The gathering crisis in the UK(antipope.org)
antipope.org
The gathering crisis in the UK
https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2022/08/the-gathering-crisis.html
182 comments
I read something slightly different into your metaphor: it's about pro-social, positive sum games vs zero/negative sum games.
The mouse is participating in the positive sum game of joint savings, and the cat is robbing it blind (very negative sum as it's also robbing its future self).
There's a lot of that happening across society (healthcare, education, addiction-fueled tech companies, ...), and the people who do it oftentimes do end up (at least short term) better off (= rich), but we as a nation end up poorer (the whole negative sum thing).
There are however plenty of ways to become rich doing positive sum things (though lord knows it's harder than it looks), so there will be rich people who don't deserve the blame so to speak.
But the clearly visible, media-amplified cases will of course be cartoonish villains, all too eager to sell you the rope to hang them with so to speak.
The mouse is participating in the positive sum game of joint savings, and the cat is robbing it blind (very negative sum as it's also robbing its future self).
There's a lot of that happening across society (healthcare, education, addiction-fueled tech companies, ...), and the people who do it oftentimes do end up (at least short term) better off (= rich), but we as a nation end up poorer (the whole negative sum thing).
There are however plenty of ways to become rich doing positive sum things (though lord knows it's harder than it looks), so there will be rich people who don't deserve the blame so to speak.
But the clearly visible, media-amplified cases will of course be cartoonish villains, all too eager to sell you the rope to hang them with so to speak.
How are „the rich“ bringing the crisis about, in your opinion?
Are you talking about the budget deficit? It’s not really like a pot you only look into when times are hard since it’s constantly known.
I really like your metaphor, but it is misleading.
I really like your metaphor, but it is misleading.
It's not the budget. It's the hidden cuts to services, the declining maintenance to infrastructure, the privatization of essentials. Those are the licks they take from the pot, while they tell you the pot is still full.
Exactly! Shrinkflation, wage suppression, union busting, dynamic pricing of medications, etc -- lick, lick, lick!
[1]https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/175/grimms-fairy-tales/3068/cat-a...
(edit, this isn't for the UK, but fat cats abound!)
[1]https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/175/grimms-fairy-tales/3068/cat-a...
(edit, this isn't for the UK, but fat cats abound!)
Apologies but what money is spent on in the UK is public information —- it is part of the budget. The fat cat and the hoodwinked mouse is a poor metaphor.
The pot in the parable is also public information - the mouse could have just opened the lid every now and then to check the levels.
It doesn't matter how public it is. It matters whether the public actually knows about it and understands it.
It doesn't matter how public it is. It matters whether the public actually knows about it and understands it.
The money to pay for those things would have to come from you, the people. They are not taking it away, there is nothing to distribute.
Profit of corporations is the stole surplus value of the workers. And there's been plenty of it
The world needs more guillotines
"Brexit has delivered some deregulation, though: notably, the Conservative government ditched EU standards on effluent discharges, resulting in the (private) water companies discharging raw sewage into almost every river, and the seas around the UK coastline.
So it is no longer safe to swim in UK waters."
Holy crap!
"the Bank of England are forecasting 13% inflation towards the end of the year."
And we thought things were bad in the US.
This article sounds absolutely dire, can someone in the UK comment - are things really that bad there?
Holy crap!
"the Bank of England are forecasting 13% inflation towards the end of the year."
And we thought things were bad in the US.
This article sounds absolutely dire, can someone in the UK comment - are things really that bad there?
To answer such questions I always imagine transplanting a random citizen of country 1 to country 2 and vice versa. In other words, I guess you should ask the expats.
Having lived in both the UK and the US, I would say that anyone not rich is still much better off in the former because of the free healthcare, better infrastructure, cheaper education, etc.
However, in my experience the UK living standards (again, for a non-rich person) are significantly worse than the rest of Northwestern Europe. And the UK's trajectory is not looking good.
Having lived in both the UK and the US, I would say that anyone not rich is still much better off in the former because of the free healthcare, better infrastructure, cheaper education, etc.
However, in my experience the UK living standards (again, for a non-rich person) are significantly worse than the rest of Northwestern Europe. And the UK's trajectory is not looking good.
> is still much better off in the former because of the free healthcare
Is it? The NHS is completely useless since the pandemic for anything non-emergency (can't comment for emergencies). You go private or you go without.
Whether it's still cheaper than US, I don't know - US healthcare is priced to milk out as much cash as possible out of insurance policies, so I'm not sure what the true price is when you negotiate and are paying privately.
Is it? The NHS is completely useless since the pandemic for anything non-emergency (can't comment for emergencies). You go private or you go without.
Whether it's still cheaper than US, I don't know - US healthcare is priced to milk out as much cash as possible out of insurance policies, so I'm not sure what the true price is when you negotiate and are paying privately.
> You go private or you go without.
This is vastly overstating it. The third option is waiting. Many hours at A&E, months for non-urgent surgery, but it's there and it's still free.
If you demand next-hour treatment, yeah, it's not that, but they're doing their best.
This is vastly overstating it. The third option is waiting. Many hours at A&E, months for non-urgent surgery, but it's there and it's still free.
If you demand next-hour treatment, yeah, it's not that, but they're doing their best.
> are things really that bad there?
UK resident here. I am in a lucky position where the current hardships don't affect me financially. In the short-term, I can ignore the issue and pretend it doesn't exist. I wish it was only a short-term issue.
Long-term however, most of what attracted me to the UK in the first place died with the pandemic. The high street in most places is a shadow of its former self (replaced by money-laundering fronts masquerading as gift/American candy shops), work in tech is stuck in a weird hybrid state where it's neither fully remote nor on-site and is the worst of both worlds, wages haven't kept up with inflation while housing prices have skyrocketed, businesses are struggling and will struggle even more as people don't even have the money to pay their heating/energy bills, let alone for discretionary spending. The NHS is basically a write-off at this point and your only option is to go private.
Taxes on the other hand are still high. Now I don't know anybody who likes paying taxes, but it stings less when you feel like you get your money's worth out of them (in terms of infrastructure or services, such as the NHS) and the tax rate is adequately calibrated. However, the tax brackets have yet to adjust for inflation, so you must earn more (and thus pay more tax) even though your standard of living hasn't actually changed at all. Services that you used to be able to get for "free" (paid by your taxes) such as the NHS are no longer functional, so you must now effectively pay twice and go private instead.
Politically, there doesn't seem to be any urgency to fix the problem either, from any side of the political spectrum. I haven't paid attention to them too much here (I can't vote anyway), but the feeling I got was complete apathy from the ruling class. It always felt like a plane flying on autopilot with nobody at the controls - we happened to luck out for a while and prosper despite that but now we're approaching a mountain and it will be really bad if someone doesn't change course.
I have an EU passport, when my current lease expires I will be moving back to the EU and taking my business with me. At this point I am losing money by staying here, paying huge rents and taxes for sub-par value in return.
UK resident here. I am in a lucky position where the current hardships don't affect me financially. In the short-term, I can ignore the issue and pretend it doesn't exist. I wish it was only a short-term issue.
Long-term however, most of what attracted me to the UK in the first place died with the pandemic. The high street in most places is a shadow of its former self (replaced by money-laundering fronts masquerading as gift/American candy shops), work in tech is stuck in a weird hybrid state where it's neither fully remote nor on-site and is the worst of both worlds, wages haven't kept up with inflation while housing prices have skyrocketed, businesses are struggling and will struggle even more as people don't even have the money to pay their heating/energy bills, let alone for discretionary spending. The NHS is basically a write-off at this point and your only option is to go private.
Taxes on the other hand are still high. Now I don't know anybody who likes paying taxes, but it stings less when you feel like you get your money's worth out of them (in terms of infrastructure or services, such as the NHS) and the tax rate is adequately calibrated. However, the tax brackets have yet to adjust for inflation, so you must earn more (and thus pay more tax) even though your standard of living hasn't actually changed at all. Services that you used to be able to get for "free" (paid by your taxes) such as the NHS are no longer functional, so you must now effectively pay twice and go private instead.
Politically, there doesn't seem to be any urgency to fix the problem either, from any side of the political spectrum. I haven't paid attention to them too much here (I can't vote anyway), but the feeling I got was complete apathy from the ruling class. It always felt like a plane flying on autopilot with nobody at the controls - we happened to luck out for a while and prosper despite that but now we're approaching a mountain and it will be really bad if someone doesn't change course.
I have an EU passport, when my current lease expires I will be moving back to the EU and taking my business with me. At this point I am losing money by staying here, paying huge rents and taxes for sub-par value in return.
Taxes in the UK are not actually that high. I live in a Northern European country and my take home pay on the same salary in the UK would be 12% more a month, and even more if you take into account all the tax free savings options (there's none where I live). And my country doesn't even have that high taxes, take a look at how much you'd be paying in somewhere like Italy.
Plus the UK is a mini tax haven, being one of the best places in Europe for the self-employed.
Plus the UK is a mini tax haven, being one of the best places in Europe for the self-employed.
> I am in a lucky position where the current hardships don't affect me financially.
