I am recording for a documentary today.
I've known the people behind the documentary in question for some time, but I was a little surprised to get the question that they said that they wanted me to cover. This is that list (I have edited ig slightly):
- How would you characterise the effect of the super-rich in the UK?
- How much of this is about the rich themselves, and how much is about the kind of conducive environment that has been created for them?
- Who are the key players in the set-up you have described?
- Has any of this brought benefits to the nation more broadly?
- How does money laundering, criminal capital, tax evading money, generate wider problems like facilitating organised crime?
- What is the argument about non-doms really about? (prompts – is it about fair contribution, a misunderstood group of major contributors to the national economy?)
- Wealth taxes – why is this so hard? Public opinion on these and the role of governments in getting funds needed for general public spending
- Why has the British government historically presided over such a rotten/criminal system? Whose interests have been served?
- The UK's place in the world of tax and offshore arrangements – the centre of the spider's web?
- On the current projection of wealth inequality, what will the future look like for the very wealthy / the middle class / those without property or wealth?
Others…
- What effect has neoliberalism had on property and living standards in the UK, and if it has failed, what can be done to improve access to affordable housing?
- How does the current global economy work in terms of oligarchic wealth, and what is the strategy of world leaders like Trump going to have on the political economy?
- How has austerity affected the UK, and how has it become legitimised, despite failing to stimulate growth for over 15 years?
- Why is ‘redistribution of wealth' now a dirty phrase, but excessive, unearned wealth lauded and seen as vital for economic growth?
- Is the preservation and extension of the wealth of the oligarchic billionaires and tech bros incompatible in a democracy? Is this Trump's direction of travel?
- What would a fair tax system look like? How can it possibly be achieved?
I know I asked for video ideas this week, but I did not realise that these documentary filmmakers were going to provide me with enough suggestions to last for ages.
How we are going to cover all this material in the time that we have available, I do not know. It will be a challenge.
If you could highlight three of these you would want answered, what would they be, but please be aware that if they keep me on set for a long time, moderation might be quite slow today.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
While I personally am interested in the whole list, I think 8, 11 and 14 are probably the best lead topics to reach out to a wider audience
Q.How would you characterise the effect of the super-rich in the UK?
Q. How much of this is about the rich themselves, and how much is about the kind of conducive environment that has been created for them?
Q. Who are the key players in the set-up you have described?
It all starts with these question which are quite good. So is Q15.
These questions open up why democracy has stopped working. And it has.
Q. What effect has neoliberalism had on property and living standards in the UK, and if it has failed, what can be done to improve access to affordable housing?
Neo liberalism uses a reductive model of ‘efficiency’ that centres on the processes and acquisition of money only, increasing personal wealth; ‘investment’ is actually a deposit on the promise of higher returns which sucks out quality from whatever is ‘invested’, and not delivering goods and services people need long term. NL has also undermined state interventions in the pricing of goods like housing, new and housing and its maintenance and modernisation and the only answer is to put it back large scale.
Thanks
Further………..housing is both a good and an asset. And it is also a liability.
This presents a conundrum
As an asset we prefer it to go up in value as a store of wealth and an access to credit markets. Asset prices may continue to go up, no matter how many are produced, if the market values them that way.
As a good, the desire is to want to build more to reduce the cost in the belief that the economies of scale will bring down the price.
But this chafes against the market value of housing which focuses on it’s cash value as an asset. It does not work. There are two competing aims that cancel each other out.
The people with housing want higher prices for credit access and bigger and better houses; the people without houses want lower prices. Oh dear. Politics favours then haves over the have-nots.
In addition we have the liability side – the condition of the asset and home ownership is burdensome on that, but even markets may over value poor quality housing (the British stock conditions surveys revealed this previously but I cannot remember).
What we have then is expensive housing which would be expensive anyway no matter how much we built because it is a houses asset value and what it unlocks for the owner that is part of the market pricing, as well as the house itself. Some of this housing is also in poor or indifferent condition too and is overlooked, because investment is seen as a factor one off exchange, not ongoing commitment.
We have too little affordable housing – or housing that is subsidised in someway to help market entry because Neo-liberalism says that the high pricing is efficient for the producer (the developer) but also for the owner in terms of the access it builds for credit networks, which is debt creating more debt really, so its actually more efficient as a means of capturing more debtors for rentiers.
