I moved back to the UK from living in Germany for ten years and I am shocked how much more expensive life has gotten here. I'm in the top 10-5% of earners and even for me the difference is huge. The increase in prices over the last 10 years and the decline of healthcare, schools, policing (everything government funded) has made a huge difference to people. Wages may have increased but what you actually get for those wages has declined far more than the rate of inflation would have you believe. I dont know about Canada, but by far my biggest expense is rent which isn't included in measures of UK inflation. I pay about 55% of my pay cheque on essentials and live in a very small, drafty, cold, one bed flat. UK also has low wages for my profession (Engineer). edit: Im paused on a section where you have average weekly earnings in UK on screen and thought I would point out that 600 per week in UK is *very low* in the entire south east of the country or almost any of the cities - which is where most of the people live.
@@againstthestate I am making the point that in the UK the middle class *is* worse off than it was 10 years ago - looking at how wages rise does not give you a real picture of what is going on, at the very least you have to come up with some measure of 'real' wages - to look at how inflation degrades the money you're being paid, but inflation metrics seem rigged to give you an unclear picture of what's actually going on. I suspect deliberately so. I have (middle class) friends in other Western cities and the picture is the same everywhere - cost of living rising faster than rise in wages, decaying infrastructure, dying cultural landscape which means less to do.
Question! If wages are steadily rising then why aren't homes more affordable? If wages are rising why if you measured wages in GOLD, do wages buy less gold?
wages are rising relative to CPI, that is the basket of goods that a consumer purchases on a weekly or monthly basis or whatever. some prices rise more rapidly than others, housing is one of those prices. also houses are a lot higher quality today than they were in the past. i mean there is a lot more to it than that. as for the gold wages question, presumably gold is just rising in price faster than wages due to supply and demand. i mean I'm all about returning to the gold standard if that is your point.
Sorry but I don't think you've understood enough of what's going on in the UK to debunk anything Gary has said. He's right when he says living standards are on the downward trend or collapsing. Until very recently inflation has outstripped wage growth, meaning stagnation of wages more generally. Meanwhile the cost of living has increased hugely, and the transfer of wealth to the rich has never been more prevalent.
www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/kgq2/qna here is the data on uk wages. now this is nominal wages not adjusted for inflation, but unless the Uk has been experiencing chronic inflation wages have grown faster than inflation. "Inflation Rate in the United Kingdom averaged 2.83 percent from 1989 until 2024" tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/inflation-cpi aside from in 2008-2009 it seems that wages have been outpacing inflation
Income is meaningless unless you compare it to purchasing power. £1000 might seem a lot of money but if it only buys you a loaf of bread then it’s not so much money. This is what Gary is effectively saying. Wealth and income are different. The company value goes up in the same way that inflation reduces purchasing power it increases asset prices. It is not irrelevant that the rich are getting richer - as the wealth increases inflation benefits the rich as their wealth is generally not taxed until they look to realise a small component into cash. Which is taxed at a lower amount. I’m sorry I won’t becoming back to this channel as the individual contradicts themself and then in-fact re-enforces exactly what Gary says.
@@againstthestate are wages adjust for inflation and all types of tax up though? The tories have increased tax on the 'wealthy' more than the average taxpayer. Earn over £100k pa and you face an effective tax of 60% on income, you don't get the enhanced childcare etc.
@@Jay-xr3sb two points to consider here, wealth and income. As most economists will tell you you can’t build wealth with income. Super wealthy people tend to pay significantly less tax than those not so wealthy. And let’s also not assume that £200k per annum is a wealthy income in 2024. Yes it’s better than £26k of course it is but it’s not wealth- almost £100 k goes to the government in income tax and national insurance. Further, consider that in 1981 the government adjusted uk tax to set a 40% top rate on anything over £40k (after deductions). That was about 70,000 people in the uk at that time - they would fill Wembley Stadium. If the value of money halves every 10 years the upper rate of income tax should start at £80k in 1991, £160k in 2001, £320k in 2011 and £640k in 2021. Go see what the “official value” of £40k in 1981 would be in 2024. It’s not £640k but it’s not £60k either. If you also consider that corporation tax was 37% and 41% at that time you can see where the burden has shifted. If you simply look at the value comparison of 1981 £40k to 2024 today you will see that the tax take on, say, nurses earning £55k pa is absurd. Don’t get me wrong I don’t have an issue with paying taxes it’s that wealth isn’t taxed in the uk like it is in say Denmark - and the Dane’s have a very good standard of living and access to state paid further education as well as a good health system. The uk divide between the haves and have nots is getting wider because the wealthy use stored value to benefit their income as well as other tricks to avoid paying tax on incomes outside of the uk beneficial overseas loans. Tony Blair avoided paying stamp duty on a high Blair property because it was wrapped in a special purpose vehicle - limited company. These are small examples of how wealth is maintained. Personally I’m earning what I was earning 20 years ago and I was far more comfortable then than I am today - I don’t have a yacht or school fees or a new car every 6 months and I’m supposedly in the 1% club. Wealth needs taxing. Otherwise it’s just like a game of monopoly and we all know how that ends - those with the most hotels in the key spots begin to own more and more of the board. There’s only a roll of the dice that might bring a tax burden and if you’re wealthy enough in the real world you can help shape that rule to suit your own end.
