Brexit Thread

[Husar]

As are the 4 million people who signed it as they were using that right to attempt to redo a referendum because they didnt like the result.

Hardly a new idea:

“Obamacare. We’re going to repel it, we’re going to replace it, get something great. Repeal it, replace it, get something great!” yelled Trump.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/09/14/t...-of-the-world/

[Brenus]

"As are the 4 million people who signed it as they were using that right to attempt to redo a referendum because they didnt like the result" That is called democracy. When you don't like something, you use debates and votes to change things.
It is not you have to agree with something, it is you have to accept the changes or rules until you can democratically change things.

[Montmorency]

Has Greyblades become so Americanized that he forgot the concept of the recall election?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Has Greyblades become so Americanized that he forgot the concept of the recall election?

18 states have recall elections on the books -- it is NOT an unknown element in US politics at all.

[Montmorency]

18 states have recall elections on the books -- it is NOT an unknown element in US politics at all.

Mine doesn't.

More seriously, they are rare and inconsequential compared to those in other countries (in part owing to decentralization, maybe). I'll give you that they have become more popular recently.

[Montmorency]

Actually, damn it. The recall might just become the next trendy device of defiance a la the filibuster.

If you really need to recall the puniest of city officials, then perhaps those positions should not be electable in the first place.

Definitely not in my state - no thanks.

[edyzmedieval]

From the outside, British politics looks quite the curious thing - you have an unelected leader of the cabinet (Mrs May, the PM), working with the cabinet on the results of a referendum that are not legally binding (the Brexit vote), to trigger an outside event (the exit from the EU) that is legally binding and will be horribly difficult to work out, which by all means will be economically, socially and politically damaging to the country.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

From the outside, British politics looks quite the curious thing - you have an unelected leader of the cabinet (Mrs May, the PM), working with the cabinet on the results of a referendum that are not legally binding (the Brexit vote), to trigger an outside event (the exit from the EU) that is legally binding and will be horribly difficult to work out, which by all means will be economically, socially and politically damaging to the country.

It could end up being a positive -- longer term -- on all three levels you name, but I cannot see it NOT being damaging for at least the next few years.

[Brenus]

"It could end up being a positive -- longer term -" Well, if someone could explain how and when, that would be nice.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"It could end up being a positive -- longer term -" Well, if someone could explain how and when, that would be nice.

New trade deals and markets; less bureaucracy then the EU will have in future; less strain from refugee problems...

Unfortunately, none of these are certainties (i said could not would) and the potential benefits would mostly take years to manifest.

[Pannonian]

New trade deals and markets; less bureaucracy then the EU will have in future; less strain from refugee problems...

Unfortunately, none of these are certainties (i said could not would) and the potential benefits would mostly take years to manifest.

One of the certainties is that, if we want to sell to EU countries, we have to abide by EU regulations. Same with any market, but the EU is 50% of our exports. As for refugee problems; none of them are EU-related.

[Brenus]

"less bureaucracy then the EU will have in future" That is if you buy brexiters propaganda. Until now, none of them was able to tell which "bureaucratic" law they want to get rid of.
As I said above, actual EU and UK were completely in agreement.
As EU "bureaucracy" is concerned, the exiters were more concerned in cancelling human rights, workers protection and welfare benefit than to tackle taxes frauds and low wages wars on workers.
For the rest see Pannonian posts.
And I am still waiting to see the benefit of the cuts imposed to us by this reactionary government (literal sense) whose ideal lays in the 18-19 centuries, sharing this with the actual EU Parliament.
And by the way, 2 local Parliaments in EU can block a International trade agreement with Canada, whereas in UK a country (Scotland) can't do this. So, question, where is the lack of democracy (and holy algorithm knows I am against the actual EU!!!!).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"less bureaucracy then the EU will have in future" That is if you buy brexiters propaganda. Until now, none of them was able to tell which "bureaucratic" law they want to get rid of.
As I said above, actual EU and UK were completely in agreement.
As EU "bureaucracy" is concerned, the exiters were more concerned in cancelling human rights, workers protection and welfare benefit than to tackle taxes frauds and low wages wars on workers.
For the rest see Pannonian posts.
And I am still waiting to see the benefit of the cuts imposed to us by this reactionary government (literal sense) whose ideal lays in the 18-19 centuries, sharing this with the actual EU Parliament.
And by the way, 2 local Parliaments in EU can block a International trade agreement with Canada, whereas in UK a country (Scotland) can't do this. So, question, where is the lack of democracy (and holy algorithm knows I am against the actual EU!!!!).