So the Neo-liberal housing system is really designed to maximise profit out of housing, if not just for developers but also for credit and mortgage sectors. The fact that people are sleeping rough every night does not concern it. It is being efficient with money and social inefficiency matters not.
My late father thought that rather then renting housing through council housing as a landlord, the state should build houses as a developer so that citizens could buy them at really reduced rates of interest and sale price and looking back, I agree that he had a point. It sounds more democratic to me to be honest. Currently state intervention in the housing market is deeply flawed to not very helpful. It has even given up trying to maintain the housing stock and has effectively privatised that through B&Q and Homebase.
And remember – I have not even looked rent levels!
Neo-libs abhor state intervention because it threatens credit generation and does not efficiently make money out of money, and crowds out debt making. Neo-liberalism wants to make money out of everything – even the air we breath.
Number 13, because its an omnibus question.
Yes 13 is a good one to do.
Agreed
I would group 1 to 4 – it is a socio-eco-system – the wealthy cluster & often copy each other (competition for who can breed most etc). Wealth – as this blog has noted, is also self-sustaining it clogs the ateries of the socio-economic system.
7 & 10 go together perhaps with 11 & 16.
15 is something of a straw man, great wealth is, mostly corrosive (ref Musk) – it needs to be supressed..
Thanks to you and others.
Difficult to choose. But, for me, maybe 8, 9 and 11. Towering over everything else today, though, is that it’s apparently the 20th anniversary of the Like Button. It’s Dopamine Day! So today I think you should prioritise telling us how the Like Button on Funding the Future has helped you.
I looked at the data.
This has been running for a bit over 2 years. There seem to be 1 million likes, hit very recently.
Just saying…..
Richard, I would consider that rather impressive.
The first four, with emphasis on Question 4 – I would be really interested to know if you can see any benefits here.
None…..
Questions 5, 8 and 11.
This sounds like a VERY interesting documentary. More details when you have them please.
It will be ages away, I suspect. Sorry. But I may do these in the meantime.…
3, 7, 14.
Thank you for this opportunity.
11 plus reducing/eliminating the need for food banks, 13, 15
Thanks
9, 13, and 16
Thanks
I think you combine Q 1,2 and 3 and maybe add on Q7
13. People need to know what a bad idea austerity is, how unsuitable it was for recovery after the 2008 crash, and how it has led us to this point. Reform voters in particular need to know, as it is the primary reason they feel their living standards have fallen, and that it is the only policy Reform is dedicated to. How can they save Britain if they are going to double down on what broke it?
Thanks. I think 13 is in the lead.
7, 13, 14
Basically, how did the austerity engine used to pump wealth into so few hands at the expense of everyone else become accepted as the only way to organise the economy, and in the face of widespread recognition that it’s undermining our national prosperity and despite a majority of people agreeing with policies that would reverse it.
I can confirm we covered them!
11, 13 and 14
Thanks
13 rides high, again.
🙂 🙂
“The wheels on the (omni)bus go round and round, round and round, round and round!”
They do…
Although I am on a train right now….
Good luck, a very interesting list of topics.
I’ve always been curious about how much the uk is now dependent upon capital flight from other countries and if it is purely investment or part of a strategy to buy political manipulation.
It was interesting to make (and I am now knackered, but it’s been a long week).
Some of the stuff we talked about might well turn up here.
Why do the national accounts not show the value of assets as well as expenditure and income? What is the effect of this omission?
Thanks
11, 13 & 16
If you’re still taking votes: 1, 4, 14. But it’s hard to pick just three!
It’s in the can, as I say, but that may not stop me making a version here.
I am late for the show and even though it is in the can, my three interrelated questions would be 11, 13 and 10. They also chime with today’s video on excessive savings.
Thanks
16, 14.
2 is really important because it’s an opportunity to show that extreme wealth is a product of the rules of the game and the structure of the system, rather than clever individuals. (Always remember the Golden Rule: those with the gold make the rules.)
14 is an opportunity to question the legitimacy of unearned wealth. It’s remarkable how little it is challenged these days.
1 and 13 could be answered jointly as two sides of the same coin, demonstrating the interdependence of the rise of the super-rich and austerity.
Thanks
MY THREE
1.How would you characterise the effect of the super-rich in the UK?
9. The UK’s place in the world of tax and offshore arrangements – the centre of the spider’s web?
14. Why is ‘redistribution of wealth’ now a dirty phrase, but excessive, unearned wealth lauded and seen as vital for economic growth?
Thanks
Richard
Questions 5,8 and 10 please.