Anti-Socialist Political Earthquake In the (dis)United Kingdom

[ZoeTick]

If you want to make money in the IT business you shouldn't bother with a computing qualifications; become a lawyer.

(By the way, the best answer to "Have you ever met a poor lawyer" is that they are even more incompetent than that.)

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

irihapeti wrote:

governments are necessary

they are able to do stuff which no other organisation can

---

Odd, we seem to be having two different conversations.  (I'm a minarchist, and favor limited government.)

 

---

irihapeti wrote:

 

subsidies, ect.

---

No.   The US government doesn't need to subsidize agriculture.   I live in an agriculture state, and am surrounded by the reality.   

 

 

---

irihapeti wrote:

another massive distortion was the bailout of the automotive industry in the USA. From a purist capitalist market pov then it would have been better for those companies to go to the wall and the capital tied up in their resources, patents, etc released to go into more productive areas. Same the billions the State poured into them

But again is a national interest question this. How important is automotive science to the national interest over the longterm? Very important was the decision

---

The bailouts were wrong, and should never have happened.  Both Chrysler and GM should have folded.   It wasn't of national interest, that's a crock.  It was lining the pockets of business people, and padding the coffers of the politicians so they have money to fund their campaign.  It's called "cronyism" or "crony capitalism".   A terrible blight on society.

 

It doesn't matter that only the state can do these things.  The constant meddling by the gov (state) in these matters isn't needed

 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

Here's interesting data.   It's what people all over the world think about the future, wealth, the "gap", and their own opportunities.  What's telling is that in rich industrial nations (and yes, the UK is one of those) the people are gloomy and can't see the opportunities.  But, in emerging economies, the people can see opportunities.  

 

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/10/09/emerging-and-developing-economies-much-more-optimistic-than-rich-countries-about-the-future/

 

 

Here in the US we have immigrants that within

one generation

own businesses, have acquired wealth, and have children out performing the local's children in the schools.   Why do you think this happens?   It's because the immigrants see opportunity, and are willing to make sacrifices, that our native born US population can't see, and aren't willing to do.   This trend happens ALL over the US. 

 

Yes, even during

our

recession, this same trend was ongoing. 

 

Perhaps, those who believe the government fairy will provide, don't see the opportunities.  Maybe it's a personality thing.  

We live in the best of times!  With unprecedented opportunity to break away from the gatekeepers of old, with entrepreneurship possible for anyone with a web connection.  Kids are doing startups, people in rural African villages developing apps, etc.   But, if people see the world in the old way, that of "haves" and "have nots", and do not realize that they have the ability to control their own destiny, then they will be left behind.   It's that simple.

---

As your cited report explains, it's not surprising that "Emerging and Developing Economies See Brighter Future". Those economies are emerging and developing! Here's a bunch of world maps showing GDP growth throughout the duration of the Great Recession...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp_real_growth_rate_2007_CIA_Factbook.PNG

Unfortunately the folks who made the maps changed color keys along the way, so you can't just scan the sequence to see the trend, you'll have to open each map and see who's in recession and who's not at any point in time.

Here's the map from 2008, the middle of our recession...

In summary, the emerging/developing economies fared better than the US/UK/Europe throughout the recession, continuing through to now. You'd therefore expect them to have a better outlook. Our recession was their expansion.

Here's a plot of US median household income in the US over the last 30 years...

That graph doesn't go to the present. If it did, it would show that, unlike in the previous two recessions, income hasn't recovered (yet). It's not hard to see why there's doom and gloom here.

According to that report, "Americans place an especially strong emphasis on the value of hard work – 73% think it is very important to work hard in order to get ahead in life, compared with a global median of 50%." That doesn't jibe with the entitlement mentality that's claimed to be such a problem in the US.

The report also mentions the rising trend amongst the young in developing countries to think that they're better off staying home than going to other countries? That makes sense if your economy is doing well and the other ones aren't (or don't appear so in the news). And that reminds me of this...

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/03/19_foreign.shtml

And another curious item in the report... "People in developing and emerging markets (medians of 56%) are somewhat more likely to believe their fate is out of their hands than those in advanced economies (51%)."

You'd think people would have greater faith in futures they could control. We are all above average, aren't we? I've got to ponder this.

