all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 15 points 9 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago (12 children)
  • [+] -12 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    Retarded Brexit comment of the week 🎖️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    GDP per capita doesn't contradict the statements of the sources I posted above since it's a mean of economic activity and therefore, it does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about winners and losers among social groups after Brexit. Also interesting you chose 'fixed 2015 US $' when this was an all-time-high exchange rate (US $ - £) compared to the one in your selected time frame.

    https://www.cer.eu/insights/brexit-four-years-answers-two-trade-paradoxes

    https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/lessons-from-brexit-on-the-effects-of-trade-disintegration-20260116.html

    https://academic.oup.com/oxrep/article/38/1/82/6514758?login=false

    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/slowing-economic-growth-brexit-and-the-productivity-challenge/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (7 children)

    I didn't choose the measure, the OBR did.

    Normalising in dollars is normal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Yes it's normal and usually makes sense. In this particular case, however, it distorts the data basis, as the UK GDP is valued higher than the two eurozone countries due to the very high reference exchange rate.

    And I said 'you' because you could have chosen other normalizations as well... yielding a different picture.

    For example you could normalize by annual % growth of GDP.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2024&locations=GB-DE-FR&start=2007

    (Side note: Thanks for the source, this database is amazing!)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Unfortunately that's the only date the source provides on a constant dollar basis.

    Using today's dollar shows the same thing, the UK is not performing any worse than its near peers.

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=GB-FR-DE&start=2016

    To be clear, I'm not suggesting Brexit has been an economic success, it wasn't an economic decision, it was a political one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (4 children)

    Makes sense. If nothing else is available, we have to work with what we have.

    And thank you for the clarification. To clarify my point: I am not saying that Brexit was an absolute economic disaster... but that some wealthy Brexit supporters benefited disproportionately compared to the average citizen and therefore pushed forward the populist campaign that ultimately led to the exit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah, the bets were in on the £ already as it was way overvalued.

    The seeds of Brexit were sown when we didn't get a referendum on Maastricht. That changed the game considerably and even further with Nice and Lisbon. It meant that regulating with common law would be replaced with Roman civil law, which is much more prescriptive and is unable to be changed by precedent.

    I'm just in favour of decentralisation, every time power has been centralised in Europe it has ended badly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (2 children)

    I’m just in favour of decentralisation, every time power has been centralised in Europe it has ended badly.

    I want to express my thoughts on this point. I believe that two things are true at the same time:

    1. Cooperation beats competition since competition wastes resources by hindering each other when those could have been better invested in reaching the shared goal.
    2. Representative systems get less efficient and more prone to corruption the bigger they get.

    Concerning European this imho boils down to two contrary tendencies: The bigger the EU and its bureaucracy gets the less efficient it works while at the same time the efficiency of the EU economy is increasing through ever deeper cooperation and standardization.

    Following this line of thought, the question of whether the EU benefits or harms its citizens is largely decided by the ratio of additional costs due to bureaucracy to benefits due to cooperation. Since the advantages of cooperation, especially within the single market, are immense (and are becoming increasingly important in a world where the major powers are increasingly hostile to European states), I tend to view the EU positively, even if centralized administration can create new problems. After all, what would be the alternative? European nation states have worked against each other and waged war for centuries. Now that the European colonial empires have collapsed and lost a great deal of influence, I find it highly questionable that this model would be promising in today's world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    I think competitive advantage is better than comparative in areas of innovation. The EU's precautionary principle is safe, but timid. Roman civil law is restrictive and slow to adapt because judges cannot set precedent at lower levels and must apply the law as it is written.

    The trend in the UK is of devolving power to the nations. I'm not sure how far that could go. Will we see a return to regions like Wessex and Mercia? We only have representative democracy as a hangover of having to choose someone to travel to London on a horse. We have the technology now to communicate at light speed, and will soon have enough compute power to make the civil service 90% smaller.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-devolution-bill-brings-new-dawn-of-regional-power

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Sorry to revisit this so lately!

    Yes, competition is better for innovation than cooperation... hence why mono/oligopols like google, meta etc. are harmful for innovation even though those companies are undeniably very innovative. Outside of economic I still prefer lame, boring cooperation as it costs societies, and in the last resort people, less money and lives in the long run which tend to be otherwise wasted in for example competitive wars.

