Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The strange case of Britain’s demise

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 584 posts

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#481

Post by matthewmacleod »

mattlondon wrote: post #454
mytailorisrich wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corbyn and McDonnell were essentially communists and therefore unelectable. Blair took the realistic route: Socialism does not work, let's have a market economy create wealth that can then be used to finance social programs. A flavour a social democracy. I think a reason Corbyn was so popular among the young is that enough time has passed so that this generation has no idea what socialist countries in Europe were act…

The young like it because they don't have much skin in the game. "Tax the rich!" Is great when you are not rich, and most young people are not (yet) rich. Coming out of uni saddled with debt and doing entry level jobs etc, it is easy to just think selfishly and say "The rich should pay for more! Not me!" Eventually you run out of other people's money though.

As a (lamentably) no longer young and (luckily) fairly rich person in London, “tax the rich” is a fucking brilliant idea.

I have received over the past several years a number of stupid tax cuts and energy bailouts that have had precisely zero effect on my family’s well-being or future prospects. Except now I can’t get a fucking doctor’s appointment, the local church is setting up a “warm bank” so that me neighbours don’t die, and my kids will have to pay tens of thousands of pounds for education.

Tax the rich.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#482

Post by dragonwriter »

Adverblessly wrote: post #260
dignick wrote: post #145

Like in the US, democracy in the United Kingdom is faltering. Our first past the post electoral system means the Tories can retain power with a third of the (active) electorate voting for them. Labour believes first past the post serves them well, but it doesn’t, because they would have been leading a coalition government in the last several elections under Proportional Representation. Instead it requires Labour to b…

Here in Israel with proportional representation, every small party has outsized power since every one of them has enough power to vote down the current government by joining hands with the opposition. As a result, decisions that are undesirable by the majority are consistently made. We are currently after an election but before forming a new government and as part of the coalition negotiations the upcoming government…

> Here in Israel with proportional representation, every small party has outsized power since every one of them has enough power to vote down the current government by joining hands with the opposition.

Unless there are no minor parties outside of government, isn’t that offset by the risk of what they currently get from being in government being lost while the rest of government continues by bringing in one or more currently-out-of-government minor parties in exchange for prioritizing some of their priorities?

(Anyhow, there’s been extensive comparative study across established democracies and a number of positive outcomes, including greater public satisfaction with government, track with greater effecrivd proportionality.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#483

Post by Adverblessly »

solatic wrote: post #416
jrochkind1 wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the radical differences between Likud and Yesh Atid? (In fact, they did form a government coalition in 2013, which lasted about two years. And then there was the 2020, where the two biggest parties in that election, Likud and Blue and White (of which Yesh Atid was a major constituent), formed a government. So it happens. I'm not sure the current two biggest parties, Likud and Yesh Atid, have a radical differ…

You're making the common mistake that these parties are about their platforms, not their leaders. It's not so much a difference between Likud and Yesh Atid so much as a difference between Netanyahu and Lapid, with Netanyahu's struggles to avoid a corruption verdict and Lapid's insistence that elected politicians must not continue to serve after indictment. Lapid and other center-opposition leaders have all indicated…

To add to this (which I feel is also a partial answer to lambertsimnel's original question here), if we look at politics as an iterated prisoner's dillema, the center-left parties have chosen a "tit for tat" strategy whereas Binyamin Netanyahu has chosen an "always defect" strategy.

Of particular note, at the start of the corona crisis, there have already been several failed elections. At the time, Benny Ganz's party ran together with Yesh Atid (and Telem) in a combined list, but since Yesh Atid refused to cooperate with Binyamin Netanyahu (after their own bad expereinces), Benny Ganz chose to split up the combined party and join Binyamin Netanyahu in the coalition, citing the importance of having a stable government for these difficult times (of COVID).

The coalition agreement stipulated that Binyamin Netanyahu will be the Prime Minister for the first two years and Benny Ganz for the final two years (elections in Israel are theoretically every 4 years). However, after two years, Binyamin Netanyahu disbanded the government (by manufacturing a disagreement so that the coalition could not vote together). Benny Ganz then learned his lesson.

