Brexit

[Joe Bagadonuts]

You're talking like a simpleton. It isn't an attempted insult, it's factual. Have I ever even typed out the word utopia on Jazzfanz? Socialism is a spectrum, you don't need a PhD to figure this out. Why are you not understanding this?



And why do you figure this "sovereignty" is something that needs to be done? What are the benefits?

You also ignored my point on Putin, Mr Amurikah must remain strong in the eyes of her Enemies

You are a lot more of a global activist than I am. It's not important to me to have my voice heard in Canadian politics. To the extent that I comment, it's only as a spectator. The same is true of European politics. It is not my decision what the Brits do. If they have put themselves under threat from Putin that was their decision. I believe they were warned repeatedly and extensively about that and many other potential negative consequences of exiting, yet they did anyway. My only comment was that it appears that the majority of Brits do not appreciate the role they are having to play in propping up this much larger government, and particularly the cost of fixing it's failing parts.

Whether or not you've used any particular word or not, it's abundantly clear that you believe in the promise of extensive social programs. I do not.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I agree with your last statement. I would only add that, and I'm generalizing pretty broadly here, most of these people also lack an understanding of how the world economic/political systems work, and thus their cost/benefit calculation is a grossly misinformed one. A similar example here in the US were all the Tea Baggers who thought it was not such a bad thing for the US to default of its debts. Their opinions were honestly held but they lacked any understanding of how the international capital markets work and the role that the US and the US dollar play in the world economy (and how that fact that the rest of the world wants to hold dollar denominated assets allows the US in the first place to incur such large debts--once they no longer want to hold dollar denominated assets . . . watch out!). While I understand the common person's anger toward the elites (and the elites richly deserve it, they are out of touch, corrupt and often incompetent), I am very, very hesitant about turning decisions that affect such critical economic outcomes over to people who haven't the first clue about the implications of those decisions. Yes, that's how democracy works, but that also why there's few (if any) true democracies (democratic systems are better defined as representative systems) and most policies are made essentially by a specialized elite and technocrats. As galling as that is at times (and how justifiable the anger toward these corrupt and self-serving yahoos is), it's preferable to making such decisions by the popular votes of the uniformed masses.

Excellent post. Your recognition of some of the legitimate reasons that the unwashed masses do not trust the intellectual elite is something that I've rarely heard admitted from a liberal perspective. It is also my opinion that a lot of the thinking on the left is theoretical. It appears to be wonderfully informed and humanistic when discussed in academic circles, but then it fails miserably when implemented in the real world where real people (including the academics who created it) immediately start trying to game the system to their personal advantage. Take a look at the fortune the Clinton's have amassed in the last decade as a prime example. Take a look at how Obamacare has actually gone vs. how Obama claimed it was going to go for an example of a different sort.

 

[Gameface]

So could I just walk into one of the banks downtown and hand them $100 US and convert it to the UK Pound?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Excellent post. Your recognition of some of the legitimate reasons that the unwashed masses do not trust the intellectual elite is something that I've rarely heard admitted from a liberal perspective. It is also my opinion that a lot of the thinking on the left is theoretical. It appears to be wonderfully informed and humanistic when discussed in academic circles, but then it fails miserably when implemented in the real world where real people (including the academics who created it) immediately start trying to game the system to their personal advantage. Take a look at the fortune the Clinton's have amassed in the last decade as a prime example. Take a look at how Obamacare has actually gone vs. how Obama claimed it was going to go for an example of a different sort.

I think your criticism of the left is well taken but very selective. The right has it's own pet theories, many promulgated also by academics and right leaning think tanks, that often stand in stark contrast to 'reality.' Look no further than trickle down economics, which has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked, yet, like Jason Voorhies, just won't die and continues to get recycled by the right. Or how about, liberating Iraq from Sadaam and establishing a democracy there will spark a democratic revolution in the Middle East.

