David Ricardo defined rent as, “that portion of the produce of the earth which is paid to the landlord for the use of the original and indestructible powers of the soil.” In his theory, rent is nothing but the producer’s surplus or differential gain, and it is found in land only. Bing search I would modify it to also be virtual land
@@JugglinJellyTake01 David Ricardo (18 April 1772 - 11 September 1823) was a British political economist, politician, and member of Parliament. He is recognized as one of the most influential classical economists, Bing search
@@JugglinJellyTake01 David Ricardo (18 April 1772 - 11 September 1823) was a British political economist, politician, and member of Parliament. He is recognized as one of the most influential classical economists
As much as I agree with everything said above, I find that, unfortunately people need to be oppressed in some way... Otherwise we would just turn on each other, how do you solve this problem?
He starts blaming Reagan and Thatcher and then gives evidence completely based on things that happened after they left office and/or died. It’s a really tired old game, and at this point, as soon as someone blames Reagan or Thatcher, I find they are soon going to twist logic and/or facts. He’d have done better to skip the bashing and I likely would have given his story more credence.
That was the premise of Capitalism from the start. "Common Good is evil and to get rich so that you can do whatever you desire is the only goal in life. A hamster wheel for humans. Aka the American Dream. The con of our era.
Recurring income. Subscription business models. Making your money make money. Making money while you sleep. Other people's money. Be your own bank. I heard all of THESE while I was going "self employed".
Excellent overview and summary of what's gone wrong over the last 50+ years. But one thing I'm unsure about... @2:24 he talks about the wealth going to the top 20%. But the elephant curve suggests otherwise. In fact, it shows those at the 80% point have seen the least growth of everyone. Furthermore, the last 1% - and the fractions within that 1% - have seen by far the largest growth. This is of course discussed among many economists and thinkers, and I'm not sure I'd put it all down to "journalistic simplicity". Anyone have any thoughts on that? Different outlooks? Or perhaps the fact that the elephant curve shows global stats, rather than UK/West? Or ???
politicians, in general, do not represent the people because corruption is legal in the U.S. this needs to stop. there is a solution and you can help represent (dot) us
People think the system is broken but they are wrong. The system is built on top of a system of money which is broken. The best system that is built on a foundation of bad money is just a system that incentivizes all the wrong things. That’s the system we have now. Fix the money and the system on top will fix itself.
it is likely prudent to follow the irony given that the money power successfully hides the paper trail. Irony is at least free, and therefore deserves a place in amongst the best things in life. All one needs to do to milk this abundance is , ., dunno, but I'm working on it.
Taxation has merely been assumed by property, finance and corporations. Algorithmic pricing will make this worse. Corporation have effectively set up a transaction tax which governments were too timid and short of technology to instigate. Now the tech is there excuses are running thing. TT can ensure that hoarded wealth pays its dues, but guess who is in charge!
Housing. Owner-occupation versus Landlording. I can’t think of a more understated ratio impacting housing. The conflict of interests, the bias, up and down power hierarchies keep this ratio under wraps. My intuition tells me that Humanity may never be free enough until banks stop lending to Landlords to outbid owner occupiers at home opens. Apart from new developments, existing housing supply - for all humanity - remains under perpetual threat from Bankrolling Landlords and large groups with interests in housing (including for warfare purposes). The ratio deserves more attention. Its effect on the environment remains hypothetical. By 2025, it ought to have been known. But even the environmentalists can have the same conflict of interests. How many politicians/environmentalists/scientists/university staff/real estate analysts disclose their conflicts of interest as Landlords? And could this explain the understatement of the ratio? Data will lead where is leads. My intuition is that it has the scope to lead to a Nobel Prize.
I’ve been talking about this for thirty years, the inherent flaw in capitalism is it never stays as capitalism, but becomes a capital led economy. And the rich are cute, with musk redirecting attention to UK grooming gangs, stoking immigrant tension. ( not that those topics don’t deserve some,) but none asks why is trillionaire Elon so interested? What is he misdirecting us from?
