Topic: The UK Economy - Is it the 1970's again?

[shook]

The Fed keeps on track with its mission to destroy the global economy.
A massive interest rate rise that won't address any of the underlying inflationary pressures.
It will force other economies to follow suit, so as not to see their own currencies pummelled (and comparative energy prices soar)
Meanwhile, people with credit see their mortgage and credit card payments skyrocket, to go with surging energy costs and rising food prices. And business - many of whom had to increase their borrowings during Covid - are hit with further hikes in borrowing costs, which they'll add onto prices where possible, fuelling more inflation.
The Fed seems stuffed with 'Chicago School' dinosaurs whose reflex action to rising inflation is to raise interest rates, when raising interest rates won't address the causes of inflation.

Well said. My contention is that these moves are really more designed to keep the U.S. on top in the aftermath of this decade, even though there is certainly a possibility it will destroy the entire system. It's definitely useful for the U.S. to weaken enemies and keep "allies" like Britain in check.

On a more economic note, some of the macroanalysts think this is more like the 1940s than the 1970s, but that the Fed is using the 1970s playbook (i.e. it is not really pertinent to economic conditions as you have noted), which means they won't pivot because Powell believes that was the mistake prior to Volker. One of the Fed presidents stopped raising interest rates midway in the 70s and they believed it exacerbated the problem until Volker had to raise rates gargantually. So it is not just a reflex action but something they believe is necessary from the 1970s mistake, even though the economic conditions are not the 1970s.

[Nobby Reserve]

It's not measured, although I don't think it is. but surely raising taxation is also inflationary.  Using a loose, non technical definition of the word. Essentially I can buy less with the money I earn?

No, increased taxation is a deflationary measure, as it removes money from people's pockets (thus reducing demand in the economy)

Both Keynesianism and Monetarism seek to remove money from people's pockets to reduce demand, but target different groups of people.

[filopastry]

Tackling inflation is painful, I'm guessing a lot of people don't really remember the last significant inflationary issues we had, but its pretty much always painful.

Yes govt and central banks only have pretty blunt tools at their disposal, and yes its not addressing the initial inflationary causes, but its still pretty much the same answer because you end up having to take demand out of the economy either through rate rises, or reducing govt spending or increasing taxation, increasing unemployment and putting pressure on companies ability to raise prices and workers ability to push wage demands.

If you don't take that action you end up with the good old "inflationary spiral" sooner or later.

The other side of the equation though is that govt should be doing everything it can to increase energy security going forwards to try to minimise the impact of the energy price shock, instead they would rather bang on about culture war bollocks.

In economic terms we've had an exogenous shock in terms of the energy price rise, for as long as that is in place we will end up poorer, its just a matter of how we get there.

[PaulF]

The cost of living is a brutal reality we have to accept to some degree.  I'm just thankful that we're not facing the same horrors the Ukranian people are.

[killer-heels]

The cost of living is a brutal reality we have to accept to some degree.  I'm just thankful that we're not facing the same horrors the Ukranian people are.

The support of that will wane I reckon as the cost of living continues to bite. Probably what Putin is betting on.

[thaddeus]

The support of that will wane I reckon as the cost of living continues to bite. Probably what Putin is betting on.

I'd like to think people would be wise enough to realise that giving ground to a war-mongering dictator in exchange for cheaper bills isn't a direction that will end well.  That's maybe putting too much faith in our electorate.

Fortunaltely, it's one area where all the main parties are holding the same policy line and that is that they would continue to support Ukraine.  Were it to go a referendum I'd be nervous about what that would return but we're not daft enough to base such momentous decisions on a one-hit referendum...

I think the same applies across Europe, even the lunatic fringe that took power in Italy committed to supporting Ukraine (or, at least, their figurehead did).  We have at least two years of Biden in power in the US and whilst that's the case I expect support will remain strong.

Unfortunately I think Paul is right though.  It's something most of the world has got to suck up but within that range of crappiness there is still quite a lot of scope for governments to make it less crap.

[Nobby Reserve]

Tax rises are a fairer way to go.

At the moment, only about a third of homeowners have mortgages, with about a third of them on tracker/variable rates.

So the interest rate rises are disproportionately targeting a small minority of people in the UK.

Tax rises to remove demand from the economy target all people with more than a certain income.


