Digital Pounds to be introduced
Discussion
2xChevrons said:
And Citation Supplied, thank you.
The disparity between the macro-economic trends (everything - GDP, wages, productivity going up, albeit at quite different rates) and the smaller-scale ones (in the second graph) I think explains why so many people are feeling discontented/angry/scared/hopeless/frustrated etc. at the moment. We're told, and in some ways can see, that 'we've never had it so good' and there is more wealth around than ever, but we're not feeling the tangible benefits and security of that in our own pockets, bank accounts and lifestyles.
They're not wrong. Our "standard of living" has done nothing but go upwards, our availability of food is incredible, technology that should make our lives easier (not a convincing argument for a happy life) is coming on leaps and bounds. Our quality of life I would argue is decreasing. The disparity between the macro-economic trends (everything - GDP, wages, productivity going up, albeit at quite different rates) and the smaller-scale ones (in the second graph) I think explains why so many people are feeling discontented/angry/scared/hopeless/frustrated etc. at the moment. We're told, and in some ways can see, that 'we've never had it so good' and there is more wealth around than ever, but we're not feeling the tangible benefits and security of that in our own pockets, bank accounts and lifestyles.
The prevailing opinion is unhappiness, discontent, distrust. Perhaps modern life is not so good for us after all. Especially if you choose to do the things that are bad for you (the obvious and non-obvious ones).
We spend less time outdoors, we spend less time with real people, we do less physical work, spend less time with our families, statistically have less children, less stable homes, and spend more time working.
We spend more time eating food filled with chemicals and zero nutritional value, spend more time staring at screens getting fed the latest media trend, more mental health issues, more health issues, more obesity.
There are times when I'm not entirely sure the Amish are wrong about the key to a happy and healthy life.
Go outside, eat a steak, spend time with your friends and family.
RichTT said:
2xChevrons said:
And Citation Supplied, thank you.
The disparity between the macro-economic trends (everything - GDP, wages, productivity going up, albeit at quite different rates) and the smaller-scale ones (in the second graph) I think explains why so many people are feeling discontented/angry/scared/hopeless/frustrated etc. at the moment. We're told, and in some ways can see, that 'we've never had it so good' and there is more wealth around than ever, but we're not feeling the tangible benefits and security of that in our own pockets, bank accounts and lifestyles.
They're not wrong. Our "standard of living" has done nothing but go upwards, our availability of food is incredible, technology that should make our lives easier (not a convincing argument for a happy life) is coming on leaps and bounds. Our quality of life I would argue is decreasing. The disparity between the macro-economic trends (everything - GDP, wages, productivity going up, albeit at quite different rates) and the smaller-scale ones (in the second graph) I think explains why so many people are feeling discontented/angry/scared/hopeless/frustrated etc. at the moment. We're told, and in some ways can see, that 'we've never had it so good' and there is more wealth around than ever, but we're not feeling the tangible benefits and security of that in our own pockets, bank accounts and lifestyles.
The prevailing opinion is unhappiness, discontent, distrust. Perhaps modern life is not so good for us after all. Especially if you choose to do the things that are bad for you (the obvious and non-obvious ones).
We spend less time outdoors, we spend less time with real people, we do less physical work, spend less time with our families, statistically have less children, less stable homes, and spend more time working.
We spend more time eating food filled with chemicals and zero nutritional value, spend more time staring at screens getting fed the latest media trend, more mental health issues, more health issues, more obesity.
There are times when I'm not entirely sure the Amish are wrong about the key to a happy and healthy life.
Go outside, eat a steak, spend time with your friends and family.
Many of us sit at home working remotely or in a cubicle in an office, moving paper/data around or have online meetings - we don't 'make' anything tangible.
We're being decentralised - we cluster round the hearth, the village green, the town square less and less - this is a huge change for the species who, since we first transitioned from nomad families to settlers have collected together for work and leisure.
I can't imagine it's particularly healthy.
EmBe said:
In the west at least, it now takes 2 decent wages to pay rent or a mortgage for a family home where it used to be one average wage, so the family is more disparate for more of the time
That maybe true for all the UK and some areas of the west. For example if you want a house or flat in France, in Paris or right on the Med then you will pay serious money, for the rest of the country much cheaper.EmBe said:
In the west at least, it now takes 2 decent wages to pay rent or a mortgage for a family home where it used to be one average wage, so the family is more disparate for more of the time - I suspect that causes all kinds of problems we aren't currently aware of (or don't want to face up to) and it's getting worse - Children's care is outsourced, meals are processed, leisure time is fragmented and often now spent online etc. etc.
