Live data from Hacker News

The elite that failed

economist.com

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: The elite that failed

#31
post #27

I'm not sure how this is a failure of the elite. The elite want to be in the EU and we are still in the EU. That doesn't seem to be a failure to me. That seems to be a success.

> and we are still in the EU Ben, I hope you do realize your premise changes in roughly ~10 weeks, unless something extraordinary happens. Theresa is determined to leave..

Seems like the "elites" are holding out hope for something extraordinary to me, like a second referendum. Brexit being as painful as possible is a means to achieve said goal.

Re: The elite that failed

#32
post #24
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pick one That is a model example of a false dichotomy.

Yeah that is just sophistry. 2016: Incompetent elite's create a problem. 2019: Incompetent elites make it worse. Deeper problem is part of the neoliberal revolution was popular will was to be neutered, the political process was to be neutered. So that they couldn't interfere with the the free market or oppose the power of the rentier class. So now you have voters, politicians, and the media that see politics and poli…

The problems of the EU were well known among educated persons well before the Maastricht treaty was even signed.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v14/n19/wynne-godley/maastricht-and-al...

Re: The elite that failed

#33

There is a great Alvin Toffler quote that foretold this: " One of the functions of a legislature is to negotiate compromises among various constituencies. Well, the constituencies today are so numerous, their demands are so complex, and the rate of change in their demands and in the constituencies is so high that nobody in Congress represents anybody anymore. They represent themselves. Because their constituency chan…

I had this same thought when thinking about Toronto and their distinct lack of action on public transit. We keep flip flopping on whether or not to build this or build that or tear down this or that, blah blah blah. It’s all because the city is waaaayyy too diverse and there’s literally no way to meet in the middle on this; somebody is going to lose, and anybody losing is unfathomable, so the better option is... for…

Another thing is how commentators describe constituencies in psycho-graphic terms, not concrete interests. You hear that rural people are "unhappy and left behind." Well some rural people in England are that, and some work at the Nissan factory and they probably don't see Brexit as being good for their job. The point is that there aren't enough people working at an automobile plant (in England) to form a really powerful constituency. Society is more fragmented and there are fewer large blocks of people who have a concrete political interest.

Re: The elite that failed

#34
post #27

I'm not sure how this is a failure of the elite. The elite want to be in the EU and we are still in the EU. That doesn't seem to be a failure to me. That seems to be a success.

> and we are still in the EU Ben, I hope you do realize your premise changes in roughly ~10 weeks, unless something extraordinary happens. Theresa is determined to leave..

I actually think this is unlikely. I actually I hope it happens because I think the EU is a long term con. Basically the EU is holding free trade as a hostage. Free trade offers great benefits but the EU as an institution can continue to force a greater political union on the countries forming the union even if this political union is not to the benefit of these countries. We are seeing it right now with the Brexit negotiations. There are two clear paths that solve the Irish issue but neither of them are possible because it would destroy the EU as an institution.

Solution 1)

Split the tariff union and the political union. The UK joins the tariff union. I honestly think most leave voters would be happy with the compromise of losing control over tariffs if they retain control over everything else. However, this basically destroys the EU as a political union because the EU as political union only exists because of the benefits of free trade and if every country can defect and maintain free trade they will.

Solution 2)

The EU offers a free trade area between the EU and the UK. This has some negative consequences for the EU and the UK in that they are restricted in the way in which they can increase tariffs from before the agreement to post the agreement. Again I think most leave voters would be happy with this trade off. Also, this restriction should not be a big deal for the EU. However, from the point of view of the EU as institution this is very bad because the UK is basically enjoying the benefits of free trade without the political union. If the UK is able to do this then all the other countries who do not benefit from the political union will want to do it and the political union will collapse.

The EU is a big problem for the UK going forward because they can keep demanding a closer and closer political union and use the threat of the UK losing free trade to make this possible. At what point should the UK walk away from the EU? I think it is better to rip off the band-aid now.

And just to add. Most economists believe free trade is beneficial to all parties. So why are the UK and the EU not able to agree on a WTO free trade area deal which would solve the Irish issue and presumably benefit both the EU and the UK in a post-brexit world?

Surely, this is a win-win outcome unless you are trying to punish someone for taking a branch in the game tree you don't want them to.

