4 ms·

https://archive.is/tpdTR https://archive.is/tpdTR The bull case for the UK is that they have an educated, English-speaking workforce and a stable legal system

https://archive.is/tpdTR https://archive.is/tpdTR The bull case for the UK is that they have an educated, English-speaking workforce and a stable legal system for protecting property rights. As they become poorer and poorer, you will be able to hire their talent cheaply as their standard of living further erodes. Otherwise, I really don't see a lot of growth possibilities on the horizon. It is crab-mentality of taxing their richest citizens and companies ever more, but the juice is running out of that orange. So fundamental reform will eventually occur, over the shrieks and howls of the left. Reform UK is highly likely to win the next election. This isn't to say they will actually solve anything, but the pivot to the extreme right after a huge win for the left is a symptom of larger societal problems and widespread hand-wringing.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Urahandystar 1y ago
Funny thing is UK companies are offshoring like crazy right now. So hirely talent cheaply is out making things look terminal.
foldr 1y ago
The UK has a lot of problems, but taxing the rich too much isn’t one of them. This is a shallow analysis. If I had to pick one obvious economic problem with the UK it would be the vast economic disparity between London and most of the rest of the country and the unwillingness of successive governments to invest any significant amount of money in tackling it. There is no cheap solution. Cutting taxes on the rich won’t magically grow the economy. That requires actual investment. However, as Liz Truss showed while trying to do something different, it’s very hard for the government to invest when any increase in borrowing leads to panic and a crash in the markets.
- qcnguy 1y ago
  The Truss event was due to crap regulation and bad moves by the BoE. The UK bond yield is now higher than it was during the Truss spike which according to Labour "crashed the economy". Actual cause of the problem was a 2008-style blowup in pension related securities.
  - jurking_hoff 1y ago
    [dead]
    - qcnguy 1y ago
      I don't have a recommend read but a quick search showed this: https://www.pensions-expert.com/investment/ldi-and-the-liz-truss-mini-budget-one-year-on-what-if-anything-has-changed/65188.article https://www.pensions-expert.com/investment/ldi-and-the-liz-t...
  - foldr 1y ago
    Fundamentally it was due to Liz Truss ignoring all the experts who told her exactly what was going to happen. However, I think the episode illustrates how economic policy can be overly constrained by the short term reactions of markets. Though I think Liz Truss's economic policy was stupid, she was PM and should have been able to execute it. It's good that the policy was reversed, but this happened for the wrong (undemocratic) reasons.
  - exasperaited 1y ago
    This is flatly false. The Truss/Kwarteng event was plainly and simply that radically uncosted policies put forward by two fucking idiots terrified the market. But keep talking like this and maybe they will join Reform so you can try them out again.
    - qcnguy 1y ago
      And yet Labour have blown through all the spending and borrowing levels they proposed without "terrifying the market"? No, go read up on it. There was a chain reaction in the pensions market caused by over-leverage. Similar issue to 2008. Truss wasn't aware of it. Now that doesn't excuse over-spending. Of course she should have been cutting costs rather than just lowering taxes. But apparently there aren't any British political parties willing to lower costs. Eventually the IMF will have to force the issue.
      - 1y ago
OgsyedIE 1y ago
The bull case, given the US betrayal* of the notion of an order that includes Europe, is that the UK establishment will figure out their way to leverage their middle position between Europe and the US to act as a middleman for the U.S. looting the vast quantity of unsecured wealth in Europe and find a way to do this profitably enough to account for their uncompetitive resource import costs without giving cause for the U.S. to cut out the middleman. Like Hong Kong was for China in the 20th century, but with more extraction. Taxes are a red herring. The workforce and legible but only occasionally officially perverted legal system are valuable, sure, but it's the 2020s. Plenty of places can offer that. As for the pivot to the right, it's a net gain for all UK citizens who don't outwardly present as a minority or can hide it, since they can suck up to one of the few big petroleum and food exporters at a discount. . * footnote: It should go without saying, but Trumpism is just an expression of pre-existing vast sociocultural forces.
