Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Savings and Investments thread

1379380381382383385»

Comments

  • Huskaris
    Huskaris Posts: 9,868
    I don't know why this got into my head this afternoon, but I decided to ask Claude AI this question:

    If a British person aged 70 at the end of 2024, had started smoking aged 18, consistently smoking 20 cigarettes a day, how much would this have cost them overall (calculation adjusted for general inflation over the whole period? And if this person had never started smoking, but instead invested the same amount as the cost of the cigarettes in a general UK equity market fund, how much would his investment be worth today?

    Answer:

    Summary

    I've calculated both scenarios for someone born in 1954 who smoked 20 cigarettes daily from age 18 (1972) until age 70 (2024):

    Total Cost of Cigarettes (Inflation-Adjusted)

    £155,171 in 2024 purchasing power

    This is what they actually spent on cigarettes when you adjust all those historical costs for inflation. The nominal amount paid over 52 years was £87,567, but in today's money that represents £155,171.

    Value if Invested in UK Equities

    £511,596

    Had they instead invested that same nominal amount each year into a UK equity market fund (FTSE All-Share with dividends reinvested), their portfolio would be worth approximately £511,596 today.

    The Bottom Line

    • Lost opportunity: £356,425
    • The investment would have grown to 3.3 times the inflation-adjusted cost of smoking
    • That's the difference between having spent £155k (in real terms) and having £512k in assets

    This calculation includes investing through all the major market crashes (1973-74, 1987, 2000-02, 2008-09, 2020) and uses actual historical UK equity returns with dividends reinvested. The stark reality is that early, consistent investing - even in relatively modest amounts - combined with compound returns over five decades creates substantial wealth.

    This analysis doesn't even account for the additional costs of smoking - healthcare expenses, higher insurance premiums, lost income from illness, or reduced life expectancy.

    I like that!

    One of these finfluencers (bell ends on LinkedIn/Tiktok) did some thing where he showed you what your $6 a day Starbucks coffee would be worth over 5 years of every day you invested $6 in Starbucks stock rather than buying a coffee, similar to what you've done here. It was staggering and actually made me think!
  • Dippenhall
    Dippenhall Posts: 3,925
    bobmunro said:
    Rachel in Accounts is keen to tell us how generous the Government is paying away £27bn in pensions tax relief on contributions. This sound bite is no doubt to justify ending the anomaly of salary sacrifice avoiding NI contributions. 

    But what Rachel and the general public seem uneducated about is that pensions tax relief is tax DEFERRAL. You pay income tax not only on the original contribution but all the investment growth you accrue as well as the invested tax relief - as and when you draw your pot as income in retirement. You can produce numbers showing many will pay more income tax on their pension than received in tax relief.

    So when you hear the sob story about excessive tax giveaways for pension savers, I suggest you contact Rachel and ask how much tax HMRC collect from pensions in payments. I have been fobbed off in the past when asking this question.

    It’s a classic case of Govt misrepresenting the facts and solving short term cash flow problems with decisions that increase today’s tax revenue at the expense of tomorrow’s tax revenue while reducing savings and pensioner prosperity.

    Higher rate tax relief on contributions is also not a giveaway for the same reason - the tax relief is invested and taxed when paid out as part of the higher pension it produces. The more the higher paid are encouraged to save the bigger their pensions and more likely to be taxed at the higher rate. The policies of penalising tax relief for higher earners is lunacy in terms of encouraging savings and its wider and long term negative impact. 

    Some of that I agree with.

    However, most 45% tax payers will not max out on pension contributions as in reality with the tapering the max that really high earners can put in now is £10k a year. They will use other financial instruments e.g. they will likely have pretty big investments in ISAs between a couple. In retirement they will draw on those other tax free investments and restrict drawings from DC pensions so that their taxable income in retirement stays below or not much above c£50k and pay tax at 20(22)% or certainly the bulk of it at basic rate, yet all of their pension contributions, especially prior to tapering came in, attracted 45% relief. So not all tax deferral!
    The fact is, that at macro level, DC pensions in payment deliver minuscule tax revenue to the Exchequer. Current pensions in payment are, I would guess, 90% paid by the public sector and legacy corporate final salary schemes.