Valid points. I also freely admit that I am only moderately familiar with the particulars of European trade deals and the like -- a good portion of it picked up here and from sources included by almost everyone in the backroom [sorry Frags].

I am always a fan of pruning back the bureaucracy, which tends to choke activity by well-intentioned accretion that stifles innovation and organizational flexibility. On the other hand, there is a percentage to whom it means scrap the safety regulations in the interest of profit, which is obviously pretty scummy. It takes care to prune back regulation without removing truly valuable safety and record-keeping components.

There is a reason that Marx was able to critique the unrestrained capitalism of the early Victorian era and good reasons that Weber felt traditional management systems were ineffective. Some measure of bureaucratic regulation IS needful because of that 5% of exploitative types who would gleefully pimp their parents if it added shekels to the next quarter's statement. Silly me, I am rather a fan of drinkable tap water.

[Montmorency]

Silly me, I am rather a fan of drinkable tap water.

I thought you lived in Florida?

Just kidding, it turns out municipal water has improved quite a bit over the past decade (at least in South Florida).

[Husar]

I generally agree, Seamus, but why do you sound like bureaucracy is purely a government thing? I get the impression that corporations introduce quite a bit of bureaucracy of their own, perhaps as well because they become really hard to control beyond a certain size if things aren't kept track of and so on. Plus of course the idea that everything that can be measured can also be improved and more. Why wouldn't a country need a bureaucracy for similar reasons? Sure, I agree that it can go too far, but I still think that is partially due to the nature of many people that tries to exploit everything. And while a corporation can fire those types if needed (or hire them as lawyers or accountants ), a country cannot just throw them out and needs to counter with more laws and bureaucracy. Of course life would be easier if we all inherently stuck to the same rules and behaviors.

As for drinking water, several lab tests here in Germany have shown that our tap water contains fewer germs than many of the high-priced bottled waters, I would therefore apply the old principle of "never change a running system". I see no reason to privatise if the current system is so well-regulated that it works just fine and isn't overly expensive. The idea has come up here as well, but I'm very strongly against it.

[Pannonian]

Valid points. I also freely admit that I am only moderately familiar with the particulars of European trade deals and the like -- a good portion of it picked up here and from sources included by almost everyone in the backroom [sorry Frags].

I am always a fan of pruning back the bureaucracy, which tends to choke activity by well-intentioned accretion that stifles innovation and organizational flexibility. On the other hand, there is a percentage to whom it means scrap the safety regulations in the interest of profit, which is obviously pretty scummy. It takes care to prune back regulation without removing truly valuable safety and record-keeping components.

There is a reason that Marx was able to critique the unrestrained capitalism of the early Victorian era and good reasons that Weber felt traditional management systems were ineffective. Some measure of bureaucratic regulation IS needful because of that 5% of exploitative types who would gleefully pimp their parents if it added shekels to the next quarter's statement. Silly me, I am rather a fan of drinkable tap water.

The thing is, most of the criticised regulations are UK-driven rather than EU-driven. Where the EU really does add regulation is in the protection of regional specialities, protecting them from unregulated commercialisation that would use their names to label unrelated products. This can hurt national and multinational companies whose scope goes beyond a single region, but it protects regional small holders by allowing them and only them to use these labels. Funnily enough, it was exactly these areas whose commercial and infrastructure interests were protected by the EU that voted to leave the EU. And upon the Leave result, they immediately asked the UK government to safeguard them as the EU had done (fat chance). Idiots.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I thought you lived in Florida?

