How Wealth Inequality Affects The Economy 

Great point!

This is an excellent idea. And to help Gary's channel and for him to get the word out. We could do what Owen Jones suggested on his channel. If you see any inaccurate opinions being peddled on legacy media. We could clip it and send it to the channel somehow. And maybe try and contribute to the movement.

Off the back of this I was speaking to my dad recently and he was just parroting the whole "it's all because of Putin stuff". I asked him to keep an eye out on the news from here how many different subjects and difficulties Putin name gets tied to. When you spot it, it becomes a comedy

A very good point. Gary's vids are always informative and educational but humans are often more attracted to conflict than learning, especially in the short-term way YT is used. Any counterpoint to the nonsense put out or left unchallenged by media produces that conflict (however politely done), which may well be more attractive to people initially than 'merely' learning.

Carlos Maza did a fantastic one recently that, although being about America, rhetorically gives the people that watch it some very good arguments to use against the points made on the news.

Because they try and tell that it's all too confusing for the common folks

Ffs them and us. This is disgusting it has to stop

Ffs them and us. This is disgusting it has to stop

We need to tax all wealth over a certain amount as well as banning landlordism

Brendan Rogers owned 98 houses at the time of his divorce. Says it all really

It's actually Worse than you think. Look into REITs.

I am fully on board with what gary is saying and I often see this view. It’s about taxing wealth which is profit income from ownership of these assets. It doesn’t have to just be target the landlords and ban anyone from renting a house out as that would crash the housing market and any renters would have no where to live. The trick is to tax wealth and feed it back into the lowest earners so they have more disposable income and the economy grows. Then the average person can own property and grow some wealth and close the inequality gap. I am from a working class background myself but now I renovate houses and rent them out to people before they buy their own house. I pay tax on everything I make which isn’t a lot yet and don’t plan to dodge any of it. It’s those who have loads of houses through a limited company who are growing wealth and are dodging paying any tax on it. Those loopholes need to be closed.

The problem in that is that they rent the houses to skint people,they would just push the costs on , the clever rich people can layer their assets in multiple companies side stepping taxes

Agreed, they were taken over by neoliberal centrists when Blair took over. Starmer is simply a Blair tribute act and they've dropped the Unions in favour of corporate lobbyist funding.

They never did. Ever. Study their history and you’ll find them as anti working class as the Tories. They just dressed it up differently

And that claim of you is based on exactly what? Somethibg you read in the Sun perhaps?

Whats depressing is that people are sitting on their sofas waiting for change to happen*

@@ai-d2121 its probably based on the fact that the policies they've bought to the table do so very little to change any of this. They've yet to publish any suggestion from the leadership, that they have an accurate grasp of the severity of the situation. All their policies thus far won't do anything useful about this in a usefully short amount of time. Labour, in order to be recognised as being "on it", would have to come up with an immediately effective AND long lasting plan, to permanently rebalance the economy. I'm talking cuts in the taxes poor folks pay at the tills, and massive increases in the taxes paid by the wealthy. I'm talking about price capping housing, writing legislation to prevent the concentration of assets in the hands of the wealthy... Theres nothing about that. No. They want to start an energy company instead of dealing with the problem at the root and making immediately effective efforts to prevent inequality.

Its really not, relax

@@jimbojimbo6873 Perhaps you would like to explain in a little more detail what you mean? I would be interested to hear a serious, learned counter argument.

@@jimbojimbo6873 Thought so. Gave you two hours. You've got nothing but hot air!

Yes please! Can I suggest you take the interviews and stop them at the lie and explain why it’s a lie. Would be so good to educate people! Keep up the good work! You did brilliantly on Politics Live! My Dad rang me up and told me “Your economist mate, was on Politics live and really impressed me!” He’s a 72 year old socialist, who is despairing at this Government! You gave him a bit of hope! Xxxx

I would hesitate to make a causal link between the inequality and the abject poverty in South Africa. Maybe both are the products of a highly corrupt socialist regime?

I think all it may take is one appearance on a prime time slot, e.g. Martin Lewis tonight, and Gary and his message will blow up. The time is so ripe

Why is Gary's voice needed right now? He's a socialist. We have a socialist government already - objective achieved ✔

Increasing prices is not inflation- it's effect of inflation. The inflation is rising of money supply, and who controls money supply? The government and central bank. Not capitalists.

@@Vroomfondle1066 True, we are almost there.

@@Vroomfondle1066 Capitalism isn't much of a step up from feudalism to be fair. It essentially allows the wealthy to keep growing their inherited wealth while promising the same opportunity for the poor. I think people like Gary are the exceptions to the rule, good luck to him for making a few quid. Respect to Gary for exposing the Tory myths. But the system is a pyramid scheme. The bottom rungs of the ladder are greased to stop the poor gaining a foothold.

@O. M. You obviously haven't understood me or my comment. Gold is irrelevant the fact it's not tied to any physical resource is the problem. I'm not a fan of Milton Friedman or the Chicago school of economics. Digitised money: "What this means for the working class going forward is that we can be cut off from the means required to live and support our families." The more global debt rises the more of our actual resources are bought up by the wealthy (Polarisation of capital and expansion of the poverty gap) - check people like Gates and the acquisition of farming land in the US. As for getting something for free, listen to Gary it's the jobless wealthy who pay less than 1%. Corporations take £100+ billion per annum in corp welfare and subsidies off the tax payer and create a tax gap of £40-£120 billion per annum. While I appreciate economic analysis as a tool to use as counter-propaganda and for educational purposes. My view is that Money is an illusion, it's the curtain that hides the disappearing lady as she slips down through the trap door in the floor. Nothing more than a trick of the light to attract magpies who like shiny objects. A middle man to help the global criminal elitists to cheat the vulnerable and the gullible. Once you know how the magic trick is performed, further study becomes redundant to a pauper like myself.