Many of us sit at home working remotely or in a cubicle in an office, moving paper/data around or have online meetings - we don't 'make' anything tangible.
We're being decentralised - we cluster round the hearth, the village green, the town square less and less - this is a huge change for the species who, since we first transitioned from nomad families to settlers have collected together for work and leisure.
I can't imagine it's particularly healthy.
That’s an excellent post. Many of us sit at home working remotely or in a cubicle in an office, moving paper/data around or have online meetings - we don't 'make' anything tangible.
We're being decentralised - we cluster round the hearth, the village green, the town square less and less - this is a huge change for the species who, since we first transitioned from nomad families to settlers have collected together for work and leisure.
I can't imagine it's particularly healthy.
EmBe said:
We're being decentralised
Just the opposite. We're being centralised at a rapid pace. How many people now live in ever expanding cities rather than in the countryside? It's a vicious circle of people moving to cities because the farming and industry becomes industrialised and automated. This is the deflationary nature of technological progress. It has mostly made goods and food cheaper, but conversely it has made services and housing more expensive as people cram into more crowded spaces.
Rural services get cut because it becomes too expensive to maintain for less people (post offices, bank branches, train services, bus services etc). The more businesses leave the countryside the more people have to follow the work in to cities and urban areas.
Jeff Booth wrote a fantastic book. The Price of Tomorrow: Why Deflation is the Key to an Abundant Future. I can highly recommend it as it might just change your views on a lot of how/why things are as they are.
2xChevrons said:
Also big [Citation Needed] on the notion that we have more money and leisure time than ever before, as of the average UK worker in 2023. And how has the money and leisure time available to us altered in relation to productivity and overall economic growth?
Sorry, nonewithstanding the previous answer, I should probably add that I think we peaked sometime during the last two years, and the cost of living crisis is biting into everyone's spare cash, or certainly the JAM's. (The rich seem immune / better off than ever). I'll have a longer read of the previous answer, only gave it a quick skim (apologies)johnboy1975 said:
Sorry, nonewithstanding the previous answer, I should probably add that I think we peaked sometime during the last two years, and the cost of living crisis is biting into everyone's spare cash, or certainly the JAM's. (The rich seem immune / better off than ever). I'll have a longer read of the previous answer, only gave it a quick skim (apologies)
The rot truly started in the 1970s during the globalisation of industry, depegging of the USD from Gold, the shift to a consumer culture over a savings culture, the divergence of the economy from the stock market, the divergence of wages from the economy and the slow transfer of wealth from the many to the few. The massive acceleration of this effect was only really highlighted during the pandemic and exposed what used to happen slowly, happening very quickly. During the pandemic the top gained $2.8T of wealth and the bottom lost $2.8T of wealth. This is not a coincidence.
The rich remain rich and get richer because they hold assets, equities, property and land. They often have income that is not derived from taxed at source wages, supplemented by dividends, shares and other income streams. These income sources all benefit from inflation. Anyone on a fixed or low income suffers the most from inflation as their spending power goes down and their real term wages don't match real world costs of just working and living.
This is not about being bitter. I have no complaints about my own standard of living, neither am I under the misapprehension that any assets I may own have not benefitted from this effect. But in essence the whole game is rigged from the beginning. Wealth inequality is destined to continue along its scheduled path until the people revolt, or they vote for more and more socialist leaning governments which will seek to distribute the wealth of the rich to the poor. Which as we know from history, does not end well for anyone (apart from the truly wealthy who will bugger off to their compounds and islands or truly capitalistic states).
RichTT said:
The rot truly started in the 1970s during the globalisation of industry, depegging of the USD from Gold, the shift to a consumer culture over a savings culture, the divergence of the economy from the stock market, the divergence of wages from the economy and the slow transfer of wealth from the many to the few. The massive acceleration of this effect was only really highlighted during the pandemic and exposed what used to happen slowly, happening very quickly.
During the pandemic the top gained $2.8T of wealth and the bottom lost $2.8T of wealth. This is not a coincidence.
The rich remain rich and get richer because they hold assets, equities, property and land. They often have income that is not derived from taxed at source wages, supplemented by dividends, shares and other income streams. These income sources all benefit from inflation. Anyone on a fixed or low income suffers the most from inflation as their spending power goes down and their real term wages don't match real world costs of just working and living.
