6 ms·

If it already hasn't been said I'd really recommend anyone interested in this topic to checkout "Gary's Economics" on YouTube. Even if you don't agree with him

by samiv 2y ago

If it already hasn't been said I'd really recommend anyone interested in this topic to checkout "Gary's Economics" on YouTube. Even if you don't agree with him (and I know many don't for various reasons..) You have to admit that he does bring a new perspective to the table and (as a layman economist) it just makes logical sense. Regardless, the main stream economists have not been able to either predict the economy or improve it (for the general majority of people) and it seems that every western economy is following the same trajectory where - governments are broke and pulling back on their services to the public (health care, education etc.) - working class is broke, living pay check to paycheck barely scraping by - middle class is shrinking and financing their lives with ever increasing amounts of debt (mortgages) All the above then begs the question, who has all the money? Who has all the wealth?

blitzar 2y ago
Classic grifter - 95% of his backstory is made up. You can achieve far greater enlightenment by simply droping your preconceptions about rich and poor people and understanding the very basic day to day things happening around you than you will achieve listening to him.
- bostonwalker 2y ago
  Source on his backstory being made up?
  - blitzar 2y ago
    https://www.ft.com/content/7e8b47b3-7931-4354-9e8a-47d75d057fff https://www.ft.com/content/7e8b47b3-7931-4354-9e8a-47d75d057...
    - James_K 2y ago
      He has addressed this numerous times. His statement was that he was Citi Bank's best trader in 2011, which is true. The dispute is an attempt to discredit him by suggesting that him not being the best trader in other years debunks his 2011 figure.
      - sofixa 2y ago
        > His statement was that he was Citi Bank's best trader in 2011, which is true Is it? Nothing in the FT articles indicates that, and they clearly state that 2 years prior a trader got a $100 million personal bonus (so on profits much higher than that). There can be good and bad years, but I seriously doubt $35 million would be the best worldwide, and all of his colleagues who agreed to speak seem to agree with that.
      - blitzar 2y ago
        > I was the best f*king trader in the f*king world and I am the bloke that called it right every f*king year He possibly had the highest p&l on his desk ($35mil) in 2011 - was not top in 2011 in the bank, and certainly not in the world. $35mil - rookie numbers in this game, and in a seat at Citibank, middling at best.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        gghhzzgghhzz 2y ago
        I admit there's something that doesn't add up. I listened to him being asked a question on UK / US trade and his answer was very generic - something something Amazon. To be a forex trader, you would live and breathe detail on stuff like this. To be in the top 1% of forex traders you would be far beyond that. yes he isn't in that position now, but I expected some novel insight that you could only get from a specialist, not something that anyone could come up with. This isn't the only example. I don't disagree with most of what he is saying, and I'm very happy for him that he has managed to break through in a small way to get his message out. but still something iffy.
      - brailsafe 2y ago
        I don't really think that matters at all, it's just an old tenuous bragging point, he's just a guy with a tough looking face and maybe has an elementary understanding of economics that relies less on being accurate and more on the viewer agreeing with him about why everything feels broken. (not that everything isn't broken, or that those reasons aren't ever accurate, but it's just a classic grifter move to pull on the thread of truth till it unravels, like asmongold) Crashcourse economics likely provides much more value to anyone really looking to learn.
jbjbjbjb 2y ago
I think he massively misses the mark. If you look at Britain’s actual problems they’re not due to a lack of tax revenue or “the rich”. People aren’t able to save because their money is spent on housing and energy - both of those are due to poor policy.
- James_K 2y ago
  The purpose of tax is not to raise money to government, but to redistribute wealth. The government prints money to cover the bill of its expenditure. If it issued no taxes, then that burden would fall on all people through inflation, affecting the poor moreso than the rich. Taxes are an issue separate from spending that allows the government to move money down from rich to poor, and in doing so offset the inflationary effects of spending. This is why tax is a solution to rent. Rent is poor people giving money to rich people, and tax allows you to reverse that flow.
  - jbjbjbjb 2y ago
    That’s just wrong on so many levels. If I look at just one error, inflation doesn’t affect everyone it is a tax on savers ie the rich. Wages and prices go up with inflation (prices by definition), but cash and savings go down in real terms.
    - Spooky23 2y ago
      Look around, bro. Hard assets get more expensive and return on those assets don’t decline. Thats why studio apartments are $1200/mo in Buffalo, NY. Lol People with money pretty readily deploy that money into investments that beat inflation.
      - jbjbjbjb 2y ago
        Sure but rich people also have lots of cash and bonds, at least more than the poor. Poor people don’t have either, their best inflation hedge is borrowing.
    - 2y ago
euroderf 2y ago
> All the above then begs the question, who has all the money? Who has all the wealth? The "I.T. Revolution" was supposed to bring a vast payoff from improved productivity. Did the benefits of society-wide process improvement get snarfed up by... vastly more inequality ?
meekaaku 2y ago
He is a betting man. He himself says he and colleagues bet against the economy in the financial crisis and made shit ton of money. Stock market/trading is a kind of zero sum game. For him to gain, someone else has to lose. However, real economy is not a zero sum game and I dont think he understands that. AFAIK never was an entrepreneur, or created a business. He advocates for a wealth tax, ie a tax on unrealised gains. For realised gains, we already do wealth tax and thats called capital gains tax.
- samiv 2y ago
  I think he understands that but when you have a situation where the real economy is growing only around 1% per year but rich people grow their wealth somewhere around 4-10% that can only come at someone else's expense. In other words while the real economy might be growing as a "non-zero sum game" the growth of the elite and the rich far exceeds that and outpaces it. Net effect is that their wealth is wealth away from everyone else.