Saying all that, we don't need to remove demand from the economy as higher fuel prices and accompanying rises in everyday food and other items is doing that on its own.

But the most important factor behind the inflation is energy cost spikes.

That in itself should filter through the system over 12 months, but the residual price increases as suppliers of general goods and services add their increased overheads to their selling prices, will continue to rumble for another 12-18 months (but have a lower impact on inflation)

I doubt the BoE and ECB would be raising rates so much so quickly if there Fed weren't, though. They have more acceptance that raising interest rates in isolation in these current circumstances is not going to remove the inflationary driver (global fuel costs), whereas the Fed are tunnel-visioned on the matter.

Can imagine that next month, when higher interest rates have done cock-all to reduce inflation in the US, the Fed will conclude "Well that last interest rate rise didn't lower inflation, what shall we do now? I know! We'll raise interest rates! That'll lower inflation!"

[PaulF]

Isn't it a bit weird that it's so obvious the tactic won't work.  The people in these institutions are surely far better qualified to handle these problems than us plebs?
Maybe Gove was right, we have had enough of experts.

I often liken it to listening to pub pundits criticising Klopp. Surely he is making much better decisions that we can.  Maybe in his role we could do a better job, but he's there all day, with no 'work' distractions. In constant touch with the physios and medical staff, the transfer people , the players etc.

Yet in the case of what the banks are doing. It seems farcical.  They must have a bigger plan, or some insights we aren't privy to?

[filopastry]

Isn't it a bit weird that it's so obvious the tactic won't work.  The people in these institutions are surely far better qualified to handle these problems than us plebs?
Maybe Gove was right, we have had enough of experts.

I often liken it to listening to pub pundits criticising Klopp. Surely he is making much better decisions that we can.  Maybe in his role we could do a better job, but he's there all day, with no 'work' distractions. In constant touch with the physios and medical staff, the transfer people , the players etc.

Yet in the case of what the banks are doing. It seems farcical.  They must have a bigger plan, or some insights we aren't privy to?

The tactic will work, it will just be painful, but pretty much every time we have had to deal with significant inflation it has been painful.

I haven't followed the US so much but I wasn't aware of any great fiscal tightening being planned there, in which case the heavy lifting will undoubtedly fall on monetary policy.

The US economy is running pretty hot as well, so its an easier decision for them, BoE today made pretty clear that the market should tone down their expectations for future rate rises in the UK.

The UK risk in that scenario is that we see further Sterling weakness, importing even more inflation, hopefully the fact that Sterling is so weak to start with will offer some support though.

Imho the biggest mistake the central banks made this cycle was being too slow to start raising rates, which may make it a bit more painful on the back end, its all pretty uncharted waters though, coming away from the ultra low nominal rates of the last decade and a half.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Nothing but theft on a grand scale,could end up being one of the biggest transfers in wealth ever.



Do away with the huge corporations every fucking thing is mine attitude & we'd all be sound,c*nts all went into overdrive whist tyhe rest of us were worried about close ones dying alone,

[Red-Soldier]

Nothing but theft on a grand scale,could end up being one of the biggest transfers in wealth ever.



Do away with the huge corporations every fucking thing is mine attitude & we'd all be sound,c*nts all went into overdrive whist tyhe rest of us were worried about close ones dying alone,

Exactly....

Labour MPs press Keir Starmer to set out ‘wealth tax’ plans

Leader under pressure to commit to higher taxes for super-rich as Tory government prepares spending cuts

The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, is under pressure from campaigners, unions and his own MPs to set out plans for “wealth taxes” on the richest in society in order to support public services and help the poorest through the cost of living crisis.

As the government prepares to cut spending to fill an estimated Ł35bn black hole in the nation’s finances, calls are growing for higher taxes on the super-rich, many of whom have seen their fortunes soar during the pandemic.

Richard Burgon, the Labour MP for Leeds East, said: “While living standards are plummeting for most people, it’s been boom time for the super-rich, whose wealth has soared to record highs in recent years.”

Starmer, who is trying to position his party in the centre ground, has avoided committing to higher taxes on private incomes as Labour seeks to woo the City and businesspeople angry at the damage caused by the Conservatives’ mini-budget. But that approach is causing concern on his backbenches and more widely, with the Greens calling Labour “timid” on wealth.

