Brexit

[OngBonga]

Why is rilla so pro UK remaining in the EU? Does it actually matter to you more than political interest?

[Savy]

I know you think a million is a big number but as I said that's why we use percentages. If you're talking about over 33 million votes then 1 million is a very small amount. If you're talking about the UK population as a whole it's even smaller.

Your argument is only there to justify against a point which is rubbish to begin with. It is what it is. It was close there isn't much more to it.

It depends.

sfesfesfe, cheers.

[OngBonga]

I could imagine a full eu breakup prompting a Russian expansion.

I can't. Their only expansion ideas are those who where Russian speaking people are dominant, and where it is locally welcome. If you think Crimea is an example of an expansionist state, then I guess you had chicken pox when they were teaching 1930's Germany at school. Crimea was a cultural property of Russia's, and they were within their rights to take it because the people who live there wanted it.

Don't get whipped up in the anti-Russian hysteria. If it wasn't for Russia, I doubt we'd have won the war. People forget the price they paid for our peace. They could be an important trade partner, if only we showed them more respect. I don't understand why they're seen as the enemy, they should be an important ally.

[OngBonga]

Ok I don't care if you think it's close or if I'm wrong to think it wasn't because it makes literally not the slightest bit of difference. It wasn't close enough to be questionable in terms of integrity. I can't be fucked to argue about what "close" means to us both.

[Keith]

how the remain camp feel
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/36634958

[a500lbgorilla]

I'll take the compliment and ignore the two insults.

The UK leaving the EU is like Cuba being cut off from USA? That made me laugh more than rong's post.



Yes, let's just auto assume that we won't be able to negotiate trade agreements with Europe.

What stops the EU from trying to stick it to England beside England just being so great that no one would ever do that?

It strikes me as very much a magical idea that you can just change the rules and win - that for some reason, England is the bees-knees and Europe has to pony up.

My first thought was to the end-game of negotiations - a clean break between the UK and EU. Seems to me that the EU would manage much better than the UK.

Rich states have mismanaged their affairs pretty badly before.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-de...ch-country-cia

Oh wait, I forgot, you can't compare England to other countries because it's not a country, but something more.

[a500lbgorilla]

Why is rilla so pro UK remaining in the EU? Does it actually matter to you more than political interest?

I'm turned on to Democracy these days.

[a500lbgorilla]

Plus

https://www.google.com/search?q=dow+...utf-8&oe=utf-8

I'm lookin to retire!

[a500lbgorilla]

Or, to put this another way, regulations and economic immigration.

Yeah. Welcome to the World. It takes agreement and co-operation to accomplish great things around here. Shame you think otherwise.

[CoccoBill]

I want to say something further about this.

Yes yes, I completely get your point. Without touching the completely arbitrary figures you used, certainly a risk-based assessment can be made to ensure excess resources aren't used to make something "too" secure/safe, and that money can be used more effectively somewhere else. The thing is, how do you ensure the risk-based assessment is performed and the excess funds get used for similar safety measures somewhere else and not just dividends, without regulations or central management?

[a500lbgorilla]

Everything that the EU is so proud of in terms of bringing peace to Europe is utter bollocks. Peace happens when

This is where you and I centrally disagree. What makes peace? This vote doesn't make peace but it certainly expects it.

[a500lbgorilla]

I can't.

They're actively at war right now, but you can't imagine them going to more war?

I mean it, the more I think about this vote, the more I'm salty as the Utah Flats.

[a500lbgorilla]

Their only expansion ideas are those who where Russian speaking people are dominant

They have 7 time zones. Russian ain't spoke across 7 timezones.

[a500lbgorilla]

They have 7 time zones. Russian ain't spoke across 7 timezones.

*11 Time zones

"But English is spoke across 24 time zones!"

Gee, I wonder why. Probably through peace, if I were to guess.

[rong]

I can't. Their only expansion ideas are those who where Russian speaking people are dominant, and where it is locally welcome. If you think Crimea is an example of an expansionist state, then I guess you had chicken pox when they were teaching 1930's Germany at school. Crimea was a cultural property of Russia's, and they were within their rights to take it because the people who live there wanted it.

Don't get whipped up in the anti-Russian hysteria. If it wasn't for Russia, I doubt we'd have won the war. People forget the price they paid for our peace. They could be an important trade partner, if only we showed them more respect. I don't understand why they're seen as the enemy, they should be an important ally.

The way they treat their own people and the way the view the world makes them someone I don't want to be too heavily reliant upon.

Once again, I hark back to the fact that one of the best bits about the eu was the underlying principles it holds, and that it demands you uphold them too of you want to join.

Democracy, fair treatment of minorities, upholding human rights. These simple yet powerful basic principles need to be the bedrock of society, and if they are, we'll let you into this massive market. And once you're in your people grow accustomed to this freedom and protection meaning it's very hard to take it away from them. It's slowly freeing the world, but why would we want to be part of that.

[Savy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36637037

Boris coming out and saying that they're not actually going to try and change any of the things the campaign was won on, absolutely brilliant just wanted rid of human rights laws all along.

[wufwugy]

Yes yes, I completely get your point. Without touching the completely arbitrary figures you used, certainly a risk-based assessment can be made to ensure excess resources aren't used to make something "too" secure/safe, and that money can be used more effectively somewhere else.

Yeah, go with the most efficient.

The thing is, how do you ensure the risk-based assessment is performed and the excess funds get used for similar safety measures somewhere else and not just dividends, without regulations or central management?