Yet. But I'm not sure if that is something that has enough staying power to see you through to the end of this. Inflation is a fickle thing. So are bankruns.
Yet. But I'm not sure if that is something that has enough staying power to see you through to the end of this. Inflation is a fickle thing. So are bankruns.
It depends on who you ask. If you ask any british person who has been out of the country for a few years, yes, it's absolutely going down the pipes.
If you ask people who have lived there the whole time, they've been frog-boiled.
The truth is somewhere in the middle: the current malaise is a continuation of pre-existing trends. There were always holes in british roads, now there are just more of them. There were always food banks, now they just run out of food before they run out of hungry people.
If you ask people who have lived there the whole time, they've been frog-boiled.
The truth is somewhere in the middle: the current malaise is a continuation of pre-existing trends. There were always holes in british roads, now there are just more of them. There were always food banks, now they just run out of food before they run out of hungry people.
I don’t think so —- it’s all a bit hyperbolic . Yeah tough times but most inflation forecasts have it going doing to near 0% by the end of 2023 — guy needs to breathe.
Those people have better crystal balls than mine. I would be very wary of such optimistic projections given the current situation.
Are they the same inflation forecasts that last year said it was 'only transitory'? And that inflation would "peak at 5%"? We're now at 10.1%. Meanwhile the private sector (Citi Bank), who tend to know what's actually going on in comparison to the public sector because their responsibility is to investor's profits rather than catering to politics and public perception, have now got inflation hitting 18% in early 2023. I would love to see how you square going from 18% to 0% in the space of 9 months. Especially when energy bills are forecast to go over £5000 in January unless the government intervenes.
Pubs are warning of over 70% closure rates due to rising energy costs. 457,000 people are employed by pubs. If 70% of those jobs go that's 319,900 jobs lost, not to mention all the knock on effects. How many brewery jobs will be lost? Delivery jobs? Taxi driving jobs? How many communities will be damaged through losing one of the main socialising spaces? This is just one sector of the economy. Similar stories are being reported in restaurants, takeaways, manufacturing and retail.
On top of this we now have barristers, postal workers, railway staff, teachers, refuse collectors, journalists and hospital staff all on strike. More professions will likely be joining the list in the coming months. How is any of this hyperbolic?
There is a very real feeling that this is the calm before the storm and how it plays out is very much going to depend an awful lot on who gets elected next month and what they choose to do about the energy price rise in October.
Sources: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-10645425...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12196322
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/22/uk-inflatio...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-23/uk-had-ea...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/23/pubs-winter...
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62632167
Pubs are warning of over 70% closure rates due to rising energy costs. 457,000 people are employed by pubs. If 70% of those jobs go that's 319,900 jobs lost, not to mention all the knock on effects. How many brewery jobs will be lost? Delivery jobs? Taxi driving jobs? How many communities will be damaged through losing one of the main socialising spaces? This is just one sector of the economy. Similar stories are being reported in restaurants, takeaways, manufacturing and retail.
On top of this we now have barristers, postal workers, railway staff, teachers, refuse collectors, journalists and hospital staff all on strike. More professions will likely be joining the list in the coming months. How is any of this hyperbolic?
There is a very real feeling that this is the calm before the storm and how it plays out is very much going to depend an awful lot on who gets elected next month and what they choose to do about the energy price rise in October.
Sources: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-10645425...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12196322
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/22/uk-inflatio...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-23/uk-had-ea...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/23/pubs-winter...
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62632167
That cannot possibly be the only thing it delivered. The likes of Farage have been working on this thing for decades. They must be getting a lot more it of it
As much as I want socialized medicine in the US, I worry when look at Britain and see how a wave of regressive politicians can damage carefully built government institutions so quickly
>so quickly
it's been 43 years, as the author points out
it's been 43 years, as the author points out
But the last decade has been especially bad, and the last two years even worse than that.
Yep. Less anti corruption
There's plenty but obviously someone who sums up leaving the EU as literally sewage isn't going to give you a straight story on anything. This piece is basically just yet more anti UK propaganda from the Remainer set who never accepted that they lost for good reasons and will continue telling everyone how horrible the UK is until they die. It's a genre, ignore it.
> And we thought things were bad in the US.
That inflation is mostly driven by energy costs, which are a direct result of European policy failures on nuclear and fossil fuels. The US is mostly a net neutral producer/consumer of fossil fuels and energy, which is why it's insulated from the impacts of Russia cutting off gas.
That inflation is mostly driven by energy costs, which are a direct result of European policy failures on nuclear and fossil fuels. The US is mostly a net neutral producer/consumer of fossil fuels and energy, which is why it's insulated from the impacts of Russia cutting off gas.
From an energy security standpoint being net neutral or better is good but is the US insulated from fossil fuel prices?
From a market perspective I would have thought a decrease in supply (say sanctions on Russian oil) would up the price of oil. This would effect domestic oil prices as well since either the domestic producers also participate globally or other sources of oil available domestically are also available globally (higher global price would decrease domestic supply and thus increase domestic price).
If domestic policies are put in place which limit access to the global market then that would change things.
From a market perspective I would have thought a decrease in supply (say sanctions on Russian oil) would up the price of oil. This would effect domestic oil prices as well since either the domestic producers also participate globally or other sources of oil available domestically are also available globally (higher global price would decrease domestic supply and thus increase domestic price).
If domestic policies are put in place which limit access to the global market then that would change things.
Not fully insulated - US oil prices should also go up when marketplaces as a whole does. However, the laws of physics indicate that domestic markets are still cheaper to supply to - if it is at all possible (and LNG is more quite a bit expensive than pipelines).
Furthermore, a super strong dollar when US oil production is sold in, of course, dollars makes other parts of the world that want to purchase more US energy in lieu of Russian energy pay top dollar for it compared to domestic customers.
Furthermore, a super strong dollar when US oil production is sold in, of course, dollars makes other parts of the world that want to purchase more US energy in lieu of Russian energy pay top dollar for it compared to domestic customers.
> is the US insulated from fossil fuel prices?
To a large degree, yes [1]. The US is affected by oil prices globally, but if OPEC decides to cut off the US it wouldn't have the same effect that Russia is having on the EU right now.
> also participate globally
In crises, the US has the option to restrict exports. The EU does not have that option because it is not a net producer of fossil fuels.
[1] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/natural-gas-p...
To a large degree, yes [1]. The US is affected by oil prices globally, but if OPEC decides to cut off the US it wouldn't have the same effect that Russia is having on the EU right now.
> also participate globally
In crises, the US has the option to restrict exports. The EU does not have that option because it is not a net producer of fossil fuels.
[1] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/natural-gas-p...
Wow, that chart is quite compelling.
> From an energy security standpoint being net neutral or better is good but is the US insulated from fossil fuel prices?
The US as an economy is mostly not effected by fuel prices anymore.
But the average US consumer is - that's probably the important part.
The US as an economy is mostly not effected by fuel prices anymore.
But the average US consumer is - that's probably the important part.
But the average US consumer is a big part of the economy - if they're effected, then how is the US economy not effected?
If the US consumer is buying from US producers, then it is just money bouncing around domestically. You could argue that from a birds eye view, the US economy as a whole, at least on a national scale, is minimally affected.
That being said, I can't agree with the parent post, it's not that symmetric.
That being said, I can't agree with the parent post, it's not that symmetric.
Doesn't that assume that those local producers are only using local resources? It's very hard to be insulated well in this day and age. Livestock feed price is up. Fertilizer price is up. Equipment shipping costs are up, when they aren't hard to come by. (I can provide sources, but I just googled price of those over time and found charts supporting it easily enough).
Its very hard to be really insulated from higher fuel costs, even if it's produced locally. You still need to ship it to a refinery, and then ship it back out to gas stations. Unless you run a farm where you get all your inputs locally and they are also trying to use only local inputs, you're going to see these price increases. Many of the economic inputs people use for production, whether that be food or built items, have gone up, and often there's only so much they can do to insulate from that.
Its very hard to be really insulated from higher fuel costs, even if it's produced locally. You still need to ship it to a refinery, and then ship it back out to gas stations. Unless you run a farm where you get all your inputs locally and they are also trying to use only local inputs, you're going to see these price increases. Many of the economic inputs people use for production, whether that be food or built items, have gone up, and often there's only so much they can do to insulate from that.
Hey Sorry to follow you!! I am deeply curious on your knowledge.
Yup. A big thing in past decades was energy independence. The US actually achieved it but it didn't get the attention that griping about not having it got.
I mean sort of. If fuel prices are still at the whim of global markets, does it matter if the country is a net importer or not?
Electrification with domestic electricity supply seems like it would provide much greater security. Though there's still the global markets for all the electronics and materials and such for renewable generation.
Electrification with domestic electricity supply seems like it would provide much greater security. Though there's still the global markets for all the electronics and materials and such for renewable generation.
>If fuel prices are still at the whim of global markets, does it matter if the country is a net importer or not?
But they are not completely at the whim.
With a nontrivial lag time, as prices raise, local (especially North America as a whole) production will go up and NA will become a significant net exporter. The shale and tar sands production is considerably more expensive than other production methods and requires high prices (and predictions of long term high prices) to operate successfully.