This is not about being bitter. I have no complaints about my own standard of living, neither am I under the misapprehension that any assets I may own have not benefitted from this effect. But in essence the whole game is rigged from the beginning. Wealth inequality is destined to continue along its scheduled path until the people revolt, or they vote for more and more socialist leaning governments which will seek to distribute the wealth of the rich to the poor. Which as we know from history, does not end well for anyone (apart from the truly wealthy who will bugger off to their compounds and islands or truly capitalistic states).
I'm all for taking down capitalism and changing the transfer of wealth, but I'm not sure that wealth inequality is the right target. I think it's more about accountability and transparency. I don't mind if someone has billions, as long as they're giving back with equivalence to someone who has pennies. It's the attitude of 'I'm not paying tax because my company/employees/investments are taxed' which grates. I pay a sDuring the pandemic the top gained $2.8T of wealth and the bottom lost $2.8T of wealth. This is not a coincidence.
The rich remain rich and get richer because they hold assets, equities, property and land. They often have income that is not derived from taxed at source wages, supplemented by dividends, shares and other income streams. These income sources all benefit from inflation. Anyone on a fixed or low income suffers the most from inflation as their spending power goes down and their real term wages don't match real world costs of just working and living.
This is not about being bitter. I have no complaints about my own standard of living, neither am I under the misapprehension that any assets I may own have not benefitted from this effect. But in essence the whole game is rigged from the beginning. Wealth inequality is destined to continue along its scheduled path until the people revolt, or they vote for more and more socialist leaning governments which will seek to distribute the wealth of the rich to the poor. Which as we know from history, does not end well for anyone (apart from the truly wealthy who will bugger off to their compounds and islands or truly capitalistic states).
tload of tax and I could move abroad to reduce my bill to almost zero...I don't do it because ethically I feel obligated to give back to this country after being born and raised and educated here at the tax payer's expense. There should be more than an ethical obligation, it should be mandatory for everyone to give back. If there was more accountability and transparency I bet there'd be less of a market for billion dollar yachts and private jets and I think we'd all benefit from that.RichTT said:
EmBe said:
We're being decentralised
Just the opposite. We're being centralised at a rapid pace. How many people now live in ever expanding cities rather than in the countryside? It's a vicious circle of people moving to cities because the farming and industry becomes industrialised and automated. This is the deflationary nature of technological progress. It has mostly made goods and food cheaper, but conversely it has made services and housing more expensive as people cram into more crowded spaces.
Rural services get cut because it becomes too expensive to maintain for less people (post offices, bank branches, train services, bus services etc). The more businesses leave the countryside the more people have to follow the work in to cities and urban areas.
Jeff Booth wrote a fantastic book. The Price of Tomorrow: Why Deflation is the Key to an Abundant Future. I can highly recommend it as it might just change your views on a lot of how/why things are as they are.
People don't 'meet' one another as much - we get supermarket deliveries instead of going to the high st. Kids are in after school clubs and picked up by a parent on the commute home, we work in silos, we shop and live a lot of our social lives online.
We have an abundance of 'stuff' and we're all better off financially than 100 years ago but the price seems to be less and less human contact.
I'll look out the book, thanks.
dimots said:
I'm all for taking down capitalism and changing the transfer of wealth, but I'm not sure that wealth inequality is the right target. I think it's more about accountability and transparency. I don't mind if someone has billions, as long as they're giving back with equivalence to someone who has pennies. It's the attitude of 'I'm not paying tax because my company/employees/investments are taxed' which grates. I pay a stload of tax and I could move abroad to reduce my bill to almost zero...I don't do it because ethically I feel obligated to give back to this country after being born and raised and educated here at the tax payer's expense. There should be more than an ethical obligation, it should be mandatory for everyone to give back. If there was more accountability and transparency I bet there'd be less of a market for billion dollar yachts and private jets and I think we'd all benefit from that.
Oh, I'm not an anarchist or a socialist. I'm a free markets proponent with the utmost admiration for capitalist enterprise. It is singularly responsible for lifting the standard of living of billions around the world, feeding us, housing us and giving rise to massive technological innovation. tload of tax and I could move abroad to reduce my bill to almost zero...I don't do it because ethically I feel obligated to give back to this country after being born and raised and educated here at the tax payer's expense. There should be more than an ethical obligation, it should be mandatory for everyone to give back. If there was more accountability and transparency I bet there'd be less of a market for billion dollar yachts and private jets and I think we'd all benefit from that.The problem is that we no longer live in a free market and we no longer have money that retains value over an appreciable length of time. We also have central banks and governments that think their manipulations and restrictions on the free market do better than the demands of the free market at providing what we want and need.