    So there is a lag between Govt giving the tax relief and receiving tax on pension payments. My point is that this lag allows tax relief to be seen as a one-off tax giveaway. Regardless of the level of tax mitigation through planning, it is a tax deferral system, not a tax giveaway system - say like the company bike schemes.

    My point is that the correlation between (1) the cost of PAST tax reliefs on PAST contributions and (2) the tax revenues when those contributions emerge as taxable income, should inform the view on what is a fair pension tax relief policy, not the Govt’s short term budget constraints. In the past, the benefit to society by encouraging pension saving with tax incentives was well understood, and the salary sacrifice loop hole only exists I think as a nod to the idea of increasing pensions saving. But pensions are now a political football and so salary sacrifice is now in the game.

    Instead of suppressing tax reliefs to reduce short-term Exchequer outflows, the system needs simplification. It would provide a boost to genuine pensions savings, and reduce State pension dependency, by having no limit on pension funding, save a nominal monetary limit as was introduced with the first tax “simplification” (£240,000?). In return, remove potential arbitrage by applying 20% tax relief for all tax payers. Tax on pensions could be a stand-alone rate of 20% in this scenario.

    In my view, the 25% tax free lump sum benefit is illogical, it encourages people to make a decision based solely on avoiding tax, not financial needs. Its origins lay in the Public Sector, where it was an add-on benefit to a pension, not an option between cash and a pension and would not object at all to its removal to permit simplification.
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 17,107
    IdleHans said:
    IdleHans said:
    Possibly I'm being thick here, but wouldn't the lost opportunity be the difference between the positive equity value and the cost (negative) of the cigarettes, or 511,596 PLUS 155,171 so 666,767?


    No, its assumed you got some level of utility from purchasing the cigarettes therefore they are a benefit and on the same side of the scales. The opportunity cost being the difference between that and the greater benefit of investing the cash. 

    Of course to a non-smoker the idea of getting utility from buying cigarettes seems a bit odd! :) 
    Good point. But setting aside the pleasure of smoking, you'd now be £667K better off if you hadn't smoked and had instead invested. And there would surely be some enjoyment derived from watching your investment increase...
    I must say that that’s what i thought too. I will ask Claude…
    Wish I hadn’t now🤣 Basically he says we are double counting. I think I get it. As a non- smoker I would still have had to find the same amount of money to put into investment as the smoker who does for his fags.
    Yeah it's the same pot of money for the appraisal calculation. You either do option A, in this case smoke it, or option B invest it. Both have returns (in a sense) but are assumed to do one or the other.
  • Rob7Lee
    Rob7Lee Posts: 9,633
    bobmunro said:
    Rachel in Accounts is keen to tell us how generous the Government is paying away £27bn in pensions tax relief on contributions. This sound bite is no doubt to justify ending the anomaly of salary sacrifice avoiding NI contributions. 

    But what Rachel and the general public seem uneducated about is that pensions tax relief is tax DEFERRAL. You pay income tax not only on the original contribution but all the investment growth you accrue as well as the invested tax relief - as and when you draw your pot as income in retirement. You can produce numbers showing many will pay more income tax on their pension than received in tax relief.

    So when you hear the sob story about excessive tax giveaways for pension savers, I suggest you contact Rachel and ask how much tax HMRC collect from pensions in payments. I have been fobbed off in the past when asking this question.

    It’s a classic case of Govt misrepresenting the facts and solving short term cash flow problems with decisions that increase today’s tax revenue at the expense of tomorrow’s tax revenue while reducing savings and pensioner prosperity.

    Higher rate tax relief on contributions is also not a giveaway for the same reason - the tax relief is invested and taxed when paid out as part of the higher pension it produces. The more the higher paid are encouraged to save the bigger their pensions and more likely to be taxed at the higher rate. The policies of penalising tax relief for higher earners is lunacy in terms of encouraging savings and its wider and long term negative impact. 

    Some of that I agree with.