    This devolving of power to smaller forms of organization is, in general, a good idea. However it may rapidly become a disadvantage as political and economical power are dwarfed by bigger organizational forms like national states (let alone billion people collectives like China and India). Those powers can, in the competitive scenario which is still the norm, strong arm small nations (like Wessex or Mercia) into unfavorable conditions for them.

    Final note to your last paragraph: My ideal would be a direct democracy, leaving out any potentially corrupt representative. I honestly believe this is within reach due to the communicative advances you mentioned.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 9 months ago

    Luckily, the focus is on the important things. The government doesn't have the resources to help the people who can't afford to eat, when there are such problems still around as kids using social media.

    Somehow food and shelter doesn't seem to make it into the "protect the kids" bills they push..

    /s, just in case

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    How about the job centre not being so shit and actually help rather than hinder people getting jobs? If these people had full time jobs they wouldn't be in poverty.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    This is a UK community, the article lists poverty at £14k, minimum wage here for full time work is about £25k. In the UK you cannot be in poverty and full time work. Minimum wage here is one of the best on the planet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    And how many "minimum wage" jobs nowadays are actually full time?

    Most of them that I see advertised are pro-rata advertised. Under houred or zero contract. But of course if you take two jobs you'll eventually end up with rota clashes and lose one of those jobs. So good luck there.

  • source
  • parent
  • 10 comments in c/world@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 26 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I'll put this thought out here for anyone saying "they voted for Brexit".

    Given the age divide on that vote, most folks who voted for it are enjoying retirement, or are just plain dead.

    Brexit is a root cause, however simple corporate greed and mismanagement are also a huge factor of the UK's dysfunction. Keep in mind, most of our large companies are owned by the US or countries in Europe (so the profits vanish overseas); a lot of our housing acts as an investment for the wealthy of other nations (driving the cost of living crisis); we've also got the "north/south" divide, where all the wealth and investment stats in and around London.

    We're also exiting over a decade under a party who see poverty as a moral failing, and voted in a party that lacks the balls to make the changes needed to begin reversing these issues.

    So, all things said, there's a lot more at play than just the act of national self harm that was Brexit.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    Yeah, the malaise vastly predates Brexit and goes all the way back to Thatcher's policies, such as the selling of public housing and policies to make it harder for councils to build more, privatisation of a lot of public services especially natural monopolies such as water supply and rail, deregulating Finance and betting on it for growth in Britain, Press deregulation and concentration, and so on.

    Then neoliberal governments of both the Tory and New Labor persuasion just kept and even doubled down on such policies (who can forget Thatcher's "greatest achievement", Tony Blair).

    Then the 2008 Crash hit the UK hard thanks to the deregulation of Finance and excessive size of it as part of the British Economy (17% of it at the time of the Crash, if I remember it correctly) with some extra fueling from a housing bubble that had been inflated since Thatcher's days (which now is even worse).

    Then the way that was handled was to save Asset Owners and make workers pay for it, exploding inequality (if I remember it correctly even already in 2015 real incomes for the bottom 90% if the population were falling at around 1% per year, whilst for the top 10% of the population they went up 23%) and hence poverty.

    Meawhile paid up politicians, Press (remember Thatcher's deregulation of the Press) and Think Tanks spread far-right ideas such as ultra-nationalism and blaming foreigners (especially immigrants, but also "the EU") for the pain people were feeling as consequences of the post-Crash policies of their very own, 100% local, politicians.

    Then that cristalized in the knee-jerk reaction against foreigners called Brexit (which, mind you, was still a less damaging far-right ultra-nationalist knee-jerk than the historically more comon one of "starting a war against some random foreign country").

    And now here we are with Britain pretty much morphed in to a posh version of a Fascist country.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    Remember there was a thing called "cost of life crisis". It's still going on.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago*

    This is so profoundly sad and unnecessary yet a completely predictable outcome of Thatcher's and subsequent gov'ts' neoliberal reforms. I hope Polanski and Co can get the power to start reversing and repairing after Labour thoroughly shits the bed.

  • source
  • [+] 15 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Broken record but tax the super-rich, tax the Amazon's and Starbucks, close the loopholes. Invest in public services and lifting folk out of poverty.

    If the parasites aren't happy then fine, fuck off to Dubai or wherever.

  • source
  • [+] -15 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    It’s just an island. Take it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)