We also have Government that by its very nature is expansionary. The tax the more spending, the more spending the more oversight, the more oversight the bigger the dept. needs to be to oversee, so they raise taxes to cover expansion. Etc. Etc. Bring back fiscal responsibility. Reduce the size of the government administrative body. Set a flat income tax above a minimum threshold considered enough for a decent quality of living. No exceptions, no exemptions. Corporate and Personal. Remove the loopholes and offshoring of the vast amount of money that slips through the exchequers fingers each year.
It's not necessarily about inequality in wealth, there will always be those driven to be successful and end up with wealth as a result. Buying a yacht employs yacht builders and all the people along the supply chain. Buying luxury goods supports the jewelry, watchmaking and manufacturers employees. No issues with that whatsoever.
But the increasing wealth inequality is the result of the Cantillon effect where those closest to the money printers benefit the most. Access to cheap credit, lower rates, financial services, early investment opportunities etc. And that won't stop until we change the base monetary layer, the central banking system, or the financial services sector drastically.
Accountability and transparency is an interesting one. A CBDC will be neither for us. They can see what we spend, but we have no oversight into what they spend.
As a high earner I pay an eyewatering amount of tax. I appreciate that there are benefits to living in the UK and for the time being I accept that. But I am under no illusions that if this creep continues, I will be out of here.
RichTT said:
But in essence the whole game is rigged from the beginning. Wealth inequality is destined to continue along its scheduled path until the people revolt, or they vote for more and more socialist leaning governments which will seek to distribute the wealth of the rich to the poor. Which as we know from history, does not end well for anyone (apart from the truly wealthy who will bugger off to their compounds and islands or truly capitalistic states).
Yes it is. However that's a function of human nature which is selfish and destructive and that is hardly likely to change. Inequality will continue until society breaks or drastically changes (whether through civil war or other external factors like war/plague/famine etc). Going back to the gold standard or a non deflationary currency simply isn't going to change the underlying human behaviour that results in those with increasing means using them to exploit their advantages. isaldiri said:
Yes it is. However that's a function of human nature which is selfish and destructive and that is hardly likely to change. Inequality will continue until society breaks or drastically changes (whether through civil war or other external factors like war/plague/famine etc). Going back to the gold standard or a non deflationary currency simply isn't going to change the underlying human behaviour that results in those with increasing means using them to exploit their advantages.
No, I don't believe that at all. Human society is built around the cooperative efforts of a community to benefit each other. This is how we moved from being singular or small tribes into the large societal groups we have today. On the whole, people are decent and caring to each other. The outliers are the sociopaths, and they are the absolute minority, but due to the massive effects of that sociopathy they stand out. The divergence does come from how our society lives. The larger the group the less able we are to care about those close to us. A social circle of about 150 people is generally thought to be our maximum. This is Dunbar's Number. This is why you find stronger and more helpful communities in small villages. So a massive city has many hundreds of thousands of social circles, each who cares about each other, but separated and intermingled with other social circles. But you're far less likely to care greatly about your neighbor two floors up in a tower block, or down the street, than you are about the people in your own circle.
No, changing the currency is going to do diddly squat for people's motivations. That would have to come from a societal shift of great proportions. Either upheaval, unrest, or crisis.
But a select few being able to exploit the financial system through its complexity and multi tiered access levels and availability is most definitely under our control to change.
jameswills said:
BlackWidow13 said:
V1nce Fox said:
But what if I want to own stuff?
What if I want to finish paying for the house i've slogged my bks off for all these years, the house that also has the labours of my late father invested in it? The house with a modest but happy garden in it? The house that I can take comfort will be a safe home for my partner if anything happens to me?
What if I want to keep the motorbike I bought over 20 years ago? The bike that survived a crash that left me permanently injured and I rebuilt painstakingly? The bike that I had my first kiss with my partner on? The bike that contains parts from the engine of my late best friend?
What if I want to keep my car, my other bikes, things I worked hard to buy and even harder to build or maintain, all of which I didn't ask for any handouts or help to do? Things I exchanged honest labour in order to have for myself?
What if I say no to owning nothing, as I know it will make me very, VERY unhappy?
What if others say no as well?
Can you just sketch out, in rough terms if necessary, the mechanism by which “they” will expropriate from you things that you have paid for and own? Just an outline of how this will be achieved will do. What if I want to finish paying for the house i've slogged my b
ks off for all these years, the house that also has the labours of my late father invested in it? The house with a modest but happy garden in it? The house that I can take comfort will be a safe home for my partner if anything happens to me?What if I want to keep the motorbike I bought over 20 years ago? The bike that survived a crash that left me permanently injured and I rebuilt painstakingly? The bike that I had my first kiss with my partner on? The bike that contains parts from the engine of my late best friend?
