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

531–540 of 584 posts

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#531

Post by mytailorisrich »

astrange wrote: post #529
mytailorisrich wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a very big assumption in your claim, which is that immigration is balanced among 'social classes', skills, jobs,etc. In that case, indeed overall demand grows along with overall supply. Australia has an immigration system aimed at achieving that. Things do not work out so great if immigration isn't balanced. In the UK there has been a huge influx of unskilled or low skilled workers from Eastern Europe that ha…

The papers I linked are empirical evidence, not assumptions. There’s two specifically on the UK that find no evidence of this. They also find that skilled immigration systems don’t always work, because all immigrants tend to be unusually highly educated anyway, but also significantly downskill the jobs they choose after arriving. So you’d expect them to always compete with low end natives, but in fact they don’t beca…

"Negative effect at low-end of spectrum", which is what I wrote...

> because all immigrants tend to be unusually highly educated anyway

That's obviously not true.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#532

Post by matthewmacleod »

brigandish wrote: post #523
matthewmacleod wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “witch hunt” refers to the actions taken by the incoming Johnson government, who kicked a bunch of generally respected, experienced parliamentarians out of the party because they weren’t “Brexity” enough. We’re not even talking about anti-Brexit people - just the ones that resisted the obviously broken approach that was being taken. The result was a government forced to bang on about how great an objectively bad…

My first question would be, respected by whom , and my second would be, whose respect matters? My guess would be that it was the voters who were most important as they provided a majority to the next most important people, the executive. Do you think those voters respect those MPs? Let's see. 21 Tory MPs had the whip removed for defying the party line and signalling their intent to defy Brexit: - Kenneth Clarke, snif…

I'm impressed at the amount of effort you went into arguing against something I said that was pretty tangential to your point. An entertaining read though – thanks. I think it goes to demonstrate quite tidily the utter mind-rot on the part of some people in the UK right now.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#533

Post by nxmnxm99 »

alvah wrote: post #510
nxmnxm99 wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If it's basic math, how come China and India haven't ruled the world forever, since they have the largest populations? There's a lot more to it than what you say.

Um, they did - China was the global superpower for most of human history. Western (read: caucasian) dominance is a relatively recent phenomenon.

And even that dominance is thanks almost entirely to the Islamic golden age that preceded it.

And just like the ignorant muslim empires in 1200 who assumed they would rule the world forever, Westerners haven't realized the rest of the world has caught up to them and the European age is over.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#534

Post by iso1631 »

Jochim wrote: post #494
iso1631 wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's this view amongst Corbyn supporters that everyone would have voted for him if it wasn't for the evil newspapers. Setting aside that in 2019 under 15% of the country read a newspaper, it's a moot point. Part of the job of being leader of a political party, just like any business, is to handle public relations. Corbyn's team was awful at this. It's no good whining about it, you have to handle it. Personally his…

I don't want millionaires to pay for their own care. I want to tax them more than it'd cost them to pay for that care privately. Millionaires paying for their own care is how you end up with a terrible, underfunded, and eventually privatised public care system.

Corbyn's proposal to actually tax millionaires failed dramatically because of his inability to handle the media.

Despite it being a policy supported by all sorts of economic think tanks from the IFS to Adam Smith, and has support from the Green party to the LSE, somehow he managed to completely bungle it and push the cause back a generation. Another thing I can't forgive him for.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#535

Post by PaulRobinson »

prof-dr-ir wrote: post #503
PaulRobinson wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to be clear about the argument you're making, as I think this is where our difference arises. You think Trump, Berlusconi, and so on are selfish grifters but do not believe they are truly destined for greatness? And you think Cameron, Rees-Mogg, Johnson and Truss are _not_ selfish grifters but are in it for the "greatness"? I think you should do more research on both groups. Trump and Berlusconi (and many othe…

What would be a politician's ideal outcome of a stint in politics? I think that Trump and Berlusconi and Cheney and Netanyahu all aim for maximal wealth (and minimal imprisonment) for them and their buddies - and they do very well on this front! So are you sure they are unable to make "good decisions" from that perspective? On the other hand, I think that people like Macron and Merkel, but also May, Truss and probabl…

If you think the referendum was an unforced error, I’m not sure you realise the factors that led to it. Grifting writ large for all the players, including Cameron and Osborne, but especially Rees-Mogg who was forcing the hand somewhat.

