This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.
Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.
More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.
The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?
Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?
That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"
When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.
He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).
He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.
Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.
He's also personally obsessed by Obama. Hence why he keeps trying to take down Obamacare, even though that would be politically disastrous.
Yep. He has a massive down on Obama. Probably his biggest spite driver amongst many. The only way to analyse or understand Donald Trump the politician is think petty and personal. There's nothing else. Nothing at all. Forget anything about policy or ideology or any of that stuff. It's not what he's about. You go badly wrong if you try and think of him in that way.
But he's surrounded by a very large network with much more focused objectives. The substantive plans to fire 50k plus civil servants as soon as he regains office, for example, have not been developed by Trump himself.
A Useful Idiot for the Dark Right, yes. That's true in spades. Incredibly useful. A gigantic idiot.
They're also useful idiots for him (and his family). The first - and pretty much only - thing he will demand of the new appointees is personal loyalty to him as an individual; he'll be far less interested in what they do with their office as long as they don't cross him.
It's more symbiotic than one-way.
An interesting question (which I avoid since I'm confident he'll crash and burn before November 24) is what would Trump2 lead to. Would it be just be a chaotic and horrible episode to be got through or would it embed things that would continue and be exploited by others with a different surname? The John the Baptist notion. Trump paves the way for the hardmen (sorry Jesus) and a Fascist America.
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
I think this is spot on and your measured observations from a distance are certainly closer to the truth than much of the rather overwrought reaction we get from some commentators here.
I think people would be very hard-pressed to point to any tangible way that Brexit has hurt them.
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
noneoftheabove - "World War II (1939–1945) devastated the country's economy, but the high levels of economic growth that followed from 1950 to 1980 have been called the Greek economic miracle.[55] From 2000 Greece saw high levels of GDP growth above the Eurozone average, peaking at 5.8% in 2003 and 5.7% in 2006." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Greece
Finland has closed all border crossings with Russia. The Putinist attempt to use refugees as a hybrid weapon by forcing them to cross the border when it is -15 seems to have somewhat backfired, since the border is now completely closed. A demonstration by Russians in Helsinki complaining that they could no longer cross the border to go and see their families was met with furious Finnish abuse.. Silence but with the occasional tutting noise.
Probable that Norway, Latvia and Estonia will shut border crossings too if the Putinists decide to extend their childish antics. Estonia, Ltvia and Lithuania will not attend the Skopje OSCE summit if Lavrov goes. "He should be in a special tribunal, not in a special summit" as Margus Tsahkna (Estonian FM) said yesterday.
Haven't been following the polls very much recently – was there much effect from the Autumn Statement? Is Rishi's 'Goodwin Nadir' of 27pts now behind him??
Not really, though -27 was clearly an outlier. Par seems to be -15 to -20, with no obvious shift recently (though people generally liked the individual measures in the Statement, it didn't change many voting intentions).
People wouldn't have liked the tax increases resulting from the further freezing of tax allowances Nick, but no pollster I am aware of asked questions about that.
People don't realise it is a tax increase. They see their gross and net pay rise. They don't do the sums to realise that the percentage tax take rises as a result of the freezing.
Finland has closed all border crossings with Russia. The Putinist attempt to use refugees as a hybrid weapon by forcing them to cross the border when it is -15 seems to have somewhat backfired, since the border is now completely closed. A demonstration by Russians in Helsinki complaining that they could no longer cross the border to go and see their families was met with furious Finnish abuse.. Silence but with the occasional tutting noise.
Probable that Norway, Latvia and Estonia will shut border crossings too if the Putinists decide to extend their childish antics.
How do you feel about refugees crossing the English Channel on small boats?
rcs1000 - I agree with your comments about Greece, especially the Euro and the post-2000 borrowing splurge. But it appears to me that -- before either -- Greece did have relatively healthy growth for decades, after WW II.
Polling of the type in the article is seriously flawed. In 1991 the UK population was 57.4 m, in 2023 it is 67.7 m. 18% rise, and this without a spectacular birthrate - currently falling well below replacement levels.
Net migration of up to .5 m per year has occurred without the sorts of social disruption, riots, killings etc that can occur. 48% voted recently to continue FOM with a population of 500m; since Brexit net migration has continued apace; 30% of babies have a foreign born mother.
The UK is not a racist hellhole.
When asked a foolish question people give silly answers. There is no space in this breathless data for a long term approach. For it is entirely rational for the public to want a rational migration policy, with significantly lower numbers, and at the same time to want government to develop policies which allow for economic growth, using inter alia all the skills of the many millions already received into this country.
"Analysis: Russian engineering of Finland's migration influx possible - but yet to be proven By Diana Magnay, Moscow correspondent
Finland's decision to shut the last of its border crossings with Russia for a two-week period is a clear message to Russia's security forces: we know what you're doing and we won't put up with it.
The Finnish prime minister calls the recent influx of migrants crossing into his country - some 900 in November compared with only double digits before - the result of a Russian influence operation, which the Kremlin denies.
Russia is clearly displeased over Finland's decision to join NATO.
Deploying asymmetric methods as a form of payback is hardly beyond the realms of possibility and Finland says it has intelligence that Russian border officials have been aiding and abetting the migrant flows."
On thread - it isn't "trashing the economy", it's having other priorities other than economic growth. It happens all the time, across all sorts of issues. Many people, for example, prioritise environmental protection 9ver economic growth, or social equality. On this particular issue - what hood is growinh the pie if it has to be split between more people? People don't expect their own slice of pie to grow - why would they be excited by the concept of other people getting richer?
Finland has closed all border crossings with Russia. The Putinist attempt to use refugees as a hybrid weapon by forcing them to cross the border when it is -15 seems to have somewhat backfired, since the border is now completely closed. A demonstration by Russians in Helsinki complaining that they could no longer cross the border to go and see their families was met with furious Finnish abuse.. Silence but with the occasional tutting noise.
Probable that Norway, Latvia and Estonia will shut border crossings too if the Putinists decide to extend their childish antics.
How do you feel about refugees crossing the English Channel on small boats?
"Analysis: Russian engineering of Finland's migration influx possible - but yet to be proven By Diana Magnay, Moscow correspondent
Finland's decision to shut the last of its border crossings with Russia for a two-week period is a clear message to Russia's security forces: we know what you're doing and we won't put up with it.
The Finnish prime minister calls the recent influx of migrants crossing into his country - some 900 in November compared with only double digits before - the result of a Russian influence operation, which the Kremlin denies.
Russia is clearly displeased over Finland's decision to join NATO.
Deploying asymmetric methods as a form of payback is hardly beyond the realms of possibility and Finland says it has intelligence that Russian border officials have been aiding and abetting the migrant flows."
On thread - it isn't "trashing the economy", it's having other priorities other than economic growth. It happens all the time, across all sorts of issues. Many people, for example, prioritise environmental protection 9ver economic growth, or social equality. On this particular issue - what hood is growinh the pie if it has to be split between more people? People don't expect their own slice of pie to grow - why would they be excited by the concept of other people getting richer?
Though if we're importing working age people and not retirees, the pie should grow at a higher percentage rate than the number of mouths.
One of the unpleasant choices we face is working longer ourselves, or importing people to do the work.
On thread - it isn't "trashing the economy", it's having other priorities other than economic growth. It happens all the time, across all sorts of issues. Many people, for example, prioritise environmental protection 9ver economic growth, or social equality. On this particular issue - what hood is growinh the pie if it has to be split between more people? People don't expect their own slice of pie to grow - why would they be excited by the concept of other people getting richer?
Though if we're importing working age people and not retirees, the pie should grow at a higher percentage rate than the number of mouths.
One of the unpleasant choices we face is working longer ourselves, or importing people to do the work.
So long as the working-age people you import are earning more than average, and not bringing dependents with them.
Also, that infrastructure and public services can keep up with the increased demand.
This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.
Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.
More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.
The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?
Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?
That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"
When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.
He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).
He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.
Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.
He's also personally obsessed by Obama. Hence why he keeps trying to take down Obamacare, even though that would be politically disastrous.
Yep. He has a massive down on Obama. Probably his biggest spite driver amongst many. The only way to analyse or understand Donald Trump the politician is think petty and personal. There's nothing else. Nothing at all. Forget anything about policy or ideology or any of that stuff. It's not what he's about. You go badly wrong if you try and think of him in that way.
But he's surrounded by a very large network with much more focused objectives. The substantive plans to fire 50k plus civil servants as soon as he regains office, for example, have not been developed by Trump himself.
A Useful Idiot for the Dark Right, yes. That's true in spades. Incredibly useful. A gigantic idiot.
They're also useful idiots for him (and his family). The first - and pretty much only - thing he will demand of the new appointees is personal loyalty to him as an individual; he'll be far less interested in what they do with their office as long as they don't cross him.
It's more symbiotic than one-way.
An interesting question (which I avoid since I'm confident he'll crash and burn before November 24) is what would Trump2 lead to. Would it be just be a chaotic and horrible episode to be got through or would it embed things that would continue and be exploited by others with a different surname? The John the Baptist notion. Trump paves the way for the hardmen (sorry Jesus) and a Fascist America.
