There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 143 comments are related to the topic:
Tories "back to work " benefits card no gambling
Tories "back to work " benefits card no gambling
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 143
|
By:
not bovvered, but still wittering on about it over an hour later. bovvered, not bovvered :)
|
|
By:
It doesn't matter if there is unlimited money. Money has no intrinsic value. It just competes to buy available goods and services. What matters is distribution.
|
|
By:
course not. just give it up then
neither is i. you prolonged this babble unnecessarily i note youve swapped smilies for cymbals |
|
By:
and how distribution effects quality of life and production
|
|
By:
why does its distribution matter?
|
|
By:
Fiat money now relies on goodwill.
On a £20 note, the monarch states I PROMISE TO PAY THE BEARER ON DEMAND THE SUM OF TWENTY POUNDS What does that mean nowadays. Bugger all. Currency used to be backed by something tangible. It should reflect value, ie cash facilitates the exchange of value between two parties. What's the difference between money printed by the royal mint or hasbro. Not a lot, beyond goodwill and faith. They can print (or digitally create) as much sterling as they want. It doesn't increase the underlying value of the goods and services it's supposed to represent. The definition of devaluation. |
|
By:
It does make physical, tangible assets rather appealing.
|
|
By:
half of the £324BN welfare bill is spent on OAP,s, £146BN of it on the state pension, its an aging populations thats spending all the £, with AI coming down the tracks eating job a it does, with an aging population the 7,6 million adults not working number will only get bigger
|
|
By:
don't worry. war coming.
|
|
By:
The state pension is money well spent. On the people that worked for 35-40 years accumulating their right to it via full time working.
Out of the vast selection of government waste to choose from, the SP is very low down. I'm not opposed to a tweaking of it. |
|
By:
The economic argument is that it matters because the very wealthy only spend a tiny fraction of their wealth. The more evenly spread money is, the more money that is spent, and the more that is produced to meet that demand. Asset prices increase because the very wealthy buy them up with the money they are not spending. The argument is that this is an increasing spiral. That argument is backed up by growth rates and asset prices in OECD countries over the last 80 years.
The social argument is that it means less power in a few people's hands = less corruption and leaves the majority of people happier and healthier and with more equal opportunities. If there was one person who owned everything is the extreme example. Russia is a prime example of where almost everything is owned by a tiny handful of corrupt people. The US is heading that way |
|
By:
just which type comes first
 |
|
By:
That's velocity, not distribution.
Increased taxes cause a slow down in velocity. Stamp duty is prime example. |
|
By:
Literally if they decreased VAT for example, it would increase activity.
But the people doing what they are doing know what they are doing and why they are doing it. They aren't stupid. The slow destruction and managed decline is very much deliberate. The foreign-born population rose from about 10.7 million to 13.1 million between the last census (in March 2021 for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and March 2022 for Scotland), and June 2024. As a result, the non-UK-born now make up 19% of the population. |
|
By:
People will be more willing to fight a civil one than the other, howard.
|
|
By:
When I was a young man I bought into the argument of trickle down economics, but history has proven that it's BS.
|
|
By:
It's not an argument. Quite obviously if there is more buying and selling of properties, it leads to economic activity not directly related to the property ownership exchange.
I genuinely think some people reckon trickle down economics means people who don't do anything will become more affluent. Well, not really. It would help you, in my example, if you had the gumption to start a removals business. But sitting on your arse watching Netflix, not so much. |
|
By:
very wealthy cant spend it. they can lose it. or they can do what many in the u.s. do and turn to philanthropy, an alien concept in other places, but thats another story
if it was all spread out evenly it might not be possible fro anyone to spend anything, although im speculating. also if it was likely to be spread it wouldnt exist as there would be the incentive to acquire it in the first place and nobody would have any to splurge economic and social arguments are aren to be treated witth deep scepticism. not for nothing is economics known as the dismal scoence. economists make astrologers look good the u.s. accumulation of wealth isnt corrupt. its derived by free markets, razor-sharp competition, robust law of contract and intellectual property and the ability to make stuff people desire russia produces nothing (what have you ever bought that was russian-made?)and its is based on theft. big difference |
|
By:
If the UK prints loads of money, inflation rises massively and the £ is devalued, so that it buys the same number of global goods and services as before. It's worse than that ofc because inflation lads to instability and lack of investment.
If actual money mattered rather than distirbution, then I could just print myself billions of counterfeit pound notes. Would that be good for the economy or not? |
|
By:
In my example suppose that no one ever knew I'd printed myself billions of counterfeit currency. Is that good for the economy or not?
|
|
By:
That doesn't make any sense. But obviously people who have a lot of assets valued in sterling can easily realise the value in another currency.
|
|
By:
You want people who have lots of assets in sterling keep them in sterling. I do agree they should be incentivised to utilise/deploy them. Or government actively encourages people to either sell sterling assets or hoard them, as if they try to use them, they are heavily scalped.
|
|
By:
'Our' government
|
|
By:
I just want an answer to this question..
In my example suppose that no one ever knew I'd printed myself billions of counterfeit currency. Is that good for the economy or not? Good for the UK economy? Good for the World Economy? |
|
By:
Like I said, it makes no sense. Under the assumption that nobody will treat it as genuine money, it's completely irrelevant.
|
|
By:
sterlings association with silver and its implied worth is on the way to being a misnomer given whats coming down the track
|
|
By:
north korea does exactly that
|
|
By:
You could of course use crypto as an example, as enough people put faith in it to make it have a value in fiat currency.
Crypto is a theoretical threat to the fiat cash house of cards. |
|
By:
No one can answer the question then?
|
|
By:
It's not a simple question imo. But I'd have thought it should be a straight forward answer for many.
|
|
By:
One valid answer would be it depends what I did with the money.
|
|
By:
Pretty difficult to answer in the way you are asking, as the premise is fundamentally flawed. If you print pictures of banknotes on your HP, it makes no tangible difference to anyone. Perhaps your paper supplier, ink supplier, electricity provider. Currys if you need a new printer.
|
|
By:
Negligible impacts. Your real money is probably most impacted, depending on the volume of printing.
|
|
By:
I'll reframe the question but it makes no difference. Suppose I bought thousands of Bitcoins at £1 each on inception, I'd lost my code, until yesterday. Now my Bitcoin is worth £100Bn. Is that good for the economy or not?
|
|
By:
and also assume that I've only moved to the UK after realising my bitcoin profits
|
|
By:
not as bad as the uk govt.
100 billion is about what we are spending interest |
|
By:
I don't pay any UK tax because my wealth is sat in offshore holding accounts
|
|
By:
How much of that £100bn am I going to spend on UK goods and services?
|
|
By:
as you are a scot, not much
its hard to spend that much on just about anything, unless you are a pothouse gamboller on a basic assumption, if tons of snidey moolah is sloshing around, the spend on goods and services would produce inflation as the resulting scarcity would push up prices. i dunno. not my scene. too dull |
|
By:
Exactly my point. That is why distribution matters.
|