People everywhere think the income gap is a big problem, but the developing economies don't think taxing the gap shut is a good idea. That should make you smile!

[irihapeti]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

irihapeti wrote:

governments are necessary

they are able to do stuff which no other organisation can

---

Odd, we seem to be having two different conversations.  (I'm a minarchist, and favor limited government.)

 

---

irihapeti wrote:

 

subsidies, ect.

---

No.   The US government doesn't need to subsidize agriculture.   I live in an agriculture state, and am surrounded by the reality.   

 

 

---

irihapeti wrote:

another massive distortion was the bailout of the automotive industry in the USA. From a purist capitalist market pov then it would have been better for those companies to go to the wall and the capital tied up in their resources, patents, etc released to go into more productive areas. Same the billions the State poured into them

But again is a national interest question this. How important is automotive science to the national interest over the longterm? Very important was the decision

---

The bailouts were wrong, and should never have happened.  Both Chrysler and GM should have folded.   It wasn't of national interest, that's a crock.  It was lining the pockets of business people, and padding the coffers of the politicians so they have money to fund their campaign.  It's called "cronyism" or "crony capitalism".   A terrible blight on society.

 

It doesn't matter that only the state can do these things.  The constant meddling by the gov (state) in these matters isn't needed

  

---

when factories close then the practitioners of the science are lost. They go into other sciences or they move. To other countries even sometimes

if GM and Ford were to close then it has national implications

for starters: Who will develop and build engines and other automotive components for the armed forces?

USA would have two choices in this case

source its military automotive needs from other countries, or the military would build its own and not procure it from its domestic civilian providers. Not procure bc there now arent any with the capacity to do so reliably. In 20 or 20 years maybe from new startup but not immediately

is implications in this also for police, fire and ambulance services, civil defence, etc

is a wider implication also. Like for companies like Lockheed and Boeing. If the armed forces can and do build automotive then why not cut out the local civilians in these other sciences as well

+

for little countries like ours then sourcing science from elsewhere is a necessity. We dont have the capacity to make everything ourself. So we buy in what we cant make. It makes us dependent tho on and vulnerable to other nations

am not sure that the USA wishes to put itself in this position at this time

USA can but it would mean giving up the world leadership position it holds. Little countries like ours (of which there are many) would then look to other large countries (like China, Germany, France, Russia, etc) to take up that leadership. USA would still be strong of course, but ranked with countries, like Britain, Australia, Canada in the world leadership totemic sense

basically if the USA ever does decide to give up its world leadership position then it will take down all the anglo countries with it

+

there is a answer to how can the USA continue to maintain its leadership position while reducing its own costs. Not only financial but also in human costs

is a new foreign policy that the Obama Administration is following. Can look at Yemen to see what it is. The Saudis have been told to fight their own battles. And they are. Not only in Yemen but also in their battle with Iran. They are using war machines in Yemen. And oil production against Iran. Keep pumping oil to create a oversupply. Force the price down. Iran gets less money

is same foreign policy that USA have extended to all of Africa. France and Italy have been told. The North is your backyard. Sort it out

The key to peace in the Middle East fo the forseeable future is detente. The players are: Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The USA policy is build them all up to the same level. Detente is maintained by them all in this way

is the same detente that applies in Western Europe. Britain, France, Germany. Bc they cancel each other out then peace comes

+

USA is focusing on science. It works both foreign and domestic. Domestically more work and jobs. And no more USA young people dying in foreign lands fighting other peoples wars, and then getting spit on when they do

the price of those young americans not dying anymore is civilian companies like GM, Ford, Lockheed, Boeing, etc

+

you ask for small government. You actually are getting it

ps. You also want more free markets. You are getting them. TPP. With TPP then all the tariffs that USA impose on foodstuffs disappear. Then the US markets are fully exposed to the foodbowl nations. Good for your people bc lots and lots of cheap quality food. Not so good for them in the ag. business who dont have a infrastruture predicated on producing quality for minimal cost

[irihapeti]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

irihapeti wrote:

governments are necessary

they are able to do stuff which no other organisation can

---

Odd, we seem to be having two different conversations.  (I'm a minarchist, and favor limited government.)

 

---

irihapeti wrote:

 

subsidies, ect.

---

No.   The US government doesn't need to subsidize agriculture.   I live in an agriculture state, and am surrounded by the reality.   