@@petel3366 simply put, we are and aging population, and a nation in decline. We don't have a good energy policy to be productive, we can lost out with brexit, Labour will scare off the super wealthy and simple maths says we won't get a state pension or maintain the nhs at current levels. We're honestly looking to move to the middle East for a 5 year stint, pay down our mortgage and save more than we can here for 15 years. We're about to have our first child, planning on a second, both professional just over 100k, but never felt poorer with mortgage rates and child care to come. 60% effective rate, no Extended child care over 100k, probably lose out on pension relief soon...pointless. We're better off both switching to 4 day weeks and give up on career progression if we stay here.
@@Jay-xr3sb the wealthy won’t leave because of tax as they are generally not that affected by it. With limited companies and “business expenses” and converting capital gains to cash at lower rates than income tax or taking overseas loans and servicing them from overseas generally leaves them immune from financial impacts when it comes to direct taxes. 100k is 25k in 2004 which was an ok but not amazing salary back then. It’s just how blatant the elites control our government and economy that will force the likes of yourselves away and you are the ones the economy needs the most. If that layer all redistribute ourselves elsewhere it would leave a vassal state that would be of little value to the elites beyond using those that remain as their serfs and in service workers heading back to a 1800’s type of society. Yep- the uk days are very much numbered unless corruption and plutocracy is replaced with a more socially beneficial and transparent model of democracy than the opaque puppet show we have today.
You mention multiple times that it isn't a zero sum game. The reality is that it's closer to being a zero sum game than it isn't. Things like stocks are just paper claims on real stuff like factories, roads, machinery, software etc that help a country produce more. If for example the amount of useful stuff increases by 3% but financial returns are 10% then the excess 7% will typically be used by investors to buy up more assets. This leads to concentration of wealth increasing. In every day terms this manifests as PE firms buying out your parents house. If useful stuff in an economy (capital) is increasing at 20% then you may be right that it isn't a zero sum game as it's easy for ordinary people to become an owner of assets.
taxfoundation.org/blog/labor-share-net-income-within-historical-range/ most of total production goes to wages (70%). capital receives 30%. In the UK this has fallen somewhat from 70% to 60% www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/productivitymeasures/bulletins/labourcostsandlabourincomeuk/2021 Anyway, it's a positive sum game. If a company produces goods valued at X amount of wealth, that's X amount of wealth that didn't exist before. Or at least the difference between the raw materials and the finished goods is the amount of wealth created. Nobody is worse off because of that, but the workers and the investors and the capital owners are that much better off. That's why the market economy is so great. Comparatively, with state action, it is a zero sum game, where one group can benefit but only at the expense of another.
I have got two minutes into your video. And if this is the way it is going you are not debunking anything. On Gary's clip he talks about declining productivity. The UK's productivity is one of the worst in Europe, which is already bad. Gary's point is that you cannot solve this with (New-'Keynesian') macro-economic expansions. It requires radical intervention - something we often only see in wartimes or under foreign occupations. It would require active intervention in the allocation of resources, something that neo-classical economists are very much against, but have been crucial in countries that successfully industrialised. To understand the UK's problems you have to understand how it deindustrialised (read David Edgerton) and how its middle class shrank and lower income groups were further disempowered and removed from the production process (it is not just about real wages, although you will find there has been growing inequality of wages). On the latter point the distributional issues are important, so you need to average disaggregate the real income 'increases'.
you've got it completely backwards. The UK has too much government intervention in the market already. The UK's problem is the same with the problem of most first world nation. government spending and taxes are too high. that coupled with inflationary monetary policy is leading to anemic growth and stagnating living conditions. but gary's claim is that living conditions are plummeting. there is zero evidence for that what so ever.