Terry Jones Barbarians 1 of 4 - The Primitive Celts (aired 2006) Terry Jones Barbarians: 2 of 4 - The Savage Goths Terry Jones Barbarians: 3 of4 - The Brainy Barbarian Terry Jones Barbarians: 4 of 4 - The End Of The World History may not repeat, but it may rhyme. If it rhymes, it may serve as a song, it may serve as story. As we know, history may serve as a rear-view mirror. The rear-view mirror gives us two perceptions: Awareness of what is behind/around and the anticipation of future... a vision of road to environment. What did J. R. R. Tolkien have to say about history? What did he say about story? What did he say about roads? Who are we? What are we? What will we become? What is implied when we take a road less traveled? Students get processed by Marshall McLuhan - Deconditioning Lecture [1969]
Alphabet made 45 Billion $ net company profit on the EU market, they paid zero $ tax. Meta made 12 Billion $ net company profit on the EU market, they paid zero $ tax. Apple made 14,5 Billion $ net company profit on the EU market, they paid zero $ tax.
Wealth is always a claim on other people. If financial wealth is growing relative to the size of the GDP, then that means claims on other people are growing relative to the size of the GDP. Which means... you certainly don't want to be the "other people" in this scenario. E.g., the value of rental property ULTIMATELY depends on how much rent is charged; the value of a government bond ULTIMATELY depends on the ability of taxpayers to make interest and principal payments; the value of a dividend growth stock ULTIMATELY depends on the ability of consumers to continue to buy more. And if global population growth slows, then that just means that those who actually are born will just have to pay MORE rent, interest, and dividends if that financial wealth is going to be sustained.
@@ProleDaddyNo. Your comment rests on the idea that if the system were truly deregulated it would balance itself, by the invisible hand of the market. That is magical thinking. A lack of regulation is what made it possible for wealth to compound wealth ad infinitum.
I’m confused by some of the comments?! Why does everyone assume capitalism is free markets. Markets exist outside of capitalism. And whether they are free or not is subjective. I thought capitalism was the individuals right, enforced by law, to own capital. That’s it. Not markets, zero taxation, or personal property like furniture and a house. Capital. The means of production, financial assets, intangible assets, etc… Things that generate a profit for the individual.
@@rustylidrazzah5170 yeah in theory capitalism is that AND as a consequence of that, you are free to trade however you want, thus, "Free markets" though once you notice that we are not at all rational actors, you realize there is nothing as a free market.
False - more and more wealth as a percentage is flowing to the rich BUT wealth/standard of living has never been higher for the poor. Would anyone rather be poor in say 1850? 1935?
3 simple things make It harder than ever to get by: Monopoly in REAL food production ( not junk ) worse than ever= highest prices vs avg. Incomd Price of a house ( to rent or Buy ) higher than ever Movility ( longer distances mean unavoidable high cost to move ) ... Public transportation defunded by cae manufacturing lobbies, by the way. Govt married to big money ensures these nasty formula
Ultimately, it boils down to this. Income and wealth accrue to a person or person's, who apply their mind to it. Those who live a luxurious life tend to become "soft". They tend to loose sight of what a meaningful life ought to be. Hence they tend to go downhill. We must remember that GOD gives 24 hours each day to EVERYONE, but one uses it wisely and the other does not. It's up to the individual and not the responsibility of the STATE.
There is a bias on his argument. Property is the economy's pillar. All economy that has tried to ban It, failed. Owners saved money to be where they are. Inventors worked hard, studied hard, to make money. They deserve. To end, AI will destroy many jobs. Thats a new, era. And he has not talk this
Unlimited property is a form of monopoly, because property compunds wealth. Rigidly regulated and limited possibilities of owning property would negate its society destabilizing effects. He does not, and most do not in this day and age argue for the abolisment of property. Whenever this point comes up it is effectively a strawman.
Housing. Owner-occupation versus Landlording. I can’t think of a more understated ratio impacting housing. The conflict of interests, the bias, up and down power hierarchies keep this ratio under wraps. My intuition tells me that Humanity may never be free enough until banks stop lending to Landlords to outbid owner occupiers at home opens. Apart from new developments, existing housing supply - for all humanity - remains under perpetual threat from Bankrolling Landlords and large groups with interests in housing (including for warfare purposes). The ratio deserves more attention. Its effect on the environment remains hypothetical. By 2025, it ought to have been known. But even the environmentalists can have the same conflict of interests. How many politicians/environmentalists/scientists/university staff/real estate analysts disclose their conflicts of interest as Landlords? And could this explain the understatement of the ratio? Data will lead where is leads. My intuition is that it has the scope to lead to a Nobel Prize.
