UK Emergency Budget

[Hauldren Collider]

Kuci has soundly whipped both of you....

Yes...the fact that you guys don't recognize how badly yall have been pwned is really the tragedy here

[Dauphin]

**** fairness. I don't see the point in giving foreign aid or welfare to the people in the country I live, unless it helps me. I would nominally say that giving welfare (or not taking it away) is more advantagous than giving foreign aid (or not taking it away).

[ricketyclik]

So BFB objects to the lowest decile being hit more hard than all but the highest decile as a proportion of income, Kuci says what have they got to complain about, they're better off than the 3rd world, BFB points out that this is hardly a valid point given that what's being discussed is how the very poor in the UK are the ones being ripped off by comparison to the wealthy in the UK, and a typical argument of the selfish justifying their ripping off of the poor, and the usual suspects who take this line walk in and say Kuci won the argument.

You won BFB, whatever the bleatings and chest thumpings of those who want to justify their rapacious stances.

[Kuciwalker]

We'll let the audience decide on the hilarity value. The fact that you might just qualify as an actuary when you apparently can't understand a straightforward graph is probably more a tragedy than a comedy.

Let's take inventory, here.

You are and grew up as one of the most affluent people on the planet. Your affluence has almost nothing to do with your own decisions - it's almost entirely the luck of being born in the right place, to the right parents, without deformity or disability and with some measure of natural intellect. You led an incredibly sheltered childhood, so you grew up with a deep bitterness the people who were somewhat more sheltered than you, and had even shinier toys. Your entire value system is based on helping people like yourself. You look inside your tiny little country and try to redistribute its resources to the worst off inside it, because it lets you feel smug about how much better you are, how much more moral you are.

Then one day, someone takes your map and erases all the silly little lines people put there, and asks "what about the people over here?" What? The outrage! Comparing us to brown people? Challenging your central belief that you've overcome great adversity? Suggesting that the poor Britons you've spent your whole life voting your tax dollars... maybe aren't the people most in need of them? THIS PERSON MUST BE EVIL.

Your kind are utterly despicable; the conceit that national boundaries are anything but absurd human fictions is probably the single greatest impediment to good remaining in the world. You're just like the people in Orange County, who do everything they can to make sure as much of their money as possible goes to the local schools. You're just like the politician who decries immigrants because BRITONS ARE LOSING THEIR JOBS. You're just like the middle-class auto worker [someone wealthier than average IN THE RICHEST COUNTRY ON EARTH] who complains about people driving cars made on the other side of the ocean - it's all part of a plot to destroy the middle class. You are every petty, selfish, nearsighted person in the first world, without an ounce of genuine charity in your heart. And, bizarrely, you are smug and self-righteous about it.

Grow up.

[Kuciwalker]

Kuci has soundly whipped both of you....

I have one secret rhetorical advantage: my thesis is actually true.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Will old and disabled people in Britain starve to death on the streets as a result of this budget?

they already do, this budget will just speed it up.

from New Year 2009...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4030321/Millions-of-elderly-people-live-in-poverty-figures-suggest.html

"In fact, today's state pension is worth even less in relation to average wages than it was in 1908 and next year's increase in the state pension will be a measly £4.55 a week, at a time when millions of older people will be faced with the unenviable dilemma of trying to heat their homes or eat properly."

UK

[MOBIUS]

If you're going to kill people off, it's more efficient to kill off the old people!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

exactly, less pension liablilites going forward... I hear that the Tories are planning on exporting old people to Poland

[Frozzy]

What could possibly make you think I support any of those policies? I hate tariffs and can't see why anyone would want our foreign aid to be ineffective.

You couldn't have missed the point more if you were shooting the wrong way.

You bemoan the lack of spending by your country to help the worlds poorest, and desire the developed world to spend more to achieve external progressivism through internally regressive measures. After all, what does someone who can't pay the gas bill in Rotherham have to whinge about?

Ah, but it's a democratic system. Wonderful. So our Rotherham man goes to the polls along with everyone else that can't pay the gas bill, and kicks the government out in favour of one that lets him pay the gas bill. Simple.

But of course, he has the "wrong" set of values. Democracy sucks.

Now, let's take the other side of the coin. The aid money reaches a country like Malawi, one of the least developed and most corrupt countries on earth. The government takes a portion as a customs revenue and distributes it amongst itself. Infrastructure is built up absolutely optimally, but because of the inflow of cash the Malawian kwacha goes up and farmers can't sell their crops overseas. So, there are very pretty buildings and a great rail network or whatever, but noone has any jobs. So, they get bored and start up some violence.

But, of course, they have the "wrong" set of values. How awful. We must change this!