“Whoever is in government over the next few years will have to decide whether to cut services and hike taxes on ordinary people or to instead tax the wealth of the very richest,” Burgon, who served as shadow lord chancellor in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet, told the Guardian.

“Even modest wealth taxes could raise tens of billions and prevent the need for yet more austerity. Taxing wealth should be the fairer way forward that the whole labour movement unites around.”

The ranks of the global “ultra high net worth” (UHNW) individuals – those with assets of more than $50m (Ł43m) – swelled by 46,000 last year to a record 218,200 as rich people benefited from “almost an explosion of wealth” during the recovery from the pandemic, according to the investment bank Credit Suisse.

The only policies that Labour has announced so far are promises to scrap the non-dom loophole and impose higher tax rates for private equity bosses.

Rebecca Long-Bailey, the Labour MP for Salford and Eccles, who also served in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet, said it was “simply staggering that income from wealth continues to be taxed at a lower rate than income from work, and this unfairness must end now”.

Last month a coalition of 40 charities and campaign groups called for change, saying Britain’s tax system was broken and the richest needed to pay more. Tax Justice UK claims up to Ł37bn could be raised by introducing a string of wealth taxes, including equalising capital gains tax with income tax and introducing a 1% tax on assets over Ł10m.

Under the current system, capital gains from the sale of property or shares, for example, are taxed at 20%, while income tax on wages ranges from 20% at the lower end to 45% for the highest earners. Aligning the rates could raise Ł14bn, Tax Justice says. National insurance is not levied on income from investments – a policy change here could raise Ł8.6bn.

Long-Bailey called for the introduction of “a wealth tax on the super-rich as part of a wider redistribution of wealth to fund our public services” as well as increased windfall taxes on “the super-profits of oil and gas companies”.

Jon Trickett, the Labour MP for Hemsworth in West Yorkshire, said it was “a scandal that the wealth and assets of the super-rich are not taxed in the way that income is”, and that the introduction of a wealth tax was “long overdue”.

He said: “With the Tories planning another age of austerity, it’s time to promote a tax on the shares, stock, property and capital of the super-rich.”

Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, the unions’ umbrella body, said it was the right time to be looking at wealth taxes. “In the last decade the richest have enjoyed huge increases in their wealth. The government should now look at how they can contribute more to rebuilding an economy that works for everyone, with world class public services at its heart,” she said.

“There is a particularly clear case for equalising capital gains tax with income tax. It’s not fair that workers are taxed at a higher rate than people who are getting richer from the income generated by their wealth. And it would help create the right kind of economic progress – reducing inequality and spreading opportunity more widely.”

Molly Scott Cato, the Green party’s spokesperson on finance, said: “The Tories have created a big hole the public finances but there is an obvious place to look to fill it: taxing the super-rich. Not only do they have the broadest shoulders but they also increased their wealth during the pandemic because of enforced savings.

“What is more surprising is to find Labour being so timid on wealth taxes. Their proposal to abolish non-dom status will only bring in a few billion while a proper wealth tax could yield tens of billions. We’ve now got two weeks for Labour to remember their egalitarian roots and support loud and growing calls for a wealth tax. Otherwise they will be colluding in the devastating cuts to public services that are being cooked up by the millionaires in Nos 10 and 11 Downing Street.”

Dr Phil White, a member of Patriotic Millionaires, a group of super-rich people calling for the introduction of a permanent wealth tax on the richest in society, said: “It seems to us that political parties are taking an awfully long time to catch up with what many millionaires and the general public want when it comes to taxes on wealth. Sixty-nine per cent of the UK public support a wealth tax of 1% on over Ł10m and only 7% oppose it.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/03/labour-mps-press-keir-starmer-to-set-out-wealth-tax-plans

[filopastry]

As other pointed out though the wealthy don't spend remotely as much of their income and wealth as the poor do, so basically going after them alone isn't going to make much of a dent in inflation

Higher rates are likely doing a bit of work already at reducing the wealth of those at the higher end of the wealth scale, if you are holding money in assets like property or equities, they have not fared well, although obviously still up massively in recent years.

Rising rates may actually start to reduce the massive imbalance between income and wealth, low rates have seen wealth become far more important than income.

