Keir Starmer

[The Future’s Blue!]

Giving more money to the poor is not inflationary. It creates demand for stuff that is not in short supply - food, clothing. If the money goes instead to the rich (shareholders, bosses) they will either invest it (much of it abroad) or spend it on luxury goods (mostly on stuff made abroad, or on holidays abroad) so it does nothing for the domestic economy.

Or, approaching it differently, why would greater disparity of wealth (so much income going to so few) be less inflationary than spreading the wealth around?

The rich, sorry, now super rich don‘t Invest it back into the economy, they can’t do it as they have taken more and more out and hoarding it, ie. a super rich family just can’t spend the same as the millions that they are keeping it from.

 

[Vic]

It w

The rich, sorry, now super rich don‘t Invest it back into the economy, they can’t do it as they have taken more and more out and hoarding it, ie. a super rich family just can’t spend the same as the millions that they are keeping it from.

It was Galbraith's summary of Reaganomics.

"We have exchanged the certain spending of the poor for the discretionary spending of the rich."

 

[meltonblue]

Just shows how much the Overton window
has shifted right the last ten years.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Fucking shameful decision on Green commitments. This sums up why this planet is fucked with humans at the wheel. A supposedly progressive party, in a wealthy country, with a huge lead in the polls, drops a green policy because it will cause a bit of discomfort to the electorate, so they can be sure of getting in, while in the meantime the clock is ticking on our trashing of the environment.

 

[Corky]

The way to tax your way out of it is to set a decent minimum (“living”) minimum wage and provide the companies with incentives to cover what would otherwise be government costs. If they don’t, they get penalized by taxes to cover it…and then some!

Minimum wage has gone up 28.4% in 3 years, and the age for getting it goes down to 21 in April, I will likely continue to have large increases year on year to reduce in work benefit payments, shifting the burden from the state to the employer.

 

[bluethrunthru]

The rich, sorry, now super rich don‘t Invest it back into the economy, they can’t do it as they have taken more and more out and hoarding it, ie. a super rich family just can’t spend the same as the millions that they are keeping it from.

which is how we remain the 6th biggest economy with almost zero growth and investment - the money is taken out of our economy and banked offshore

 

[bluethrunthru]

Fucking shameful decision on Green commitments. This sums up why this planet is fucked with humans at the wheel. A supposedly progressive party, in a wealthy country, with a huge lead in the polls, drops a green policy because it will cause a bit of discomfort to the electorate, so they can be sure of getting in, while in the meantime the clock is ticking on our trashing of the environment.

The £28bn pre-dates the Truss/Kwarteng trashing of the economy. I suspect its now about seeing what money is left and what you can raise in tax before you can see where you stand. Bear in mind its the Truss/Kwarteng duo that poisoned the Tory reputation for fiscal responsibility and control in 49 days it was that bad. They are running around promising shit here there and everywhere now so probs best to get in power and then see what you can do.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

The £28bn pre-dates the Truss/Kwarteng trashing of the economy. I suspect its now about seeing what money is left and what you can raise in tax before you can see where you stand. Bear in mind its the Truss/Kwarteng duo that poisoned the Tory reputation for fiscal responsibility and control in 49 days it was that bad. They are running around promising shit here there and everywhere now so probs best to get in power and then see what you can do.

It was a nice-to-have plan that had to be shelved due to the amount of capital the Tories were making off it. However, after listening to a Shadow Cabinet member last night, it seems clear that the intent to go through with the plans haven’t changed but putting a price on it has. The narrative is changing to ‘by the end of the the first term and well into the second’.

One we will have to judge them on should they get the gig.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Giving more money to the poor is not inflationary. It creates demand for stuff that is not in short supply - food, clothing. If the money goes instead to the rich (shareholders, bosses) they will either invest it (much of it abroad) or spend it on luxury goods (mostly on stuff made abroad, or on holidays abroad) so it does nothing for the domestic economy.

I’m not in favor of “giving money” to anyone, really, but the working poor spend it all, so it is generally better for the wider economy. In fact, there is some data that $1 in the hands of the working poor is worth $1.70 to the local economy as the dollar gets recycled and reused.

That said, in the American system (and UK system, too, I believe) the use of money for investment is also very important as an economic engine. Money saved/invested doesn’t just sit in a vault growing, it fuels the economy in ways that not only differ from the direct consumer, but help keep prices down for them and others by providing the money to grow the economy.

Or, approaching it differently, why would greater disparity of wealth (so much income going to so few) be less inflationary than spreading the wealth around?

I think wealth disparity is not nearly the issue it is made out to be and, in many instances, is a choice that too many people make poorly for themselves.

Sure, there are people with enormous wealth and those with a negative net worth who are one pay day away from disaster. However, the sheer number of people at the upper end are so few as to make the comparison not only difficult but specious.

No matter how much money one person has, they almost always invest the vast majority of it, thus fueling economic production, not creating the general inflationary pressure of purchasers.

Trying to flatten that spectrum, while possibly a worthy endeavor, feels like wasted effort, because no matter when you make everyone the same, a year later disparity will exist, two years later it would be greater and 10 years later we would be back where we are today!

Therefore, we can tinker at the margins all day long, but human nature being what it is, it would require constant engineering to maintain any semblance of it over any length of time.

We are getting waaaaay far away from anything related to Keir Starmer, so I’ll bow out as gracefully as possible. I have little to say about him or Sunak. Britain is a mess and being in opposition is easy, because it’s easy to point to things that aren’t working. Fixing them is a whole different issue, and Starmer has zero experience of fixing anything…yet!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

which is how we remain the 6th biggest economy with almost zero growth and investment - the money is taken out of our economy and banked offshore

How does that money make money for the investor?