There is abundant evidence that, as with totalitarians everywhere, the Trump movement does not accept the democratic process and did all it could to subvert it. What is horrifying is that even with all that evidence Trump is still (just) favourite in the betting to be next POTUS. If by some disaster he gets it in 2024 he and his movement will not change their views about what democracy is for and will be ready to move in a much more prepared way. If that happens no-one on the planet can say they were not warned. And at that point the only question will be the attitude of USA law enforcement and military.
While the question for Europe and the west will be at what point does everyone realise that the countries that count are the UK and France and ask how reliable is their blue touch paper and box of matches.
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
It’s incredibly ignorant to claim that Brexit has increased democracy.
Brexit has enabled and empowered an ideology of “executive power” which has seen, inter alia, prorogation of parliament, a debauch of Lords appointments, public pronouncements against the rule of law, the imposition of FPTP in local elections, etc etc.
I always said that the only way to properly cement Brexit is to turn it into a platform of democratic renewal, but so far as I can tell not a single Brexiter (with the exception maybe of Richard Tyndall) was actually interested in that.
As for the economics, Britain has seen effectively zero productivity growth since 2010. Brexit has clearly pushed the country off its high FDI path, and damaged export performance. The decline in the pound has helped to drive inflation, as has the disruption of the labour market.
I don’t believe Brexit is the core issue behind Britain’s malaise, which has its seeds all the way back in the 80s, but it has effectively delivered seven wasted years in which the country has grown relatively poorer and, I would argue, simply unhappier.
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
The US continues to subsidise like a maniac.
It is one of the great misconceptions of British public opinion post-Thatcher, that the path to wealth lies in government non-intervention.
No other country believes this, or acts like this. It’s a reaction of course to the “picking winners” failures of the 60s and 70s, but a purist approach doesn’t work in the real world. You end up with a hollowing out of the economy, and increasingly subservient to foreign capital.
It is “hilarious” that laissez-faire Britons hold up the US and Singapore as two exemplary models. Singapore is essentially a planned economy, albeit a highly entrepreneurial entrepôt. The US subsidises businesses via all manner of pork.
Less than 40% of Tories and Leave voters want to return the marbles to Greece, albeit only a quarter definitely want to keep them in the UK. A loan arrangement probably works best
This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.
Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.
More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.
The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?
Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?
That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"
When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.
He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).
He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.
Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.
He's also personally obsessed by Obama. Hence why he keeps trying to take down Obamacare, even though that would be politically disastrous.
Yep. He has a massive down on Obama. Probably his biggest spite driver amongst many. The only way to analyse or understand Donald Trump the politician is think petty and personal. There's nothing else. Nothing at all. Forget anything about policy or ideology or any of that stuff. It's not what he's about. You go badly wrong if you try and think of him in that way.
But he's surrounded by a very large network with much more focused objectives. The substantive plans to fire 50k plus civil servants as soon as he regains office, for example, have not been developed by Trump himself.
A Useful Idiot for the Dark Right, yes. That's true in spades. Incredibly useful. A gigantic idiot.
They're also useful idiots for him (and his family). The first - and pretty much only - thing he will demand of the new appointees is personal loyalty to him as an individual; he'll be far less interested in what they do with their office as long as they don't cross him.
It's more symbiotic than one-way.
An interesting question (which I avoid since I'm confident he'll crash and burn before November 24) is what would Trump2 lead to. Would it be just be a chaotic and horrible episode to be got through or would it embed things that would continue and be exploited by others with a different surname? The John the Baptist notion. Trump paves the way for the hardmen (sorry Jesus) and a Fascist America.
There is abundant evidence that, as with totalitarians everywhere, the Trump movement does not accept the democratic process and did all it could to subvert it. What is horrifying is that even with all that evidence Trump is still (just) favourite in the betting to be next POTUS. If by some disaster he gets it in 2024 he and his movement will not change their views about what democracy is for and will be ready to move in a much more prepared way. If that happens no-one on the planet can say they were not warned. And at that point the only question will be the attitude of USA law enforcement and military.
While the question for Europe and the west will be at what point does everyone realise that the countries that count are the UK and France and ask how reliable is their blue touch paper and box of matches.
A question I have been considering for some time. But there is also - I would argue - insufficient will in the UK and certainly France to defend European interests against Russia.
This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.
Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.
More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.
The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?
Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?
That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"
When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.
He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).
He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.
Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.
That was a very sobering article from Sean Trende. And, Sean Trende is probably the USA's leading psephologist, so good that he was one of the two who redrew Virginia's State Senate and Legislative boundaries, so that they were no longer gerrymandered.
The result of Trump's court cases and whether he is convicted and jailed or not will probably determine the next Presidential election.
Until that point polls are mainly of passing interest not much more
Trende’s view (and I agree) is that the court cases makes no difference.
Oh they do, certainly if he is jailed.
'A plurality of respondents (44 percent) said that a conviction in the case would have no impact on their likelihood of supporting Trump, but the numbers tipped decisively against Trump among those who said that the result would inform their vote. Nearly one-third of respondents (32 percent) said that a conviction in the case would make them less likely to support Trump, including about one-third of independents (34 percent).
'45% of Republicans said they would not vote for Trump if he were convicted of a felony by a jury, while 35% said they would. 52% said they wouldn't vote for him if he were in prison at the time of the election, while 28% said they would.'
If it wasn't for his cases Trump would be odds on to return as President, however if Biden is re elected it will almost certainly be down to a Trump conviction in a criminal case
Pensioners get paid whether the economy grows or not.
More bollox , They don't get paid , they get the pension they paid all their lives for. Why are you arseholes so jealous despite being loaded, bunch of greedy, grasping barstewards.
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
The US continues to subsidise like a maniac.
It is one of the great misconceptions of British public opinion post-Thatcher, that the path to wealth lies in government non-intervention.
No other country believes this, or acts like this. It’s a reaction of course to the “picking winners” failures of the 60s and 70s, but a purist approach doesn’t work in the real world. You end up with a hollowing out of the economy, and increasingly subservient to foreign capital.
I both agree and disagree. Yes, sticking rigidly to doctrinaire laissez faire economics when everyone else is engaging in protectionism is going to disadvantage the state that does it, but I also think that stepping back and allowing companies to thrive at a grassroots level is a hugely important weapon that governments (especially ours) need to deploy more. Our slow growth environment is a big part of the reason that other countries' companies pick off ours in the way they do.
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
The US continues to subsidise like a maniac.
It is one of the great misconceptions of British public opinion post-Thatcher, that the path to wealth lies in government non-intervention.
No other country believes this, or acts like this. It’s a reaction of course to the “picking winners” failures of the 60s and 70s, but a purist approach doesn’t work in the real world. You end up with a hollowing out of the economy, and increasingly subservient to foreign capital.
I both agree and disagree. Yes, sticking rigidly to doctrinaire laissez faire economics when everyone else is engaging in protectionism is going to disadvantage the state that does it, but I also think that stepping back and allowing companies to thrive at a grassroots level is a hugely important weapon that governments (especially ours) need to deploy more. Our slow growth environment is a big part of the reason that other countries' companies pick off ours in the way they do.
I tend to be quite laissez faire when it comes to the workings of specific markets. But I only agree with you somewhat that British growth is hampered by over-regulation. Britain is not over-regulated compared with competing economies who have done better.
What I will say is that the British system - even as a country of 65m - tends towards cosy monopoly and you need an active government to militate against that - which we haven’t had since Thatcher in that respect.
This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.
Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.
More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.
The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?
Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?
That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"
When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.
He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).
He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.
Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.
He's also personally obsessed by Obama. Hence why he keeps trying to take down Obamacare, even though that would be politically disastrous.
Yep. He has a massive down on Obama. Probably his biggest spite driver amongst many. The only way to analyse or understand Donald Trump the politician is think petty and personal. There's nothing else. Nothing at all. Forget anything about policy or ideology or any of that stuff. It's not what he's about. You go badly wrong if you try and think of him in that way.
But he's surrounded by a very large network with much more focused objectives. The substantive plans to fire 50k plus civil servants as soon as he regains office, for example, have not been developed by Trump himself.
A Useful Idiot for the Dark Right, yes. That's true in spades. Incredibly useful. A gigantic idiot.
They're also useful idiots for him (and his family). The first - and pretty much only - thing he will demand of the new appointees is personal loyalty to him as an individual; he'll be far less interested in what they do with their office as long as they don't cross him.
It's more symbiotic than one-way.
An interesting question (which I avoid since I'm confident he'll crash and burn before November 24) is what would Trump2 lead to. Would it be just be a chaotic and horrible episode to be got through or would it embed things that would continue and be exploited by others with a different surname? The John the Baptist notion. Trump paves the way for the hardmen (sorry Jesus) and a Fascist America.