@@againstthestate But the government overspend is partly due to lack of productivity and therefore not enough £ generated to foot the tax bill. There needs to be oversight on generating more meaningful production in the UK. Possibly through public private partnerships and a move away from the service economy
@@againstthestate Government spending especially relative to taxes, and income (GNP) is too high. Gary is the first to tell you that for a country dependent on foreign capital to finance a trade deficit like the UK, that is a problem - hence the Kwarteng fiasco. High government debt ratios and spending RATIOs are a problem.But it is not about the government vs the market. The Chinese, German and Japanese economies are basically examples of state capitalism - a lot of government control over the market -and have generally done very well (although Japan and Germany for completely different reasons are now in trouble). People (including many neo-classical economists) confuse government spending and indebtedness with government intervention in resource allocation and conflate both as 'big government'. It is important to separate these things.
I know that UK govt spending is 44.7% of GDP, which is massively unsustainable. A £120 billion deficit, coming in at a whopping 4.4% of GDP, is also pretty shocking.
This Gary's economics guy is really weird, the whole "I'm just like you, I grew up poor bra bla.." "but fundamentally I'm different because I am naturally very intelligent and can make trades betting on the debasement of currency and appreciation of assets and somehow even though I appear like an absolute moron I'm really good at making bets on future macro outcomes which you normal plebs could never do and they gave me a great job doing it" (BTW all the predictions he makes are extremely broad and obvious). The subject is deep and his statements sometimes have little nuggets of truth sprinkled in but his narrative is basically big government and corporation friendly even though to the average listener it seems the opposite. To go in and debunk him sentence for sentence would be big long ole job but I'm tempted, I just get the feeling my message would be shut down, I already have comments removed regularly, especially if I start mentioning gilts and a like
Agree with everyone here. You really need to up your research and videography. Just regurgitating ideological talking points don't add value since we all heard it before.
Real wages is wages adjusted by inflation. It does not take into account things like housing prices. Median net worth per capita I think would better explain wealth.
This is straight up ridiculous. Did you really use a chart showing wage growth as evidence of situation improvement, *without reference to inflation*? And you think it's irrelevant that the rich are getting richer if the poor are too? Even if the gini coefficient is increasing, in a market for finite assets? Sir you need to go take some classes on basic economics and stop making a fool of yourself on RUclips.
@@WillyJunior www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/april2024 To clarify, I was mistaken, the chart in question is in nominal terms. But UK wages have been increasing in both real and nominal terms, as the link goes into.
Argument around having a hard currency doesnt make sense. If the goal is to eliminate inflation to make people save more, that will make people spend less on goods and services, leading to lower economic growth. Inflation is necessary to incentivise spending money now rather than in the future.
The whole argument universities teach on volocity of money equalling growth is mental. Just with the old thing about how they teach it's a good thing for the economy when a thug breaks a shop window because now the shop keeper has to go find a glass guy and pay him and then that money flows to whoever he gets goods and services from... Do you understand why this is flawed??? If not I shall explain
@@againstthestate okay id really like to understand how that works! I challenge you to explain in logical terms how consumption doesnt drive economic growth.
