Wealth inequality is a global crisis

By stopping the acquisition of so much wealth, rather than trying to tax away what they already have. Truly progressive taxation would be a good start.
But also inheritance taxation, cracking down on trust funds by limiting the amounts that could be put in trust, maybe?

Changing rules on lobbying? Limiting the amounts of donations allowed to political parties or even state funding them?

It seems extraordinary to me that public employees are bound by very strict rules on accepting gifts (basically they’re not allowed to) because of the possibility of corruption, but MPs can accept freebies and £1,000s. It lays them open to being influenced by those with the biggest purses.

By re-introducing regulation and supporting economies where public services and private companies can work side by side? One, by reponsible and efficient use of public funds including taxation, and by investment in manufacturing?

There is no doubt money and power is becoming concentrated in fewer hands, it’s a global problem.

So how do we change the system??

The UK has allowed this for decades why are we surprised we have no money

But we don't have 'no money'. It is not a finite resource.

A government can create as much money as it wants but if it has no value it doesn't benefit the population, the value of a currency has to be backed by resources, if a nation has no resources the currency has little value. That’s why Norway has a very strong economy because it’s exploiting lot of resources the surplus is set aside and invested for the future.

The state can indeed 'create' as much money as it wants, but it is limited by what goods and services are available to be purchased with it. The oft quoted examples of hyperinflation were caused by a shortage of resources to be purchased.

The UK currency has value, David . It fluctuates over time, but not wildly. What do you think is backing it?

But this has nothing to do with the global proliferation of extremely wealthy individuals so I don't see any point in pursuing this argument.

“DAR here is a direct question

The UK has already sold off many companies and utilities to foreigners and borrow not to increase growth but to increase benefits, where do you expect the gain the profit to end up.?.

Maybe I ought to answer it for you

When foreign companies invest in the UK they expect to make a profit and take money away from us.
The UK has allowed this for decades why are we surprised we have no money

DAR

I cannot see how discussing the effect of implementing a particular economic strategy takes us away from wealth inequality when it is the underlying cause.

Solutions to the problem of global wealth and its acquisition directly contravene the theories underlying monetarism/neoliberalism.

In countries with a 'sovereign currency' the nation's money is solely created by the government, or by banks under licence to create (though this bit of the story is more complex). The current economic 'orthodoxy' in most of these countries is such that money inevitably flows up to the a;ready wealthy and they use their wealth as a political tool to persuade governments to run tax and regulatory regimes which allow such acquisition and ensure that they contribute less, in percentage terms, to the country which provides their money and the infrastructure that enables them to acquire more of it.“

A government can create as much money as it wants but if it has no value it doesn't benefit the population, the value of a currency has to be backed by resources, if a nation has no resources the currency has little value. That’s why Norway has a very strong economy because it’s exploiting lot of resources the surplus is set aside and invested for the future.

Last post was to Maizie.

I certainly don't leave that out of my thinking. In fact I've talked about it myself elsewhere. I agree it's still the major go to template including it's effect on stifling this government.

Shall we not make personal remarks? It was all going so well on a platform where generally nothing but opinion and bias matter. It's good to be able to believe we can all learn from one another. That really is a universal truth!

This seems to take us away from wealth inequality though or perhaps I misreading of missing something? That's always a possibility

You are missing the fact that it is the, what you call 'monetarist' economic doctrine which is in the ascendant and has been since Thatcher and Reagan adopted it in the 1980s, which is the cause of the global wealth problem. It is still the dominant orthodoxy It informs the US economy, the EU economy and the UK economy. It certainly informed the current disastrous Argentine economy. There will be others.

I'm not sure that you appreciate the difference between the different schools of economic thought, or that implementation of different strategies produce different results.

Money is just a token though Maizie and I think everyone knows its printed by governments. It's just a token and its value largely depends on the confidence that lenders, borrowers, and the broader public have in it. I'm not sure where the relevance of it being issued by the banks is relevent.

Orthodoxy in economics has changed and changed a lot over recent times. It's gone from "classical economics to Keynesian economics, then to monetarism, and more recently to behavioral economics and other heterodox approaches". I had to look this up to be sure and was suprised at how many changes have at least been considered.