There is abundant evidence that, as with totalitarians everywhere, the Trump movement does not accept the democratic process and did all it could to subvert it. What is horrifying is that even with all that evidence Trump is still (just) favourite in the betting to be next POTUS. If by some disaster he gets it in 2024 he and his movement will not change their views about what democracy is for and will be ready to move in a much more prepared way. If that happens no-one on the planet can say they were not warned. And at that point the only question will be the attitude of USA law enforcement and military.
While the question for Europe and the west will be at what point does everyone realise that the countries that count are the UK and France and ask how reliable is their blue touch paper and box of matches.
A question I have been considering for some time. But there is also - I would argue - insufficient will in the UK and certainly France to defend European interests against Russia.
Maybe we shall find out. The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the coming of the dusk.
Pensioners get paid whether the economy grows or not.
More bollox , They don't get paid , they get the pension they paid all their lives for. Why are you arseholes so jealous despite being loaded, bunch of greedy, grasping barstewards.
Only one explanation for it. Poor parenting by the pensioner cohort.
On thread - it isn't "trashing the economy", it's having other priorities other than economic growth. It happens all the time, across all sorts of issues. Many people, for example, prioritise environmental protection 9ver economic growth, or social equality. On this particular issue - what hood is growinh the pie if it has to be split between more people? People don't expect their own slice of pie to grow - why would they be excited by the concept of other people getting richer?
Though if we're importing working age people and not retirees, the pie should grow at a higher percentage rate than the number of mouths.
One of the unpleasant choices we face is working longer ourselves, or importing people to do the work.
Well, up to a point. But we've also got armies of people not working.
This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.
Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.
More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.
The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?
Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?
That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"
When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.
He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).
He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.
Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.
That was a very sobering article from Sean Trende. And, Sean Trende is probably the USA's leading psephologist, so good that he was one of the two who redrew Virginia's State Senate and Legislative boundaries, so that they were no longer gerrymandered.
The result of Trump's court cases and whether he is convicted and jailed or not will probably determine the next Presidential election.
Until that point polls are mainly of passing interest not much more
Trende’s view (and I agree) is that the court cases makes no difference.
Oh they do, certainly if he is jailed.
'A plurality of respondents (44 percent) said that a conviction in the case would have no impact on their likelihood of supporting Trump, but the numbers tipped decisively against Trump among those who said that the result would inform their vote. Nearly one-third of respondents (32 percent) said that a conviction in the case would make them less likely to support Trump, including about one-third of independents (34 percent).
'45% of Republicans said they would not vote for Trump if he were convicted of a felony by a jury, while 35% said they would. 52% said they wouldn't vote for him if he were in prison at the time of the election, while 28% said they would.'
If it wasn't for his cases Trump would be odds on to return as President, however if Biden is re elected it will almost certainly be down to a Trump conviction in a criminal case
I like the grand assumptions about what Trump will do when he wins. The reality though is that no-one knows.
I think it is quite unlikely that I would vote for Trump were I to have the opportunity but I wouldn't rule it out. If you are really annoyed with the existing order of things then it presents the potential of radical change. I would guess that that is what a lot of people think.
People keep saying that America is lost. But to me it looks like it is the entire Anglosphere that is lost. Perversely it is the coalition governments in Western Europe that involve the 'far right' that seem to have the most promising direction of travel, at least at the moment.
On thread - it isn't "trashing the economy", it's having other priorities other than economic growth. It happens all the time, across all sorts of issues. Many people, for example, prioritise environmental protection 9ver economic growth, or social equality. On this particular issue - what hood is growinh the pie if it has to be split between more people? People don't expect their own slice of pie to grow - why would they be excited by the concept of other people getting richer?
Though if we're importing working age people and not retirees, the pie should grow at a higher percentage rate than the number of mouths.
One of the unpleasant choices we face is working longer ourselves, or importing people to do the work.
The number of people working in this country has ballooned massively, even under the Tories and since the financial crisis. Why has it not been accompanied by a feeling of rising prosperity?
One little-remarked feature of the new NZ coalition is that they have pledged to scrap proposed hate speech laws on the grounds of freedom of expression.
This is very welcome, and it’s kind of disturbing how counter-cultural this act now seems, given that freedom of opinion once seemed so central to Anglo-American culture.
This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.
Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.
More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.
The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?
Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?
That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"
When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.
He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).
He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.
Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.
That was a very sobering article from Sean Trende. And, Sean Trende is probably the USA's leading psephologist, so good that he was one of the two who redrew Virginia's State Senate and Legislative boundaries, so that they were no longer gerrymandered.
The result of Trump's court cases and whether he is convicted and jailed or not will probably determine the next Presidential election.
Until that point polls are mainly of passing interest not much more
Trende’s view (and I agree) is that the court cases makes no difference.
Oh they do, certainly if he is jailed.
'A plurality of respondents (44 percent) said that a conviction in the case would have no impact on their likelihood of supporting Trump, but the numbers tipped decisively against Trump among those who said that the result would inform their vote. Nearly one-third of respondents (32 percent) said that a conviction in the case would make them less likely to support Trump, including about one-third of independents (34 percent).
'45% of Republicans said they would not vote for Trump if he were convicted of a felony by a jury, while 35% said they would. 52% said they wouldn't vote for him if he were in prison at the time of the election, while 28% said they would.'
If it wasn't for his cases Trump would be odds on to return as President, however if Biden is re elected it will almost certainly be down to a Trump conviction in a criminal case
Chris Christie was a federal proecutor before he was the Republican Governor of New Jersey.
He is firmly of the view that Trump will be in jail by the summer.
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
If you could be given the job of finance minister of a G7 country and were giving free rein to implement any policies you liked to improve the usual metrics, would you rather start from Japan's position or the UK's?
On thread - it isn't "trashing the economy", it's having other priorities other than economic growth. It happens all the time, across all sorts of issues. Many people, for example, prioritise environmental protection 9ver economic growth, or social equality. On this particular issue - what hood is growinh the pie if it has to be split between more people? People don't expect their own slice of pie to grow - why would they be excited by the concept of other people getting richer?
Though if we're importing working age people and not retirees, the pie should grow at a higher percentage rate than the number of mouths.
One of the unpleasant choices we face is working longer ourselves, or importing people to do the work.
The number of people working in this country has ballooned massively, even under the Tories and since the financial crisis. Why has it not been accompanied by a feeling of rising prosperity?
Has it ballooned massively?
The number of immigrants, sure, but to what extent has it arrested a decline in the numbers of working age due to demographic change?
What we have seen very recently is an explosion of long-term sick due to the pandemic - and for whatever reason this seems to have been worse in the UK than in other places. The explosion in migration over the past year or so is in part a response to that. We are replacing middle aged long-term sick with young Nigerians, Indians and Filipinos.
Pensioners get paid whether the economy grows or not.
More bollox , They don't get paid , they get the pension they paid all their lives for. Why are you arseholes so jealous despite being loaded, bunch of greedy, grasping barstewards.
People just get annoyed after a while having elderly relatives sit on large incomes (state pension + private pension + bank interest + rental income) with generous tax allowances and no mortgage to pay. They get monthly income at the same level as someone working who has to pay for a mortgage, childcare etc. The winners in the next generation are effectively "picked" by the outgoing pensioner generation. Overall I think most of the participants in this system can see that is quite a sad state of affairs and not representative of a particularly fair or dynamic social system and certainly not one that anyone would willingly suggest is a model that should be followed.
On thread - it isn't "trashing the economy", it's having other priorities other than economic growth. It happens all the time, across all sorts of issues. Many people, for example, prioritise environmental protection 9ver economic growth, or social equality. On this particular issue - what hood is growinh the pie if it has to be split between more people? People don't expect their own slice of pie to grow - why would they be excited by the concept of other people getting richer?
Though if we're importing working age people and not retirees, the pie should grow at a higher percentage rate than the number of mouths.
One of the unpleasant choices we face is working longer ourselves, or importing people to do the work.
The number of people working in this country has ballooned massively, even under the Tories and since the financial crisis. Why has it not been accompanied by a feeling of rising prosperity?
Has it ballooned massively?
The number of immigrants, sure, but to what extent has it arrested a decline in the numbers of working age due to demographic change?
According to this, the workforce has increased by over 6 million since 1997:
This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.
Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.
More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.
The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?
Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?
That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"
When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.
He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).
He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.
Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.
That was a very sobering article from Sean Trende. And, Sean Trende is probably the USA's leading psephologist, so good that he was one of the two who redrew Virginia's State Senate and Legislative boundaries, so that they were no longer gerrymandered.
The result of Trump's court cases and whether he is convicted and jailed or not will probably determine the next Presidential election.
Until that point polls are mainly of passing interest not much more
Trende’s view (and I agree) is that the court cases makes no difference.
Oh they do, certainly if he is jailed.
'A plurality of respondents (44 percent) said that a conviction in the case would have no impact on their likelihood of supporting Trump, but the numbers tipped decisively against Trump among those who said that the result would inform their vote. Nearly one-third of respondents (32 percent) said that a conviction in the case would make them less likely to support Trump, including about one-third of independents (34 percent).