    However, most 45% tax payers will not max out on pension contributions as in reality with the tapering the max that really high earners can put in now is £10k a year. They will use other financial instruments e.g. they will likely have pretty big investments in ISAs between a couple. In retirement they will draw on those other tax free investments and restrict drawings from DC pensions so that their taxable income in retirement stays below or not much above c£50k and pay tax at 20(22)% or certainly the bulk of it at basic rate, yet all of their pension contributions, especially prior to tapering came in, attracted 45% relief. So not all tax deferral!
    The fact is, that at macro level, DC pensions in payment deliver minuscule tax revenue to the Exchequer. Current pensions in payment are, I would guess, 90% paid by the public sector and legacy corporate final salary schemes.

    So there is a lag between Govt giving the tax relief and receiving tax on pension payments. My point is that this lag allows tax relief to be seen as a one-off tax giveaway. Regardless of the level of tax mitigation through planning, it is a tax deferral system, not a tax giveaway system - say like the company bike schemes.

    My point is that the correlation between (1) the cost of PAST tax reliefs on PAST contributions and (2) the tax revenues when those contributions emerge as taxable income, should inform the view on what is a fair pension tax relief policy, not the Govt’s short term budget constraints. In the past, the benefit to society by encouraging pension saving with tax incentives was well understood, and the salary sacrifice loop hole only exists I think as a nod to the idea of increasing pensions saving. But pensions are now a political football and so salary sacrifice is now in the game.

    Instead of suppressing tax reliefs to reduce short-term Exchequer outflows, the system needs simplification. It would provide a boost to genuine pensions savings, and reduce State pension dependency, by having no limit on pension funding, save a nominal monetary limit as was introduced with the first tax “simplification” (£240,000?). In return, remove potential arbitrage by applying 20% tax relief for all tax payers. Tax on pensions could be a stand-alone rate of 20% in this scenario.

    In my view, the 25% tax free lump sum benefit is illogical, it encourages people to make a decision based solely on avoiding tax, not financial needs. Its origins lay in the Public Sector, where it was an add-on benefit to a pension, not an option between cash and a pension and would not object at all to its removal to permit simplification.
    On the tax free sum, it doesn’t have to be in a lump, many people in flex drawdown don’t take a lump sum but simply take 25% on each and every drawdown as tax free.
  • RaplhMilne
    RaplhMilne Posts: 4,612
    I will get my coat……. !  DIAGEO down 6% on trading results or £1.23 on the day.  I gambled on the Trading statement and called it wrong. Although now possibly an even better buying opportunity ?
    Well obviously I’m no expert, after buying in at £17.71 I saw them fall to £16.75 within 48 hours. Then this morning with the announcement of a new CEO Dave Lewis (Former Tesco boss) the shares have gone to £18:50.  I’m in PROFIT
  • Government shutdown being over looks like it’s going to give the markets the next leg up. 
  • Rob7Lee
    Rob7Lee Posts: 9,633
    Government shutdown being over looks like it’s going to give the markets the next leg up. 
    Futures look strong.
  • valleynick66
    valleynick66 Posts: 4,914
    So do we think the upcoming budget will have some meaningful elements that reward some and penalise others or is the constant  speculation and ‘kite flying’ just that ?

    In the absence  (it seems) of rumours being more consistent to soften the blow when landing  I fear it will just be another round of tweaks and twiddles only. 


  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,858
    So do we think the upcoming budget will have some meaningful elements that reward some and penalise others or is the constant  speculation and ‘kite flying’ just that ?

    In the absence  (it seems) of rumours being more consistent to soften the blow when landing  I fear it will just be another round of tweaks and twiddles only. 


    I would hazard a guess at a bit more than just tweaks & twiddles. 

    Cant see too many winners & a lot more losers. 
  • Huskaris
    Huskaris Posts: 9,868
    So do we think the upcoming budget will have some meaningful elements that reward some and penalise others or is the constant  speculation and ‘kite flying’ just that ?

    In the absence  (it seems) of rumours being more consistent to soften the blow when landing  I fear it will just be another round of tweaks and twiddles only. 


    I would hazard a guess at a bit more than just tweaks & twiddles. 

