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

141–146 of 146 posts

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

#141

Post by carlosjobim »

monero-xmr wrote: post #89
stooart wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Give a regular person the opportunity just once to participate in the corruption schemes that the elites use to sustain themselves and that regular person wouldn't even blink before accepting. The average person has become so spiritually impoverished that he or she will participate in corruption and unethical conduct without even realizing what they are doing is wrong. "Hey, I get some money, so that has to be good!".

People sell themselves for as little as $500 in corruption money. Elites haven't reached their spot just by themselves, they rely on massive tree-like corruption networks, where the leader of each branch gets to benefit more the more people they have under them. In a given society you have a small percentage of people completely morally corrupted, a large majority who are just ignorant in every regard, and a handful of people who actually gives a damn - about anything.

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

#142

Post by WalterBright »

gghhzzgghhzz wrote: post #87
WalterBright wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> It's not relevant for 2023.

How economics works hasn't changed. And Britain turned to the welfare state before WW1.

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

#144

Post by pyuser583 »

zsz wrote: post #116
dylan604 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until you have kids

Population replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman--meaning, in order for a population's size to remain the same, on average child births have to come out to 2.1 for every woman. All Western countries have been well below replacement level, for many decades at this point. Taking the example of One brother and one sister, the sister would have to bear 2.1 children, while the brother would have to have 2.1 children…

Fertility rate is calculated as number of children per woman.

So the sister must have 2.1 children to sustain, but the brother’s “contributions” don’t matter.

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

#145

Post by MountainHoliday »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #134
MountainHoliday wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yea I guess everyone else on hackernews are experters on central banks and I shouldn't comment

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

#146

Post by shadowpho »

bioemerl wrote: post #28
shadowpho wrote: post #4

>A tight jobs market and strong corporate pricing power means that firms can pass on costs in higher prices and workers can demand wage increases, fueling inflation further Maybe it's better to curb the strong corporate pricing power instead?

When demand is higher than supply there will always be strong pricing power from the supply side, you can't fix that with price controls, you'll end up with shortages.

I was meaning more towards breaking up the monopolies
Post reply on HN