Just kidding, it turns out municipal water has improved quite a bit over the past decade (at least in South Florida).

I do, but in central Florida (Oviedo).* My wife and daughter drink bottled or tap water that has been re-filtered. I myself just drink it and notice nothing untoward.


*Only an hour away from the WDW complex....hence the location in my forum identity blurb

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I generally agree, Seamus, but why do you sound like bureaucracy is purely a government thing? I get the impression that corporations introduce quite a bit of bureaucracy of their own, perhaps as well because they become really hard to control beyond a certain size if things aren't kept track of and so on. Plus of course the idea that everything that can be measured can also be improved and more. Why wouldn't a country need a bureaucracy for similar reasons? Sure, I agree that it can go too far, but I still think that is partially due to the nature of many people that tries to exploit everything. And while a corporation can fire those types if needed (or hire them as lawyers or accountants ), a country cannot just throw them out and needs to counter with more laws and bureaucracy. Of course life would be easier if we all inherently stuck to the same rules and behaviors.

As for drinking water, several lab tests here in Germany have shown that our tap water contains fewer germs than many of the high-priced bottled waters, I would therefore apply the old principle of "never change a running system". I see no reason to privatise if the current system is so well-regulated that it works just fine and isn't overly expensive. The idea has come up here as well, but I'm very strongly against it.

In a regulated but mostly open market, an overly bureaucratized organization will be weeded out when it cannot respond quickly enough to change or crisis or cost overheads prevent profitability. Thus the private sector (which does indeed need bureaucracy just as much as the public sector) is more self correcting.

Example: Executives at my wife's company have to be a VP to get an admin person. Directors share admins at 1 admin per 4. Project managers and lower are expected to handle their own paperwork. Why? Because they will not be competitive in bidding for work if their overhead costs are too high.


NOT so, the pubic sector, hence my emphasis. The public sector has a "limitless" pool of funding for added bureaucracy [via taxation and or deficit spending] and thus has little competitive incentive to prune back. Moreover, organizational politics favors MORE positions, rules, and people to write them as individuals in the bureaucracy make logical [in their specific context] moves to enhance their power base and position by controlling more staff, funding, etc. Do not mistake me, the public sector is needed and must regulate the market to some extent....but it tends to overdo this task, not provide the minimum necessary.

Example: The US Dept. of Agriculture. 1900 8,000 employees regulating/serving 5.74 million farms with 843.75 million acres of farmland.
1955 85,500 employees regulating/serving 5.1 million farms with 1.052 billion acres of farmland.
NOW 105,778 employees regulating/serving 2.19 million farms with 952.65 million acres of farmland.
60% of their budget is the food stamps assistance program, which started after 1955.



As to the water, I tend to agree with you. Take note of this.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The thing is, most of the criticised regulations are UK-driven rather than EU-driven. Where the EU really does add regulation is in the protection of regional specialities, protecting them from unregulated commercialisation that would use their names to label unrelated products. This can hurt national and multinational companies whose scope goes beyond a single region, but it protects regional small holders by allowing them and only them to use these labels. Funnily enough, it was exactly these areas whose commercial and infrastructure interests were protected by the EU that voted to leave the EU. And upon the Leave result, they immediately asked the UK government to safeguard them as the EU had done (fat chance). Idiots.

Ah...the old "have my cake and eat it too" approach taken by electorates world wide. I can understand your frustration.

[Pannonian]

Predictably the UK government has moved to protect the commercial and financial interests of London and the City, for that is what UK governments do. That will take up a large chunk of government spending and reduce the impact of Brexit on London. This means the political actioning of Brexit will have to involve deregulation elsewhere (since it won't be any kind of Brexit otherwise). Which will screw the regions over.

[Montmorency]

Moreover, organizational politics favors MORE positions, rules, and people to write them as individuals in the bureaucracy make logical [in their specific context] moves to enhance their power base and position by controlling more staff, funding, etc.