    Cant see too many winners & a lot more losers. 
    I agree with this, I think it's going to be a hammer blow to anyone that isn't considered a "working person" ie anyone who earns over £50k a year.

    I think there is going to be a lot of complaints around "fairness" with triple lock/PIP etc going forward. 

  • Sponsored links:



  • blackpool72
    blackpool72 Posts: 23,757
    I think Reeves would like to make the necessary cuts to certain budgets to try and ballance the books. 
    But her back benchers will resist this and Starmer will not stand up to them and back her.
    This will leave her with little option but another round of tax increases. 
    It's going to be painful I'm sure. 
  • TelMc32
    TelMc32 Posts: 9,072
    Debt interest is crippling us. Almost £125bn paid for 2024-25 financial year, nearly 10% of government expenditure. Doesn’t matter who is in charge, they need to tackle that and it needs a combination of tax rises and cuts elsewhere. It would be lovely if the big corporations who pay a lower rate of tax than most of us, would actually pay their fair share towards the upkeep of the society that they make their profits from 🤷🏻‍♂️
  • golfaddick
    golfaddick Posts: 33,858
    edited November 10
    I think Reeves would like to make the necessary cuts to certain budgets to try and ballance the books. 
    But her back benchers will resist this and Starmer will not stand up to them and back her.
    This will leave her with little option but another round of tax increases. 
    It's going to be painful I'm sure. 
    Back in the day I don't remember Budgets being based on what backbenchers might think. Maybe they were ?  Did Nigel Lawson or Geoffrey Howe worry about them ? 

    I thought having a big majority was meant to help a Govenment get their policies through Parliament.....not hinder them 🤔🙄
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 20,951
    I think Reeves would like to make the necessary cuts to certain budgets to try and ballance the books. 
    But her back benchers will resist this and Starmer will not stand up to them and back her.
    This will leave her with little option but another round of tax increases. 
    It's going to be painful I'm sure. 
    Back in the day I don't remember Budgets being based on what backbenchers might think. Maybe they were ?  Did Nigel Lawson or Geoffrey Howe worry about them ? 

    I thought having a big majority was meant to help a Govenment get their policies through Parliament.....not hinder them 🤔🙄

    Labour are a broad church and in reality at least two distinct groupings - the tories back in the day did what Thatcher told them to do!

    We need to cut public spending, especially on out of work disability benefits that are becoming unsustainable, if not already. Force it through and if the backbenchers revolt it still shouldn't be enough to lose a vote.
  • Rob7Lee
    Rob7Lee Posts: 9,633
    bobmunro said:
    I think Reeves would like to make the necessary cuts to certain budgets to try and ballance the books. 
    But her back benchers will resist this and Starmer will not stand up to them and back her.
    This will leave her with little option but another round of tax increases. 
    It's going to be painful I'm sure. 
    Back in the day I don't remember Budgets being based on what backbenchers might think. Maybe they were ?  Did Nigel Lawson or Geoffrey Howe worry about them ? 

    I thought having a big majority was meant to help a Govenment get their policies through Parliament.....not hinder them 🤔🙄

    Labour are a broad church and in reality at least two distinct groupings - the tories back in the day did what Thatcher told them to do!

    We need to cut public spending, especially on out of work disability benefits that are becoming unsustainable, if not already. Force it through and if the backbenchers revolt it still shouldn't be enough to lose a vote.
    Far too sensible.

    I fear though we are in for tax hiking with little to nothing in the way of savings on the things like you say. She's already hinting at removing the benefit cap. I'm sure there'll be twiddling around the edges.

    I really see this county getting worse and worse, woeful politicians running the country, across the board, not singling out one party.

    The place is creaking at the seems, the debt mountain continues, the government are now spending double what we did 10 years ago, broken Britain, it's time to get out off the island if you can!! 
  • Carter
    Carter Posts: 14,291
    She, and by she I really mean the current government have to finally be the ones who make 2 unpopular decisions. 1 around the triple lock on pensions, that is going to go pop one way or the other and Labour and Starmer can't get much more unpopular so do it now, pensioners don't vote for them anyway and the way they keep moving the goalposts with the state pension hardly anyone in their 30s and even 40s who is paying for that now won't get a state pension to speak of anyway. 