You don't. Maybe people would prefer to buy more TVs with their dividends or wages than buy more healthcare. Regardless, when people do it freely, there is more efficiency and thus more benefit. If safety is an issue, it is best solved by using the most efficient means.

Another irony about using the 200k bridges for reasons of safety is that this safety isn't actually wanted, because if the people had the choice they would spend it on other things. How do we even know how safe a bridge should be in the first place than by what people are willing to freely pay?

[wufwugy]

My first thought was to the end-game of negotiations - a clean break between the UK and EU. Seems to me that the EU would manage much better than the UK.

The EU getting "the better" of it against the UK would make things even worse for the EU. The UK is not nearly as vulnerable economically as the EU. If the EU and UK go to war, the UK would have some tough years (maybe), but the EU would face total collapse since its economy is on such a weak foundation as is.

The problems that provoked Brexit are not new. This shit has been going on for nearly a decade now. It has been nearly a decade of the EU being a failed economic institution.

The EU is fucked. It's an amazing example of politicians basing policies on political agendas instead of economic realities.

I'm turned on to Democracy these days.

What's more undemocratic than unelected bureaucrats with primacy over member nation laws?

[spoonitnow]

The EU is ridiculously fucked, and the UK wanted out, which is rational enough.

Random fun fact (or not so fun fact), but go look at the losses Russia had during World War II.

[rong]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36637037

Boris coming out and saying that they're not actually going to try and change any of the things the campaign was won on, absolutely brilliant just wanted rid of human rights laws all along.

This is actually fucking hilarious. The public have been completely duped. Only most of those who were duped don't even realise it when told.

[Renton]

The EU is ridiculously fucked, and the UK wanted out, which is rational enough.

Random fun fact (or not so fun fact), but go look at the losses Russia had during World War II.

I'd suggest buying the dan carlin podcast "Ghosts of the Ostfront." It's like 8 hours long about the eastern front of ww2. That part of the war was the biggest, worst war in human history if considered separately. Worse than the rest of WW2, worse than all of WW1.

[rong]

The EU getting "the better" of it against the UK would make things even worse for the EU. The UK is not nearly as vulnerable economically as the EU. If the EU and UK go to war, the UK would have some tough years (maybe), but the EU would face total collapse since its economy is on such a weak foundation as is.

The problems that provoked Brexit are not new. This shit has been going on for nearly a decade now. It has been nearly a decade of the EU being a failed economic institution.

The EU is fucked. It's an amazing example of politicians basing policies on political agendas instead of economic realities.



What's more undemocratic than unelected bureaucrats with primacy over member nation laws?

You know we have the house of lords, right?

[CoccoBill]

You don't. Maybe people would prefer to buy more TVs with their dividends or wages than buy more healthcare. Regardless, when people do it freely, there is more efficiency and thus more benefit. If safety is an issue, it is best solved by using the most efficient means.

Your whole point was that if we have less safety here, we can have more safety elsewhere, for cheaper. That's in no way guaranteed though, and quite possible we end up with less safety. Free markets do not guarantee safety, safety regulations guarantee safety.

Another irony about using the 200k bridges for reasons of safety is that this safety isn't actually wanted, because if the people had the choice they would spend it on other things. How do we even know how safe a bridge should be in the first place than by what people are willing to freely pay?

Cue back to the point in our discussion about rational actors. No, people do not want to pay for safety, since they are inherently bad at risk management and not interested if their neighbor dies with the bridge failing, only if they themselves do. How safe the bridges should be is a fairly simple question, the optimum for the cost of safety controls is usually a little bit below the expected losses for the controls failing.

[OngBonga]

The way they treat their own people and the way the view the world makes them someone I don't want to be too heavily reliant upon.

It's funny, if we were talking about USA instead of Russia, this could still apply.

[rong]

Heh, fair point. But the next 2 paragraphs were quite important.

[Savy]

You know we have the house of lords, right?

OI THAT'S INGLISH TRADITION!!!

Funnily enough their intervention in things more recently was widely regarded as a good thing.

[wufwugy]

Your whole point was that if we have less safety here, we can have more safety elsewhere, for cheaper.

In that situation, there is known greater opportunity cost of safety by going with the 200k bridges.

That's in no way guaranteed though, and quite possible we end up with less safety.

In that situation it is, but no, not in every situation with different parameters is it.

Free markets do not guarantee safety, safety regulations guarantee safety.

No they don't, as shown in the hypothetical. The 200k bridge decreased safety.

Cue back to the point in our discussion about rational actors. No, people do not want to pay for safety, since they are inherently bad at risk management and not interested if their neighbor dies with the bridge failing, only if they themselves do.

Reread this a few times IMO.

How safe the bridges should be is a fairly simple question, the optimum for the cost of safety controls is usually a little bit below the expected losses for the controls failing.

There's far more going on in macro.

[rong]

I guess the one silver lining of brexit is the financial disaster that looks likely to follow will at least prove Wufwugy wrong.

[wufwugy]

I guess the one silver lining of brexit is the financial disaster that looks likely to follow will at least prove Wufwugy wrong.

Never reason from a price change.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I guess the one silver lining of brexit is the financial disaster that looks likely to follow will at least prove Wufwugy wrong.

We're talking about the same wufwugy, right?

I am 100% sure that no matter what happens, wufwugy will never agree to this assessment.

Whatever the result, I'm confident that wuf will parley it into your own misunderstanding which gave the impression that he was ever wrong about econ.

If it was the case that the UK were to lose out on trade because of leaving the EU, it would be because the EU has wrong, bad, harmful protectionist trade policies.

See what I mean?