The problem you have is the same problem self-appointed philosophers and technocrats have always had in trying to define what is right and wrong outside of genuine democratic discourse. We can all bleat on about how wonderful it would be to split the world into a North/South dichotomy and tax one and welfare the other, but it's just blank slate fantasy.

While the person in Rotherham can't pay his gas bill, he'll want to pay his gas bill. And so, while someone can offer him that, he'll take it, as part of the democratic system. If that desire trumps any moral ambition to help people he's never met, then you can't decide that he has the "wrong" value set, because it's his choice.

You are every petty, selfish, nearsighted person in the first world, without an ounce of genuine charity in your heart.

That is a pretty good description of overall human behaviour. If you think you're blessed with a superior moral compass and the gift of self-sacrifice, then frankly Bugs is right and you do need to discover what it feels like to not be able to pay bills when everyone else can, and the misery associated with it, and see how it changes your value set.

It might make you happy to see my money go to Malawi, but it doesn't make me happy if I can't pay bills, and while I have a democratic voice I will exercise that. Your values can sod off.

In fact, it probably doesn't make people in Malawi happy either.

[Kuciwalker]

You bemoan the lack of spending by your country to help the worlds poorest, and desire the developed world to spend more to achieve external progressivism through internally regressive measures. After all, what does someone who can't pay the gas bill in Rotherham have to whinge about?

No. I desire the developed world to pursue global progressivism irrespective of its local regressivity. I believe that local progressivity is almost certainly part of the most plausible path towards that end, but is not an end in itself.

The problem you have is the same problem self-appointed philosophers and technocrats have always had in trying to define what is right and wrong outside of genuine democratic discourse. We can all bleat on about how wonderful it would be to split the world into a North/South dichotomy and tax one and welfare the other, but it's just blank slate fantasy.

That's why I said the best plausible ways to improve world prosperity involve various ideas already part of the mainstream political discourse - free trade, lower immigration barriers, improving economic and technological growth. I also suggested that it would be good to massively increase foreign aid spending but we need to be careful to do so somewhat inconspicuously - it needs to be done in a politically sustainable way. And such a system would almost certainly not look like the traditional Western welfare state - the low-hanging fruit is more like "let's hire dirt-cheap Indian labor to build water purification plants".

That is a pretty good description of overall human behaviour. If you think you're blessed with a superior moral compass and the gift of self-sacrifice, then frankly Bugs is right and you do need to discover what it feels like to not be able to pay bills when everyone else can, and the misery associated with it, and see how it changes your value set.

I'm pretty sure I've been careful not to actually claim that I am a "better person" than he is, whatever that means. Obviously, I do think that my position is objectively correct and his position is objectively false, and the fact that his position is widespread is a substantial impediment to the improvement of global welfare.

[Frozzy]

No. I desire the developed world to pursue global progressivism irrespective of its local regressivity. I believe that local progressivity is almost certainly part of the most plausible path towards that end, but is not an end in itself.

It's an essential component. Unfortunately, there is no compulsive element over the developed world and so global progressivism is essentially a voluntary aspect; this voluntarism occurring through the democratic system. So, while voters has problems that it wants to fix that are closer to home, voluntarism will never manifest itself.

It's no small wonder that the list of countries with the highest interest in protectionism against the third world and the biggest failure to meet aid targets are the likes of France, Germany and Italy with a long history of internally progressive reform.

That's why I said the best plausible ways to improve world prosperity involve various ideas already part of the mainstream political discourse - free trade, lower immigration barriers, improving economic and technological growth. I also suggested that it would be good to massively increase foreign aid spending but we need to be careful to do so somewhat inconspicuously - it needs to be done in a politically sustainable way. And such a system would almost certainly not look like the traditional Western welfare state - the low-hanging fruit is more like "let's hire dirt-cheap Indian labor to build water purification plants".

I don't understand what you mean by doing it "inconspicuously". Do you mean with minimal negative economic side effects (which is very difficult to achieve, and a huge academic counter argument to the importance of foreign aid), or politically inconspicuous?

Also consider that there are two players to every game. In the first phase of modern globalisation in the late 1800s/early 20th century, we had fairly impressive income growth, and international incomes converged. Then, in the second wave of globalisation after the 1970s, growth grew but incomes diverged. While Zambia was about 7 times poorer than Britain when it became independent, it is now about 38 times poorer.

Probably the best theory for this is due to imperial forces acting removing disincentives for capital to move into the developing world, as there were higher rates of returns. This isn't the case in the second wave so far, and it has caused pretty severe global imbalances that further deter integration.

It's not convincing enough to claim that if the West does the acting, global progressivism will result.

I'm pretty sure I've been careful not to actually claim that I am a "better person" than he is, whatever that means. Obviously, I do think that my position is objectively correct and his position is objectively false, and the fact that his position is widespread is a substantial impediment to the improvement of global welfare.

