James Ellis-Jones

@LovedayWrites @RockChartrand @garyseconomics Many people do not have this chance. There are a number of factors where generally employees cannot capture their full economic value as wages under any circumstances. One is it's much easier for a business to not hire someone than it is for an individual not to have a job.

@jim_ej @RockChartrand @garyseconomics I worked for a business where I didn’t feel I was sufficiently rewarded for the revenue I was generating, so I moved to one which paid me better. I knew the worth of the product I offered - my skills. I didn’t pretend I was owed someone else’s property.

Why the growing wealth of the super rich makes you exponentially poorer

@LovedayWrites @RockChartrand @garyseconomics In the UK we have an effective cartel of large housebuilders who limit how many houses are built in order to keep prices high. The Grosvenor Estate has owned its land in central London for 350 years and this allows it to capture most of the surplus of any business leasing from it

@jim_ej @RockChartrand @garyseconomics Not in the UK they’re not. The US health system is a mess. I don’t think we’re talking about the US though are we?

@RockChartrand @LovedayWrites @garyseconomics I'm saying that all trades are not extraction, but it's pretty common. Eli Lilly a few years ago was charging $800/month for insulin. The FTC recently stopped this. The diabetic gets to live and Eli Lilly gets 3x what they were charging a decade before so, mutually beneficial.

@jim_ej @LovedayWrites @garyseconomics By this standard, every mutually beneficial trade becomes "extraction" simply because someone made a profit. The real complaint isn't that consumers are harmed. It's that someone benefited from making consumers better off.

@LovedayWrites @RockChartrand @garyseconomics But if we're talking about a business like Uber where they marginally increase convenience but are backed by huge amounts of capital to establish a global monopoly putting local providers of taxi services out of business, that is extraction.

@LovedayWrites @RockChartrand @garyseconomics Naive. If the business is based on a new invention or innovation and is run ethically, its contribution is mostly positive, although the distribution of the rewards to the founders and employees of the business will disproportionately go to the founders../

@KaiserLoengramm as this is undemocratic. This again proves that this part of the US right are a threat to democracy.

@KaiserLoengramm Here we see the US right saying let's arrest leftist groups that no-one can see right now but we know are a threat to society because of their opinions, i.e. anyone we now say is part of these invisible groups. The left has not suggested arresting people for being far right ../

For decades, the conservatives have chosen to frame the Left as simply misguided but rational actors who have just chosen and adopted some particular idea to champion. That this idea can simply just be defeated in the market place of ideas, and that you just need good ideas to beat bad ideas. That they can be treated as just good, every day, normal Americans who just have a different idea for America. We now have the head of the State Department framing things very, very differently. "It is a revolt of the worst against the best; of the weak and the cowardly against the strong and the good. It is perpetrated by those who cannot build, cannot create, cannot achieve great things - and take their revenge upon the world for their own inadequacy by seeking to destroy those who can." - Marco Rubio What the Secretary is saying is that Leftists are not just people who have some different set of ideas, but an existential threat to civilization itself. The Left has spoken of the Right similarly for decades now, too. That the Right is an absolutely existential threat to their sacred democracy, that they are nazis or fascists or perpetrating genocide. This move, framing it like this, marks a full adoption of what was always necessary. To recognize this as a Zero Sum Game, which one side has already done, again, for decades now. The Right is starting to play it as one too. This was always a necessity, an inevitability as well. When you have two camps of totally divergent world views with essentially nothing in common, they cannot coexist. One will have to defeat the other. Now, all that is left is for the follow up. This has to be followed up by significant, publicized arrests or crackdowns on Left Wing terror cells. And there are thousands of these across the country. And they have been quite serious about their activities, their training, and their recruitment. You see less of them at protests and in public because they're intelligent and have realized that where they had free reign under Biden, their operational environment has changed, and so they've gone far more underground. Unfortunately, for the general masses, if it isn't on their algo feed then it doesn't exist. Thus, the Leftists need to be rooted out, brought before the public, and perp walked all over media. This will help as well, as it will scare their potential recruitment base, and overall demoralize and destabilize their networks. And morale, in particular, is key in a war. Which this is. We are at war. It's just a cold one. But it can go hot quite easily. Taking out enemy soldiers before they do so is essential to preventing it from going hot. Hopefully, we can see more action on this front.

@HanSoloNo @garyseconomics His dividends are paid by the profit margin on fees charged to users of Gymshark. He hasn't created all the value of Gymshark unless he works every job in the company. Sure company founders create value, just nowhere near as much as they earn.

