Ship of Fools: Why can't we have what we want ?

Thread: Why can't we have what we want ? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030156

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

I could be wrong about this.

But it seems to me that the average person wants the benefits of European free trade. Without the loss of sovereignty that a supra-national European government involves.

In much the same way as the average person would vote for a party that they believed would both cut taxes by 10% and improve the quality of valuable government-provided services by a similar margin.

But we never seem to be given that choice.

The Leavers hope to retain some of the benefits of trade while escaping rule by Brussels. The Remainers argue that the loss would outweigh the gain.

One party stands for more spending at the cost of more taxes, the other for lower taxes and struggles to escape the suspicion that valuable services will be cut back.

Why the mismatch between what we want and what we're offered ?

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

Fundementally, because (as indeed the examples you give) we want all our cake and to eat all of it.

When realistically, the delivery has to add up to 100%.
Being cynical, I'd say we often are offered both though, or at least something for nothing (we just know to put the corresponding effect on the other side, sometimes).

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Because to every benefit there will be a cost?

In the end, we have to make choices. Is our birthright worth losing for the gain of a bowl of soup?

It seems to me that there is still a great gulf between the teaching of Jesus and the way the world leads us. And the love of power and money still corrupts people.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

It's to do with corporate giants and the influence they now wield over government. The resultant cynicism towards our governments has bred a feeling that common sense and ordinary people's needs aren't being addressed. Therefore when the chance comes to throw off what looks like an oppressive institution, (even if in reality it may not be), it is grabbed.

Only problem is will be that the culture of big business will continue to prevail even in the face of what looks like a people's revolt. So everyone getting what they want isn't going to happen. Never does.

< bit of a ramble, think I'm Brexit-ed out >

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

To be fair, free trade was sold as an unequivocal utopian good by its most excited supporters in the financial elite.

And frankly the trade we have now is not really "free trade", it's more like "managed trade." Countries including the capitalist United States, happily retain agricultural subsidies, disadvantaging third world farmers who might actually benefit for a more open trade market in this area.

On one level, yes, manufacturing in the 60s and 70s were doomed by the 80s and 90s with the rise of the service sector. However, it was the role of government to find ways to encourage training and employment in new industries so that the majority of people can have a reasonable chance of working for a decent standard of living. I don't buy that the increasing inequality and the impoverishment of the traditional working class was a "natural" outcome of free trade. I think that that was a deliberate policy intention of the neoliberal governments of the 1980s.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

sorry, thought this thread would be about flying cars and personal jetpacks.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
the culture of big business will continue to prevail even in the face of what looks like a people's revolt. So everyone getting what they want isn't going to happen. Never does.

I know it's not going to happen. And asking why.

But I don't see "business" as necessarily hostile either to a free-trade Europe of sovereign nations or to a government that provides efficient low-cost value-for-money public services. Rather the reverse.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I could be wrong about this.

But it seems to me that the average person wants the benefits of European free trade. Without the loss of sovereignty that a supra-national European government involves.

In much the same way as the average person would vote for a party that they believed would both cut taxes by 10% and improve the quality of valuable government-provided services by a similar margin.

But we never seem to be given that choice.

The Leavers hope to retain some of the benefits of trade while escaping rule by Brussels. The Remainers argue that the loss would outweigh the gain.

One party stands for more spending at the cost of more taxes, the other for lower taxes and struggles to escape the suspicion that valuable services will be cut back.

Why the mismatch between what we want and what we're offered ?

Because politics is fundamentally about choices.

There is something called the Laffer curve in economics. If you put taxes up beyond a certain level the amount of revenue you get goes down because tax evasion and avoidance becomes endemic. If you reduce taxes below a certain level you lose revenue because people pay less tax, so governments are perpetually trying to find a point which is optimum for raising money for public services whilst not pissing off the people who are looking at their payslips and saying "how much!"

The Leave campaign was based on the idea that we can have access to the goods of the single market - being in the single market - but not the bad bits which, from the point of view of Leavers are free movement and paying money to the EU. I suspect that we are about to find out that this was a rather optimistic analysis of the case.

In 1940 Sir Winston Churchill addressed the British people. I have nothing to offer you, but blood, toil and tears. Frankly, we had a better class of politicians in those days and a better class of electorate. People knew that bad shit was going down and they cut their cloth accordingly. They could have had peace with humiliation but they preferred honour and danger. Since then we have come to the conclusion that we know what we want and that politicians are swine for not delivering it. In response politicians have taking to offering us what we want without worrying about the price. The fact is you can't have a Scandinavian welfare state with US levels of taxation and you can't have access to the Single Market without free movement of Labour. People prefer not to choose not realising that this is, itself, a choice. So we have chosen inertia,, poor leadership and dishonesty. Truly, we have our reward.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
sorry, thought this thread would be about flying cars and personal jetpacks.