This seems to take us away from wealth inequality though or perhaps I misreading of missing something? That's always a possibility

I'm with you, foxie

I have to say that I'm somewhat bemused by the introduction of sovereign wealth funds to this discussion. I don't see what it has to do with the fact that the wealth acquired by the super rich is not wealth they have 'created' but is either wealth they have sucked out of domestic economies or wealth which their forebears have sucked out of domestic economies and which has been passed down to them intact, or nearly intact.

I'll revert to my point about the source of money.

In countries with a 'sovereign currency' the nation's money is solely created by the government, or by banks under licence to create (though this bit of the story is more complex). The current economic 'orthodoxy' in most of these countries is such that money inevitably flows up to the a;ready wealthy and they use their wealth as a political tool to persuade governments to run tax and regulatory regimes which allow such acquisition and ensure that they contribute less, in percentage terms, to the country which provides their money and the infrastructure that enables them to acquire more of it.

I don't see how anyone can complain about the results of economic orthodoxy then deny that there is any other way to run an domestic economy.

Orthodoxies are not ultimate truths. They are just predominant beliefs. 99% of a population believing that the world is flat doesn't make the world flat...

I'm also bemused by this concept of a 'deficit economy'. What does that mean?

Well I will continue to worry about such a large percentage of the world's wealth being controlled by a few people. People like Musk and Bezos etc do not have to run a country, yet they have wealth in excess of the GDP of many countries. They are not elected, deposed etc but they have immense influence over governments. Many make their money by betting on the failure of companies and countries economies, hence many got extremely rich post 2008 following the banking crash as they bought up stock very cheaply.
Norway? Well I don't worry about Norway, the use of their sovereign wealth fund is strictly controlled and is used for the benefit of their population. China is a different matter, it's bought it's way into pretty much every continent and it's control of infrastructure and resources in those countries is extremely worrying. With the US seemingly prepared to give away it's soft power to China, this is doubly worrying. Given that many of the richest people in the world have strong trading/manufacturing links with China (and India to a lesser extent) and rely on China for some important raw materials,their power to influence government is potentially an issue.
So, yes I will continue to worry about the likes of Musk, Bezos, etc

David - could you rephrase your first question? I'm having difficulty understanding what you want me to answer. It's a bit of a jumble (that happens to us all). I'll answer it later if you can clarify the actual question.

My own view is that we should not worry too much about the wealthy individuals like Musk or Bezos they are investing under the control of the US government and all above board. But they are relative small fry with $2 or 300bn each, the real wealth is the Sovereign Wealth Funds, there are many over $1 trillion, Norway is close to $2 trillion, China has 4 such funds all used to develop Chinas national interest overseas, under direct control of the communist government.

If you believe that such foreign investment funds are interested in the welfare of UK pensioners you are living in fairy land, these are the people who are financing despotic rulers to repress their own people. That is of course no problem to China it’s the way they hold power at home.

“David, we thrived as a country under a mixed economy, not the growingly extreme capitalism we see now.”

DAR here is a direct question

The UK has already sold off many companies and utilities to foreigners and borrow not to increase growth but to increase benefits, where do you expect the gain the profit to end up.?

2nd question
We choose to borrow, why do you think that an investor in another country should pay for our benefits.?

Well said DaisyAnne!

David, we thrived as a country under a mixed economy, not the growingly extreme capitalism we see now.

All democratic governments set out to run the country for the people. Ours and other governments run a deficit economy which creates conditions for our basic needs to be met with jobs, homes, education, health care, infrastructure, defence, etc. We balance that deficit by paying taxes.

Because it benefits us we pay these taxes related to how we benefit from the goods we are able to buy, jobs we are able to earn from and earnings from savings we are able to make. These taxes we expect to be progressive with little tax for meeting a basic need growing progressively as we exceed that need - except for taxation on exceptional earnings from assets.

This is crippling countries where power is bought and extremists take hold. And it is crippling us financially with government debt growing, poverty and lack of ability to meet basic needs growing, while extreme wealth grows to balance these retrograde steps.