(There are of course more disagreements and issues and a lot more nuance then what I can present in a short comment on an online forum, but hopefully this is a useful example to understand the sort of issues we are having)

Going back to my original post, I'm trying to say that the fact that whatever factors have lead to this sort of rotten situation (and that we stay in that situation continually) are the real problem, and not specifically the voting system. Even if we accept that proportional representation is the best system ever, it is not on its own enough to prevent the sorts of problems you see lately in democracies around the world.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#484

Post by pasabagi »

roenxi wrote: post #455
pasabagi wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with your argument is that the energy cost of, say, charging a phone, is multiple orders of magnitude less than heating a room, and that in turn is many orders of magnitude from producing steel through recycling, and so on. Comparable objects (a steel section produced in an arc furnace vs a steel section smelted from ore) have radically different energy requirements. If you legislate away the worst offend…

Here is a chart [0] of the UK's coal production over the last century+. And here is their oil production [1] forming the nice bell-curve-like plot of a country burning through their reserves. I'm sorry to be the one breaking the news to you, but trends like that have nothing to do with energy efficiency and everything to do with exhausting reserves. In my opinion, they could probably have resisted this outcome by som…

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I read GP as saying that energy usage will always meet whatever capacity you can generate. I don't think that's true: if the economic return from energy usage doesn't cover the cost of producing the energy itself, then production will fall.

I also don't think the UK's role as a fossil fuel exporter/producer is relevant at all. The UK was essentially de-industrialized in the 80's for political reasons, and the energy usage is inefficient, also for political reasons. Many countries have never been fossil fuel exporters, and do not have the UK's sky high energy costs.

The biggest single cause of waste (and thus high prices) in the UK is uninsulated homes. This is caused by a lack of sensible building codes, which in turn is caused by a lack of sensible politics.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#485

Post by ssabev »

halo wrote: post #308
skippyboxedhero wrote: post #18

Remarkable article. 2000-odd words, goes into great detail talking about politics, psycho-analyzing the Tories...it is all because they went to Eton...of course...the Brexit, the bankers...it is all so simple. A brief sentence is expended on planning, no mention about supply-side problems, the productivity crisis in govt (which is now 50% of the economy)...nothing. I will say this another way, you can measure the int…

Can you expand on “supply-side problems”, “economic reform” and “structural issues” without filtering it through euphemisms?

Supply side:

* We do not have enough houses in economically productive areas - look at the OxCam arc, London. NIMBYs keep sapping every attempt at building more houses.

* Terrible childcare - we have to pay about 1-2k per kid for childcare. Go figure out how to have children in a climate where it's cheaper for a parent not to work (if you're on the average income).

* Healthcare - as a naturalised brit I will never understand the sacrosanct nature of the NHS. We plough a ton of money into something that is very equitable but is terrible for outcomes. Most folks who have money I know always tend to go private rather than dealing with a 6 month wait for a routine check up.

Economic reform

* Investment wise - we are funding out deficits by selling our assets to foreign investors. Most of the country's financial assets are seen as safe dividend givers. We have a decent startup ecosystem, but we should invest far more into research, infrastructure to actually ensure there is a boost to the economy.

On the structural - few things come to mind, but can't articulate them super clearly. Hope that helps

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#486

Post by nxmnxm99 »

uejfiweun wrote: post #428
nxmnxm99 wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the West is stagnating and the power center of the world has shifted East once more after half a millennia.

Is the West really stagnating? If anything, I'd say it's at the peak and continuing to climb. The bulk of the West's power is united under a single language, on a continent that's practically invincible, and it has constructed a system in which the brightest minds from around the world come to the US to work for Western companies and study in Western universities. Sure, China is catching up quickly, but that's becaus…

I mean - you’re wrong.

20 years ago America and Europe dominated the world - today the US is growing increasingly perilous politically and Europe is little more than a museum, irrelevant by the day.

The collective economies of Canada, Europe and Australia haven’t grown since 2008. 15 years. The US is the only “western” economy which has actually shown real GDP growth.

A staggering number of academics and researchers are now opting to either stay or return home - because home is a better place to live than the West, unlike 20 years ago.

By the year 2040, there is only going to be a single “western” country among the worlds 10 largest economies.