@@W0genius1 consumption is an indicator of growth but currency flow or “velocity of money” is not an indicator that should be used as the supply of money is always increasing. In modern monetary theory a lot of emphasis is placed on the velocity of money but it disregards miss allocation of resources. Very simply put a thug smashes a shop window and so the shop keeper has to hire a glass fitter and the glass fitter has to go on and order more glass then he spends ths money he just made down tesco and according to gary this is great! but hold on, what would the shop kepper have done with his money if he disnt waist it on new glass?? perhaps he would have bought an oven and started selling freshly made bread or employed someone or whatever, he would have been far better at allocating the resources to where they nees to go, this on a much bigger scale is why we have insane amounts of admin staff in the nhs, care worker managers that sit on £600 chaits and so on and so forth, its not considered "real money" when its just "govenment" or public money, it doesnt equate ti actual resources until they start talking about it on tv and even then no one gets it
@@W0genius1wow!! You know what’s really crazy? I have been having comments removed, I replied here, I said nothing offensive, I believe it might be because I used the word that sounds like guilty and is the English word for an iou that the government uses to create debt, there was absolutely no swearing or aggression or anything of that nature, just an explanation of why consumption gets conflated with the velocity of currency that I believe everyone would be interested in
I watched a couple of his videos, and myself being a very pessimistical person, felt that he is a doomer, explores people's inscurities and desperation with this talk. People never had so many opportunities to build weath with so little resources as we have nowadays in the internet era, I personally know people who are self-made, came from poor background and became wealthy in on generation and are now in the process of building generational wealth
emotions are powerful motivators and fear in particular is a great way to get people to click. there is also the whole victim mentality thing. anyway yah, i agree, things are better than they have ever been. i mean even if you are low income, you can get all the movies, music, tv shows online for free or basically for free. that is something that would have been unimaginable 20-30 years ago. and the economic opportunities are still there for sure. some people are suffering and I guess it is good to acknowledge their challenges but I don't buy the notion that standards of living in England or any other first world country are collapsing like he claims. and see no evidence to support that assertion.
If you want to build a RUclips channel, you'll need to do a bit more work than this buddy. The style of pausing for commentary feels lazy and ad hoc, like you're making this up on the fly. I'm new to your channel, and have no idea what your views are or why you're saying them. The style of this video gives off the vibes that you're just some guy in a basement with zero knowledge. But you could be a professor of economics, we'll never know. Be concise. Edit. Put yourself forward, not off in a little box somewhere. Give a little intro (indicate who you are and why you are making videos) then present it like an essay, clearly outline Gary's opinion, then your counter argument. Hopefully this was constructive and not negative, all the best to you moving forward.
Real wages, and wage growth simply do not keep up with inflation and rising prices. Which you hadn't shown. Also amount of debt is rising across the board. Why exactly do you need to disprove obvious reality that surrounds you? You live in a bubble and want to keep on living in it?
@@ProfoundFamiliarity wages adjusted for inflation means same wage in other year worth more. Not adjusted for inflation of prices in current day. Inflation of prices higher than inflation of currency.
Check out 1981 upper rate tax rate (40%) and upper rate threshold (£40k) and check out joe much £40k then is worth based on inflation today. Then show me how wages have kept pace with inflation?
I also believe Gary is a bit of conman. He is right about some things but in a childish simplistic way. Economics is more nuanced. Bad leadership, bad politics and a toxic right wing media is what's done the UK in over the last 15 years.
@@againstthestate no, not necessarily. Only if you knew that the living standards of the middle class had changed could say it was reflected by a change in the median wage. You haven’t pointed at any data highlighting the living standards of the middle class and so you can only, at best, use the changes in the median wage to say they might imply rising living standards for the middle class. I don’t even know what’s true here I just picked up on the strawman and hope you’d see it as such.
Im in australia high taxation sucks dont follow australian poltics left wing path to communism . Vic socialist labor killed off most industries in victoria 15 yrs
@@againstthestate The private sector is bigger than ever. Small businesses have been killed off by large businesses who now control everything thanks to Government outsourcing and privatisation. Brexit was funded by large corporations who wished to escape regulation and set up Britain as the tax haven it now is.
![Quando Rondo - Grow Up [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8zFnCg3BO4Q/mqdefault.jpg)
I moved back to the UK from living in Germany for ten years and I am shocked how much more expensive life has gotten here. I'm in the top 10-5% of earners and even for me the difference is huge. The increase in prices over the last 10 years and the decline of healthcare, schools, policing (everything government funded) has made a huge difference to people.
Wages may have increased but what you actually get for those wages has declined far more than the rate of inflation would have you believe. I dont know about Canada, but by far my biggest expense is rent which isn't included in measures of UK inflation. I pay about 55% of my pay cheque on essentials and live in a very small, drafty, cold, one bed flat. UK also has low wages for my profession (Engineer).
edit: Im paused on a section where you have average weekly earnings in UK on screen and thought I would point out that 600 per week in UK is *very low* in the entire south east of the country or almost any of the cities - which is where most of the people live.
I appreciate you sharing your lived experience. Rent is out of control in Canada as well, it is a real crisis here actually.