    And the welfare state needs to be gripped. The rate at which that is going up it will take the country down one way or the other 

    She could incentivise people to help grow the UK economy by bringing in a big UK-company only ISA or something along those lines but she won't 

    In an ideal world the whole tax system will get simplified and a load of loopholes removed but that won't happen either. 

    Or Legalise cannabis and let a new industry absolutely rocket and grow the economy and generate revenue to pay for care and mental health services but that won't happen either 
  • Huskaris
    Huskaris Posts: 9,868
    Looks like 2 child cap to be lifted. I saw Gordon Brown saying to tax gambling companies to fund it. 

    I think we are at a point where any additional tax rises must go to funding the deficit (who knows, maybe even reducing the total debt if the economy improves). 

    We can't be saying "tax this to spend an extra £3bn" when we already have a £30bn hole to plug, it is an "or" not an "and" at this point. 

    Once again, it's such a pity they didn't stare down the backbenches, as in my opinion this tax rise will now guarantee labour do not win the next election. Nick Clegg 2.0
  • Huskaris
    Huskaris Posts: 9,868
    On another note, interesting how concerned many of us seem to be about the tax rises (with good reason) but markets seem confident, FTSE at all time highs etc. 

    US government shutdown potentially lifting surging the FTSE, pre leaking tax rises having minimal impact from what I can see. I'm guessing it's more a bond market thing?
  • Carter
    Carter Posts: 14,291
    Huskaris said:
    On another note, interesting how concerned many of us seem to be about the tax rises (with good reason) but markets seem confident, FTSE at all time highs etc. 

    US government shutdown potentially lifting surging the FTSE, pre leaking tax rises having minimal impact from what I can see. I'm guessing it's more a bond market thing?
    My own thought on that is the big hitters know the UK government aren't going to be giving them a big tax bill on their profits at least for another 12 months 

    That said, I don't really know what dafuq I'm talking about 
  • Diebythesword
    Diebythesword Posts: 372
    edited 8:18AM
    Reeves tried to do the right thing in the last budget by cutting welfare, but the backbenchers kicked off and the tories and reform started saying she was going to freeze your nan. She’s been forced into tax rises - to be clear I’m absolutely not a fan of this, but her hand’s been forced

    one thing that was mentioned and has gone quiet is council tax/land reform which does sound interesting, and sounds like if done right will help raise a bit more whilst cutting expenditures for working people - a combination we can all get behind. 

  • Sponsored links:



  • Rob7Lee
    Rob7Lee Posts: 9,633
    Huskaris said:
    On another note, interesting how concerned many of us seem to be about the tax rises (with good reason) but markets seem confident, FTSE at all time highs etc. 

    US government shutdown potentially lifting surging the FTSE, pre leaking tax rises having minimal impact from what I can see. I'm guessing it's more a bond market thing?
    Markets are very different to individuals. Markets would drop (UK) if there was fear of a large ish corp tax increase, but not income tax.

    Ill see what this month brings, but can only see it hastening my retirement and ultimately the likelihood of leaving the UK as my permanent home.
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 20,951
    Rob7Lee said:
    Huskaris said:
    On another note, interesting how concerned many of us seem to be about the tax rises (with good reason) but markets seem confident, FTSE at all time highs etc. 

    US government shutdown potentially lifting surging the FTSE, pre leaking tax rises having minimal impact from what I can see. I'm guessing it's more a bond market thing?
    Markets are very different to individuals. Markets would drop (UK) if there was fear of a large ish corp tax increase, but not income tax.

    Ill see what this month brings, but can only see it hastening my retirement and ultimately the likelihood of leaving the UK as my permanent home.
    I think we are now too old for that, but if we were around your age then we would likely do the same. 

  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 17,107
    edited 10:15AM
    Slightly tangential post but will become linked (sorta) at the end so indulge me - or ignore me, your choice!

    I have recently returned to formal economics education -masters part time on the side of my job and am really enjoying it. We have one lecturer who is really trying to get us to challenge the ways of economic thinking we were taught in undergrad and the economics that is used in politics.