 

 

---

---

i do this seperately

free trade between the USA and other nations

USA has historically practised a dual economic and security strategy. Those nations which enter into security arrangements with the USA get Favoured Nation Status economically. Basically a Free Trade Agreement. A reduction in import tariffs (or none in some cases) and also access to USA sciences not available to non-favoured nations

in our case (NZ) we dont have a FTA with USA. bc we said "No nukes" and the US Navy has not liked us ever since. US spy agencies and US Army love us (: bc we can and do stuff for them which is in our capacity to do so. US Airforce dont like us much either bc we didnt buy any strike aircraft. We dont have any strike air power at all now

the dilemna for the USA is how to seperate these dual strategy while still maintaining a world leadership position

the difficulty for USA is that when a nation doesnt get a FTA with USA then they take their products elsewhere. In our case Australia has always been our biggest market. The USA was always No. 2. In recent times USA has slipped to No. 3 behind China

We have a FTA with China. We would rather have with USA. But is not our call this. So we go where we must. bc market and all that

 

 

 

 

 

[Dillon Levenque]

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

 

 

in our case (NZ) we dont have a FTA with USA. bc we said "No nukes" and the US Navy has not liked us ever since.  

 

 

 

---

 

As I am both a US Navy brat AND a US Navy parent, you can imagine the incredible internal struggles I had to fight through to actually think kindly of a Kiwi like you ;-).

[ZoeTick]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

in our case (NZ) we dont have a FTA with USA. bc we said "No nukes" and the US Navy has not liked us ever since.  

---

As I am both a US Navy brat AND a US Navy parent, you can imagine the incredible internal struggles I had to fight through to actually think kindly of a Kiwi like you ;-).

---

Does anybody really like the kiwis?

Apart from the inhabitants of mid-Pacific guano atolls who want somewhere to relocate to when their miniature island kingdoms eventually sink beneath the waves.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

That graph doesn't go to the present. If it did, it would show that, unlike in the previous two recessions, income hasn't recovered (yet). It's not hard to see why there's doom and gloom here.

According to that report, "Americans place an especially strong emphasis on the value of hard work – 73% think it is very important to work hard in order to get ahead in life, compared with a global median of 50%." That doesn't jibe with the entitlement mentality that's claimed to be such a problem in the US.

---

Yes, the recovery's been hard in some areas.    As to the work ethic VS entitlement, I suspect it's due to the difference in how people may respond to a survey VS how they see their own life.  Overall, people know that hard work gets people ahead.   But, on an individual basis, many people will (rather loudly) request entitlements.   Human nature, I think, for some to try and get what they think they can.

 

 

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

The report also mentions the rising trend amongst the young in developing countries to think that they're better off staying home than going to other countries? That makes sense if your economy is doing well and the other ones aren't (or don't appear so in the news). And that reminds me of this...

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/03/19_foreign.shtml

---

Yes, exactly.  As the tech revolution expands, opportunities in rising economies will make it so there's less incentive to come to places like the US.   Add to that how we're over regulated, and the US has placed it self into the position of having less regulated economies be better places for entrepreneurs.   (add our recession to the mix, and yeah, home is looking better )

 

But, in the long run, it's good for the global economy.  Here in the US, I've been telling people, "You're no longer competing for a job with the guy down the street, you're competing for a job with a million other people, who will work for less then you"    Bad temporarily for the US, (and other western nations, as we're used to having a cush life, and buying cheap foreign goods) but, good for poor and rising nations, as they will partake of exchange, capitalism, and rise up out of poverty.  (real poverty, not our affluent western world view) 

 

 

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

And another curious item in the report... "People in developing and emerging markets (medians of 56%) are somewhat more likely to believe their fate is out of their hands than those in advanced economies (51%)."

You'd think people would have greater faith in futures they could control. We are all above average, aren't we? I've got to ponder this.

People everywhere think the income gap is a big problem, but the developing economies don't think taxing the gap shut is a good idea. That should make you smile!

---

It may be cultural.  Historic knowledge of their own culture.  Many of the emerging markets are in places where historically there wasn't much freedom, so less likely to see that one can control own destiny.  