I don’t think they’re any more or less money oriented than others or any more or less hapless.

Even Johnson was about the wealth, the Churchill allusions were a sideshow.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#536

Post by mytailorisrich »

notahacker wrote: post #215
mytailorisrich wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nationalisation with control handed to the workers . And of course there's also the little thing about McDonnell and Corbyn being Marxist and socialist. Again, too many people still seem not to be willing to see what's not even hidden. History should really be compulsory over the whole of secondary school. Edit: they had hinted it very strongly but did not mention it in the 2017 manifesto apart from calling to promot…

I'm not sure the italicised bit conveys quite the sinister undertones you intended. Consider the following: if you consider communism to be a bad thing which people should be vigilant against, arguments to the effect that the defining feature of communism is having rail decisions made by employees of a state railway company rather than the boards of Abellio and Arriva[1] probably aren't going to help. Firstly because…

OK, if you refuse to acknowledge the plain and obvious. Politics should not turn into bigotry.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#537

Post by weard_beard »

refurb wrote: post #440
rconti wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"democracy is under threat when people ~I don't like~ who advocate the overturn of democracy are elected" FTFY.

You include Hilary Clinton in that? When she called Trump an “illegitimate president”?

We treat speech differently based on context. Yelling fire in the middle of the ocean with no one around is legally distinct from yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I would argue that without the intent or ability to act in a dangerous manner that this speech is legally distinct from the same statement with those qualifiers.

The realities of limited resources in our judicial system and common sense require us to make these distinctions.

The difference here, in my mind, is that Hillary Clinton was not able or intending to spur a grassroots coup that was dangerous to our Democracy based on her statements.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#538

Post by wizofaus »

rayiner wrote: post #506
wizofaus wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example? I'd suggest protections against "tyranny of the majority"/"mob rule" are a cornerstone feature of any successful democracy. The point is to ensure that it's not possible simply by force of numbers alone to elect governments who then enforce laws and implement policies that could significantly disadvantage any minority group.

The US Supreme Court is a good example. It sits as an elite Guardian Council that over the last century has overruled the public on numerous issues, ranging from contraception to abortion to same sex marriage to the death penalty. These rulings are not based on law but rather moral philosophy—specifically the libertarian moral philosophy of elites. Protection of minorities is not a necessary feature of democracy. It’…

Are you claiming overturning abortion laws was done on the pretext of protecting foetuses (who are a minority)?

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#539

Post by rayiner »

wizofaus wrote: post #538
rayiner wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Supreme Court is a good example. It sits as an elite Guardian Council that over the last century has overruled the public on numerous issues, ranging from contraception to abortion to same sex marriage to the death penalty. These rulings are not based on law but rather moral philosophy—specifically the libertarian moral philosophy of elites. Protection of minorities is not a necessary feature of democracy. It’…

Are you claiming overturning abortion laws was done on the pretext of protecting foetuses (who are a minority)?

Roe overturned abortion laws ostensibly to protect the minority of women who choose to have an abortion. In doing so, the justices replaced the moral philosophy of the public with their own moral philosophy.

Re: The strange case of Britain’s demise

#540

Post by smabie »

2143 wrote: post #497
pifm_guy wrote: post #219

Britain is in a post-empire downfall, and has been for 120 years. If you want to see where it leads, see Portugal which is 50 years further ahead on that path.

I've never been to Portugal, and don't know much about it. Upon reading your comment, I casually looked up its economic stats and on first glance nothing jumped out at me. So, what's wrong with Portugal?

It's a really nice place but the people are quite poor.
Post reply on HN