'45% of Republicans said they would not vote for Trump if he were convicted of a felony by a jury, while 35% said they would. 52% said they wouldn't vote for him if he were in prison at the time of the election, while 28% said they would.'
If it wasn't for his cases Trump would be odds on to return as President, however if Biden is re elected it will almost certainly be down to a Trump conviction in a criminal case
Chris Christie was a federal proecutor before he was the Republican Governor of New Jersey.
He is firmly of the view that Trump will be in jail by the summer.
Bet accordingly.
If that leads to another Republican replacing Trump as GOP nominee that would be the best result for Biden of all.
Trump would still run as an Independent, splitting the GOP vote, so Biden only needs 40%+ to win
"Analysis: Russian engineering of Finland's migration influx possible - but yet to be proven By Diana Magnay, Moscow correspondent
Finland's decision to shut the last of its border crossings with Russia for a two-week period is a clear message to Russia's security forces: we know what you're doing and we won't put up with it.
The Finnish prime minister calls the recent influx of migrants crossing into his country - some 900 in November compared with only double digits before - the result of a Russian influence operation, which the Kremlin denies.
Russia is clearly displeased over Finland's decision to join NATO.
Deploying asymmetric methods as a form of payback is hardly beyond the realms of possibility and Finland says it has intelligence that Russian border officials have been aiding and abetting the migrant flows."
There's a video on twitter of large piles of abandoned bikes at the border; after Finland banned motorised traffic across the border (before banning it completely).
Russia is just doing what Belarus has been doing for the last few years; using migrants as a political weapon. In some cases, Belarus was accused of flying in migrants, then sending them to the Polish border.
It is simply unsustainable to grow pensions beyond the rate of actual productivity growth. Pensions should be tagged to that, so that pensioners have some connection with the reality of where their money is coming from.
Right now, they simply vote for more goodies for themselves, and impoverishment for everyone else. Never have we seen a more selfish class than elderly boomers.
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
I think this is spot on and your measured observations from a distance are certainly closer to the truth than much of the rather overwrought reaction we get from some commentators here.
I think people would be very hard-pressed to point to any tangible way that Brexit has hurt them.
But isn’t that part of the issue? Not specifically on Brexit, but on many other things too. The impacts of these things, for good or ill, are intangible by definition-spread over time, no counterfactual, one input into a massively complex and chaotic system, impacts filtered through existing worldviews.
In other words, I’m sure you’re right about the tangible impacts and in some ways that is why the B-word just can’t really be put to bed - a bit like smoking cigarettes, it will take overwhelming evidence one way or another before any political consensus forms.
On thread - it isn't "trashing the economy", it's having other priorities other than economic growth. It happens all the time, across all sorts of issues. Many people, for example, prioritise environmental protection 9ver economic growth, or social equality. On this particular issue - what hood is growinh the pie if it has to be split between more people? People don't expect their own slice of pie to grow - why would they be excited by the concept of other people getting richer?
Though if we're importing working age people and not retirees, the pie should grow at a higher percentage rate than the number of mouths.
One of the unpleasant choices we face is working longer ourselves, or importing people to do the work.
The number of people working in this country has ballooned massively, even under the Tories and since the financial crisis. Why has it not been accompanied by a feeling of rising prosperity?
Has it ballooned massively?
The number of immigrants, sure, but to what extent has it arrested a decline in the numbers of working age due to demographic change?
According to this, the workforce has increased by over 6 million since 1997:
It is simply unsustainable to grow pensions beyond the rate of actual productivity growth. Pensions should be tagged to that, so that pensioners have some connection with the reality of where their money is coming from.
Right now, they simply vote for more goodies for themselves, and impoverishment for everyone else. Never have we seen a more selfish class than elderly boomers.
Pensioners generally support more spending on the NHS, a higher minimum wage and lower taxes for workers too.
And of course most of them worked and paid in all their working lives and have a property they own, which their parents maybe didn't, they can pass on to their children
On thread - it isn't "trashing the economy", it's having other priorities other than economic growth. It happens all the time, across all sorts of issues. Many people, for example, prioritise environmental protection 9ver economic growth, or social equality. On this particular issue - what hood is growinh the pie if it has to be split between more people? People don't expect their own slice of pie to grow - why would they be excited by the concept of other people getting richer?
Though if we're importing working age people and not retirees, the pie should grow at a higher percentage rate than the number of mouths.
One of the unpleasant choices we face is working longer ourselves, or importing people to do the work.
The number of people working in this country has ballooned massively, even under the Tories and since the financial crisis. Why has it not been accompanied by a feeling of rising prosperity?
Has it ballooned massively?
The number of immigrants, sure, but to what extent has it arrested a decline in the numbers of working age due to demographic change?
According to this, the workforce has increased by over 6 million since 1997:
Absolute numbers aren’t very helpful, on their own. Else the biggest countries would always be the wealthiest.
Isn't that kind of the point?
We've been importing people to make the overal GDP line go up, and telling ourselves that a bigger population will miraculously also make the per capita number go up, but it doesn't seem to have happened. Maybe it did and does work that way for the USA, but we don't have their geography.
This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.
Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.
More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.
The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?
Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?
That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"
When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.
He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).
He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.
Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.
That was a very sobering article from Sean Trende. And, Sean Trende is probably the USA's leading psephologist, so good that he was one of the two who redrew Virginia's State Senate and Legislative boundaries, so that they were no longer gerrymandered.
The result of Trump's court cases and whether he is convicted and jailed or not will probably determine the next Presidential election.
Until that point polls are mainly of passing interest not much more
Trende’s view (and I agree) is that the court cases makes no difference.
Oh they do, certainly if he is jailed.
'A plurality of respondents (44 percent) said that a conviction in the case would have no impact on their likelihood of supporting Trump, but the numbers tipped decisively against Trump among those who said that the result would inform their vote. Nearly one-third of respondents (32 percent) said that a conviction in the case would make them less likely to support Trump, including about one-third of independents (34 percent).
'45% of Republicans said they would not vote for Trump if he were convicted of a felony by a jury, while 35% said they would. 52% said they wouldn't vote for him if he were in prison at the time of the election, while 28% said they would.'
If it wasn't for his cases Trump would be odds on to return as President, however if Biden is re elected it will almost certainly be down to a Trump conviction in a criminal case
I like the grand assumptions about what Trump will do when he wins. The reality though is that no-one knows.
I think it is quite unlikely that I would vote for Trump were I to have the opportunity but I wouldn't rule it out. If you are really annoyed with the existing order of things then it presents the potential of radical change. I would guess that that is what a lot of people think.
People keep saying that America is lost. But to me it looks like it is the entire Anglosphere that is lost. Perversely it is the coalition governments in Western Europe that involve the 'far right' that seem to have the most promising direction of travel, at least at the moment.
I think that Trump's political Achillies heel is his paranoia and lust for vengeance against his perceived persecutors. It isn't clear what other actions he would take in office apart from harass his foes and reward his henchmen.
It may well be that voters, even MAGA Republicans, may actually tire of this during the campaign and want some actual policies to improve their lives.
It is simply unsustainable to grow pensions beyond the rate of actual productivity growth. Pensions should be tagged to that, so that pensioners have some connection with the reality of where their money is coming from.
Right now, they simply vote for more goodies for themselves, and impoverishment for everyone else. Never have we seen a more selfish class than elderly boomers.
Pensioners generally support more spending on the NHS, a higher minimum wage and lower taxes for workers too.
And of course most of them worked and paid in all their working lives and have a property they own, which their parents maybe didn't, they can pass on to their children
They may support it but they don't vote for it....
This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.
And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:
"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"
"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"
* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions
** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".
Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies. Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?
This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.
And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:
"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"
"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"
* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions
** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".
Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies. Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?
"Most"
Also a huge number of students have brought in family members on dependant visas.
This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.
And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:
"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"
"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"
* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions
** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".
Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies. Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?
"Most"
Also a huge number of students have brought in family members on dependant visas.
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
The US continues to subsidise like a maniac.
It is one of the great misconceptions of British public opinion post-Thatcher, that the path to wealth lies in government non-intervention.
No other country believes this, or acts like this. It’s a reaction of course to the “picking winners” failures of the 60s and 70s, but a purist approach doesn’t work in the real world. You end up with a hollowing out of the economy, and increasingly subservient to foreign capital.
I both agree and disagree. Yes, sticking rigidly to doctrinaire laissez faire economics when everyone else is engaging in protectionism is going to disadvantage the state that does it, but I also think that stepping back and allowing companies to thrive at a grassroots level is a hugely important weapon that governments (especially ours) need to deploy more. Our slow growth environment is a big part of the reason that other countries' companies pick off ours in the way they do.
I tend to be quite laissez faire when it comes to the workings of specific markets. But I only agree with you somewhat that British growth is hampered by over-regulation. Britain is not over-regulated compared with competing economies who have done better.
What I will say is that the British system - even as a country of 65m - tends towards cosy monopoly and you need an active government to militate against that - which we haven’t had since Thatcher in that respect.
