you one day. You are a video version of Branko Milanovic 🙂 - I'm sure you must have come across his work about inequality in a more global sense.
I see a lot of doom and gloom in the comments, just because the messenger is showing us a mirror of our society. It's called Feudalism - started in UK soon after 1066 (and the rest of Europe around that time), as a BETTER economic form than chaotic tribal/communal life before the Norman conquest. Feudalism was and is a stable system for many centuries. Capitalism in UK always had very strong feudal undertones, and as return on capital dwindled, it simply reverts back to pure feudalism. Nothing unusual is happening, this is merely regression toward the mean. People working very hard all day with no rights, just to eat and stay warm in a rented room - this is humanity for thousands of years. World and life doesn't end in feudalism - it just remains the same, grim and stable for centuries.
If you're over 40 and poor, it's a bit late to ask where you went wrong - you know it best. Good luck. You will NOT be able to change the society, you can only spend time on politics if you're loaded, or very driven, or very ideological. You can do that in your SPARE time. If you still have health and drive, here is what a poor individual CAN do, while waiting for "the world to become fair":
1. do your best to have knowledge/abilities with added value. Any profession that takes years to master and get better at - work it, and you will earn a little more than the next serf. A little more than an Uber or delivery driver. Perhaps much more!
2. do your best to find the best possible wife/husband. This is the most important decision if you live in a developed country. The significant other that you can respect, rely on, and devout your life to. Be ready to change, be ready to compromise, to work on yourself, to be the best person you can be, to find the best person you can. A couple can be so much more than two individuals on their own.
3. Chose a country to live in that fits YOU. If you live in underdeveloped country (India, Pakistan, Nigeria...) - parts of UK are becoming just that - relocating to a prosperous economy fitting for your skills is probably even more important than finding the best partner.
If you're a dentist or veterinarian, it's very good to be in UK. But if you're a chemistry teacher, it's terrible. But it's good to be a teacher in France! If you are at the bottom of marketable skills, a European social democracy will cater to you MUCH, MUCH better than highly unequal country like UK. If on the other hand you have no family but a lot of skills, you might thrive in even more unequal societies, like South Africa or Dubai/Singapore etc.
But... if you're not ready to toil and learn new skills, not ready to change a country, and not ready to be the best partner possible to get a competent wife/husband... then all there is left is crying and voting for far right/left fanatics who promise to take money from "somebody else" and give it to you. Rinse/repeat until death in misery. And this - this is not because feudalism, it is not because the elites are screwing the poor (which they have been for centuries all over the world, and will continue for ever), it is because you've had it so good and so comfy that you became entitled. Things just 'belong' to you, you're invoking the 'passport privilege'. "I am British/American/French, so I have a right to this and that, like my parents". Well, wake up and smell the coffee. There is no 'British right' anymore, it is an insignificant country in a violent and chaotic world where might is right, and nothing will be given to you if you're not ready to take it by force. This is why Gary is trying to make you politically aware and active. The class war is not raging, it's already over and you've lost. But you can still mitigate the consequences - things will be bad, but they can be just slightly bad, or really, really bad.
If this was too long to read, if you just need a video to passively watch... then your biggest problem is you.
'the class war is over'. lol. You are in for a shock
Sociopath.
Fundamentally it’s comes down to this. There are only 3 legal ways to make money. 1. Work, so money for your time. 2: transfer via rent sell goods, assets, services, convincing another party to transfer, etc. 3: make it, print it (banking and interest).
Aside from stealing there is no other way.
I saw a video of a guy criticizing the calculation of UK interest not actually measuring mortgages and using rent as a reference.
In my pessimistic, destined to always rent mind, I thought along the same lines as this video. If the majority is Buy to Let; what's the difference?
Hi Gary.... sold bungalow couldn't afford as single.... rent a lovely housing association ground floor corner flat..£400 pm.... paid all debts then bought ALL new furniture etc.... it was a wise choice ...x
Thank you Gary. We are so busy on survival mode but stopping and listening to your insight is invaluable. Thank you 🙏
I will be here to listen & learn. Thank you Gary. ❤
Really interesting discussion of rent vs profit vs interest - had never really thought of it that way!
Hey Gary just got done with your audiobook and man, I couldn't put it down! The concept you talk about, with the ultra-rich squeezing out the middle class by shrinking assets, it's a real eye-opener. We've gotta figure out a way to stop that train wreck!
For us regular folks, maybe the best bet is to try and find cheap rental properties, toss our cash into index trackers, and cross our fingers for that sweet compound interest magic to kick in. Hopefully, down the line, we'll have enough assets to break free from the grip of the wealthy elite.
In terms of house prices what if we shook things up with a massive housing building programme ? Could that help stabilise housing prices, at the very least?
It's kinda crazy how in British media and society, if food or fuel prices spike, it's bad, but when housing costs soar, it's somehow celebrated. Housing is a primary need. You only have to look at the French Revolution to see what happens when appress the poor for long enough..
Anyway thanks for writing what is fantastic book and making great content on here.
Totally agree. We need to re-illegalise interest!
When was it, in western society made illegal? Even in societies where interest is proscribed, workarounds developed to permit lenders to profit from lending... In the Christian tradition, I think the "parable of the talents" says all we need know about profiting on loans, and the story of JC turning over the money changers' tables in the temple tells another, slightly different one.