[a500lbgorilla]

The EU getting "the better" of it against the UK would make things even worse for the EU.

The UK voting to leave the EU would make things even worse for the UK. Yet here we are. You can't pretend that only the UK are the clever players nor can you pretend that this was an expected event that is properly realigning the relationship between the EU and the UK.

If the UK had a bullet in its gun against the EU, it would be moving already. Who declares their punch then says, "but give us 6 weeks to sort our shit out"?

The EU is fucked.

Yes. Europe, center of the world, has to forever live as a fractured cauldron of hatred and conflict. God forbid we try to learn the lessons of history and each eat our own serving of shit to avoid the hell that follows when nations decide negotiations have failed or that their sovereignty is threatened and that their just mad enough to do something destructive.

What's more undemocratic than unelected bureaucrats with primacy over member nation laws?

There are well known weaknesses to direct democracy. For one, I can't be arsed to calibrate my views to every problem before the state. This is why I disagree with the repubs demanding that I go out and vote to tell them once again they need to calm down and be a bit more agreeable w.r.t the Supreme Court. No one has the time and intelligence to govern on top of being a husband and father and coworker and producer and healthy member of a community. This is why we unload those burdens onto others and demand so much of them once we do.

Also, I wish I could think of the word for it, but once you've ever experienced or been yourself an orator of any skill - once you've seen people bind themselves to your opinion while you were just throwing it out for the hell of it, you realize that the masses can be wielded. I can't think of who said it, but someone levied this as the basic criticism of democracy way back when. He saw that you could pay for a brass-throated, silver-tongued advocate who could win the crowd time and time again. And if I had to imagine what some ancient rhetoricist might look like in this day and age, well he'd drive a bus with provocative lies plastered on the side and he'd declare last Thursday Independence Day.

And then, people would knowingly tell me about how the EU is so totally fucked that to not separate would have been much worse.

[rong]

The UK voting to leave the EU would make things even worse for the UK. Yet here we are. You can't pretend that only the UK are the clever players nor can you pretend that this was an expected event that is properly realigning the relationship between the EU and the UK.

If the UK had a bullet in its gun against the EU, it would be moving already. Who declares their punch then says, "but give us 6 weeks to sort our shit out"?



Yes. Europe, center of the world, has to forever live as a fractured cauldron of hatred and conflict. God forbid we try to learn the lessons of history and each eat our own serving of shit to avoid the hell that follows when nations decide negotiations have failed or that their sovereignty is threatened and that their just mad enough to do something destructive.



There are well known weaknesses to direct democracy. For one, I can't be arsed to calibrate my views to every problem before the state. This is why I disagree with the repubs demanding that I go out and vote to tell them once again they need to calm down and be a bit more agreeable w.r.t the Supreme Court. No one has the time and intelligence to govern on top of being a husband and father and coworker and producer and healthy member of a community. This is why we unload those burdens onto others and demand so much of them once we do.

Also, I wish I could think of the word for it, but once you've ever experienced or been yourself an orator of any skill - once you've seen people bind themselves to your opinion while you were just throwing it out for the hell of it, you realize that the masses can be wielded. I can't think of who said it, but someone levied this as the basic criticism of democracy way back when. He saw that you could pay for a brass-throated, silver-tongued advocate who could win the crowd time and time again. And if I had to imagine what some ancient rhetoricist might look like in this day and age, well he'd drive a bus with provocative lies plastered on the side and he'd declare last Thursday Independence Day.

And then, people would knowingly tell me about how the EU is so totally fucked that to not separate would have been much worse.

:thumbs up smiley:

[rong]

The UK voting to leave the EU would make things even worse for the UK. Yet here we are. You can't pretend that only the UK are the clever players nor can you pretend that this was an expected event that is properly realigning the relationship between the EU and the UK.

If the UK had a bullet in its gun against the EU, it would be moving already. Who declares their punch then says, "but give us 6 weeks to sort our shit out"?



Yes. Europe, center of the world, has to forever live as a fractured cauldron of hatred and conflict. God forbid we try to learn the lessons of history and each eat our own serving of shit to avoid the hell that follows when nations decide negotiations have failed or that their sovereignty is threatened and that their just mad enough to do something destructive.



There are well known weaknesses to direct democracy. For one, I can't be arsed to calibrate my views to every problem before the state. This is why I disagree with the repubs demanding that I go out and vote to tell them once again they need to calm down and be a bit more agreeable w.r.t the Supreme Court. No one has the time and intelligence to govern on top of being a husband and father and coworker and producer and healthy member of a community. This is why we unload those burdens onto others and demand so much of them once we do.

Also, I wish I could think of the word for it, but once you've ever experienced or been yourself an orator of any skill - once you've seen people bind themselves to your opinion while you were just throwing it out for the hell of it, you realize that the masses can be wielded. I can't think of who said it, but someone levied this as the basic criticism of democracy way back when. He saw that you could pay for a brass-throated, silver-tongued advocate who could win the crowd time and time again. And if I had to imagine what some ancient rhetoricist might look like in this day and age, well he'd drive a bus with provocative lies plastered on the side and he'd declare last Thursday Independence Day.

And then, people would knowingly tell me about how the EU is so totally fucked that to not separate would have been much worse.

This really deserves more credit. Nicely put.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm still saltier than my salt shaker.

[wufwugy]

We're talking about the same wufwugy, right?

I am 100% sure that no matter what happens, wufwugy will never agree to this assessment.

Whatever the result, I'm confident that wuf will parley it into your own misunderstanding which gave the impression that he was ever wrong about econ.

The economics I discuss is the economics I've learned from economists.

See what I mean?

The statement is fact. At the most basic level, it is derived from the laws of supply and demand learned in the first couple weeks of econ 101.

Given that optimal trade is totally free trade, it necessarily means that if you are involved in a union that benefits your trade, the union practices sub-optimal trade. This necessarily means that if you left that union and you were hurt on trade, the reason was at the least because that union practices sub-optimal trade.

[wufwugy]

The UK voting to leave the EU would make things even worse for the UK. Yet here we are. You can't pretend that only the UK are the clever players nor can you pretend that this was an expected event that is properly realigning the relationship between the EU and the UK.

If the UK had a bullet in its gun against the EU, it would be moving already. Who declares their punch then says, "but give us 6 weeks to sort our shit out"?

Fighting hurts them both. From what I know about economics, if there was a fight, the EU would suffer more because it is in a more exposed and vulnerable economic position. The reasons are many that include things like the UK being an optimal currency area while the EU not being one. The UK has many money tools that the EU does not. These tools are extremely important, and they are the main reason why the UK has performed better than the EU over the last several years.

Yes. Europe, center of the world, has to forever live as a fractured cauldron of hatred and conflict. God forbid we try to learn the lessons of history and each eat our own serving of shit to avoid the hell that follows when nations decide negotiations have failed or that their sovereignty is threatened and that their just mad enough to do something destructive.

I said the EU, not Europe. Europe is not remotely close to fucked; the EU as an institution is fucked. This has not been a secret to virtually every famous economist for the last nearly whole decade. I discussed this here some back in 2010, when the sign was overwhelming, and some in 2012 when Grexit was at potential. The EU is fucked as an institution because it is a monetary union without fiscal union and its scope is too broad. If the monetary union was just the Blue Banana, it would be fine, but because it includes the weak and differentiated Mediterranean economies, the monetary union is the EU economy's limiting factor. Economists for a long time have been split on whether the EU should break apart even though both sides think the EU is a disaster. Both are right for different reasons. The "Against Breakup" crowd fears the uncertainty and potential for unpredictable economic turmoil of a breakup. They say that keeping the EU together is a bad decision, but they like it better than the uncertainty of a breakup. The "For Breakup" crowd warns that Euro is unsustainable because it causes far weaker growth than otherwise and it makes the Eurozone more susceptible to turmoil and less able to respond to turmoil.

Few economists believe the EU is not fucked; it is just that some fear potential immediate problems more than long term problems while others are vise versa. Even though I am in the For Breakup crowd, I can't say the Against Breakup crowd is wrong, because it is correct that a breakup could lead to total disaster by unforced error. The history of economies is full of unforced errors that cause total disaster (the Great Depression, Great Recession, Stagflation, to name a few).

There are well known weaknesses to direct democracy. For one, I can't be arsed to calibrate my views to every problem before the state. This is why I disagree with the repubs demanding that I go out and vote to tell them once again they need to calm down and be a bit more agreeable w.r.t the Supreme Court. No one has the time and intelligence to govern on top of being a husband and father and coworker and producer and healthy member of a community. This is why we unload those burdens onto others and demand so much of them once we do.

It's a good case for limits on democracy.

Also, I wish I could think of the word for it, but once you've ever experienced or been yourself an orator of any skill - once you've seen people bind themselves to your opinion while you were just throwing it out for the hell of it, you realize that the masses can be wielded. I can't think of who said it, but someone levied this as the basic criticism of democracy way back when. He saw that you could pay for a brass-throated, silver-tongued advocate who could win the crowd time and time again. And if I had to imagine what some ancient rhetoricist might look like in this day and age, well he'd drive a bus with provocative lies plastered on the side and he'd declare last Thursday Independence Day.

And then, people would knowingly tell me about how the EU is so totally fucked that to not separate would have been much worse.

In the first paragraph you describe something that happens because it's the most effective way to win the marginal opinion/voter. That does not mean that every opinion is marginal and easily persuadable and come to without reason.

[wufwugy]

There are also political cases to be made for the EU, not necessarily economic ones even though they're ones some economists like. Probably the best example is that the dominant strategy for trade each country has is very unpopular to voters. Even though economists would prefer there to be no trade deals and instead unilateral deregulation (all it would take is one big economy to do it and the rest would fall over themselves to follow), they do not believe this is politically feasible.

I am of the opinion (a political opinion) that these deals are a symptom of political momentum for freer trade, not a cause of freer trade. So, it would be best to not have them and instead unilaterally deregulate.

[wufwugy]

[rpm]

edit: had a harsh toned post here aimed at wufwugy. was unnecessary. carry on...

[oskar]

2 Trillion in stock value lost at this point.
That is $166 per person on earth, or $574,712 per person who voted for Britain to leave the EU. I personally lost $0 so I don't give a shit, but that's a pretty impressive amount of fantasy money league money to be lost.

[JKDS]

Im now imagining a diabolical machine literally taking $166 from every person.

[OngBonga]

It's bullshit money anyway.

Make stuff, export. That's the way out of the economic hole we've jumped into.

[MadMojoMonkey]

[political cartoon]

I don't understand why people are saying it was a vote for independence or sovereignty.
Didn't all the member nations of the EU enter the deal voluntarily?
Isn't the UK leaving that membership voluntarily and w/o any war or violence between the UK and EU?
Doesn't this express that any lack of independence was illusory?

The power from which they claim to need sovereignty didn't stifle the vote or anything.
Did the EU even buy any propaganda to influence the vote?
Maybe I misunderstand the word, but if you're free to make and enact your own choices, isn't that sovereignty?