What if I want to keep my car, my other bikes, things I worked hard to buy and even harder to build or maintain, all of which I didn't ask for any handouts or help to do? Things I exchanged honest labour in order to have for myself?
What if I say no to owning nothing, as I know it will make me very, VERY unhappy?
What if others say no as well?
Edited by V1nce Fox on Wednesday 15th February 09:24
Houses and land is being snapped up by the wealthy, house ownership is going to be unaffordable for the next generation (possibly the one after if this generation are allowed inheritance), they will simply rent their house.
Everything else is rented now anyway isn’t it? Phones, social life, music, videos? No renting things is not a new concept (Rumbelows?), but it was exclusively for the poor, now it is becoming the norm.
Is that bad? Will you be happy? I don’t know to be honest, I would rather like to have the choice that’s not exclusive to being a millionaire though.
You also forget a very important pragmatic point - that those buying property to let will still be looking for a yield, thereby renting won't be a cheaper option.
oyster said:
Moist of the recent tax changes related to housing have added the tax burden to letting, thereby doing the opposite of what you're suggesting.
No they haven'tThey have targeted the small private landlord, so in other words the slightly richer among the ordinary populace, who have benefitted from policies designed to enrich the already wealthy. They will be driven out of the rental market to make way for large corporate landlords.
Edited by JagLover on Friday 17th February 13:46
JagLover said:
No they haven't
They have targeted the small private landlord, so in other words the slightly richer among the ordinary populace, who have also benefitted from policies designed to enrich the already wealthy. They will be driven out of the rental market to make way for large corporate landlords.
Dint Lloyds bank say they want to be the biggest private landlord.They have targeted the small private landlord, so in other words the slightly richer among the ordinary populace, who have also benefitted from policies designed to enrich the already wealthy. They will be driven out of the rental market to make way for large corporate landlords.
https://www.independent.co.uk/business/lloyds-bank...
RichTT said:
johnboy1975 said:
Sorry, nonewithstanding the previous answer, I should probably add that I think we peaked sometime during the last two years, and the cost of living crisis is biting into everyone's spare cash, or certainly the JAM's. (The rich seem immune / better off than ever). I'll have a longer read of the previous answer, only gave it a quick skim (apologies)
The rot truly started in the 1970s during the globalisation of industry, depegging of the USD from Gold, the shift to a consumer culture over a savings culture, the divergence of the economy from the stock market, the divergence of wages from the economy and the slow transfer of wealth from the many to the few. The massive acceleration of this effect was only really highlighted during the pandemic and exposed what used to happen slowly, happening very quickly. During the pandemic the top gained $2.8T of wealth and the bottom lost $2.8T of wealth. This is not a coincidence.
The rich remain rich and get richer because they hold assets, equities, property and land. They often have income that is not derived from taxed at source wages, supplemented by dividends, shares and other income streams. These income sources all benefit from inflation. Anyone on a fixed or low income suffers the most from inflation as their spending power goes down and their real term wages don't match real world costs of just working and living.
This is not about being bitter. I have no complaints about my own standard of living, neither am I under the misapprehension that any assets I may own have not benefitted from this effect. But in essence the whole game is rigged from the beginning. Wealth inequality is destined to continue along its scheduled path until the people revolt, or they vote for more and more socialist leaning governments which will seek to distribute the wealth of the rich to the poor. Which as we know from history, does not end well for anyone (apart from the truly wealthy who will bugger off to their compounds and islands or truly capitalistic states).
Inequality is increasing and technology looks set to accelerate that. So the pressure in the system continues to build.
However, I also see a increasing collectivism, particularly in younger people, and particularly coalescing around new ideas on the route to net zero. Its difficult to argue against these things, because helping one another and reducing our impact on the planet are objectively 'good' things, but I can't help feeling that it is founded on naivety. We have a generation now that has grown up after the collapse of communism almost everywhere except for China.
Capitalism has lasted because it is aligned with human nature. We are hard wired to aspire and to want to benefit from the fruits of our labour. That's why, wherever we have communism we also have a corrupt elite that profits at the expense of everyone else. So Orwells animals couldn't tell the difference between the men and the pigs.
I think we are definitely headed into a new period of global socialism, in which China will have a powerful influence. And that's the concern about CBDC's. China's CCP are already doing 'all the bad stuff' around social credit and oppression. If we want to be more like them its easy to see the risks.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff