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.
There 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.
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.
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The idea that the pile of wealth is simply hoarded to be slept on is out of date and not representative of modern economics.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.
A lot of that "economic growth" is stuff like flooding the US with opioids, burning mountains of gas and coal to produce crypto scams, and chaining people to the office 60+ hours a week to produce reports justifying their "impact".
The nominal gdp is my father's time was lower and yet he could buy a house and support a family of four on a single salary as an immigrant in his early 20s.
The problem with investment dollars is that they're typically "spent" (invested) only when they can extract more wealth than they create. You invest $10,000 now so you can have $15,000 later. Where did that $5,000 come from? Well, someone gave it to you in exchange for that $10,000.
In other words, they're effectively rent-seeking dollars. The whole hope of investment is that you get more money without doing any labor yourself.
And if you invest and they're lost? Well, now it's not even rent-seeking. It's just burning money.
This isn't to say that there's no benefit from that money being available. The issue is that the real value that investment creates isn't really the money going back to the investor. It's the value of the labor and products generated by whatever the money fronted costs for. The actual value is still generated by the labor. The investor does help start the ball rolling, but is still a leech.
Once we get to shareholders, things don't really improve. Shareholders are also only interested in dividends. They want dividends at the cost of the company. At the cost of the product. At the cost of the customer. There's no responsibility to society or to the customer in the face of a shareholder.
Shareholders are like employees that don't do any work but still want a paycheck. "Oh, but they're owners," is kind of a poor excuse when these owners do no work. Stock is like buying a box of Crackerjack and letting your brother take the whistle and sticker.
> Also, as for JK Rowling specifically, she had donated a significant amount of her wealth to charity.
Which she does because donations offset the taxes she owes. She's no Dolly Parton.
> The actual value is still generated by the labor.
The labour _needed_ the money. In other words, the labour doesn't want to take on capital risk (aka, the output turning worthless, or something like that).
Investors aren't leeching, they are taking risks - risks that the labourers dont want to take (otherwise, they would've been the one fronting the cost, rather than expecting to get paid for labour!).
The old idea of capital being leeches only happens when your capital comes from lords who granted you ownership (of the land).
> Which she does because donations offset the taxes she owes.
How would that work? You can only write off the amount you actually donate. Paying 100% to save 40% (or whatever your tax rate is) seems very counterproductive if the goal is to actually save money.
The home took someone money to build, the land cost money to buy (from the previous owners) - thru the long chain of title ownership that would stem from the conquerors of this land (who ultimately took the land from either natives, or whoever that previously owned it by force).
The previous owners who now got paid by you will use this money for other investments. It is not slept on. Your house is also providing utility (of being a shelter).
You just stopped thinking about the money as soon as it left your bank when you buy the house, and thus you feel that the value of the house is merely being "slept on", when in actual fact, this transaction that is your house is a small cog in a very large system.
your 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.”
I 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.
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?
While 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.
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.