@@againstthestate I am making the point that in the UK the middle class *is* worse off than it was 10 years ago - looking at how wages rise does not give you a real picture of what is going on, at the very least you have to come up with some measure of 'real' wages - to look at how inflation degrades the money you're being paid, but inflation metrics seem rigged to give you an unclear picture of what's actually going on. I suspect deliberately so.
I have (middle class) friends in other Western cities and the picture is the same everywhere - cost of living rising faster than rise in wages, decaying infrastructure, dying cultural landscape which means less to do.
Question! If wages are steadily rising then why aren't homes more affordable? If wages are rising why if you measured wages in GOLD, do wages buy less gold?
wages are rising relative to CPI, that is the basket of goods that a consumer purchases on a weekly or monthly basis or whatever. some prices rise more rapidly than others, housing is one of those prices. also houses are a lot higher quality today than they were in the past. i mean there is a lot more to it than that.
as for the gold wages question, presumably gold is just rising in price faster than wages due to supply and demand. i mean I'm all about returning to the gold standard if that is your point.
Sorry but I don't think you've understood enough of what's going on in the UK to debunk anything Gary has said. He's right when he says living standards are on the downward trend or collapsing.
Until very recently inflation has outstripped wage growth, meaning stagnation of wages more generally. Meanwhile the cost of living has increased hugely, and the transfer of wealth to the rich has never been more prevalent.
This guy doesn't understand inflation or circulation. Nor does he understand the difference between private and public assets.
www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/kgq2/qna
here is the data on uk wages.
now this is nominal wages not adjusted for inflation, but unless the Uk has been experiencing chronic inflation wages have grown faster than inflation.
"Inflation Rate in the United Kingdom averaged 2.83 percent from 1989 until 2024"
tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/inflation-cpi
aside from in 2008-2009 it seems that wages have been outpacing inflation
OP debunked nothing. You just made your "audience" and yourself keep watching his videos. Gary farmed you twice:)
doh!
Income is meaningless unless you compare it to purchasing power.
£1000 might seem a lot of money but if it only buys you a loaf of bread then it’s not so much money.
This is what Gary is effectively saying.
Wealth and income are different.
The company value goes up in the same way that inflation reduces purchasing power it increases asset prices.
It is not irrelevant that the rich are getting richer - as the wealth increases inflation benefits the rich as their wealth is generally not taxed until they look to realise a small component into cash.
Which is taxed at a lower amount.
I’m sorry I won’t becoming back to this channel as the individual contradicts themself and then in-fact re-enforces exactly what Gary says.
@petel3366 well thanks for drooping by anyway sorry my content wasn't what you were looking for. BTW wages adjusted for inflation are up too
@@againstthestate are wages adjust for inflation and all types of tax up though? The tories have increased tax on the 'wealthy' more than the average taxpayer.
Earn over £100k pa and you face an effective tax of 60% on income, you don't get the enhanced childcare etc.
@@Jay-xr3sb two points to consider here, wealth and income. As most economists will tell you you can’t build wealth with income.
Super wealthy people tend to pay significantly less tax than those not so wealthy.
And let’s also not assume that £200k per annum is a wealthy income in 2024. Yes it’s better than £26k of course it is but it’s not wealth- almost £100 k goes to the government in income tax and national insurance.
Further, consider that in 1981 the government adjusted uk tax to set a 40% top rate on anything over £40k (after deductions).
That was about 70,000 people in the uk at that time - they would fill Wembley Stadium.
If the value of money halves every 10 years the upper rate of income tax should start at £80k in 1991, £160k in 2001, £320k in 2011 and £640k in 2021. Go see what the “official value” of £40k in 1981 would be in 2024.
It’s not £640k but it’s not £60k either.
If you also consider that corporation tax was 37% and 41% at that time you can see where the burden has shifted.
If you simply look at the value comparison of 1981 £40k to 2024 today you will see that the tax take on, say, nurses earning £55k pa is absurd.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t have an issue with paying taxes it’s that wealth isn’t taxed in the uk like it is in say Denmark - and the Dane’s have a very good standard of living and access to state paid further education as well as a good health system.
The uk divide between the haves and have nots is getting wider because the wealthy use stored value to benefit their income as well as other tricks to avoid paying tax on incomes outside of the uk beneficial overseas loans. Tony Blair avoided paying stamp duty on a high Blair property because it was wrapped in a special purpose vehicle - limited company.
These are small examples of how wealth is maintained.