The truth is, ALL, or nearly all, policies are based on some kind of theoretical framework and thus their enactment and implementation is, in effect, a grand social/economic experiment. This is no less true for any health care policy the right will propose (and remember, the foundations of Obamacare were hatched in right wing think tanks) than Obamacare. I've been on record saying I have no problem with reforming Obamacare based on lessons learned, BUT the Republicans have refused to act in good faith from the beginning on this and continue to do so. Their replacement plan recently unveiled by Ryan is no less an exercise in theory, assumptions, wishful thinking that was Affordable Care Act.

You really need to turn your criticism inward, there's a very pot calling kettle black aspect of your critique.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You're talking like a simpleton. It isn't an attempted insult, it's factual. Have I ever even typed out the word utopia on Jazzfanz? Socialism is a spectrum, you don't need a PhD to figure this out. Why are you not understanding this?



And why do you figure this "sovereignty" is something that needs to be done? What are the benefits?

You also ignored my point on Putin, Mr Amurikah must remain strong in the eyes of her Enemies

It seems to me that it is nearly self evident that the US is a mixed system, in which the US version capitalism is already mixed with heavy doses of statism. The same is true of every major capitalist economic power. Pure capitalism doesn't exist (thank God, if you want pure capitalism at its best, or close to it, you must have a soft spot in your heart for the Robber Barron days). It's not an either/or question but one of degree.

I find it interesting that all of the critics of socialism have no problems using the state to promote different industries via a variety of economic incentives. Using the state to help private citizens is a no no, but using the state to help corporations, hell yes! Come to think of it, now that that SCOTUS has, in its wisdom, declared corporations to be people, what's the difference?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I think your criticism of the left is well taken but very selective. The right has it's own pet theories, many promulgated also by academics and right leaning think tanks, that often stand in stark contrast to 'reality.' Look no further than trickle down economics, which has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked, yet, like Jason Voorhies, just won't die and continues to get recycled by the right. Or how about, liberating Iraq from Sadaam and establishing a democracy there will spark a democratic revolution in the Middle East.

The truth is, ALL, or nearly all, policies are based on some kind of theoretical framework and thus their enactment and implementation is, in effect, a grand social/economic experiment. This is no less true for any health care policy the right will propose (and remember, the foundations of Obamacare were hatched in right wing think tanks) than Obamacare. I've been on record saying I have no problem with reforming Obamacare based on lessons learned, BUT the Republicans have refused to act in good faith from the beginning on this and continue to do so. Their replacement plan recently unveiled by Ryan is no less an exercise in theory, assumptions, wishful thinking that was Affordable Care Act.

You really need to turn your criticism inward, there's a very pot calling kettle black aspect of your critique.

Another excellent post.

 

[Deleted member 365]

It seems to me that it is nearly self evident that the US is a mixed system, in which the US version capitalism is already mixed with heavy doses of statism. The same is true of every major capitalist economic power. Pure capitalism doesn't exist (thank God, if you want pure capitalism at its best, or close to it, you must have a soft spot in your heart for the Robber Barron days). It's not an either/or question but one of degree.

I find it interesting that all of the critics of socialism have no problems using the state to promote different industries via a variety of economic incentives. Using the state to help private citizens is a no no, but using the state to help corporations, hell yes! Come to think of it, now that that SCOTUS has, in its wisdom, declared corporations to be people, what's the difference?

The Koch bros have no problem with the robber baron days.

 

[JimLes]

I've always found it hilarious how so many Americans talk about EU as some unnatural massive creation, but those same Americans do not wish for their unnatural massive creation to be broken up. And the government in Washington has way more powers than the one in Brussels. And I might argue that someone from Lithuania and someone from the UK have as much, if not more in common than someone from New York and someone from rural Alabama.

 

[babe]

Babe, with due respect, coherence begets understanding. I believe Dalamon was referring to the anti-immigration sentiment (to a great extent, but not solely, fueled by bigotry), which appears to have been a major motivating factor for the 'leave' vote, and the UK Independent Party, which championed the leave cause, is increasingly become the home of the anti-immigrationists. (Anti-immigration is a more politically palatable moniker than racist or bigot.)