We are coupled, but not entirely dependent. The local price will be progressively lower compared to global price as global price rises. Being able to overproduce our requirements enables this.
If high prices significantly (for some sufficiently high level of significance) threatened our local economy or supply actually limited people's ability to buy at any price, controls can and would be enacted to decouple the local price and economy from the global market.
But they are not completely at the whim.
With a nontrivial lag time, as prices raise, local (especially North America as a whole) production will go up and NA will become a significant net exporter. The shale and tar sands production is considerably more expensive than other production methods and requires high prices (and predictions of long term high prices) to operate successfully.
We are coupled, but not entirely dependent. The local price will be progressively lower compared to global price as global price rises. Being able to overproduce our requirements enables this.
If high prices significantly (for some sufficiently high level of significance) threatened our local economy or supply actually limited people's ability to buy at any price, controls can and would be enacted to decouple the local price and economy from the global market.
It's starting from a decent place, but the delta is steep. (I'm not from the UK.)
It’s pretty grim at the moment.
But where do you think it'll be in 10 years? Progress is being made towards renewable energy, people are taking trips by bicycle more, and although the change hasn't happened yet, public sentiment is that the NHS needs to be "fixed", whatever that may end up meaning.
I think Brexit has allowed a sort of nihilism to creep into U.K. politics. If you can live with a policy that has such a demonstrable adverse effect on the economy and so many other things then why worry about the impact of other policies.
The standard approach for the government now seems to be to look for short term wins in the tabloids and ignore the long term.
And this is on top of the huge distraction that Brexit has been.
The standard approach for the government now seems to be to look for short term wins in the tabloids and ignore the long term.
And this is on top of the huge distraction that Brexit has been.
Brexit caused an odd selection effect in the Tory party where sensible responsible politicians such as Ken Clarke and maybe Theresa May were pushed out for pointing out the problems with Brexit and replaced but more the irresponsible fibbing variety who were prepared to deny reality and say everything with hard brexit will be great such as Boris and his fellows. Not sure where this all goes next. Maybe to Starmer who at least is responsible but will have quite the mess to deal with.
> The standard approach for the government now seems to be to look for short term wins in the tabloids and ignore the long term.
Was this ever not the case?
Was this ever not the case?
* The 1800s of the USA were marked by a large, government program to invent pocket watches to solve the issue of trains crashing into each other.
* There were additional long-term government projects, such as ARPA's Network (aka: the internet).
* Strategic supercomputer initiatives as well.
* The debate over USA's social security is all measured in the year 2040 or later. People constantly use social security as an example of "short term thinking", but policies from the 1980s have been forward looking for at least the next 50 years.
-----------
I dunno much about UK politics, but I imagine that similar forward looking projects and/or decisions / debates have occurred.
* There were additional long-term government projects, such as ARPA's Network (aka: the internet).
* Strategic supercomputer initiatives as well.
* The debate over USA's social security is all measured in the year 2040 or later. People constantly use social security as an example of "short term thinking", but policies from the 1980s have been forward looking for at least the next 50 years.
-----------
I dunno much about UK politics, but I imagine that similar forward looking projects and/or decisions / debates have occurred.
Just because you demonstrated some long-term thinking in the future does not mean the US government was not short-sighted in the past.
I don't know if it it was or not, but a few counter-points is not proof.
I am sure you could find millions of counter-points that the US and the UK are currently long-term thinking (even though I think most of us can agree that isn't the subjective truth).
I don't know if it it was or not, but a few counter-points is not proof.
I am sure you could find millions of counter-points that the US and the UK are currently long-term thinking (even though I think most of us can agree that isn't the subjective truth).
> I don't know if it it was or not, but a few counter-points is not proof.
Literally no one in politics thinks about purely short term issues actually. I *disagree* with my political opponents, but that's because my vision of the next 30 years is grossly different than their vision of the next 30 years.
-----
This isn't about "counter-examples". This is about you failing to provide even the first example of short-term thinking. What exactly is your "short term" problem that was messed up here?
Brexit, in particular, was never supposed to be a quick-and-easy process. I think it was an idiotic idea, but everyone knew it'd have short-term pain. You can call the UK Brexit crowd stupid perhaps for misreading the future. But they weren't thinking "short term" at all.
I've got criticisms of the Brexit crowd, and that has more to do with xenophobia, europ-phobia, self-centered thinking, etc. etc. But it doesn't actually have to do with "short term vs long term" thinking. If anything at all, the Brexit crowd was very forward looking (just wrong / incorrect about it, if anything, misjudging the short-term effects of Brexit's decision)
Literally no one in politics thinks about purely short term issues actually. I *disagree* with my political opponents, but that's because my vision of the next 30 years is grossly different than their vision of the next 30 years.
-----
This isn't about "counter-examples". This is about you failing to provide even the first example of short-term thinking. What exactly is your "short term" problem that was messed up here?
Brexit, in particular, was never supposed to be a quick-and-easy process. I think it was an idiotic idea, but everyone knew it'd have short-term pain. You can call the UK Brexit crowd stupid perhaps for misreading the future. But they weren't thinking "short term" at all.
I've got criticisms of the Brexit crowd, and that has more to do with xenophobia, europ-phobia, self-centered thinking, etc. etc. But it doesn't actually have to do with "short term vs long term" thinking. If anything at all, the Brexit crowd was very forward looking (just wrong / incorrect about it, if anything, misjudging the short-term effects of Brexit's decision)
Maybe some of the Brexit crowd was thinking about the long term but Johnson certainly wasn’t: he was thinking about his chances of getting into No 10.
Politicians always are thinking about their next election. The issue of elected (I understand the PM appointment process by the way) shouldn’t be a revelation to anyone.
It still stands that these short cited representatives and officials champion policies that come from without, not within, their own scheming.
It still stands that these short cited representatives and officials champion policies that come from without, not within, their own scheming.
There's a useful distinction between lying and bullshitting: liers know what the truth is and want to convince you it's something else, bullshitters don't even care (or potentially, even know) what the truth is.
Governments often did things which failed and then tried to paint them as wins. They also often went for short term wins. But they were real wins (in the short term) even if they failed to get them. I think it's new to have a government run by someone so thoroughly a bullshitter that they don't care about the actual effect of their policies, just how the announcement makes them look. Because, fundamentally most politicians, that get to the top positions, actually want power and to do something with it, even if it's not something you'd agree with.
Governments often did things which failed and then tried to paint them as wins. They also often went for short term wins. But they were real wins (in the short term) even if they failed to get them. I think it's new to have a government run by someone so thoroughly a bullshitter that they don't care about the actual effect of their policies, just how the announcement makes them look. Because, fundamentally most politicians, that get to the top positions, actually want power and to do something with it, even if it's not something you'd agree with.
Absolutely. Levelling up is a case in point. Sounds good and wins votes but never any serious intention to follow through.
Governments are surely exactly the place most super-long-term projects have to happen (and typically have happened). It's pretty hard for a corporation to convince shareholders to invest in something that won't pay dividends for 15-20 years.
Religious organizations building cathedrals is probably a rare example of it happening below the state-level (it's hard to imagine without belief in higher powers or an afterlife etc. why many people would thoroughly commit themselves to a project they won't see completed in their lifetimes).
Tabloids have only existed for 150 years or so. Before them, most newspapers thought their role was to help voters and investors make good decisions.
Did they? I think their role was always to make money.
Newspapers have a VERY long history of being owned and operated by the rich with a healthy portion of PR / propaganda.
Newspapers have a VERY long history of being owned and operated by the rich with a healthy portion of PR / propaganda.
In those days their readership was mostly people with at least a little money. They were investors' social media. Their incentives were to report the economic facts of life.
The feedback loop has got ever shorter.
The approach now is to announce a non-feasible hard-right policy in the right wing tabloids, wait for The Guardian to react the next day, denounce that, then the day after forget the whole thing (like Liz Truss' civil service paycuts)
The approach now is to announce a non-feasible hard-right policy in the right wing tabloids, wait for The Guardian to react the next day, denounce that, then the day after forget the whole thing (like Liz Truss' civil service paycuts)
Some of England's problems are unique to them, but I think the reason those who voted for Brexit did so is that they felt the current deal wasn't working for them. Already, way back then, they weren't on a path to a bright future where there was a house of their own to live in, a job that was a good fit for them and society, a future to believe in.
I believe the same things that fueled Brexit persist as malaise today in England. In the US. Probably everywhere else where regulations allow unregulated profit to be squeezed from the less well off. Rent seeking cultures morally bankrupt and rot from the core.
I believe the same things that fueled Brexit persist as malaise today in England. In the US. Probably everywhere else where regulations allow unregulated profit to be squeezed from the less well off. Rent seeking cultures morally bankrupt and rot from the core.
This might sound like cheap shots, but I say it with love for my friends in the Uk...