Thatcher set up a number of them when she privatised the utilities.
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
If you could be given the job of finance minister of a G7 country and were giving free rein to implement any policies you liked to improve the usual metrics, would you rather start from Japan's position or the UK's?
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
If you could be given the job of finance minister of a G7 country and were giving free rein to implement any policies you liked to improve the usual metrics, would you rather start from Japan's position or the UK's?
Japan's. But only if I were also given control of immigration policy. They are moving rather too slowly on that.
This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.
And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:
"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"
"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"
* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions
** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".
Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies. Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?
"Most"
Also a huge number of students have brought in family members on dependant visas.
This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.
Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.
More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.
The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?
Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?
That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"
When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.
He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).
He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.
Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.
That was a very sobering article from Sean Trende. And, Sean Trende is probably the USA's leading psephologist, so good that he was one of the two who redrew Virginia's State Senate and Legislative boundaries, so that they were no longer gerrymandered.
The result of Trump's court cases and whether he is convicted and jailed or not will probably determine the next Presidential election.
Until that point polls are mainly of passing interest not much more
Trende’s view (and I agree) is that the court cases makes no difference.
Oh they do, certainly if he is jailed.
'A plurality of respondents (44 percent) said that a conviction in the case would have no impact on their likelihood of supporting Trump, but the numbers tipped decisively against Trump among those who said that the result would inform their vote. Nearly one-third of respondents (32 percent) said that a conviction in the case would make them less likely to support Trump, including about one-third of independents (34 percent).
'45% of Republicans said they would not vote for Trump if he were convicted of a felony by a jury, while 35% said they would. 52% said they wouldn't vote for him if he were in prison at the time of the election, while 28% said they would.'
If it wasn't for his cases Trump would be odds on to return as President, however if Biden is re elected it will almost certainly be down to a Trump conviction in a criminal case
Chris Christie was a federal proecutor before he was the Republican Governor of New Jersey.
He is firmly of the view that Trump will be in jail by the summer.
Bet accordingly.
If that leads to another Republican replacing Trump as GOP nominee that would be the best result for Biden of all.
Trump would still run as an Independent, splitting the GOP vote, so Biden only needs 40%+ to win
Trump sidelined as a no-hoper independent, his vanity project of a Presidential run looking ever more deluded, would be the best result of all for America.
Make America Great Again? Yes - by turning its face against all that Trump stands for.
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
If you could be given the job of finance minister of a G7 country and were giving free rein to implement any policies you liked to improve the usual metrics, would you rather start from Japan's position or the UK's?
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
If you could be given the job of finance minister of a G7 country and were giving free rein to implement any policies you liked to improve the usual metrics, would you rather start from Japan's position or the UK's?
Japan's. But only if I were also given control of immigration policy. They are moving rather too slowly on that.
You'd copy the policy that has been tested to destruction by the UK? Marvellous.
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
If you could be given the job of finance minister of a G7 country and were giving free rein to implement any policies you liked to improve the usual metrics, would you rather start from Japan's position or the UK's?
Errr, the UK by a massive margin.
We have massively healthier demographics and much lower government debt.
You?
(Of course, and slightly echoing @Nigelb's point below, the primary reason the UK's economy is in a much better place than Japan's is because immigration has meant that the dependency ratio hasn't gone through the roof.)
This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.
And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:
"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"
"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"
* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions
** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".
Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies. Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?
"Most"
Also a huge number of students have brought in family members on dependant visas.
This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.
And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:
"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"
"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"
* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions
** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".
Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies. Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?
"Most"
Also a huge number of students have brought in family members on dependant visas.
This is a must-read from Sean Trende. It does not make happy reading.
Its America's funeral. They've had a good run.
More interesting is what President Trump does after winning the election. Yes we know he will arrest all of the opposition politicians and we know the GOP will implement laws to subjugate women. But you get what you vote for.
The unknown is his foreign policy. Will he join with Putin (as Mussolini joined with Hitler) to try and impose a far right alt-fact hegemony across the west? Will he nuke Iran or tell them how much he admires how they deal with dissidents?
Everything seems possible. Nuclear War. Russia Uber Alles. The end of NATO. What happened when an embittered man baby is restored to power and vows never to lose it again?
That the only person capable of opposing him is Biddy Biden tells you everything you need to know about how broken America is. "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into, I say, Let Them Crash!"
When Trump says he's America First, he means it - probably unintentionally and unknowingly in the historical sense, but accurately all the same.
He's an isolationist. He will probably withdraw from NATO but even if he doesn't, he will functionally withdraw; he will make clear that he doesn't feel bound by Article V. He will give Putin free run while trying to extract trade quid pro quos (of which they'll rather more quids than quos; he's never been a good negotiator).
He certainly won't do anything about Iran, though he might make noises. He likes making noises. But he's scared of violence, which he doesn't understand so doesn't use it. We know that from last time, when he did have good cause to attack Iran (on a limited basis), and wimped out at the last minute.
Worth noting re Mussolini, the two didn't form any kind of alliance for 7 years - until France was on its knees in 1940 and Hitler was already master of northern Europe.
That was a very sobering article from Sean Trende. And, Sean Trende is probably the USA's leading psephologist, so good that he was one of the two who redrew Virginia's State Senate and Legislative boundaries, so that they were no longer gerrymandered.
The result of Trump's court cases and whether he is convicted and jailed or not will probably determine the next Presidential election.
Until that point polls are mainly of passing interest not much more
Trende’s view (and I agree) is that the court cases makes no difference.
Oh they do, certainly if he is jailed.
'A plurality of respondents (44 percent) said that a conviction in the case would have no impact on their likelihood of supporting Trump, but the numbers tipped decisively against Trump among those who said that the result would inform their vote. Nearly one-third of respondents (32 percent) said that a conviction in the case would make them less likely to support Trump, including about one-third of independents (34 percent).
'45% of Republicans said they would not vote for Trump if he were convicted of a felony by a jury, while 35% said they would. 52% said they wouldn't vote for him if he were in prison at the time of the election, while 28% said they would.'
If it wasn't for his cases Trump would be odds on to return as President, however if Biden is re elected it will almost certainly be down to a Trump conviction in a criminal case
I like the grand assumptions about what Trump will do when he wins. The reality though is that no-one knows.
I think it is quite unlikely that I would vote for Trump were I to have the opportunity but I wouldn't rule it out. If you are really annoyed with the existing order of things then it presents the potential of radical change. I would guess that that is what a lot of people think.
People keep saying that America is lost. But to me it looks like it is the entire Anglosphere that is lost. Perversely it is the coalition governments in Western Europe that involve the 'far right' that seem to have the most promising direction of travel, at least at the moment.
No-one knows what he would do, but some assumptions are evidence based, including the big one. The big one is that if he wins he and his faction shall plan and determine never to lose again and will carry out that plan as fully as he can get away with.
Reason suggests that the only power able to countermand this will be the arms of the state able to use force.
Most people voting for him know that this is true and will vote for him anyway.
The Anglosphere would then be a great deal more lost than it might be now.
This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.
And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:
"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"
"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"
* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions
** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".
Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies. Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?
"Most"
Also a huge number of students have brought in family members on dependant visas.
How can a student have dependants? They normally have barely enough money to support themselves
You have to be pretty rich to come to the UK to study. Also, I don't know the breakdown, but many of these will be postgraduate students. Not at all unusual for them to have a family, particularly those from countries where comparatively young (e.g. early-mid 20s) marriage is still common
This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.
And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:
"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"
"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"
* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions
** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".
Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies. Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?
"Most"
Also a huge number of students have brought in family members on dependant visas.
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
If you could be given the job of finance minister of a G7 country and were giving free rein to implement any policies you liked to improve the usual metrics, would you rather start from Japan's position or the UK's?
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
If you could be given the job of finance minister of a G7 country and were giving free rein to implement any policies you liked to improve the usual metrics, would you rather start from Japan's position or the UK's?
Japan's. But only if I were also given control of immigration policy. They are moving rather too slowly on that.
You'd copy the policy that has been tested to destruction by the UK? Marvellous.
You might not have noticed, but they are not the same, fool.
"Analysis: Russian engineering of Finland's migration influx possible - but yet to be proven By Diana Magnay, Moscow correspondent
Finland's decision to shut the last of its border crossings with Russia for a two-week period is a clear message to Russia's security forces: we know what you're doing and we won't put up with it.
The Finnish prime minister calls the recent influx of migrants crossing into his country - some 900 in November compared with only double digits before - the result of a Russian influence operation, which the Kremlin denies.
Russia is clearly displeased over Finland's decision to join NATO.
Deploying asymmetric methods as a form of payback is hardly beyond the realms of possibility and Finland says it has intelligence that Russian border officials have been aiding and abetting the migrant flows."
There's a video on twitter of large piles of abandoned bikes at the border; after Finland banned motorised traffic across the border (before banning it completely).