    I have long been of the opinion that economics (well the economics that politicians listen to) is taking problems of the modern economic world - which is built on globalised free trade, large national and multinational companies, conglomerates & private equity and  external shocks beyond a governments control - and applying economic solutions that were designed for a more traditional economy of a large number of small businesses, less globalisation, more competition. An example of this is with inflation, with the inflation over the last 4ish years whilst there is acknowledgement that it was started by external shocks (Covid, Ukraine war, reduction in global free trade) so much of the conversation domestically was around wages. Economics has known since the 1970s that in a globalised world the link between wages and inflation is broken. but it still dominated the conversation and policy response.

    This lecturer takes it a step further challenging the fundamentals of neo-liberal economics which formed the basis for Thatcherism and is still the dominant force in terms of economic thinking across "The West". She's not trying to promote any alternative way of thinking about economics but rather to encourage us to explore alternatives. She also pointed out that basically since feudalism ended the UK and most other major economies have had some tangible change to their economic system and way of approaching it roughly every 30 years. Except now we haven't really had one since the early 70s. So we are nearly 25 years overdue a new approach. 

    So why am I saying this here and now? Well a lot of the chat on this thread over the last day or so is naturally framed though that Neo-liberal economics viewpoint. And am wondering whether thats really right and what alternative approaches could exist. I've been delving into Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and I'm not sure I fully understand it yet and I don't fully agree with it. But it's an interesting challenge to a lot of the established wisdom and at least on the surface presents a way out of some of the modern economic challenges.

    Richard Murphey talks a lot about it and I find his explanations are really good at translating it out of technical economic language so if anyone is interested in challenging their understanding of the economy (and markets in particular) i'd start with his blogs or videos.

    Couple interesting ones here:

    https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/09/07/what-is-modern-monetary-theory-2/

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Modern-monetary-theory-v2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjIqN667emQAxWCQkEAHUOSI3AQFnoECF4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1QEEv4_fslJJFACkrvUlSK

    https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/06/22/mmt-magic-myth-or-reality/

    https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/09/17/why-is-modern-monetary-theory-so-important/

    https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/11/11/did-the-1970s-really-kill-keynes/
  • CafcWest
    CafcWest Posts: 6,194
    So unemployment now at a 4 year high...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxrp7znkdlo.  When you add AI, increased internet shopping, restaurants and bars struggling and the cost of living crisis to the ridiculous labour increase in employer NI...it's no real surprise there are fewer and fewer jobs "out there".  The increase in employer NI has cost hundreds of thousands of jobs...Biggest joke is that "they" want to get people back into work...!
  • Diebythesword
    Diebythesword Posts: 372
    Slightly tangential post but will become linked (sorta) at the end so indulge me - or ignore me, your choice!

    I have recently returned to formal economics education -masters part time on the side of my job and am really enjoying it. We have one lecturer who is really trying to get us to challenge the ways of economic thinking we were taught in undergrad and the economics that is used in politics.

    I have long been of the opinion that economics (well the economics that politicians listen to) is taking problems of the modern economic world - which is built on globalised free trade, large national and multinational companies, conglomerates & private equity and  external shocks beyond a governments control - and applying economic solutions that were designed for a more traditional economy of a large number of small businesses, less globalisation, more competition. An example of this is with inflation, with the inflation over the last 4ish years whilst there is acknowledgement that it was started by external shocks (Covid, Ukraine war, reduction in global free trade) so much of the conversation domestically was around wages. Economics has known since the 1970s that in a globalised world the link between wages and inflation is broken. but it still dominated the conversation and policy response.

    This lecturer takes it a step further challenging the fundamentals of neo-liberal economics which formed the basis for Thatcherism and is still the dominant force in terms of economic thinking across "The West". She's not trying to promote any alternative way of thinking about economics but rather to encourage us to explore alternatives. She also pointed out that basically since feudalism ended the UK and most other major economies have had some tangible change to their economic system and way of approaching it roughly every 30 years. Except now we haven't really had one since the early 70s. So we are nearly 25 years overdue a new approach. 

    So why am I saying this here and now? Well a lot of the chat on this thread over the last day or so is naturally framed though that Neo-liberal economics viewpoint. And am wondering whether thats really right and what alternative approaches could exist. I've been delving into Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and I'm not sure I fully understand it yet and I don't fully agree with it. But it's an interesting challenge to a lot of the established wisdom and at least on the surface presents a way out of some of the modern economic challenges.

    Richard Murphey talks a lot about it and I find his explanations are really good at translating it out of technical economic language so if anyone is interested in challenging their understanding of the economy (and markets in particular) i'd start with his blogs or videos.

    Couple interesting ones here:

    https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/09/07/what-is-modern-monetary-theory-2/

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Modern-monetary-theory-v2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjIqN667emQAxWCQkEAHUOSI3AQFnoECF4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1QEEv4_fslJJFACkrvUlSK

    https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/06/22/mmt-magic-myth-or-reality/

    https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/09/17/why-is-modern-monetary-theory-so-important/

    https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/11/11/did-the-1970s-really-kill-keynes/
    Interesting, thanks for the links. I’ve recently read “why nations fail”, which, although giving a simple blanket “inclusive or extractive” hypothesis I found it quite compelling. Especially as I feel in recent times we’ve been moving away from “inclusive” to more extractive. 
  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 17,107
    Slightly tangential post but will become linked (sorta) at the end so indulge me - or ignore me, your choice!

    I have recently returned to formal economics education -masters part time on the side of my job and am really enjoying it. We have one lecturer who is really trying to get us to challenge the ways of economic thinking we were taught in undergrad and the economics that is used in politics.

    I have long been of the opinion that economics (well the economics that politicians listen to) is taking problems of the modern economic world - which is built on globalised free trade, large national and multinational companies, conglomerates & private equity and  external shocks beyond a governments control - and applying economic solutions that were designed for a more traditional economy of a large number of small businesses, less globalisation, more competition. An example of this is with inflation, with the inflation over the last 4ish years whilst there is acknowledgement that it was started by external shocks (Covid, Ukraine war, reduction in global free trade) so much of the conversation domestically was around wages. Economics has known since the 1970s that in a globalised world the link between wages and inflation is broken. but it still dominated the conversation and policy response.

    This lecturer takes it a step further challenging the fundamentals of neo-liberal economics which formed the basis for Thatcherism and is still the dominant force in terms of economic thinking across "The West". She's not trying to promote any alternative way of thinking about economics but rather to encourage us to explore alternatives. She also pointed out that basically since feudalism ended the UK and most other major economies have had some tangible change to their economic system and way of approaching it roughly every 30 years. Except now we haven't really had one since the early 70s. So we are nearly 25 years overdue a new approach. 

    So why am I saying this here and now? Well a lot of the chat on this thread over the last day or so is naturally framed though that Neo-liberal economics viewpoint. And am wondering whether thats really right and what alternative approaches could exist. I've been delving into Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and I'm not sure I fully understand it yet and I don't fully agree with it. But it's an interesting challenge to a lot of the established wisdom and at least on the surface presents a way out of some of the modern economic challenges.

    Richard Murphey talks a lot about it and I find his explanations are really good at translating it out of technical economic language so if anyone is interested in challenging their understanding of the economy (and markets in particular) i'd start with his blogs or videos.

    Couple interesting ones here:

    https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/09/07/what-is-modern-monetary-theory-2/

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Modern-monetary-theory-v2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjIqN667emQAxWCQkEAHUOSI3AQFnoECF4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1QEEv4_fslJJFACkrvUlSK

    https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/06/22/mmt-magic-myth-or-reality/

    https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/09/17/why-is-modern-monetary-theory-so-important/

    https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/11/11/did-the-1970s-really-kill-keynes/
    Interesting, thanks for the links. I’ve recently read “why nations fail”, which, although giving a simple blanket “inclusive or extractive” hypothesis I found it quite compelling. Especially as I feel in recent times we’ve been moving away from “inclusive” to more extractive. 
    I haven't read that one. I'll add it to my reading list.