But your basis for that is a projected reduction in this thing you are calling “the economy”, which you have not shown to be fit for your purpose.
Is Brexit actually going to happen?
- Thread starter Kaka Tim
- Start date
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
£350m a week for 7 weeks a year x 40 years = £80bn. We get the £350m a week to spend on coke and hookers for the other 45 weeks of every year.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
I get the feeling that we are talking at cross purposes. It would be useful to help me understand your position if you could set out how you see it panning out for the ordinary person post-Brexit and why.
In the meantime I have work to do.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
side benefit. It was mentioned (before the vote) as a possibility that space might be opened up, tories might be weakened. Of course in between wailing racists! other remainers a) took this as the entirety of a position and b) took the piss out of that straw man because it seemed so ludicrous an idea to the sensible grownup Economy fetishists, they had to laugh. They were wrong.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
That's a great question for a scenario where those are the two available options. But it's rubbish as a critique of anyone else's position otherwise.
Brexit = coke and hookers.
The bill to be paid really doesn't work as an argument for remain does it. It's 6.5 years of EU contributions. Apparently paid over 40 years.
mauvais
on reddit or something
Is it? Do I really need to mansplain socialism on u75? What would income tax on rich Londoners look like in the same terms?
Of all the things about the EU, I don't get this one. Whether EU redistribution actually represents a valuable return, socially or economically, holistically or to the benefit of UK capital, I couldn't honestly tell you. But it certainly has the potential to on any of those bases. If we spent €Xbn on improved transport links across Europe and it yielded more than that in cost savings to British business, then at least in capitalistic terms, it would be a success.
Similarly if we paid to improve the quality of life in, say, Romania, perhaps more Romanians stay put and it reduces the burden of uncontrolled immigration that Eurosceptics so despise.
Even under capitalism there are significant benefits to some level of redistribution even when you are the net contributor by some margin. Henry Ford or the less accurate caricature thereof is the most obvious example of this. For the UK, domestic geographic inequality is one of the biggest threats to its long term future in its current form. And on individual terms it's what keeps you, should you find yourself with the most, from being on the sharp end of an angry mob or strung up from a lamp post.
So by all means point at the inefficiencies or the targets of the spending or whatever else, but I'm surprised to see the very nature of it being criticised without any depth - it leaves me wondering what else you'd throw under the bus for money.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
It doesn't really work very well as a beating stick, especially as much of that is paying for the healthcare of Brits in Spain etc. and Peter Mandleson and Neil Kinnock's pensions.
not-bono-ever
meh
Its a bit crude to try to boil any discussion on the EU down to purely numbers. Neither backing nor criticising the EU here, but a couple of generations of MBA's flooding the ranks of the employed do seem to have distilled things down to a mechanistic P&L level.
It's not a critique, it's a starting point. If we don't even agree on what success looks like, how can we agree how to measure that success, let alone whether it has been achieved?
I'm saying that arguments based on whether or not "the economy" is growing or slowing are almost entirely irrelevant. There is precious little to suggest that the measure people mean when they talk about "the economy" is the driving force behind improvements in the life of ordinary people. It might be correlated in certain circumstances, but the long view actually suggests that GDP per capita has damn little to do with the wellbeing of residents, so long as it is maintained above a certain minimum level.
Why is that relevant to discussions about the impact of Brexit? Only that if you want to convince me that Brexit is a bad idea, please talk about something other than the rate at which "the economy" is growing. If your whole argument rests on changes in GDP, I really couldn't give a monkeys.
Silas Loom
Hated by both sides
Leaving aside whether redistribution is a good thing, and whether economists are fraudsters, the financial settlement is going to have an impact on the popular view of Brexit. Labour and LDs are shamelessly pretending to be aghast at the cost of our real and implicit commitments, now that they have been conceded.
You'd have to be really fucking stupid to see that concession as a reason to resile from a Brexit which would otherwise have been sensible, but there are an awful lot of voters in that category. And maybe it's the leavers' turn to see popular misapprehensions screw their mandate.
So let's see what this all does to the YouGov Brexit tracker, and how Labour in particular positions itself as a result.
You'd have to be really fucking stupid to see that concession as a reason to resile from a Brexit which would otherwise have been sensible, but there are an awful lot of voters in that category. And maybe it's the leavers' turn to see popular misapprehensions screw their mandate.
So let's see what this all does to the YouGov Brexit tracker, and how Labour in particular positions itself as a result.
Look, here is real GDP per capita from 1960 to the present day (all presented in 2000 equivalent dollars).
That's basically a three-fold increase since 1960.
Are people three times better off than they were in 1960? Are they better off at all? What about the doubling since the mid-1970s?
Do we still have free university education on a full grant? Is the NHS as well staffed? Do people have as ready access either to council housing or the ability to buy their own home? Are they as able to heat their homes? Or do they have more free time, maybe? Less stressed? Stronger bonds with others? Less mental health problems?