[OngBonga]

Didn't all the member nations of the EU enter the deal voluntarily?

Yes, but in our case when it was called the European Economic Community. It's changed from an economic bloc to a political and legal superstate.

Isn't the UK leaving that membership voluntarily and w/o any war or violence between the UK and EU?
Doesn't this express that any lack of independence was illusory?

Well yes. It's kind of like working not really being slavery. You have to do as you're told, you're not free to behave as you please while representing your employer. If you don't like it, do the honourable thing and resign. Or, behave petulantly and get yourself fired.

As a member state, we handed a lot of power over to the EU. That's what we talk about when we talk of sovereignty. If the only sovereign thing we can do is leave, then that's what we needed to do.

[CoccoBill]

I think you're talking about autonomy, not sovereignty. I'd say it's nothing like slavery, but a lot like marriage. You enter it freely and willingly, but in order to make it work you need to make some compromises and allow your partner into the decision-making, at least in theory in a healthy relationship. If you feel like the compromises are not worth the gains you get from the relationship, divorce may be a good option. It just seems like 52% of Britons were not exactly aware of what a marriage is, and that they won't be getting any after they break up.

[Keith]

It's bullshit money anyway.

Make stuff, export. That's the way out of the economic hole we've jumped into.

ironic coming from the guy who's sat on the dole, who's gonna make these things you want to export ,Poles an other eastern europeans?.

[OngBonga]

ironic coming from the guy who's sat on the dole, who's gonna make these things you want to export ,Poles an other eastern europeans?.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise that refusing to work meant I wasn't entitled to an opinion when it comes to economics. I suppose I shouldn't have even been allowed to vote on the matter. I'll just disappear under a rock somewhere until this all blows over.

Or, to put that a less sarcastic way, don't be so bitter about me being idle. The contempt in your tone is obvious. Your tax isn't going down if I get a job, so why do you give a single fuck what I do with my life? Get on with yours.

[!Luck]

I'm still saltier than my salt shaker.

Seems to be driven by fear of war.

Did you consider that the benefits to war have changed? Property and physical labor were great things to just take, now days you need knowledge workers. These workers need to be motivated to perform, ie you can't wip them to write code faster. The incentives for historic forms of war are now skewed to be less profitable than historic.

It is possible EU didn't prevent wars but its existence coincided with differing incentives.

UK was smart for keeping its currency and I think its smart again for leaving. Short term pain, will lead to a more prosperous future.

Then again i'm an american bloke, what do I know.

[wufwugy]

It is possible EU didn't prevent wars but its existence coincided with differing incentives.

Yes. Granted, the case should still be made that the US military prevent(s)ed war. Without some military at the helm, Russia would have taken over the entire continent.

Then again i'm an american bloke, what do I know.

There's a lesson to be had in America. We federalized an entire continent (Canada who?) and nobody's happy about it. As different as our various regions are and how much we would benefit from decentralizing the federal government, it is nothing compared to what would become of a federalized Europe.

There is some good motive in the EU. Freer trade, freer migration, and shared interests are good. But when they come at the cost of ever increasing centralization of political institutions, there's a rising kraken beneath the surface in need of vanquishing.



I would like to note that I don't think favoring the EU is wrong. There are many legitimate reasons across the board.

[wufwugy]

Since I always say "economists this, economists that" and since I care about giving every view a fair shake: economists by large were against Leave. It wasn't that they thought Brexit was bad, but that they found various reasons why in this particular case, they preferred staying. Obviously, I have been disagreeing with this. It's not that I think their reasons are wrong, but that by net I think Brexit is better.

An example is that the main economist I read (Scott Sumner) would side with Leave except that this particular time he felt that the Leave motive was largely anti-immigration. As any good economist, he's intensely favorable to immigration (pure economics is intensely favorable to immigration). I disagree with this rationale since I think the immigration (not from Polish laborers, but from Islamists) is undermining political and social stability, and would eventually undermine good economic function. Of course, he may end up being right. Britain could really fuck this up if they take a protectionist turn, which is a real possibility.

[wufwugy]

I don't understand why people are saying it was a vote for independence or sovereignty.
Didn't all the member nations of the EU enter the deal voluntarily?
Isn't the UK leaving that membership voluntarily and w/o any war or violence between the UK and EU?
Doesn't this express that any lack of independence was illusory?

The power from which they claim to need sovereignty didn't stifle the vote or anything.
Did the EU even buy any propaganda to influence the vote?
Maybe I misunderstand the word, but if you're free to make and enact your own choices, isn't that sovereignty?

There is a sense of ever fleeting sovereignty. It's similar to what has been happening in the US over the decades. Our federal government is just getting more and more powerful, intervening in more and more ways. Some people don't like appeals to the Founding Fathers, but I think it's important. They would be tornado-ing in their graves if they saw what our federal government has become.

To answer your question, many UK citizens are finding that they're continually losing their marginal grasp on agency. With each new EU development, it is more something unlike what they wish and like something others wish, and their ability to influence outcomes is ever diminishing. They technically never lost sovereignty by the logic you laid out, but they realistically have been losing it.

[wufwugy]

For Rilla, the EU engages in serious protectionist trade policies. Pulled from an article:

Although its 28 nations can exchange goods and services free of tariffs inside the trading bloc, the EU is a walled expanse that imposes duties on most of what enters from the U.S., China, and the rest of the non-EU world. The tariffs are especially high on manufactured products and food, averaging from 10%-to-20%.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...skarbek_h.html

The EU favors its member nations at the expense of everybody else. This is not so much an exercise in "togetherness" as it's an exercise in "join us or suffer." Even though this nefarious attribute is not the stated intention, it is the effect.

