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

91–100 of 146 posts

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

#91

Post by vladharbuz »

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…

You might find this book interesting: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/14891864-affluence-and-i...

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

#92

Post by ChatGTP »

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.

Singapore?

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

#93

Post by allemagne »

rajin444 wrote: post #48
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.

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). > hi…

If you can ignore all the bad examples then you can definitely confirmation bias your way into any type of government.

The reality is that if you're looking for government to solve all your problems then you're going to always end up disappointed. You agree that history attests to the success of the US, but let's not kid ourselves. It's still the most successful country the world has ever seen on multiple metrics. That's not because its non-representative (aka flawed) democracy happened to put the right people in charge, but because the power of the government was deliberately limited by the rule of law.

I agree we should be worried about demagoguery. At the very least, though, I'm grateful that there isn't just one absolutely powerful person, explicitly above the law, that can fall under the influence of a Rasputin or their favorite concubine.

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

#94

Post by legitster »

makomk wrote: post #62
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…

It's not even Brexit really - the whole of Europe is poorer on a real, practical level because its economies cannot produce the same amount of stuff. Brexit put some additional barriers to exporting and importing stuff from Europe, but generally speaking the main reason imports aren't available cheaply is because the supply isn't there for anyone and export markets are mostly going away because there's no longer the…

Although a political disaster, France's pension reform did not happen out of the blue. The country is facing a real demographics disaster and milking a few extra years out of their working age population will not be enough to head off the problem that they are simply not going to have economic productivity to support their population comfortably.

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

#95

Post by tonfreed »

gghhzzgghhzz wrote: post #58
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…

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…

From what I've read, Scotland is pretty much insolvent and still has generous social programs because England keeps them afloat.

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

#96

Post by gghhzzgghhzz »

tonfreed wrote: post #95
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…

From what I've read, Scotland is pretty much insolvent and still has generous social programs because England keeps them afloat.

Well that is the story that those who don't want to see Scottish Independence will push. It's a colonial argument.

It's a very narrow view of wealth flows, looking at the bigger picture then more flows back the other way.

e.g. See the example of Strathclyde Police Training and Recruitment Centre here:

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/08/16/the-burden-of...

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

#97

Post by pyuser583 »

dylan604 wrote: post #86
pyuser583 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m not just talking about families, but societies.

My parents who are retired are not adding value to the economy. I am.

I’m not caring for them directly, but they are dependents.

Their investments give them paper money that only has value because my generation works.

I have one sister. So two children and two parents is perfectly sustainable.

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

#98

Post by MountainHoliday »

jarym wrote: post #15

Funny, central bankers advocating for wage price restraints are in effect calling for price controls (on labour). Except when anyone calls for price controls in any other context (goods, commodities, services) they are generally shot down by mainstream economists because they create market distortions which eventually leads to unwanted side effects. Odd little disparity there.

Central banks were designed to suppress wages. This is where we get the 0 to 3% target. It will erode wages and the thinking was not lead to layoffs and unemployment. When the elites meddle with the economy and peoples lives it's a good thing

edit: There is a source for this, and quote by Janet Yellen, in a New York Times article discussing the modern theory on central bank governance if I can be bothered to find it

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

#99

Post by pyuser583 »

Nesco wrote: post #78
pyuser583 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economically, it’s best to not have children at all and depend on immigration. You don’t have to waste resources educating people. Someone else does that, and you just pay them a slightly higher wages. Much cheaper than a well-funded education system.

That’s assuming there are no externalities whatsoever to immigration and that the immigrants will be able to satisfy the demand in labor and in entrepreneurs as well as the natives. From my own experience, in France, both of those assumptions are heavily violated. It can vary depending of the type of immigration though, I bet the story is different for California

There are definitely economically bad forms of migration.

I was talking about O-1 visa type migration: highly qualified individuals being admitted based on their credentials.

Hiring the next generation, instead of breeding and raising it.

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

#100

Post by fallingknife »

saeranv wrote: post #73
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

A country's "number of people" isn't an independant parameter that you can just slide down so that your GDP/person increases. If you reduce the "number of people" (i.e. by reducing immigration) you are typically reduce your GDP at a much higher rate, and thus will have a lower GDP/person overall. Your eating into your economy's ability to support the division of labour, specialization and other efficiencies that can…

> young, educated workers who are consistently net creators of jobs

Yes. If that's the kind of immigrants you're bringing in. But most often I hear this argument used by people who want to justify bringing in a very different type.

Post reply on HN