jaywalker

WM I am so sorry. These are truly appalling times. I just pray that the posturing of these would-be leaders is just another 'promise' to be discarded as soon as elected. The Times today in its editorial was less sanguine: these candidates for PM have already disgraced themselves.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > well that would work out very well for us then Loz > given the massive trade deficit we have with > Germany & France - we are fixing our balance of > payments problem already by your logic...... I think this is wrong. Not just because of the J - curve effect (at first we carry on buying foreign goods even though they are more expensive, until we find domestic substitutes (but from where ....)). But mainly because the current account will indeed be 'remedied' but by INCOME effects. Falling real GDP means lower imports. So we get an improvement in the current account but that is only a symptom of stagflation. Meanwhile, the capital account is what should really worry us - 96% of all foreign exchange dealings. The impending outflow here must be matched by a current account surplus: dear god what that means for our collective standard of living.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm suffering 'read fatigue' right now > > I'm I stagflated? > > Or Bratigued ? you soon will be stagflated. that's what we've been trying to say. forgive the sense of humour failure, but (to return to the main thread) we now have the leading Tory candidate for PM (and her odious supporters) saying that EU workers in the UK, and UK citizens living in the EU, are now 'negotiable'.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think that's the question. I think the > question is whether you have anything helpful to > say on this topic, and I think you've just > answered it. you are probably right. i guess i'm just too stupid to have anything helpful to say. I was always told this at school, i should have listened. but also, I guess its only by trying that one can realise ones stupidity when given the benefit of such detailed engagement and criticism that you have kindly provided on my posts.

The question then DaveR must be whether you think your understanding of the situation is not influenced by models (consciously or non-consciously). There are it seems to me good reasons to think that ALL thinking is metaphorical in inspiration - one thing acting as a 'model' of something else. One then has to interrogate what the selection, simplification and inevitable distortion imply (the sort of work that is or should be done in the university). Or do you take ordinary commonsense thinking as veridical?

I think the problem of not wanting to know about models is deeply symptomatic of what we are going through. All school children should be taught 1. about the discovery of blood circulation. To paraphrase Bourdieu, before Harvey the ruling metaphor was of blood flow as an irrigation system. Empirically obvious because arteries and veins don't connect visibly. And you can put your arm up in the air and see the irrigation fluid drain back to the heart. So bleeding an excess of fluid perfectly rational in an attempt to cure people, but significantly, a model of retention that spills over to other ways of seeing the world. It took a SWITCH OF METAPHOR (not new observation) to see blood flow as circular. Until that moment modern medicine was impossible. 2. the same move was made by Keynes in the 1930s. Indeed, you can go to the science museum and see the 'circular flow' model of the UK economy in a machine invented by Phillips that encapsulated a basic Keynesian model with (it is said) red wine flowing through plastic tubes and reservoirs. Yet vestiges of the 'irrigation' model of the economy still abound, not least in public understanding. The full horror of the lock-in to an irrigation understanding was Mercantilism. The economy (heart) produces gold (or we can grab it from the Spanish and French) and it flows through the national economy creating wealth. It is still probably the commonplace self-evidence - as few people have been taught to switch the metaphor. AT ALL COSTS do not let gold escape the economy, as that would mean less wealth. Economics as pure accumulation. So restrict imports - each time we buy some, wealth flows away. Don't let foreign workers earn money here as they will take it back home. Those who don't earn will just consume our gold (benefits, the nhs etc). These people will take our jobs. Enclose our country (lets have it back) so that we can accumulate more gold. We don't need models - we already have one! Studies that show that net immigration is positive for UK wealth are simply wrong (usual stupidity of experts). Yet as soon as one switches to a circulation model all this is reconfigured as absolute nonsense. Wealth is accumulated through TRANSACTION with others. National currency that is acquired elsewhere RETURNS (else why did they want it?). Migrant workers are resources, adding to the potential of the economy (they also tend to be young and more dedicated workers). So the stupidity of the referendum vote was partly (there are other, more worrying reasons) that the education system in the UK is so bad that few people step back to consider the importance of metaphors in their own and the public's understanding.

er, there was an event? regrexit? would you have said the same if you were Darling woken up in the small hours and told of another event?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What were the models predicting, say 2 years out, > in 2006? that things would carry on much as before through to 2010 (say)? i.e. they did not anticipate the shock of the financial crisis? Now you are saying you have some way of knowing that the already palpable shock of regrexit (like the palpable shock of banks going bust in 2008) will just leave things as they are?

