advertisement


Garys Economics (Basically economics for dummies)

A lot of this covid money has ended up in pockets where it shouldn't have. Tracing its whereabouts is a lost cause, and rock-hard assumptions from various writers are speculation at best. And speculation is the wrong approach for working with money.

If you've got money to burn, then have fun. If not, start by not losing what you have.
So, just give up then?. I'd rather have the knowledge, then I can make up my own mind
 
I have been following his channel for some considerable time - He puts his latest post up early on a Sunday morning, so you an can enjoy it with a nice cuppa and a biccie
or 2 :D He openly admits that he was lucky to get the opportunity to work in the city and as a trader. People from a working class backgrounds, like his, just never get the opportunity. Due to the usual elitist nonsense! He does say he has a natural aptitude for mathematics, so applied himself and did very well - I like his style and story and think he’s someone to be admired. His working class roots no doubt help him to stay grounded IMO and I’m sure he must have felt out of place a lot of the time, which I would imagine was pretty hard.

Sure, some of the videos can become a bit samey and some can come across as a little bit whingey at times, but on the whole his message is a good one. In one of his videos he refers to one of the greatest times for the UK for equality being in the early 50’s, so not long after the second world war. It was a time when the very wealthy were taxed at 90%!!!

There’s only so much money anyone needs, so if you have enough for generational wealth, then it’s only right to help others to elevate their situations, so all can enjoy a better standard of living and greater opportunities. The UK should definitely not have any poverty whatsoever, the fact that we do, is a failure of Governments both past and present, and something they should be ashamed of

Watch his channel, buy his book, support his cause! 👊👊
 
A very timely 17 minute scorching of the earth talk regarding living standards/wealth inequality by Professor Scott Galloway of NYU,


 
A very timely 17 minute scorching of the earth talk regarding living standards/wealth inequality by Professor Scott Galloway of NYU,


Thanks for posting. Galloway raises a heap of excellent points most notably about the social contract and especially the transfer of wealth. I think he is wrong about there being a fundamental agreement because we, the UK and US, have never had one. (To be clear I mean a social contract in Galloway’s meaning of an agreement about the purpose of government, not Labour’s Social Contract in the 70’s) However, we really, really should have one because it is in, and because of, that lack of social contract, that the Transfer of Wealth actually operates.

Economics is not about maths, it is about the allocation of resources. Economics is not hard, it is a simple moral imperative. We are currently operating a system designed to Transfer Wealth upwards. In the US and the UK, the richest and one of the richest countries in the world, money is, in some bizarre Robin Hood reversal, taken from the poor and given to the rich. In order to do this both countries perpetuate the myth that there is no money, that money is in short supply, or that we can’t spend the money on the poor because it will cause somesort of meltdown.

None of which is true.

We need a social contract, one that explicitly states the purpose of government is to harmonise society, to reduce inequality, to increase opportunity and to mitigate disadvantage.

The poor are getting poorer while the rich get richer because of choices, not because there is no alternative.
 
Last edited:
He openly admits that he was lucky to get the opportunity to work in the city and as a trader. People from a working class backgrounds, like his, just never get the opportunity. Due to the usual elitist nonsense!
I don't know how true that really is. I worked in IT in The City for years and, yes, there were some people with posh backgrounds (especially when I worked for a boutique investment bank) but the majority of my colleagues were just regular peeps. I think a much greater barrier isn't class but gender - it's still a very male dominated world.
 
I don't know how true that really is. I worked in IT in The City for years and, yes, there were some people with posh backgrounds (especially when I worked for a boutique investment bank) but the majority of my colleagues were just regular peeps. I think a much greater barrier isn't class but gender - it's still a very male dominated world.
 
That article seems to be about law firms.

M&A was quite posh. The trading floors really weren't.
Apologies, I posted the wrong article. Meant to post this one agreeing with your point about male domination
 
My daughter didn't seem to find any discrimination, female, state educated and earning far more than me.
Good.

My comment was based on my experience of working for an investment bank and a couple of Fintech firms. There were a handful of senior staff who were female. But they were the exception - it was a very male dominated environment, and the top floor of the bank was entirely male.

It's not just the City. Only 1 in 10 CEOs of FTSE 100 firms is female - though things are improving.
 
Interesting analysis in the FT last month.

They found a roughly even gender mix for entry level jobs in finance which drops to about 25/75 for the most senior roles.

6snRUYt.png


 
Good.

My comment was based on my experience of working for an investment bank and a couple of Fintech firms. There were a handful of senior staff who were female. But they were the exception - it was a very male dominated environment, and the top floor of the bank was entirely male.

It's not just the City. Only 1 in 10 CEOs of FTSE 100 firms is female - though things are improving.

Daughter's in media, maybe they're a bit more enlightened, although the environment does sound pretty toxic at times.

There's a definite corrective balance taking place in agriculture though, every advisor i interact with is female.

I suspect they know me too well.
 
The specific end informing all our present government fiscal choices is the needs of the market, with people a recent and inconvenient add on

Why not people? Doesn‘t the recent rise of democratic ideas about all human beings push people above industrial ideas about invisible hands operating markets at optimal efficiency by, presumably invisible, strings?
 


advertisement


Back
Top