To let my personal opinion chime in here, I think this is the product of politicians. They adore power, and they could not imagine setting up a trade union that simply deregulates trade. No, they must set up a trade union that creates an institutional overlord that perpetually grows in power and issues edicts that all must follow.

[Savy]

Since I always say "economists this, economists that" and since I care about giving every view a fair shake: economists by large were against Leave. It wasn't that they thought Brexit was bad, but that they found various reasons why in this particular case, they preferred staying. Obviously, I have been disagreeing with this. It's not that I think their reasons are wrong, but that by net I think Brexit is better.

An example is that the main economist I read (Scott Sumner) would side with Leave except that this particular time he felt that the Leave motive was largely anti-immigration. As any good economist, he's intensely favorable to immigration (pure economics is intensely favorable to immigration). I disagree with this rationale since I think the immigration (not from Polish laborers, but from Islamists) is undermining political and social stability, and would eventually undermine good economic function. Of course, he may end up being right. Britain could really fuck this up if they take a protectionist turn, which is a real possibility.

I'm confused, the majority of immigration from europe isn't muslim. Care to go into what you mean more specifically?

The actual percentage of people in the UK who follow Islam is pretty small, we're talking mid single digit %'s.

Also the latter part of your post is more so what I was getting at with one of my previous post about how just because a decision can lead to the optimal path it doesn't mean it will be taken. You have to realise the likelihood of all the paths that can be taken as a result of that decision and their result. The UK leaving the EU is never going to lead to deregulation of trade on a large scale nor will it lead to the break up of the EU any time soon.

[wufwugy]

I'm confused, the majority of immigration from europe isn't muslim. Care to go into what you mean more specifically?

The actual percentage of people in the UK who follow Islam is pretty small, we're talking mid single digit %'s.

It can be said that mid-single digits is pretty high. Blacks make up only 13% of the US population, and look at all the related so-called problems we have. Regardless, this is about perceptions. The perception is that interlopers are taking over the UK. I think the perception has merit because it is at least partially true, but more importantly the perception causes political instability.

Honestly, I don't have much clue how to do immigration correctly. It probably has to be something along the lines of highly discriminating in favor of the productive and ethical.


Granted, I don't think the immigration perception alone is what made Brexit happen. There's the constant protectionism element found in much of the blue collar and the sovereignty issue as well as some others I don't know about. But mainly it's probably about the bad economy (caused mostly by the Euro, though blame by the voters is largely placed on the EU in general). If the EU was growing at 5% NGDP, I doubt Leave breaks 45% (or that there's even a referendum in the first place).

[wufwugy]

For Rilla, the EU engages in serious protectionist trade policies. Pulled from an article:



http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...skarbek_h.html

The EU favors its member nations at the expense of everybody else. This is not so much an exercise in "togetherness" as it's an exercise in "join us or suffer." Even though this nefarious attribute is not the stated intention, it is the effect.

To let my personal opinion chime in here, I think this is the product of politicians. They adore power, and they could not imagine setting up a trade union that simply deregulates trade. No, they must set up a trade union that creates an institutional overlord that perpetually grows in power and issues edicts that all must follow.

I should rephrase: trade barriers and tariffs don't actually favor the EU at the expense of others. They favor a handful of special interests within the EU at the expense of the rest of those in the EU and the world. For example, if a country has tariffs on imported steel, it is only some of the steel workers that benefit while everybody else, including the domestic, suffers.

[MadMojoMonkey]

There's a lesson to be had in America. We federalized an entire continent (Canada who?) and nobody's happy about it.

Why do you make these hyperbolic statements?
To me, when you say, "nobody's happy about it." There only needs to be a single counter-example of someone who is happy about it and you're wrong. The probability that there exists just one single person who believes or feels just about anything conceivable is pretty high.

Why not choose your words so that you form more robust postulates?
E.g. instead of "nobody" - a very specific value of bodies - consider saying "very few" - a non-specific, but small value of bodies which implicitly represent a small fraction of the sample of all bodies.

***
When I hear a generalization about everybody or nobody, I tend to assume that the person talking can't see past their own nose when it comes to what people think and feel. The range of combinations of what people believe and think has never ceased to amaze me.

It's important because your field is about people. Take away the people and you've destroyed most of the field of economics. (You see what I did there... "most of" rather than "all of" leaves me wiggle room to apply economics principles to non-human systems, whether or not those principles originated there.)

[MadMojoMonkey]

Some people don't like appeals to the Founding Fathers, but I think it's important. They would be tornado-ing in their graves if they saw what our federal government has become.

I appreciate a good appeal to the FF, but I think any blanket statement about what the FF thought or felt is ridiculous. They were not a single-minded group who agreed on things. They disagreed on just about everything.

To say that "they" - meaning all of the FF - would agree or disagree on anything doesn't mesh well with what I was taught about the Continental Congress or the ratification process of the US Constitution.

[JKDS]

The government of today has no right to tell us how to live our lives, because the government of 200 years ago already did!
-always sunny

[The Bean Counter]

Nice post by rilla.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise that refusing to work meant...

I was thinking about those choosing not to work today and what may happen post-Brexit. It really depends on the exit deal of course, but I think the UK will move to being a significantly more ruthless country where everybody looks after number one. That could be disastrous for benefit recipients.

[a500lbgorilla]

Seems to be driven by fear of war.