Less power and more stakeholders, ultimately (or "constituents" if you prefer, though it's not quite the same). As a matter of most general functioning, bureaucracies drag along to avoid the potential of stepping on toes, violating rights, and so on. It's better for things to fall apart from inaction than to take a firm role but attract claimants, critics, competitors, and civil suits for whatever reason. This incentive even works when it inevitably leads to the same troubles it hopes to avert (i.e. negligence, e.g. Flint water crisis). Leaving aside long-term social or institutional impacts, the same process of individuals avoiding liabilities will naturally have a broader affect on the population with government agents than when it happens with private agents, except in cases like massive ecological disasters or proliferation of harmful substances.

The key difference you might name is that the government incentive is to avoid angering or alarming stakeholders, while in private industry there is clearer demand for concrete positive (for stakeholders) outcomes.

[Beskar]

Looks like some people have been watching CGP Grey...

[Idaho]

In a regulated but mostly open market, an overly bureaucratized organization will be weeded out when it cannot respond quickly enough to change or crisis or cost overheads prevent profitability. Thus the private sector (which does indeed need bureaucracy just as much as the public sector) is more self correcting.

Example: Executives at my wife's company have to be a VP to get an admin person. Directors share admins at 1 admin per 4. Project managers and lower are expected to handle their own paperwork. Why? Because they will not be competitive in bidding for work if their overhead costs are too high.


NOT so, the pubic sector, hence my emphasis. The public sector has a "limitless" pool of funding for added bureaucracy [via taxation and or deficit spending] and thus has little competitive incentive to prune back. Moreover, organizational politics favors MORE positions, rules, and people to write them as individuals in the bureaucracy make logical [in their specific context] moves to enhance their power base and position by controlling more staff, funding, etc. Do not mistake me, the public sector is needed and must regulate the market to some extent....but it tends to overdo this task, not provide the minimum necessary.

Example: The US Dept. of Agriculture. 1900 8,000 employees regulating/serving 5.74 million farms with 843.75 million acres of farmland.
1955 85,500 employees regulating/serving 5.1 million farms with 1.052 billion acres of farmland.
NOW 105,778 employees regulating/serving 2.19 million farms with 952.65 million acres of farmland.
60% of their budget is the food stamps assistance program, which started after 1955.



As to the water, I tend to agree with you. Take note of this.

This is based on a fantasy version of the world, and selective perception of what government does. The budget has increased because it does more. There is more complexity, and more awareness of that complexity (in agriculture there is more disease management, regulation of markets, research, environmental concern, technology, etc).

Secondly, the private sector pisses away money on dead ends and pointless projects. The idea that the private sector is more efficient is nonsense. The very fact that private sector makes money is a sign of excess. They have more cash to throw around because they are systematically encouraged to overcharge. Having an excess is their raison detre. Public sector may be just as useless, but they have an imperative to deliver something not just profit.

[Idaho]

Directors share admins at 1 admin per 4. Project managers and lower are expected to handle their own paperwork. Why? Because they will not be competitive in bidding for work if their overhead costs are too high.

You are getting confused between motivation and justification.
The motivation for cost cutting is greater profit. The justification is pricing pressure.

[Montmorency]

Nice, but one mistake he makes is to forget the connection in dictatorships between 'subkeys' and 'the common citizens who can be ignored', which also highlights that he doesn't discuss at all the vital interactions, both direct and indirect, between rulers and the 'keys of keys'. And in general, he makes a mistake by simply assuming that citizens of democracies or educated and citizens of dictatorships are starving and illiterate, rather than examining how these individual factors are related to the poles he describes, or even whether they are tangential. To be frank, saying this didn't even impact the argument as he made it so it would have been better to completely avoid introducing that weakness.

Another thing he misses is that revolutions, as opposed to "revolts", are typically external, rather than internal. Members of the power structure who survive in the former are typically practicing opportunism rather than planned obsolescence.