Patents are necessary to provide an income for the (creative) inventor. Otherwise he or she would not have an income. Labor is nothing but the (stupid) execution of that invention. Otherwise it would not even know what to do (we would still be in the stone age). So, to state the world should be owned by labor is a misinterpretation of reality. The fact labor is overproducing MEANS the rest of the world is in a rentier state. That is the OBJECTIVE of the construct of human economy. So, either stop bleating, or come up with a financial system which rewards the creative inventors in this world by definition based on product availability. Not on labor availability. That is the upside down observation of reality. Although I do agree speculation and derrivates should be banned, because that calculation is equal to improductive labor.
Patents were not invented to guarantee an income for the inventor. Inventors derived income from their ideas before patents - the problem was that they understandably jealously guarded the secrets behind their inventions (when they could). So the idea might die with the inventor. Or be limited just to his family and business. The point of patents was to encourage inventors to divulge their trade secrets. The government would guarantee that you would get all of the income from this idea for 20 or 25 years. Then anyone could use it free of charge - the explanation how to do so would be in the patent. This way, useful ideas would spread around society and improve it for everyone. This worked wonderfully initially, the problem is that corporations have learned how to game the system to extract value.
Tax is the main cause of inequality because the poor pays majority of taxes! Solution is: tax free for citizen, smaller government where government is to be given medium (i.e. investment seeds from citizens as shareholder) to run enterprises to generate revenues for government admin costs. A model of taking/skimming off its citizens (i.e tax) as an unlimited financial sources never stem the size of government and never been able to truly implement accountability (there is no incentive, deficit- tax more). If tax were or has been a good model, why tax haven countries flourish? Concur?
Tax havens "flourish" because they are essentially parasites on the system. Note that there aren't any large tax havens - the vast majority are either microstates or even dependencies of other countries (the British Virgin Islands or Bermuda do not pay for their own defense or foreign affairs - the UK government does!). If every country was a tax haven, it does not follow that every country would be as rich as the existing tax havens - just that the existing tax havens would mostly be dirt poor, since they would lose their competitive advantage.
What he says makes sense, but where was he gone in 90's with this theory? In the hindsight everything makes sense, but no use in this rhetoric now. Just another useless preacher with no take aways for a common man.
The situation regarding growth is mainly influenced by the level of confidence in market trends over which no company or organization has any control. In respect of inflation is generated by falling interest rates, irresponsible lending, quantitative easing, demand for natural sources. In addition, following the advent of Covid followed by the invasion of Ukraine has created additional factors of uncertainty. Now, none of these factors are under the control of Goldman Sachs that has been selected as a target for the role of a scapegoat for all the economic ills of the world.
Those factors are not directly under the control of Goldman Sachs, but Goldman Sachs has the economic power to put their things on the scales and I guess his point is that they do so without reservation, and perhaps to the greatest extent they find possible. I presume that any other for-profit corporation with that much economic power and resources would also do the same, because well, deregulation.
That's what the classical economic theory says, but look at how many companies exist nowadays, and how much ownership and wealth is accumulated by a couple of other companies. They may not have invented COVID, but they definitely can make profits from the war in Ukraine. And, don't forget that in many countries lobbying and other scummy tactics are legally permitted. Also remembered that these companies get a lot of government aid in the form of fiscal policies or direct deposits.
Another economist who ignores the Elephant in the room, Population growth by immigrants and immigrant having excess babies, has caused These pressures, having lived in England and bought 4 houses at 3 times income. This was until Blair allowed 10million to settle in under 20 years. England works with 55million people it becomes very stretched at 70million. Its not about the rich renting houses out. if demand was less they would sell.
This is the Malthusian myth which was debunked in Progress and Poverty by Henry George and practically by the American baby boom which led to the increase in city population without major increases in housing prices. It all has to do with land policy, not immigration. Immigration does indeed increase demand, but it's not the core reason for housing cost increases as many products and services have elastic supply, e.g. when demand moves in one direction, so does supply. Housing does not have elastic supply because market forces are not allowed to provide the necessary supply due to constraints on land via land ownership and exclusive zoning. The Land Value Tax would fix this.