It’s basic math. China is just the start - there are 4-5 new chinas emerging over the next 2-3 decades

What you are saying is respectfully a highly incorrect and somewhat sheltered perspective.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#487

Post by Adverblessly »

dragonwriter wrote: post #482
Adverblessly wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Israel with proportional representation, every small party has outsized power since every one of them has enough power to vote down the current government by joining hands with the opposition. As a result, decisions that are undesirable by the majority are consistently made. We are currently after an election but before forming a new government and as part of the coalition negotiations the upcoming government…

> Here in Israel with proportional representation, every small party has outsized power since every one of them has enough power to vote down the current government by joining hands with the opposition. Unless there are no minor parties outside of government, isn’t that offset by the risk of what they currently get from being in government being lost while the rest of government continues by bringing in one or more c…

You are correct in theory, it is certainly a technical possibility to avoid such a problem. In practice, this isn't done and isn't possible since the major factions are too at odds with each other to create such a situation. In particular, everyone in the center-left knows that there's no point in trying to cooperate with Binyamin Netanyahu because he is guaranteed to betray them and not uphold his part of whatever bargain they make. Everyone in the right knows that they can't cooperate with anyone outside of Binyamin Netanyahu because they'll be accused of being evil terrorist supporting leftists and will lose many votes in the next election.

The point I was making is that it is actually this dynamic (and the fact that it is legitimized enough that it is able to continue) that is causing issues and that whatever is creating it is the real problem. Proportional representation may be the superior system, but it is not the cure for the problems democracies are facing and so the specific system in use should not be blamed as the root cause of these problems and it is then in my opinion a contributing factor at best.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#488

Post by TapWaterBandit »

gerbler wrote: post #462
TapWaterBandit wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ireland's prosperity is built on a house of cards to do with low corporation taxes. I wouldn't be surprised if Ireland faces serious economic challenges and maybe even decline in coming years as governments are getting increasingly serious about not allowing corporations to only register profits in overseas jurisdictions with low tax rates.

It was the initial incentive, but it's the only English speaking country in the eurozone (aside from Malta) and there's a huge number of companies who have massive capital investments (pharma/biomedical). Now there's a very active tech scene, it's tightly linked to the US so it actually feels quite sustainable.

Maybe. I suspect playing tax haven for the largest corporations in the world plays a much bigger role in the generalised prosperity than anything else but I suppose we'll see.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#489

Post by eternalban »

phist_mcgee wrote: post #465
Lio wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once went to a very posh Disney themed fancy dress party dressed as a lemming. When explained why the host’s family were not amused. :P Never. Trust. Disney.

As an aside, it makes me very uneasy to see grown adults be so infatuated with Disney IPs. The quote from Alec Guinness about Star Wars in his autobiography: “A refurbished Star Wars is on somewhere or everywhere. I have no intention of revisiting any galaxy. I shrivel inside each time it is mentioned. Twenty years ago, when the film was first shown, it had a freshness, also a sense of moral good and fun. Then I bega…

> "living in a fantasy world of secondhand, childish banalities.”

The trend of comics cum cinema, and wizards lording it over muggles, which has been incessant for at least 20 years now, has been so consistent that it begs the question of why.

The basic underlying theme of all these 'cultural' products has been to instill the idea that 'little normal people' are powerless victims, and only magical special people with superpowers not available to the common man gets to save the day.

This has the been the programming for the past 20+ years. I hinted at this a few days ago in a comment regarding the strange case of "cults of personality" and "savior hero politicians" in the West.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#490

Post by astrange »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #447
astrange wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their wages are low because they're British and live in a failing country. Immigration raises wages; more people = better economy. That's why every other Anglo country is doing better than them. And has food that isn't brown slop.

No, immigration has kept unskilled workers' wages low. That's why businesses have been keen and workers have had enough. That's not specific to the UK, and is the usual effect of large immigration.

Immigration doesn’t lower wages. Telling people this usually doesn’t convince them because they just want an excuse to complain about immigrants, but nevertheless it’s true.

https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-immigration-doesnt-red...

In particular Australia’s population is 1/3rd immigrants. Australia’s minimum and median wages are both significantly higher than the UK. Does that mean there are so many immigrants they’re taking each others jobs instead?

Post reply on HN