[west_london_red]

The support of that will wane I reckon as the cost of living continues to bite. Probably what Putin is betting on.

I sincerely hope not, will have made everything done so far pointless if we just cave in.

Tax rises are a fairer way to go.

At the moment, only about a third of homeowners have mortgages, with about a third of them on tracker/variable rates.

So the interest rate rises are disproportionately targeting a small minority of people in the UK.

Tax rises to remove demand from the economy target all people with more than a certain income.

You also should get something to show for with higher taxes be that paying off debt or improved public services, but then if you tax and spend you’ll just stoke demand and end up with inflation again.

[Wabaloolah]

Exactly....

Labour MPs press Keir Starmer to set out ‘wealth tax’ plans

Leader under pressure to commit to higher taxes for super-rich as Tory government prepares spending cuts

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/03/labour-mps-press-keir-starmer-to-set-out-wealth-tax-plans

I'm sure that's all something that we would support but Labour have to be careful they don't make any mistakes that allows the Tories some ground in an election campaign.

I'm sure Labour will outlay their tax plans in due course but pointless at the moment when an election could be two years away

[WhereAngelsPlay]

As other pointed out though the wealthy don't spend remotely as much of their income and wealth as the poor do, so basically going after them alone isn't going to make much of a dent in inflation

Higher rates are likely doing a bit of work already at reducing the wealth of those at the higher end of the wealth scale, if you are holding money in assets like property or equities, they have not fared well, although obviously still up massively in recent years.

Rising rates may actually start to reduce the massive imbalance between income and wealth, low rates have seen wealth become far more important than income.

I am sure that I read (or dreamt) that inflation has risen inline with corporations rising profits,not exactly like for like but it isn't far off.

[filopastry]

Corporate profits have held up ok, for now anyway, although next year will be a lot tougher for them.

Share prices are already way off the post Covid peaks generally though, although obviously a few sectors have done better (Oil and Gas for one!)

[Elmo!]

We had our company AGM yesterday, and our managing director was talking about the behaviour of the Oil and Gas operators (who for a large part of our clients). I take his words with a large pinch of salt, but basically was saying they are still acting very defensively, cutting costs and not investing much. Despite the large profits they are receibing just now, they made huge losses before that and aren't confident this is going to last long. Not long enough to start massive new investments in the North Sea anyway.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Seems I didn't dream it,this isn't what I read,it's just the most recent.

The chief economist at the global investment bank UBS, the world's largest wealth manager, argued in an op-ed for the Financial Times on Wednesday that inflation in the United States "is more a product of profits than wages" and criticized Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for refusing to acknowledge that fact as he plows ahead with massive interest rate hikes.

"Powell's public remarks offer little insight into how he expects higher rates to tame inflation," Paul Donovan of UBS Global Wealth Management wrote just ahead of the Fed's latest interest rate increase of 75 basis points. "This is the current inflation story. Companies have passed higher costs on to customers. But they have also taken advantage of circumstances to expand profit margins. The broadening of inflation beyond commodity prices is more profit margin expansion than wage cost pressures."

"Even a major bank's chief economist now admits that corporations are price gouging under the guise of inflation."

"Despite negative real wages, consumers have carried on consuming," Donovan added. "Consumers seem to be buying stories that seem to justify price increases, but which really serve as cover for profit margin expansion... This unconventional inflation means higher unemployment and lower wages are not the only possible cure for it. Policy has more routes to lower inflation if the cause is about profits."

Thus far, though, the Powell-led Federal Reserve has primarily used interest rate increases in its as-yet unsuccessful effort to bring down inflation, even as critics warn that such an approach harms workers and risks a devastating recession without tackling the primary drivers of price increases.

At his Wednesday press conference, Powell once again conceded that rate hikes "don't directly affect for the most part food and energy prices," two major sources of inflation dictated by profit-seeking corporations such as Exxon, Chevron, and Pepsi.

"We increased prices at the beginning of the fourth quarter based on what we knew at that point," Pepsi's chief financial officer said on the company's earnings call last month. "And going forward, with the investments that we've made in brands, I still think we're capable of taking whatever pricing we need."

During his public appearance Wednesday, Powell wasn't asked a single question about the role corporate profiteering has played in causing high inflation even as executives boast about their enormous pricing power.