20 million is serious exaggeration. Even if it was that many the rents would still have gone to rentier capitalists who would make a nice packet buying up hotels for hedge funds. Try following the money not the divisive hate propaganda.
This man is so amazing. Every point he makes is spot on.
Pretty sure he's actually sitting in this video
@@valkyriewave9591 hahaha
Chef's kiss. Magnifique.
*groan* 😂
David Ricardo defined rent as, “that portion of the produce of the earth which is paid to the landlord for the use of the original and indestructible powers of the soil.” In his theory, rent is nothing but the producer’s surplus or differential gain, and it is found in land only. Bing search I would modify it to also be virtual land
Virtual land sounds like what Yannis Varoufakis refers to as a part of technofeudalism.
@@JugglinJellyTake01 David Ricardo (18 April 1772 - 11 September 1823) was a British political economist, politician, and member of Parliament. He is recognized as one of the most influential classical economists, Bing search
@@JugglinJellyTake01 David Ricardo (18 April 1772 - 11 September 1823) was a British political economist, politician, and member of Parliament. He is recognized as one of the most influential classical economists
This definition has the same connection with reality as the concept of luminiferous aeter. Lol
David Ricardo was a philosopher amongst philosophers
Evidently, making money has become more important than living.
Living is simply an externality to the market, after all. This outcome was completely guaranteed by this rotten system
As much as I agree with everything said above, I find that, unfortunately people need to be oppressed in some way... Otherwise we would just turn on each other, how do you solve this problem?
@@gorankovacevic673 please expand on that theory, also offering examples of past existence that gives credence to what you're advancing.
He starts blaming Reagan and Thatcher and then gives evidence completely based on things that happened after they left office and/or died.
It’s a really tired old game, and at this point, as soon as someone blames Reagan or Thatcher, I find they are soon going to twist logic and/or facts. He’d have done better to skip the bashing and I likely would have given his story more credence.
That was the premise of Capitalism from the start. "Common Good is evil and to get rich so that you can do whatever you desire is the only goal in life. A hamster wheel for humans. Aka the American Dream. The con of our era.
Michael Hudson speaks about this so much. Will have to check more from this guy.
Recurring income. Subscription business models.
Making your money make money.
Making money while you sleep.
Other people's money.
Be your own bank.
I heard all of THESE while I was going "self employed".
Excellent overview and summary of what's gone wrong over the last 50+ years.
But one thing I'm unsure about... @2:24 he talks about the wealth going to the top 20%. But the elephant curve suggests otherwise. In fact, it shows those at the 80% point have seen the least growth of everyone. Furthermore, the last 1% - and the fractions within that 1% - have seen by far the largest growth. This is of course discussed among many economists and thinkers, and I'm not sure I'd put it all down to "journalistic simplicity".
Anyone have any thoughts on that? Different outlooks? Or perhaps the fact that the elephant curve shows global stats, rather than UK/West? Or ???
Sorry to reply to my own comment here, but anyone got any thoughts on this?
Great. I love to hear Guy Standing!
He's right. There's only so long a nation can live off the work that was done in the past.
politicians, in general, do not represent the people because corruption is legal in the U.S. this needs to stop. there is a solution and you can help
represent (dot) us
People think the system is broken but they are wrong.
The system is built on top of a system of money which is broken.
The best system that is built on a foundation of bad money is just a system that incentivizes all the wrong things.
That’s the system we have now.
Fix the money and the system on top will fix itself.
Ha, ha...he's (rightfully) raging against intellectual property and then one can't watch the end of the debate unless one pays! Shameful IAI. 😥
it is likely prudent to follow the irony given that the money power successfully hides the paper trail. Irony is at least free, and therefore deserves a place in amongst the best things in life. All one needs to do to milk this abundance is , ., dunno, but I'm working on it.
Calling neoliberalism a "corruption" of capitalism is like calling lung cancer a corruption of smoking.
4.05 wonder how much is by the city of London? And how much they still hide away in tax havens?🤔
Taxation has merely been assumed by property, finance and corporations. Algorithmic pricing will make this worse. Corporation have effectively set up a transaction tax which governments were too timid and short of technology to instigate. Now the tech is there excuses are running thing. TT can ensure that hoarded wealth pays its dues, but guess who is in charge!