It's a natural position. Your issue is a failure to recognise the reasons for that viewpoint and to assuage them.

Policy objectives are only valid as long as they are agreed upon.

[Kuciwalker]

It's an essential component. Unfortunately, there is no compulsive element over the developed world and so global progressivism is essentially a voluntary aspect; this voluntarism occurring through the democratic system. So, while voters has problems that it wants to fix that are closer to home, voluntarism will never manifest itself.

Yeah, sure I said basically the same thing earlier. The key point is that this internal progressivism is closer to a necessary evil than a moral obligation - we should do it for structural reasons, rather than its immediate benefit to global welfare.

I don't understand what you mean by doing it "inconspicuously". Do you mean with minimal negative economic side effects (which is very difficult to achieve, and a huge academic counter argument to the importance of foreign aid), or politically inconspicuous?

Politically inconspicuous - it'd be nice if there were some way to deceive the voters into underestimating the amount of foreign aid we do. Sadly, the opposite appears to be the case - some polls of Americans show that they think foreign aid makes up as much as one quarter of our federal budget. So I'd settle for just correcting that misapprehension.

Also consider that there are two players to every game. In the first phase of modern globalisation in the late 1800s/early 20th century, we had fairly impressive income growth, and international incomes converged. Then, in the second wave of globalisation after the 1970s, growth grew but incomes diverged. While Zambia was about 7 times poorer than Britain when it became independent, it is now about 38 times poorer.

I don't think the proportion is particularly relevant compared to the actual growth rates themselves. That said, Africa in particular has been poorly served by globalization compared to the rest of the developing world. Look at e.g. China.

[Observation: Richard Nixon was one of the greatest humanitarians of the 20th century?]

[Observation 2: this comparison doesn't account for welfare gains from immigration.]

Probably the best theory for this is due to imperial forces acting removing disincentives for capital to move into the developing world, as there were higher rates of returns. This isn't the case in the second wave so far, and it has caused pretty severe global imbalances that further deter integration.

Perhaps. I don't know enough details to really set forth or judge any hypotheses, particularly wrt Zambia.

It's not convincing enough to claim that if the West does the acting, global progressivism will result.

While reforms in parts of the third world may be useful or necessary (North Korea!) for genuine gains there, it's not really relevant to the question of what we should do.

It's a natural position. Your issue is a failure to recognise the reasons for that viewpoint and to assuage them.

Look, I recognize that his position is widely held - why do you think I was able to construct the litany of terrible political actors he's like? As I mentioned earlier, internal progressivism is important in part to placate such people so we can gather the political will to do useful but potentially regressive things like lower tariffs and admit more immigrants.

[KrazyHorse]

There is empirical evidence to suggest that trade and immigration are actually less regressive than is, for example, basic technological progress (and may actually be progressive).

A lot of the political economy theory of the last quarter century is based around the intranational tradeoff between equality and efficiency in international markets, but in reality it appears that despite much theoretical intuition otherwise, this is a free lunch....

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Let's take inventory, here.

You are and grew up as one of the most affluent people on the planet. Your affluence has almost nothing to do with your own decisions - it's almost entirely the luck of being born in the right place, to the right parents, without deformity or disability and with some measure of natural intellect. You led an incredibly sheltered childhood, so you grew up with a deep bitterness the people who were somewhat more sheltered than you, and had even shinier toys. Your entire value system is based on helping people like yourself. You look inside your tiny little country and try to redistribute its resources to the worst off inside it, because it lets you feel smug about how much better you are, how much more moral you are.

Then one day, someone takes your map and erases all the silly little lines people put there, and asks "what about the people over here?" What? The outrage! Comparing us to brown people? Challenging your central belief that you've overcome great adversity? Suggesting that the poor Britons you've spent your whole life voting your tax dollars... maybe aren't the people most in need of them? THIS PERSON MUST BE EVIL.

Your kind are utterly despicable; the conceit that national boundaries are anything but absurd human fictions is probably the single greatest impediment to good remaining in the world. You're just like the people in Orange County, who do everything they can to make sure as much of their money as possible goes to the local schools. You're just like the politician who decries immigrants because BRITONS ARE LOSING THEIR JOBS. You're just like the middle-class auto worker [someone wealthier than average IN THE RICHEST COUNTRY ON EARTH] who complains about people driving cars made on the other side of the ocean - it's all part of a plot to destroy the middle class. You are every petty, selfish, nearsighted person in the first world, without an ounce of genuine charity in your heart. And, bizarrely, you are smug and self-righteous about it.

Grow up.

Remember Page 5?

I'm all for more foreign aid, proportionately financed according to size of disposable income.

Good rant. Needs only a basis in something approaching reality to be effective.

[ricketyclik]

Good rant. Needs only a basis in something approaching reality to be effective.

Hear hear.