Another one is that he doesn't consider how geography, and more generally history, generate the factors under consideration, and whether for example a productive population today might produce an autocracy now because there are more contributors to citizen productivity than there were a few centuries ago. A ruleset constructed just for today can't be robust.

And then there's his rule zero, which directly contradicts some of his first words: "take the throne to act, and the throne acts upon you".

But the biggest oversight is treating "treasure" as the central exchange, when ironically it is in fact concrete "power". Rulers trade power, not merely money or resources.

It feels like he's ripping on Charles Tilly, but not sufficiently.

----

Apparently that's a book he's summarizing.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This is based on a fantasy version of the world, and selective perception of what government does. The budget has increased because it does more. There is more complexity, and more awareness of that complexity (in agriculture there is more disease management, regulation of markets, research, environmental concern, technology, etc).

Secondly, the private sector pisses away money on dead ends and pointless projects. The idea that the private sector is more efficient is nonsense. The very fact that private sector makes money is a sign of excess. They have more cash to throw around because they are systematically encouraged to overcharge. Having an excess is their raison detre. Public sector may be just as useless, but they have an imperative to deliver something not just profit.

The fantasy line is neither accurate nor polite. Why don't you tone down your commentary with me, please. To my recollection, I have never tossed any rudeness (even implicitly) your way even when disagreeing with you.

My USDA example does reflect the fact that much more complexity (and better science) went into farming, especially after the dust bowl caught everyone's attention. Yet the drop in the number of farms is not simply a product of individual farmers being more productive per person and per acre (they are) but of the growth of corporate agriculture. So a goodly portion of those services designed to cope with a more complex understanding of agriculture is being used to advance the corporations you seem to detest so thoroughly and it is not in service of "the little farmer."

Profit, and the market, DO have quite a lot of inefficiencies in practice. The "invisible hand" is as haphazard as any other human endeavor -- including government. Governments may not have to meet the earnings expectations of stockholders, but the other drags on their efficiency are every bit as problematic and -- to my experience -- more so. I would concur that most government control and regulation efforts are not intending to squeeze more from their customers, but too much of government (at least in the USA, I cannot claim to know yours equally well) is horribly inefficient and ends up costing the public as much or more for a given service than most private ventures.

On the other hand, some issues simply cannot be met effectively by the private sector (infrastructure issues for one; defense against aggression for another) and government is required to regulate the private sector at least to the level of minimizing fraud and keeping the air and water clean -- because some issues are too important and enough private sector folk are unethical so as to mandate the need for regulation.

I am neither unaware of, nor happy with, the weaknesses of a regulated but largely decentralized capitalist system. I am simply not trusting of government enough -- at least as it is currently constituted -- to see a small cadre of "experts" as the solution. That path also has too many pitfalls.

How else do you explain the persistence of markets/capitalism as the dominant (not exclusive) economic form for most societies for the last 5 millennia?

[Brenus]

"How else do you explain the persistence of markets/capitalism as the dominant (not exclusive) economic form for most societies for the last 5 millennia?" Err, millennia? Not that long in Europe (few century ago in fact) market was not the benchmarking, but honour.
At your death bed, you had to give your fortune, your earthly possessions as you had to prepare to face God as you came, naked...
During millennia in fact, civilisations bloomed without the market economy. I explained it on the line market economy is a political construction, where the ones who possess protected their property/powers (through laws, force and propaganda) against the ones who have none.

[Fragony]

It's looking good http://www.politico.eu/article/round...es-early-test/

[Pannonian]

It's looking good http://www.politico.eu/article/round...es-early-test/

It's remarkable how Dutchland is the best source for optimism over Brexit.

[Fragony]

It's remarkable how Dutchland is the best source for optimism over Brexit.

Of course, the Dutch are merchants at heart. A lot dutchies want out as well and really like it that England is doing fine, makes a nexit closer. Fellow dutchie Krazilec or TA will probably really disagree with me, and in a much better argumented manner. But the results don't lie. Results are neglectable. Not without any pain as so far, saying that would be cruel, but it looks promising.

Can I still move to the UK if I was right all the time?