6 ms·

> or the class of ruling individuals who know exactly what they're doing and are set to profit immensely. I'm really not sure about that. I agree that may be t

> or the class of ruling individuals who know exactly what they're doing and are set to profit immensely. I'm really not sure about that. I agree that may be the case with some of those ruling individuals. My impression is that Johnson doesn't believe in anything, except his personal interest and profit. Others in that cabinet, however, really appear to be true believers.

cassianoleal 6y ago
> Johnson doesn't believe in anything, except his personal interest and profit. > Others in that cabinet, however, really appear to be true believers. My impression is that they all have those same beliefs - their personal interest and profit.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  Which is silly (silly on Bojo's part, I mean) to set the country on a path to economic decline and cultural irrelevance because why be a king of an impoverished country instead of being a citizen in an advanced economy? (Clarification: I'm exaggerating for rhetorical effect. The UK won't become impoverished or really stop being an advanced-economy, but it's still going to be far poorer (in a total GDP and PPP sense) than it would be had this whole Brexit business never happened.
  - WanderPanda 6y ago
    Why is everyone so sure about your last paragraph? You could say the same for the EU block and even have more historical evidence of supranations falling apart.
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      > have more historical evidence of supranations falling apart Debatable. But even if the EU was - or was not - a tightly integrated federated state, I'm far more concerned about the UK withdrawing itself from the world's largest free trade bloc. I see it heading towards either economic protectionism (bad in the long-term) or getting into a race-to-the-bottom (potentially even worse).
      - gobsmacked 6y ago
        > either economic protectionism (bad in the long-term) or getting into a race-to-the-bottom (potentially even worse) That's a strange thing to say. Globalisation is usually criticized as a race to the bottom. The opposite of that is protectionism, which you say is bad. So which one are you in favour of?
        DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
        Globalisation allows local economies to specialise and reduce economic waste (e.g. what if every country had its own car factories?) I appreciate that globalisation will lead to localised races-to-the-bottom in the near-term, but in the long-term everyone benefits. Protectionism (for the sake of securing jobs) feels good in the short-term but very few mainstream economists will advocate for it absent other concerns (e.g. safety standards, cultural imports, national security, and human-rights concerns). Take the UK for example: at the time of its accession to the EU it had a sizeable manufacturing and mining economy. Globalisation directly led to those factories and mines closing, but being in the EU meant the UK could specialise in emerging sectors and immediately export to the rest of the EU for free (e.g. service-sector, information economy, banking, finance, media, etc). Globalisation and economic-interdependence is also the main driver for world-peace. I’d rather be unemployed because someone in France does my job but cheaper than be fighting in a war against France for some sense of “national pride”. Globalisation needs a friendlier face, yes. And we need better ways of managing the local negative effects, like better unemployment income for plant closures - but I don’t believe the sentimental negatives in any way outweigh the long-term benefits.
rich_sasha 6y ago
My impression with politics is that after years of doing it, politicians easily confuse ideas being popular and 'worth supporting'. A bit like a supercritical fluid, where transition between liquid and gas occurs spontaneously.

cassianoleal 6y ago

> Johnson doesn't believe in anything, except his personal interest and profit. > Others in that cabinet, however, really appear to be true believers. My impression is that they all have those same beliefs - their personal interest and profit.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
Which is silly (silly on Bojo's part, I mean) to set the country on a path to economic decline and cultural irrelevance because why be a king of an impoverished country instead of being a citizen in an advanced economy? (Clarification: I'm exaggerating for rhetorical effect. The UK won't become impoverished or really stop being an advanced-economy, but it's still going to be far poorer (in a total GDP and PPP sense) than it would be had this whole Brexit business never happened.
- WanderPanda 6y ago
  Why is everyone so sure about your last paragraph? You could say the same for the EU block and even have more historical evidence of supranations falling apart.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    > have more historical evidence of supranations falling apart Debatable. But even if the EU was - or was not - a tightly integrated federated state, I'm far more concerned about the UK withdrawing itself from the world's largest free trade bloc. I see it heading towards either economic protectionism (bad in the long-term) or getting into a race-to-the-bottom (potentially even worse).
    - gobsmacked 6y ago
      > either economic protectionism (bad in the long-term) or getting into a race-to-the-bottom (potentially even worse) That's a strange thing to say. Globalisation is usually criticized as a race to the bottom. The opposite of that is protectionism, which you say is bad. So which one are you in favour of?
      - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
        Globalisation allows local economies to specialise and reduce economic waste (e.g. what if every country had its own car factories?) I appreciate that globalisation will lead to localised races-to-the-bottom in the near-term, but in the long-term everyone benefits. Protectionism (for the sake of securing jobs) feels good in the short-term but very few mainstream economists will advocate for it absent other concerns (e.g. safety standards, cultural imports, national security, and human-rights concerns). Take the UK for example: at the time of its accession to the EU it had a sizeable manufacturing and mining economy. Globalisation directly led to those factories and mines closing, but being in the EU meant the UK could specialise in emerging sectors and immediately export to the rest of the EU for free (e.g. service-sector, information economy, banking, finance, media, etc). Globalisation and economic-interdependence is also the main driver for world-peace. I’d rather be unemployed because someone in France does my job but cheaper than be fighting in a war against France for some sense of “national pride”. Globalisation needs a friendlier face, yes. And we need better ways of managing the local negative effects, like better unemployment income for plant closures - but I don’t believe the sentimental negatives in any way outweigh the long-term benefits.

rich_sasha 6y ago

My impression with politics is that after years of doing it, politicians easily confuse ideas being popular and 'worth supporting'. A bit like a supercritical fluid, where transition between liquid and gas occurs spontaneously.