exasperaited 1y ago
> Reform UK is highly likely to win the next election. No it is not highly likely at all. People who say this simply do not understand the depth of the structural challenge involved in getting from four MPs to 326 (or 325 or so if you delete the odd non-active MP). Even if they get close but no cigar and secure a coalition it would be with the Conservatives, whose failures will not be forgotten soon. I think it is wholly possible, alas, that Reform will see a hundred or so MPs and be the official opposition. But it should not be overstated that the Liberal Democrats will sooner offer to be in a coalition with Labour, and the country tolerate that again from them, than allow Reform the chance to undo Labour's work. And that is before you consider that, ahem, the shine is off Reform's chums in the USA already and that situation is not going to get better soon. Reform would need a massive amount of money -- Musk money and sketchy crypto money, basically -- to get anywhere, and Trump's orange thumb on the scale with US social media firms. And we don't like that stuff. I cannot stress enough how badly that kind of intervention would go for them. There are not many people in the UK who would say that Starmer's win was a "huge win for the left". Especially Labour voters. The "left" doesn't have much to do with it. Centrism, sanity, and the hope for an end to grift and stupidity and cruelty do. The failings of the right -- of idiots like Liz Truss and Brexit -- have more. Reform fielded a candidate in essentially every constituency in 2024 and got five elected. One of them is sitting as an independent already because he's under investigation for corruption. Yes, Reform got a huge swing in the local (council) elections, and some people think that is predictive. But historically it's nowhere near as predictive as Reform voters would like.
- qcnguy 1y ago
  You might be behind the times. Current polls show Reform gaining a huge majority and the Conservatives dropping to a few dozen seats if an election were held tomorrow. Labour would also be slaughtered.
  - exasperaited 1y ago
    This is predicated on something the polls do not and cannot convey: the selection of electable candidates. This is imaginary. Reform fielded candidates in essentially every constituency in 2024 and only five of them were elected. One is already sitting as an independent because he’s being investigated for pretty serious fraud and the party will not stand by him. Again: the polls do not and cannot reflect just how difficult it would be to get from four MPs to 326.
HPsquared 1y ago
The Left didn't really "win big" in 2024; Starmer's Labour got fewer votes than Corbyn's 2017 bid. Labour swept parliament purely due to the Right splitting between Tory and Reform, and the spoiler effect of FPTP.
- qcnguy 1y ago
  The right didn't split. Reform hardly existed at that point because the Tories called a snap election with nearly no notice specifically to stop Farage organizing in time. What happened is simply that conservative voters stayed home. Massive vote abstention.
  - HPsquared 1y ago
    Thought I'd check, seems the right wing lost about 25% of their votes (though from a high starting point) and the left wing stayed about the same (gained 5% if you count the Greens). Votes for each party, change 2019-2024 (based on aggregate vote counts from Wikipedia): - Labour lost 0.5M votes (2024: 9.7M) - Conservatives lost 7.1M votes (2024: 6.8M) - Reform (new party) gained 4.1M votes (2024: 4.1M) - LibDems lost 0.2M votes (2024: 3.5M) - Greens gained 1.0M votes (2024: 1.8M) - SNP lost 500k votes (2024: 0.7M) I suppose anyone counting Reform on the right should also count Green on the left, so the "left group" (Labour+Green) got more votes than the "right group" (Tory+Reform). The split vote is what caused the massive change in parliament though, a proportional result would be about even left/right with LibDem as kingmakers. Tis a silly place.
oblique 1y ago
Labour is no longer a leftist party, it is better described a corporatist party. When capitalism is in decay like it is now, a corporatist (liberal, right, whatever) party won't push back against exploitative companies. The people notice the ineffectiveness of the incumbents and vote for whatever the 2nd most popular party is. We'll see if "Your Party" can break the cycle
- n4r9 1y ago
  Agreed. I lean left on the UK spectrum and it was the first time I voted other than Labour in a GE. The walk-back on stuff like tuition fees and childcare was untenable, as was ordering MPs to stay away from picket lines. The nightmare continued with winter fuel payments, welfare "reforms" and a lack of leadership over small boats (which are not a pressing matter despite the frenzy being whipped up by Reform).