In six minutes he sums it up!
Housing. Owner-occupation versus Landlording. I can’t think of a more understated ratio impacting housing. The conflict of interests, the bias, up and down power hierarchies keep this ratio under wraps.
My intuition tells me that Humanity may never be free enough until banks stop lending to Landlords to outbid owner occupiers at home opens.
Apart from new developments, existing housing supply - for all humanity - remains under perpetual threat from Bankrolling Landlords and large groups with interests in housing (including for warfare purposes).
The ratio deserves more attention.
Its effect on the environment remains hypothetical.
By 2025, it ought to have been known.
But even the environmentalists can have the same conflict of interests. How many politicians/environmentalists/scientists/university staff/real estate analysts disclose their conflicts of interest as Landlords? And could this explain the understatement of the ratio?
Data will lead where is leads. My intuition is that it has the scope to lead to a Nobel Prize.
I’ve been talking about this for thirty years, the inherent flaw in capitalism is it never stays as capitalism, but becomes a capital led economy. And the rich are cute, with musk redirecting attention to UK grooming gangs, stoking immigrant tension. ( not that those topics don’t deserve some,) but none asks why is trillionaire Elon so interested? What is he misdirecting us from?
Terry Jones Barbarians 1 of 4 - The Primitive Celts (aired 2006)
Terry Jones Barbarians: 2 of 4 - The Savage Goths
Terry Jones Barbarians: 3 of4 - The Brainy Barbarian
Terry Jones Barbarians: 4 of 4 - The End Of The World
History may not repeat, but it may rhyme. If it rhymes, it may serve as a song, it may serve as story. As we know, history may serve as a rear-view mirror. The rear-view mirror gives us two perceptions: Awareness of what is behind/around and the anticipation of future... a vision of road to environment. What did J. R. R. Tolkien have to say about history? What did he say about story? What did he say about roads? Who are we? What are we? What will we become? What is implied when we take a road less traveled?
Students get processed by Marshall McLuhan - Deconditioning Lecture [1969]
Rethink fiscal policy. Perhaps in the UK? In The Netherlands in the 80s the higher incomes (> 70.000 Guilders) paid 72% taxes😀
Alphabet made 45 Billion $ net company profit on the EU market, they paid zero $ tax.
Meta made 12 Billion $ net company profit on the EU market, they paid zero $ tax.
Apple made 14,5 Billion $ net company profit on the EU market, they paid zero $ tax.
Don't worry about it too much, it will all be over soon. You can't eat or breathe money....
"Soon" in terms of humanity is usually a couple of centuries This isn't happening fast enough. The system needs to be overthrown soon and fast.
Damn, never knew Guy Standing from the famous wikipedia article was based.
What a stand up guy
Wealth is always a claim on other people. If financial wealth is growing relative to the size of the GDP, then that means claims on other people are growing relative to the size of the GDP. Which means... you certainly don't want to be the "other people" in this scenario.
E.g., the value of rental property ULTIMATELY depends on how much rent is charged; the value of a government bond ULTIMATELY depends on the ability of taxpayers to make interest and principal payments; the value of a dividend growth stock ULTIMATELY depends on the ability of consumers to continue to buy more. And if global population growth slows, then that just means that those who actually are born will just have to pay MORE rent, interest, and dividends if that financial wealth is going to be sustained.
❤
Amen
GDP is measured in USD, which is an inflated currency created bye the USA as debt. That fact alone should tell you the truth about US GDP.
Guy Sitting
So regulatory capture has occurred
@@gvall capitalism represents capital and those with it. By virtue of definition, the capitalist state is captured by capitalists.
@@ProleDaddyNo. Your comment rests on the idea that if the system were truly deregulated it would balance itself, by the invisible hand of the market. That is magical thinking.
A lack of regulation is what made it possible for wealth to compound wealth ad infinitum.
I’m confused by some of the comments?! Why does everyone assume capitalism is free markets. Markets exist outside of capitalism. And whether they are free or not is subjective.
I thought capitalism was the individuals right, enforced by law, to own capital. That’s it. Not markets, zero taxation, or personal property like furniture and a house. Capital. The means of production, financial assets, intangible assets, etc… Things that generate a profit for the individual.