If you look at Britain historically...coal is dead. Wool is dead. The island itself is fairly small for much agriculture. There aren't a whole lot of natural resources. They had power and resources through their empire, but that is gone. Their one shot, so to speak, was like many developed nations - services, including financial. But Brexit was signaling, and companies saw that there was little incentive to stay and do business there vs. Frankfurt, Zurich, New York, etc.
So... yeah, a lot of us pre-Brexit saw this malaise not only for what it was, but what it was going to become. It isn't a pretty picture and the utter void of competent political leadership means this is probably a protracted decline.
If you look at Britain historically...coal is dead. Wool is dead. The island itself is fairly small for much agriculture. There aren't a whole lot of natural resources. They had power and resources through their empire, but that is gone. Their one shot, so to speak, was like many developed nations - services, including financial. But Brexit was signaling, and companies saw that there was little incentive to stay and do business there vs. Frankfurt, Zurich, New York, etc.
So... yeah, a lot of us pre-Brexit saw this malaise not only for what it was, but what it was going to become. It isn't a pretty picture and the utter void of competent political leadership means this is probably a protracted decline.
Sounds like the country is regressing to the mean then. Thanks to the empire they are used to being on top of the world, but all their advantages are gone now except for the tax havens and an old cultural narrative that the British are inherently better than everybody else.
We have odd strengths in spite of being kind of crap at most things. Books for example.
>According to a new report from the International Publishers Association (IPA), UK publishers released 184,000 new and revised titles in 2013. This equates to 2,875 titles per million inhabitants, and places the UK an astonishing 1,000-plus titles ahead of second-placed Taiwan and Slovenia (1,831). Australia is considerably lower, at 1,176, while the US published just 959 titles per million inhabitants.
Also music, universities, financial services, tea rooms etc.
>According to a new report from the International Publishers Association (IPA), UK publishers released 184,000 new and revised titles in 2013. This equates to 2,875 titles per million inhabitants, and places the UK an astonishing 1,000-plus titles ahead of second-placed Taiwan and Slovenia (1,831). Australia is considerably lower, at 1,176, while the US published just 959 titles per million inhabitants.
Also music, universities, financial services, tea rooms etc.
Their financial empire still remains strong, as a conduit or storage tank for illicit flows from corrupt countries worldwide (a kind of Switzerland with a large population and areas for investment).
London is the money laundering capital of the world. That's literally all we have left.
To be exact, the City of London - the "square mile" that is a 95% self-ruling medieval enclave within the city of London.
Lest someone think this is a joke or exaggerated. No, it's literally true. Corporations have a direct vote in the assembly. It's policed by itself and answers to no-one, not even the symbolic "crown"
Who is squeezing „less well off“ and making unregulated profits?
It's a bit like blaming the Democrats for the political crisis in the US but I have to ask "what the hell is wrong with Labor?" The Tories have dominated politics in the UK since the later 1970s except for the Blair administration, and Blair was an honorary Tory.
There's something wild going on there, too. Leaked documents have shown how their best chance at real Labour-style governance (Corbyn) was intentionally smeared from within as an antisemite, among other things, in order to torpedo his popularity. Instead, Labour has the hugely ineffectual Tory-esque Keir Starmer now. Feels very much like a managed opposition.
Corbyn seems to have done a fine enough job smearing himself over his long and illustrious career of far-left populism and terrorism apologia. His campaign signed up a lot of fly-by-night party members and was successful in getting him elected party leader, but convincing the general public was far more difficult.
(Part of the answer to why Labour has been out of power for 13 years is the Corbyn disaster, it explains half of that time span).
(Part of the answer to why Labour has been out of power for 13 years is the Corbyn disaster, it explains half of that time span).
There's an alternate history in which it was David Miliband who became Labour leader, not his brother. Who knows of course, but there's a decent chance it would have prevented the disaster of Brexit (and the related disaster, for Labour and the country, of Corbyn).
He's just another diet Tory like Starmer though.
In a sense, I don't disagree. But when the only Labour politician of my lifetime to win an election is Tony Blair, you have to consider that the UK is a pretty Tory country, and you have to work with what you've got...
[deleted]
Eh, they did quite well in 2017 - in fact, the best performance for the Labour party since Blair was under Corbyn[0].
[0]: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
[0]: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
And then they lost 60 seats under Corbyn in 2019. Winning 202, the lowest number of seats since 1935.
That was the result of the aforementioned internal torpedoing of Corbyn though, right? Cutting off the nose to spite the face or something.
I think that's a part of it, but I think a bigger deal part that, when the media and political establishment saw he was electable, they also saw him as a real threat, and so they made a much more concerted effort to damage him before the next election.
That's why you got stuff like his face getting greenscreened onto a clip of voldemort on the BBC.
One thing that people underestimate is just how far to the right of the general population the media and political class is. They tend to be private school dominated, overwhelmingly drawn from southern england, and personally wealthy.
That's why you got stuff like his face getting greenscreened onto a clip of voldemort on the BBC.
One thing that people underestimate is just how far to the right of the general population the media and political class is. They tend to be private school dominated, overwhelmingly drawn from southern england, and personally wealthy.
Sounds very similar to this, from the original author, in the comments:
The situation is not irretrievable in theory, at this point.
The problem is that in practice a solution requires the political elite to collectively admit the falsehood of the axioms they built their entire careers on.
If an individual political leader defects from the nationalist-neoliberal consensus, then they get treated exactly the way Jeremy Corbyn was. Corbyn was a soft-brexiter -- his distrust of the EU was based on it having emerged from the EEC, as a capitalist institution: what they hated him for was for being an unreconstructed hang-over from the 1970s when Labour was actually a left-wing party.
Neoliberal politicians can't admit that the crisis is rooted in neoliberal policies.
The situation is not irretrievable in theory, at this point.
The problem is that in practice a solution requires the political elite to collectively admit the falsehood of the axioms they built their entire careers on.
If an individual political leader defects from the nationalist-neoliberal consensus, then they get treated exactly the way Jeremy Corbyn was. Corbyn was a soft-brexiter -- his distrust of the EU was based on it having emerged from the EEC, as a capitalist institution: what they hated him for was for being an unreconstructed hang-over from the 1970s when Labour was actually a left-wing party.
Neoliberal politicians can't admit that the crisis is rooted in neoliberal policies.
A couple of things:
Tories have done well to court the people that show up at the polls with things like keeping the Triple-Lock pension guarantee[1].
Like the Democrats, Labour's demographics have started to shift more to the well-educated (though I suspect this will swing back massively, come the next election). This alienated their traditional working class base who care more about their own economic realities than whatever social crusade is the flavour of the week.
Young Labour went out of their way to paint pro-Brexiters as racists and bigots. The dirty secret is that even Corbyn has been a long time Euro-sceptic. Because of the in-fighting on the correct position, Labour didn't take a hard stance on Brexit until very close to the end, IIRC. At which point, anti-Brexit votes were being siphoned off by the Liberal Democrats, with pro-Brexit votes going to the Tories.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Pension_(United_Kingdom)...
Tories have done well to court the people that show up at the polls with things like keeping the Triple-Lock pension guarantee[1].
Like the Democrats, Labour's demographics have started to shift more to the well-educated (though I suspect this will swing back massively, come the next election). This alienated their traditional working class base who care more about their own economic realities than whatever social crusade is the flavour of the week.
Young Labour went out of their way to paint pro-Brexiters as racists and bigots. The dirty secret is that even Corbyn has been a long time Euro-sceptic. Because of the in-fighting on the correct position, Labour didn't take a hard stance on Brexit until very close to the end, IIRC. At which point, anti-Brexit votes were being siphoned off by the Liberal Democrats, with pro-Brexit votes going to the Tories.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Pension_(United_Kingdom)...
>Young Labour went out of their way to paint pro-Brexiters as racists and bigots. The dirty secret is that even Corbyn has been a long time Euro-sceptic.
I'm pretty sure that a reason Labour did much better than expected in the 2017 general election is that Brexit voters suspected that Corbyn had secretly voted for Leave.
I'm pretty sure that a reason Labour did much better than expected in the 2017 general election is that Brexit voters suspected that Corbyn had secretly voted for Leave.
But if an euro-sceptic like Corbyn (distrust of the EEC more than the EU idea) was in power to negociate brexit, i'm pretty sure the negotiations would've gone better. I don't believe the EU technocrats would've sabotaged him, they care much more about being right than supporting their political side somehow (worked with them two years ago on a project, it was enlightening, made me appreciate technocrats much more than politicians)
Funny, from the outside, UK always sounds as if it is overrun by leftist politics. I wouldn‘t have guessed tories were in charge most of the time.
London has a Labor major and it is the economic Center, so maybe there was a lot of Labor influence on the economy after all?
London has a Labor major and it is the economic Center, so maybe there was a lot of Labor influence on the economy after all?
It’s eerie how similar the issues facing western nations are and how intractable the disagreements over solutions have become.
Desperate balkanization coming for many, I think.
Desperate balkanization coming for many, I think.
What’s remarkable is that everyone recognizes that “the disagreements over solutions have become” “intractable” but thinks the solution is to handle more things at the federal/EU/UN level.
