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

81–90 of 146 posts

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

#81

Post by gghhzzgghhzz »

mkoubaa wrote: post #64
gghhzzgghhzz wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn't about Brexit making the country materially poorer, the conditions existed long before Brexit, it's the main reason for the Brexit vote in the first place. Sure we can trade a bit more, but when the whole economy is financialised to a massive degree, then any benefits of that trade (if that trade outweighs the negative effects) are funnelled through a long standing system of extracting profit and conce…

The conditions existed long before Brexit, _and_ Brexit made it materially worse

I'm not convinced about that.

This worship of free trade we had was completely unrestricted. A lot of trade was completely decoupled from any real benefit or political or social project or any environmental concerns. If KPIs from trade and financial services are the main thing that are measured, then you will always end up with trade for trade's sake.

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”

Brexit has delivered an opportunity to assess and understand what we are trading and why.

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

#82

Post by allemagne »

version_five wrote: post #42
fullshark wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's immediately clear to me that I'd rather not have to storm the bastille every time the Baron's nephew embezzles money from the city government.

My neighbors and I just want someone competent in charge of local zoning policy. I'll take my theatrical vote over someone explicitly above the law theatrically pretending to give a shit.

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

#84

Post by WalterBright »

dukeyukey wrote: post #57
WalterBright wrote: post #16

All that free stuff from the government is expensive. "the British people need to accept they are poorer instead of seeking to claw back a historic drop in living standards after a jump in inflation."

Although the UK has an unusually low tax-to-gdp ratio compared to its neighbours, so it's probably not that.

Deficits are paid for with inflation.

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

#85

Post by stooart »

monero-xmr wrote: post #53

You can only financially engineer and money print your way for so long. Once living standards and real wages fall far enough, UK costs will get low enough to attract foreign investment again. A very educated workforce that speaks English with a good time zone will eventually be attractive at a low enough price. The problems fall squarely on the British themselves, as it always does in democracies. They elected repres…

Unfortunately with first-past-the-post, and the likes of Murdoch and Rothermere owning our media, democracy is not functioning at all well.

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

#86

Post by dylan604 »

pyuser583 wrote: post #69
dylan604 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this just an example of how the economy is a legitimized Ponzi scheme?

Parents support their children, then when the parents are retired the children support them. Is publicly funded childcare and eldercare a Ponzi scheme?

in most families doing this kind of support, then it is typical for numChildren > numParents. So while this may not be the technical definition of Ponzi, the fact that the next generation needs to be larger to sustain the system just sounds like an unsustainable system.

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

#87

Post by gghhzzgghhzz »

WalterBright wrote: post #79
gghhzzgghhzz wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not expensive. It's expensive if you don't spend on good quality public services. Without the NHS then there would be no economy. Without social care then people are taken out of the economy to care for relatives. Without child care then parents can't afford to go back to work. The main issue is that an every increasing proportion of money spent on services ends up in profits for private companies, and in the ad…

> Without the NHS then there would be no economy. There was a British economy before the NHS.

Yes, before the massive government programme of rearmament leading up to the war, then there were millions unemployed. Employment contracts and workers rights were nothing like they are today, so if an employee got sick then you could simply fire them and get someone else in on a lower wage.

It's not relevant for 2023.

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

#88

Post by dukeyukey »

WalterBright wrote: post #84
dukeyukey wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although the UK has an unusually low tax-to-gdp ratio compared to its neighbours, so it's probably not that.

Deficits are paid for with inflation.

And the UK deficit is comparable with it's neighbours.

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

#89

Post by monero-xmr »

stooart wrote: post #85
monero-xmr wrote: post #53

You can only financially engineer and money print your way for so long. Once living standards and real wages fall far enough, UK costs will get low enough to attract foreign investment again. A very educated workforce that speaks English with a good time zone will eventually be attractive at a low enough price. The problems fall squarely on the British themselves, as it always does in democracies. They elected repres…

Unfortunately with first-past-the-post, and the likes of Murdoch and Rothermere owning our media, democracy is not functioning at all well.

See this is the exact problem. Is the news causing society to decay or is the media a reflection of society, serving the news people want?

I don’t buy the “media and rich elites brainwashed society” myth. It’s a modern take on “the Jewish money men caused all the problems” that was a frequent trope in the past.

British voted and got what they deserved, period. Now they need to elect new leaders with new ideas.

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

#90

Post by saeranv »

I have a couple of naive questions about this, that hopefully someone with more knowledge can answer:

1. If the central problem is the price of imports (i.e. natural gas) outpacing exports (service sector), is this problem a downstream effect of Brexit closing off valuable markets? This seems obvious to me, but I don't see any mention of Brexit as a causal factor in the BOE Chief Economists comments (perhaps I missed it), and so am wondering if I'm overestimating Brexit's impact on the UK economy.

2. If Brexit is a relevant, and significant factor, in theory, can post-Brexit trade negotiations increase the export sector to offset this?

3. Assuming the natural gas is primarily used for building energy, is it easy for the UK to transition to alternative thermal energy sources (i.e. switch to electric generated from non-gas sources, heat pumps)? I've always thought of the UK as a very efficient user of energy, like most European countries, due to it's high density and stricter efficiency standards relative to the US and Canada, and am surprised the natural gas price increase seems to be framed as a relatively permanent problem that the UK is powerless to stop.

To be fair, I suppose a huge challenge is the older building stock can't easily use lower capacity electric heating, or heat pumps due to the historical reliance of thermal mass over insulation, but there are established ways to fix this, and shouldn't be an issue for modern buildings.

Post reply on HN