@garyseconomics Here's an example: Ben Francis has a net worth of ~$1bn. It's virtually all held in Gymshark stock. He would have minimal cashflow from Gymshark. He isn't buying your nans house, it's all potential wealth from value he has created. Stop lying to everyone, Gary

@RockChartrand @garyseconomics And you make zero actual argument to say that his patently obvious points are wrong, while being arrogant and insulting.

Gary is a serious contender for either the most dishonest or the most economically ignorant person on the planet. Trade only occurs because both parties expect to benefit more from the exchange than from not engaging in it. If one side did not believe they were better off, the trade simply would not happen. What he promotes is little more than envy and resentment politics—convincing individuals that voluntary exchange is exploitation and that the solution is to surrender more of their freedom and choices to political authorities. The only charitable argument against calling him evil is to argue that he is too ignorant to understand how destructive and authoritarian his ideas ultimately are.

@TooWhiteToTweet follow majority white viewpoints. Unless you want to round up non-whites and shoot them, your country will cease to be non majority white in the near future. GTF over it - look at South Africa. White culture will survive just fine. Unless you manage to get the civil war you want.

@TooWhiteToTweet People are afraid when they hysterically equate losing majority power with extinction. And come out with this nonsense that whites are discriminated against when every piece of social research says the opposite. Then they say America will stop being America if it doesn't ../

"Are you afraid of being treated like you treat minorities?" Anti-White fiends constantly ask this question as though it's a rhetorical "own." As though it's a lights-out, mic-drop moment. As though calling us “afraid” is some genius-level reverse-psychology tactic that will make us embrace our extinction so as to not be perceived as weak - because this makes sense to someone who operates with the emotional capacity of a petulant elementary schooler and assumes that everyone else is on their same, severely underdeveloped level. They ask why we object to the de-White-ification of our nations as though the answer isn't entirely obvious and entirely defensible. They're not interested in the answer, of course, as they're only here to subvert and destroy - but let's answer nonetheless: White people, as a majority, are the most hated and discriminated against people in America. Again: that's how we're treated as a majority. Should we expect that to change once we're a minority? The overwhelming majority of interracial crime is committed by minorities against Whites. Should we expect that to change once we're a minority? Whites are officially discriminated against in hiring and academic admissions. Should we expect that to change once we're a minority? The majority of non-Whites do not support free speech or gun rights, two foundational principles of the American nation supported by the majority of White Americans. Should we expect that to change once we're a minority? The broader political beliefs and voting patterns of the majority of non-Whites are at odds with those of the majority of White Americans. Should we expect that to change once we're a minority? Latinos & Blacks are the largest non-White population blocks. Average lifetime US budget impact for: Latino = negative -$588k Black = negative -$751k White = positive +$221k Should we expect the US budget to improve once we're a minority? Restate the question around places where Whites are already a minority: Question: Why are White people so afraid of going to Detroit / Baltimore / DC / St Louis / Memphis / etc? Answer: Because they don't want to die. Latino males murder at three times the rate of White males, while Black males murder at eighteen times the rate of White males (2021 FBI numbers). Should we expect this to change once White people are a minority? Minorities in America are the most well-treated, catered to, provided for, and glorified non-majority that has ever existed anywhere. For at least two generations, minorities in America have been the beneficiaries of unambiguous privilege over the White majority. Whites are the most altruistic group. White people have, by far, the lowest in-group preference of any race. You can make your own value judgements of these traits, but the data bears these facts out. This results in the observable pattern of Whites treating non-Whites well, while non-Whites do not reciprocate (spare me the NAXALT, we're talking about broad social patterns). So the answer to "does America treat minorities badly?" is an emphatic "no." But what no one will say out loud is that minorities treat Whites - and America - poorly. Even the most bleeding-heart Whites know this, which is why they don't move to non-White neighborhoods. Many minorities treat their own homogeneous areas so poorly that the minute one can afford to, they flee... to a Whiter area. Before any of this, though, the real question is: Why should any people be minoritized in their own nation? There are a million reasons to reject it, but "because we don't want to" is enough. No race embraces its own extinction. The very notion is fundamentally insane.

@KaiserLoengramm Apparently having an archaic undemocratic upper chamber is essential to America's identity

This is the future of the Democrat Party. This is where all their momentum is, all their youth, whatever vitality they have. It's all in this mass of foreigners who they've championed and invited in or in the most freakish leftists imaginable. That's who will take over and replace them entirely. I believe that the overall strategy they had was to invite in masses to be voters for their establishment, and to side with and support these discontented masses in order to give them a base and eventually by sheer numbers give them an unbeatable voting block. I don't think they expected for them to organize themselves and seek to supplant their establishment, which in turn has nothing in the wings to back it up and prop it up. In turn, their rise, their continued display where they very, very openly seek to destroy and remake America entirely for them, gives ample opportunity for young men dissatisfied with the Establishment GOP to prove their own worth and value in combating this, and can be used to reshape them into something which in turn is truly capable of actually defeating these people via denaturalization and deportation and truly cracking down on the Left. The opportunity is right there, the doors are open, seize it.