There is nothing remarkable about that. Large problems require large entities to solve them, the kind of hole a country or state can dig itself into requires the next level up to dig it out again.
This is precisely why problems that affect the whole world are so hard to solve: we are not that well organized at that level, there are no sanctions for bad actors that are effective and with veto power and various power blocks not in alignment with each other the stage is set for a lot of misery.
It's not like we can appeal to the union of planets to bail us out.
This is precisely why problems that affect the whole world are so hard to solve: we are not that well organized at that level, there are no sanctions for bad actors that are effective and with veto power and various power blocks not in alignment with each other the stage is set for a lot of misery.
It's not like we can appeal to the union of planets to bail us out.
Close cooperation has many benefits and the further dissection of nations has significant costs. I don’t think it’s surprising people aren’t rushing toward what comes next.
Except for the accelerationists, of course.
Except for the accelerationists, of course.
Pff, the GOP centralizes power like nobody's business at the state level, it's just a collection of fiefdoms.
I always wonder why balkanization is described as "desperate" or some other extremely bad thing.
Because breaking up countries, let alone over fuzzy ethnic lines, is seldom a peaceful process that leads to prosperous smaller countries (over one's lifetime anyway). A most common outcome seems to be violence and war short-mid term followed by poverty and corruption long term.
What percentage of these country breakups end up in some sort of destabilizing violence and lowered standards of living for a generation?
The war in former Yugoslavia was pretty horrible and they're by no means over it.
But how much of that was caused by the invention of "Yugoslavia" in the first place?
Can't usher in a new order if the old order is still functioning.
Or an opportunity for a powerful figure to take power by force and rule over all.
I'm not for dictatorships, but we already have too many countries in the world. And provinces and states within these countries. Too many little fiefdoms. Too many wannabe lords. Too many presidents, premiers, prime ministers, governors, chancellors, kings, emperors. Too many parliaments, congresses, too many senators, deputies, representatives. Too much division. Hell, we're going to have American, Chinese, and European bases on the Moon and Mars. No wonder we can't tackle collective challenges. We'll be traveling through other galaxies and still call ourselves based on the particular piece of land we were born in on this particular planet called the Earth.
I fully acknowledge that this is a privileged point of view on my part. I am lucky enough to live in an industrialized and peaceful enough country to be able to hold this opinion without having to worry about my basic survival.
I'm not for dictatorships, but we already have too many countries in the world. And provinces and states within these countries. Too many little fiefdoms. Too many wannabe lords. Too many presidents, premiers, prime ministers, governors, chancellors, kings, emperors. Too many parliaments, congresses, too many senators, deputies, representatives. Too much division. Hell, we're going to have American, Chinese, and European bases on the Moon and Mars. No wonder we can't tackle collective challenges. We'll be traveling through other galaxies and still call ourselves based on the particular piece of land we were born in on this particular planet called the Earth.
I fully acknowledge that this is a privileged point of view on my part. I am lucky enough to live in an industrialized and peaceful enough country to be able to hold this opinion without having to worry about my basic survival.
Was this translated from original Russian? Honestly, it really does sound like you're for dictatorships.
I think all that diversity - sure, even competing bases on the Moon - is the sign of a healthy society. Monoculture is much more perilous. Centralization gives you NASA, market chaos gives you SpaceX.
I think all that diversity - sure, even competing bases on the Moon - is the sign of a healthy society. Monoculture is much more perilous. Centralization gives you NASA, market chaos gives you SpaceX.
Without NASA there would not be a SpaceX.
You cannot know that. NASA flew shuttle payloads for decades at a substantial loss. Who knows what aerospace companies might have filled that void.
I don't recall the NRO or the military using the shuttle much. The shuttle flew for NASA projects. No NASA, no projects.
I would exercise restraint with extrapolations here.
Countries with lowest homicide rates: Least diverse.
US States with lowest homicide rates: Least diverse.
There are some exceptions, however in general this statement is true when we look at the entire data set.
Market chaos also gives you walled gardens like Google/Apple App stores with outlandish fees and company policies like this one: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/06/eff-urges-apple-abandon...
Countries with lowest homicide rates: Least diverse.
US States with lowest homicide rates: Least diverse.
There are some exceptions, however in general this statement is true when we look at the entire data set.
Market chaos also gives you walled gardens like Google/Apple App stores with outlandish fees and company policies like this one: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/06/eff-urges-apple-abandon...
This reads a lot like calls for fascism in the interwar years.
> We'll be traveling through other galaxies
Counterpoint: no we won't lol.
Counterpoint: no we won't lol.
There’s nothing wrong with local autonomy, why should I be ruled by people who don’t share my values thousands of miles away.
If people share your values and are ruling in your interest then it doesn't matter if they are far away. If someone is ruling against your interest and doesn't share your values, it's no benefit if they're local.
And what does "local" mean? London to Brussels is only 200 miles direct, that's closer than Belfast, Edinburgh, or St Davids which are all places more or less ruled by London as "local" to the UK.
And what does "local" mean? London to Brussels is only 200 miles direct, that's closer than Belfast, Edinburgh, or St Davids which are all places more or less ruled by London as "local" to the UK.
There we go again. The local fiefdom. More division.
Distance does not matter. It should not matter.
Distance does not matter. It should not matter.
Good points from Stross in the comments: "The problem is that in practice a solution requires the political elite to collectively admit the falsehood of the axioms they built their entire careers on."
This is not limited to the UK
Europe has been in an energy war with Russia for the past year, we have a drought affecting hydro power and the French nuclear fleet is just out of service
The government action up to now has been almost nothing, basically amounting to announcing a few LNG import projects and updated 2030 targets. Nearly nothing has been done to the demand side nearly six months into this crisis
What needs to be done that can help 0-6 month time scale:
Gas supply
* Ramp up of Groningen (with payments to affected people living there)
Electricity generation
* Restart of all possible coal plants (only two have announced restart in Germany!)
* Removal of any restrictions limiting oil and diesel fired gensets from operating
* Extension of the three reactors in Germany, and likely also the three shut down reactors
Demand
* Have utility field forces inspect every gas boiler, starting with the vulnerable population, to set the correct flow temperature on condensing boilers (saves 5-10% !), check for easy fixes (e.g., leaky drafts that can be plugged)
* Mandate utilities to pay for avoided gas/electricity use for people on fixed retail tariffs - everyone need to be price responsive, not only large industrials
* Mandate commercial customers to raise AC setting to 25C
* Mandate everyone to lower thermostat to 18C
* Cash payments to households (at least vulnerable customers), but do not link it to the consumption levels and do not lower the price indirectly by other means (e.g., VAT reduction)
This will also require that permits, supply chains, labor etc. get fixed. Apparently that's stopping some of the coal restarts in Germany. That would not be a restriction if this was a shooting war...
Europe has been in an energy war with Russia for the past year, we have a drought affecting hydro power and the French nuclear fleet is just out of service
The government action up to now has been almost nothing, basically amounting to announcing a few LNG import projects and updated 2030 targets. Nearly nothing has been done to the demand side nearly six months into this crisis
What needs to be done that can help 0-6 month time scale:
Gas supply
* Ramp up of Groningen (with payments to affected people living there)
Electricity generation
* Restart of all possible coal plants (only two have announced restart in Germany!)
* Removal of any restrictions limiting oil and diesel fired gensets from operating
* Extension of the three reactors in Germany, and likely also the three shut down reactors
Demand
* Have utility field forces inspect every gas boiler, starting with the vulnerable population, to set the correct flow temperature on condensing boilers (saves 5-10% !), check for easy fixes (e.g., leaky drafts that can be plugged)
* Mandate utilities to pay for avoided gas/electricity use for people on fixed retail tariffs - everyone need to be price responsive, not only large industrials
* Mandate commercial customers to raise AC setting to 25C
* Mandate everyone to lower thermostat to 18C
* Cash payments to households (at least vulnerable customers), but do not link it to the consumption levels and do not lower the price indirectly by other means (e.g., VAT reduction)
This will also require that permits, supply chains, labor etc. get fixed. Apparently that's stopping some of the coal restarts in Germany. That would not be a restriction if this was a shooting war...
I know you mean well, but
> * Restart of all possible coal plants (only two have announced restart in Germany!)
> * Removal of any restrictions limiting oil and diesel fired gensets from operating
are really bad ideas. The current crisis is nothing compared to the looming climate crisis. What we need is a hard sustained break in energy consumption. We can have a good quality of life with a lot less energy, if we stop wasting so many resources on things that don't matter or are not required. We should buy (and produce) less non-essentials and travel should be limited to things that really require physical presence. Home office should be offered whenever possible.
> * Restart of all possible coal plants (only two have announced restart in Germany!)
> * Removal of any restrictions limiting oil and diesel fired gensets from operating
are really bad ideas. The current crisis is nothing compared to the looming climate crisis. What we need is a hard sustained break in energy consumption. We can have a good quality of life with a lot less energy, if we stop wasting so many resources on things that don't matter or are not required. We should buy (and produce) less non-essentials and travel should be limited to things that really require physical presence. Home office should be offered whenever possible.