As Nadia G has made clear, jet packs would just burn the backs of your shoes.

We think we can have it all because we think the market is not a zero sum game. We think the 100% gets bigger and bigger.

Invite me to a party and give me red wine, and I will explain to you what I finally learned about short selling and a curious thing called manufactured dividends.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
We think we can have it all because we think the market is not a zero sum game.

Are you suggesting that it is a zero-sum game? Because that goes against what we normally get told in economic discussions.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It is not a zero-sum game. But most everything is dependent on some form of give and take, if one thinks that no one should be completely screwed.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I could be wrong about this.

But it seems to me that the average person wants the benefits of European free trade. Without the loss of sovereignty that a supra-national European government involves.

Could you specify where you think a remain vote would have resulted in loss of sovereignty? I'm on slightly shaky ground here because I'd find it difficult to find the information that I've been reading over these last few months on the subject!

quote:
The Leavers hope to retain some of the benefits of trade while escaping rule by Brussels.

(a) we have had a veto, and (b) laws had to be agreed by all EU countries, didn't they?

[ 08. July 2016, 07:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I guess we have grown an electorate, the majority of whom seem inclined to believe those who promise them the moon, despite the fact that what is delivered is green cheese. Those who present less palatable views are classified as pessimists, so-called experts who have been wrong before, or folks who can't be trusted for other reasons.

Hope springs eternal? You can fool some of the people all of the time? Selfishness blinds you to your real self-interest? Growing up is when you realise it's not all about you?

Take your pick.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

It's always been about 'smash and grab' for Britain when it comes to Europe. You want all the benefits without having to provide for the rest of Europe in terms of support for the poorer nations despite being one of the most wealthy nations yourselves. There is little by way of the concept of sharing burdens in a crisis; whether it be a refugee crisis or an economic issue or even a political one. Britain has always taken an insular approach to Europe and an insular view of itself as a nation state. It was able to do this in the days of empire and I guess you could argue that it served it well in that regard and in that time. But the world has changed and I suspect that in the coming years Britain will wake up to this fact. It's all very well having the 'smash and grab' approach within Europe, but outside it you're not even close enough to the window to get smashing, so why would you think that you would (or should be able to) continue the same thing? But let's be honest, Europe was growing weary of Britain within the EU long before the Brexit vote. Britain continually sought what was best only for itself, never really fully committed to the EU ideals (and I'm not necessarily talking about the economics of it) and had literally decades of deceit in it's media.

Now Britain wants a guarantee that it will get free movement of people and lovely trade agreements etc even after it leaves. The rest of Europe looks on in utter disbelief at just how self serving a nation can actually become. But they are also concerned. Other parts of Europe know what happens when you whip up the population to vote for something you know you cannot deliver. All the trade agreements in the world won't save you from the wrath of the populous when they work out they've been lied to. If that is having your cake and eating it, well, I can only hope and pray that day never comes to the door of anyone else in Europe.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Fundementally, because (as indeed the examples you give) we want all our cake and to eat all of it.

When realistically, the delivery has to add up to 100%.
Being cynical, I'd say we often are offered both though, or at least something for nothing (we just know to put the corresponding effect on the other side, sometimes).

You're right that some people sometimes do seem to want the logically impossible (everyone to have above average) or the practically impossible (something for nothing).

But I'm not seeing that either of the examples I've quoted - a Europe of sovereign nations voluntarily participating in a common trade pact, or a government committed to a path of growing service levels and shrinking tax rates as fast as innovation, productivity and economic growth allow - necessarily falls into the category of either type of impossible.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
There is something called the Laffer curve in economics. If you put taxes up beyond a certain level the amount of revenue you get goes down because tax evasion and avoidance becomes endemic. If you reduce taxes below a certain level you lose revenue because people pay less tax, so governments are perpetually trying to find a point which is optimum for raising money for public services whilst not pissing off the people who are looking at their payslips and saying "how much!"

I don't really think that any government is trying to experimentally determine the Laffer curve [and it is rarely invoked outsides circles of those who want smaller government to start with]. The only empirical evidence seems to point at the revenue maximising rate to being around the high 60s percent wise, There isn't much - or any - evidence that any first world country has taxes that lie in the 'wrong side of the curve'.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0