by samiv 2y ago

blitzar 2y ago

Classic grifter - 95% of his backstory is made up. You can achieve far greater enlightenment by simply droping your preconceptions about rich and poor people and understanding the very basic day to day things happening around you than you will achieve listening to him.

bostonwalker 2y ago
Source on his backstory being made up?
- blitzar 2y ago
  https://www.ft.com/content/7e8b47b3-7931-4354-9e8a-47d75d057fff https://www.ft.com/content/7e8b47b3-7931-4354-9e8a-47d75d057...
  - James_K 2y ago
    He has addressed this numerous times. His statement was that he was Citi Bank's best trader in 2011, which is true. The dispute is an attempt to discredit him by suggesting that him not being the best trader in other years debunks his 2011 figure.
    - sofixa 2y ago
      > His statement was that he was Citi Bank's best trader in 2011, which is true Is it? Nothing in the FT articles indicates that, and they clearly state that 2 years prior a trader got a $100 million personal bonus (so on profits much higher than that). There can be good and bad years, but I seriously doubt $35 million would be the best worldwide, and all of his colleagues who agreed to speak seem to agree with that.
    - blitzar 2y ago
      > I was the best f*king trader in the f*king world and I am the bloke that called it right every f*king year He possibly had the highest p&l on his desk ($35mil) in 2011 - was not top in 2011 in the bank, and certainly not in the world. $35mil - rookie numbers in this game, and in a seat at Citibank, middling at best.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - gghhzzgghhzz 2y ago
        I admit there's something that doesn't add up. I listened to him being asked a question on UK / US trade and his answer was very generic - something something Amazon. To be a forex trader, you would live and breathe detail on stuff like this. To be in the top 1% of forex traders you would be far beyond that. yes he isn't in that position now, but I expected some novel insight that you could only get from a specialist, not something that anyone could come up with. This isn't the only example. I don't disagree with most of what he is saying, and I'm very happy for him that he has managed to break through in a small way to get his message out. but still something iffy.
    - brailsafe 2y ago
      I don't really think that matters at all, it's just an old tenuous bragging point, he's just a guy with a tough looking face and maybe has an elementary understanding of economics that relies less on being accurate and more on the viewer agreeing with him about why everything feels broken. (not that everything isn't broken, or that those reasons aren't ever accurate, but it's just a classic grifter move to pull on the thread of truth till it unravels, like asmongold) Crashcourse economics likely provides much more value to anyone really looking to learn.

jbjbjbjb 2y ago

I think he massively misses the mark. If you look at Britain’s actual problems they’re not due to a lack of tax revenue or “the rich”. People aren’t able to save because their money is spent on housing and energy - both of those are due to poor policy.

James_K 2y ago
The purpose of tax is not to raise money to government, but to redistribute wealth. The government prints money to cover the bill of its expenditure. If it issued no taxes, then that burden would fall on all people through inflation, affecting the poor moreso than the rich. Taxes are an issue separate from spending that allows the government to move money down from rich to poor, and in doing so offset the inflationary effects of spending. This is why tax is a solution to rent. Rent is poor people giving money to rich people, and tax allows you to reverse that flow.
- jbjbjbjb 2y ago
  That’s just wrong on so many levels. If I look at just one error, inflation doesn’t affect everyone it is a tax on savers ie the rich. Wages and prices go up with inflation (prices by definition), but cash and savings go down in real terms.
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    Look around, bro. Hard assets get more expensive and return on those assets don’t decline. Thats why studio apartments are $1200/mo in Buffalo, NY. Lol People with money pretty readily deploy that money into investments that beat inflation.
    - jbjbjbjb 2y ago
      Sure but rich people also have lots of cash and bonds, at least more than the poor. Poor people don’t have either, their best inflation hedge is borrowing.
  - 2y ago

euroderf 2y ago

> All the above then begs the question, who has all the money? Who has all the wealth? The "I.T. Revolution" was supposed to bring a vast payoff from improved productivity. Did the benefits of society-wide process improvement get snarfed up by... vastly more inequality ?

meekaaku 2y ago

He is a betting man. He himself says he and colleagues bet against the economy in the financial crisis and made shit ton of money. Stock market/trading is a kind of zero sum game. For him to gain, someone else has to lose. However, real economy is not a zero sum game and I dont think he understands that. AFAIK never was an entrepreneur, or created a business. He advocates for a wealth tax, ie a tax on unrealised gains. For realised gains, we already do wealth tax and thats called capital gains tax.

samiv 2y ago
I think he understands that but when you have a situation where the real economy is growing only around 1% per year but rich people grow their wealth somewhere around 4-10% that can only come at someone else's expense. In other words while the real economy might be growing as a "non-zero sum game" the growth of the elite and the rich far exceeds that and outpaces it. Net effect is that their wealth is wealth away from everyone else.