Progressive advocates and economists who have been spotlighting corporate America's inflationary profiteering for months seized on Donovan's Financial Times op-ed as further evidence that their data-driven argument is gradually piercing the mainstream, even as Powell ignores it.

"Even a major bank's chief economist now admits that corporations are price gouging under the guise of inflation," the American Economic Liberties Project tweeted Thursday.

Christian Hallum, tax justice lead at Oxfam International, added that "skyrocketing profits are to blame for inflation, according to the chief economist at UBS Global Wealth Management."

"Maybe we should tax windfall profits instead of trying to create unemployment through interest rate hikes?" Hallum suggested.

So yeah,it's nothing but fucking theft.

[PaulF]

I'm surprised there's only 218,000 people globally with assets of more than $50m. Taxing just those would cost very few votes. Though I suppose they would hold the power to influence a lot of votes.
Taxing at the source of revenue would seen to be a nettle to be grasped too. Starbucks, Amazon and Google, im looking at you.

[filopastry]

We had our company AGM yesterday, and our managing director was talking about the behaviour of the Oil and Gas operators (who for a large part of our clients). I take his words with a large pinch of salt, but basically was saying they are still acting very defensively, cutting costs and not investing much. Despite the large profits they are receibing just now, they made huge losses before that and aren't confident this is going to last long. Not long enough to start massive new investments in the North Sea anyway.

If you think the move to Net Zero is serious, why would you invest heavily in extracting fossil fuels now when those assets likely have a shorter lifespan than usual.

[filopastry]

I'm surprised there's only 218,000 people globally with assets of more than $50m. Taxing just those would cost very few votes. Though I suppose they would hold the power to influence a lot of votes.
Taxing at the source of revenue would seen to be a nettle to be grasped too. Starbucks, Amazon and Google, im looking at you.

Unless its worldwide they just tend to move to more favourable tax regimes, if you are that wealthy then that option is very much open to you.

I think authorities have tightened up on some of the greater abuses of transfer pricing a bit, but more still needs to be done there.

Still doesn't do a great deal about inflation on a macro level though.

[PaulF]

Sorry, yes. Thinking less about inflation. More about government coffers to repair the public services.

[filopastry]

Sorry, yes. Thinking less about inflation. More about government coffers to repair the public services.

Wealth taxes always sound a lot easier than they are though, if you set the amount at punitive levels, you get a one-time boost, but probably hurt your tax base after that, obviously much smaller numbers per year are achievable on a longer term basis but don't raise huge numbers, would be interesting somewhere like the US with a greater number of obscenely wealthy people.

Sorting out Corporate taxation and transfer pricing requires a lot of intl cooperation and tends to be slow, but would be a big win for govt finances v Corporate profits

[west_london_red]

If you think the move to Net Zero is serious, why would you invest heavily in extracting fossil fuels now when those assets likely have a shorter lifespan than usual.

Net Zero isn’t about just not using fossil fuels, their reduced use may be offset by things like carbon capture in the future, we might not use them to produce electricity and local transport in the near future but things like flying and shipping will still be using oil for a while yet I suspect. Nor are fossil fuels always used as a fuel don’t forget.

[filopastry]

Net Zero isn’t about just not using fossil fuels, their reduced use may be offset by things like carbon capture in the future, we might not use them to produce electricity and local transport in the near future but things like flying and shipping will still be using oil for a while yet I suspect. Nor are fossil fuels always used as a fuel don’t forget.

I know, nonetheless if you are producing a product and you think demand is going to fall of very significantly would you be putting a lot into long term investment with uncertain paybacks.

Its not that investment has stopped but it probably means the oil/gas prices need to be higher than previously to justify new exploration etc. Something that is likely to support oil and gas prices in the near term counterintuitively

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I know, nonetheless if you are producing a product and you think demand is going to fall of very significantly would you be putting a lot into long term investment with uncertain paybacks.

Its not that investment has stopped but it probably means the oil/gas prices need to be higher than previously to justify new exploration etc. Something that is likely to support oil and gas prices in the near term counterintuitively

If companies are just sitting on licenses we should take them away.

[Elmo!]

If companies are just sitting on licenses we should take them away.

They are taken away if they aren't developed.