@gerrysweeney @BBCNewsnight If a billionaire drops a £100 note it's not worth their effort to pick it up, whereas to an ordinary person it can mean they eat well for the rest of the week. That's why if you think capitalism should serve society not vice versa, we need more redistribution.

@gerrysweeney @BBCNewsnight saying people shouldn't get interest on capital. The point of increasing tax on the wealthy isn't to punish them, it's because ordinary people can't eat, can't pay for their fuel bills, can't pay their rent and the state has a lot of problems to fix which need money ../

"Why aren't you persuaded by the fact that they've been reversed in some jurisdictions?" Economist and campaigner Gary Stevenson, host of Gary's Economics on Youtube, is challenged on whether wealth taxes work in practice. #Newsnight

@gerrysweeney @BBCNewsnight What you describe isn't rent seeking. The Grosvenor Estate is rent seeking because they own a near monopoly on commercial property in a specific area and can charge extractive rents. Someone like Elon Musk using political leverage to get government contracts is rent seeking.

By that measure, suppose I ask you to lend me £1000, you lend it to me for three years, I return you that £1000.03 years later, but because of inflation that £1000 can only buy you £900 worth of things it would’ve bought you three years ago. You wouldn’t do that. Couple the risk with the fact that I may not pay you back, I may go bust. I may leave the country and run away. I may die whatever. This is the basic fundamental of economics and assets. Cash is an asset if you have cash because you worked for it and paid your taxes on it, if you don’t need to spend that cash immediately for your living then you would reasonably want to save it, and saving is just an investment, you may prefer the low risk of putting in a bank and getting a couple of percent a year, to try and be inflation, or you may invest that cash in a company like mine for example and hope to see some growth and agree better interest rate, or you may buy a property, and rent that property out to get a better return on your money. Wealth creation is not just about creativity intellectual property or labour for cash, it’s perfectly valid to assist other businesses other people with a cash resource in exchange for a small return to a inflation and be if you can make a small profit. That’s it, your argument makes absolutely no sense. Sounds like socialism.

@matthew_loftus live wherever they want as far as possible. Also historically mixing of cultures usually produces positives in terms of cultural advancement. And right now it's convenient for rich people like Farage and Trump to try to convince everyone immigration is the cause of every problem.

@matthew_loftus I'm strongly left wing but I would not say all consequences of immigration are positive including this. However if the best 5% later return to their country of origin this can be very positive. I'm in favour of immigration generally because I think people should be free to ../

One thing I have never ever ever seen from the left side of the immigration debate is an acknowledgement, much less a discussion, that it is deeply unjust for wealthy countries to constantly skim the best 5-10% of every other country's people off the top to meet their own needs.

@Matt_ZA @VinnieKhurana @PeterMcCormack Private enterprise cannot provide a country's military protection without actually becoming the state. In the same way it cannot provide the legal system or enforcement of it. Or manage the country's tax system, currency or citizenship.

It's accurate to say that some things are best provided by the state - roads and other transport infrastructure, law enforcement / justice system, and probably power generation under the current technology (with the caveat that the government in question must be reasonably competent). However, it's not accurate to say that an "environment for your 'wealth' ... wouldn't be possible". Where the need exists, private enterprise can fill the gaps, and does so in many places around the world where government has failed. Where your post really runs into trouble though is when attributing a "safe and regulated financial system" to any government.

Wealth is no money, wealth is the things we create. Every obstacle from the state - regulations, licenses, taxation, gets in the way of creating wealth. By being more productive, we create more wealth. The state is an obstacle to productivity. Creating money out of thin air, means more money chasing after the same stuff, which is why we get inflation. Things are not getting more expensive, the money is dying. The creation of money out of thin air is uneven. I wish more understood this.

@PeterMakintps @mirrorbill @TheDooling @David__Osland All those 5 people

@mirrorbill @TheDooling @David__Osland sorry I was referring to the people who support bankrupting British people to fund welfare for immigrants, who want to take famous Brits off the currency, ban flying English flags etc etc etc - what were you referring to?

So Reform UK is funded by Russia, Restore bought and paid for by an American trillionaire, GB News owned by a hedge fund in Dubai and the Daily Mail registered in Bermuda. That's patriotism for you these days.