BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[BoldonLad]

We all know it doesn't (which I know you know!). I always make a simple point when I argue this with people, we have more millionaires and billionaires than at any point in history, if trickle down works, why aren't we all wealthier? Strangely enough I have never had anyone be able to answer this question.

1. Maybe it is not trickling down as fast as it is collecting at the top of the hill

2. Could you define what you mean by "wealth" ?

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

1. Maybe it is not trickling down as fast as it is collecting at the top of the hill

2. Could you define what you mean by "wealth" ?

I would class wealth in two ways. Individual wealth in terms of assets/income vs liabilities. This would take into account things like homeownership, personal savings, pensions at micro level, aligned with macro economic factors such as wage growth in comparison to inflation and GDP. I am happy to be corrected but I haven't seen anything that would suggest in the UK that wages are outstripping inflation, personal savings amongst a wide range of ages and incomes are increasing, homeownership (particularly for lower earners) is rising etc.

You yourself (and I agree) have said you are worried about Reform. Part of the reason for their appeal is that people feel disenfranchised, the cost of living is a massive issue as wage growth has stalled whilst consumer goods have increased, rents have increased. Public services are stretched through lack of investment, towns and cities are derelict through lack of investment. A significant % of the population would say their personal 'wealth' and financial outlook has declined.

I would also look at wealth distribution as a key factor. The top 1% own 50% of the wealth. They hoard their wealth in assets, when they do spend a significant % is on luxury items which again circulates the money in a very small and concentrated part of the economy. They are not investing it, shareholders accumulate dividends, that money does not find it's way into workers pockets either directly or indirectly. It (in my view) is no slow to trickle down, it is stuck at the top.

Those on the right (economically) have always pitched the idea that high earners and huge companies are great for the economy as they create money for all. If they did, we would all have more money in our pockets, more money in the bank, more assets in our names.

 

[Rusty Nails]

1. Maybe it is not trickling down as fast as it is collecting at the top of the hill

2. Could you define what you mean by "wealth" ?

According to Wikipedia "wealth" is "the abundance of valuable financial assets or physical possessions which can be converted into a form that can be used for transactions". "Wealthier" is even more of the same.

HTH

 

[Pblakeney]

They are not investing it, shareholders accumulate dividends, that money does not find it's way into workers pockets either directly or indirectly.

More specifically some (most?) dividends are reinvested so there is no income, and there is no spending. Just accumulated wealth.

 

[BoldonLad]

I would class wealth in two ways. Individual wealth in terms of assets/income vs liabilities. This would take into account things like homeownership, personal savings, pensions at micro level, aligned with macro economic factors such as wage growth in comparison to inflation and GDP. I am happy to be corrected but I haven't seen anything that would suggest in the UK that wages are outstripping inflation, personal savings amongst a wide range of ages and incomes are increasing, homeownership (particularly for lower earners) is rising etc.

You yourself (and I agree) have said you are worried about Reform. Part of the reason for their appeal is that people feel disenfranchised, the cost of living is a massive issue as wage growth has stalled whilst consumer goods have increased, rents have increased. Public services are stretched through lack of investment, towns and cities are derelict through lack of investment. A significant % of the population would say their personal 'wealth' and financial outlook has declined.

I would also look at wealth distribution as a key factor. The top 1% own 50% of the wealth. They hoard their wealth in assets, when they do spend a significant % is on luxury items which again circulates the money in a very small and concentrated part of the economy. They are not investing it, shareholders accumulate dividends, that money does not find it's way into workers pockets either directly or indirectly. It (in my view) is no slow to trickle down, it is stuck at the top.

Those on the right (economically) have always pitched the idea that high earners and huge companies are great for the economy as they create money for all. If they did, we would all have more money in our pockets, more money in the bank, more assets in our names.

It depends on how long a period you look at.

Is wealth distribution more polarised now, than say 1700s, or 1880s? (I dont categorically know the answer, but, I suspect not)

I would argue that the "average worker" (whatever that may mean) is significantly more wealthy now that even one generation ago (eg, say my Father, born 1918), the difference with even earlier generations is even more stark.

The "shareholder Issue". Private sector Pension Schemes are shareholders, dividends may be accumulated at certain points in the cycle, but they pay pensions to workers, when those workers retire or semi-retire. I am a (modest) shareholder. I am retired now, but, I was a (modest) shareholder when I worked. My dividends are spent (some of it on bicycles). I suspect I am not alone, especially on this forum.

"Create money". Only Governments/Central banks "Create money", and, not always wisely. The rest of us, "Wealthy", "Comfortable", "Poor", or "large company" simply shuffle it around.