This vote worries me because I see it as the manifestation of a growing nationalist, isolationist, xenophobic, populist trend that is sweeping across Europe. We are seeing it here in the US also with the rise of the carnival barker bigoted buffoon. The post WWII consensus (cooperation and integration, which was a strategy to tie closer together countries with long histories of conflict with each other) appears to be breaking down, and I find that very worrisome. With the economic and political ties that have for decades now successfully bound these countries together fraying, expect to see a strengthened and increasingly powerful nationalist, isolationist, xenophobic, populist trend. Traditional and new grievances will reemerge or emerge. Societal conflicts, both within and across borders, will grow, and the political and economic stability the West has known (relatively speaking) since WWII will be imperiled. (Note, I'm not saying the above will inevitably happen, but I see it, or some version of it, as a possibility that is made more likely by this outcome and the responses--e.g., more countries leaving the EU--it is likely to trigger.)

So, while I think the Brexit itself as a bad thing for the UK and for the rest of the world, I see what it portends to be even more troublesome.

you're pretty smart. You understood what I said.

Do you mean to imply that people demand simplicity in rhetoric or they will refuse to understand? That is exactly what I said.

yah, I was being, or trying to be funny in my digs at Dal, who is no doubt extremely intelligent, and could understand me well enough if he wanted, and often pretends to be bored, or outrightly disses my comments.

I agree with your analysis of the British political scene, except I think people who want to maintain their traditions, and their way of life, and their human rights, and their basic isntitutions of democracy and western political principles against a deliberate attempt to thrown them over are hardly "bigots". People who deny the validity of their concerns and call them evil or ignorant are at the very least equally bigoted.

 

[babe]

So could I just walk into one of the banks downtown and hand them $100 US and convert it to the UK Pound?

Some banks will do foreign currency exchanges just like that, with up-to-the-minute exchange rates plus a very minimal fee. Zion's Bank does it downtown, Call any bank and just ask. Find the best one or the nearest one. You can do it inside an hour.

 

[JimLes]

I think people who want to maintain their traditions, and their way of life,

Nope, that's bigotry. You can maintain your traditions at a personal level all you want, but when you start demanding that society freeze in time and everyone else maintain the same traditions and way of life, you're a bigot. When you demand that your neighbours stay the same colour or religion as you, that's bigotry. There's no ifs or buts about that.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

you're pretty smart. You understood what I said.

Do you mean to imply that people demand simplicity in rhetoric or they will refuse to understand? That is exactly what I said.

yah, I was being, or trying to be funny in my digs at Dal, who is no doubt extremely intelligent, and could understand me well enough if he wanted, and often pretends to be bored, or outrightly disses my comments.

I agree with your analysis of the British political scene, except I think people who want to maintain their traditions, and their way of life, and their human rights, and their basic isntitutions of democracy and western political principles against a deliberate attempt to thrown them over are hardly "bigots". People who deny the validity of their concerns and call them evil or ignorant are at the very least equally bigoted.

Please consider that good natured ribbing.

I'm not denying the validity of the concerns of the brexit supporters in general. I've stated my understanding of why they are fed up with the elites and existing institutions. For those, however, who are motivated largely by anti-immigration sentiment, not all are bigots, but many, many are. Separating out the bigots from the well-intentioned folks is impossible, they are so intertwined. And let me state for the record, calling out bigots is not itself bigotry. Bigots don't merit tolerance, they merit shame and social sanction. More, our intolerance is not toward them as persons, or toward any specific outward or inherent characteristic (e.g., race, ethnicity, sexual preference, religious affiliation) but toward their ideas. There is no such thing as bigotry with regards to ideas; all ideas are, or should be, subject to critique and severe critique, or mocking/ridicule, where warranted.