Personally I’m earning what I was earning 20 years ago and I was far more comfortable then than I am today - I don’t have a yacht or school fees or a new car every 6 months and I’m supposedly in the 1% club.
Wealth needs taxing. Otherwise it’s just like a game of monopoly and we all know how that ends - those with the most hotels in the key spots begin to own more and more of the board. There’s only a roll of the dice that might bring a tax burden and if you’re wealthy enough in the real world you can help shape that rule to suit your own end.
@@petel3366 simply put, we are and aging population, and a nation in decline.
We don't have a good energy policy to be productive, we can lost out with brexit, Labour will scare off the super wealthy and simple maths says we won't get a state pension or maintain the nhs at current levels.
We're honestly looking to move to the middle East for a 5 year stint, pay down our mortgage and save more than we can here for 15 years. We're about to have our first child, planning on a second, both professional just over 100k, but never felt poorer with mortgage rates and child care to come.
60% effective rate, no Extended child care over 100k, probably lose out on pension relief soon...pointless. We're better off both switching to 4 day weeks and give up on career progression if we stay here.
@@Jay-xr3sb the wealthy won’t leave because of tax as they are generally not that affected by it. With limited companies and “business expenses” and converting capital gains to cash at lower rates than income tax or taking overseas loans and servicing them from overseas generally leaves them immune from financial impacts when it comes to direct taxes.
100k is 25k in 2004 which was an ok but not amazing salary back then.
It’s just how blatant the elites control our government and economy that will force the likes of yourselves away and you are the ones the economy needs the most. If that layer all redistribute ourselves elsewhere it would leave a vassal state that would be of little value to the elites beyond using those that remain as their serfs and in service workers heading back to a 1800’s type of society.
Yep- the uk days are very much numbered unless corruption and plutocracy is replaced with a more socially beneficial and transparent model of democracy than the opaque puppet show we have today.
You mention multiple times that it isn't a zero sum game. The reality is that it's closer to being a zero sum game than it isn't.
Things like stocks are just paper claims on real stuff like factories, roads, machinery, software etc that help a country produce more. If for example the amount of useful stuff increases by 3% but financial returns are 10% then the excess 7% will typically be used by investors to buy up more assets. This leads to concentration of wealth increasing. In every day terms this manifests as PE firms buying out your parents house.
If useful stuff in an economy (capital) is increasing at 20% then you may be right that it isn't a zero sum game as it's easy for ordinary people to become an owner of assets.
taxfoundation.org/blog/labor-share-net-income-within-historical-range/
most of total production goes to wages (70%). capital receives 30%.
In the UK this has fallen somewhat from 70% to 60%
www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/productivitymeasures/bulletins/labourcostsandlabourincomeuk/2021
Anyway, it's a positive sum game. If a company produces goods valued at X amount of wealth, that's X amount of wealth that didn't exist before. Or at least the difference between the raw materials and the finished goods is the amount of wealth created. Nobody is worse off because of that, but the workers and the investors and the capital owners are that much better off. That's why the market economy is so great. Comparatively, with state action, it is a zero sum game, where one group can benefit but only at the expense of another.
I have got two minutes into your video. And if this is the way it is going you are not debunking anything. On Gary's clip he talks about declining productivity. The UK's productivity is one of the worst in Europe, which is already bad. Gary's point is that you cannot solve this with (New-'Keynesian') macro-economic expansions. It requires radical intervention - something we often only see in wartimes or under foreign occupations. It would require active intervention in the allocation of resources, something that neo-classical economists are very much against, but have been crucial in countries that successfully industrialised. To understand the UK's problems you have to understand how it deindustrialised (read David Edgerton) and how its middle class shrank and lower income groups were further disempowered and removed from the production process (it is not just about real wages, although you will find there has been growing inequality of wages). On the latter point the distributional issues are important, so you need to average disaggregate the real income 'increases'.
you've got it completely backwards. The UK has too much government intervention in the market already. The UK's problem is the same with the problem of most first world nation. government spending and taxes are too high. that coupled with inflationary monetary policy is leading to anemic growth and stagnating living conditions.
but gary's claim is that living conditions are plummeting. there is zero evidence for that what so ever.