[PaulF]

Net Zero isn’t about just not using fossil fuels, their reduced use may be offset by things like carbon capture in the future, we might not use them to produce electricity and local transport in the near future but things like flying and shipping will still be using oil for a while yet I suspect. Nor are fossil fuels always used as a fuel don’t forget.

Are the non fuel uses you finish with mainly plastics? Obviously we have a huge problem with them, bit do they contribute much co2?
Just a thought. If we treat oil for plastic as a by product of oil for fuel. And there's no money in fuel. Then plastic prices will rocket.

[west_london_red]

Are the non fuel uses you finish with mainly plastics? Obviously we have a huge problem with them, bit do they contribute much co2?
Just a thought. If we treat oil for plastic as a by product of oil for fuel. And there's no money in fuel. Then plastic prices will rocket.

Plastics, bitumen for roads, clothes, there’s an awful lot it’s used for then just fuel but no idea if these uses are from byproducts of using oil for fuel, I suspect it is and you might be right about the cost of those items increasing

[PaulF]

Plastics, bitumen for roads, clothes, there’s an awful lot it’s used for then just fuel but no idea if these uses are from byproducts of using oil for fuel, I suspect it is and you might be right about the cost of those items increasing

Oil for clothes?  I assume via plastics?

[PaulF]

https://innovativewealth.com/inflation-monitor/what-products-made-from-petroleum-outside-of-gasoline/

That's quite interesting.

And about 4-6% of oil goes toward plastics.
https://www.bpf.co.uk/plastipedia/how-is-plastic-made.aspx

[Jiminy Cricket]

Oil for clothes?  I assume via plastics?

Nylon, polyester, acrylic and spandex are the main petroleum-based fibers.

Plastics, bitumen for roads, clothes, there’s an awful lot it’s used for then just fuel but no idea if these uses are from byproducts of using oil for fuel, I suspect it is and you might be right about the cost of those items increasing

I believe so. Elmo will probably know and maybe comment.

[Elmo!]

Nylon, polyester, acrylic and spandex are the main petroleum-based fibers.I believe so. Elmo will probably know and maybe comment.

I work in IT mate. 

My knowledge of the oil industry only goes so far!

That is my understanding of it though.

[Jiminy Cricket]

https://innovativewealth.com/inflation-monitor/what-products-made-from-petroleum-outside-of-gasoline/

That's quite interesting.

And about 4-6% of oil goes toward plastics.
https://www.bpf.co.uk/plastipedia/how-is-plastic-made.aspx

Informative. It does demonstrate just how difficult it will be to give up oil. We use it everywhere!

[TepidT2O]

Informative. It does demonstrate just how difficult it will be to give up oil. We use it everywhere!

Well these uses of oil are exactly the reason we shouldn’t piss it away by burning it!

Climate change denier? Then we still need to stop burning oil products as oil is of so much use for all those uses shared.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I work in IT mate. 

My knowledge of the oil industry only goes so far!

That is my understanding of it though.

Yeah, I know. But I recall you writing about byproduct use (plastics, I think) in the past. You are probably the closest thing RAWK has to a petrochemical chemist!

[Jiminy Cricket]

Well these uses of oil are exactly the reason we shouldn’t piss it away by burning it!

Climate change denier? Then we still need to stop burning oil products as oil is of so much use for all those uses shared.

But can oil used for petrol, diesel, etc. production be redirected into producing plastics, etc.? I mean, are they purely refined, or are they transformed during production and instead might be used for plastics, fibers, etc.?

[Elmo!]

Yeah, I know. But I recall you writing about byproduct use (plastics, I think) in the past. You are probably the closest thing RAWK has to a petrochemical chemist!

If that's the case, we're in trouble. 

[TepidT2O]

But can oil used for petrol, diesel, etc. production be redirected into producing plastics, etc.? I mean, are they purely refined, or are they transformed during production and instead might be used for plastics, fibers, etc.?

Mostly, yes.  Catalytic cracking using zeolite catalysts can be fine tuned to give you the products you want more or less.(a bit a a broad claim, but mainly true)

[Jiminy Cricket]

Mostly, yes.  Catalytic cracking using zeolite catalysts can be fine tuned to give you the products you want more or less.(a bit a a broad claim, but mainly true)

Great! It is something that has crossed my mind a few times, but I never looked it up.