> This is not limited to the UK
Sure, everyone is struggling but there are some unique twists and turns in the UK right now, and some have been made worse by own goals.
Sure, everyone is struggling but there are some unique twists and turns in the UK right now, and some have been made worse by own goals.
Yeah, it's all fairly bad, but then I'm not sure where I would move to.
US seems bonkers in its own way, Germany is buckling under the gas crisis, France... lovely place but i can't understand how it stays afloat. Poland is just about in free fall. Italy and Spain seem (?) perpetually in the grip of a political crisis. Other countries i know less about.
Switzerland? Netherlands? Denmark?
US seems bonkers in its own way, Germany is buckling under the gas crisis, France... lovely place but i can't understand how it stays afloat. Poland is just about in free fall. Italy and Spain seem (?) perpetually in the grip of a political crisis. Other countries i know less about.
Switzerland? Netherlands? Denmark?
> French nuclear fleet is just out of service
Isn't it just temporary due to the heatwave? Thus they'll be able to power them back on as winter hits (which coincides with extra demand for heating)?
Isn't it just temporary due to the heatwave? Thus they'll be able to power them back on as winter hits (which coincides with extra demand for heating)?
Not only. It's also extra outages due to discovery of cracks in pipes related to the safety system...
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2022/04/24/french-...
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2022/04/24/french-...
Great stuff, fully agreed with all of these.
And I would add: a very large industrial effort to create heatpumps on such a scale that we can convert all of Europe in two years tops.
And I would add: a very large industrial effort to create heatpumps on such a scale that we can convert all of Europe in two years tops.
I think when discussing this, it should be recognised that there is ample evidence that Russia has worked last several years to undermine the stability of western democracies. Brexit vote and resulting chaos being one glaring result. I am suggesting that we are just starting to understand the magnitude in which Russia has been able to cause havoc in the west by taking advantage of our freedoms.
Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_...
Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_...
I don't think "freedom" is to blame. Freedom in varying degrees has been around for a long time, and attempts to exploit it failed to produce results for the enemies of freedom. They have however recently identified a weakness, (not freedom) and have exploited it to devastating effect. If we continue to fail to identify and make repairs to that weakness, well then that's on us and we deserve what we get.
Freedom isn't to blame directly, but freedom can be abused and without defense mechanisms it will be abused.
I think if your country's politics can be this badly steamrolled by a kleptocracy with the GDP of Italy then maybe, just maybe, you live in a failed state.
This is victim blaming. Destruction is asymmetrical compared to creation. It takes one idiot with a match and 30 seconds to burn your house down. Doesn't mean your house wasn't properly constructed.
Victim blaming is akin to taking responsibility in very many domains. This is becoming a bit of a cognitive fallacy, in my opinion.
Despite a 24/7 media campaign to suggest otherwise, there is no proof that Russia actually did this. The first line of your link agrees.
I think the relentless scapegoating by Western elite of Russia/China/Iran/COVID/$CURRENT_BOGEYMAN/etc. is the real problem. They are avoiding responsibility for a collapsing system, which is only going to allow that collapse to continue.
I think the relentless scapegoating by Western elite of Russia/China/Iran/COVID/$CURRENT_BOGEYMAN/etc. is the real problem. They are avoiding responsibility for a collapsing system, which is only going to allow that collapse to continue.
Both things can be true to varying degrees. Russian propaganda exists but it wouldn't be nearly as effective if it weren't for our elite fumbling so badly.
Yes, every important organization (nation, religion, corporation) does PR. Its normal and healthy to have some public image management when competitors may try to destroy your image for their own gain.
This is a far cry from having a coordinated disinformation campaign to cause political instability in a foreign country. The evidence of Russia doing this to any effect with Trump or Brexit is extremely scant and circumstantial. Such a campaign would be massive, well beyond the capacity of a hidden conspiracy. It would involve entire media companies and NGOs. There would be far more smoking-gun evidence than the current standard of "guilt by association with someone who spent some time in Russia".
This is a far cry from having a coordinated disinformation campaign to cause political instability in a foreign country. The evidence of Russia doing this to any effect with Trump or Brexit is extremely scant and circumstantial. Such a campaign would be massive, well beyond the capacity of a hidden conspiracy. It would involve entire media companies and NGOs. There would be far more smoking-gun evidence than the current standard of "guilt by association with someone who spent some time in Russia".
Wasn't one of the main leave campaign organisations (Leave.EU?) funded by Aaron Banks who recently lost a libel action against a newspaper that accused him of receiving funds to pay for this from the KGB?
EDIT: found a source https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61782578
EDIT: found a source https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61782578
This is exactly the poor standard of tangential & circumstantial evidence I'm talking about. Read the decision carefully.
I expect it would be quite hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt without the security services getting involved in giving evidence but the fact that he lost means that on the balance of probabilities the story is true. Maybe Cadwallr should have burgled his house to find the suitcases full of roubles!
There is tons of evidence? Some European right wing parties even freely admit to receiving Kremlin money.
It's not seen by anyone I know as scapegoat either; they're fanning existing flames. No more, no less.
It's not seen by anyone I know as scapegoat either; they're fanning existing flames. No more, no less.
I'm not sure how accurately you can call it "interference" when major political players within the affected nations are actively courting it as a way to achieve their aims while maintaining plausible deniability and a consistent funding source.
Look no further than Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri Peskov’s daughter, Elizaveta, being an assistant to far-right Aymeric Chauprade, a French Member of the European Parliament.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aymeric_Chauprade
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aymeric_Chauprade
This is why all of these people who are always predicting collapse or crisis keep getting it wrong...the collapse if and when it happens, will not hit the US first...it is other countries instead like the UK, Lebanon, TUrkey, etc. Yes, the US has problems, but we see over and over that elsewhere has worse problems. Even the UK (inflation), Germany (inflation, dependence on Russian nat. gas), Japan (a recent assassination, bad demographics). The US dollar hit yet another high yesterday.
Yep, exactly. The US is nowadays Rome, and the Western world is its modern Roman empire. When the actual (Western) Roman empire fell into decline, Rome (the city) was hit last in terms of decline in standards of living. It's the peripheries which got cut off first.
Wow, what an optimistic view of things. From my view, the UK is about to take a 50% drop in their standard of living, if they manage things well, they might recover it all within a decade. This is if they make a trade deal with the US.
If they fail this, and are left in the breeze, they'll eventually have to beg for a seat at the French lead EU (if the EU survives), and things won't be as nice.
The world is deglobalizing, because the US won the cold war, and it's no longer in our interest to keep subsidizing the rest of the world's free trade. If you're not in our trade group, things are going to be about as rough as they were for your nation prior to WWII.
If they fail this, and are left in the breeze, they'll eventually have to beg for a seat at the French lead EU (if the EU survives), and things won't be as nice.
The world is deglobalizing, because the US won the cold war, and it's no longer in our interest to keep subsidizing the rest of the world's free trade. If you're not in our trade group, things are going to be about as rough as they were for your nation prior to WWII.
I love Charlie Stross:
"And feel free to use the comment thread to discuss what's coming next for the UK as the vector sum of Brexit, COVID19, the energy crisis from the Ukraine war, and the worst inflationary bubble since 1980 punches us in the face."
"And feel free to use the comment thread to discuss what's coming next for the UK as the vector sum of Brexit, COVID19, the energy crisis from the Ukraine war, and the worst inflationary bubble since 1980 punches us in the face."
Cf. Cory Doctorow's "Tory Britain is crashing and burning - They got Brexit done" - https://doctorow.medium.com/tory-britain-is-crashing-and-bur...
If I may point to the elephant in the room:
https://www.crystolenergy.com/assessing-future-north-sea-oil...
The UK used to be Nigeria, now it's Mali.
> This is the sort of crisis that brings down nations.
What does "bring down nations" mean though? Replacing a government? Violent overthrow and then writing an actual constitution? Because a bunch of the challenges being faced would still be issues under any regime right? A different government isn't going to magically get more potatoes this year, or significantly more energy from strained European countries this winter.
What does "bring down nations" mean though? Replacing a government? Violent overthrow and then writing an actual constitution? Because a bunch of the challenges being faced would still be issues under any regime right? A different government isn't going to magically get more potatoes this year, or significantly more energy from strained European countries this winter.
A nation is, technically speaking, it's rulers and the rules they impose (on others and themselves). So bringing down a nation would imply a sea-change in rulers & rules. Considering that authoritarianism is humanities Default form of Government, it stands to reason that "bringing down" a democracy means reverting to that default. This will happen with the alternative is worse. (The situation in Somalia is arguably worse than authoritarianism, for example). Authoritarianism might also serve, at least in theory, as a kind of "boot loader" for something better - although the transition always seems to require a great deal of blood.
Create a crisis, provide a solution. Install bought/captured politicians, perhaps a dash of tyranny, CBDC and social credit for all. Total surveillance and enslavement. It doesn't require violence, people will demand these 'solutions' when they are stressed enough.
Every tyrannical regime in the past had a constitution. Rendered mute by a uni-party system, captured media and judiciary. Now you can add big tech collusion to the fray.