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Urahandystar 1y ago

Funny thing is UK companies are offshoring like crazy right now. So hirely talent cheaply is out making things look terminal.

foldr 1y ago

The UK has a lot of problems, but taxing the rich too much isn’t one of them. This is a shallow analysis. If I had to pick one obvious economic problem with the UK it would be the vast economic disparity between London and most of the rest of the country and the unwillingness of successive governments to invest any significant amount of money in tackling it. There is no cheap solution. Cutting taxes on the rich won’t magically grow the economy. That requires actual investment. However, as Liz Truss showed while trying to do something different, it’s very hard for the government to invest when any increase in borrowing leads to panic and a crash in the markets.

qcnguy 1y ago
The Truss event was due to crap regulation and bad moves by the BoE. The UK bond yield is now higher than it was during the Truss spike which according to Labour "crashed the economy". Actual cause of the problem was a 2008-style blowup in pension related securities.
- jurking_hoff 1y ago
  [dead]
  - qcnguy 1y ago
    I don't have a recommend read but a quick search showed this: https://www.pensions-expert.com/investment/ldi-and-the-liz-truss-mini-budget-one-year-on-what-if-anything-has-changed/65188.article https://www.pensions-expert.com/investment/ldi-and-the-liz-t...
- foldr 1y ago
  Fundamentally it was due to Liz Truss ignoring all the experts who told her exactly what was going to happen. However, I think the episode illustrates how economic policy can be overly constrained by the short term reactions of markets. Though I think Liz Truss's economic policy was stupid, she was PM and should have been able to execute it. It's good that the policy was reversed, but this happened for the wrong (undemocratic) reasons.
- exasperaited 1y ago
  This is flatly false. The Truss/Kwarteng event was plainly and simply that radically uncosted policies put forward by two fucking idiots terrified the market. But keep talking like this and maybe they will join Reform so you can try them out again.
  - qcnguy 1y ago
    And yet Labour have blown through all the spending and borrowing levels they proposed without "terrifying the market"? No, go read up on it. There was a chain reaction in the pensions market caused by over-leverage. Similar issue to 2008. Truss wasn't aware of it. Now that doesn't excuse over-spending. Of course she should have been cutting costs rather than just lowering taxes. But apparently there aren't any British political parties willing to lower costs. Eventually the IMF will have to force the issue.
    - 1y ago

OgsyedIE 1y ago

The bull case, given the US betrayal* of the notion of an order that includes Europe, is that the UK establishment will figure out their way to leverage their middle position between Europe and the US to act as a middleman for the U.S. looting the vast quantity of unsecured wealth in Europe and find a way to do this profitably enough to account for their uncompetitive resource import costs without giving cause for the U.S. to cut out the middleman. Like Hong Kong was for China in the 20th century, but with more extraction. Taxes are a red herring. The workforce and legible but only occasionally officially perverted legal system are valuable, sure, but it's the 2020s. Plenty of places can offer that. As for the pivot to the right, it's a net gain for all UK citizens who don't outwardly present as a minority or can hide it, since they can suck up to one of the few big petroleum and food exporters at a discount. . * footnote: It should go without saying, but Trumpism is just an expression of pre-existing vast sociocultural forces.