That extreme wealth does not grow the country for all. The shares, pensions, property, businesses you referred to are assets. They are assets that price out the vast majority because lack of progressive tax on extreme wealth made initially from earnings from funding government debt. The holding of government bonds is also an asset. For every pound we or the government owe someone holds an undertaxed asset at the cost of other citizens basic needs.

I think you seem to be contradicting youself David. Are you now saying capitalism has never been a positive force for economic growth?

“So I'm not impressed with the argument that their money is 'working' to benefit others' it mostly benefits them.”

All investment is not designed to benefit others it may as a consequence provide jobs or enable more revenue but the investor aims to enrich himself you do not put your spare cash into an ISA to benefit others you do it to make a tax free profit for yourself

Of course Musks share are paper value all shares are paper value in fact all currencies are paper value it’s only what others are prepared to buy at any specific time There are of course some investors that have ethic principles, most don’t care if people starve or even die

DaisyAnneReturns

But that isn't what is happening David49 (Did you watch the video? - it's easier to discuss it if you have.) The money is not going back into the economy to pay for services, etc., it is buying more assets and power. Phil Moorhouse points out (with stats) that extreme wealth buys extremism (left or right). He comments that in the USA, "by 2022, just 100 ultra-rich households were supplying nearly 40% of all individual donations to political parties. That is not "growing the economy" it is buying power over the law, the economy as it affects the population generally, and its buying the right to govern however you like.

You contend that all of which finances growth in whichever economy. Where is that happening? Are people getting higher wages for services? Are manufactured goods making bigger profits? Are more houses, roads, waste collections being financed by this huge growth in a minorities wealth? It's the countries economy. How many in that country are benefiting from your supposed growth in that countries economy?

No that is the point I made the “capitalist” system is not designed to benefit the worker, it’s the governments job to benefit them using the taxation system. We now have massive self serving global corporations using computer algorithms and AI to amass wealth, they are multi national and out of control.

The wealth isn’t invested in developed countries where growth is low, many developing industrial countries have high growth rates, India, China and many others, that also have very attractive tax breaks for investors. Whether the benefit trickles down to the population is another matter, many have very corrupt governments. Post industrial countries like the UK and most of Europe are not great investment prospects because we borrow to fund social programmes not increase growth.

In the case of the UK a great deal of revenue is lost because many companies choose to use low tax Ireland to trade in the UK. Governments are reluctant to increase corporation tax because it would deter investment.

Sorry Maisie disagree,

That was inevitable😂

^ those on modest incomes might let spare money sit in deposit accounts for a rainy day, the wealthy do not, they invest it, maybe shares, pensions, property, or expanding their own business, all of which finances growth in whichever economy.^

I asked Chatgtp to advise me where I could put my money if I were a billionaire.

It was noticeable that there was very little direct investment in research and development. Mostly it was in already developed projects such as AI.

There was also a lot of 'investing' in assets, the ownership of which doesn't offer productive employment, it's rentier stuff; they own it and collect the income from leases etc. Or 'assets' sech as high end property, art and wine, which are reckoned to appreciate in value, but provide little or no employment.

Commodities, not a fruitful employment source...

Also hedge funds, which merely exist to make money for their investors, private equity, which is notorious for asset stripping existing businesses, though I will grant that some private equity is involved with business startups and development.

Stocks and shares in companies highly likely to declare high dividends on the secondary market. The secondary market doesn't return any money to the company, it exists solely for speculation.

Most of the list was low risk, high returns to capital.

So I'm not impressed with the argument that their money is 'working' to benefit others' it mostly benefits them.

Elon Musks fortune is not dead money it’s the total value of his company shares they are generating more wealth, that applies to all of the billionaires.

Elon Musk's 'wealth' in company shares is paper wealth only. Shares can lose value, thus lowering the valuation of the company. What do you think caused the stock market crash in the 1920s?

Carnegie, was, of course, Scottish. There is a Carnegie Hall in Dunfermline, where he was born.

He was, though, unusual in the extent of his philanthropy.