4 ms·
But still, the money that's going straight into working class people's pockets is probably better for the UK in the long run. Don't worry, it will get taxed ove
by bunderbunder 2y ago
But still, the money that's going straight into working class people's pockets is probably better for the UK in the long run. Don't worry, it will get taxed over and over and over and over again as they pay each other for things.
Velocity is one of those critically important concepts that often gets left out of these discussions because it's hard to understand if you haven't formally studied economics because it's all about second order effects. But it's a big part of understanding why, historically speaking, maximizing corporate profits doesn't seem to correlate all that well with overall prosperity trends.
- tim333 2y agoThere are quite a lot of people who make money from Harry Potter apart from JKR. People running cinemas, bookshops, making the movies, running the studio tour and so on.
- bunderbunder 2y agoRight. And the more of that that happens, the better for the economy overall. The less of that that happens - implying more of it ends up in JKR's proverbial dragon hoard, not doing much good beyond being an impressive pile of wealth for the dragon to sleep on top of - the less good for the economy overall.
- ViktorRay 2y agoI don’t think your comment is accurate. When rich people get large amounts of money they don’t hoard it like they did in Roman times. That money either goes into the stock market or to a bank. If it’s in the stock market that money is being used in investments that further economic growth. The portion of the leftover money that’s in the bank is then lent out by the bank to others in the forms of loans and so on for purchasing houses, starting business and so on. The idea that the pile of wealth is simply hoarded to be slept on is out of date and not representative of modern economics. Also, as for JK Rowling specifically, she had donated a significant amount of her wealth to charity.
- singleshot_ 2y agoMy largest investment is my home. I’m not sure there’s any other way to think of my home as anything other than “a pile of wealth… to be slept on.” Am I missing something about modern economics?
- _carbyau_ 2y agoYou are missing the wealth required to invest and put in the bank, such that your house is an afterthought.
- bdangubic 2y agoyour largest investment is your home cause you live in strange times when over the last decade the price of housing has ballooned like a big bubble that it is now. if you lived your “core” years in say 50’s to ‘80’s the house would neither be your largest investment nor your primary source of wealth (guessing you are affluent “white collar”…) I look at my tiny townhouse that my Dad could built in 6 weekends with his buddies and zillow needing seven digits to display the price and very well thinking “what a fucking real estate bubble we live in currently.”
- disgruntledphd2 2y agoI don't think this is true. Housing has basically been around 50% of total wealth for the past 50 years or so. Check out Pikettys capital in the 21st century for far more details.
- Foxhuls 2y agoWhile I can’t speak to which one of you is correct I think it’s worth pointing out that 50 years ago only pushes into 5 of the 30 years that they referred to. I can’t imagine it would’ve jumped to 50% overnight in that change but I still thought it was worth mentioning.
- bdangubic 2y agohttps://observationsandnotes.blogspot.com/2011/06/us-housing-prices-since-1900.html https://observationsandnotes.blogspot.com/2011/06/us-housing... there is a clear point at which one might start thinking about real estate as investment (and it sure looks bubbly). if you bought a house as an investments some decades ago it is not much of an investment and basically a loss inflation-adjusted, no?