Russia is just doing what Belarus has been doing for the last few years; using migrants as a political weapon. In some cases, Belarus was accused of flying in migrants, then sending them to the Polish border.
This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.
And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:
"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"
"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"
* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions
** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".
Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies. Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?
"Most"
Also a huge number of students have brought in family members on dependant visas.
How can a student have dependants? They normally have barely enough money to support themselves
A lot are postgraduates, mid-late twenties in countries where people typically start families early twenties. Not rocket science.
Nevertheless, the fact that:
(a) the number of dependent's of students has absolutely gone through the roof (up 8x between 2019 and 2022) and (b) that so many of them come from a single country
Should give some us some reason to pause and reflect, no?
Edit to add:
There are a third more Nigerians coming to the UK as dependents on student visas than there will be arrivals on small boats this year.
One little-remarked feature of the new NZ coalition is that they have pledged to scrap proposed hate speech laws on the grounds of freedom of expression.
This is very welcome, and it’s kind of disturbing how counter-cultural this act now seems, given that freedom of opinion once seemed so central to Anglo-American culture.
And you can indulge in light banter about Johnny Foreigner/gays/the place of women while smoking. The whole of NZ will soon feel like a public bar in 1950s Accrington as the smoke drifts over the pool table.
This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.
And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:
"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"
"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"
* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions
** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".
Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies. Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?
"Most"
Also a huge number of students have brought in family members on dependant visas.
How can a student have dependants? They normally have barely enough money to support themselves
A lot are postgraduates, mid-late twenties in countries where people typically start families early twenties. Not rocket science.
Nevertheless, the fact that:
(a) the number of dependent's of students has absolutely gone through the roof (up 8x between 2019 and 2022) and (b) that so many of them come from a single country
Should give some us some reason to pause and reflect, no?
The Nigerian princes with large inheritances have simply decided to come over to study (and bring their families) to better understand the British aversion to accepting emails with offer of immediate enrichment?
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
If you could be given the job of finance minister of a G7 country and were giving free rein to implement any policies you liked to improve the usual metrics, would you rather start from Japan's position or the UK's?
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
If you could be given the job of finance minister of a G7 country and were giving free rein to implement any policies you liked to improve the usual metrics, would you rather start from Japan's position or the UK's?
Japan's. But only if I were also given control of immigration policy. They are moving rather too slowly on that.
You'd copy the policy that has been tested to destruction by the UK? Marvellous.
You might not have noticed, but they are not the same, fool.
I took your comment to imply that you would help Japan by ramping up immigration. We've been trying that in the UK at an accelerating pace.
This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.
And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:
"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"
"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"
* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions
** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".
Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies. Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?
"Most"
Also a huge number of students have brought in family members on dependant visas.
How can a student have dependants? They normally have barely enough money to support themselves
A lot are postgraduates, mid-late twenties in countries where people typically start families early twenties. Not rocket science.
Nevertheless, the fact that:
(a) the number of dependent's of students has absolutely gone through the roof (up 8x between 2019 and 2022) and (b) that so many of them come from a single country
Should give some us some reason to pause and reflect, no?
Edit to add:
There are a third more Nigerians coming to the UK as dependents on student visas than there will be arrivals on small boats this year.
That is a staggering statistic.
Sure, reflect and change the rules if we like. But lets not be bemused that people can study and have dependent offspring.
I assume that the government is loathe to reduce the number of international students because without their fees many (or most?) universities would suffer severe financial stress (and, of course, Vice Chancellors' inflated salaries may come under scrutiny).
I also assume that if international students couldn't bring their dependants with them, they wouldn't just shrug their shoulders and come anyway. They'd go elsewhere.
This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.
And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:
"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"
"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"
* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions
** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".
Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies. Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?
"Most"
Also a huge number of students have brought in family members on dependant visas.
How can a student have dependants? They normally have barely enough money to support themselves
A lot are postgraduates, mid-late twenties in countries where people typically start families early twenties. Not rocket science.
Nevertheless, the fact that:
(a) the number of dependent's of students has absolutely gone through the roof (up 8x between 2019 and 2022) and (b) that so many of them come from a single country
Should give some us some reason to pause and reflect, no?
Edit to add:
There are a third more Nigerians coming to the UK as dependents on student visas than there will be arrivals on small boats this year.
That is a staggering statistic.
It is staggering.
But UK universities are desperate for the money. And fewer foreign mature/graduate students will come if they can't bring their families.
So either:
HMG increases home student fees, remembering that the loan system has write-offs as a feature, and the state employs a lot of lower cost graduates.
Or
Quite a lot of universities go to the wall, which is only popular until your (grand)child doesn't get in or your local campus closes.
Or
A miracle happens.
If a person, institution or country is fundamentally not paying its way, they're unlikely to have absolute freedom of action.
This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.
And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:
"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"
"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"
* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions
** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".
Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies. Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?
"Most"
As long as you count correctly students should count as migrants. Migrants are an element of what is the number of the total population of the UK at date X. It may be sensible to dis-count those here on short holidays, and in turn count those out of the country on short holidays, but students stay for a matter of years and are a permanent part of the scene.
As long as you count them in and count them out again (correctly) the figure will give you a more accurate picture of movement and of course an accurate picture of the number of students who stay on for longer.
And of course in totality they are a significant part of total economic and social activity.
To be fair as shadow Immigration minister he is quite right to point out the slow performance of Brown and Cleggs 13 year coalition of failure. We need an election as quickly as possible to replace these lefty liberals with a proper Conservative government.
This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.
And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:
"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"
"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"
* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions
** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".
Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies. Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?
"Most"
Also a huge number of students have brought in family members on dependant visas.
How can a student have dependants? They normally have barely enough money to support themselves
A lot are postgraduates, mid-late twenties in countries where people typically start families early twenties. Not rocket science.
I for one am glad that we don't share our rocket science expertise with foreign students
There were a number of Iranian students studying chemistry and biology in London. Sponsored by the Iranian state. Who went home and worked on chemical and biological weapons programs. But hey, the fees….
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
If you could be given the job of finance minister of a G7 country and were giving free rein to implement any policies you liked to improve the usual metrics, would you rather start from Japan's position or the UK's?
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
If you could be given the job of finance minister of a G7 country and were giving free rein to implement any policies you liked to improve the usual metrics, would you rather start from Japan's position or the UK's?
Japan's. But only if I were also given control of immigration policy. They are moving rather too slowly on that.
You'd copy the policy that has been tested to destruction by the UK? Marvellous.
You might not have noticed, but they are not the same, fool.
I took your comment to imply that you would help Japan by ramping up immigration. We've been trying that in the UK at an accelerating pace.
Absent an increase in immigration, Japan is in terrible trouble.
And they are getting into the kind of death spiral that has hammered cities across the rust belt in the US. Taxes and borrowing rise to pay the promises made to retirees, which means that the young leave, making the burden on those that remain even worse.
With a birth rate of 1.34 and net emigration of the young, the ratio of people in their 40s and 50s to those in their teens and 20s is close to 2-1. That's going to be horrendous when the oldies need healthcare, drugs and pensions.
This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.
And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:
"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"
"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"
* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions
** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".
Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies. Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?
"Most"
Also a huge number of students have brought in family members on dependant visas.
How can a student have dependants? They normally have barely enough money to support themselves
A lot are postgraduates, mid-late twenties in countries where people typically start families early twenties. Not rocket science.
I for one am glad that we don't share our rocket science expertise with foreign students
If the Germans had taken that attitude that great American scientist Wernher von Braun and great Soviet scientist Helmut Grottrup would have had careers that died stillborn.
You too can be a big hero When you learn to count backwards to zero. 'In German, oder English, I know how to count down - Und I'm learning Chinese,' says Wernher von Braun.
I assume that the government is loathe to reduce the number of international students because without their fees many (or most?) universities would suffer severe financial stress (and, of course, Vice Chancellors' inflated salaries may come under scrutiny).
I also assume that if international students couldn't bring their dependants with them, they wouldn't just shrug their shoulders and come anyway. They'd go elsewhere.
It's the Final of Bake Off tonight. The first all male one (so much for 'woke' ch4). It's tough to call but I incline to Dan. Cheery guy, resilient, knows his oven. Dyor though. Don't go piling on based on my say-so.
This would be a better question if it was a bit more interestingly worded.
And it would be fascinating to see responses to variants such as*:
"Would you be in favour of higher levels of immigration***, even it meant that housing was more expensive"
"Would you be in favour of lower levels of immigration, even if it meant that your income was negatively affected?"
* This is clearly a non-exhaustive list of interesting questions
** Also, most people in the UK think we have higher levels of immigration today. I think it's important to quantify what is meant by "higher" and "lower".
Do students really count as ‘immigrants’? Most of the transient students I’ve known cleared off back home when their courses finished. Unless they enrolled on a further degree or were offered a job, which was as result of their studies. Are we, yet again, misunderstanding the statistics?
"Most"
Also a huge number of students have brought in family members on dependant visas.
