UK Emergency Budget

[Kuciwalker]

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

The fact that your support for foreign aid is contingent on internal progressivity is pretty damning. You want to help Britons, first and foremost, and once that's done maybe you'll spare some table scraps for the poor. Good to see noblesse oblige is still honored in Britain

[Kuciwalker]

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....

Yes, you've mentioned this before, thus my qualifier. In context the real issue is that they are widely perceived as regressive regardless of the evidence.

[Jon Miller]

The idea that the level of material consumption you are entitled to is based on where you were born is nearly as pernicious as the idea that it's based on who your parents were.

Do you disagree that the state is suppose to work for the good of it's members?

Most modern states define it's members based on where they were born (also with a who their parents are), Few really restrict it to just a set of those born to wealth/etc.

JM

[ricketyclik]

The point is, JM, that BFB was simply stating that the imposition of the budget cuts was being placed unfairly on the lowest decile in the UK, which has nothing to do with the UK's foreign aid budget.

It's a red herring, designed to paint what was originally said as wrong-headed, while having nothing to do with what was originally said.

[KrazyHorse]

Do you disagree that the state is suppose to work for the good of it's members?

Most modern states define it's members based on where they were born (also with a who their parents are), Few really restrict it to just a set of those born to wealth/etc.

JM

I disagree that this is an honourable goal, particularly in the context of wealth redistribution...

[KrazyHorse]

The point is, JM, that BFB was simply stating that the imposition of the budget cuts was being placed unfairly on the lowest decile in the UK, which has nothing to do with the UK's foreign aid budget.

You ****ing idiot, the WHOLE POINT was that "unfair" as a concept makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE here.

Nobody here has yet managed to provide a cogent definition of what "unfair" is. To me, it appears to generally be used as a simple statement of preference which the author is unable to justify using some coherent moral principle.

And this has EVERYTHING to do with the foreign aid budget of the UK. The fact that you can't see this is further evidence of your absolute stupidity.

[ricketyclik]

You ****ing idiot, the WHOLE POINT was that "unfair" as a concept makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE here.

Nobody here has yet managed to provide a cogent definition of what "unfair" is. To me, it appears to generally be used as a simple statement of preference which the author is unable to justify using some coherent moral principle.

And this has EVERYTHING to do with the foreign aid budget of the UK. The fact that you can't see this is further evidence of your absolute stupidity.

Short-beaked pelican.

[Frozzy]

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 very relevant I'd have thought. Nothing undermines the credibility of western government aid policy more than corruption in the target country. Perhaps worse is growing cynicism amongst those we try to help when cash is not being translated into investment driven growth.

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.

It's important to distinguish between the two phases of globalisation. The first wave, when investment had the backing of imperial law, did help African economic growth, while a divided and skeptical China did not. The second, which coincided with a spike in political instability in Africa and a relative period of political stability in China after Deng's reforms, had the opposite effect.

The political state of the target countries is probably the most essential component about the effectiveness of aid. It's a huge multiplier; without it aid is incredibly counter-productive... with it, it has good potential.

The fact that your support for foreign aid is contingent on internal progressivity is pretty damning. You want to help Britons, first and foremost, and once that's done maybe you'll spare some table scraps for the poor. Good to see noblesse oblige is still honored in Britain

The US can't really throw stones here, with one of the greatest levels of inequality in the OECD and miniscule aid targets. At least the UK matches its relatively reasonable objectives.

[Kuciwalker]

The political state of the target countries is probably the most essential component about the effectiveness of aid. It's a huge multiplier; without it aid is incredibly counter-productive... with it, it has good potential.

Sure. But it's not like the list of third-world countries with relatively stable governments is that short. India alone has more people in poverty than live on the continent of Europe.

The US can't really throw stones here, with one of the greatest levels of inequality in the OECD and miniscule aid targets. At least the UK matches its relatively reasonable objectives.

Again, how could you possibly imagine I have anything but contempt for the US budget?

[Caligastia]

Politically inconspicuous - it'd be nice if there were some way to deceive the voters into underestimating the amount of foreign aid we do.

Intentionally deceiving voters into thinking their contribution to foreign aid is less than it actually is, is morally questionable to say the least. Without some degree of transparency and accountability, tremendous amounts of money will be wasted and misspent. Helping others, whether they are foreigners or locals, is most effective when interaction between the giver and the receiver is maximized.

[KrazyHorse]

Your post is nonsense.

[Kuciwalker]

Do you disagree that the state is suppose to work for the good of it's members?

In what sense? There are, as I can tell, three interrelated normative questions:

Q. For whom should a voter vote?
A. For the politician whose election will most likely lead to policies that maximize the gain in global welfare. Given the utter powerlessness of an individual voter this isn't actually a very interesting question.

Q. What policies should a political actor with nontrivial power to influence policy support?
A. Those that will most likely maximize the gain in global welfare, within the constraints of political plausibility.

Q. What policies should the state enact?
A. Trick question. The state doesn't act; people do. The individuals charged with executing its laws should, of course, generally obey them, since the proper functioning of the state is an essential component of prosperity. The individuals charged with writing its laws should read the previous question.

That was a long-winded way of saying that, no, the interests of its members as distinct from the global welfare shouldn't enter into the equation, except inasmuch as they make up the constraints of political plausibility.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, I forgot one last question:

Q. Should Laz mea culpa and apologize to HC for being a douche?
A. Yes.

[KrazyHorse]

Kuci

[Hauldren Collider]

I don't personally see the problem with politicians putting their home country ahead of others, as long as they don't claim moral superiority.