Are things three times better than 1960 and two times better than 1975 across these things that actually matter to people?
If no, then please -- for the love of God please -- stop pretending that we should care about what happens to GDP. If "the economy" halved but we went back to 1970s levels of personal wellbeing, we'd be better off. GDP is a side-effect of what matters, not the thing we should be concentrating on.
That's basically a three-fold increase since 1960.
Are people three times better off than they were in 1960? Are they better off at all? What about the doubling since the mid-1970s?
Do we still have free university education on a full grant? Is the NHS as well staffed? Do people have as ready access either to council housing or the ability to buy their own home? Are they as able to heat their homes? Or do they have more free time, maybe? Less stressed? Stronger bonds with others? Less mental health problems?
Are things three times better than 1960 and two times better than 1975 across these things that actually matter to people?
If no, then please -- for the love of God please -- stop pretending that we should care about what happens to GDP. If "the economy" halved but we went back to 1970s levels of personal wellbeing, we'd be better off. GDP is a side-effect of what matters, not the thing we should be concentrating on.
gosub
~#
I can't see how being aghast help Labour and Lib Dems, stay in and we'd pay the same money if not more. Might help the fuck email entirely contingent ie UKIP but they are dead in the water anyway
Silas Loom
Hated by both sides
If the discussion about Brexit was sensible, you'd be right. But it's not. Which is why I said that they were shameless.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
not-bono-ever
meh
There is a discussion going on ( and has been for a while ) in academia, about Economics being fit for purpose and whether the output of universities are well rounded enough to add to the debates rather than being adept at producing stuff that plays the game. Green Economics( name = urgh) for e.g , looking at quality rather than numerical output. whole different discussion thoyugh
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
And to put EU spending in its entirety into some perspective, it's roughly running at 1 per cent total EU GDP. imo that's a better way of looking at it than talking of X billions of pounds per year. The argument then should be is that too much, about right or too little, given what the money goes on. And given that a chunk of that 1 % (and I couldn't tell you how much either) goes on genuinely worthwhile development grants to underprivileged areas across the EU, while another chunk goes on paying for regulation that individual govts would otherwise have to do (a post-Brexit UK will have to do for itself re trading standards, etc, which is surely an inefficient way to do it), the current level doesn't jump out at me as a superstate in the process of taking over. As a comparison, in the US, the federal govt spends 20 % of GDP. National govts within the EU spend between around 35 and 50 %.
gosub
~#
Along with the meaningful Parliamentary debates based on objective reports......neither of which do you get when ratifying EU treaties. Admitted that was one benefit to leaving I had hoped for, and hasn't materialised (yet)
gosub
~#
CAP payments are significant.
eta Its the EEA setup thats chip in for admin costs and the rest goes on developing poorer bits of EUrope AND they are a lot more trasparent on how the money is spent. https://eeagrants.org/Results-data
Last edited:
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Some mistakes I think you are making.
1) Shifting from talking about "the economy" to talking about per capita GDP as if they were the same thing.
2) Judging GDP as if it were a measure of individual wellbeing, when that's not what it is.
3) Although you correctly identify that GDP growth is not a societal panacea, switching this around to suggest we should not therefore care about it is faulty logic. It's basically saying that, since we live in an unequal society, it would make no difference if we suddenly fell into an economic depression. But it most definitely would make a difference.
4) "GDP is a side-effect of what matters" - this is completely true, in a sense, but it is also inconsistent with the idea that we should not care about it. If you are trying to make the point that it would be crazy to run an economy on the basis of only one economic indicator, then that would be a fair point, but it would also go without saying, and it's a very different proposition from "who gives a toss about the economy anyway?"
I don't think I am making any of those mistakes.
1) It's not me making the mistake of talking about "the economy" as if it were the same as per capita GDP. It's the dominant discourse. (Actually, it's slightly worse since the "per capita" bit tends to get ignored). When people talk about "growth", they are talking about changes in the measurement of GDP. When we hear that growth is now 1.4% instead of the previously anticipated 2.0%, this is what people are talking about. Not my mistake; in fact, this is the mistake I am fundamentally pointing out.
2) Of course GDP isn't wellbeing. That's my whole bloody point!
3) That's not what I said. My quote: "It might be correlated in certain circumstances, but the long view actually suggests that GDP per capita has damn little to do with the wellbeing of residents, so long as it is maintained above a certain minimum level." If we fell into a depression, that would be a short view. But it wouldn't be the fact that the measurement of the economy is now showing negative that would in itself be the problem. It would be the reaction to it. It would be the retrenchment of capital in order to protect their share whilst creating problems amongst the poor. It wouldn't be a lack of resources per se. The resources are still three times those from the 1960s.
4) So what exactly is that that you think people mean when they talk about the economy growing and shrinking? Is it my previously suggested metric of "a basket of goods and services affordable by at least 75% or 90% of society; health care, housing, food, education, entertainment, etc. And some measure of social wellbeing too -- anxiety, loneliness, purpose."? Or is it purely a measure of national output?