Did you consider that the benefits to war have changed? Property and physical labor were great things to just take, now days you need knowledge workers. These workers need to be motivated to perform, ie you can't wip them to write code faster. The incentives for historic forms of war are now skewed to be less profitable than historic.

It is possible EU didn't prevent wars but its existence coincided with differing incentives.

UK was smart for keeping its currency and I think its smart again for leaving. Short term pain, will lead to a more prosperous future.

Then again i'm an american bloke, what do I know.

Maybe, I'm just thinking through the negotiations and I expect the Brits to be forced into a game of brinksmanship with redlines and hard initial demands and I'm wondering what happens if the EU tries to win. America has enjoyed the kooky fun of chicken that can arise from public mandates to tear the bandages off.

My other thought is wondering where all the great leaders are any more. If the EU-UK relationship was mutually beneficial, shouldn't the UK have been able to make sure those benefits were felt a little bit by everyone? It seems to me that this vote by Britain was driven by people outside of London feeling short-handed while city-slickers enjoyed all the benefits.

I don't know that this vote will help Britain undo that trend, and I suspect Trump/Bernie support is also similarly grounded, so while I think this was a bad move short and mid term for Britain, it may be a good sounding shot for the direction of the wider world. Unless, of course, there are no more good leaders.

As an aside, I'm wondering if the US gov't going after off-shore bank accounts is related to a long term pivot towards giving the gov't the power to tax those that benefit the most more effectively, so that when the world functions better, everyone believes it.

[OngBonga]

I was thinking about those choosing not to work today and what may happen post-Brexit. It really depends on the exit deal of course, but I think the UK will move to being a significantly more ruthless country where everybody looks after number one. That could be disastrous for benefit recipients.

Austerity is already biting pretty hard. They've been trying to take the right of benefits away from people for years, but there's only so much they can do. I think there's around a million on jobseekers allowance alone. Sure, if you take all that money away, then you'll save quite a lot. £50m-odd a week, in fact. However, the number of people on the dole who are potentially productive is much lower than people like to think. The majority are incapable, let alone unwilling, of finding long-term employment, so you'll just end up with a ton of selfish and unintelligent people desperate for money, which is not a good recipe for a healthy society. Government knows this, which is why benefits remain available for people like me.

[a500lbgorilla]

I should rephrase: trade barriers and tariffs don't actually favor the EU at the expense of others. They favor a handful of special interests within the EU at the expense of the rest of those in the EU and the world. For example, if a country has tariffs on imported steel, it is only some of the steel workers that benefit while everybody else, including the domestic, suffers.

I can't really read this kind of stuff, I'll be honest. Like I've said before, if I was in a position of making the tough decisions, I'd have diverse and able advisors and I'd try to figure out how they think, but I work in an industry that is highly regulated - there are redundant national and international standards for safety and design which we must always address in specifications, design, testing, and implementation. They're a hassle, add huge costs, slow projects way down, but they're obviously needed to make sure that every design is forced to learn from the mistakes of past systems. So that no hot-shots can possibly under-bid, over-promise and put into the field anything that would actually endanger lives. (Note that hot-shots do under-bid and over-promise as a method to keep work coming in to maintain their design teams)

So when I hear people complain about rules and regulations forced upon them by some far-off authority, I think it might just be for a good reason. Like old taboos made new again.

[a500lbgorilla]

On tariffs and stuff though, it's interesting to notice the different trade wars going on like Saudis -v- US on oil or China -v- US on steel.

It all reminds me of how DOW Chemical ducked the punch of some Euro chemical producers and blew them out of the water.

"Herbert Dow founded Dow Chemical in Midland, Michigan when he invented a way to produce bromine cheaply. He sold the chemical for industrial purposes all over the US for 36 cents per pound at the turn of the 20th century. He couldn't go overseas, however, because the international market was controlled by a giant German chemical cartel that sold it at a fixed price of 49 cents per pound. It was understood that the Germans would stay out of the US market so long as Dow and the other American suppliers stayed within its borders.

Eventually Dow's business was in trouble and he had to expand. He took his bromine to England and easily beat the cartel's fixed price of 49 cents per pound. Things were okay for a while until a German visitor came to Michigan and threatened Dow that he had to cease and desist. Dow didn't like being told what to do and told the cartel to get lost.

Shortly thereafter German bromine started appearing for sale in the US for 15 cents per pound, way below Dow's price. The cartel flooded the US market, offering the chemical way below their own costs, intending to drive Dow out of business. But Dow outsmarted them. He stopped selling in the US market entirely and instead arranged for someone to secretly start buying up all the German bromine he could get his hands on. Dow repackaged it as his own product, shipped it to Europe, and made it widely available (even in Germany) at 27 cents per pound. The Germans were wondering 1) why wasn't Dow out of business and 2) why was there suddenly such demand for bromine in the US??

The cartel lowered its price to 12 cents and then 10 cents. Dow just kept buying more and more, gaining huge market share in Europe. Finally the Germans caught on and had to lower their prices at home. Dow had broken the German chemical monopoly and expanded his business greatly. And customers got a wider range of places to buy bromine at lower prices.

Dow went on to do the same trick to the German dye and magnesium monopolies. This is now the textbook way to deal with predatory price cutting."

[The Bean Counter]

Wondered when this would turn up:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b081f48abaa055

[The Bean Counter]

Always enjoy reading about DOW. Reminds me a little bit of where I work (publisher). We have to be careful in making sure that sales agents aren't buying our products up in bulk in Europe and selling them direct to our US customers at a discount. Reason being that the USD list price to the U.S. market is always about 20% higher than the GBP*exchange rate price.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's no secret that identical textbooks are much cheaper in India and China than in the USA.

