181–190 of 227 posts
I don't think there was ever much trust in (western) governments. People only put up with the politicians' crap, because they were well off. Bread and circuses is now over in many places, at least compared to the recent past, and people are facing the reality of the political fuckups of he last few decades.
Sorry, i need to brain dump something. A: the free travel of workers within EU was basically there since the early coal and steel agreement. B: said workers still needed to present passports etc when crossing borders. C: the Schengen agreement removes the passport requirement (UK is not a signatory to it though). D: EU expands eastwards, leading to an influx of workers that can underbid locals. E: refugee crisis ends…
Regarding "D: EU expands eastwards", my understanding is that this was largely driven by the then British Conservative Government as a ploy to prevent further integration between EU countries. "Wider, not deeper" was the theory. So the free movement of Eastern Europeans into the UK was due in large part to the Tories.
However I'm sure they'd have done the same thing if they had been in power at the time. Resentment about EU immigration followed the entry of eastern European states into the EU (with the UK being one of the only countries to allow their populations in from the start).
"Lefties" isn't really an insult any more than "neoliberals" is. It's just a description of a political position. What you're doing here though, is classical left-ism: taking an innocuous statement and claiming it's terribly offensive in order to distract from his/her point.
Your comment turned this into an ideological swipe in its own right. Please don't do that here. If we're to have civil, substantive discourse across political differences, people need to respect each others' views. That may be too much to hope for, but we can at least eschew derision.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12030641 and marked it off-topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your last paragraph is a Godwin point. The first thing that would avoid a war between EU and UK would be tolerance for their point of view with a discussion about immigration without everyone throwing arms in the air and saying "they're all fascists" (which I have heard this week with a lot of anti-british hate). Yes, immigrants who have been accepted are all UK nationals and they belong there now. Now have we asked…
> Yes, immigrants who have been accepted are all UK nationals and they belong there now. No, being an intra-EU migrant under EU free movement does not automatically make you a UK national. You retain your original nationality unless and until you go through the naturalisation process, which few have bothered with because it costs >£1500 and until now does not convey much benefit. This is why people are worried about…
Good, because I wasn't talking about those, slight misunderstanding. "Immigrant who have been accepted" = visa holder who is now a citizen = for example a ultra-highly-skilled newly-UK-national born in India.
> but that's nothing to do with the EU?
Absolutely nothing, and that's the problem: The English haven't been asked whether they wanted to increase visas, but their intelligencia did it anyway. So next time they had an opportunity to vote, be sure they voted against whatever the intelligencia wants, whatever it cost. Brexit was a vote against both their governing class and against their upper economic class (London). Yes, the cost is huge, but what other choice were they given?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can hope, but does Trump and brexit look different? And if so, does it look better?
Yes, very. Brexit was a decision about a policy, Trump is a decision about a man. The key personalities of Brexit are now all gone. What remains is the policy.
Yes, they're all gone, which is very strange indeed - most victories have no shortage of fathers. (1) Instead they're all running for cover.
So no, very.
1) http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnfkenn110295.h...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, very. Brexit was a decision about a policy, Trump is a decision about a man. The key personalities of Brexit are now all gone. What remains is the policy.
Hm, Brexit seems to me a decision taken for emotive reasons promoted by some larger-than-life personalities. Yes, they're all gone, which is very strange indeed - most victories have no shortage of fathers. (1) Instead they're all running for cover. So no, very. 1) http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnfkenn110295.h...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But we do want growth. Would you prefer the opposite – stagnation? How's that working out for Europe? "Trickle-down economics" was never an actual concept. It was a silly characterization of policies that favored keeping corporate taxes low in the name of encouraging capital investment and it's been responsible for the strength of our economy over the past 40 years. Everyone loves to rail against wealth inequality (t…
>Asking that the government liberate that money [...] does not seem like a good policy given how incompetent the government has proven itself to be when spending the money it already collects. So don't ask the government to liberate the existing holdings of the 1%, ask them to change policy to cutoff the supply. The tax code is so overwhelmingly in favour of the investing class that, if it were re-balanced, you would…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But we do want growth. Would you prefer the opposite – stagnation? How's that working out for Europe? "Trickle-down economics" was never an actual concept. It was a silly characterization of policies that favored keeping corporate taxes low in the name of encouraging capital investment and it's been responsible for the strength of our economy over the past 40 years. Everyone loves to rail against wealth inequality (t…
> Someone having 1000 times more money than you doesn't really affect you. This is observably not true. Prices increase for everyone when average incomes (demand) go up. So if people around me suddenly start making more and I don't, suddenly, I'm paying more for things, and am worse off. If you want a concrete example look at Bay Area housing prices.
And besides, you're not addressing my point. You're trying to explain supply and demand for some reason and ignoring the fact that I said "1000 times more money" which means the ultra rich, which is the group that progressives like to scapegoat.
Explain to me how anyone from the 1% "observably" negatively affects your daily life in significant way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So don't diminish your own argument by dropping to their level. What is the condescending insult you're referring to by the way? Lefties?
I would say yes, given that it's such a simplistic framing of the situation - the impression given (whether intended or not) is ah, those liberals and socialists with their multicultural dreams! When will they wake up and see that it doesn't work! The response was fine
Ok, First of all, I feel like "around the world" is stretching it a bit much for the purposes of the article. Secondly, I don't think you can explain the core reasons for this without talking about a specific country, because despite the similarities of even, say, the US and the U.K., the underlying causalities are much different. Thirdly, it is ominous when the author talks about the media consuming educated group,…
Who bailed out the bankers? Oh, that's right – the institution you describe as the "only thing that truly has any reigns around its neck". I'm not surprised your prediction involves a conspiracy theory.
So yes, the gov did bail out the bankers, but mostly because of regulatory capture and essentially hostage holding from the banks (holding our economy with a gun to its head saying give me the money or I'll shoot!), so this is where I usually hear about how it's the people's fault for electing the government.
So how we can keep going up the chain? In the end the responsibility for the welfare of the people is the government, so though we have allowed our citizenry to be propagandized and our votes manipulated until they almost don't count, the real prescription lays in effective and properly representative constitutional government. That's what America was founded on, and while it was never perfect it is what we should strive for.
I have seen first hand what reduction of government just because people are afraid of it does in many places. West Texas for example, ends up with privatizing water, electricity, and numerous other things, and then all the people are wondering why their service is bad, hugely overpriced, and rife with corruption, and worst of all complete lack of accountability.
Be very very wary of the knee jerk reaction to bad government being to get rid of government vs improving the existing one.
That being said, I have always been a fan of G Edward Griffon's saying, "If in doubt, choose less government". So please don't confuse me with a new dealer or anything that extreme. I see your point, I just think there is more room for nuance in the discussion.