If you want to get rid of interest, you will have to get rid of inflation, too, and investments in precious metals, rare artefacts, artwork...
how does one do it then? because as it stands now, lenders take risk with their money. does one just agree a higher price later? borrow 1 and repay1.3? what if the payment is late? maybe just add linearly adjusted for inflation rather than compounded?
@@snorttroll4379 No, I'm saying stop lending and/or borrowing money. Period. Financing can still be found for start-ups, but you'll just be sacrificing ownership, (potential future income) rather than incurring a feudal style indentured servitude to your master because he had the resources required for the business.
The corollary to all this is that you can do well for yourself by getting on the other side of the equation: use that little bit of downpayment to buy a rentable place (tenant or even roommate), which will reduce your living expense by offsetting the mortgage payment (in whole or in part). And also enjoy the (probable) upside of a highly-leveraged asset appreciation.
The parasitical nature of rent i think can just about be grasped by most people. But how do you address the counter argument that some people have worked hard to afford property which they then want to rent out, or built business etc?. Why is that wrong? My view to this is that yes these people have worked hard, but so do most of the population. A friend told me that rich people deserve to be rich because they have 'worked smarter'. Again i think its bs. The ideology of trickle down economics is interesting because it serves to justify the system that produces inequality, and actually destroys the economy.
Since watching you I have been inspired to educate myself on the inequality we have in these countries that we live.
The best book I have read is '33 myths of the system' by Darren Allen. Well worth a look Gary.
Who else got an advert for 'buying commercial property' after watching this video?
Gary is a national treasure, make no mistake. I'll express that same sentiment in a different way: Gary Stevenson Future of the UK - 100%; Rishi Sunak Future of the UK - 0%. It's that crass. Whether Starmer understands any of this, I have no idea.
Perhaps in a future video you could explain different systems that would provide generational improvements instead of the oresent system.
Thank you Gary, as an ex self-employed I quickly realised, I was not self-employed, Capitalism is a dark horse, Please help spread the word, Lets stop this Treadmill,
Thanks for sharing this Gary
Hi ! Love what you’ve done! It’s fantastic to see someone like you putting back in to this great community.
I am just a factory worker with a strong understanding of finance.
I think with good life choices and being sensible you can become financially secure.
My wife and I have banked over 1.5m in total investments by learning about money from people like you!
I do have to say as I understand there is a big issue in the pipeline with trust funds that been badly set up. As I understand there is 2.5 million trust fund’s set up which are not legally secure. Which could mean massive tax bills for people. I would love to hear more from you about this.
But how it's created matters. Profit is produced by workers working for less than the value of our labour. Therefore we can impact profit through industrial action which gives us our most powerful political and economic weapon. Don't ignore that folks. Therein lies our route to ending this BS system
The value comes partly from framework of the business. Tools and methods and facilities. If you are out of that framework your effectiveness is close to zero. The value is only within system. If you can make The same outside the firm then go for it.
The next step would be to solidify that system directly into work: add democracy to work itself. Elect your managers and your boss. Decide your boss's yearly bonus, decide how you get bonuses and how much. Decide how to do necessary but dangerous work. Get rid of the unelected people (dictators) at the top that increasingly make our lives more unequal.
Then the government lets people over in boats with free accommodation and discount labour rates..
Ffs 😢😢😢
@@weirdblackcatisn't that the British Cooperative Movement, which was too successful and politically attacked?
Have any of you ever ran a business? Or even had a business go bankrupt? Honestly it not quite as simple as big greedy boss exploits workers and sits in their chair smoking fat cigars whilst poor old worker is ground to a pulp.
The reality of running a business is sleepless nights, chasing people that owe you money, dealing with all sorts of workers problems, dealing with difficult clients, constantly paying loads of different taxes (PAYE, VAT, Corporation Tax, Business rates, levies that your obligated to pay etc)
I write here because you said the wonderful thing - YOU GUYES ARE SAWING THE VERY BRUNCH YOU ARE SITTING UPON.
Thanks for the info Gary. Unfortunately, the system is inherently flawed and will always be. My solution would be an ideological shift to a resource based economy, using sustainable materials with local sourcing where possible, making things to last using modular tech and the best materials rather than unreliable plastic products for profit. Managing biodiversity, protecting ecosystems and having communal tools, transport and housing for those without. Providing a healthy, happy, thriving society for all with local management from communities, towns, counties all the way up to countries.
Whilst the system is flawed why must it stay that way? Do you want it to?
@@goych It's inherently flawed, even if you change things it will just drift back. It's inherent to have a poverty gap and the powerful continually manipulating the system for their own ends. Money is simply a construction, not a real resource - we are social animals and need a system that thrives on cooperation as opposed to competition. Inequality always leads to exploitation and a continual cycle of the 99% being subservient to the 1%. While the 1% game the system and are virtually free from consequences - to the point where we risk the future of the species...
spot on@@steveparker8065
@@thomaswright7580 Thank you kind Sir!
@@steveparker8065 I agree but I don’t think most realise what they’re doing
Great analysis and translation for those who have not read Marx. However one thing to add about why you should buy if you can is that rents tend to inflate over time and eventually your house will be paid off. If you lock in a mortgage for 30 years your payment will stay the same over that 30 years and you can pass that to your children paid off.
Hi Gary