How can a student have dependants? They normally have barely enough money to support themselves
A lot are postgraduates, mid-late twenties in countries where people typically start families early twenties. Not rocket science.
Nevertheless, the fact that:
(a) the number of dependent's of students has absolutely gone through the roof (up 8x between 2019 and 2022) and (b) that so many of them come from a single country
Should give some us some reason to pause and reflect, no?
Edit to add:
There are a third more Nigerians coming to the UK as dependents on student visas than there will be arrivals on small boats this year.
That is a staggering statistic.
I actually didn’t know this.
There’s a kind of conspiracy of obfuscation around migration figures.
You always have to dig into multiple data sets to figure out what’s actually going on. Neither right wing nor left wing media are minded to provide real illumination, and neither is the government.
To be fair as shadow Immigration minister he is quite right to point out the slow performance of Brown and Cleggs 13 year coalition of failure. We need an election as quickly as possible to replace these lefty liberals with a proper Conservative government.
Don't know if anybody listened to Jenrick in the HoC yesterday, but he was absolutely hilarious. Repeatedly saying that immigration (legal as well as illegal) was far too high, pretty much out of control, and something must be done - the situation is wholly unacceptable.
I'm assuming this is the same Jenrick whose current job is Minister for Immigration.
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
If you could be given the job of finance minister of a G7 country and were giving free rein to implement any policies you liked to improve the usual metrics, would you rather start from Japan's position or the UK's?
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
If you could be given the job of finance minister of a G7 country and were giving free rein to implement any policies you liked to improve the usual metrics, would you rather start from Japan's position or the UK's?
Japan's. But only if I were also given control of immigration policy. They are moving rather too slowly on that.
You'd copy the policy that has been tested to destruction by the UK? Marvellous.
You might not have noticed, but they are not the same, fool.
I took your comment to imply that you would help Japan by ramping up immigration. We've been trying that in the UK at an accelerating pace.
Absent an increase in immigration, Japan is in terrible trouble.
And they are getting into the kind of death spiral that has hammered cities across the rust belt in the US. Taxes and borrowing rise to pay the promises made to retirees, which means that the young leave, making the burden on those that remain even worse.
With a birth rate of 1.34 and net emigration of the young, the ratio of people in their 40s and 50s to those in their teens and 20s is close to 2-1. That's going to be horrendous when the oldies need healthcare, drugs and pensions.
There's a danger in taking current trends and assuming that they will continue remorselessly rather than self-correct. Maybe low rents and a gradual intergenerational transfer of wealth will trigger a baby boom?
Students are interesting, because we desperately need the export income, and - should they choose to stay - they are the very smartest kind of migrant.
But I wonder at the effect on university incentives at massively shifting attention to foreign students.
And the chart above is kind of scary, let’s be honest.
I assume that the government is loathe to reduce the number of international students because without their fees many (or most?) universities would suffer severe financial stress (and, of course, Vice Chancellors' inflated salaries may come under scrutiny).
I also assume that if international students couldn't bring their dependants with them, they wouldn't just shrug their shoulders and come anyway. They'd go elsewhere.
Canada, for a start.
Australia has overtaken us as second most popular overseas student destination despite our increases.
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
If you could be given the job of finance minister of a G7 country and were giving free rein to implement any policies you liked to improve the usual metrics, would you rather start from Japan's position or the UK's?
Viewed from eight time zones away, the obsession with Brexit on this site seems mistaken.
From what I can tell from this far away, Brexit has resulted in a modest increase in democracy In Britain, so UK elections now matter a little more, and bureacracies in Brussels a little less. If there have been signficant economic losses from Brexit, it is not apparent at this distance.
Were I a UK citizen, I would be looking at other, greater problems.
(The European Union has been disastrous for the economy of Greece. That should bother more of you.)
So, I'm about 90% in agreement with you.
On the subject of Brexit: yep, it's a modest increase in democracy, with negligible economic effects (positive or negative) so far.
Regarding Greece, it has been their membership of the Euro (rather than the EU) which has been the specific problem. But it's also been as much Greece's fault as the EU. The EU didn't tell Greece to lie about the amount of debt it had outstanding.
Being in any fixed currency systems - whether it is the Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, the ERM or the Euro - requires serious commitment to a flexible labour market, because devaluations have to be internal. And if you're prepared to make that commitment, you will be rewarded by a lower risk free rate. But that is an difficult commitment, which requires political balls of steel.
Neither the Italian or the Greek governments have been willing to make the structural changes necessary for a fixed exchange rate. They need to "shit or get off the pot"; i.e., make the changes or leave the Euro. Because the alternative is continuing to be trapped in a low growth cycle.
Do the drawbacks of a single currency not also apply to the single market itself, perhaps even more so?
If you're in a fixed system where you deny yourself the ability to use the normal instruments of trade policy, you are very exposed to competitive pressures and others gaming the system.
What are the normal instruments of trade policy of which you speak?
Tariffs, subsidies, non-tariff barriers.
Japan, of course, uses all of those, and I'm not sure it's done them any great favours.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
If you could be given the job of finance minister of a G7 country and were giving free rein to implement any policies you liked to improve the usual metrics, would you rather start from Japan's position or the UK's?
Japan's. But only if I were also given control of immigration policy. They are moving rather too slowly on that.
You'd copy the policy that has been tested to destruction by the UK? Marvellous.
You might not have noticed, but they are not the same, fool.
I took your comment to imply that you would help Japan by ramping up immigration. We've been trying that in the UK at an accelerating pace.
Absent an increase in immigration, Japan is in terrible trouble.
And they are getting into the kind of death spiral that has hammered cities across the rust belt in the US. Taxes and borrowing rise to pay the promises made to retirees, which means that the young leave, making the burden on those that remain even worse.
With a birth rate of 1.34 and net emigration of the young, the ratio of people in their 40s and 50s to those in their teens and 20s is close to 2-1. That's going to be horrendous when the oldies need healthcare, drugs and pensions.
There's a danger in taking current trends and assuming that they will continue remorselessly rather than self-correct. Maybe low rents and a gradual intergenerational transfer of wealth will trigger a baby boom?
That hasn't happened in the rust belt; the young and the productive have simply left. As they are doing in Japan.
Is there even a single example of falling rents due to depopulation and a worsening dependency ratio leading to increased birth rates?
That's quite an amazing statistic when you consider the relative populations of Nigeria compared to India. I'd expect a chart like that for the UK in 2150 maybe but not now !
Comments
The pie is big enough. We just need to ensure that nobody is just having to make do with crumbs, while others gorge themselves.
Eco-socialism, innit?
If the UK borrows $1,000 from abroad, and that money is used to buy an iPhone, then that adds a lot more to UK GDP than to Chinese.
That's what happened in Greece in the early 2000s. They borrowed - both personally and at the government level - to fuel a massive consumer boom.
But it was fundamentally unsustainable, as it was built on borrowing money from abroad to pay for consumption.
And then the hangover hit, and Greece was faced with crippling obligations, and no ability to devalue.
Probable that Norway, Latvia and Estonia will shut border crossings too if the Putinists decide to extend their childish antics. Estonia, Ltvia and Lithuania will not attend the Skopje OSCE summit if Lavrov goes. "He should be in a special tribunal, not in a special summit" as Margus Tsahkna (Estonian FM) said yesterday.
Net migration of up to .5 m per year has occurred without the sorts of social disruption, riots, killings etc that can occur. 48% voted recently to continue FOM with a population of 500m; since Brexit net migration has continued apace; 30% of babies have a foreign born mother.
The UK is not a racist hellhole.
When asked a foolish question people give silly answers. There is no space in this breathless data for a long term approach. For it is entirely rational for the public to want a rational migration policy, with significantly lower numbers, and at the same time to want government to develop policies which allow for economic growth, using inter alia all the skills of the many millions already received into this country.
By Diana Magnay, Moscow correspondent
Finland's decision to shut the last of its border crossings with Russia for a two-week period is a clear message to Russia's security forces: we know what you're doing and we won't put up with it.
The Finnish prime minister calls the recent influx of migrants crossing into his country - some 900 in November compared with only double digits before - the result of a Russian influence operation, which the Kremlin denies.
Russia is clearly displeased over Finland's decision to join NATO.
Deploying asymmetric methods as a form of payback is hardly beyond the realms of possibility and Finland says it has intelligence that Russian border officials have been aiding and abetting the migrant flows."
https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-russia-war-latest-putin-live-updates-blog-12541713
On this particular issue - what hood is growinh the pie if it has to be split between more people? People don't expect their own slice of pie to grow - why would they be excited by the concept of other people getting richer?
Refugees welcome
One of the unpleasant choices we face is working longer ourselves, or importing people to do the work.
Also, that infrastructure and public services can keep up with the increased demand.
Are all Brits Helenophiles, even the Tories?
While the question for Europe and the west will be at what point does everyone realise that the countries that count are the UK and France and ask how reliable is their blue touch paper and box of matches.