@@rustylidrazzah5170 yeah in theory capitalism is that AND as a consequence of that, you are free to trade however you want, thus, "Free markets" though once you notice that we are not at all rational actors, you realize there is nothing as a free market.
Capitalism is the freedom to exploit workers.
So it is / it was better to start your own business and create your own property
No one creates their own property without taking from natural resources that no one created
This is michael hudson theory. He has been talking about this for decades
So capitalism corrupted itself? Sounds like... capitalism.
Low tax regime? Pretty sure tax burden has risen.
@@yaseral-saffar7695 I’d assumed he meant for the most rich, like the .1 percent
@@Puckpennwho rich multi millionaires ?? Millionaires " upper class & middle class wealth declining in private sector decades
Duties & excise taxes gone up decades
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻❤️❤️❤️💕
But inherited is merited. My work should be guaranteed to go to my children. I slave away for my children. I paid my taxes already.
🧍♂️
We really need better leaders not morons to lead countries n business….
False - more and more wealth as a percentage is flowing to the rich BUT wealth/standard of living has never been higher for the poor. Would anyone rather be poor in say 1850? 1935?
@@MotoMatsalleh 25% of worlds population lives in slums
That’s false. People used to be able to afford a home and raise a family on one income. College used to be affordable. And yes, even for poor people.
3 simple things make It harder than ever to get by:
Monopoly in REAL food production ( not junk ) worse than ever= highest prices vs avg. Incomd
Price of a house ( to rent or Buy ) higher than ever
Movility ( longer distances mean unavoidable high cost to move ) ...
Public transportation defunded by cae manufacturing lobbies, by the way.
Govt married to big money ensures these nasty formula
We only exist to make money tbh
Ultimately, it boils down to this.
Income and wealth accrue to a person or person's, who apply their mind to it. Those who live a luxurious life tend to become "soft". They tend to loose sight of what a meaningful life ought to be. Hence they tend to go downhill. We must remember that GOD gives 24 hours each day to EVERYONE, but one uses it wisely and the other does not. It's up to the individual and not the responsibility of the STATE.
There is a bias on his argument. Property is the economy's pillar. All economy that has tried to ban It, failed. Owners saved money to be where they are. Inventors worked hard, studied hard, to make money. They deserve. To end, AI will destroy many jobs. Thats a new, era. And he has not talk this
@@marcoathayde42 solution?
Unlimited property is a form of monopoly, because property compunds wealth. Rigidly regulated and limited possibilities of owning property would negate its society destabilizing effects.
He does not, and most do not in this day and age argue for the abolisment of property. Whenever this point comes up it is effectively a strawman.
Housing. Owner-occupation versus Landlording. I can’t think of a more understated ratio impacting housing. The conflict of interests, the bias, up and down power hierarchies keep this ratio under wraps.
My intuition tells me that Humanity may never be free enough until banks stop lending to Landlords to outbid owner occupiers at home opens.
Apart from new developments, existing housing supply - for all humanity - remains under perpetual threat from Bankrolling Landlords and large groups with interests in housing (including for warfare purposes).
The ratio deserves more attention.
Its effect on the environment remains hypothetical.
By 2025, it ought to have been known.
But even the environmentalists can have the same conflict of interests. How many politicians/environmentalists/scientists/university staff/real estate analysts disclose their conflicts of interest as Landlords? And could this explain the understatement of the ratio?
Data will lead where is leads. My intuition is that it has the scope to lead to a Nobel Prize.
Patents are necessary to provide an income for the (creative) inventor. Otherwise he or she would not have an income.
Labor is nothing but the (stupid) execution of that invention. Otherwise it would not even know what to do (we would still be in the stone age).
So, to state the world should be owned by labor is a misinterpretation of reality.
The fact labor is overproducing MEANS the rest of the world is in a rentier state.
That is the OBJECTIVE of the construct of human economy.
So, either stop bleating, or come up with a financial system which rewards the creative inventors in this world by definition based on product availability.
Not on labor availability.
That is the upside down observation of reality.
Although I do agree speculation and derrivates should be banned, because that calculation is equal to improductive labor.