Every tyrannical regime in the past had a constitution. Rendered mute by a uni-party system, captured media and judiciary. Now you can add big tech collusion to the fray.
> Create a crisis, provide a solution.
The problem with that simplistic analysis is that it relies on the unspoken assumption that if it weren't for those sneaky, all-powerful, conniving [members of whichever out-group is being blamed] then the whole world would be peaceful and prosperous and free.
Having said that, I absolutely agree with the rest of your comment about what's ahead of us.
The problem with that simplistic analysis is that it relies on the unspoken assumption that if it weren't for those sneaky, all-powerful, conniving [members of whichever out-group is being blamed] then the whole world would be peaceful and prosperous and free.
Having said that, I absolutely agree with the rest of your comment about what's ahead of us.
Of course it doesn't guarantee we'd be prosperous and free but it does allow a hundred more rolls of the dice that a way might emerge.
The Queen is the main thing holding the country together. When she dies, expect civil disorder at best.
wen transatlantic natural gas pipeline
> This is the sort of crisis that brings down nations.
It's really not. This is some pretty sad FUD.
Unsafe to swim in waters. Trash not taken out. Crop failure. Inflation. Low heating fuel reserves (in a country that doesn't even get snow). Strikes. Absent politicians.
This is basically an average week in many countries.
It's really not. This is some pretty sad FUD.
Unsafe to swim in waters. Trash not taken out. Crop failure. Inflation. Low heating fuel reserves (in a country that doesn't even get snow). Strikes. Absent politicians.
This is basically an average week in many countries.
I'd ignore Stross. He's been predicting inflation and famine since Brexit passed.[1] Something about the past decade has broken his brain. Obviously the issues he mentions are worth worrying about, but they're not going to cause the UK or the rest of europe to fall into anarchy.
1. https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/10/facts-o...
1. https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/10/facts-o...
Brexit didn't really come into force until January 2020, so we're only what, 2.5 years into its implementation now? Seems a little early to be dismissing the dire predictions.
> I'd ignore Stross. He's been predicting inflation and famine since Brexit passed.
Thank God he was wrong about all that, it's hard to imagine what the UK would look like with close to 20% inflation.
Wait...
Thank God he was wrong about all that, it's hard to imagine what the UK would look like with close to 20% inflation.
Wait...
How quickly do you think such systemic changes are going to play out? And it already did kill people. The covid response was not exactly stellar.
Yeah, Charlie was an early victim of Brexit Derangement Syndrome. I stopped following him after a long "state of the world" links post where every single link was to the Guardian. Granted, the Grauniad isn't much worse than any other paper, but if it's your only window onto the world then you're going to get a very distorted picture of reality.
The more time moves forward, the closer we are inching to a one-world government.
Or is democracy too dangerous to be left in the hands of the people.
Or is democracy too dangerous to be left in the hands of the people.
What, how?! Currently, it looks further than ever.
I don't see a way to solve humanity's problems with hundreds of governments each pursuing its own agenda.
Central planning across a large geography failed miserably and killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century. I'll take hundreds of localized solutions/experiments any day thanks.
The United States government has been extremely successful as the central point of authority of the 50 states.
Central planning has been extremely successful in lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in China, and making China a superpower. And, I shall add, a superpower that's now remained in existence (73 years) longer than the Soviet Union did (70 years).
I'm all for local experimentation, but not for local authority to block progress for all, like countries not doing anything about the climate crisis.
Central planning has been extremely successful in lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in China, and making China a superpower. And, I shall add, a superpower that's now remained in existence (73 years) longer than the Soviet Union did (70 years).
I'm all for local experimentation, but not for local authority to block progress for all, like countries not doing anything about the climate crisis.
China has enjoyed a huge trade imbalance from a one sided take on globalization. Should we all strive for China's approach to the climate crisis? Should we ask the 12 million Uyghurs how things are going?
The United States government does very little central planning.
And, you point out the (economic) success of China, and then complain about countries not doing anything about the climate crisis. Have you looked at China's CO2 emissions? Yes, they bootstrapped their economy. The environmental cost has been pretty steep, though...
And, you point out the (economic) success of China, and then complain about countries not doing anything about the climate crisis. Have you looked at China's CO2 emissions? Yes, they bootstrapped their economy. The environmental cost has been pretty steep, though...
Humanity's problems just not getting solved, short of a miracle engineering breakthrough, is more likely than all the nuclear states aggreeing to form one government. So here's hoping there is actually an illuminati running everything, I suppose.
If they can mutually agree to pursue those agendas through self-determination rather than imperialism, then they can get quite far.
That's a bit of a tall order, though, to be fair.
That's a bit of a tall order, though, to be fair.
Green energy (except nuclear) is inefficient, expensive, irregular, and the money for it goes straight to China and developing nations who mine the rare earth elements. Even Germany finally backed off from de-commissioning their last nuclear plants as the Greens realized it was illogical.
Need to remove red tape, stop controlling prices, de-regulate business, establish free trade agreements, and do all manner of things to increase real productivity and not the government-pretend kind of productivity.
Reality is a tough pill to swallow and it will likely take several years of misery before the obvious solution becomes the only solution.
Need to remove red tape, stop controlling prices, de-regulate business, establish free trade agreements, and do all manner of things to increase real productivity and not the government-pretend kind of productivity.
Reality is a tough pill to swallow and it will likely take several years of misery before the obvious solution becomes the only solution.
> Green energy (except nuclear) ... the rare earth elements.
These facts may interest you:
"the [French Environment and Energy Management Agency] ultimately concluded that the renewable energy sector actually barely uses such materials."[0]
"A large amount of uranium is in rare earth deposits, and may be extracted as a by-product."[1]
> Need to remove red tape, ... de-regulate business
Another quote for you, about the Fukushima disaster:
"There is a growing body of evidence that suggests the accident was the result of failures in regulation and nuclear plant design and that both were lagging behind international best practices and standards."[2]
[0] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/11/28/are-rare-earths-used-...
[1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
[2] https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-p...
These facts may interest you:
"the [French Environment and Energy Management Agency] ultimately concluded that the renewable energy sector actually barely uses such materials."[0]
"A large amount of uranium is in rare earth deposits, and may be extracted as a by-product."[1]
> Need to remove red tape, ... de-regulate business
Another quote for you, about the Fukushima disaster:
"There is a growing body of evidence that suggests the accident was the result of failures in regulation and nuclear plant design and that both were lagging behind international best practices and standards."[2]
[0] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/11/28/are-rare-earths-used-...
[1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
[2] https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-p...
> Need to remove red tape, stop controlling prices, de-regulate business, establish free trade agreements, and do all manner of things to increase real productivity and not the government-pretend kind of productivity.
Is there any historical evidence of this approach leading to positive change?
Just theoretically, I don't see it--energy is a public good with tons of externalities (both positive and negative).
Is there any historical evidence of this approach leading to positive change?
Just theoretically, I don't see it--energy is a public good with tons of externalities (both positive and negative).
What is 'red tape' though? No-one ever defines what red tape they would remove.
Also, surely the problem at the moment is that energy prices are controlled by series of regional monopoly energy providers, the only thing stopping them from putting bills up astronomically is price controls. If you removed the regulation stopping them from raising prices energy bills will be so high that you will have rioting in central London that would make the poll tax riots look like a church fete. I think that would be a rash move.
Also, surely the problem at the moment is that energy prices are controlled by series of regional monopoly energy providers, the only thing stopping them from putting bills up astronomically is price controls. If you removed the regulation stopping them from raising prices energy bills will be so high that you will have rioting in central London that would make the poll tax riots look like a church fete. I think that would be a rash move.
> What is 'red tape' though? No-one ever defines what red tape they would remove.
Where do I begin?
- Stop setting prices by government diktat for medical professionals' salaries and procedures. Stop preventing private enterprise from building competing clinics and hospitals. Enable public health insurance to go towards the cost of private treatments in order to reduce lines.
- Stop requiring licenses for all manner of jobs that don't need them. You shouldn't need a license to cut hair, be an interior decorator, and all manner of work that expensive licensing requirements do nothing to help
- Radically increase the speed to approve new housing and transportation development. Do a single environmental review, get 1 round of feedback, then move forwards
- Reduce import taxes and establish free trade agreements so goods breeze through customs from trading partner countries
- Increase legal immigration to expand the consumer base, expand the labor supply, and allow entrepreneurial foreigners to come in and start new businesses
- Drastically reduce corporate and income taxes to promote productive economic development
Or do the opposite of all this and be surprised when economic activity stagnates and people get poorer year after year
Where do I begin?
- Stop setting prices by government diktat for medical professionals' salaries and procedures. Stop preventing private enterprise from building competing clinics and hospitals. Enable public health insurance to go towards the cost of private treatments in order to reduce lines.