The same is true of software licenses. The top end 3D modeling softwares on the market go for thousands of dollars per license. International students frequently tell me they got their licenses 3 for $20.

I'm not really against a company selling for the price it can get, and that being regional. *shrug* Gas stations sell identical products all over the world and the prices change block to block. Granted, that's due to local taxes most often, but it's still the same product being sold at different prices in different places.

[wufwugy]

I can't really read this kind of stuff, I'll be honest. Like I've said before, if I was in a position of making the tough decisions, I'd have diverse and able advisors and I'd try to figure out how they think, but I work in an industry that is highly regulated - there are redundant national and international standards for safety and design which we must always address in specifications, design, testing, and implementation. They're a hassle, add huge costs, slow projects way down, but they're obviously needed to make sure that every design is forced to learn from the mistakes of past systems. So that no hot-shots can possibly under-bid, over-promise and put into the field anything that would actually endanger lives. (Note that hot-shots do under-bid and over-promise as a method to keep work coming in to maintain their design teams)

So when I hear people complain about rules and regulations forced upon them by some far-off authority, I think it might just be for a good reason. Like old taboos made new again.

The farther off the authority, the more centralized (beyond a point), the more monopolized, and the less dependent on free choice of producers and consumers -- the less efficient the regulations.

We're not against standards. We want the most efficient standards possible, the standards that provide the greatest benefit.

[wufwugy]

Why do you make these hyperbolic statements?
To me, when you say, "nobody's happy about it." There only needs to be a single counter-example of someone who is happy about it and you're wrong. The probability that there exists just one single person who believes or feels just about anything conceivable is pretty high.

It's a colloquialism. Perhaps it's not that common among academics, but the colloquialism is that when somebody says "none" or "all," he doesn't actually mean "none" or "all."

Take this for example: "all people like to laugh." This may be technically incorrect, but it's easy enough to infer what the person means.

Regardless, maybe I shouldn't have used that phrase. I didn't intend anybody to think I literally meant zero people are happy about it. It's just a way of speaking, even though that was not the best place for it.

[OngBonga]

mojo is more pedantic than I am, and that's saying something.

I was watching the football the other day, and the commentator said "their goalkeeper isn't the tallest in the world", to which I said to my friend "what a stupid phrase, only one goalkeeper is". I get the impression than watching footie with mojo would be even more tedious than with me.

[Savy]

mojo is more pedantic than I am, and that's saying something.

I was watching the football the other day, and the commentator said "their goalkeeper isn't the tallest in the world", to which I said to my friend "what a stupid phrase, only one goalkeeper is". I get the impression than watching footie with mojo would be even more tedious than with me.

My favourite hobby is asking people about their favourite mundane things and then shouting at them when they say they don't have a favourite.

[wufwugy]

Quality article on the euro: http://www.vox.com/2016/6/29/1205249...-euro-disaster

[Savy]

Not read the article you posted, if it answers my question just let me know to read it.

You say about how a single currency is bad because it's better if each country does what's best for them, at which point does this break down? Does this same rule apply to the USA? What is it that defines if two countries are similar or different enough from each other for a common currency to work?

[wufwugy]

A comment by Lars Christensen (a well-known economist in the blogosphere) in a Sumner post I'm reading:

This to me shows that this shock on its own is rather small. It is not good news, but it is not good news because monetary policy is not credible in the euro zone and the US.

In fact I think the risk of a US recession is substantial, but that is because the Fed has send the US into recession already before the Brexit shock. While I think there is little reason to fear recession in the UK in the near-term.

The EZ is a constant worry, but it is not the Brexit crisis on it own, which is to blame. It is the fact that the ECB has allowed inflation expectations to once again to be de-anchored.

[wufwugy]

Not read the article you posted, if it answers my question just let me know to read it.

You say about how a single currency is bad because it's better if each country does what's best for them, at which point does this break down? Does this same rule apply to the USA? What is it that defines if two countries are similar or different enough from each other for a common currency to work?

The article briefly addresses this only in part:

Economic theory says that shared currencies work best in areas that are economically and politically similar. In the United States, for example, we have a shared language, no restrictions on moving from one state to another to find work, and a shared identity as Americans.

We also have a federal government that is responsible for the bulk of government spending. This spending acts as a kind of economic shock absorber. If Texas is booming while Michigan is struggling economically, the federal government taxes rich Texans to provide unemployment, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits to people in Michigan (and everywhere else). That reduces the strains on the Michigan state budget, making it unlikely that Michigan will suffer the kind of fiscal crisis that has struck many European countries in recent years.

The most important considerations for what makes an optimum currency area are labor mobility, capital mobility and price/wage flexibility, fiscal transfer capacity, and business cycle similarity. The fiscal transfer thing is if the EU collected taxes from its members and could redistribute them to suffering regions. The EU does not have this. Labor mobility depends heavily on things like common language and common culture. Europe suffers with this. In the US, it's not a big deal to move from state to state looking for work, but in Europe it is actually a big deal to move from the UK to France or from Spain to Austria or whatever.

[!Luck]

Maybe, I'm just thinking through the negotiations and I expect the Brits to be forced into a game of brinksmanship with redlines and hard initial demands and I'm wondering what happens if the EU tries to win.

I'm more optimistic this will be positive or neutral at worst. No facts to support this assertion, maybe personal disposition or naivety.

Unless, of course, there are no more good leaders.

Buck up buttercup, there's always hope. I say that even as an american given our current "choices".

P.S. The market basically recovered, at least in the states.