@@Vroomfondle1066 Yea I'm not suggesting going back on the gold standard, I'd propose an ecologically friendly, sustainable resource-based economy where goods are valued based on rarity, usefulness, sustainability labour intensity etc. But that's something that requires an ideological shift in the public's thinking. So I'm not holding my breath :)

@@steveparker8065 Check out 'Sacred Economics' by Charles Eisenstein for suggestions on shifting the economy to other standards of value, would be interested to know what you think about it

That boils my blood to hear. The rich really have no idea how hard it is to be poor and they don’t care! They won’t put their money back into the useful economy and that’s why they have to be taxed. And those taxes need to be spent properly. Cronyism needs to be eradicated!

Millions and millions of people dieing in wars reduced the labour force and made it possible for survivors to build regulation free business, governments do that to rebuild the country then they start bracketing down the regs and trimming the fat of everything

Good call, I'm interested in understanding how the economy went to a more equal one after the war. What was the change that sparked it ?

Prof. Richard Wolff Democracy at Work and Monthly Economic Update has your answers.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bmogfHcLnV8.html

This one talks about WW2 being so bad people demanded better: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bmogfHcLnV8.html Me: inequality is a policy choice. It's the ruling class selecting the best economic options for the ruling class while not really being bothered about how it affects the common rabble. We can eat cake

Basically but then apply that to the whole economy. We've got a systematic procedure of wealth extraction out of the UK economic system. We've got lots of assets going back to before the industrail revolution which should make us a rich nation but because money isn't circulating this wealth/money pools with the already rich. Rent is one example but another is the use of private contractors in our public services, the NHS or the Railway are currently understaffed and underpaid however in order to fill in these gaps contractors are used, this costs the taxpayer 4x as much mainly because the private companies attach large fees onto this labour because they know the NHS will pay £3000 a shift for one nurse. The contractor's staff gets paid twice as much and the private company filters out the rest. The government can create circumstances that benefit the rich, like reducing a sector's manpower to introduce privately interested companies. The corrupt thing is these private companies take more out of the system than they put in. This is why cuts on cuts is a bad thing because while you save money short term by reducing the expenses of a nation you have to reinvest that money later down the line to make a system sustainable otherwise companies move in to exploit the issues the government has created. Look at it simply if you sell your car you pay less, and you can live without a car. But inflation kicks in and now the bus costs more. You need a car again so either you've got to get a loan or make more cuts that if not used to buy a car will make you worse off in the long term. A car is an asset that generates income passively by enabling a person, health care and transport in a nation enables that nation to generate more by letting them keep productive however cuts on cuts, and over time these assets devalue due to their inability to perform because the government is not willing to take a loan to invest. Cuts are a short-term gain and the UK has had cut after cut after cut which each has created opportunities for the rich to fill in gaps by buying lots of UK assets and then make a profit. A profit year on year in a society that isn't getting richer means the companies are exploiting the others alittle more each year by raising prices and on the basis that those who need them are desperate enough to pay more and more each year.

It’s always been a myth, it’s demand that create jobs.

Great to hear that we're reaching people in other countries. This problem is growing everywhere, and the main problems - low wages outside the big cities, unaffordable housing in the big cities, are worsening all over the world. Hopefully we can push back internationally against it!

You think poltican will be less richer under communism bahaha

Thanks boss!

Will do. Thanks for the feedback

Franchise own dealership there less dealership today because of government

If everyone had the same, why would you need money? Money is the means of distribution. If everyone has the same, what need is there to distribute? Also, if everyone has the same, prices can't escalate.

So is the answer both wealth redistribution and ordinary people joining together cooperatively to keep the wealth local and shared recycled within their own community.Tax the rich and stop feeding the rich incorporate your own community non profit with shared profit communally.

It’s a good question. Hopefully gary will answer on a video :-). Lots of spending in a particular area causes inflation if demand out strips supply. A gradual change which this should be, will mean that supply can raise in the areas people are spending. More efficient production and greater supply ability keeps the prices lower. It’s only when people concentrate their spending in a particular area and supply increase can’t keep up when we get inflation. E.g. building materials was due to the greater demand during lock down when people and businesses were using the down time to improve. Inflation of luxury assets and consumables isn’t really a problem for your average person so it’s just inflation of fuel, food, clothing which everybody needs where supply just needs time to meet the new demand and as you’ve still got the same number of people those areas shouldn’t increase in price unless there’s a specific reason. Just my thoughts.

@@BigHenFor what communist countries found out is people don't like it when "everyone has the same". People like to have a bit more (ideally, a lot more) than their neighbours, which is why capitalism remains popular, even in the face of growing inequality.

There would be more demand for goods and services, which would eventually be met. More supply of good and services for the same amount of money in the economy = DEflation. The government would have to print money in order to stop deflation.

I disagree. No need to up the production values and make it 'fun'. Just need a clear message that everyone understands. Adding bells and whistles is distracting and would alienate quite a lot of people

Exactly as I said in this week's video, the UK and Western Europe are very equal by international standards and are rapidly becoming much less equal.

@@garyseconomics If the private rental sector produces inequality; Labour don't like private landlords because they don't provide long term security for working people; Tories don't like private landlords either because home owners make Tory voters (Thatcher's home owning democracy vision); why don't either/both of these Parties just ban buy-to-let mortgages. Then, over time, that 19% would then flow back into the owner-occupier household group and everyones happy?

Shut down Eton boys college