Patents were not invented to guarantee an income for the inventor. Inventors derived income from their ideas before patents - the problem was that they understandably jealously guarded the secrets behind their inventions (when they could). So the idea might die with the inventor. Or be limited just to his family and business. The point of patents was to encourage inventors to divulge their trade secrets. The government would guarantee that you would get all of the income from this idea for 20 or 25 years. Then anyone could use it free of charge - the explanation how to do so would be in the patent. This way, useful ideas would spread around society and improve it for everyone. This worked wonderfully initially, the problem is that corporations have learned how to game the system to extract value.
Tax is the main cause of inequality because the poor pays majority of taxes!
Solution is: tax free for citizen, smaller government where government is to be given medium (i.e. investment seeds from citizens as shareholder) to run enterprises to generate revenues for government admin costs.
A model of taking/skimming off its citizens (i.e tax) as an unlimited financial sources never stem the size of government and never been able to truly implement accountability (there is no incentive, deficit- tax more).
If tax were or has been a good model, why tax haven countries flourish?
Concur?
Tax havens "flourish" because they are essentially parasites on the system. Note that there aren't any large tax havens - the vast majority are either microstates or even dependencies of other countries (the British Virgin Islands or Bermuda do not pay for their own defense or foreign affairs - the UK government does!). If every country was a tax haven, it does not follow that every country would be as rich as the existing tax havens - just that the existing tax havens would mostly be dirt poor, since they would lose their competitive advantage.
Moron that buy to many liablies tax more
Does this guy actually prefer domination by firepower to domination by finance? Sounds quite hypocritical
By Firepower? 🤣
@johnokazaki7967 well, he says it as if establishing domination by finance was a bad thing. Before that was domination by firepower
What he says makes sense, but where was he gone in 90's with this theory? In the hindsight everything makes sense, but no use in this rhetoric now. Just another useless preacher with no take aways for a common man.
The situation regarding growth is mainly influenced by the level of confidence in market trends over which no company or organization has any control. In respect of inflation is generated by falling interest rates, irresponsible lending, quantitative easing, demand for natural sources. In addition, following the advent of Covid followed by the invasion of Ukraine has created additional factors of uncertainty. Now, none of these factors are under the control of Goldman Sachs that has been selected as a target for the role of a scapegoat for all the economic ills of the world.
Those factors are not directly under the control of Goldman Sachs, but Goldman Sachs has the economic power to put their things on the scales and I guess his point is that they do so without reservation, and perhaps to the greatest extent they find possible.
I presume that any other for-profit corporation with that much economic power and resources would also do the same, because well, deregulation.
That's what the classical economic theory says, but look at how many companies exist nowadays, and how much ownership and wealth is accumulated by a couple of other companies. They may not have invented COVID, but they definitely can make profits from the war in Ukraine.
And, don't forget that in many countries lobbying and other scummy tactics are legally permitted. Also remembered that these companies get a lot of government aid in the form of fiscal policies or direct deposits.
..."""BRIGHT"",
.un..
.😂😅😆🤛🤜👉👍
...Britian..😅😂👁️🕳️👽
Another economist who ignores the Elephant in the room, Population growth by immigrants and immigrant having excess babies, has caused These pressures, having lived in England and bought 4 houses at 3 times income. This was until Blair allowed 10million to settle in under 20 years. England works with 55million people it becomes very stretched at 70million. Its not about the rich renting houses out. if demand was less they would sell.
He lives off the wealth of capitalist economy and preaches a socialism that when implemented has drivenp people into more poverty
No elephant at all.
This is the Malthusian myth which was debunked in Progress and Poverty by Henry George and practically by the American baby boom which led to the increase in city population without major increases in housing prices. It all has to do with land policy, not immigration. Immigration does indeed increase demand, but it's not the core reason for housing cost increases as many products and services have elastic supply, e.g. when demand moves in one direction, so does supply. Housing does not have elastic supply because market forces are not allowed to provide the necessary supply due to constraints on land via land ownership and exclusive zoning. The Land Value Tax would fix this.
20 million is serious exaggeration. Even if it was that many the rents would still have gone to rentier capitalists who would make a nice packet buying up hotels for hedge funds. Try following the money not the divisive hate propaganda.
Economists are more worried about falling birth rates.