OK try this The EU can spot a hegemonic possibility when they see one. If they refuse to negotiate even informally before A50 is invoked we are placed in a hopeless negotiating position. The EU can fix individual members problems. But we have declared we are no longer a member! The accuracy of models of system outcomes is actually quite good. See the weather forecast. There is MUCH more data and MUCH more computing power (Moore's law) now: even 'chaotic' systems have long periods of stability. The BofE is polling its informants DAILY to ascertain the 'real' reaction to regrexit. Trade deals in the EU involve free movement of labour. Unfortunately most regrexiters voted 'leave' on the basis of atavistic notions of nationhood. The point of a model is that it models the system, not the shock. The shock can be calibrated - for example by the BofE's polling of informants.

I thought the EDF was a place in which we could express our views? Why is this a 'dummy' thing to do here? Having lived through previous episodes of stagflation (Barber, Healey, Lawson) I really don't want to go there again. But it seems quite likely that there is now a path dependency to exactly that outcome. Is it not worth discussing that possibility? Is your assumption that ALL modelling of the UK economy is a waste of time? If so, how can you be so sure you know where we are headed?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I VOTED REMAIN - take that > in. it is simply unclear to me why how you voted is of any relevance to this discussion. Lordship 516 has produced some (very worrying) modelling. There is already evidence of a huge hit to uk company investment decisions. There is already job relocation. Lordship 516 has pointed out the structural asymmetry of our relations with the EU. You simply refrain: 'have faith'. Unfortunately, this just sounds like cognitive dissonance.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the FTSE is at a 10 > month high indeed, where do you put your money if the UK is facing a severe recession? The FTSE 100 is mainly multinationals whose income base is NOT in the UK and heavily weighted to dollars (so the extraordinary fall in sterling benefits them). Have a look at graphs for share prices of companies constrained by the UK market and then say if you are still sanguine.

One of the problems of the vertical 'Phillips' curve we are about to ascend is that it is a one-way street: every time we have had stagflation before, the 'natural rate' of unemployment has shifted out (further attempts to move back just shifting it further). So you get an increase in unemployment of 1.5m, then the policy response shifts that to 3m. That is because when you get to the top (inflation in double digits) interest rate panic ensues (Carney sacked, Treasury takes back control, interest rates in double digits). This time I fear the financial fragility is such that it could be rather more than 3m (of course you can then take the Zimbabwe route if you want).

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We've shut down racism before and we can do it > again. In a few months time, when nothing towards > brexit has happened and the news is about > something else, some of those who feel confident > now will fade away. And the rest of us should > carry on challenging descrimination where we find > it, just as we always have. The problem is that the brexit vote HAS happened. In a few months time the rapidly deepening recession will be visible (together with inflation from the falling pound). Stagflation. Do you think this is avoidable now? Really if you do you are trapped in some kind of 'business as usual' mindset. Why do you think the BofE has announced monetary loosening and the Treasury a fiscal free for all? Those who felt legitimated by this dreadful referendum to act so appallingly will then have not just the 'insult' that the government is (rightly) not actually going to implement the immigration controls they fantasised about but also further economic repression. I am personally in despair about all this.

I will also be voting for Lib Dems (nationally, that is ...)

and one thing Khan got wrong. In rejecting the idea of a London State he said he didn't want to start putting up border controls round the M25 (actually I think our vision is a little wider than that): But we would not need border controls, Ruritania would: to stop emigration (sic).

Probably this is ultimately quite a serious issue for the labour party. If Corbyn-Momentum is re-elected leader after today's challenge then he will only have 40 supporters in Parliament. No way he can be official Leader of the Opposition (a post that has some constitutional significance). An adversarial system (benches facing each other) requires opposition. So what do the majority of Labour mps then do? They would have to form a new party - it would be their leader who became the new leader of the opposition. Not a gang of 4, a gang of 180. At least it would give them a chance to break their links with the unions and reinstate the rule that leaders are chosen to lead their party's representatives in parliament. The Tories have a similar problem by the way - it is not yet very visible but it will be when the last 2 contenders go to the membership for selection.

