So, Sandwichman, I guess I am not sure what your position really is here. Do you argue that those who say immigrants help the British economy are wrong, and Boris Johnson and the 5% of UK economists who also say that is wrong are correct?For the record, I think they are right, although the hit on the UK economy will be moderated to some extent by the impending decline of the pound, with some pundits saying it will go to $1.20 from the about $1.47 it was a day or so ago.Anyway, I guess we shall see, for better or worse.
I don't have a dichotomized position, Barkley. Clearly immigration is good for "the economy" whatever that is. And that appears to be all that economists can see. Whether or not immigration causes crowding out in job markets, housing markets etc. is less clear. But that still isn't even the point. The point is that people feel that their economic circumstances haven't lived up to their expectations and immigration is part of the broader social change that is very visible. It may very well be that other elements of "flexible labor market" policies are more responsible for the experiences underlying the discontent.Instead of listening to people and understanding that they have valid reasons to feel disillusioned, establishment politicians and economists preach to them about what idiots they to oppose flexible labor market policies -- including expedited immigration.If I was cynical, I would suspect that the neoliberal technocrats deliberately set it up so that people would focus their anger on immigrants rather than other austerity and social-wage reduction policies. But, no, I think their chief defect is stupidity -- hubris and stupidity. Two chief defects: hubris, stupidity and ruthless arrogance. Among their chief defects are...
"Anyway, I guess we shall see..."We shall see if the Democratic Party establishment wakes up and smells this (not coffee) and realizes that it isn't a sure thing to beat Trump just by pointing out what a bigot he is.
David Cameron, Tony Blair, Richard Layard, take a bow. You made this shit sandwich.
I noticed that Hillary's campaign so far is pretty substance free. You're right, she needs to say more than "Trump is dangerous". I'm just not sure she has any specific policy plans to speak of. We shall see.
If you rely on mainstream media to communicate Hillary's economic policies u might as well for a message in bottle. It's not the program of the First Internationale, butts it is good ol New Deal program of taxing the rich & spending on the middle, working, poor classes, including expanding social security. But in the US system none of this can happen without working majorities in Congress.
One can argue with it, and there are parts of it I lack enthusiasm for, but I do not think HRC can be accused of having proposed nothing, substantive or not. If anything, the old complaint about her has been that she has been too traditionally wonkish, lots and lots of detailed policy positions on all sorts of things. Indeed, there is no question that of all the 22 official candidates from the two main parties, her website and set of policy proposals was had far longer and more detailed proposals on more issues than anybody's, with this being part of why Youth has found her boring, snore.
Post a Comment