- Stop requiring licenses for all manner of jobs that don't need them. You shouldn't need a license to cut hair, be an interior decorator, and all manner of work that expensive licensing requirements do nothing to help
- Radically increase the speed to approve new housing and transportation development. Do a single environmental review, get 1 round of feedback, then move forwards
- Reduce import taxes and establish free trade agreements so goods breeze through customs from trading partner countries
- Increase legal immigration to expand the consumer base, expand the labor supply, and allow entrepreneurial foreigners to come in and start new businesses
- Drastically reduce corporate and income taxes to promote productive economic development
Or do the opposite of all this and be surprised when economic activity stagnates and people get poorer year after year
> - Stop setting prices by government diktat for medical professionals' salaries and procedures. Stop preventing private enterprise from building competing clinics and hospitals. Enable public health insurance to go towards the cost of private treatments in order to reduce lines.
Our system doesn't work like that, but we see that system in action in other countries and it doesn't seem to work very well, our health care costs are 1/5th of the US for better outcomes (e.g compare infant mortality) and we had the one of the fastest Covid vaccine rollouts in the world thanks to our centrally controlled health care system which is free to everyone at the point of use.
> - Stop requiring licenses for all manner of jobs that don't need them. You shouldn't need a license to cut hair, be an interior decorator, and all manner of work that expensive licensing requirements do nothing to help
You don't need a license for any of those things in the UK. Pretty much the main things you need actually need a 'license' for are Electrician, Doctor. Gas plumber. Many other professions are regulated and in some cases you legally can't call yourself a member of that profession without registering and passing exams etc, but you often don't need to use a regulated professional.
> - Radically increase the speed to approve new housing and transportation development. Do a single environmental review, get 1 round of feedback, then move forwards
Whatever it is the French and Spanish are doing, we should copy that. Their costs are about 1/10th of what we are paying for HS2 and they get things done really fast. I think that the French Government has a dedicated department for building high speed rail lines that has been doing it continuously since the early 80's so they have a lot of institutional knowledge on how to get this done which we don't have here. Their rail lines are still built by private contractors but in relatively small sectional contracts to increase competition in the construction market and I think the French government exercises more control of the overall design process than ours has the capacity or knowledge to do.
> - Reduce import taxes and establish free trade agreements so goods breeze through customs from trading partner countries
I believe the UK government hasn't yet imposed border controls on items coming into the UK from the EU yet, because they have failed to set up the system, so this is already happening. But you are right that it would probably make sense to rejoin the EU customs union, then we would get all the free trade agreements back that we just lost. Then you might as well rejoin the EU to get a say in how those deals are negotiated...
> - Increase legal immigration to expand the consumer base, expand the labor supply, and allow entrepreneurial foreigners to come in and start new businesses
Agreed. There are shortages of skilled workers in many sectors of the economy at the moment. There's a huge shortage of people to look after the elderly. A lot of companies I deal with are struggling with shortages, people have given up even answering their emails in many cases. Things that used to take one email or phone call are now taking 10 calls and 10 emails over the course of months.
> - Drastically reduce corporate and income taxes to promote productive economic development
This won't affect a lot of people who are already not paying much in tax and who can't or soon will not be able to afford their electricity and gas bills, you would need to abolish income tax for a significant proportion of the working population (say everyone earning under £20k so what's that about 25-30%?) to offset just the rising energy costs. If you want to stimulate the economy you need to have workers earning enough money to have some disposable income. E.g. the NHS employs about 1/10th of the working population of Britain, they have received real terms pay cuts over the last 13 years, therefore 1 in 10 workers has less disposable income to spend in small businesses like pubs and hairdressers thereby depressing the economy; Britain's economy has been stagnant since 2008 this is one of the reasons why. Thousands of years ago, in a crises, the Mayans dispensed grain for the population from their central repositories. The government needs to do the same thing (metaphorically) now to prevent economic hardship. Also, reducing corporate income tax doesn't stimulate growth, it suppresses it because it makes it easier to take money out of businesses instead of reinvesting it in making the business more productive; If a business buys something, it doesn't pay tax on the money it earned before it buys things it pays tax on profits after the cost of the things it has bought have been deducted. Buy new machines; tax free. Pay out to shareholders; not tax free.
Our system doesn't work like that, but we see that system in action in other countries and it doesn't seem to work very well, our health care costs are 1/5th of the US for better outcomes (e.g compare infant mortality) and we had the one of the fastest Covid vaccine rollouts in the world thanks to our centrally controlled health care system which is free to everyone at the point of use.
> - Stop requiring licenses for all manner of jobs that don't need them. You shouldn't need a license to cut hair, be an interior decorator, and all manner of work that expensive licensing requirements do nothing to help
You don't need a license for any of those things in the UK. Pretty much the main things you need actually need a 'license' for are Electrician, Doctor. Gas plumber. Many other professions are regulated and in some cases you legally can't call yourself a member of that profession without registering and passing exams etc, but you often don't need to use a regulated professional.
> - Radically increase the speed to approve new housing and transportation development. Do a single environmental review, get 1 round of feedback, then move forwards
Whatever it is the French and Spanish are doing, we should copy that. Their costs are about 1/10th of what we are paying for HS2 and they get things done really fast. I think that the French Government has a dedicated department for building high speed rail lines that has been doing it continuously since the early 80's so they have a lot of institutional knowledge on how to get this done which we don't have here. Their rail lines are still built by private contractors but in relatively small sectional contracts to increase competition in the construction market and I think the French government exercises more control of the overall design process than ours has the capacity or knowledge to do.
> - Reduce import taxes and establish free trade agreements so goods breeze through customs from trading partner countries
I believe the UK government hasn't yet imposed border controls on items coming into the UK from the EU yet, because they have failed to set up the system, so this is already happening. But you are right that it would probably make sense to rejoin the EU customs union, then we would get all the free trade agreements back that we just lost. Then you might as well rejoin the EU to get a say in how those deals are negotiated...
> - Increase legal immigration to expand the consumer base, expand the labor supply, and allow entrepreneurial foreigners to come in and start new businesses
Agreed. There are shortages of skilled workers in many sectors of the economy at the moment. There's a huge shortage of people to look after the elderly. A lot of companies I deal with are struggling with shortages, people have given up even answering their emails in many cases. Things that used to take one email or phone call are now taking 10 calls and 10 emails over the course of months.
> - Drastically reduce corporate and income taxes to promote productive economic development
This won't affect a lot of people who are already not paying much in tax and who can't or soon will not be able to afford their electricity and gas bills, you would need to abolish income tax for a significant proportion of the working population (say everyone earning under £20k so what's that about 25-30%?) to offset just the rising energy costs. If you want to stimulate the economy you need to have workers earning enough money to have some disposable income. E.g. the NHS employs about 1/10th of the working population of Britain, they have received real terms pay cuts over the last 13 years, therefore 1 in 10 workers has less disposable income to spend in small businesses like pubs and hairdressers thereby depressing the economy; Britain's economy has been stagnant since 2008 this is one of the reasons why. Thousands of years ago, in a crises, the Mayans dispensed grain for the population from their central repositories. The government needs to do the same thing (metaphorically) now to prevent economic hardship. Also, reducing corporate income tax doesn't stimulate growth, it suppresses it because it makes it easier to take money out of businesses instead of reinvesting it in making the business more productive; If a business buys something, it doesn't pay tax on the money it earned before it buys things it pays tax on profits after the cost of the things it has bought have been deducted. Buy new machines; tax free. Pay out to shareholders; not tax free.
Green energy will save the environment and save the poor decades from now when these sophisticated and complex climate and economic models predict the poor will really suffer from an apocalypse.
It is unfortunate that the poor will likely die at a higher rate in the next three years from reduced economic output, ESG induced famine, inflation and that Germany is back to coal and firewood in the short term. But realize it is for a greater future.
It is unfortunate that the poor will likely die at a higher rate in the next three years from reduced economic output, ESG induced famine, inflation and that Germany is back to coal and firewood in the short term. But realize it is for a greater future.
Non-dispatchable generation sources are just fine, so long as you also consider storage requirements and transmission improvements in the total cost. If we could get commitment to those things as part of generation rollout I suspect the total cost per MW would be comparable to nuke, provide the same base loading capacity (better actually, since it could quickly respond to demand) and not generate nuclear waste. If we aren't able to summon the political will to tackle the storage and transmission issues then I agree nuke is the best option but it;s silly and reductive to paint it as 'nuke good renewable bad'
A cat and a mouse decide to team up and store up some surplus food for hard times. They agree during abundant times to both put a little extra fat into a shared pot. They then store the pot in a safe place. The cat, however, is overcome by hunger even in the abundant times. Every few weeks the cat sneaks to the pot and takes just a little bit, maybe just a few licks at a time. Over the course of a couple of years of sneaking and small stealing the cat manages to completely deplete the pot. Then hard times hit, as both expected. The cat and the mouse both go to the pot together to divide their savings. But when they lift the lid they both gasp in surprise that the pot is empty. The mouse slowly realizes what must have happened. The cat is guilty but won't stand being accused and so it turns on the mouse and eats it.
My whole life I had heard of the rich upper-classes described as "fat cats" but I didn't really understand the message until I read the story. From at least 2008 we were supposed to be saving for the next crisis. Yet here we are at the next crisis and low and behold the pot is empty.
The reason we fall for this over and over again is that the short-term memory of civilization is shorter than the cycles these things happen over.