#GaryEconomics #WealthInequality #EconomicChallenges #Economists #InequalityOverlooked
Are economists overlooking wealth inequality?
Have you ever wondered why some economic challenges seem unrelated, yet somehow intertwined? Well, Gary Economics might have the answer you’re looking for. According to a former CitiGroup trader turned YouTube personality, many of our current economic struggles can be traced back to one fundamental issue: wealth inequality. But is he onto something, or is this premise nothing more than a wild theory?
Unpacking Gary Economics
In a time where economic disparities are at an all-time high, Gary Economics offers a fresh perspective on the root causes of our financial woes. The premise is simple: wealth inequality, often brushed aside in classical economic theory, plays a significant role in shaping our economic landscape. By shining a light on this overlooked factor, Gary Economics aims to provide a more holistic understanding of our current challenges.
Challenging the Status Quo
While some may dismiss Gary Economics as a fringe idea, there’s no denying the real-world examples that support this theory. From stagnating wages and rising debt levels to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, the signs of wealth inequality are all around us. But are economists paying enough attention to this crucial issue, or are they too focused on traditional economic models?
Exploring Practical Solutions
- Advocate for policies that promote economic equality, such as progressive taxation and a living wage.
- Support initiatives that aim to reduce wealth disparities, such as affordable housing programs and financial literacy education.
- Encourage dialogue on the importance of wealth redistribution and its impact on overall economic stability.
By addressing wealth inequality head-on, we can begin to unravel the complex web of economic challenges that plague our society. So, do you think Gary Economics has a point, or do you disagree with his conclusions?
Not sure where you stand? Dive into Gary Economics’ YouTube channel to explore his insights further: https://youtube.com/@garyseconomics?si=RSXn7ljnDPork5oX
Yeah no.
He talks about his great theory and how he’s so much better at predicting things and yet never actually shows anything. No math, no data, no credibility. (At least not that I could find.)
He also makes a lot of basic mistakes.
>https://www.wealtheconomics.org/introduction-2/what-is-wealth-inequality/
>Since the Wealthless spend almost all of their income, and any wealth they manage to accumulate, within their lifetimes, and the wealthy spend a far smaller proportion of their Income, and often actually none of their Wealth, this means that there is much less demand for overall spending in a Wealth Unequal economy. The more Wealth that is held by the Wealthy, and the less that is held by the Wealthless, the lower overall demand for spending will be.
Nope. Actually, a mix of investment and consumption is what ultimately maximizes GDP. The world where “more savings is always worse for consumption” is not one that actually exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule_savings_rate
>What this means is that, in a Wealth Unequal World, we have a very large group of people, desperate for their lives to find work, and a very small number of people as potential employers, who have a very low tendency to spend their money. This means that, in a Wealth Unequal economy, it will always be a big struggle for Wealthless people to find jobs.
Is it though?
[The US is up there in wealth inequality.](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/wealth-inequality-by-country) Yet it just had record low unemployment. In fact, economies in general will fall towards their “natural” rate of unemployment, which for healthy advanced economies tends to be in the ballpark of 5% or so.
Clearly, the statement “it will always be a big struggle for Wealthless people to find jobs” is not actually true.
>So now we understand what a Wealth Unequal World is. A Wealth Unequal economy is an economy where almost all of the valuable land, properties and assets in a world are owned by a small number of people. Most people own very little or no wealth, and must find jobs in order to live. But the very wealthy spend a proportionally small amount of their money, so there is not a lot of demand for spending. A Wealth Unequal world is a world with a lot of people very desperately looking for employment, and not a lot of people looking to spend money.
If we follow his reasoning, what happens if say the Amazon share price goes up a lot, Jeff Bezos gets richer, wealth inequality increases. Sure, the ratio of consumption to wealth will fall, so there is “less consumption” relative to this. But he seems to be stuck in a stupidly zero sum thinking where Jeff Bezos getting richer would actually have to cause a *fall* in aggregate demand, and there’s just no inherent reason to assume that. It’s “burn down houses to grow the economy” logic.
Really, grand discoveries are exceedingly rare in science. Grand discoveries you make alone are even rarer. I know people love a good story, I know it’s appealing to stick it to those “experts” in their *ivory towers* who are out of touch with the common man. But the reality of it is, if people proclaim all these experts are missing something and they know better, the answer is almost always: no, they aren’t missing anything, you are.
E: He seems to have a real knack for not understanding why economists treat things the way they do.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/asset-price-inflation-is-not-a-thing
One problem with this notion is that many tend to forget that income inequality is often taken when discussing (unrelated) trends because accurate wealth inequality trends are hard to assess and will lead to much discussion. This should not be equated to the idea that those economist do not realize the relevance of wealth inequality or flaws of income inequality.