1) It's not me making the mistake of talking about "the economy" as if it were the same as per capita GDP. It's the dominant discourse. (Actually, it's slightly worse since the "per capita" bit tends to get ignored). When people talk about "growth", they are talking about changes in the measurement of GDP. When we hear that growth is now 1.4% instead of the previously anticipated 2.0%, this is what people are talking about. Not my mistake; in fact, this is the mistake I am fundamentally pointing out.
2) Of course GDP isn't wellbeing. That's my whole bloody point!
3) That's not what I said. My quote: "It might be correlated in certain circumstances, but the long view actually suggests that GDP per capita has damn little to do with the wellbeing of residents, so long as it is maintained above a certain minimum level." If we fell into a depression, that would be a short view. But it wouldn't be the fact that the measurement of the economy is now showing negative that would in itself be the problem. It would be the reaction to it. It would be the retrenchment of capital in order to protect their share whilst creating problems amongst the poor. It wouldn't be a lack of resources per se. The resources are still three times those from the 1960s.
4) So what exactly is that that you think people mean when they talk about the economy growing and shrinking? Is it my previously suggested metric of "a basket of goods and services affordable by at least 75% or 90% of society; health care, housing, food, education, entertainment, etc. And some measure of social wellbeing too -- anxiety, loneliness, purpose."? Or is it purely a measure of national output?
You're listing his mistakes but you've clearly not understood what he has written.
not-bono-ever
meh
GDP , like Inflation, is often seen as shorthand as to how well *we* are doing - although this is bollocks when viewed alone , its often quoted, as it has that emotional trigger of perceived wellbeing for many
Raheem
Well-Known Member
I have a feeling that might make three of us.
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
His main mistake is what to choose to rail against. Per capita GDP is only interesting when measured against other countries' per capita GDP. It has almost no meaning measured against itself over time, other than as a measure of inflation.
The point stands that specific measures of the economy are a poor measure of personal well-being, but it's inane to suggest that there isn't some link between the economic well-being of the state and the well-being of its citizens.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Was never the same after the Berlin Wall came down, adverts all over the place.
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
The 1930s and right now would be excellent examples. Growth never really recovered after 2008 and people have expressed that they're worse off (because it's hard to measure well-being) across the developed world. The economy is barely back to where it was (questionable if it is yet, even), and has 10 years of inflation to figure into it.
Edit: I'm all for debt, up to a point. Balanced budgets and debt-free nations are idiocy, the way world economics works. But you can only spend up to a point before the ROTW starts to call things in. The UK's got a helluva ways to go before it becomes Greece or Portugal, but if you pull the rug out from under things you severely limit the government's ability to spend on what matters to people. This is, of course, ignoring the problem that the current government doesn't want to spend money on making lives better.
God save us from those that understand a little bit of economics.
My suggestion that growth in GDP -- which is what people are talking about when they talk about "growth" -- is meaningless is not at all something those who understand it would disagree with. Even the Economist, for the love of Pete, have tried to look at alternatives:
https://www.economist.com/news/lead...ng-time-fresh-approach-how-measure-prosperity
And here is the FT pointing out its many flaws:
Has GDP outgrown its use?
But the main point is that it is simply not the case that increased wealth brings increased wellbeing. This is true up to the point that your needs are satisfied and then it ceases to be so. And, in fact, the point at which increased wealth ceases to bring increased wellbeing is pretty darned low.
This references a study -- The Success Paradox -- that indicates the crossover point is about £22,000 in the UK.
GDP per capital versus life satisfaction is well studied, for example here:
It's hard to see in that particular graph, unfortunately (I've seen others where it is clearer), but beyond about $35,000, the trend line is basically vertical. In other words, adding additional GDP per capita beyond that point doesn't really make any difference. It's other cultural factors that matter beyond that point.
My suggestion that growth in GDP -- which is what people are talking about when they talk about "growth" -- is meaningless is not at all something those who understand it would disagree with. Even the Economist, for the love of Pete, have tried to look at alternatives:
https://www.economist.com/news/lead...ng-time-fresh-approach-how-measure-prosperity
And here is the FT pointing out its many flaws:
Has GDP outgrown its use?
But the main point is that it is simply not the case that increased wealth brings increased wellbeing. This is true up to the point that your needs are satisfied and then it ceases to be so. And, in fact, the point at which increased wealth ceases to bring increased wellbeing is pretty darned low.
This references a study -- The Success Paradox -- that indicates the crossover point is about £22,000 in the UK.
GDP per capital versus life satisfaction is well studied, for example here:
It's hard to see in that particular graph, unfortunately (I've seen others where it is clearer), but beyond about $35,000, the trend line is basically vertical. In other words, adding additional GDP per capita beyond that point doesn't really make any difference. It's other cultural factors that matter beyond that point.
Similar threads
