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

131–140 of 146 posts

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

#131

Post by seydor »

gilbetron wrote: post #130
seydor wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money is zero sum and it determines who owns the 'stuff'. Higher wages mean working-age generations are able to generate some wealth whereas until now only older generations could, as their assets continuously appreciated without losing value due to inflation. I see the whole thing as intergenerational conflict. Pre-genX'ers went through a period of high inflation, which was also one of historically low inequality, f…

I like your analysis, but I love how it leaves GenXers out of the picture. Typical.

they never had any hope

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

#132

Post by pyuser583 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #114
pyuser583 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wait, were you serious with that post above? I was sure you were making a parody.

I was serious that it’s economically best to recruit the next generation.

But being human isn’t just about economics.

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

#133

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#134

Post by HDThoreaun »

MountainHoliday wrote: post #98
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

Stop commenting about things you, at best, don't understand.

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

#135

Post by pyuser583 »

dylan604 wrote: post #108
pyuser583 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s played itself out, and there’s only going to be one between my sister and myself. So 2 grandparents, two kids, and one grandchild. Definitely not a Ponzi scheme. Not a good one anyway.

right, that's why the system is failing

I don’t think it’s “the system.”

Common sense says: “Having a higher proportion of the population not working reduces economic output.”

And economics is saying: “Modern economies grow so quickly and reliably, we can increase economic output while caring for an increasing number of dependent people.”

For example, we have retirement communities and nursing homes instead of each offspring caring for their own parents. This reduces the downward pull on output. But the pull is still there.

So common sense and economics say that more dependents reduces output.

I can’t imagine a system where a high number of dependents doesn’t create a downward pull on economic output.

Can you describe a system like that?

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

#136

Post by gghhzzgghhzz »

MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #128
gghhzzgghhzz wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People trade to make money. They don't generally do it to achieve political or social goals. Saying that cutting ourselves off from our main trading partners is "an opportunity to assess what we are trading and why" is like saying that cutting off your legs is an opportunity to assess where we were walking and why.

Indeed. People do individual things. Governments implement policy (or at least should) to make sure these individual things are within the overall goals and policy objectives they have been elected on, and for the good of the whole of the country.

Hence you have trade agreements and tariffs, tax, environmental regulations etc.

And trade isn't always good. If you are exporting then you are using your own resources (human, minerals, environment) etc to do work for others. This may work for you at an individual level, but it may not work for the country.

Four examples from the UK

1) Welsh Lamb. It is produced at great cost to the hill environment, including habitats and the knock on effects of flooding downstream. It was exported to the EU, while we were importing lamb from New Zealand to eat.

2) Fishing. Many of the fish caught in UK waters were exported because we were not used to eating them, while we were importing fish that we were used to eating. Individual fishermen probably did 'ok' out of this system, the companies above them doing much better. But coastal communities were not thriving, they were categorised as some of the poorest areas in the EU. Fishing didn't contribute to a sustainable environment for coastal communities. Then there is the environment, fishing stocks, discarded fishing gear etc.

3) Cars. This is a bit more difficult to solve, but we seem to spend endless resources in the EU and UK producing as many cars as possible. Despite them barely being used (a car sits idle 97% of the time) other than to financially cripple the owners. A car is very inefficient way to travel in the most populated places in the UK. Yet we have built our services around it, and continue to over produce millions of the things every year. Who is benefiting from this approach, rather than proper investment in a first class public transport system and associated planning system?

4) The drug trade. This is a trade full of highly skilled and resourceful people, it generates billions in complex imports and exports and logistics. This is good trade? No of course not.

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

#137

Post by carlosjobim »

pyuser583 wrote: post #132
carlosjobim wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, were you serious with that post above? I was sure you were making a parody.

I was serious that it’s economically best to recruit the next generation. But being human isn’t just about economics.

You are right. And from studying the history of slavery you will find that those kind of arguments where made during the same time. Slave traders and politicians would say that slavery was economically necessary in order to make the land productive, as the native people of the colonies had little interest in participating in that kind of economy. Politicians and traders make almost identical arguments right now, saying they need to import immigrants to do the hard work because the natives are not interested. For some reason they still want very strict regulations on immigration between wealthy countries, because they think that poor and desperate people are stupid and more easy to exploit.

Try telling people it is wrong to exploit immigrants or that immigrants are not more stupid than anyone else and won't let themselves be exploited so easily, and you're talking to deaf ears.

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

#138

Post by nh23423fefe »

nine_zeros wrote: post #40
robocat wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think similar solutions have often been tried in the last decades in other countries and often fail. I’m thinking Zimbabwe (although I admit I am incredibly ignorant about the history there). Why do you think everyone would be better off after following your suggestions?

> Why do you think everyone would be better off after following your suggestions? When inequality is lower, economy booms.

You've written this like an implication but you forgot the reasoning.

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

#139

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

gghhzzgghhzz wrote: post #136
MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People trade to make money. They don't generally do it to achieve political or social goals. Saying that cutting ourselves off from our main trading partners is "an opportunity to assess what we are trading and why" is like saying that cutting off your legs is an opportunity to assess where we were walking and why.

Indeed. People do individual things. Governments implement policy (or at least should) to make sure these individual things are within the overall goals and policy objectives they have been elected on, and for the good of the whole of the country. Hence you have trade agreements and tariffs, tax, environmental regulations etc. And trade isn't always good. If you are exporting then you are using your own resources (hu…

Well, I guess decimating the farming, fishing and car industries is one way to remove any negative externalities that might have arisen from the trade they generated.

It doesn't seem like a particularly good way to ensure trade works well for everyone though!

I suspect the drug trade will not be massively affected either way by Brexit.

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

#140

Post by carlosjobim »

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…

Could you please tell us the reason why any productive individual would remain in the UK in that case unless being violently threatened? Why wouldn't they follow in the foot steps of their brethren to America, Australia or anywhere else?
Post reply on HN