Hoarding money loses value due to inflation, so how do the rich become super rich?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 tends to be spent on assets or made available for borrowing so doesn't really circulate in the same way as consumer spending.Hoarding money loses value due to inflation, so how do the rich become super rich?
The money is “spent,” but not on cuts, booze, tattoos, flash motors that depreciate quickly, etc…
Just because the money isn’t spent in the corner shop doesn’t mean it’s not used to help put everything in that shop.
Is business spending not important? Doesn’t it fund the creation of everything that ends up being classified as consumer spending?It tends to be spent on assets or made available for borrowing so doesn't really circulate in the same way as consumer spending.
I think what you are describing is the 'trickle down' economics of the Reagan/ Thatcher era. On the face of it a sound theory, but in practice the wealth doesn't seem to trickle so much.Is business spending not important? Doesn’t it fund the creation of everything that ends up being classified as consumer spending?
In addition, when money is spent on assets, that transfer of money usually not only creates tax revenues, but leads to that money being reinvested in either other assets (and more tax revenues) or in the funding of business through borrowing.
Clearly, the impact of the working poor dollar appears to have much greater velocity and potential effect. However, it is no more nor less important than the investment dollar IF policies are in place to create the kind of playing field I think we all seek.
I think what you are describing is the 'trickle down' economics of the Reagan/ Thatcher era. On the face of it a sound theory, but in practice the wealth doesn't seem to trickle so much.
How does that money make money for the investor?
People spending less money on tattoos - ideally none - would be unequivocally positive for society though.Yeah but we don't want poor folk spending money on tats, booze or motors mate. This would give them less time to stop being poor.
Said the pilot from America:-)
This is not talked about often enough, just slips between the mantle. Include housing and council tax benefits, the private rental market, subsidies to huge business such as grants to the likes of Tata and the car manufacturers, energy companies, train franchises, et al, then you sort of understand where all the money is going.
Then think about all the businesses taking public money but then paying dividends out to shareholders? It becomes quite clear that they’re basically funnelling funds into their own accounts as every single one of them have some form of portfolio.
Corrupt from top to bottom, and some of the working class think the Tory party are working for them? It’s all about aspiration.
Now EVs have certainly enabled the advent of new manufacturers
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?