 

I think that in developing countries the changes are happening so fast, that people can see their relatives, neighbors, and friends gaining monetarily, much better than those of us in affluent countries.  The contrast is greater.  Thus, the realization that it can happen is stronger.  So, if one views the possibility of gaining monetarily as a viable prospect, then no, taxing to close the gap isn't going to be supported. 

[Kelli May]

---

ZoeTick wrote:

Does anybody really like the kiwis?

Apart from the inhabitants of mid-Pacific guano atolls who want somewhere to relocate to when their miniature island kingdoms eventually sink beneath the waves.

---

Rommel?

"If I had to take hell, I would use the Australians to take it and the New Zealanders to hold it."

Although I'm still not sure if he was admiring their tenacity or he wanted them all to go to hell.

[irihapeti]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

 

 

in our case (NZ) we dont have a FTA with USA. bc we said "No nukes" and the US Navy has not liked us ever since.  

 

 

 

---

 

As I am both a US Navy brat AND a US Navy parent, you can imagine the incredible internal struggles I had to fight through to actually think kindly of a Kiwi like you ;-).

---

(:

+

true story. ish (:

in 2012 we got invited to RIMPAC after 25 years of not being invited

so off we went in our one brave little frigate. And unlike everybody else including the Russians who got to park up in Pearl Harbour naval base, we got sent to the Honolulu Container Terminal, bc we are the mortal enemy of the US Navy for one quarter of a century

anyways a few days later about 200 ships and about 40,000 people in the mighty navies of the world set sail to hunt down the enemy. For some heaps of days and zillions of dollars costs

as was suggested at the time. The Admiral of the Fleet could of just got in a taxi and come over to the container port. We would of surrendered straight way and everybody could of then just gone to the pub for some beers

(:

[irihapeti]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

In summary, the emerging/developing economies fared better than the US/UK/Europe throughout the recession, continuing through to now. You'd therefore expect them to have a better outlook. Our recession was their expansion.

---

i just pick up on this part

i think this Pew poll pretty much follow the standard curve that similar polls do

meaning that a persons view of their future is largely influenced by their own current situation

for example: when asked about their childrens future being better than their own then people in countries currently experiencing a downturn are more pessimistic. Those experiencing a upturn are more optimistic

+

the data referred to by Pew is here: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/01/pdf/tblparta.pdf

the most interesting is Table A16. Summary of World Medium-Term Baseline Scenario (the last table)

it shows that the emerging/developing economies outperformed the advanced by pretty much double in every area over the last decade. So people in emerging countries are more optimistic, and that what they have experienced up until now will continue

whats not factored in to all these kinda surveys is the poll respondents (of all economies) supposition that the advanced economies will continue to falter

+

the worrying thing for the emerging/developing nations is the Terms of Trade (in the IMF table). Is now going against the emerge/dev countries as the advanced countries come out of the recession.The IMF 10 year projection to 2019 for emerge/dev that the ToT will be negative for them. A complete reversal of the last decade

the difficulty will be that they will have to go into debt to fund the shortfall between export earnings and import costs if they do want to sustain their current standard of living achieved so far. Or reduce their living standards to avoid debt

or increase exports. However that depends on who if anyone will buy their increased production

 

[irihapeti]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

 

But, in the long run, it's good for the global economy.  Here in the US, I've been telling people, "You're no longer competing for a job with the guy down the street, you're competing for a job with a million other people, who will work for less then you"    Bad temporarily for the US, (and other western nations, as we're used to having a cush life, and buying cheap foreign goods) but, good for poor and rising nations, as they will partake of exchange, capitalism, and rise up out of poverty.  (real poverty, not our affluent western world view) 

---

---

 

just on this

am not sure that it will be temporary. I think it will be permanent

the bottom of the emerging countries has been coming up for sure, as has the bottom of the advanced countries. When look at at it over a long term. say 100 or more years

is also the factor that the middle is going down relative to the top. At some point in 100 or more years they will narrow to some small band, small relative to the band between bottom and middle of 100 years ago

one aspect of free markets and capitalism is the sink effect that the top has. The top takes wealth out of circulation. Mostly bc the top runs out of things to buy. So they just sit on the bulk of their money. sink it

I think that where the band settles at will be lower than what the peoples of the advanced economies experience today. The peoples in the emerge/dev economies in 100 years from now will be way better off tho than they were 100 years ago