WorkingMummy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jaywalker, have you seen this from Khan? Issued a > joint statement with the Mayor of Paris. Link to > full article from which this is taken(Evening > Standard), which is primarily about standing > together against hate crime, is on the xenophobia > thread. Message is: cities are now more important > than countries. Interesting! > > " and Anne Hidalgo, who was the first foreign > leader to meet the new London Mayor, issued a > joint statement stating that cities were now more > important than countries in shaping the future. > > They wrote: "There is so much that unites our two > great cities. Shared history, shared culture, > shared challenges and the shared experience of > being one of just a handful of truly global > cities." > > Suggesting that the British referendum result > would not have an adverse effect, they said: > "Together, we can act as a powerful counterweight > to the lethargy of nation states and to the > influence of industrial lobbies. Together, we can > and will shape the century ahead." Looks to me only 50:50 now that brexit will happen. I think the EU is correct strategically. They refuse to negotiate even informally before A50 invoked, so we would be whistling in the dark until then. But A50 is currently irrevocable - if we don't agree with what is offered we just get kicked out at end of two year period. Who would press the button in those circumstances? There are some of course but many would have more sense. It will be kicked into touch. That, I think is why the stock market (not the pound) is rising again. Or a compromise with the A50 rules would be found: two years negotiation can start immediately on agreement/promise by EU of second decision (GE or R2) on what has been offered and if remain can stay. (The Germans would agree to this - not sure about Hollande who must be scared witless about the right's resurgence there). At which point people vote in (but EU may not exist by then if France frexit in their elections in 2018). That all looks perfectly 'democratic' to me as the term is currently deployed. So yes, very interesting. Khan makes the point that other city quasi-states in the US have enormous fiscal powers. Of course that is logical given the federal/state/city devolution there but even so... If cities have mayors how about giving them true powers to get things done? Very easy to hypothecate fiscal revenues from London straight back to London. Of course this will be a disaster for the Ruritanian economy; but that is going to continue to shrink anyway. Apparently there has been a surge in demand for London property already this week (collapse in sterling makes that an enticing proposition for foreigners). Think of all that stamp duty that could be used to enhance London life. I used to be a 'one nation' person; but now ...

OK, my apologies. the term 'fantasy' was not meant as an attack. Which of us in this matter is not ruled by our imaginations? I have responded about 'dialectic' in other thread. I agree it would be good if an outsider could take command of a govt of national unity. I think this will happen anyway, but tragically only after considerable torment the beginnings of which we are already seeing.

Hi keano, Please could you explain what you mean by the expression 'democracy'? Ideally, you might place your explanation in the context of the central genealogies of the concept by those who have spent lifetimes thinking about it, for example John Dunn (search in Amazon: Dunn, democracy).

OK, with the reports I'm hearing about racist attacks, I think we should stand together. I can elaborate what I said, but perhaps cultivating dissensus (generally a virtue) is not what we should be doing now. I agree it would be good if HM took action, but I think that very unlikely, and probably in itself something that would provoke a constitutional crisis. HM appoints PMs who then get supply from parliament. If they cannot get supply HM replaces them. But she cannot replace them otherwise under current conventions (where she is only a formal indicator of the likelihood of supply). I think the convention is right - can you imagine HRH Charles with power to take other action here? The idea of the referendum was a disaster (on this we are both agreed). My reason for this is philosophical: that the idea wrapped up in the referendum was in-itself inconsistent. What the referendum was supposed to show was the will of the people; but this undoes itself just by taking place - as we can now see very clearly. Rightly you want parliamentary representative government rather than perpetual plebiscites. But this is currently supervened by the 'democratic choice' of the referendum. The only way to deal with this is to follow the fundamental message of the sermon on the mount: if they would go with you a mile, go with them twain. If instead you say the referendum was 'democratic' (however misguided) you will have no traction against it. Thus Hegel after Kant: the positing of an antithesis (a counter-referendum) might (well who knows) undo the self-evidence of the first EVEN THOUGH it is itself wrong. We can then move back (the only possibility, however remote) to a more sensible representative government.

WorkingMummy, that is an anti-dialectic fantasy. The only way to confront the stupidity of the self-evidence is to go with it twain (as the prophet had it).

Sky News this hour reporting multiple incidents of racism in London, as relayed already by many on this Forum. No leading politician has yet said anything about this - it is a disgrace.

WorkingMummy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No way can this chaos be fixed by further > referenda. > > Obviously Brexit is a disaster. Article 50 tears > up the infrastructure of the largest single market > on the planet. > > No more simple majority popular votes about such > things. Please. > WorkingMummy we agree about the disaster. But you are wrong about how to resolve the problem. The trouble is that the referendum is perceived by people as being 'democratic'. That is meaningless (see John Dunn 'On Democracy') but it is self-evident to BOTH exit and remain supporters. The only way to undo that self-evidence is another referendum: this time with reality biting. THEN people will realise 1. in their interests to remain 2. not to have undemocratic referendums ever again. (the reason it is self-evident is that it was 'the vote of the people'. so the premise is that the people were a. well informed, 2. of sufficient unanimity to form a stable will that would persist until implementation of the new policy. The reason it is undemocratic is that 1. the people were not well informed 2. are already changing their minds 3. are not allowed to express whatever their will might be as new information unfolds).

I am ashamed of my country.