exasperaited 1y ago

> Reform UK is highly likely to win the next election. No it is not highly likely at all. People who say this simply do not understand the depth of the structural challenge involved in getting from four MPs to 326 (or 325 or so if you delete the odd non-active MP). Even if they get close but no cigar and secure a coalition it would be with the Conservatives, whose failures will not be forgotten soon. I think it is wholly possible, alas, that Reform will see a hundred or so MPs and be the official opposition. But it should not be overstated that the Liberal Democrats will sooner offer to be in a coalition with Labour, and the country tolerate that again from them, than allow Reform the chance to undo Labour's work. And that is before you consider that, ahem, the shine is off Reform's chums in the USA already and that situation is not going to get better soon. Reform would need a massive amount of money -- Musk money and sketchy crypto money, basically -- to get anywhere, and Trump's orange thumb on the scale with US social media firms. And we don't like that stuff. I cannot stress enough how badly that kind of intervention would go for them. There are not many people in the UK who would say that Starmer's win was a "huge win for the left". Especially Labour voters. The "left" doesn't have much to do with it. Centrism, sanity, and the hope for an end to grift and stupidity and cruelty do. The failings of the right -- of idiots like Liz Truss and Brexit -- have more. Reform fielded a candidate in essentially every constituency in 2024 and got five elected. One of them is sitting as an independent already because he's under investigation for corruption. Yes, Reform got a huge swing in the local (council) elections, and some people think that is predictive. But historically it's nowhere near as predictive as Reform voters would like.

qcnguy 1y ago
You might be behind the times. Current polls show Reform gaining a huge majority and the Conservatives dropping to a few dozen seats if an election were held tomorrow. Labour would also be slaughtered.
- exasperaited 1y ago
  This is predicated on something the polls do not and cannot convey: the selection of electable candidates. This is imaginary. Reform fielded candidates in essentially every constituency in 2024 and only five of them were elected. One is already sitting as an independent because he’s being investigated for pretty serious fraud and the party will not stand by him. Again: the polls do not and cannot reflect just how difficult it would be to get from four MPs to 326.

HPsquared 1y ago

The Left didn't really "win big" in 2024; Starmer's Labour got fewer votes than Corbyn's 2017 bid. Labour swept parliament purely due to the Right splitting between Tory and Reform, and the spoiler effect of FPTP.

qcnguy 1y ago
The right didn't split. Reform hardly existed at that point because the Tories called a snap election with nearly no notice specifically to stop Farage organizing in time. What happened is simply that conservative voters stayed home. Massive vote abstention.
- HPsquared 1y ago
  Thought I'd check, seems the right wing lost about 25% of their votes (though from a high starting point) and the left wing stayed about the same (gained 5% if you count the Greens). Votes for each party, change 2019-2024 (based on aggregate vote counts from Wikipedia): - Labour lost 0.5M votes (2024: 9.7M) - Conservatives lost 7.1M votes (2024: 6.8M) - Reform (new party) gained 4.1M votes (2024: 4.1M) - LibDems lost 0.2M votes (2024: 3.5M) - Greens gained 1.0M votes (2024: 1.8M) - SNP lost 500k votes (2024: 0.7M) I suppose anyone counting Reform on the right should also count Green on the left, so the "left group" (Labour+Green) got more votes than the "right group" (Tory+Reform). The split vote is what caused the massive change in parliament though, a proportional result would be about even left/right with LibDem as kingmakers. Tis a silly place.

oblique 1y ago

Labour is no longer a leftist party, it is better described a corporatist party. When capitalism is in decay like it is now, a corporatist (liberal, right, whatever) party won't push back against exploitative companies. The people notice the ineffectiveness of the incumbents and vote for whatever the 2nd most popular party is. We'll see if "Your Party" can break the cycle

n4r9 1y ago
Agreed. I lean left on the UK spectrum and it was the first time I voted other than Labour in a GE. The walk-back on stuff like tuition fees and childcare was untenable, as was ordering MPs to stay away from picket lines. The nightmare continued with winter fuel payments, welfare "reforms" and a lack of leadership over small boats (which are not a pressing matter despite the frenzy being whipped up by Reform).