And I don't think the EU is a subsidy free zone. Would subsidies be more efficient if they were done purely at a national level? Probably. But the evidence that they create economic growth in the medium term (cough, the Welsh Development Agency, cough) is mixed at best.
And as moves in tariffs - see the US in 2018 to 2020 - tend to cause reciprocal moves that harm both countries, I think it's unlikely that they are a useful tool to spur economic growth.
Brexit has enabled and empowered an ideology of “executive power” which has seen, inter alia, prorogation of parliament, a debauch of Lords appointments, public pronouncements against the rule of law, the imposition of FPTP in local elections, etc etc.
I always said that the only way to properly cement Brexit is to turn it into a platform of democratic renewal, but so far as I can tell not a single Brexiter (with the exception maybe of Richard Tyndall) was actually interested in that.
As for the economics, Britain has seen effectively zero productivity growth since 2010. Brexit has clearly pushed the country off its high FDI path, and damaged export performance. The decline in the pound has helped to drive inflation, as has the disruption of the labour market.
I don’t believe Brexit is the core issue behind Britain’s malaise, which has its seeds all the way back in the 80s, but it has effectively delivered seven wasted years in which the country has grown relatively poorer and, I would argue, simply unhappier.
It is one of the great misconceptions of British public opinion post-Thatcher, that the path to wealth lies in government non-intervention.
No other country believes this, or acts like this.
It’s a reaction of course to the “picking winners” failures of the 60s and 70s, but a purist approach doesn’t work in the real world. You end up with a hollowing out of the economy, and increasingly subservient to foreign capital.
But there is also - I would argue - insufficient will in the UK and certainly France to defend European interests against Russia.
'A plurality of respondents (44 percent) said that a conviction in the case would have no impact on their likelihood of supporting Trump, but the numbers tipped decisively against Trump among those who said that the result would inform their vote. Nearly one-third of respondents (32 percent) said that a conviction in the case would make them less likely to support Trump, including about one-third of independents (34 percent).
Only 13 percent of respondents said that a conviction would make them more likely to support Trump, and that figure was comprised mostly of Republicans.'
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/25/ipsos-poll-trump-indictment-00112755
'45% of Republicans said they would not vote for Trump if he were convicted of a felony by a jury, while 35% said they would.
52% said they wouldn't vote for him if he were in prison at the time of the election, while 28% said they would.'
https://www.axios.com/2023/08/03/republicans-vote-trump-prison-poll-jan-6-trial
If it wasn't for his cases Trump would be odds on to return as President, however if Biden is re elected it will almost certainly be down to a Trump conviction in a criminal case
What I will say is that the British system - even as a country of 65m - tends towards cosy monopoly and you need an active government to militate against that - which we haven’t had since Thatcher in that respect.
I think it is quite unlikely that I would vote for Trump were I to have the opportunity but I wouldn't rule it out. If you are really annoyed with the existing order of things then it presents the potential of radical change. I would guess that that is what a lot of people think.
People keep saying that America is lost. But to me it looks like it is the entire Anglosphere that is lost. Perversely it is the coalition governments in Western Europe that involve the 'far right' that seem to have the most promising direction of travel, at least at the moment.
This is very welcome, and it’s kind of disturbing how counter-cultural this act now seems, given that freedom of opinion once seemed so central to Anglo-American culture.
He is firmly of the view that Trump will be in jail by the summer.
Bet accordingly.
The number of immigrants, sure, but to what extent has it arrested a decline in the numbers of working age due to demographic change?
What we have seen very recently is an explosion of long-term sick due to the pandemic - and for whatever reason this seems to have been worse in the UK than in other places. The explosion in migration over the past year or so is in part a response to that. We are replacing middle aged long-term sick with young Nigerians, Indians and Filipinos.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/281998/employment-figures-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/
Trump would still run as an Independent, splitting the GOP vote, so Biden only needs 40%+ to win
Russia is just doing what Belarus has been doing for the last few years; using migrants as a political weapon. In some cases, Belarus was accused of flying in migrants, then sending them to the Polish border.
https://ecre.org/eu-eastern-borders-migrants-along-belarus-polish-border-suffer-as-winter-sets-in-amid-extension-of-internal-border-checks-along-poland-slovakia-border-hungary-launches-another-anti-eu-national-consu/
Right now, they simply vote for more goodies for themselves, and impoverishment for everyone else. Never have we seen a more selfish class than elderly boomers.
worldviews.
In other words, I’m sure you’re right about the tangible impacts and in some ways that is why the B-word just can’t really be put to bed - a bit like smoking cigarettes, it will take overwhelming evidence one way or another before any political consensus forms.
Else the biggest countries would always be the wealthiest.
And of course most of them worked and paid in all their working lives and have a property they own, which their parents maybe didn't, they can pass on to their children
We've been importing people to make the overal GDP line go up, and telling ourselves that a bigger population will miraculously also make the per capita number go up, but it doesn't seem to have happened. Maybe it did and does work that way for the USA, but we don't have their geography.
It may well be that voters, even MAGA Republicans, may actually tire of this during the campaign and want some actual policies to improve their lives.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2022/why-do-people-come-to-the-uk-to-study#dependants-of-sponsored-study-visa-holders
And I am on a train,
My fingers are cold,
And so are my toes,
Cos I am on a train
Ee-i-eddy-oh,
I. Hate. Trains
👿
But only if I were also given control of immigration policy. They are moving rather too slowly on that.
Make America Great Again? Yes - by turning its face against all that Trump stands for.
We have massively healthier demographics and much lower government debt.
You?
(Of course, and slightly echoing @Nigelb's point below, the primary reason the UK's economy is in a much better place than Japan's is because immigration has meant that the dependency ratio hasn't gone through the roof.)
Reason suggests that the only power able to countermand this will be the arms of the state able to use force.
Most people voting for him know that this is true and will vote for him anyway.
The Anglosphere would then be a great deal more lost than it might be now.
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/26026
https://www.nottingham.edu.cn/en/Study-with-us/Undergraduate/Courses/Prospectus.aspx?id=964f4124-85d7-484b-a876-1a34dcdfb443&language=en-GB
The more it goes (Tiddely pom)
The more it goes (Tiddely pom)
On snowing
And nobody knows (Tiddely pom)
How cold my toes (Tiddely pom)
How cold my toes (Tiddely pom)
Are growing
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/28/robert-jenrick-expresses-frustration-with-slow-pace-of-uk-immigration-cuts
Never understood why the Greeks were so upset about an apparently entirely British argument.
(a) the number of dependent's of students has absolutely gone through the roof (up 8x between 2019 and 2022) and
(b) that so many of them come from a single country
Should give some us some reason to pause and reflect, no?
Edit to add:
There are a third more Nigerians coming to the UK as dependents on student visas than there will be arrivals on small boats this year.
That is a staggering statistic.
I also assume that if international students couldn't bring their dependants with them, they wouldn't just shrug their shoulders and come anyway. They'd go elsewhere.
But UK universities are desperate for the money. And fewer foreign mature/graduate students will come if they can't bring their families.
So either:
HMG increases home student fees, remembering that the loan system has write-offs as a feature, and the state employs a lot of lower cost graduates.
Or
Quite a lot of universities go to the wall, which is only popular until your (grand)child doesn't get in or your local campus closes.
Or
A miracle happens.
If a person, institution or country is fundamentally not paying its way, they're unlikely to have absolute freedom of action.
As long as you count them in and count them out again (correctly) the figure will give you a more accurate picture of movement and of course an accurate picture of the number of students who stay on for longer.
And of course in totality they are a significant part of total economic and social activity.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-september-2023/why-do-people-come-to-the-uk-to-study#dependants-of-sponsored-study-visa-holders
Trains are bad,
Running thru the glen
Trains are bad,
Trains are bad,
With their bands of men
Steal from the rich
Steal from the poor
Trains are bad
And it's cold
And it's cold
And they are getting into the kind of death spiral that has hammered cities across the rust belt in the US. Taxes and borrowing rise to pay the promises made to retirees, which means that the young leave, making the burden on those that remain even worse.
With a birth rate of 1.34 and net emigration of the young, the ratio of people in their 40s and 50s to those in their teens and 20s is close to 2-1. That's going to be horrendous when the oldies need healthcare, drugs and pensions.
You too can be a big hero
When you learn to count backwards to zero.
'In German, oder English, I know how to count down -
Und I'm learning Chinese,' says Wernher von Braun.
YouGov: Biden 39, Trump 37
Morning Consult: Biden 43, Trump 42
YouGov also has Trump 36, Newsom 34
So who knows what the Dems should do?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
There’s a kind of conspiracy of obfuscation around migration figures.
You always have to dig into multiple data sets to figure out what’s actually going on. Neither right wing nor left wing media are minded to provide real illumination, and neither is the government.
I'm assuming this is the same Jenrick whose current job is Minister for Immigration.
But I wonder at the effect on university incentives at massively shifting attention to foreign students.
And the chart above is kind of scary, let’s be honest.
Is there even a single example of falling rents due to depopulation and a worsening dependency ratio leading to increased birth rates?