The reason I think it is unlikely that the UK will leave the EU with a hard brexit is because it doesn't seem like the government has taken reasonable steps in order to maximise the benefit for this course of action. Surely, if you considered a hard brexit an option you would be actively negotiating bilateral and free trade agreements with other countries. I understand if you were resource strapped this might not be something you would pursue but the UK government is not resource strapped and it would seem to make sense to pursue these deals even if there was like a 10% chance of a hard brexit.

May and her government are probably massively incompetent but it is hard to believe that they are that incompetent. I suspect either May or her bureaucracy believe the Britain's interests are best served staying in the EU and they are trying to engineer the situation to maximise the chance of this happening.

Re: The elite that failed

#35
post #23

I've seen the argument this article trots out that the referendum should've required a supermajority a lot, but it always seems more like an attempt to block something the author doesn't want than an actual principled argument. There was no supermajority required to take the major and quite possibly irreversible step of joining the EU. Indeed, there was no referendum on it at all; the 1975 referendum was on leaving a…

It's tricky. The EU of 1975 is very different from the EU of 2018 (indeed, the "EU" didn't exist then, just the EEC). Does joining a customs union even require a referendum? My initial strong gut response to this is that it shouldn't, but it's also abundantly clear now that a customs union can easily lead to much greater integration over decades. Boiling a frog. Note that all the increased integration was accepted by the elected governments of the UK, so you can't write this off as some authoritarian, anti-democratic power creep by the EU bureaucracy.

And now the immediate implications of leaving the EU are much greater than the immediate implications in 1975 of joining a customs union, so even if a 50%+ referendum was enough for a customs union, a strong argument can be made that leaving the EU should be held to a higher standard.

I think the main takeaway of this experience should be this: the EU should never accept new members unless there's durable majority support in the member country for being a part of the EU. One plausible version of this is 60%+ support in two consecutive elections.

Re: The elite that failed

#36

I'm not sure how this is a failure of the elite. The elite want to be in the EU and we are still in the EU. That doesn't seem to be a failure to me. That seems to be a success.

> The elite want to be in the EU

Does that mean Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Jacob Reese-Mogg, Michael Gove and their friends are not "elite"? In that case, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

The truth is that there are bits of elite on both sides, and that humanizing a social class is just a propaganda trick.

Re: The elite that failed

#37
The law of the universe dictates that our world is always moving toward entropy (chaos) no matter what, and things will keep getting more and more chaos everyday.

These so called "elite" politicians are after all just homo sapiens, thus limited by human capabilities. They are nothing more special than you and me. Nobody really has any fucking clue what's going on or how to fix it. Nobody has been more wrong throughout the history than those expert economists. Everybody sort of just wings it and hope they will get lucky. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

This shows you what a clusterfuck we are all in. Stop fighting, go get a drink and just enjoy the ride as there's nothing we can do to fight against the force of entropy. Shit will sort itself out.

Re: The elite that failed

#38
post #32
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that is just sophistry. 2016: Incompetent elite's create a problem. 2019: Incompetent elites make it worse. Deeper problem is part of the neoliberal revolution was popular will was to be neutered, the political process was to be neutered. So that they couldn't interfere with the the free market or oppose the power of the rentier class. So now you have voters, politicians, and the media that see politics and poli…

The problems of the EU were well known among educated persons well before the Maastricht treaty was even signed. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v14/n19/wynne-godley/maastricht-and-al...

And that's just another data point that shows incompetence.

The Maastricht treaty took away fiscal and central banking tools that governments could use and replaced them with... nothing.

That just proves my point here.

Re: The elite that failed

#39

The law of the universe dictates that our world is always moving toward entropy (chaos) no matter what, and things will keep getting more and more chaos everyday. These so called "elite" politicians are after all just homo sapiens, thus limited by human capabilities. They are nothing more special than you and me. Nobody really has any fucking clue what's going on or how to fix it. Nobody has been more wrong throughou…

Equating the popular sense of chaos and entropy doesn't really provide much insight into "the world," unless you're making a literal claim that all microstates of "the world" are equally plausible and we ergodically explore them.

Re: The elite that failed

#40

The law of the universe dictates that our world is always moving toward entropy (chaos) no matter what, and things will keep getting more and more chaos everyday. These so called "elite" politicians are after all just homo sapiens, thus limited by human capabilities. They are nothing more special than you and me. Nobody really has any fucking clue what's going on or how to fix it. Nobody has been more wrong throughou…

But human nature is Inertia. So humans should be striving for less Chaos.
Post reply on HN