Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 146 posts

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#41

Post by rcarr »

rurp wrote: post #33
bagels wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those that don't have any idea what a non-dom is (like myself), BBC says: "Non-dom" is short for "non-domiciled individual". It's a term used for a UK resident whose permanent home, or domicile, is outside the UK. "Non-dom" is a description of tax status.

Am I understanding this right, that the leader of the UK has his official residence outside of the country in order to evade taxes? If so, it's pretty wild that that's accepted

I don't think he is anymore but his wife is. I might be wrong though.

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#42

Post by version_five »

fullshark wrote: post #32
rajin444 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically enough, one of the strengths of a monarchy is a good king could absolutely prevent this and set the empire on a path to enriching the British populace. And if not they run a high risk of losing their head. Nowadays we’ve all embraced democracy (oligarchy run by demagogues) and it’s a lot harder to hold anyone accountable. Everyone knows the British monarch is “powerless”, so they quibble amongst one anothe…

A monarchy is more responsive to the needs of its citizens than a representative democracy? I realize we've all become jaded cynics over the western flavor of republic recently, but history and even present day monarchies show this to be nonsense.

I tried thinking through the upstream assertion, and I can't say I believe it.

But I am curious about how the accountability structure of a feudal system rolling up to a monarch compares to modern democracy. To some extent isn't each level still accountable to the levels below it - a peasant uprising will be the downfall of a noble, and an aristocrat uprising will be the downfall of a king. It's not immediately clear either that this would be worse than whatever system we live under, which in most places has no accountability and where democracy (voting) is mostly a theatrical exercise that changes nothing.

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#43

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

legitster wrote: post #18

A lot of commenters are obsessed with just finding money. You can't eat money. You can't build a house out of it (advisably). Money is only as valuable as the amount of stuff in an economy. More money with the same amount of stuff is just inflation. The Pound does not need more inflation. Money and trade are only valuable in so much as they aid exchange and efficiency. On a real, practical-level Brexit made England m…

"Money is only as valuable as the amount of stuff in an economy. More money with same amount of stuff is just inflation."

What if the number of people in the country's economy significantly changes, up or down? Nothing? Can one simply ignore this variable or should it be part of the analysis? Perhaps there is a hidden assumption here that it is held (more or less) constant.

NB. "stuff" can be natural resources, or other products not produced by human labour

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#45

Post by legitster »

justsee wrote: post #38
legitster wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No where is he quoted advocating for wage controls. If anything his actual conversation is explaining why changes in wages do not impact inflation.

Pill (BOE economist) is advocating for wage price restraints, which is what the parent observed. The parent then said it is in effect calling for price controls on labor, which is true. Pill is then recorded as saying wages do contribute to inflation: > "He said that firms and workers are in a “pass the parcel game” that’s causing more persistent price pressures, contributing to the UK’s main inflation rate remaining…

The full context of his interview: bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-04-26/uk-inflation-boe-s-chief-economist-fails-find-the-right-words?leadSource=uverify%20wall

> So somehow in the UK, someone needs to accept that they’re worse off and stop trying to maintain their real spending power by bidding up prices, whether higher wages or passing the energy costs through on to customers. And what we’re facing now is that reluctance to accept that, yes, we’re all worse off, and we all have to take our share, to try and pass that cost on to one of our compatriots.

> That pass-the-parcel game is generating inflation and that part of inflation can persist. How much bargaining power and pricing power exists for different actors in the value chain in the corporate side and in the labor market?

He is literally saying that corporations passing on energy costs is also causing inflation. Absolutely nowhere does he even advocate for policy intervention. Not only is everyone putting words in his mouth, it goes against his larger point that interventions on individual actors are meaningless.

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#46

Post by falcolas »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #43
legitster wrote: post #18

A lot of commenters are obsessed with just finding money. You can't eat money. You can't build a house out of it (advisably). Money is only as valuable as the amount of stuff in an economy. More money with the same amount of stuff is just inflation. The Pound does not need more inflation. Money and trade are only valuable in so much as they aid exchange and efficiency. On a real, practical-level Brexit made England m…

"Money is only as valuable as the amount of stuff in an economy. More money with same amount of stuff is just inflation." What if the number of people in the country's economy significantly changes, up or down? Nothing? Can one simply ignore this variable or should it be part of the analysis? Perhaps there is a hidden assumption here that it is held (more or less) constant. NB. "stuff" can be natural resources, or ot…

Economists keep chiding us about how that will ruin the economy too. They tell us our population must keep growing to keep the economy healthy.

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#47

Post by Symbiote »

nine_zeros wrote: post #27

How about they start the "acceptance" at the BOE. Cut their salaries. Then, cut all MP salaries. Then, cut government employee salaries. Then, tax the wealth of the rich (and not just income). When these noble people "accept" poverty themselves, that ought to bring inflation down.

Government employee salaries are often below equivalent private salaries, and would be better being raised in many cases.

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#48

Post by rajin444 »

fullshark wrote: post #32
rajin444 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically enough, one of the strengths of a monarchy is a good king could absolutely prevent this and set the empire on a path to enriching the British populace. And if not they run a high risk of losing their head. Nowadays we’ve all embraced democracy (oligarchy run by demagogues) and it’s a lot harder to hold anyone accountable. Everyone knows the British monarch is “powerless”, so they quibble amongst one anothe…

A monarchy is more responsive to the needs of its citizens than a representative democracy? I realize we've all become jaded cynics over the western flavor of republic recently, but history and even present day monarchies show this to be nonsense.

Do any modern western governments truly represent the interests of their people? They're all suffering from fragmentation and discord. Without high trust culture, they end up balkanizing their people and being ruled by oligarchs.

I think the non representative democracy the US initially was worked well (as history can attest to). Fully representative leaves you with demagogues (as the current day can attest to).

> history

There have been plenty of good kings who saw it their duty to see to their people. This is more or less the default for how humans operate (families, tribes, businesses, etc.).

> present day monarchies

There are not any left in western society that I'm aware of, so there's a bit of a sampling bias.

Re: BOE Chief Economist Says Britons ‘Need to Accept’ They’re Worse Off

#50

Post by jacooper »

> So somehow in the UK, someone needs to accept that they’re worse off and stop trying to maintain their real spending power by bidding up prices, whether higher wages or passing the energy costs through on to customers. And what we’re facing now is that reluctance to accept that, yes, we’re all worse off, and we all have to take our share, to try and pass that cost on to one of our compatriots.

That pass-the-parcel game is generating inflation and that part of inflation can persist. How much bargaining power and pricing power exists for different actors in the value chain in the corporate side and in the labor market?

That's the actual quote

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-04-26/uk-inf...

Post reply on HN