@@againstthestate But the government overspend is partly due to lack of productivity and therefore not enough £ generated to foot the tax bill. There needs to be oversight on generating more meaningful production in the UK. Possibly through public private partnerships and a move away from the service economy
@@againstthestate Government spending especially relative to taxes, and income (GNP) is too high. Gary is the first to tell you that for a country dependent on foreign capital to finance a trade deficit like the UK, that is a problem - hence the Kwarteng fiasco. High government debt ratios and spending RATIOs are a problem.But it is not about the government vs the market. The Chinese, German and Japanese economies are basically examples of state capitalism - a lot of government control over the market -and have generally done very well (although Japan and Germany for completely different reasons are now in trouble). People (including many neo-classical economists) confuse government spending and indebtedness with government intervention in resource allocation and conflate both as 'big government'. It is important to separate these things.
@@againstthestateyou know the UK tax % GDP is among the lowest in Europe and the OECD? Ie 35% in 2022 vs FR 46%
I know that UK govt spending is 44.7% of GDP, which is massively unsustainable. A £120 billion deficit, coming in at a whopping 4.4% of GDP, is also pretty shocking.
feel like gary is a good guy but your presentation was interesting
This Gary's economics guy is really weird, the whole "I'm just like you, I grew up poor bra bla.." "but fundamentally I'm different because I am naturally very intelligent and can make trades betting on the debasement of currency and appreciation of assets and somehow even though I appear like an absolute moron I'm really good at making bets on future macro outcomes which you normal plebs could never do and they gave me a great job doing it" (BTW all the predictions he makes are extremely broad and obvious). The subject is deep and his statements sometimes have little nuggets of truth sprinkled in but his narrative is basically big government and corporation friendly even though to the average listener it seems the opposite. To go in and debunk him sentence for sentence would be big long ole job but I'm tempted, I just get the feeling my message would be shut down, I already have comments removed regularly, especially if I start mentioning gilts and a like
Agree with everyone here. You really need to up your research and videography. Just regurgitating ideological talking points don't add value since we all heard it before.
Real wages is wages adjusted by inflation. It does not take into account things like housing prices. Median net worth per capita I think would better explain wealth.
This is straight up ridiculous. Did you really use a chart showing wage growth as evidence of situation improvement, *without reference to inflation*?
And you think it's irrelevant that the rich are getting richer if the poor are too? Even if the gini coefficient is increasing, in a market for finite assets?
Sir you need to go take some classes on basic economics and stop making a fool of yourself on RUclips.
the chart showed real wages. Real means inflation adjusted.
@@againstthestatecan you link to the chart?
@@WillyJunior www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/april2024
To clarify, I was mistaken, the chart in question is in nominal terms. But UK wages have been increasing in both real and nominal terms, as the link goes into.
Argument around having a hard currency doesnt make sense. If the goal is to eliminate inflation to make people save more, that will make people spend less on goods and services, leading to lower economic growth. Inflation is necessary to incentivise spending money now rather than in the future.
Consumption doesn't increase economic growth, conversely increased savings doesn't harm economic growth.
The whole argument universities teach on volocity of money equalling growth is mental. Just with the old thing about how they teach it's a good thing for the economy when a thug breaks a shop window because now the shop keeper has to go find a glass guy and pay him and then that money flows to whoever he gets goods and services from... Do you understand why this is flawed??? If not I shall explain
@@againstthestate okay id really like to understand how that works! I challenge you to explain in logical terms how consumption doesnt drive economic growth.
@@W0genius1 consumption is an indicator of growth but currency flow or “velocity of money” is not an indicator that should be used as the supply of money is always increasing. In modern monetary theory a lot of emphasis is placed on the velocity of money but it disregards miss allocation of resources. Very simply put a thug smashes a shop window and so the shop keeper has to hire a glass fitter and the glass fitter has to go on and order more glass then he spends ths money he just made down tesco and according to gary this is great! but hold on, what would the shop kepper have done with his money if he disnt waist it on new glass?? perhaps he would have bought an oven and started selling freshly made bread or employed someone or whatever, he would have been far better at allocating the resources to where they nees to go, this on a much bigger scale is why we have insane amounts of admin staff in the nhs, care worker managers that sit on £600 chaits and so on and so forth, its not considered "real money" when its just "govenment" or public money, it doesnt equate ti actual resources until they start talking about it on tv and even then no one gets it
@@W0genius1wow!! You know what’s really crazy? I have been having comments removed, I replied here, I said nothing offensive, I believe it might be because I used the word that sounds like guilty and is the English word for an iou that the government uses to create debt, there was absolutely no swearing or aggression or anything of that nature, just an explanation of why consumption gets conflated with the velocity of currency that I believe everyone would be interested in
I watched a couple of his videos, and myself being a very pessimistical person, felt that he is a doomer, explores people's inscurities and desperation with this talk. People never had so many opportunities to build weath with so little resources as we have nowadays in the internet era, I personally know people who are self-made, came from poor background and became wealthy in on generation and are now in the process of building generational wealth
emotions are powerful motivators and fear in particular is a great way to get people to click. there is also the whole victim mentality thing. anyway yah, i agree, things are better than they have ever been. i mean even if you are low income, you can get all the movies, music, tv shows online for free or basically for free. that is something that would have been unimaginable 20-30 years ago. and the economic opportunities are still there for sure. some people are suffering and I guess it is good to acknowledge their challenges but I don't buy the notion that standards of living in England or any other first world country are collapsing like he claims. and see no evidence to support that assertion.
