3 ms·

> If the technocrats say "99% of the time immigration is great for the economy" and the people say "we don't want it, less immigration, please," what do you do

> If the technocrats say "99% of the time immigration is great for the economy" and the people say "we don't want it, less immigration, please," what do you do? Do less immigration where people feel it, invest into economic education of the general populace.

palmotea 9mo ago
>> If the technocrats say "99% of the time immigration is great for the economy" and the people say "we don't want it, less immigration, please," what do you do? > Do less immigration where people feel it, invest into economic education of the general populace. There can be a lot of legitimate disagreement about what the economy should look like or what's "great" for it. It's not just "GDP number go up." And isn't it undemocratic for a government to be "investing" into educating people to think about and prioritize issues in a certain way (e.g. according to certain economic ideologies, like a technocrat)? A democratic government is supposed to represent its people, not control them to make them "better" according to some official's opinion.
- mothballed 9mo ago
  You've pretty much nailed why almost all the highest immigration nations are monarchies. You basically need a ruler to tell the populace they are his bitch and they'll get the free market and open work visa immigration (UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain) whether they like it or not. It does work and made those countries much richer but basically it won't easily happen under democracies with paths to citizenship for immigrants and strong welfare. For both rational and irrational reasons.
  - palmotea 9mo ago
    > You've pretty much nailed why almost all the highest immigration nations are monarchies. You basically need a ruler to tell the populace they are his bitch and they'll get the free market and open work visa immigration (UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain) whether they like it or not. > It does work and made those countries much richer What, exactly, do you mean by "countries" and "richer"? The monarch is wealthier and more powerful? Some aggregate GDP number went up? More bank deposits? There are a lot of ways to make the few gain at the expense of the many, and depending on the statistics you look at, that may look like the country becoming richer. However, those kinds of scenarios are one of the things democracy is supposed to prevent.
    - mothballed 9mo ago
      In relatively free market (UAE is ranked pretty high in economic freedom), it should result in the many gaining at the gain of the many. Since people only enter a transaction if they are better off (some exceptions, but by and large). Of course the monarch can tilt the scales, although this is largely done in those countries to benefit the oil industry, which needs outside help and the profits of which are paid out as benefits to citizens. The monarch is probably the biggest winner, but that doesn't necessarily mean the citizens are net losers.
- 1718627440 9mo ago
  I was more thinking of raising the school budget and increasing the economic part of the curriculum, but for adults I think there is a difference between honest information and manipulative advertisements.

palmotea 9mo ago

>> If the technocrats say "99% of the time immigration is great for the economy" and the people say "we don't want it, less immigration, please," what do you do? > Do less immigration where people feel it, invest into economic education of the general populace. There can be a lot of legitimate disagreement about what the economy should look like or what's "great" for it. It's not just "GDP number go up." And isn't it undemocratic for a government to be "investing" into educating people to think about and prioritize issues in a certain way (e.g. according to certain economic ideologies, like a technocrat)? A democratic government is supposed to represent its people, not control them to make them "better" according to some official's opinion.

mothballed 9mo ago
You've pretty much nailed why almost all the highest immigration nations are monarchies. You basically need a ruler to tell the populace they are his bitch and they'll get the free market and open work visa immigration (UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain) whether they like it or not. It does work and made those countries much richer but basically it won't easily happen under democracies with paths to citizenship for immigrants and strong welfare. For both rational and irrational reasons.
- palmotea 9mo ago
  > You've pretty much nailed why almost all the highest immigration nations are monarchies. You basically need a ruler to tell the populace they are his bitch and they'll get the free market and open work visa immigration (UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain) whether they like it or not. > It does work and made those countries much richer What, exactly, do you mean by "countries" and "richer"? The monarch is wealthier and more powerful? Some aggregate GDP number went up? More bank deposits? There are a lot of ways to make the few gain at the expense of the many, and depending on the statistics you look at, that may look like the country becoming richer. However, those kinds of scenarios are one of the things democracy is supposed to prevent.
  - mothballed 9mo ago
    In relatively free market (UAE is ranked pretty high in economic freedom), it should result in the many gaining at the gain of the many. Since people only enter a transaction if they are better off (some exceptions, but by and large). Of course the monarch can tilt the scales, although this is largely done in those countries to benefit the oil industry, which needs outside help and the profits of which are paid out as benefits to citizens. The monarch is probably the biggest winner, but that doesn't necessarily mean the citizens are net losers.
1718627440 9mo ago
I was more thinking of raising the school budget and increasing the economic part of the curriculum, but for adults I think there is a difference between honest information and manipulative advertisements.