Well said, I totally agree
If you want to build a RUclips channel, you'll need to do a bit more work than this buddy.
The style of pausing for commentary feels lazy and ad hoc, like you're making this up on the fly.
I'm new to your channel, and have no idea what your views are or why you're saying them. The style of this video gives off the vibes that you're just some guy in a basement with zero knowledge. But you could be a professor of economics, we'll never know.
Be concise. Edit. Put yourself forward, not off in a little box somewhere.
Give a little intro (indicate who you are and why you are making videos) then present it like an essay, clearly outline Gary's opinion, then your counter argument.
Hopefully this was constructive and not negative, all the best to you moving forward.
Thanks! I know my videos need a lot of improvement, and feedback like this is really helpful in assisting me to target areas to work on
Real wages, and wage growth simply do not keep up with inflation and rising prices. Which you hadn't shown. Also amount of debt is rising across the board. Why exactly do you need to disprove obvious reality that surrounds you? You live in a bubble and want to keep on living in it?
The term "real wages" means wages adjusted for inflation
Franchise are consumer aswell everyone getting fucked over by government lefty
@@ProfoundFamiliarity wages adjusted for inflation means same wage in other year worth more. Not adjusted for inflation of prices in current day. Inflation of prices higher than inflation of currency.
@karendarrenmclaren inflation measures increases in prices so when we adjust wages for inflation, we're adjusting them for price increases.
Check out 1981 upper rate tax rate (40%) and upper rate threshold (£40k) and check out joe much £40k then is worth based on inflation today.
Then show me how wages have kept pace with inflation?
I also believe Gary is a bit of conman. He is right about some things but in a childish simplistic way. Economics is more nuanced. Bad leadership, bad politics and a toxic right wing media is what's done the UK in over the last 15 years.
Wrong ! media left wing left retard 15 yrs
labor socialist & green communist so fuck off left turd
You didn’t address his first point, he was referring specifically to the middle class
But wouldn't a collapse in the living standards of the middle class be reflected by a fall in median wages?
@@againstthestate no, not necessarily. Only if you knew that the living standards of the middle class had changed could say it was reflected by a change in the median wage. You haven’t pointed at any data highlighting the living standards of the middle class and so you can only, at best, use the changes in the median wage to say they might imply rising living standards for the middle class. I don’t even know what’s true here I just picked up on the strawman and hope you’d see it as such.
look...you guys are american. things are a lot worse in UK and you just dont know it or feel it. Please restrain a bit in comments
Actually, I'm Canadian. Long live the king!
Im in australia high taxation sucks dont follow australian poltics left wing path to communism . Vic socialist labor killed off most industries in victoria 15 yrs
He is very popular for some reason, his fans might flood comment sextion soon 😅
bring on the soc dem trolls
because all gen z & majorty millennial a retards listen to this moron
40% retards voted communsit green & teals in australia last election
when taxes & regulations go up your wages shrink they buy less
big majortty of middle class are shareholders like upper class
government killed off many industries why private sector smaller today and there less franchise owners too
agreed 100%
@@againstthestate The private sector is bigger than ever. Small businesses have been killed off by large businesses who now control everything thanks to Government outsourcing and privatisation. Brexit was funded by large corporations who wished to escape regulation and set up Britain as the tax haven it now is.
@@amraceway no it not left liar bigger today
@@amraceway franchise is a small business so fuck off turd
@@amraceway government kills off franchise why less today you're dumb